30.4k ChiChiWerx Comments

  • INFINITE FUEL--DUMBEST THING IN SP 8.2 years ago

    @t8erh8er, I don't know about that...I know younger folks who would have no idea how to fly an aircraft IAW the FARs, -1 or other guidance, then go ahead and crash their MS Flight Sim left and right, not having really learned anything at all. I also know plenty of people who learn a lot here...whether they're seeking to or not. I know you have probably learned a few things here and there on this platform yourself and that should be preserved. If you're building to the crowd that doesn't care about learning, I appreciate that, but you have the skills to do both, don't undersell your skills. I know I can EASILY build planes that will fly for 20 or 30 mins in game, what would you estimate the duration is for a newbie player who, as you say, "doesn't care" and just downloads and flies around? Probably 30 seconds...so why not make them learn something challenging in the process?

  • INFINITE FUEL--DUMBEST THING IN SP 8.2 years ago

    @t8erh8er very true...I actually try to avoid putting fuel on around the nose or cockpit areas as I agree that's unrealistic as well. But I think you undersell the value of SP in teaching basic aero, flight dynamics, etc., I think it does as good a job as those other games in teaching about those things...probably better because you have to plan for it in your builds.

  • INFINITE FUEL--DUMBEST THING IN SP 8.2 years ago

    @t8erh8er hmmm, considering last comment, I can see your point better. I certainly don't fly around at 60% throttle setting, it's up at least 90% most of the time, but it correlates to about 60% of the available thrust, including AB.

  • INFINITE FUEL--DUMBEST THING IN SP 8.2 years ago

    @t8erh8er, oh, AB doesn't [significantly] increase RPM. Case in point: Ops limit for a T-38 in mil power is 99.0 - 104%, while in AB it's STILL 99.0 - 104%...

  • INFINITE FUEL--DUMBEST THING IN SP 8.2 years ago

    @Testin123, yeah, but half the aviation lesson is for the builder, as well as the player...don't you think so?

  • INFINITE FUEL--DUMBEST THING IN SP 8.2 years ago

    @t8erh8er yes, there is usually a detent, but I would argue that the way SP emulates this in game is through 100% = AB. I don't disagree, though, that there might be a better way to activate AB than what we currently have.

  • INFINITE FUEL--DUMBEST THING IN SP 8.2 years ago

    Wow, I'm really liking the debate. One thing is for sure: SP community really knows how to politely debate and defend their positions. Kudos to @AndrewGarrison and the other Devs for cultivating a respectful, debate-minded community.

  • INFINITE FUEL--DUMBEST THING IN SP 8.2 years ago

    @t8erh8er you are right. 100% thrust (non-augmented) is also known as "military" thrust or full power, or something else to differentiate from AB. Perhaps SP should add that type of mod, I think it would be a good change.

  • INFINITE FUEL--DUMBEST THING IN SP 8.2 years ago

    @t8erh8er I appreciate that you do. However, consider this: Full AB augments the thrust by 40%, fuel consumption increases by even more than that. All AB equipped aircraft only use AB for limited periods, because of the fuel consumption issues. If players flew their aircraft realistically, they would pull the throttle back to 60% or less after they takeoff.

  • INFINITE FUEL--DUMBEST THING IN SP 8.2 years ago

    @t8erh8er in full AB? Yes they do.

  • INFINITE FUEL--DUMBEST THING IN SP 8.2 years ago

    @MrSilverWolf I think you exaggerate a tad...70K + 13K = 83K, which wouldn't really change the flying characteristics that much. I acknowledge that the fuselage parts in SP are a tad bit heavier than they should be, but there are plenty of really heavy aircraft in real life. A Strike Eagle alone weighs in at 81,000 lbs max gross weight, but show me an F-15E on the site which weighs that much. An Airbus 380 weighs over a million pounds...again, there are few/no million pound aircraft on the site. I get it...but, the infinite fuel thing so detracts from the flying experience and required fuel planning, so that it just isn't worth it. In fact, I think it would be far more worthwhile to have an aircraft fly with less fuel as in real life as an offset to the fuse weight thing in SP.

  • INFINITE FUEL--DUMBEST THING IN SP 8.2 years ago

    @EliteIndustries1 exactly...as they do in real life.

  • Junkers EF 132 Luftwaffe Fast Bomber Project 8.2 years ago

    @vonhubert no worries on time. I wanted to let the aftershocks from this build die down anyways, before posting a variation. I think what we can do is a night bomber version of this build. I wanted to tweak a few things as well, like the elevators, increase the wing sweep by about 5 degrees and make the three part wings (LE, center section and TE). Night camo would free us up from the camo thing, as most Luftwaffe night bombers were overall black with white markings. I would be sure to make the black a shade or two lighter than the darkest, that way it stands out against the background. What do you think?

  • Skorpion SF-1 8.2 years ago

    Well it flies really well, except for the weird shaking with the bomb racks....did you notice that?

  • Junkers EF 132 Luftwaffe Fast Bomber Project 8.2 years ago

    @vonhubert ok, that makes sense...what did you want to do with the wings?

  • Junkers EF 132 Luftwaffe Fast Bomber Project 8.2 years ago

    @vonhubert the gloss is XML modding. Access the XML files (thisPC/C:/Users/Your profile name/AppData/LocalLow/Jundroo/SimplePlanes/AircraftDesigns), open the corresponding folder and go to the color list, which is near the bottom of the file. Open the file you want using Notepad. Select the color you want to modify and set m = "1" and s = "1". The color list will be in the same order as in the custom color palette (left to right, top to bottom). You can also Google "hexcolor" to get color codes for any custom color you want to choose and substitute the listed color for the new color. Save the file, then you have to reload the aircraft in the editor to see the new color and gloss settings. As far as modding the plane, sure, have at it! I like the mouse controlled turrets idea, you'll have to tell me how to do that for my next build. As for the gear and door synchro, sure, sounds great. The wing Mod, well, I considered making them out of several big XML modded parts, but wouldn't have been able to carry the camo pattern over if I had done that.

  • Nighthawk! 8.2 years ago

    It would be a TRULY great build if you could evade Snowstone's radar!

  • A-71CF mk3.2 "Hunter+" 8.2 years ago

    It's pretty cool. I like the shape, nice and fast and the roll control winglets especially.

  • Douglas A3D-Q2 Skywarrior 8.2 years ago

    Love the Skywarrior! Awesome build!

  • Union Pacific ALCO PA1 8.2 years ago

    Just a suggestion for your next train build. I would have taken the first screenshot and zoomed in to fill the screen, I think it would have been more impressive that way and better noticed, because this one deserves it. Second screenshot would have been a close up of the trucks, because a lot of work went into those things.

  • Union Pacific ALCO PA1 8.2 years ago

    Nice build!

  • 55 part challenge (red death) 8.2 years ago

    @grizzlitn it is! I was wondering why it didn't seem right, plus he lied and said it was a modification of his old plane!

  • Ive been gone building a top secret vehicle but i need wings that provide down force 8.2 years ago

    Fine Tuner. It's in the Mods section. Another good mod to have is Overload.

  • Ive been gone building a top secret vehicle but i need wings that provide down force 8.2 years ago

    @MechWARRIOR57 yes, it detects angle of attack pretty well. Use a symetrical wing in your case

  • Please help with roll 8.2 years ago

    @Hockeygoalie21 good, glad it worked. I thought it might have been a wing flex issue, but I guess in this case, it was not

  • Please help with roll 8.2 years ago

    Try this. You're not the first one to have this problem, it's common in SP

  • Ive been gone building a top secret vehicle but i need wings that provide down force 8.2 years ago

    Angle them down a few degrees using Fine Tuner

  • F-14D Tomcat "Razgriz" 8.2 years ago

    First, this is great! Most Tomcats here have really bulbous noses, all out of proportion, but this one is spot-on.

  • Nissan Nismo GT-R N attack Package (R35) Collab 8.2 years ago

    Well, I wish I could Spotlight it, but as you have more points than I, there's no option for me to do so. I wish I could...

  • Convair CV-880 Preview 0.8 (with Tu-104 nose) 8.2 years ago

    Did you post, then delete a recent build? I see it in my Jetstream, but cannot open it.

  • MiG-9 8.2 years ago

    Kewl...

  • Nissan Nismo GT-R N attack Package (R35) Collab 8.2 years ago

    I like the headlights a great deal, plus it isn't too much heavier than the real thing. It's too bad we can't have better hubcap/wheels.

  • Nissan Nismo GT-R N attack Package (R35) Collab 8.2 years ago

    Well, it's just as boxy as the real thing, that's for sure...

  • Piston Spazzing Out? 8.2 years ago

    @KingHandspider just look at the SP home page...Featured Build

  • F/A-18A Hornet 8.2 years ago

    Flies very nicely as well, very maneuverable, must be the incidence on the wings

  • Junkers EF 132 Luftwaffe Fast Bomber Project 8.2 years ago

    @PyrusEnderhunter thank you, thank you very much, sir! I appreciate it!

  • Junkers EF 132 Luftwaffe Fast Bomber Project 8.2 years ago

    @Wildblueyonder578 are you starting on the ground? If you try and start in the air, say on Yeager final, you'll probably stall it trying to avoid the cliffs due to the slow engine acceleration and wing loading. BTW, like your avatar image, nice B-57.

  • F8f Bearcat 8.2 years ago

    Hey! Actually, looks like an F8F, check! Super-glossy canopy glass, check! I like it, check!

  • Model R 8.2 years ago

    Flies pretty well--short-coupled, but so was the real thing. Tricky to land safely, but can be done, in fact it's easier to land than vast majority of tail-draggers on this site. Come in about 25% throttle and 150-160 mph and fly it onto the runway, main-gear first, be careful not to balloon in the flare! Ease the stick back to get to the three point attitude. Hopefully, you will be aligned, as the rudder does nothing during roll-out. Fun to fly!

  • Junkers Ju EF128 8.2 years ago

    Nice build and it flies well, too!

  • My next Challenge 8.2 years ago

    Seaplane, sure!

  • A-71CF mk3 "Hunter" 8.2 years ago

    The CoM and CoL are way too close together, makes the handling twitchy. I would recommend making the horizontal stab and the elevator larger, to help smooth things out. Plus the vertical stab should be far larger, the airplane likes to yaw and fly sideways, which isn't controllable. I really like the roll control, though!

  • Junkers EF 132 Luftwaffe Fast Bomber Project 8.2 years ago

    @Bagas it's XML modding. If you can access the XML files (thisPC/C:/Users/Your profile name/AppData/LocalLow/Jundroo/SimplePlanes/AircraftDesigns), open the corresponding folder and go to the color list, which is near the bottom of the file. Open the file you want using Notepad. Select the color you want to modify and set m = "1" and s = "1". The color list will be in the same order as in the custom color palette (left to right, top to bottom). You can also Google "hexcolor" to get color codes for any custom color you want to choose and substitute the listed color for the new color. Save the file, then you have to reload the aircraft in the editor to see the new color and gloss settings.

  • Junkers EF 132 Luftwaffe Fast Bomber Project 8.2 years ago

    @Wildblueyonder578 what exactly do you mean? If you mean, it won't take off, then try to set 1.5 units nose up trim (slider down 1 1/2 notches). Aircraft should rotate around 170 mph and go airborne around 210 mph. That's all in the flight manual. If you mean, it flies "heavy", well...it should! It's 140,000 lbs and the flight characteristics are pure SP, no XML modding weights, CG or fuel.

  • Junkers EF 132 Luftwaffe Fast Bomber Project 8.2 years ago

    @Franticmatty thanks!

  • Junkers EF 132 Luftwaffe Fast Bomber Project 8.2 years ago

    @AudioDud3 thank you!

  • Junkers EF 132 Luftwaffe Fast Bomber Project 8.2 years ago

    @Sarpanitu I was surprised as well; in a good way, but surprised.

  • Junkers EF 132 Luftwaffe Fast Bomber Project 8.2 years ago

    @SwagAircrafts thank you, glad you think so!

  • Junkers EF 132 Luftwaffe Fast Bomber Project 8.2 years ago

    @RussianAS благодаря!