I really like the look of the front fuselage. I also checked out the successors to this challenge, and, you, sir, have far and away the most imaginative and bonkers submission to that challenge!
Well, the 16 inch naval cannon on the top of the fuselage is totally unrealistic...but, it is the post-Apocalyptic build challenge, so bonkers works!!!
@SAC923 well, the #1 thing I want to relay to you is: don't lose hope. You can always pick yourself up and keep going. But it takes WORK...it really does. You have to be willing to work really hard, if you're comfortable not working or working hard and can accept your circumstances, then maybe you're happier that way. But...if you truly want to change your vector, you're going to have to work hard to do it.
Unfortunately, in the world as it is, the best thing you can do for yourself to be "successful" is to do well in school. People who graduate college (or university) make something like twice the income of those who do not. I graduated from a very good university and will tell you that, generally and from personal experience, this is all factually correct. However, lamenting about the "unfair" system will be counterproductive to getting yourself to a better position in the future, especially given where you find yourself at this point (i.e., no credibility in a system which values education, or at least getting good grades).
But two points of hope for you at this point:
The majority of stunningly successful people, the Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Einsteins, Richard Bransons...even Pattons of the world struggled in school because education tends to be sterile, rote and boring to those who are truly brilliant. But that's an uncommon trait, and, face it, even the VAST majority of "successful" people do not rise to the truly brilliant level. I don't know if you are truly brilliant...but if you are, you will eventually succeed in some capacity.
This is America. Your story can always be changed. In Europe, if you are determined by the system at 14 to be a janitor, you will probably be a janitor. Paths are set very early on, with little flexibility. Not so in America...I've also experienced this in a very unlikely way. However, to take advantage of this fact, you actually need to buckle down and work and take the more plausible path: LOTS of hard work. But there is hope, so don't lose hope, this too shall pass.
@doge well, the way I look at it is that while a little too easy to fly now, they were absolutely impossible to fly before. People mention how there were good helis before, that it took skill to build them, I never found one that didn't just go out of control; even those that were XML modded to fly correctly broke SP "rules" to fly right--even those were impossible to land where you wanted. I look at the new gyro as "computer control", which for newer helis, like the Osprey, is a fact of life. But, though I did not have to work so hard to keep it upright (as I would have with a UH-1 in real life) It was still a challenge for me to land in both the places as illustrated above. For me, the new gyro encourages precision flying, the more precise, the more difficult the challenge.
About the worst light bomber the RAF fielded during WWII. Obsolescent prior to the start of the war, completely out of its league once the shooting started, no wonder its an obscure aircraft!
@PhantomBladeCorp not true, many bought into the lies, willingly accepted them and willingly allowed Hitler to rise to power. That's what is so compelling about Nazi Germany, how does a nation of laws and rules fall into something so terrible? If it happened in the 20th Century, it could still happen today, and has, to lesser degrees, around the world. Read William L. Shirer's definitive history of Nazi Germany, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
They now make rotorcraft (helicopters or helicopter drones) possible. Prior to the gyroscope, if you tried to fly a helicopter, you could take off and translate to forward flight, but good luck trying to hover, much less land in control. You'd just eventually lose control due to different effects in game. I'm not sure if it's that way in real life...I'm not a helicopter pilot, so I can't say...but I think trying to fly helis in SP was much harder than in real life; at least if it was AS difficult, I would never, in my right mind, ever get on board a helicopter...forget it! But with the gyro, makes it soooo much more controllable. Love the gyroscope!
Very nice. Keep working on it. With the asymmetric cant to the right on the nose, it may pull to one side, if you finish and flight test it. If it does, suggest you cant the vertical stab a degree or two to counteract the resulting roll or yaw.
Also, if you're going to go through all that effort, I'll critique you if you don't have only the gun on one side (the left wing root), as it is on the actual jet!
Congrats on figuring out the intake ramps. I wanted to do the same thing, but couldn't get the intakes to move because when I put them on rotators, it broke the continuity from the intake to the engine and the engines weren't getting air...guess you stacked two intakes on top of each other, one fixed (and actually supplying the air to the engines) and the other moveable?
It's relatively accurate to go with 100 km/hr = 62 km/hr. Besides, in aviation we use "knots" which is about 10-15% faster than mph, so if you're talking about 300 mph, it would be around 260 knots. Also, the little speed indicator you see in SP is your groundspeed...indicated airspeed is actually a measurement of the dynamic pressure resulting as you travel through the air. You may be travelling across the ground at 500 knots/575 mph/930 kph, but you'll only indicate around 295 knots at 35,000'. It's not like driving a car. In aviation, one thing they DO convert between the English and Metric systems though is altitude, of all things. In Europe, pilots report altitude in meters (and use millibars for barometric pressure) and in the U.S., we use feet (and use inches of mercury (Hg) for barometric pressure)!
Nice post...I have to ask, how do you do multiplayer? I have a PC with a high speed internet connection, but have no idea what are the mechanics of "joining" multiplayer.
Look here, used multiple parts for wings, plus built up the individual control surfaces as well and made them move with rotators. The Overload and Fine Tuner mods really help as well...I had to use Overload to get the sweep at the right angle ("offset"), so recommend you get those for your operating system.
Once you've figured out how to use fuse pieces to "build up" wing shapes on top of the actual wing surfaces, you'll see that many also "build up" control surfaces, i.e., aileron, elevator, rudder, flaps. The way that's done is to deselect the control surfaces from your wings and stabs in the options menu (just press the red "X") and use entire wings as ailerons, elevators, etc. Cover those with fuse parts as well and attach the parts with rotators.
@TrainDude cool, thanks, totally missed that post...but what does Andrew mean when he says "XML-modding enhancements"...? I XML mod all the time, how does the new version change anything?
Yes, very tough to adjust anything when you have so many parts, perhaps the increased windshield angle will visually shorten the nose a little bit. Overall, it looks great, though!
It looks fantastic. If I may offer a bit of feedback, looks like the center cockpit pillar needs to be, maybe 3 to 5 degrees more raked and the nose needs to be ever so slightly shorter and less pointed.
Boeing B-47 Stratojet
pretty good for one of my earlier efforts, but not nearly as good as @thealban's amazing B-47!
OK, totally shameless self promotion going on here, but oh, well! There are lots of good bombers on this site, perhaps they're rarer, how about this B-52 by @closeairsupport, certainly underappreciated, or this B-17 by @Wahrscheinlichlch?
Oh...and for "U"...let me offer the U-2, ok, I break my own rules outlined below for that one, but it's impossible not to mention the U-2, it's iconic!
You cheated on A by using A-10...heck, that's easy, there's the A-1, A-5, A6, A-7, even an A-9..."Aerostar" is much more difficult to think of! Same with "B" and "C", easy with those, there's B-1/2/12/17/18/19/24/25/26/29/47/52, as well as C-1/2/5/9/17/130/131/133/141...and that's not nearly all of them! Try "Bolo" (Douglas product, aka B-18) or "Caravan" (by Cessna, of course). And for "Q", no need to cheat...let me offer the "Question Mark" (modified Fokker which the Army Air Force used to set the first mid air refueled endurance record in 1929), Just joshing you...nice list!
@Bobplanes322 yeah, I totally agree with you, I like to see unique builds, but I'm not totally against common builds either. However if that build is very common (for example, F-16), there should be some feature on it that makes it stand out. Whether that's artful execution with a small number of parts (I really appreciate those as they are very mobile-friendly) or if it very accurately captures that particular aircraft or it has some feature no one was able to recreate until that time...something needs to stand out to get my attention. Appreciate your thoughts on the topic.
@Bobplanes322 not really, they're quickly becoming the most widely known indigenous Chinese fighter. But I will agree they're a little less known than, say, an F-16, but that's not conceding too much. My point not, though, is that they're completely over built on this site. A couple of months ago there seemed to be a newly built J10 on the website every day...my suggestion, if you want unique, there are plenty of other jets out there...what about the Lansen or Viggen or Dassalt Mystere? Bet far fewer have heard about those jets...
While I commend your selecting a used (rather than new) car, you'll need a lot of know-how, time and especially money to keep that thing on the road. I would recommend a 3 series instead, a little smaller, which means less expensive. Unless, of course, you're an expert mechanic, which you might be...in that case, ignore everything I told you!
So, I've been wondering about this for awhile...is there any way to easily mod a rocket to fire at air-to-air targets? Perhaps an additional line in Overload set to say..."Selection [not sure what the command should be] = Air-to-Air"? I would try it out, but I'm not in front of my PC much these days and keep forgetting to try it out.
None of what's below is correct; I build many aircraft which are slightly asymmetrical (i.e., cannon or refueling probe on one side but not the other). The primary reason why this happens is that when you place fuselage blocks on one wing (to add details or to "build up" the wing into a realistic profile), then nudge and mirror, the mirroring spawns a new fuselage piece onto the other wing, but not necessarily attached to the opposite attachment point. It usually picks the closest attachment point to the new position, while the original side stays attached to the original attachment point. This often creates a significant rolling motion. The only way to cure this is to detach everything off the wings and then to manually reattach everything, taking the time to ensure everything is attached symmetrically. It actually sounds a lot more difficult than it actually is. If you want to read more about this, here's a link. If you have further questions, let me know.
Wow, that is bizarre, I have NEVER seen that and I fly over Snowstone more than a little bit...seems plausible that it's an XML screw up.
I really like the look of the front fuselage. I also checked out the successors to this challenge, and, you, sir, have far and away the most imaginative and bonkers submission to that challenge!
Well, the 16 inch naval cannon on the top of the fuselage is totally unrealistic...but, it is the post-Apocalyptic build challenge, so bonkers works!!!
Yup, looks a lot like an A-4...I really like the "canopy".
@SAC923 well, the #1 thing I want to relay to you is: don't lose hope. You can always pick yourself up and keep going. But it takes WORK...it really does. You have to be willing to work really hard, if you're comfortable not working or working hard and can accept your circumstances, then maybe you're happier that way. But...if you truly want to change your vector, you're going to have to work hard to do it.
Unfortunately, in the world as it is, the best thing you can do for yourself to be "successful" is to do well in school. People who graduate college (or university) make something like twice the income of those who do not. I graduated from a very good university and will tell you that, generally and from personal experience, this is all factually correct. However, lamenting about the "unfair" system will be counterproductive to getting yourself to a better position in the future, especially given where you find yourself at this point (i.e., no credibility in a system which values education, or at least getting good grades).
But two points of hope for you at this point:
The majority of stunningly successful people, the Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Einsteins, Richard Bransons...even Pattons of the world struggled in school because education tends to be sterile, rote and boring to those who are truly brilliant. But that's an uncommon trait, and, face it, even the VAST majority of "successful" people do not rise to the truly brilliant level. I don't know if you are truly brilliant...but if you are, you will eventually succeed in some capacity.
This is America. Your story can always be changed. In Europe, if you are determined by the system at 14 to be a janitor, you will probably be a janitor. Paths are set very early on, with little flexibility. Not so in America...I've also experienced this in a very unlikely way. However, to take advantage of this fact, you actually need to buckle down and work and take the more plausible path: LOTS of hard work. But there is hope, so don't lose hope, this too shall pass.
Screenshot it when you see it again.
@doge well, the way I look at it is that while a little too easy to fly now, they were absolutely impossible to fly before. People mention how there were good helis before, that it took skill to build them, I never found one that didn't just go out of control; even those that were XML modded to fly correctly broke SP "rules" to fly right--even those were impossible to land where you wanted. I look at the new gyro as "computer control", which for newer helis, like the Osprey, is a fact of life. But, though I did not have to work so hard to keep it upright (as I would have with a UH-1 in real life) It was still a challenge for me to land in both the places as illustrated above. For me, the new gyro encourages precision flying, the more precise, the more difficult the challenge.
Love that movie!
Nice build, I like the engine detail.
Absolutely gorgeous! I wish I could spotlight, but you have more points than I do!
@willy1111 Hmmm, will have to check Fine Tuner again, which I have installed, is that a new feature?
I just have to ask...how did you make the rear hull clear?
Still amazed at what can be done on iOS...nice work!
Very elegant, despite its seeming ungainliness...
About the worst light bomber the RAF fielded during WWII. Obsolescent prior to the start of the war, completely out of its league once the shooting started, no wonder its an obscure aircraft!
Very nice, build, by the way.
@PhantomBladeCorp not true, many bought into the lies, willingly accepted them and willingly allowed Hitler to rise to power. That's what is so compelling about Nazi Germany, how does a nation of laws and rules fall into something so terrible? If it happened in the 20th Century, it could still happen today, and has, to lesser degrees, around the world. Read William L. Shirer's definitive history of Nazi Germany, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
They now make rotorcraft (helicopters or helicopter drones) possible. Prior to the gyroscope, if you tried to fly a helicopter, you could take off and translate to forward flight, but good luck trying to hover, much less land in control. You'd just eventually lose control due to different effects in game. I'm not sure if it's that way in real life...I'm not a helicopter pilot, so I can't say...but I think trying to fly helis in SP was much harder than in real life; at least if it was AS difficult, I would never, in my right mind, ever get on board a helicopter...forget it! But with the gyro, makes it soooo much more controllable. Love the gyroscope!
Very nice. Keep working on it. With the asymmetric cant to the right on the nose, it may pull to one side, if you finish and flight test it. If it does, suggest you cant the vertical stab a degree or two to counteract the resulting roll or yaw.
No, sir, you are amazing, this is a truly beautiful build!
Great commentary!
Kewl
Nice work on the canopy and details...for next time, the star in the insignia points forward
You would have learned more if you had posted something truly original🤔
I'm disappointed, not much changed here from my original post save the colors 😟
Also, if you're going to go through all that effort, I'll critique you if you don't have only the gun on one side (the left wing root), as it is on the actual jet!
Congrats on figuring out the intake ramps. I wanted to do the same thing, but couldn't get the intakes to move because when I put them on rotators, it broke the continuity from the intake to the engine and the engines weren't getting air...guess you stacked two intakes on top of each other, one fixed (and actually supplying the air to the engines) and the other moveable?
It's relatively accurate to go with 100 km/hr = 62 km/hr. Besides, in aviation we use "knots" which is about 10-15% faster than mph, so if you're talking about 300 mph, it would be around 260 knots. Also, the little speed indicator you see in SP is your groundspeed...indicated airspeed is actually a measurement of the dynamic pressure resulting as you travel through the air. You may be travelling across the ground at 500 knots/575 mph/930 kph, but you'll only indicate around 295 knots at 35,000'. It's not like driving a car. In aviation, one thing they DO convert between the English and Metric systems though is altitude, of all things. In Europe, pilots report altitude in meters (and use millibars for barometric pressure) and in the U.S., we use feet (and use inches of mercury (Hg) for barometric pressure)!
Nice post...I have to ask, how do you do multiplayer? I have a PC with a high speed internet connection, but have no idea what are the mechanics of "joining" multiplayer.
Look here, used multiple parts for wings, plus built up the individual control surfaces as well and made them move with rotators. The Overload and Fine Tuner mods really help as well...I had to use Overload to get the sweep at the right angle ("offset"), so recommend you get those for your operating system.
+1Once you've figured out how to use fuse pieces to "build up" wing shapes on top of the actual wing surfaces, you'll see that many also "build up" control surfaces, i.e., aileron, elevator, rudder, flaps. The way that's done is to deselect the control surfaces from your wings and stabs in the options menu (just press the red "X") and use entire wings as ailerons, elevators, etc. Cover those with fuse parts as well and attach the parts with rotators.
@TrainDude cool, thanks, totally missed that post...but what does Andrew mean when he says "XML-modding enhancements"...? I XML mod all the time, how does the new version change anything?
@MechWARRIOR57 which new parts?
Yes, very tough to adjust anything when you have so many parts, perhaps the increased windshield angle will visually shorten the nose a little bit. Overall, it looks great, though!
Armature Arms
It looks fantastic. If I may offer a bit of feedback, looks like the center cockpit pillar needs to be, maybe 3 to 5 degrees more raked and the nose needs to be ever so slightly shorter and less pointed.
@christiangaido I think this one might be too big for any mobile, even a Samsung!
Try these:
Junkers EF 132
North American XB-70 Valkyrie
Consolidated B-24 Liberator
Boeing B-47 Stratojet
pretty good for one of my earlier efforts, but not nearly as good as @thealban's amazing B-47!
OK, totally shameless self promotion going on here, but oh, well! There are lots of good bombers on this site, perhaps they're rarer, how about this B-52 by @closeairsupport, certainly underappreciated, or this B-17 by @Wahrscheinlichlch?
They're out there, keep looking!
Oh...and for "U"...let me offer the U-2, ok, I break my own rules outlined below for that one, but it's impossible not to mention the U-2, it's iconic!
You cheated on A by using A-10...heck, that's easy, there's the A-1, A-5, A6, A-7, even an A-9..."Aerostar" is much more difficult to think of! Same with "B" and "C", easy with those, there's B-1/2/12/17/18/19/24/25/26/29/47/52, as well as C-1/2/5/9/17/130/131/133/141...and that's not nearly all of them! Try "Bolo" (Douglas product, aka B-18) or "Caravan" (by Cessna, of course). And for "Q", no need to cheat...let me offer the "Question Mark" (modified Fokker which the Army Air Force used to set the first mid air refueled endurance record in 1929), Just joshing you...nice list!
Posted two days ago, but only 3 Upvotes for this beauty...? What's going on? Hopefully, my Spotlight will get this one a little more exposure.
A vote for its meta-ness...
@Bobplanes322 yeah, I totally agree with you, I like to see unique builds, but I'm not totally against common builds either. However if that build is very common (for example, F-16), there should be some feature on it that makes it stand out. Whether that's artful execution with a small number of parts (I really appreciate those as they are very mobile-friendly) or if it very accurately captures that particular aircraft or it has some feature no one was able to recreate until that time...something needs to stand out to get my attention. Appreciate your thoughts on the topic.
@Bobplanes322 not really, they're quickly becoming the most widely known indigenous Chinese fighter. But I will agree they're a little less known than, say, an F-16, but that's not conceding too much. My point not, though, is that they're completely over built on this site. A couple of months ago there seemed to be a newly built J10 on the website every day...my suggestion, if you want unique, there are plenty of other jets out there...what about the Lansen or Viggen or Dassalt Mystere? Bet far fewer have heard about those jets...
+1While I commend your selecting a used (rather than new) car, you'll need a lot of know-how, time and especially money to keep that thing on the road. I would recommend a 3 series instead, a little smaller, which means less expensive. Unless, of course, you're an expert mechanic, which you might be...in that case, ignore everything I told you!
So, I've been wondering about this for awhile...is there any way to easily mod a rocket to fire at air-to-air targets? Perhaps an additional line in Overload set to say..."Selection [not sure what the command should be] = Air-to-Air"? I would try it out, but I'm not in front of my PC much these days and keep forgetting to try it out.
None of what's below is correct; I build many aircraft which are slightly asymmetrical (i.e., cannon or refueling probe on one side but not the other). The primary reason why this happens is that when you place fuselage blocks on one wing (to add details or to "build up" the wing into a realistic profile), then nudge and mirror, the mirroring spawns a new fuselage piece onto the other wing, but not necessarily attached to the opposite attachment point. It usually picks the closest attachment point to the new position, while the original side stays attached to the original attachment point. This often creates a significant rolling motion. The only way to cure this is to detach everything off the wings and then to manually reattach everything, taking the time to ensure everything is attached symmetrically. It actually sounds a lot more difficult than it actually is. If you want to read more about this, here's a link. If you have further questions, let me know.
+7Nice, tag me when you post this!
Beautiful.