While I agree nudge, Fine Tuner, Overload and XML makes things easier, many great builders use iOS exclusively, such as @DestinyAviation (platinum). Check out my profile page, a good number of my high rated builds are iOS, such as my XB-70.
This is a very nice build...how did you do the wingtips? I experimented with them, they're not nose cones (I think), but they're not fuselage pieces, either, so what are they?
I'm trying to make a resizeable fuselage more angled than what's possible in the default menu (max run is 2.5)...I'm trying to make it 2.75. When I highlight the part, open Overload, I then click "Part" at the top of the dialogue box. From the popup menu, I select "Fuselage", then I go down to "Offset" and set the first value, which is 0 (or whatever is set in the default menu) and I change it to 2.75. I then click the check mark at the bottom and...voila!..nothing happens. Any suggestions on how to get Overload to take the change?
@FlyingThings fair enough...I guess I wouldn't put it past plausible for this to be a Luft '46 project with afterburners.
@Botfinder many, many flying wings were designed, built and/or flown before and during WWII (XB-35, Horton Ho229, many glider designs, just to name a few), however, the first true afterburning turbojet engine was not designed or flown until after the war. One of the first USAF fighters with an afterburner was the 1950s-era F-94 Starfire. It's an anachronism, that's all. But, it's all cool beans to me and makes sense to me as a "Luft '46" creation!
Politely ask them to be quiet, once you've asked three times, raise your hand and inform your teacher (I assume this is in class). It's not "cool", but you won't get in trouble for doing it that way. If it's a girl, flirt with her to embarrass her ("Hey, beautiful, your voice is so melodious, I simply can't keep my mind on my work! 😎) and she'll shut up...
From what I can tell of this issue from my experience trying to make thrust-vectoring engines, there is logic in the program where attaching a rotator to an engine interrupts the flow of air to the engine. You're right, if you stick an engine onto a fuselage without an intake, if the front of the engine (compressor face) is exposed, it will still get air. Unfortunately, sticking it onto a rotator interrupts the flow.
@Spikerya yes, I had that on the mind when I threw it together, but this one is red and not blue, because I had never built anything using the default red paint scheme and I thought it would look nice. I wasn't even going to post it, but I hadn't posted anything in awhile, so I did it while waiting in line one cold morning for a Nintendo Switch...I just hope this thing doesn't devalue the ChiChiWerx brand.
Problems with the SP combat AI:
1. The AI will, as often as not, try and split-S into the ocean (or ground).
2. The AI does not seem to know to avoid mountains and will fly your creation into a mountain.
3. When spawning, the AI (almost always) throws in full scale elevator deflection at 250 mph, sending your faster airplanes into accelerated stalls and causing them to depart controlled flight. A pilot is trained to know not to "demand" more out of his airplane than what's safe and to keep his jet in the proper maneuvering envelope.
4. The [combat] AI knows nothing of BFM (Basic Fighting Maneuvering)...it prefers to go head to head making high-speed passes while trying to gun or missile its opponent, then turns to repeat the maneuver. AI combat devolves into a series of high-speed head-on passes where whether or not you defeat the other jet is more driven by a lucky strike than anything else. It doesn't try to turn inside the opponent's turn circle or give itself turning space to take advantage of geometry.
In short, the AI sucks at combat, to the point it makes it a total toss-up during challenges of which airplane is going to win.
Well, even though SP does not incorporate mach effects to simulate the difficulties of supersonic flight, I do not thing any of the prop engines have enough power to exceed Mach 2.0. Plus, why would you even want to? The fastest prop-driven aircraft, the Tu-95 Bear is subsonic...high subsonic, it can reach Mach .75 (575 mph) in level flight. And the Bear has 14,000 hp turboprop engines driving 20 ft props! The reason prop aircraft cannot break the sound barrier (Mach 1.0) is because, progressively from the tips, prop blades begin to exceed Mach and lose efficiency as they attempt to drive the aircraft to Mach 1.0. So, a prop-driven Mach 2.0 SP build, is, in my opinion, utterly unrealistic.
Very droney, very attackey, I like the shape. You know these things have landing gear, even though it looks good without the landing gear in the screenshot. Also, suggest you enter a description!
@Leehopard well, glad you're still here. Your build also flies excellently, very easy to take off and land. I tried to build an FW and it snap rolled when it stalled and was impossible to land!
Nice work, variable geometry with 3D wings, wonder how many realize this accomplishment. You say so in your description, but does anyone realize how tricky that could be?
Hmmm...looks pretty good so far. I'm actually building a WWII era bomber myself, with bomb bay, perhaps I can fiddle with this a bit. For bomb bays, the most realistic/least bad way of making it look is to have long, straight fuse sections around the circumference of the fuselage, leaving a hollow space inside. The doors, similarly, will be a series of long sections angled with Fine Tuner and nudged, then sized to fill the space after they are placed. As you are on iOS, I assume you have neither...
Is @Leehopard even active anymore? This was posted awhile ago, but is a very nice that's actually simple (89 parts), despite some critiques by various WWII aircraft experts.
Yeah...there was this player who asked for help in a forum post, I linked him to one of my builds (which was pretty good, IMHO) and he posted that my build didn't have this or that! I just told him "never mind". Oh well, it takes all kinds...
Hey, real-world aerospace design challenge: your options include using different engines (including slinging some podded turbojet engines under the wings), reducing weight, payload or bombload, or instructing your crews to bomb from high altitude to avoid threats. View it as a challenge, not a problem!
Spectacular!
VERY nice!
@ProKillaV12 apology accepted.
While I agree nudge, Fine Tuner, Overload and XML makes things easier, many great builders use iOS exclusively, such as @DestinyAviation (platinum). Check out my profile page, a good number of my high rated builds are iOS, such as my XB-70.
This is a very nice build...how did you do the wingtips? I experimented with them, they're not nose cones (I think), but they're not fuselage pieces, either, so what are they?
Thanks @EternalDarkness
Thanks! Worked perfectly @EliteIndustries1 @MechWARRIOR57 @Tully2001
I'm trying to make a resizeable fuselage more angled than what's possible in the default menu (max run is 2.5)...I'm trying to make it 2.75. When I highlight the part, open Overload, I then click "Part" at the top of the dialogue box. From the popup menu, I select "Fuselage", then I go down to "Offset" and set the first value, which is 0 (or whatever is set in the default menu) and I change it to 2.75. I then click the check mark at the bottom and...voila!..nothing happens. Any suggestions on how to get Overload to take the change?
@WNP78?
Nice build, nice colors, nice details.
Dunno why, I really like it, perhaps it's the Tu-114 landing gear...
@FlyingThings thanks, am checking it out!
@FlyingThings fair enough...I guess I wouldn't put it past plausible for this to be a Luft '46 project with afterburners.
@Botfinder many, many flying wings were designed, built and/or flown before and during WWII (XB-35, Horton Ho229, many glider designs, just to name a few), however, the first true afterburning turbojet engine was not designed or flown until after the war. One of the first USAF fighters with an afterburner was the 1950s-era F-94 Starfire. It's an anachronism, that's all. But, it's all cool beans to me and makes sense to me as a "Luft '46" creation!
Pretty cool, but after burning turbofans on a WWII era flying wing?
Must be the camo...
@PyroManiac hmmm...sorry for assuming. Well I guess that wouldn't work then...what's Springtrap plush?
Politely ask them to be quiet, once you've asked three times, raise your hand and inform your teacher (I assume this is in class). It's not "cool", but you won't get in trouble for doing it that way. If it's a girl, flirt with her to embarrass her ("Hey, beautiful, your voice is so melodious, I simply can't keep my mind on my work! 😎) and she'll shut up...
Cool
From what I can tell of this issue from my experience trying to make thrust-vectoring engines, there is logic in the program where attaching a rotator to an engine interrupts the flow of air to the engine. You're right, if you stick an engine onto a fuselage without an intake, if the front of the engine (compressor face) is exposed, it will still get air. Unfortunately, sticking it onto a rotator interrupts the flow.
Yup.
Original, I like this one as well. You, my friend, need to build more airplanes. I'm now following you.
Modern A-10, noice.
I don't think I've ever seen a Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 on the site before, nice build, keep it up!
+1Almost missed this one, it's so grey!
@Spikerya yes, I had that on the mind when I threw it together, but this one is red and not blue, because I had never built anything using the default red paint scheme and I thought it would look nice. I wasn't even going to post it, but I hadn't posted anything in awhile, so I did it while waiting in line one cold morning for a Nintendo Switch...I just hope this thing doesn't devalue the ChiChiWerx brand.
Problems with the SP combat AI:
1. The AI will, as often as not, try and split-S into the ocean (or ground).
2. The AI does not seem to know to avoid mountains and will fly your creation into a mountain.
3. When spawning, the AI (almost always) throws in full scale elevator deflection at 250 mph, sending your faster airplanes into accelerated stalls and causing them to depart controlled flight. A pilot is trained to know not to "demand" more out of his airplane than what's safe and to keep his jet in the proper maneuvering envelope.
4. The [combat] AI knows nothing of BFM (Basic Fighting Maneuvering)...it prefers to go head to head making high-speed passes while trying to gun or missile its opponent, then turns to repeat the maneuver. AI combat devolves into a series of high-speed head-on passes where whether or not you defeat the other jet is more driven by a lucky strike than anything else. It doesn't try to turn inside the opponent's turn circle or give itself turning space to take advantage of geometry.
In short, the AI sucks at combat, to the point it makes it a total toss-up during challenges of which airplane is going to win.
+2Well, even though SP does not incorporate mach effects to simulate the difficulties of supersonic flight, I do not thing any of the prop engines have enough power to exceed Mach 2.0. Plus, why would you even want to? The fastest prop-driven aircraft, the Tu-95 Bear is subsonic...high subsonic, it can reach Mach .75 (575 mph) in level flight. And the Bear has 14,000 hp turboprop engines driving 20 ft props! The reason prop aircraft cannot break the sound barrier (Mach 1.0) is because, progressively from the tips, prop blades begin to exceed Mach and lose efficiency as they attempt to drive the aircraft to Mach 1.0. So, a prop-driven Mach 2.0 SP build, is, in my opinion, utterly unrealistic.
Very droney, very attackey, I like the shape. You know these things have landing gear, even though it looks good without the landing gear in the screenshot. Also, suggest you enter a description!
@ProKillaV12 kind of a missile, but more of a land-bound one!
@Leehopard well, glad you're still here. Your build also flies excellently, very easy to take off and land. I tried to build an FW and it snap rolled when it stalled and was impossible to land!
Nice work, variable geometry with 3D wings, wonder how many realize this accomplishment. You say so in your description, but does anyone realize how tricky that could be?
Here's another good Zero, my favorite one in a long time.
I've seen the occasional Mig-31 here, but never a Foxbat, much less such a great build...nice job!
Noice! My all-time favorite WWII fighter!
@ThePlaninatior, it's "beat it", like the Michael Jackson song. Yeah, the syntax doesn't make sense, but that's how you would say it!
Very similar concept to one of my earlier builds Was your grandfather RAF or USAAF?
Nifty, needs a description, though.
Ahhh...the Brewster Buffalo. One of the most outclassed fighters of WWII. This one certainly captures its vibe, though, nice.
A fun challenge...WHICH I BESTED!!!
@InternationalAircraftCompany just posted something on your build...
Hmmm...looks pretty good so far. I'm actually building a WWII era bomber myself, with bomb bay, perhaps I can fiddle with this a bit. For bomb bays, the most realistic/least bad way of making it look is to have long, straight fuse sections around the circumference of the fuselage, leaving a hollow space inside. The doors, similarly, will be a series of long sections angled with Fine Tuner and nudged, then sized to fill the space after they are placed. As you are on iOS, I assume you have neither...
@InternationalAircraftCompany maybe, it depends what you need me to do...
Is @Leehopard even active anymore? This was posted awhile ago, but is a very nice that's actually simple (89 parts), despite some critiques by various WWII aircraft experts.
YES.
@Stampede thanks! Where have you been, haven't seen you in awhile?
@KingHandspider, I already fooled around with it and it does make some nicely rounded fuses--even if not perfectly round.
Some nice details here
Yeah...there was this player who asked for help in a forum post, I linked him to one of my builds (which was pretty good, IMHO) and he posted that my build didn't have this or that! I just told him "never mind". Oh well, it takes all kinds...
Hey, real-world aerospace design challenge: your options include using different engines (including slinging some podded turbojet engines under the wings), reducing weight, payload or bombload, or instructing your crews to bomb from high altitude to avoid threats. View it as a challenge, not a problem!
Nice, but needs a description or some tags...