Well, here's the dynamic on why higher point builders get more attention: 1. They paid their dues like everyone else. Boy, my first dozen or so posts were completely ignored, just like everyone else, so we all know the pain. 2. However, once I had a successful post, then people started following. 3. More followers, more Spotlights, more views, more points. 4. Over and over and over again...plus, a builder gets better over time with more posts, so even more followers. So, it's no wonder that a builder like @SpiritusRaptor has 971 follwers, so, it only takes around 10% of his followers to generate 100 upvotes on a post. Platinum builders are giants around here, and with good reason, they've earned it with time and effort, though some ARE better than others. If they want to critique a crappy build, then go ahead. Generally, this critique will be constructive and I have yet to see anything unfair, even when directed against joke builds. Plus, I generally agree with them.
@Tully2001 I do see what you mean by the canopy shape, though, very reminiscent of a 109, however, everything in SP is an approximation anyways, so I could chalk that up to the difficulties of reproducing a replica.
@Tully2001 so, it's a single inline-prop engined, single pilot fighter aircraft with something between an elliptical and tapered wing, conventional empennage and outward-retracting landing gear. So, you are correct, it could be either the Spit or the 109. In fact, this was illustrated in real life as the two could be difficult to distinguish between (especially in the tangle of a dogfight) and pilots had to take a second look to make sure they weren't shooting at their wingmen! I do see what you mean by the canopy shape, though, very reminiscent of a 109, however, everything in SP is an approximation anyways, so I could chalk that up to the difficulties of reproducing a replica.
I think you were facing roughly to the west/southwest, at 2000L, it was a couple of hours after sunset, the light is lower in the sky, but not set, and from the zoomed-in image, it appears to be roughly crescent-shaped (though that is less certain, given the image's quality). Also, the non-zoomed image appears to also be crescent-shaped, but I would be surprised if your camera would see that unless there was at least a little magnification. I would say with 80-90% confidence, Venus.
Well, from your GMT +8, you're in Western Australia, Malaysia, Philippines, China, Mongolia or Central Russia. Probably a planet. With what did you take the picture and which direction were you facing when you took the picture?
Holy cow...that's going to be one powerful B-52, is it going to be supersonic, a la "Flight of the Old Dog?" Can't wait to see the final product, tag me when it's posted!
We're all missing one there...there IS a way of "getting mods" on the iPhone: The Devs would have to rewrite the app to include Fine Tuner and / or Overload features. I wouldn't then be a mod, but a feature of the app software. There's GOTTA be a way of getting nudge into iOS... @MechWARRIOR57 @RedHawk @Delphinus
@Baldovino aaahhhh...now I see the issue, yes that's a bit of a problem. Are there other AGs that can be more easily migrated to work in conjunction with each other?
Hey, in real life, landing lights are typically activated by a separate switch and are not slaved to retraction or extension of the gear. There may be exceptions, but they're typically set up this way to give the pilot more options. For example, being able to turn off the landing light when pulling into parking so that you don't blind the crew chief at night is a good thing! So, simply setting up the LL to an activation group would be the way I would advise and would actually be the most realistic thing you could do, though it might not seem it at first glance.
@DuckMintnewprofile you are correct, neither ever was operational and they weren't intended to be operational. So, the Me 262 was the first operational jet fighter, followed only a few months later by the Gloster Meteor.
Geez, does no one here have Google? The first jet flown was the Heinkel He 178 (German) in 1939, followed by the Gloster E.28/39 (UK) in 1941. Both were similar designs, small with nose intakes and conventional wings and empennage. The Heinkel was a taildragger, though, while the Gloster had a tricycle landing gear.
I disagree with you, your builds are definitely not "bad". Everyday, when I look at the "newest" section, I see a ton of bad builds, yours aren't anything like those. For one, you actually use the resizable fuselage block. The one suggestion I will make is COLOR...try using it to make your builds stand out. Another suggestion is that markings (which you can search for using the "Parts" tag) also tend to garner a lot of attention for builds. Finally, I would encourage you to keep on building and not be discouraged.
Whaaaa...!!! How come I didn't see this before? It's so precious...!!! We need to get this thing at least 50 upvotes! Who's with me @Luuk2909 @JoeAdkinson13?
If you learned on iOS (like I did), that's a solid foundation for great building. You have to really learn the game, develop tricks, techniques and a real understanding of how things work. It IS a bit limiting, but you can find lots of parts using the "Parts" tag, something I tell iOS users lamenting the limitations of the platform. in fact my highest rated creations are all iOS and it's still fun to just "doodle" on the phone every once in awhile...
@GhostHTX sounds good. The 3 station bomb racks are know as Triple Ejector Racks or TERs. How are you going to prevent the missiles from destroying your jet? I've had that issue in the past, but don't know of a consistent solution...
@Liquidfox Kiwi insignia alone had 16 parts alone (x3), the tail lettering took something like 30 parts each side, plus all the striping detail on the wings, etc., etc.
Purple Nurple
Well, here's the dynamic on why higher point builders get more attention: 1. They paid their dues like everyone else. Boy, my first dozen or so posts were completely ignored, just like everyone else, so we all know the pain. 2. However, once I had a successful post, then people started following. 3. More followers, more Spotlights, more views, more points. 4. Over and over and over again...plus, a builder gets better over time with more posts, so even more followers. So, it's no wonder that a builder like @SpiritusRaptor has 971 follwers, so, it only takes around 10% of his followers to generate 100 upvotes on a post. Platinum builders are giants around here, and with good reason, they've earned it with time and effort, though some ARE better than others. If they want to critique a crappy build, then go ahead. Generally, this critique will be constructive and I have yet to see anything unfair, even when directed against joke builds. Plus, I generally agree with them.
@Tully2001 you are very correct about that! Certainly closer to a 109...
@Tully2001 I do see what you mean by the canopy shape, though, very reminiscent of a 109, however, everything in SP is an approximation anyways, so I could chalk that up to the difficulties of reproducing a replica.
@Tully2001 so, it's a single inline-prop engined, single pilot fighter aircraft with something between an elliptical and tapered wing, conventional empennage and outward-retracting landing gear. So, you are correct, it could be either the Spit or the 109. In fact, this was illustrated in real life as the two could be difficult to distinguish between (especially in the tangle of a dogfight) and pilots had to take a second look to make sure they weren't shooting at their wingmen! I do see what you mean by the canopy shape, though, very reminiscent of a 109, however, everything in SP is an approximation anyways, so I could chalk that up to the difficulties of reproducing a replica.
I think you were facing roughly to the west/southwest, at 2000L, it was a couple of hours after sunset, the light is lower in the sky, but not set, and from the zoomed-in image, it appears to be roughly crescent-shaped (though that is less certain, given the image's quality). Also, the non-zoomed image appears to also be crescent-shaped, but I would be surprised if your camera would see that unless there was at least a little magnification. I would say with 80-90% confidence, Venus.
Well, from your GMT +8, you're in Western Australia, Malaysia, Philippines, China, Mongolia or Central Russia. Probably a planet. With what did you take the picture and which direction were you facing when you took the picture?
@vonhubert yes, agreed all sides captured and evaluated each others' fighters, true...
So we have Luftwaffe Spitfires and British ekranoplanes...??? What kind of world are we living in!?!?
Holy cow...that's going to be one powerful B-52, is it going to be supersonic, a la "Flight of the Old Dog?" Can't wait to see the final product, tag me when it's posted!
No, agreed, it doesn't look bad just weird. But then, I'm American, to a Brit, this might be heresy!
Interesting, a Spitfire with Luftwaffe insignia?
Nice use of color and reminiscent of a Caproni seaplane.
Pretty amazing build here.
Nice Cat!
We're all missing one there...there IS a way of "getting mods" on the iPhone: The Devs would have to rewrite the app to include Fine Tuner and / or Overload features. I wouldn't then be a mod, but a feature of the app software. There's GOTTA be a way of getting nudge into iOS... @MechWARRIOR57 @RedHawk @Delphinus
@BogdanX what trick is that and where's the forum post?
@Baldovino aaahhhh...now I see the issue, yes that's a bit of a problem. Are there other AGs that can be more easily migrated to work in conjunction with each other?
Hey, in real life, landing lights are typically activated by a separate switch and are not slaved to retraction or extension of the gear. There may be exceptions, but they're typically set up this way to give the pilot more options. For example, being able to turn off the landing light when pulling into parking so that you don't blind the crew chief at night is a good thing! So, simply setting up the LL to an activation group would be the way I would advise and would actually be the most realistic thing you could do, though it might not seem it at first glance.
How you managed to create a working bomb bay on iOS, I will never know, but...nice!
@DuckMintnewprofile you are correct, neither ever was operational and they weren't intended to be operational. So, the Me 262 was the first operational jet fighter, followed only a few months later by the Gloster Meteor.
Cool, from zero points to this, nice!
@mikoyanster agreed, that double-intake would be difficult to do.
Nice, I have to ask about the intake bullets, which look like they block the entire intake, what's the deal with that?
You figured out how to do something I thought was not possible in SP, nice!
Geez, does no one here have Google? The first jet flown was the Heinkel He 178 (German) in 1939, followed by the Gloster E.28/39 (UK) in 1941. Both were similar designs, small with nose intakes and conventional wings and empennage. The Heinkel was a taildragger, though, while the Gloster had a tricycle landing gear.
Nice wing!
This is pretty nice, captures the Buff's shape pretty well, I should say.
@BogdanX @TheLatentImage thanks, gents.
I'm sorry about your grandfather, he sounds like a really nice man. You should be thankful you had the blessing of knowing him.
Skyraider!
Now I get it, it's the "Death Coach" from Irish lore, ok.
I disagree with you, your builds are definitely not "bad". Everyday, when I look at the "newest" section, I see a ton of bad builds, yours aren't anything like those. For one, you actually use the resizable fuselage block. The one suggestion I will make is COLOR...try using it to make your builds stand out. Another suggestion is that markings (which you can search for using the "Parts" tag) also tend to garner a lot of attention for builds. Finally, I would encourage you to keep on building and not be discouraged.
Original...I like it!
Wow, extremely cool build!
Are you going to build it?
Whaaaa...!!! How come I didn't see this before? It's so precious...!!! We need to get this thing at least 50 upvotes! Who's with me @Luuk2909 @JoeAdkinson13?
How can I Spotlight...you have 39K points!
Nice jet.
If you learned on iOS (like I did), that's a solid foundation for great building. You have to really learn the game, develop tricks, techniques and a real understanding of how things work. It IS a bit limiting, but you can find lots of parts using the "Parts" tag, something I tell iOS users lamenting the limitations of the platform. in fact my highest rated creations are all iOS and it's still fun to just "doodle" on the phone every once in awhile...
@Sparrow007 @GhostHTX thanks!
@GhostHTX sounds good. The 3 station bomb racks are know as Triple Ejector Racks or TERs. How are you going to prevent the missiles from destroying your jet? I've had that issue in the past, but don't know of a consistent solution...
This is really good, especially considering that you're working on iOS, which has a long list of limitations.
@TheLatentImage thank you!
@ChaMikey thank you!
@Pilotmario thanks!
I've done it. Here, for your inspiration/ideas. Good luck!
Deadline?
@Liquidfox but I'm glad you like it!
@Liquidfox Kiwi insignia alone had 16 parts alone (x3), the tail lettering took something like 30 parts each side, plus all the striping detail on the wings, etc., etc.