@Cehhamilton oh, no worries, I wasn't offended by any means. Glad you like my builds. I have been working on this off and on for about 6 months, so it's taken me awhile to get where I am. Which Lear, 35?
@AmerigoB don't worry about the part count, check out my page to see what I mean. Many (but not all) of those players who build planes with 300, 500 or more parts frequently don't get something right, like the canopy scale, or the landing gear isn't right or the markings are on the tail instead of the wings...something which ruins the whole thing. Or it doesn't fly correctly, which is a disappointment, or mobile users can't fly it at all, which is another big disappointment for those of us who love our phones. I rarely exceed 200 parts, build them all on my phone, but I have to triage which details I'm going to build and which I will leave out. The bigger and more significant the detail will have a better chance of being included, the smaller details that one cannot see easily will probably be left off. Examples: The pitot tube on the F-100, the tip tanks on the F-104. Ones I might leave off: Some of the antennas, which are pretty small. Wires...no one notices those at all.
Hey, @AmerigoB, what are you talking about? I looked at all your posts and your planes are fine. They're a bit more whimsical than what I might create, but that's your build style, embrace it. As for your B-17, here's what I do with replica builds: I find a good "3-view" picture on Google images, Google "B-17 3-view" and you'll see multiple examples. I print out a 3-view I can use and use it for measurements on my airplanes to ensure I get the scale right. Sometimes, components like the engines or landing gear are the controls for the sizes of the other components, such as wings and fuselages. Hope this helps!
Not all posts or creations are equal, sorry to say, so equality of outcome (high point totals in a short amount of time, or ever) isn't going to happen. Neither should it. While it is sometimes a popularity contest and certainly not perfect, I think the users do a pretty good job in highlighting the better creations. Yes, the higher point users have amassed a following, as they should, and that facilitates the collection of more and more points. However, the Spotlight system, I think, is starting to highlight those newer players with worthwhile creations, but it may take a little time. I know I take the time to go to the "Hottest" or "Newest" section to Spotlight those creations I appreciate and I hope everyone else is spending some time doing this as well. I'm sorry you're disgruntled, but all users here needs a little patience; I know I've had to be patient, I've been around for about 6 months, active, and I'm just over 4,000 points.
This is nifty, but instead of burying an engine in the fuse to provide a little deadweight, why didn't you simply use the standard ballast function under the utilities functions?
@Cehhamilton who says I'm not a pilot? ;). Even pilots need to blow off a little steam from time to time and SP really gets my creative juices going...
@WobblePudding I am sure you did. If you find a plane on the site (and there are quite a few) which has a built landing gear, the fuse blocks have been modded so that parts will retract into them to hide the gear. If you download, borrow and credit that player, then shape it to meet your needs, you could take this plane to the next level.
@SwagAircrafts he's entitled to his opinion. 2. I could have uploaded an XB-70 with modded engines that does 2,000+ mph, but it accelerates unrealistically. 3. Build an XB-70, upload it, then tag me and we'll compare notes.
Nice work on the built up wings. Next time try and use circular profile for the trailing edge (vice curved), gives it a more realistic profile. Great noticing the P-47 does NOT have a circular cowling, but you could make the bottom cowling an intake or black as it's an intake on the real P-47. Another trick is to use nose cones at .25 thick as wing tips for a very circular profile even though you did a great build up on the tips here. Most USAF or USAAF airplanes have insignia only on the left wing (as seen from the top or bottom). But overall, it's immediately recognizable as a P-47 and that's what you want when you build replicas. Great job!
@Mudkip nothing yet, I just know I avoid Mustangs and Spitfires, really any high powered inline engine planes because the smaller prop only puts out 1000 hp and I need at least 2000 hp to make those planes realistic.
We could also really use is a more powerful prop engine we can use to build inline engine aircraft, such as Mustangs and Spitfires...could you do that?
May I ask why are the engines staggered...for handling or because the original was built that way? It's pretty aesthetically pleasing, that's certain, I like it! (Suggest that next time, point the insignia so that the stars are pointing up (forward))... ;D
@Ian1231100 and @NyanCatPlanes yup, it does, that's why you use trim, like on a real airplane. My original build, put together before trim was incorporated into SP, actually had rotators at the front vertical stabilizers in order to provide trim. It still has the rotators, because I didn't remove them from this version, even though you don't really need to use them to fly this thing around, you can now use the trim slider. I'm curious, though, have you not lowered the wings and tried to fly this thing at 1000 mph and 40,000 ft in the high speed configuration? It's much closer to neutral in that regime, very pitch sensitive and not nose heavy at all. And that's what trim is for, to enable an aircraft with a very large speed envelope to keep the nose up (or down) at whatever speed it's flying. I recommend anyone who flies this one to use the trim liberally.
Very nice aesthetic, the booms are spot on! Check out my C-47, I will bet you might be able to do the same thing to your tail here to recreate the stripes of the original.
Quite the project, for some reason whenever I Google certain planes I'm thinking about building to see what's already out there (there are tons of P-38s and F-4s), mine never seem to show up, don't know why...
@Cehhamilton oh, no worries, I wasn't offended by any means. Glad you like my builds. I have been working on this off and on for about 6 months, so it's taken me awhile to get where I am. Which Lear, 35?
I think I just tripped him over to gold!
@AmerigoB don't worry about the part count, check out my page to see what I mean. Many (but not all) of those players who build planes with 300, 500 or more parts frequently don't get something right, like the canopy scale, or the landing gear isn't right or the markings are on the tail instead of the wings...something which ruins the whole thing. Or it doesn't fly correctly, which is a disappointment, or mobile users can't fly it at all, which is another big disappointment for those of us who love our phones. I rarely exceed 200 parts, build them all on my phone, but I have to triage which details I'm going to build and which I will leave out. The bigger and more significant the detail will have a better chance of being included, the smaller details that one cannot see easily will probably be left off. Examples: The pitot tube on the F-100, the tip tanks on the F-104. Ones I might leave off: Some of the antennas, which are pretty small. Wires...no one notices those at all.
Hey, @AmerigoB, what are you talking about? I looked at all your posts and your planes are fine. They're a bit more whimsical than what I might create, but that's your build style, embrace it. As for your B-17, here's what I do with replica builds: I find a good "3-view" picture on Google images, Google "B-17 3-view" and you'll see multiple examples. I print out a 3-view I can use and use it for measurements on my airplanes to ensure I get the scale right. Sometimes, components like the engines or landing gear are the controls for the sizes of the other components, such as wings and fuselages. Hope this helps!
Not all posts or creations are equal, sorry to say, so equality of outcome (high point totals in a short amount of time, or ever) isn't going to happen. Neither should it. While it is sometimes a popularity contest and certainly not perfect, I think the users do a pretty good job in highlighting the better creations. Yes, the higher point users have amassed a following, as they should, and that facilitates the collection of more and more points. However, the Spotlight system, I think, is starting to highlight those newer players with worthwhile creations, but it may take a little time. I know I take the time to go to the "Hottest" or "Newest" section to Spotlight those creations I appreciate and I hope everyone else is spending some time doing this as well. I'm sorry you're disgruntled, but all users here needs a little patience; I know I've had to be patient, I've been around for about 6 months, active, and I'm just over 4,000 points.
This is nifty, but instead of burying an engine in the fuse to provide a little deadweight, why didn't you simply use the standard ballast function under the utilities functions?
What's wrong with it? Does it not glide? The real shuttle is an unpowered glider when it comes in for landing...
It's pretty good, but I have two suggestions for improving this one, want to hear them?
One of my faves!
Ok, channeling Top Gear! This is hilarious!
@Cehhamilton who says I'm not a pilot? ;). Even pilots need to blow off a little steam from time to time and SP really gets my creative juices going...
@WobblePudding I am sure you did. If you find a plane on the site (and there are quite a few) which has a built landing gear, the fuse blocks have been modded so that parts will retract into them to hide the gear. If you download, borrow and credit that player, then shape it to meet your needs, you could take this plane to the next level.
@SwagAircrafts, I'm sure you won't get it unless you fly it yourself, so, here you go, XB-70 with modded engines, 2,100 mph at 45,000': XB-70 Mod
Good job on the landing gear.
Nice work on the built up wings. Next time try and use circular profile for the trailing edge (vice curved), gives it a more realistic profile. Great noticing the P-47 does NOT have a circular cowling, but you could make the bottom cowling an intake or black as it's an intake on the real P-47. Another trick is to use nose cones at .25 thick as wing tips for a very circular profile even though you did a great build up on the tips here. Most USAF or USAAF airplanes have insignia only on the left wing (as seen from the top or bottom). But overall, it's immediately recognizable as a P-47 and that's what you want when you build replicas. Great job!
Delta Airlines. You should be able to make the tail logo from red .25 wide fuselage pieces, and paint the rest of the tail blue.
@Simba4999, thanks! I need to figure out XML modding myself, frustrating there isn't a stock way of doing it.
@cats you guys need to meet each other...
How did you pull off the flight deck/cockpit? Haven't seen consistently good ones across the community, so how'd you do yours?
@NyanCatPlanes the SST would be a very cool project...
How did you angle the landing gear?
@Mudkip absolutely, yes and I'll credit and tag you when I post it.
@GeneralColeOfTheAf you're welcome. My dad is an old SAC warrior as well, so I really enjoy the older jet bombers.
@NyanCatPlanes no problem, my friend.
@Mudkip nothing yet, I just know I avoid Mustangs and Spitfires, really any high powered inline engine planes because the smaller prop only puts out 1000 hp and I need at least 2000 hp to make those planes realistic.
This one is very nice as well, you really have an eye for shaping your builds to really look like the real thing.
@Mudkip awesome, thanks!
We could also really use is a more powerful prop engine we can use to build inline engine aircraft, such as Mustangs and Spitfires...could you do that?
May I ask why are the engines staggered...for handling or because the original was built that way? It's pretty aesthetically pleasing, that's certain, I like it! (Suggest that next time, point the insignia so that the stars are pointing up (forward))... ;D
Very nice.
@Ian1231100 and @NyanCatPlanes yup, it does, that's why you use trim, like on a real airplane. My original build, put together before trim was incorporated into SP, actually had rotators at the front vertical stabilizers in order to provide trim. It still has the rotators, because I didn't remove them from this version, even though you don't really need to use them to fly this thing around, you can now use the trim slider. I'm curious, though, have you not lowered the wings and tried to fly this thing at 1000 mph and 40,000 ft in the high speed configuration? It's much closer to neutral in that regime, very pitch sensitive and not nose heavy at all. And that's what trim is for, to enable an aircraft with a very large speed envelope to keep the nose up (or down) at whatever speed it's flying. I recommend anyone who flies this one to use the trim liberally.
Wow, agree with @Baconaircraft, best King Air on site and I don't say that much at all.
Very nice aesthetic, the booms are spot on! Check out my C-47, I will bet you might be able to do the same thing to your tail here to recreate the stripes of the original.
Build a replica 777 in Hainan Airlines colors on your phone while you're suffering through your 15 hour plane ride, good luck with the colors!
@Sunnyskies no worries, I remembered that we talked when I posted this one awhile ago.
Very pleasing, low and slow.
Quite the project, for some reason whenever I Google certain planes I'm thinking about building to see what's already out there (there are tons of P-38s and F-4s), mine never seem to show up, don't know why...
You missed mine as well:
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/2T7xcE/Lockheed-P-38J-Lightning
@FrankieB @General360 @SimpleFlow @Johawks1976 @KnightOfAraluen @A3 @baallzebub @ViperGB @TheRealDawg @ThunderscreechEngineering @UnknownNate @zed @FennVectorCWA @Bluerobot11 @AntiSphere @Insertname @Pilotmario @BaconAircrafts @AndrewGarrison @DestinyAviation @Dimetrodonscantfly @goboygo1 @Gmanndo1000 @Delphinus @GearGuy123 @JMicah4 @Kuiper @SkullHunter29 @TrainDude @RedBeard66 @thealban @helikiwi @TAplanes @grizzlitn @ronyseptian17 @HanburyAircraft @Stampede @Numan0rumeral @mikoyanster @Tully2001 @deusalgor @REW @poopatron71 @Ian1231100 @ForeverPie thanks all!
@ESIOTROT121 oneofmy earlier posts, inspired by the Gee Bee, but not a true replica.
@AughtFour thank you very much, I love this jet too.
Very nice Flanker, I like the yellow.
Ok, I was avoiding up voting this, but I can no longer resist! Ist gut!
@A3 thanks, glad you like it!
@FrankieB thank you, sir!
Holy rotating gun turrets, Batman! I like it a lot!
Whoa! The rocket from my favorite Tintin adventure!
I am inspired!
@AughtFour ok, I did not know that at all, thanks for the help. Guess I have some testing to do.