@MrMecha ok, perhaps "most unrealistic thing in SP" would have been a better choice of words. Not sure I would have gotten the same response by that post.
@Noahater435 this was actually done in the Shuttle program when it was active. In fact they first test flew the shuttle (glide only) off the back of the 747. The launch was something to see, as the 747 had to dive away after release to get out of the way of the shuttle. The shuttle itself then glided to landing.
@BaconAircraft hmm, you're probably right about that. Those are practical reasons which make sense. Much better than the "it's a game" position taken by others. My most recent build is 140,000 lbs and flies like a 140,000 lb airplane, kind of lumbering and slow, but I thought it was a fun challenge. Guess others, not so much, preferring more sprightly builds.
@EngineerOtaku I'm not sure I've ever seen it before, should be reportable as a glitch? It doesn't really detract from the build, though, so that's a plus.
@BaconAircraft @DeezDucks @AdrianFlyingAce I like the suggestion made below to either add a definite afterburner selection or revise the fuel consumption in SP be made in a future update...thoughts?
For anyone reading this (still)...should I make a separate post defending the use of trim in builds? It strikes me as being inconsistent to avoid or look down on use of trim, while enthusiastically embracing infinite fuel!
@PorkyClown3 I don't EVER use unlimited fuel. As for the CoM/CoL thing, I simply design to avoid the problem, use deadweight (which is a bummer), or better yet, allow for the use of trim...which has just struck me as highly ironic as most people seem to pooh-pooh the use of trim in a build--which is one of the most realistic things in this game!
@EliteIndustries1, because it's unrealistic and, frankly, it's a bit of a turn-off when I see a build with unlimited fuel because it's unrealistic (did I just say that twice?). I happen to feel the same way when aircraft are posted with negative empty weights, though I perfectly understand zero weight mods for details such as paint schemes and the like.
@Flightsonic, well, we're of like mind on this one, but I'm certainly not suggesting "boycotting" anyone here. If I choose to upvote or not upvote, that's totally up to me, but it certainly does not mean I'm "boycotting" anyone. In fact, of the people telling me that they use infinite fuel, I've upvoted plenty of their creations...just choosing to focus on the creations using limited, vice unlimited fuel.
@t8erh8er ROTC would be just fine. There used to be a big advantage if you were an Academy grad. Really, not so much anymore since they changed the fact that ROTC officers had to compete for regular commissions a few years into their service. Not anymore, ROTC officers get regular commissions straight out of school (I'm pretty sure it's that way now, vice the opposite). Where USAFA has historically held an advantage is in number of pilot slots, which has always been greater than ROTC sources. But, as the AF is growing more desperately short in pilots (many going to the airlines), opportunities for pilot training will probably be greater, across the board.
@t8erh8er military or civilian? Don't undersell yourself; besides, who says pilot training is easy? It's a lot to learn and military pilot training is pretty intense.
@RedHawk huh...now THAT's great info...you should definitely incorporate that intoyour next build, if you can, then advertise it with the final post. Same for you @ChaMikey
@BogdanX nah, I don't think you're annoyed, just engaged, which is a good thing...and I really like your builds as well. Hey, we really started something on the site with Luft '46 builds, didn't we?
@MechWARRIOR57 come on, it doesn't take HOURS to think about fuel...but if you go into aviation in some capacity in your life, you WILL spend HOURS thinking about fuel...whether it's burning it, passing it to another jet, refueling an aircraft, or transferring it for C.G.!
@MechWARRIOR57 read my caveat...if you're modeling something with those characteristics, then, sure. But don't try to sell me on an F-18 with UNlimited fuel...
@MechWARRIOR57 but you're learning in the process, I guarantee you. I have 4,000 hours of real world piloting time and, trust me, you're learning. And having fun doing it.
@t8erh8er @BogdanX @MechWARRIOR57, you are all saying learning isn't fun??? Seriously? Take it from someone who's had plenty of life-worn lessons...you stop learning, you die. Perhaps learning isn't fun the way you normally see it in school, but let me assure you, it is. Case in point: Simple Planes!
@BogdanX agree with assertion that fuel consumption is too high...but, the days (on PC) are much shorter and the world much smaller than the real world, so it correlates, to a degree.
@t8erh8er, I wonder what @AndrewGarrison would say about not learning anything? He and his original team started out building flight simulation software for McDonnell Douglas (Boeing now, I guess). I will just about GUARANTEE you that learning was a core objective of this effort. One of the reasons why I spend a little time with SP as a hobby is because I enjoy teaching the newbies on both SP and real life flying...
@MrMecha ok, perhaps "most unrealistic thing in SP" would have been a better choice of words. Not sure I would have gotten the same response by that post.
@Sauce wow, really?
Flies nicely, very stable and looks great.
A lot of work went into this one and it should have more attention!
@Noahater435 this was actually done in the Shuttle program when it was active. In fact they first test flew the shuttle (glide only) off the back of the 747. The launch was something to see, as the 747 had to dive away after release to get out of the way of the shuttle. The shuttle itself then glided to landing.
@AstleyIndustries and that makes sense, right? Science fiction envisions the use of unlimited fuel supplies.
@Flightsonic no worries, guess I'm one of the few clinging
to limited fuel.
@BaconAircraft hmm, you're probably right about that. Those are practical reasons which make sense. Much better than the "it's a game" position taken by others. My most recent build is 140,000 lbs and flies like a 140,000 lb airplane, kind of lumbering and slow, but I thought it was a fun challenge. Guess others, not so much, preferring more sprightly builds.
@BaconAircraft well, thanks. I've been getting many opposing opinions from many high ranked users, which surprised me.
@EngineerOtaku I'm not sure I've ever seen it before, should be reportable as a glitch? It doesn't really detract from the build, though, so that's a plus.
@BaconAircraft @DeezDucks @AdrianFlyingAce I like the suggestion made below to either add a definite afterburner selection or revise the fuel consumption in SP be made in a future update...thoughts?
@AdrianFlyingAce you're already planning on using infinite fuel?
This is one of the best looking, well built and thought out cars I've seen on this site. Nice.
Fantastic! Just reload the mod and it'll update the whole thing?
For anyone reading this (still)...should I make a separate post defending the use of trim in builds? It strikes me as being inconsistent to avoid or look down on use of trim, while enthusiastically embracing infinite fuel!
@PorkyClown3 I don't EVER use unlimited fuel. As for the CoM/CoL thing, I simply design to avoid the problem, use deadweight (which is a bummer), or better yet, allow for the use of trim...which has just struck me as highly ironic as most people seem to pooh-pooh the use of trim in a build--which is one of the most realistic things in this game!
@EliteIndustries1, because it's unrealistic and, frankly, it's a bit of a turn-off when I see a build with unlimited fuel because it's unrealistic (did I just say that twice?). I happen to feel the same way when aircraft are posted with negative empty weights, though I perfectly understand zero weight mods for details such as paint schemes and the like.
@Flightsonic, well, we're of like mind on this one, but I'm certainly not suggesting "boycotting" anyone here. If I choose to upvote or not upvote, that's totally up to me, but it certainly does not mean I'm "boycotting" anyone. In fact, of the people telling me that they use infinite fuel, I've upvoted plenty of their creations...just choosing to focus on the creations using limited, vice unlimited fuel.
Copyright infringement. But, I don't see why Honda would ever have a problem with this particular build, it's gorgeous!
@t8erh8er ROTC would be just fine. There used to be a big advantage if you were an Academy grad. Really, not so much anymore since they changed the fact that ROTC officers had to compete for regular commissions a few years into their service. Not anymore, ROTC officers get regular commissions straight out of school (I'm pretty sure it's that way now, vice the opposite). Where USAFA has historically held an advantage is in number of pilot slots, which has always been greater than ROTC sources. But, as the AF is growing more desperately short in pilots (many going to the airlines), opportunities for pilot training will probably be greater, across the board.
@t8erh8er you want to go to USAFA! Proud to be '93, that's my alma matter!
@t8erh8er military or civilian? Don't undersell yourself; besides, who says pilot training is easy? It's a lot to learn and military pilot training is pretty intense.
My vote is that I would prefer to see it 1:1. In the screenshots, just zoom in more!
@RedHawk huh...now THAT's great info...you should definitely incorporate that intoyour next build, if you can, then advertise it with the final post. Same for you @ChaMikey
@Tully2001 yeah, so you made one comment, but I'm still in awe of your builds...
@t8erh8er it shows, perhaps you'll follow in her footsteps in the future? If you like debating, you'll really like being a lawyer, I think.
...and @Testin123 @Tully2001 and @EliteIndustries1
The same goes for you @Feanor, @MechWARRIOR57 and @MrSilverWolf.
@BogdanX @t8erh8er @FennVectorCWA...seriously, you guys are all talented builders and great debaters, I appreciate the engagement.
@t8erh8er--44,000+ downloads AND 140 upvotes?!? Hmmm...must be propelled by an advanced fuel system.
@t8erh8er I'll look him up, thanks!
@BogdanX nah, I don't think you're annoyed, just engaged, which is a good thing...and I really like your builds as well. Hey, we really started something on the site with Luft '46 builds, didn't we?
@t8erh8er what's a hypoplane? I probably wouldn't understand those anyways!
@MechWARRIOR57 ok, fair enough! I'll probably still upvote your builds!
@BogdanX yeah, apologies, just wanted to keep you in on the debate, no hard feelings, ok?
@t8erh8er very true, that Nuc reactor thing was a bad idea...what would they have done if they had crashed the airplane???
@MechWARRIOR57 come on, it doesn't take HOURS to think about fuel...but if you go into aviation in some capacity in your life, you WILL spend HOURS thinking about fuel...whether it's burning it, passing it to another jet, refueling an aircraft, or transferring it for C.G.!
@MechWARRIOR57 it means an exception to the rule, LOL
@MechWARRIOR57 read my caveat...if you're modeling something with those characteristics, then, sure. But don't try to sell me on an F-18 with UNlimited fuel...
@MechWARRIOR57 but you're learning in the process, I guarantee you. I have 4,000 hours of real world piloting time and, trust me, you're learning. And having fun doing it.
@MechWARRIOR57 what's cod iw?
@MechWARRIOR57, then again, maybe I WOULD like Nuc powered aircraft, but the description would have to sell me on it!
@t8erh8er @BogdanX @MechWARRIOR57, you are all saying learning isn't fun??? Seriously? Take it from someone who's had plenty of life-worn lessons...you stop learning, you die. Perhaps learning isn't fun the way you normally see it in school, but let me assure you, it is. Case in point: Simple Planes!
@MechWARRIOR57 yes, Nuc reactor aircraft, would be unrealistic, so I prob wouldn't like those either.
@BogdanX agree with assertion that fuel consumption is too high...but, the days (on PC) are much shorter and the world much smaller than the real world, so it correlates, to a degree.
@t8erh8er, agreed!
@Feanor LOL!
Thanks @FennVectorCWA...finally, someone who agrees with my viewpoint! Whew, they DO exist!
@t8erh8er, I wonder what @AndrewGarrison would say about not learning anything? He and his original team started out building flight simulation software for McDonnell Douglas (Boeing now, I guess). I will just about GUARANTEE you that learning was a core objective of this effort. One of the reasons why I spend a little time with SP as a hobby is because I enjoy teaching the newbies on both SP and real life flying...
@Testin123 I do, so I disagree with you. I do LOTS of testing of my creations prior to posting. Just restart or respawn for a second go.