So, I would advise: You not only have the problems in mirroring rotators, but anything connected to a wing surface. When I build a complex project, I may mirror a part simply to duplicate it, but I do so away from the wing itself, which necessitates my manually reattaching both parts on each side, as close as possible to the exact opposite point. It's actually a little easier than it sounds, as there are a finite number of attach points. I then nudge both parts into their respective positions after reattaching, whether its a rotator or fuselage part.
I've never had any problems with scaled rotators. The only problems I've ever experienced is when mirroring rotators, for the reasons @AstleyIndustries describes: In short, when scaling or even (as I've seen it) when nudging, then mirroring, SP chooses the nearest attach point to the newly mirrored object, not the one that's necessarily symmetrical to the other side. Will also cause roll tendencies that so many encounter. I even posted on this earlier. While I've only observed how it happens and how to avoid it, @AstleyIndustries uses the correct terminologies of "mesh" and 3D models and probably better understands why it's happening.
@Benkelmans that does seem to be the case from time to time. The resizeable fuselage blocks seem to be a bit heavier than necessary, so they are not perfectly modeled to match real life (besides, they don't even have "resizeable fuselages" in real life!). I can certainly see the dilemma there, perhaps along with the option of selecting an "afterburner" setting, a future update to the game might lower or adjust the size of SP structures.
@SimpleFlow kind of a meld of the 17 and 22, but definitely has the 17's dorsal spine shape. Has the double wing fence from the 22. Nice build, though!
Realllllyyyy hard to fly, but a fun challenge trying to avoid crashing...I actually lost the top engine (tips of blades very close to the fuse), but managed to keep on flying...
I was just able to take off from Yeager airfield, spiral down into the crater, land, then takeoff again, spiral back up out of the volcano and land back at Yeager...of course, I ran out of gas a couple miles short of the runway and had to glide in, but this thing glides fantastically well at about 50 mph, so, no sweat!
@Sauce well, ok, fair enough. All caps is a little over the top, as is the "dumbest thing ever" comment, but I accept that you have a different view. I'm not offended, I don't really offend that easily, but I do think we should keep it civil...besides, as you tell me, you don't like infinite fuel either, so I guess we DO agree, don't we? In my community, we call that being "in violent agreement." I guess that's a good way of describing it, right?
Besides, I love your tiger series aircraft, they're fantastic!
@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
@ReischetzFokke, you're right, my mistake, it DOES also look a lot like a Ki-64, but I meant the He 100, NOT the 51!
Wow, continuing to push the envelope!
Very realistic appearing TBolt, though a little bit slower than the real thing. Very nice build, though.
Love it...very easy to land on the H2O
So, I would advise: You not only have the problems in mirroring rotators, but anything connected to a wing surface. When I build a complex project, I may mirror a part simply to duplicate it, but I do so away from the wing itself, which necessitates my manually reattaching both parts on each side, as close as possible to the exact opposite point. It's actually a little easier than it sounds, as there are a finite number of attach points. I then nudge both parts into their respective positions after reattaching, whether its a rotator or fuselage part.
I've never had any problems with scaled rotators. The only problems I've ever experienced is when mirroring rotators, for the reasons @AstleyIndustries describes: In short, when scaling or even (as I've seen it) when nudging, then mirroring, SP chooses the nearest attach point to the newly mirrored object, not the one that's necessarily symmetrical to the other side. Will also cause roll tendencies that so many encounter. I even posted on this earlier. While I've only observed how it happens and how to avoid it, @AstleyIndustries uses the correct terminologies of "mesh" and 3D models and probably better understands why it's happening.
Quite F-18-ish, with some original spins, like the colors as well.
@Benkelmans that does seem to be the case from time to time. The resizeable fuselage blocks seem to be a bit heavier than necessary, so they are not perfectly modeled to match real life (besides, they don't even have "resizeable fuselages" in real life!). I can certainly see the dilemma there, perhaps along with the option of selecting an "afterburner" setting, a future update to the game might lower or adjust the size of SP structures.
Flies really well, realistic performance.
I have to ask, how did you build the rocket pods? Are there multiple default pods on each side?
@SimpleFlow kind of a meld of the 17 and 22, but definitely has the 17's dorsal spine shape. Has the double wing fence from the 22. Nice build, though!
Cute, easy to fly, easy to land.
The weapons bay is fantastic. This is similar to how the F-22 bay works, except the AIM-9s pivot out instead of descending.
Fascinating.
A lot alike to an He 51, methinks...
Flies very well!
Ok, this is a fantastically controllable heli/VTOL plane, upvote + Spotlight!
Realllllyyyy hard to fly, but a fun challenge trying to avoid crashing...I actually lost the top engine (tips of blades very close to the fuse), but managed to keep on flying...
I was just able to take off from Yeager airfield, spiral down into the crater, land, then takeoff again, spiral back up out of the volcano and land back at Yeager...of course, I ran out of gas a couple miles short of the runway and had to glide in, but this thing glides fantastically well at about 50 mph, so, no sweat!
@Seonor yes, very true, will fix on the one I downloaded, thanks!
Wow, quite strange, the VTOL is set up as roll control...how come? It doesn't have any adverse rolling that I can tell...
@Sauce well, ok, fair enough. All caps is a little over the top, as is the "dumbest thing ever" comment, but I accept that you have a different view. I'm not offended, I don't really offend that easily, but I do think we should keep it civil...besides, as you tell me, you don't like infinite fuel either, so I guess we DO agree, don't we? In my community, we call that being "in violent agreement." I guess that's a good way of describing it, right?
Besides, I love your tiger series aircraft, they're fantastic!
I like it, very futuristic
@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