@MrWarPac thanks and yes, I know that, and I've been dealing with iOS shortfalls for awhile. I have a desktop that runs SP just fine, I just don't like sitting at a computer on a desk, phone is just so much more accessible.
You don't build enough, upvotes come with number of creations, not time in the community. More creations = Better creations = upvotes (small number at first), leads to followers, leads to more upvotes. Don't fret, it took many creations before I got any significant notice, but I have probably have posted 3x the number of creations you've posted.
@Liquidfox, me too, which is proving to be tougher than I thought for a few of my airplanes as I had to often make some major compromises to work around the old intakes. Sometimes it takes quite a bit of "undoing" to make the new ones work!
Disagree, there should be some sort of kudos for those who do good work. "Leveling the playing field" will just sink the really great builders in a sea of crappy creations. I look at the "Hottest" section all the time to id good builds to then upvote and spotlight. If we didn't have an upvote system, other users can't tag the good creations to break them out of the crowd.
This is absolutely one of the two best replicas I've seen on the site in the last couple of months (@FrogmasterAereonautics SF-260 being the other. BTW, his M-346 is also fantastic). I'm really trying to moderate my enthusiasm here and not stray into hyperbole. There have been around a dozen spot on replicas, and this one ranks right up there...the proportions are perfect, it flies well (the bane of many replicas), the details are perfect. I do not see a single compromise here...did you xml edit or use fine tuner mod? This build makes me re-evaluate my own skills here on SP, please feature this one @AndrewGarrison, we've had too many tanks and cars on the featured page lately!
Tweaking airplanes is okay
• It is okay to download someone else's airplane, make some tweaks, and re-upload a new variation.
• In fact, the original designer may even receive bonus points.
• However, if your variation does not offer any improvements over the existing airplane, then it may be removed.
• If you are circumventing the predecessor/successor system, then you will be banned. Never upload a successor as an original design; give credit to the designer of its predecessor.
So...even though I don't do it and it bugs me when I see an obvious copy (everything is the same, except they change the color or upload a ton of missiles, etc.), when I've brought up crap copies to their creators, more often than not, their creators say "that's ok". I have the feeling there are two camps here, those who don't mind being copied and those who do. The site is set up to note which creations are successors, and to award points to predecessors, so is it really a problem? In my mind, yes, it is, but usually in the cases where only superficial changes have been made. Do we need to re-address the rules and this issue in SP?
Yes, it's a VOR antenna, or it looks like one. Airplanes still use VOR, in fact, it's considered more "reliable" than GPS as it's a fixed ground station, in fact current rules dictate that the pilot much of the time, still needs to have a ground station tuned and ready even when using GPS. However, GPS is cheaper and more accurate, especially when combined with WAAS and the required database. Hard to say for certain, but as time goes on, money concerns will probably dictate going all GPS and the rules will probably follow.
@jamesPLANESii thanks! It's modeled after the original airplane, which had a fully enclosed tailwheel. Big engine + small airframe = fast airplane (for its time). It also flew much higher than contemporary airplanes in order to go farther and faster on cross-country races, which worked in the 1935 Bendix cross-country races (USA).
@GriffithAir I THINK spotlight works and I often will highlight newbies, if it looks like they put in a little effort into their creations. However, I only see what my spotlight stream looks like and haven't received any feedback, good or bad, from other users on whether or not the planes I spotlight are genius in the making or complete garbage.
Agreed. I often hang out in the "hottest" section, but those builders without a following have trouble getting that first upvote. Perhaps I should take a look more often in the "newest" section...
This is interesting, you solved various build problems the same way I did with my C-47/DC-3. Both similar airplanes, check mine out here: Douglas C-47 Skytrain
Nein! Der "A-10 Warthog" ist schwein!!! Dis ist der mighty Blohm und Voss BV.1093 ground-attack-wunder-bomber, not der A-10...can you not tell ze difference?!?!? @RandyAndSonsAircraft @ACMECo1940 @BaconEggs
@MasterManufacturing didn't you say, "That's pretty racist below"...? If you didn't mean that, it's how it came across. If you meant to say otherwise, please let me know. Others on the board here have the same impression (see below).
Can I get a waiver for height? I have two airplanes, both based on the FW-190 (alternate history seaplane versions) which use a three pontoon setup (big central with two outriggers). Anyway, the smaller piston version is 11.3 ft tall and the re-engined turboprop "FW-290" is 13.1 ft tall. I won't be able to get the prop clearance if I shorten the central pontoon support mast...
Ok, last dumb question. I assume you want successors, but you used the old cockpit block and both my entries use the sleek cockpits. What's the best way to fix this so that I can use the cockpit profiles I originally built?
@Racrandall you're kidding right? He had to figure out how to use rotators to act as collective and throttle and balance everything. It took awhile to get right, I'm sure. Haven't you downloaded and flown it yet?
@MrWarPac thanks and yes, I know that, and I've been dealing with iOS shortfalls for awhile. I have a desktop that runs SP just fine, I just don't like sitting at a computer on a desk, phone is just so much more accessible.
You don't build enough, upvotes come with number of creations, not time in the community. More creations = Better creations = upvotes (small number at first), leads to followers, leads to more upvotes. Don't fret, it took many creations before I got any significant notice, but I have probably have posted 3x the number of creations you've posted.
Fantastico!
@MrWarPac dang it...I do almost everything on iOS, no nudge available...I'm going to have to migrate to PC!
Hey, SR, how do you use these? I'm trying to put them on a vertical stabilizer and they keep disappearing inside the surface, any hints?
@Liquidfox, me too, which is proving to be tougher than I thought for a few of my airplanes as I had to often make some major compromises to work around the old intakes. Sometimes it takes quite a bit of "undoing" to make the new ones work!
OK, I guess I could troll the "Newest" section and spotlight those I appreciate, however SP would have to eliminate the cooldown system as well.
Disagree, there should be some sort of kudos for those who do good work. "Leveling the playing field" will just sink the really great builders in a sea of crappy creations. I look at the "Hottest" section all the time to id good builds to then upvote and spotlight. If we didn't have an upvote system, other users can't tag the good creations to break them out of the crowd.
I think many of us are waiting for the mobile update, I know I am.
This one is pretty fantastic too, but your Yak is just that much better!
This is absolutely one of the two best replicas I've seen on the site in the last couple of months (@FrogmasterAereonautics SF-260 being the other. BTW, his M-346 is also fantastic). I'm really trying to moderate my enthusiasm here and not stray into hyperbole. There have been around a dozen spot on replicas, and this one ranks right up there...the proportions are perfect, it flies well (the bane of many replicas), the details are perfect. I do not see a single compromise here...did you xml edit or use fine tuner mod? This build makes me re-evaluate my own skills here on SP, please feature this one @AndrewGarrison, we've had too many tanks and cars on the featured page lately!
Cool, you should check out my Eagle perhaps do a little 1-v-1!
Like a Combat Caravan!
Very noice, agree with the comment regarding the tail gun 😃
Nice, an airplane for once!
Completely agree, I made this comment on a cool build I saw today that didn't have a description.
Inlets, hurrah! I can't wait for this to come out on iOS!
To remind everyone, here are the current rules:
Tweaking airplanes is okay
• It is okay to download someone else's airplane, make some tweaks, and re-upload a new variation.
• In fact, the original designer may even receive bonus points.
• However, if your variation does not offer any improvements over the existing airplane, then it may be removed.
• If you are circumventing the predecessor/successor system, then you will be banned. Never upload a successor as an original design; give credit to the designer of its predecessor.
So...even though I don't do it and it bugs me when I see an obvious copy (everything is the same, except they change the color or upload a ton of missiles, etc.), when I've brought up crap copies to their creators, more often than not, their creators say "that's ok". I have the feeling there are two camps here, those who don't mind being copied and those who do. The site is set up to note which creations are successors, and to award points to predecessors, so is it really a problem? In my mind, yes, it is, but usually in the cases where only superficial changes have been made. Do we need to re-address the rules and this issue in SP?
@AstleyIndustries interesting, thanks.
I like this a lot, very cool, just wish there was more of a description to go along with it. I also wish I could spotlight it, but you outrank me!
Feather Fall Squall? What is that?
@Rcb1235 I assume that Maywar doesn't exist for iOS users? Tried to find it twice, no luck.
Yes, it's a VOR antenna, or it looks like one. Airplanes still use VOR, in fact, it's considered more "reliable" than GPS as it's a fixed ground station, in fact current rules dictate that the pilot much of the time, still needs to have a ground station tuned and ready even when using GPS. However, GPS is cheaper and more accurate, especially when combined with WAAS and the required database. Hard to say for certain, but as time goes on, money concerns will probably dictate going all GPS and the rules will probably follow.
@InternationalAircraftCompany about 455 mph at sea level and 560 mph or so at 25,000'
@Insertname danke!
Danke!
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation ok, that's how to grab a screenshot. What I'm trying to figure out is where/how do you post them after that?
Muy hermosa, la forma es perfecto!
@jamesPLANESii thanks! It's modeled after the original airplane, which had a fully enclosed tailwheel. Big engine + small airframe = fast airplane (for its time). It also flew much higher than contemporary airplanes in order to go farther and faster on cross-country races, which worked in the 1935 Bendix cross-country races (USA).
Hey, you have an old DC-3 as well!
@jamesPLANESii the cockpits are very similar. I'd have to disassemble mine to figure out how I did it again...
@GriffithAir I THINK spotlight works and I often will highlight newbies, if it looks like they put in a little effort into their creations. However, I only see what my spotlight stream looks like and haven't received any feedback, good or bad, from other users on whether or not the planes I spotlight are genius in the making or complete garbage.
Agreed. I often hang out in the "hottest" section, but those builders without a following have trouble getting that first upvote. Perhaps I should take a look more often in the "newest" section...
This is interesting, you solved various build problems the same way I did with my C-47/DC-3. Both similar airplanes, check mine out here: Douglas C-47 Skytrain
Very nice...hey, @cats, which part of this requires the 1.5 Beta version?
My comment below is strictly tongue in cheek XD
Nein! Der "A-10 Warthog" ist schwein!!! Dis ist der mighty Blohm und Voss BV.1093 ground-attack-wunder-bomber, not der A-10...can you not tell ze difference?!?!? @RandyAndSonsAircraft @ACMECo1940 @BaconEggs
@MasterManufacturing didn't you say, "That's pretty racist below"...? If you didn't mean that, it's how it came across. If you meant to say otherwise, please let me know. Others on the board here have the same impression (see below).
Nice!
Can I get a waiver for height? I have two airplanes, both based on the FW-190 (alternate history seaplane versions) which use a three pontoon setup (big central with two outriggers). Anyway, the smaller piston version is 11.3 ft tall and the re-engined turboprop "FW-290" is 13.1 ft tall. I won't be able to get the prop clearance if I shorten the central pontoon support mast...
@MasterManufacturing that's stupid, would calling a creation "hamburger" or "hotdog" or "croissant" be racist? It's a food item.
@Stampede you are correct, sir, it IS a self-portrait
Gorgeous!
Ok, last dumb question. I assume you want successors, but you used the old cockpit block and both my entries use the sleek cockpits. What's the best way to fix this so that I can use the cockpit profiles I originally built?
Hi, is there an endurance requirement? I understand the Schneider races were short duration races.
Ok, this is crazy!
Also, it actually flies quite well at 70,000'+
He actually avoids most of the dumb mistakes of U-2 builds in SP...like making a tricycle gear. Shape is generally correct, as well.
@Racrandall you're kidding right? He had to figure out how to use rotators to act as collective and throttle and balance everything. It took awhile to get right, I'm sure. Haven't you downloaded and flown it yet?