That’s a tough one… orthographic drawings for the CRJ are just not common nor of high quality on the open internet. You’d just have to use lots and lots of reference images to make out the shape, unfortunately. There’s usually more info on the 7/9/1000.
Very nice mobile friendly regional pencil of the canada variety.
.
Just some feedback. (Of course with mobile friendly low parts approach in mind)
The Good:
Wing shape is representative.
The -100/-200 doesn't have slats, it didn't fool you!
The stubby tail is stubby, the shape is pretty representative.
Slight Inaccuracies:
The windshield is a bit too big. The drawing you used appeared to be scanned using a radish so I cant blame you. On the actual (-100 through -1000), a window sill exists between the skin and the glass, which is mistakenly depicted as glass in the reference.
The wing-fuselage fairing is misshaped. The top of the fairing sits flush-ish with the fuselage. You may achieve that using Hard for the top 2 corners. In addition, the front of the fairing "blends" into the wing smoothly (for all AC -100 through -1000), while the rear "half" protrudes from the wing and the slight bump-out houses the gear (zoom in). The "halves" are only visible from underneath, and appear to be smooth and as one from other angles (especially the -1/200 due to lack of slats, approaches slightly nose-down vs. 7/9/1000).
The engine nacelles are shorter and more rounded. Again the drawing referenced isn't clear, not your fault.
The inboard spoiler is for lift dump, and pops automatically (if primed) when sufficient pressure is felt on the gear. The outboard spoilers are multi-functional.
Suggestions:
For little additions to partcount (<30 ish) you could think about including these details.
Aforementioned window sill, colour it metallic.
Outline doors and covers, or simply show where they are with the metallic scuff plate.
Little APU heat shield plate and hole on the side of the tail (2 parts).
Metallic leading edge.
Flat hinge fairings.
Canadair/Bombardier/(Mitsubishi if you're a rebel) logo under the aftmost cockpit glass panel.
@ZEROandSAYOU Your comment is unacceptable in reference to the guidelines. Please provide constructive criticism and not a pointless insult.
@FlyingBathtub Please do not pour fuel on fire. Making another pointless comment in an already unnecessary argument is not needed. Just ignore it and move on.
@Sabertoothyt526 Please read the rules regarding proper comment and community guidelines. If you do not appreciate what is said about your build, you may block the user, remove the comment, or report it. There is absolutely no need to continue an argument; they get nothing out of an insult, and nor do you. Please proceed situations like this with maturity.
.
All three of you will receive a strike this chain of comments are absolutely unnecessary. If you have a problem with someone or something, simply move on - they didn't punch you or anything.
The post itself while not directly violating the rules, is questionable for removal for the following reasons:
- Spam - The build is not beneficial to the community in a meaningful or technical way. As art, it is extremely low effort. Meanwhile as a flag part, it is excessively big, contains comically large amount of drag, collisions, etc; and not practical in any way.
- Politics - While a flag is not violating any of the rules, the intention and concept of this post appears to be insincere. Evidently so, this is not built as a "high quality" flag for sub-assemblies, and in today's political climate is subject to drama in the comments. It suggests that it was almost made as a means to instigate comments and debate; which is not acceptable. If this is not the case, please let me know.
- Comments - While this is not on the author, the comments resulted from this post (partially due to the aforementioned points above), is absolutely unacceptable. These comments are debate about politics and off-topic subjects that are undeniably against site rules. It will not be tolerated regardless of political standing. These pointless bickering is simply not needed.
If you think any of the aforementioned points contain mistakes in understanding, or and any other comments regarding the removal of this post, feel free to let me know. I am open to discussion.
If you make changes to someone’s work, no matter how little or significant the modifications or additions may be, the auto-credit should be used. Purposely ignoring the auto credit system is plagiarism. End of story. Full stop.
.
The only valid exception would be utilizing someone else’s sub-assembly on your clean-sheet build, such as a missile or a HUD. Please consult the author of the parts for usage.
Funny enough that was almost entirely accidental. I dropped the clip into the video track, positioned it, turned the speed to x2 and it literally just so happened to line up. @goboygo1
Your post has been removed. Please read these rules about posting planes.
Please try to make major changes to a plane before posting it. Simply painting an object a different color, or adding a few guns is not enough to consider it your own. In the future please credit the original maker, and try to post your own work.
Just a friendly reminder...
Keep politics out of the comments section or you will receive a strike.
~
Also, please consult a list of anhedral, high wing, T-tail, quad engine transports before accusing XXX a copy of YYY... If you design an apple you can't get an orange. People are free to build what they wish without getting harassed.
I've turned the comments off earlier. But from the response I've been getting, I think it may be inching a bit close to politics. Unfortunately I will have to remove this to prevent further dumpster fires popping up here and there.
Alright lads...
Just to let people know, this is NOT against the rules. There is nothing in the rules that state you can't upload a blocky car.
~
Also those complaining about upvotes... upvotes are worthless internet points. Please calm yourselves and organize your thoughts. We don't need insults on this. People are free to upload whatever they wish, as long as it abides by the rules.
~
If further drama ensues, it will be dealt with accordingly. Please behave yourselves.
Make snarky and borderline inflammatory comments rather than addressing in a civil manner
Escalates unnecessary drama amongst 3 users
Received warning via comment
Received another warning on profile
Blatant attacks and insults at moderators
Received strike
Why was I given a strike?!
I think there is no further discussion needed. There are plenty of comments posted already and I do not think drama and unnecessary issues like this are beneficial. The less the better.
That's really interesting. The background the AI generates is quite amazing, and it would take little effort to photoshop the build onto the AI generated, or I guess "improved" background.
I really do not want to spend my time to deal with childish posts like this. We have been light on your actions does not mean you can do whatever you want. Please grow up.
Beautiful video... but just a question to be the devil's advocate here. Would the canard fore of the wing mounted in this low of a position disrupt the airflow to the wing at high AoAs? I would imagine a low pressure zone forming right aft of the canard in such maneuvers, and low pressure at the bottom of the main wing is generally not so good for a wing to be... well a wing. There's also a possibility that you might have deep stall issues found on T-tail aircraft with this, except with both of your wing and horizontal control surfaces losing authority. Also vortices and vibrations might be a problem. Cool concept regardless.
You forgor about ｃａｍｂｅｒ @FairFireFlight
Good. @jamesPLANESii
That’s a tough one… orthographic drawings for the CRJ are just not common nor of high quality on the open internet. You’d just have to use lots and lots of reference images to make out the shape, unfortunately. There’s usually more info on the 7/9/1000.
@DARZAVIATIONOFICIAL
Very nice mobile friendly regional pencil of the canada variety.
.
Just some feedback. (Of course with mobile friendly low parts approach in mind)
The Good:
Slight Inaccuracies:
Suggestions:
Dear lord.
@ReignSUPREME I don't see a problem. Go ahead.
Also, absolutely beautiful livery.
Off topic exists... but this is so far off the deep end. It is simply irrelevant to the community.
@Fish83828 No. 6.
@Fish83828 When I roll 7 on my daily morning single dice roll.
@DatRoadTrainGuy19 Yes.
@ZEROandSAYOU Your comment is unacceptable in reference to the guidelines. Please provide constructive criticism and not a pointless insult.
@FlyingBathtub Please do not pour fuel on fire. Making another pointless comment in an already unnecessary argument is not needed. Just ignore it and move on.
@Sabertoothyt526 Please read the rules regarding proper comment and community guidelines. If you do not appreciate what is said about your build, you may block the user, remove the comment, or report it. There is absolutely no need to continue an argument; they get nothing out of an insult, and nor do you. Please proceed situations like this with maturity.
.
All three of you will receive a strike this chain of comments are absolutely unnecessary. If you have a problem with someone or something, simply move on - they didn't punch you or anything.
你们仨有完没完啊？
@bbbddd @kuaishoumengyi @167167
The post itself while not directly violating the rules, is questionable for removal for the following reasons:
- Spam - The build is not beneficial to the community in a meaningful or technical way. As art, it is extremely low effort. Meanwhile as a flag part, it is excessively big, contains comically large amount of drag, collisions, etc; and not practical in any way.
- Politics - While a flag is not violating any of the rules, the intention and concept of this post appears to be insincere. Evidently so, this is not built as a "high quality" flag for sub-assemblies, and in today's political climate is subject to drama in the comments. It suggests that it was almost made as a means to instigate comments and debate; which is not acceptable. If this is not the case, please let me know.
- Comments - While this is not on the author, the comments resulted from this post (partially due to the aforementioned points above), is absolutely unacceptable. These comments are debate about politics and off-topic subjects that are undeniably against site rules. It will not be tolerated regardless of political standing. These pointless bickering is simply not needed.
If you think any of the aforementioned points contain mistakes in understanding, or and any other comments regarding the removal of this post, feel free to let me know. I am open to discussion.
Link me the original post please. :) @Swisweaponsfactory
Use the report feature instead. @EpicBullDog
If you make changes to someone’s work, no matter how little or significant the modifications or additions may be, the auto-credit should be used. Purposely ignoring the auto credit system is plagiarism. End of story. Full stop.
.
The only valid exception would be utilizing someone else’s sub-assembly on your clean-sheet build, such as a missile or a HUD. Please consult the author of the parts for usage.
Your post has been removed because it appears to have broken the website rules. You can read them here
Your post has been removed because it appears to have broken the website rules. You can read them here
@StugnaATGM Of course.
Make sure it abides by the successor and/or rules of the site and you're good.
Your post has been removed because it appears to have broken the website rules. You can read them here
Yeah that is true.
About it being utilitarian tho… I can neither confirm nor deny.
@Bellcat
Uh, no, what makes you think that? @Bellcat
Funny enough that was almost entirely accidental. I dropped the clip into the video track, positioned it, turned the speed to x2 and it literally just so happened to line up. @goboygo1
Your post has been removed. Please read these rules about posting planes.
Please try to make major changes to a plane before posting it. Simply painting an object a different color, or adding a few guns is not enough to consider it your own. In the future please credit the original maker, and try to post your own work.
Just a friendly reminder...
Keep politics out of the comments section or you will receive a strike.
~
Also, please consult a list of anhedral, high wing, T-tail, quad engine transports before accusing XXX a copy of YYY... If you design an apple you can't get an orange. People are free to build what they wish without getting harassed.
Fellas, keep the comments civil.
This is a J-10. It is a pretty airplane. Leave your politics at the door, I don't want to hear it.
Your post has been removed because it appears to have broken the website rules. You can read them here
Your post has been removed because it appears to have broken the website rules. You can read them here
@Chancey21 anhedrals are factually superior. There is no further discussion.
I smell missile candidate.
@XspacePoopHisPants1 @XspacePoopHisPants1 Guys... really... some things are better kept to yourselves.
I've turned the comments off earlier. But from the response I've been getting, I think it may be inching a bit close to politics. Unfortunately I will have to remove this to prevent further dumpster fires popping up here and there.
@jamesPLANEScdxxLXIX or not releasing them at all!
Anyways, breaks are good. Take a rest here and there.
Alright lads...
Just to let people know, this is NOT against the rules. There is nothing in the rules that state you can't upload a blocky car.
~
Also those complaining about upvotes... upvotes are worthless internet points. Please calm yourselves and organize your thoughts. We don't need insults on this. People are free to upload whatever they wish, as long as it abides by the rules.
~
If further drama ensues, it will be dealt with accordingly. Please behave yourselves.
Your post has been removed because it appears to have broken the website rules. You can read them here
Please keep discussions civil, or it will be removed.
Thanks.
Not related. This post has been closed.
Idk I was bored.
.
Credits to MrSilverwolf for the plane. https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/024sK3/SkyWolf-SE-VII
squa-
B U L B U S . The curves are excellent! Well done.
The shots following "More shots at night (with illumination):" looks like a CATIA V5 rendering lol.
Done. @Questionmark
Skill issue. 🅱️ @MrSilverWolf
I think there is no further discussion needed. There are plenty of comments posted already and I do not think drama and unnecessary issues like this are beneficial. The less the better.
Please actually read the strike notes... I encourage you.
Thank you.
That's really interesting. The background the AI generates is quite amazing, and it would take little effort to photoshop the build onto the AI generated, or I guess "improved" background.
Go right ahead. @SyntheticL
I really do not want to spend my time to deal with childish posts like this. We have been light on your actions does not mean you can do whatever you want. Please grow up.
@DatRoadTrainGuy19
Beautiful video... but just a question to be the devil's advocate here. Would the canard fore of the wing mounted in this low of a position disrupt the airflow to the wing at high AoAs? I would imagine a low pressure zone forming right aft of the canard in such maneuvers, and low pressure at the bottom of the main wing is generally not so good for a wing to be... well a wing. There's also a possibility that you might have deep stall issues found on T-tail aircraft with this, except with both of your wing and horizontal control surfaces losing authority. Also vortices and vibrations might be a problem. Cool concept regardless.
Done. @ShinyGemsBro
Please make an effort to utilize the successor system next time. Thanks. @MrOofington
ｊｕｎｋ用在这里跟垃圾的意思一点关系也没有。
多学点儿英文少骂人好不好？
@gard @UMR1
@Bellcat legs was taken off my 86 walker