Can you add a new rank? The numbers demand it.
Silver at 5 x 200= 1,000
Gold at 5 X 1,000= 5,000
Platinum at 5 X 5,000=25,000
New Rank at 5 X 25,000=125,000 :)
I am glad you cut the drama. You got so many negatives on your F4u because instead of your rudder, the entire vertical stabilizer rotates on yaw. And your agility is exaggerated, not to mention super-mega-STOL ability.
Do you expect praises for that? Ofcourse you got negative comments, because you didnt bother to test your plane before release. If you did, you would have noticed the rudder issue and the stuck LG.
I gave you tips, not hateful criticism. I get criticism because my Ho-229 is 0.14 meters higher than it should.
I understand negative criticism is not pleasant, after you worked hard on something. But instead of a drama queen, take it like a man. Debate and learn from it.
People, you get more nudity and sexual content looking at a commercial or walking on a beach. Or a cartoon. (I just remembered the Sailor Moon girls from my childhood)
This is a replica of a girl android, with some fictional/fantasy elements. What do you expect? Dressed like an Islam woman?
From your point of view, Venus de Milo statue (Naked Greek goddess statue with no hands) should be banned and destroyed... Those Louvre dudes are promoting nudity.
PS: amazing "engineering" skills
I repeat myself, there are some very simple, but vital tweaks for 1.8 that will improve the game. We can do tank tracks, heli propellers and other stuff. But we need
1. Inlets with no bottom for hollow fuselages (there are already rear/front thickness properties for inlets)
2. Transparent option for parts. Select in the color panel transparent feature (like flat, semi-gloss, gloss). Multi-select or x-ray appearance is good.
3. A gun with cannon properties (Sound, muzzle flash, explosive shell for tanks lovers)
4. Brake key not cutting the engine power
5. Engines gradually loosing power above a certain altitude
6. Under Water propeller
7. Double input rotators/hinges/pistons to create elevons, all moving tailplanes, flaperons, trim-tabs etc...
Anything else we can build.
I hope my suggestions are not too complicated to add to game code or to test. And devs will take some of them in consideration. Thank you!
PS: i know people are asking for a new island, but i am good with sea level mod to create new landmarks.
This plane looks amazing and livery is spot on. I like how you managed to get the cockpit shape which is very difficult to replicate.
I am very sad to say that functionality is disaster... I will only address major issues:
1. Super-STOL it can takeoff in less than a second.
2. Rudder is stuck, instead the leading vertical stabilizer is rotating instead (also the real stabilizer is visible though fuselage).
3. Massive auto-roll
4. You tail wheel doesn't retract.
5. Insane agility, it can do turns in a hangar
Most of nazi planes were moved by railroad and assembled at arriving destination. All the bolts, screws, clamps etc were in a plastic bag. So, instead of removing a few bolts, the personal added one :)
After the plane was put together by nazi engineers with the "help" of local personal, there was always confusion about that remaining bolt. So, the logical conclusion was that engineers forgot to put it where it belong and the strict scrupulous/thorough german technicians/officers refused to clear the plane for flying
you focus too much on non-essential elements (like painting) and you ignore the most important aspects of the plane.
So, you make a very nice woman drawing, long text, but look at those flaps/ailerons.
Messy, basic, very poorly shaped.
Kinda commercial vibe, cause you picked some angle photos to hide those issues.
You post too often either, there is no decent period of time between your builds.
So, it's obvious you don't research too much and you don't spend enough time to improve your builds. If you don't know how to make nicely shaped trailing edges, there are some good players with different techniques (you can find them on the in the first several pages of users). You don't need to imitate their technique, but you can inspire from them and develop your own.
To level up as a builder, to become a top builder, you must focus on quality, not quantity.
The glorious moment when the title is longer than description...
@AdlerSteiner i gave you tips, not hateful criticism. And if you cannot take negative comments, you are weak. Probably this game was suppose to be fun, but you must earn those joyous comments. So, cut the leaving drama, chill, get a break and, if you are in the mood, start working on another project.
For a plane with a lot of functionality problems, you scored quite high, 56 upvotes, so there is joy there
I have 151k and i am not in any chat groups. Honestly, i think you people take this game too seriously. It's about the pleasure of building, researching, testing your creation on the field. No community duty, no competition.
Too much ego and drama.
He asked a moderator to temporarily ban him,so he could focus on some real life activities. Apparently he cannot resist SP temptation, knowing his master is there.
i don't get it, what number of parts has to do with build quality?
@AWESOMENESS360 you just don't get it, right? I know the creator, after 3 months of work, is not happy when he gets criticism. Is not pleasant. He probably thinks: "This douche again, is here nitpicking my plane, making it look bad and ruining my mood. Probably jealous or just mean"
The truth is that a criticism comment helps more than a 100 compliments. Because after i showed him that blueprint match (twice, he asked for a second), trust me, on his next build, he will check the little wings too, not only the big ones.
I improved from criticism.
For example: (you can find those planes in my list, check the comments)
1. On my U-2 Spyplane, i've learned from ChichiWerx how trim-tabs work and how they should look/perform in SP. I was doing them so wrong.
2. On the OV-1 Mohawk, i've learned from WNP78 about something i always neglected, the glide ratio. I was testing my planes only with engines on. But if i turn power off, the plane starts to fall like a brick.
3. On the A-10, plane i considered to be perfect, i've learned not to use airbrakes as trim-tabs. Cause when an airbrake is inverted, it decreases the overall drag making the plane go faster.
So, from these 3 criticism comments, i've learned a ton more than hundred of "OMG, such a beauty". And i don't care about upvotes, if the build has a 100 or 5, because i know most of the upvoters just looked at photos, didn't download and fly it.
Apologies to Wizard for spamming on his page, feel free to remove the comments
let's be serious.... fictional/replica ratio is overwhelmingly high.
I make replicas and other max 20 players. I mean replicas by at least attempting to recreate the real thing following blueprints, specs, major details.
The rest of 100,000 players is making fictional or basic builds that don't count as replicas.
The need for decorating the plane is up to debate (i don't like it either), is mostly for upvotes.
But this community expertise, implicitly the upvotes, is equal to a chicken IQ... a plane that is basically a statue and impossible to download for 90% users will get a higher score than a functional plane with a good flight model. Most users here have no clue about landing gear position related to COM.
Upvoting system is based too much on social crap and less on build quality
People will upvote a plane that looks good on the photos, but won't upvote a plane they downloaded and had fun with it in the sandbox.
For me, the number that counts is the download count.
About leaving, i don't get the need to explain/justify to anybody. Mostly for drama and need for attention. If you are not having fun playing this game, nobody is forcing to build/post. This is not a job or a life style.
@Mostly it doesnt fly good at all. The flight model is a joke. This plane, which is notorious for its poor turn ratio and handling (at low speed) in real life, flies like a F-22 on steroids. Ruined
@jamesPLANESii i am sure you're gonna love this landing gear
@AndrewGarrison only green color is available from acceptable spectrum of colors (pink, violet excluded!) Blue, red, yellow. silver, white, black, brown are taken.
You can name the new member rank VIP, Chief or Guru :) Or if you like to keep the precious metal line, Titanium :) I believe steel is the best metal, cause it's the base of your civilization.
@Aarons123 aren't already enough notifications? Do you want for comments too? :))
@ForeverPie you can check your points, i didn't see any change in my case.
@jamesPLANESii oh well, i only said in that tutorial that a common mistake in SP is to paint WAR planes in showroom or flashy liveries with a lot of eye candy.
It will be absurd to see a plane like this equipped with missiles and flying in a war zone. With that red, it will be a lovely target on the sky to shoot at.
Meanwhile, as a showroom plane, that is an interesting choice. Too bad that builder didn't test it before release.
@LordSatan best comment :)
It's easy to make an ugly plane, but is not so easy to make an ugly plane look cool :)
ok... i checked again.
I used these F Mk IXE blueprints
I don't like to criticize and point out mistakes, especially on builds that took time to build. Is not pleasant, so i appreciate your mature attitude to accept criticism. Hopefully, it will help you improve.
I don't usually upvote planes with problematic functionality, but that beautiful cockpit deserve a vote.
real thing has
Empty weight: 74,500 lb (33,800 kg)
Loaded weight: 120,000 lb (54,000 kg)
while yours is less than half.
Wing area of the real thing is 161.3 m²) while yours is 2.5 larger...
so, doing a simple calculation, your plane is 2.5 x 2= 5 five times more agile than it should.
That's why is doing loops just with the pitch.
Friendly advices: when doing replicas, just follow the specifications, like you did with the sizes.... But follow the wing area, weight, max speed. And stall speed.
If those are right, you should adjust the DRAG POINTS. I see you have windows, so that will be easy using the OVERLOAD to edit the drag scale of the parts (check the red ones in drag vision of the editor, also the biggest parts have more drag).
This way you get the glide ratio right. Start at Yeager Final Approach location, no engine power and see if you reach the runaway. Adjust the drag (symmetrically on both sides) until this happens. Your bomber is doing this, it reaches the runaway. But it can do loops, which is a problem for a ww2 bomber full with bombs.
It should stall before half the loop. For that you should adjust the maxDeflectionDegree of the pitch control surface (default is 35).... somewhere 10,15 or 20.
These are just friendly advice, something to consider on your next builds.
Listen or don't listen, is your call.
Rating not final, might adjust it. Feel free to object with arguments and civilized language
Rating not final, might adjust it. Feel free to object with arguments and civilized language
Too bad you didn't research enough on this build.
Tu-22M3 doesn't have ailerons on main wings. It has all-moving tailplanes.
Also it is way too fast, acceleration is exaggerated.
@Rodrigo110 i saw your building style in some of @samg32332 buids :))) Btw, I am a smart troll, not a childish one like you!
I am so tired and bored with Mattangi story.
I just don't care.
Hm....i believe you can do better than this. Not very realistic flight model. This plane in real life has a very poor turning rate, but yours turn like a F-22 on steroids. You also forgot the leading edge flaps (54) (i recommend google for cutaway photos when building replicas), also significant auto-roll when pitching (because main wing symmetric airfoil).
Also poor blueprint match
@randomusername yeah, do 0.6 at 1 mach and pilot will be kebab
@Strikefighter04 in almost 3 years i saw like 20 attempts of "add one part" projects.
Never saw one finished in a satisfying manner.
@Strikefighter04 i doubt it turns out something cool. What if someone with poor skills adds a vertical stabilizer in the front section? Or a 50 tons fuselage on one of the wings?
please just test the creation before featuring.
I've seen so many broken planes getting featured.
Also do not feature anymore planes with solid wings with no visible control surfaces like that Mig. He put more effort on those red stars than wings.
This is cool not only for screenshots, but for ship builders is a chance to test their boats in some unusual places. (like a flooded Wright island canyon)
And vehicles are also fun to drive in low level water.
Thank you for doing this, makes the game more fun
unfortunately, there are too many negatives on this one, despite beautiful body shape, cockpit, body painting. Also engines are very well made.
I hate to be the critic, but i like this aircraft in real lfie and i think you should fix it and repost:
1. Ailerons and elevators are wrong, very wrong. Too small. If you consider them too powerful, you should edit their maxDeflectionDegree
2. Pitching is very powerful, this plane turning rate is fantasy.
3. Max speed is too high. you have 485 (+50 mph) (Maximum speed: 381 knots (439 mph, 706 km/h) at sea level, clean)
4. Plane has a massive auto-roll when Landing Gear is deployed. Check the drag of it, you should make if from parts with dragscale=0.
5. The right navigation light should be always green
6. The airbrakes collide with the rocket pods, you should disable some collision there
7. Loaded weight of 13,000 lbs is half of the realistic loaded weight (Loaded weight: 30,384 lb)
8. Hardpoints are wrong. There are only 4 hardpoints under each wing, not 5
9. You should reduce the gap between rudders and vertical stabilizers.
10. The LG wheels, when retracted, are visible on top of the pods. (adjust the range of the hinge a little)
PS: Custom surface controls will look much better than stock wing parts
If this review bothers you, remove the comment
@Gestour Situation got ugly, people arguing each other, other trolling this build, others just envious. So i removed all comments (the positive ones too), so nobody will feel "discriminated" or targeted
you took the entire front section from my Antonov An-26 "Curl"
Not cool, man. Always ask first
Or just draw the blueprints on a paper, like i do. And put it on the screen :)
@DarthAbhinav i've told you enough stuff, it's time to discover cool things on your own.
If you are not building your own stuff, you'll never learn only from tips from others.
@TakeYourLife3000 I advice you to team up with someone with a powerful platform and more experienced in flight model/mechanics.
Btw, a very useful hint for a high parts count builder like you.
For non-essential details, that are not involved in flight model, like those flowers, interior or engine nozzles, use parts with CALCULATEDRAG set to FALSE. (default true).
That will improve the performance and reduce drag a lot
I have tested a lot of helicopters, including the Gator2, none of them cannot hover at fixed point without constant correction.
They tend to lean to one side or yaw.
Helicopters, in real life, have systems to counter those effects.
So, i guess the best compromise is to make the flight model not involving a gyro, but to use that gyro only for fixed point hovering, when you try to land on a tight spot or to attack something
new map? this looks more like a new game :)
oh no, glossy black on tires :)
Look on the photo you posted in description... the black there is "flat"...
Only slick racing tires have a glossy appearance and that only when new. After a minute of usage, no more glossy.
@Strikefighter04 @GeneralOliverVonBismarck @Treadmill103 thank you....
Now i am gonna brag on part count. Full interior (a bit basic), working controls, custom crew gondola, custom LG, wings etc only 399 parts
30 upvotes in 1 hour for this piece of * * *, OMG :)
these community projects are stupid and a waste of time. Anyone with bad intention can ruin the entire project if he wants. Adding a scaled part (too small to be observed) somewhere with edited mass for example. Or stuck the LG or custom surfaces etc...
are you building that?
@AWESOMENESS360 you are so clueless. Keep telling me about time and effort to put 1000 parts together.
How about time and effort for good functionality. How about time and effort to match the specs? How about time and effort to get the proportions right, like the size of the wings? Do you imagine that making a good flight model is easy?
If a Spitfire with tail wings size half as it should is the best on the site, it's your right to be ignorant.
The point when i make them look bad? I just stated the reality, the truth. All i've said is real, not inventions. And if you cannot handle the truth, that doesn't mean those flaws don't exist.
Btw, don't tell me what to do. If i want to criticize, is my right, i don't need your permission or blessing.
And to be honest, my criticism based on real facts helps a builder improve more than compliments. Because for you is enough that a plane "still flies", but others are interested how it flies.
sorry, you got the tailplanes very wrong.
They are half the size they should be. Ailerons have the wrong size/shape also.
So sad when people focused on minor details and ignore the essential ones.
I didn't notice any change in flight when the flaps are lowered.
Also a mistake i used to do is the Trim-Tabs. When they go up, the elevator goes down, so the nose of the plane goes down. Your plane does the opposite.
Loaded Weight 42,520lbs (19,286kg) is 6 times as it should be
Wing area: Wing Area 3,930.8ft2 (365.2m2) is 15 times larger242.1 ft2 (22.48 m2)
242.1 ft2 (22.48 m2)