Amazing how something like this would be child's play today due to all the builder improvements

@ToeTips what update?
I've already done a "kicking fish" and made the VR cockpit

The update on this MiG to be precise

Still waiting on that update. Hey! I could do it!

Y O U A R E N O T S A F E

Hi jundroo

YOU... YO....Y O U A R E T H E B E S T

I understand the point you make, sorry for all of our SP Fanboy Rants. Best Wishes, @CDRxavier

ngl this is very good for the time it was made
guessing back then it was harder to make a good looking aircraft

@TheGreatToad
Yes, but obviously no improvements had taken place.
Well, there are some slight improvements, but mostly just new parts with no changes to core game mechanics to either be more realistic or be more performant. To say we have a new aero engine would be a false statement.

I'm writing this here because 6.3 years ago, the developer thought "hmm this does not seem right. Something is probably wrong here" and he gave suggestions such as "more powerful engines" and "more realistic drag/aero". However, during this 6.3 years, we do not have "more powerful engines" and we do not have "more realistic drag/aero". What we have is a bunch of new crap that doesn't work very well.

However, to say that they didn't do anything would be a understatement. They released SimpleRockets 2, which sounds promising, however it's a separate app and it costs quite a handful

@CDRxavier This was when the Game was very early, Obviously there had been some improvements, Also how are you going to complain about it? It's like taking the first iPhone and saying it doesn't run well as a iPhone 13 Pro Max. Can you even Hear yourself?

@CDRxavier This was when the Game was very early, Obviously there had been some improvements, Also how are you going to complain about it? It's like taking the first iPhone and saying it doesn't run well as a iPhone 13 Pro Max. Can you even Hear yourself?

Dats a CHONK plane

@CDRxavier Little Sheldon Moment

@lilgreen06
As much as I would like to, I have studies to do. Otherwise I will probably be making a mod or some sort already.
The changes I mentioned wouldn't even take half a year provided I am given the ability to work on it. It's just altering the simple mathematic functions that totals the thrust of the engines (effectively that).
Although, according to my suggestions, we will be adding a function (that take per intake part) and calculate the amount of air going into it (and adding it up to the engine), but it's only one function. It's a small thing and isn't difficult.
And hey we aren't even making it real. We are just making it less fake. It don't need to be even close to real. But it shall be closer than what we had right now.
Instead of the current function (which I happened to somewhat reverse-engineer with my afterburning engines), we can just add tweaks (much like the functions I provide) and the game will be "better".
They had already done the hard work of rendering and making everything work in 3D. The rest (especially part stats tweaking) is easy stuff.
As easy as your XML modding, in fact.

And look, we had non-exploding blocks here already, right?
Just re-use the code. Or simply reduce the damage number. It don't even require changes in existing code (just a static value)

I can understand things because I WROTE GAMES MYSELF. Even though they are very simple ones with 2D graphics they still feature calculations.
And no, I didn't wrote them in python. I wrote them in C.

Developers such as him should be more concerned about this than I do. I am merely pointing them out the flaws so they can consider improving those instead of scratching their head thinking about what next cool (and not-very-useful) part they add.

I can just quit and turn to KSP (which I in fact already own), why can't I?
I'm merely giving detailed suggestions here, since he thought the inability for the mig to hit 1920 mph is "something to think about".
In fact, that's perhaps the only reason I posted this here.

@nomalnormaltheman
says a user that didn't even post anything genuinely theirs.
Shhh, please. I'm just making my suggestions.
@BRRRT
Glad you helped. Unfortunately it doesn't help much.

@BRRRT Your good

@lilgreen06 Sorry but I don't want him replying, so I have to take his side, sorry man

@BRRRT Chill out.

@CDRxavier shut your mouth or will do nothing

@lilgreen06 Shut up man he was only tryna make a point

@CDRxavier I think your out to destroy SP. You point out all of these flaws. I would like to see you make an update and fix all of these things in 1 year. I bet you couldn't do it. You have no idea of how much work the devs have put into this game. Chill out, it's a video game, not real life. If you want a real life simulator you can go ask NASA for a $1 million simulator. Good luck coming up with that much money! Also, have fun with KSP. SP is my favorite game and is the only plane simulator (That I can find) that you get to build your own plane. Have fun with your KSP game, Good day.

@Stupidman
Well, parts (if damaged sufficiently) explodes. This is true even to the legendary KSP.
Although, the amount of damage a exploding part exerts (on other parts next to it) is utterly ridiculous. Yes I struck the tail of my plane during take off. Maybe I got one or two blocks scraped off, right?
SP: Nope. You lost half of your plane. Because it explodes.

I like the new glass fuselage because it don't explode violently. (dude, these are fuselage blocks, NOT solid fuel or some nitrogen-containing compound like TNT)

@AquiliusEpic
Yes, the Mig 25 is supersonic. for 1920 ... mph? it goes to roughly mach 3.

@AndrewGarrison
I quite like this build. Simple but to the point. THIS is SimplePlanes spirit.

@AndrewGarrison
"I will be thinking about how this can be improved in a future update."
Sadly, 5 years later and nothing happened.
Not a huge deal, though. We can live with part nudging and the newer attachment editor.

"Maybe those engines need to be more powerful?"
Yes and no.

"Maybe we need better supersonic drag simulation?"
Nothing should be able to fly at sea level at ... well, nevermind.
...
The reason is because we don't have a engine that draws a boost from speed (IAS).
Pulling the J-404 "Panther" Afterburning Turbofan from KSP as a example (which will be roughly equal to the 150KN jet we have in-game, based on stationary thrust)
...
Well, first of all, all jet engines have the same Isp in SP (at least, the difference is never told). This is highly unlikely and made things boring.
...
Secondly, none of the air intake (built-in in engines or independent) in SP draw a boost from IAS (and, again, sub-sonic, air-intake behavior should be linear. hypersonic require some ... alternative designs, but our ramp intake should do, as with Adjustable Ramp Intake). More air = more oxygen, which equal (roughly) to more thrust. At least, if the engine can use all of it up.
...
Thirdly, the engine curve in SP is linear. This is also highly unlikely, especially for a engine that specifically utilizes high-speed intake air (like any ramjet such as the J-X4 "Whiplash" Turbo Ramjet Engine), thrust at higher speed is significantly larger.
...
Fourth (if you really wanted to go that far), engines will fail to combust when the pressure is sufficiently low. This is independent of the amount of intake air: it simply cannot compress the thin air to a appropriate pressure to start a combustion with fuel. As a result engines flare out (from KSP data, it roughly happen at around 26000m). This is not simulated the in game, either.
...
Fifthly, I doubt the stock game can handle anything thar goes very fast (1500mph and upward). Supersonic require around 780 mph and at that point already the stock game start to handle it with issues.
...
So what do we get here?
1. No speed boost for engines
2. No air intake boost for air-intakes, engine's air demand is somewhat low (and unrealistic)
3. Engine have no speed boost (EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!)

Purchasing KSP is one of the best (at least, to me) moves I had made, from this position. Even if they (players of KSP) still think that "stock aero is nonsense", this aero is practically ...
Also, consider that KSP is actually a rocket game. This is a plane game, it should do better!
I assume you can borrow elements from SR2, but perhaps you hadn't introduced any of it yet. It's okay. Development of these things can be tough, but at least get to it.

I'm on the brink of quitting SP. Because all I see is just new features and parts added in, while most issues (and inconsistencies) we have with the parts we already have gets ignored.
Do I have to mention the abysmal torque of our "car engines"? Do I have to mention the ridiculous speed (where, smaller wheeled cars travel faster than larger wheeled cars) of the wheels?
KSP actually didn't even have wheels at the start. We didn't either. But when they added it in they had considered all this -- that tires could explode (quite literally) from a too-tough landing (which a engineer can repair), that the electric motors decrease in torque when the speed is higher, but have very large stationary torque.
The wheel suspension is also horrendous, but we can deal with it.