This is not hate per say, as I actually more or less agree with some of the points you mentioned, but picking out a specific user and calling their builds bad is just kinda 'douchey'. Better to generalise it or make it anonymous.
May have already been mentioned, but implementation of smoke trials into the vanilla game is a small thing that I think would be greatly appreciated.
.
Makes exhaust effects possible without fiddling with lacklustre vtol nozzles. FT function for these smoke trial parts would also be a great feature, and I would argue almost mandatory.
ED was a moderator, he was therefore considered affiliated with Jundroo through his role as a moderator of the site, hence he is obliged in some sense be held to standards appropriate to the company due to this affiliation, which in this case he failed to meet in the eyes of Andrew. Very different situations. I have a feeling you do not exactly know the true details of the situation, so please be mindful of that. Also, don't bag the other moderators, it just isn't very cool.
@Karzigg
SR2 is much better than SP, not only in potential build quality (I’ve seen some very good builds, very much at or even above the levels we see in SP), but also game performance and visuals. I’ve always wanted to transition to SR2, but the only thing stopping me has been the effort it would take to re learn how to build. That, and the different communities, are the main reasons why SR2 did not become the SP2, even though it pretty much is.
I think as time goes on, eventually no matter how good or bad you are, if you keep posting you will get to platinum regardless of the quality of your builds. However, lately I feel that there has been a feeling of resentment, that criticism is frowned upon, that “people will play the game how they like”. I know that Bogdan receives a lot of backlash for what is in a lot of cases very accurate feedback. If we want to maintain a decent standard in this community, and we should, then we need to provide feedback that is honest and real, not fluffy and sugarcoated.
Hmm, not sure I understand the hype around this one. Decent fuselage and cockpit but an absolutely appalling flight model and functionality.
.
- Has a take off run not far off from a damn helicopter, acceleration is way too fast, I assume it’s the excessive engine thrust required to overcome the 14000 drag.
- TAS speedometer in cockpit is inaccurate (testing on mobile anyways)
- Cockpit artificial horizon screen, why not put it onto roll angle instead of just roll, we have these functions now, there’s literally no excuse.
- That nozzle clipping and breaking, I’m surprised you didn’t pick that up when testing it, doesn’t show that you care much for the craft if you didn’t even test it :(
- Flaps have no functionality, why even bother building them in the first place? Also TRIM is also missing.
- Turn radius of something like 500m, pilot would be squished to pulp from the 20G’s, plane would’ve disintegrated into ash at this point.
.
These aren’t hard things to fix, they’d take less than 30mins if you were efficient. I hope you take on board some of the things here into your new builds, because you’ve definitely got the fuselage building skills and potential that many would be envious of.
I would think that this type of overhaul could constitute an entirely new game, in other words, having freeform modelling is a huge effort and would not be feasible in the current game
I actually think the opposite is true, this update opens the doors for so many new techniques and builds. Whilst overall building standards will increase, the better builders will use the new tools in interesting ways that will make their crafts better than ever. This isn’t a plateau, but a new horizon.
I would argue that being mad because someone changed ur online, virtual build is just as egocentric. Like please, someone’s trying to have a little fun, going completely bananas like a baby is unwarranted. @Aeromen
Just looking back at your past few posts. You get annoyed when people make declarative statements in science (which has some physical evidence to support the theory), and yet you too are also making declarative statements (which arguably have less evidence to support your theory). What do I see here? Quintessential hypocrisy. Gave me a good laugh.
This is pretty decent, but not astounding. The wings shouldn’t curve towards the tips, their built at an equal and constant dihedral. Also, I don’t know why, but you never seem to cover up the root of the wings so that you don’t get a weird gap between the fusalage and the wing. The plane, though possibly scaled correctly, is way too large in every dimension for 1:1 scale. The vertical stabilisers are also quite odd in terms of the way they’ve been built and modeled, they should be resembling almost a circle and be curved all the way through, instead they’re far too blocky, triangly and edgy. The clipping control surfaces is also simply disappointing for someone who is clearly capable of much more. The strips are also really poorly constructed, I’m not sure how you decided to build them, but one could of easily taken a single fusalage and copied the specific angle of that cylinders side, resulting in a much cleaner result. Overall, this plane is mediocre, I’d really, honestly expect better from someone like you and your relationship to TSAD. Ask yourself, is this plane built to that sort of level? Please take the criticism on board and improve, we’re all here to get better, one way or another.
P.S. At least include some description and not just some cliché “like, subscribe and share” statement.
Yeah many others have already pointed out some of the potential issues. While on the surface it seems like a decent idea, I mean I do think the divide and the learning is quite steep especially if you’re going through it alone, having an ambiguous ’advanced mode’ seems like it may act as another barrier to entry for beginners.
.
I remember when I first downloaded the game and I thought that the only way to build crafts was with those terrible premade block pieces. That was before I downloaded a craft and realised that most people actually built with fuselage blocks (which I had assumed to just be round cylinders that could not be edited). I feel an advanced mode would just confuse beginners more, and kinda deter them away.
.
Instead I think that the in game tutorial isn’t enough, it barely teaches you anything substantial. However I’m not too sure how willing the devs would be to commit to adding a better tutorial in SP, but perhaps for SP2 in future.
I’m not sure if its just an android thing but try and max out your graphics so that you can get better screenshots. That’s probably gonna help the most. I’d personally not bother with ‘Electric engines’, waste of time imo. Tagging people is also kinda obnoxious unless they wanted to be tagged.
I’m going to be straight up honest here, sometimes you’ve just gotta toughen up and move on. If you care so much about the attention of your builds then maybe you should reconsider your priorities. I’ve experienced situations were I have builds that end up with less attention than others even though I put more work into them. Does that stop me though? No. In fact it makes me want to find better ways to build, it makes me build better and better. And instead of whinging about it, why don’t you find a solution to your “problem”? There’s no point complaining if you ain’t got some sort of fix for it. As of lately, the community’s lost a bit of that casual vibe it once had, nowadays there a far too many people who care about the number of upvotes on their builds. Just my two cents.
Yeah, a lot of the functional parts (rotators, pistons ect.) are very flimsy when under heavy loads. Like you could totally make LG that retracts via a piston, but then it 1.) cannot hold its own weight and 2.) will pop out under high g turns or something
@randomusername
I don’t mean to be rude, but maybe your absolute thirst for attention is what is making you depressed and sad. Cheer Up, this game isn’t about who can be the most popular user, it’s about making the planes that you like. Try looking at builds you like and observe the techniques they use to make your builds look better.
The wasp offers an insight into what is possible to players who might not want to download crafts. There are still many very simplistic stock aircraft available, but there should be something a bit more complex just so new players know what is possible. Otherwise they might go on thinking that the Helleska is the most advanced thing they can build, which is what happened to me until I downloaded other crafts.
If someone tells you your planes are bad, there’s obviously a reason. If you had some desire to improve, u would ask them why. Perfection is impossible obviously, but I know that your planes have so much room for improvement. @KnightOfRen
I don’t mean to be rude, but these are getting really spammy and out of hand. To preserve your dignity and reputation, you might want to stop posting these or at least, post them as an unlisted. What you’re doing is the main reason why we have upload limits now...
The one thing is that we need to be able to link our aircrafts altitude and speed to rotators and hinges, that would open up a wide range of opportunities.
They plan to give these parts an output function like the Heli rotar part, so you will be able to map the switches to the new variables in an upcoming update (presumably the next beta release)
Far out, didn’t think it was ever possible but damn I’m impressed. Opens up so many potential techniques for the game, cannot wait for the communities innovation.
Looks great visually, cannot fault it at all really. But everything’s static other than the throttle and joystick. We have so many funky tree inputs that could’ve made this amazing, but instead it’s just a bit boring, kinda of a shame to be honest.
I wouldn’t call it a dark age, if anything were seeing some of the best builds this sites has ever seen. The overall build quality has increased substantially.
This is not hate per say, as I actually more or less agree with some of the points you mentioned, but picking out a specific user and calling their builds bad is just kinda 'douchey'. Better to generalise it or make it anonymous.
+24May have already been mentioned, but implementation of smoke trials into the vanilla game is a small thing that I think would be greatly appreciated.
+20.
Makes exhaust effects possible without fiddling with lacklustre vtol nozzles. FT function for these smoke trial parts would also be a great feature, and I would argue almost mandatory.
Lol, looks like we have some angsty, rebellious teens who think they're all edgy and cool, sit back down will ya
+17Is it April already??
+17ED was a moderator, he was therefore considered affiliated with Jundroo through his role as a moderator of the site, hence he is obliged in some sense be held to standards appropriate to the company due to this affiliation, which in this case he failed to meet in the eyes of Andrew. Very different situations. I have a feeling you do not exactly know the true details of the situation, so please be mindful of that. Also, don't bag the other moderators, it just isn't very cool.
+13@Karzigg
That concave fuselage is a piece of wizardry!
+13No, I disagree with all of that. Every aspect of that is wrong. People build for the passion of building, not for the money.
+13SR2 is much better than SP, not only in potential build quality (I’ve seen some very good builds, very much at or even above the levels we see in SP), but also game performance and visuals. I’ve always wanted to transition to SR2, but the only thing stopping me has been the effort it would take to re learn how to build. That, and the different communities, are the main reasons why SR2 did not become the SP2, even though it pretty much is.
+12We don’t need another post about this stupid drama. It be better if you didn’t make this post. No need add more fuel to the fire.
+10I think as time goes on, eventually no matter how good or bad you are, if you keep posting you will get to platinum regardless of the quality of your builds. However, lately I feel that there has been a feeling of resentment, that criticism is frowned upon, that “people will play the game how they like”. I know that Bogdan receives a lot of backlash for what is in a lot of cases very accurate feedback. If we want to maintain a decent standard in this community, and we should, then we need to provide feedback that is honest and real, not fluffy and sugarcoated.
+9I agree with Chancey, it feels like you spent more time in photoshop than in SP.
+9Hmm, not sure I understand the hype around this one. Decent fuselage and cockpit but an absolutely appalling flight model and functionality.
+9.
- Has a take off run not far off from a damn helicopter, acceleration is way too fast, I assume it’s the excessive engine thrust required to overcome the 14000 drag.
- TAS speedometer in cockpit is inaccurate (testing on mobile anyways)
- Cockpit artificial horizon screen, why not put it onto roll angle instead of just roll, we have these functions now, there’s literally no excuse.
- That nozzle clipping and breaking, I’m surprised you didn’t pick that up when testing it, doesn’t show that you care much for the craft if you didn’t even test it :(
- Flaps have no functionality, why even bother building them in the first place? Also TRIM is also missing.
- Turn radius of something like 500m, pilot would be squished to pulp from the 20G’s, plane would’ve disintegrated into ash at this point.
.
These aren’t hard things to fix, they’d take less than 30mins if you were efficient. I hope you take on board some of the things here into your new builds, because you’ve definitely got the fuselage building skills and potential that many would be envious of.
Not everything you build gets good reception. Play the game for fun and not for upvotes or whatever.
+9I would think that this type of overhaul could constitute an entirely new game, in other words, having freeform modelling is a huge effort and would not be feasible in the current game
+8I actually think the opposite is true, this update opens the doors for so many new techniques and builds. Whilst overall building standards will increase, the better builders will use the new tools in interesting ways that will make their crafts better than ever. This isn’t a plateau, but a new horizon.
+8I would argue that being mad because someone changed ur online, virtual build is just as egocentric. Like please, someone’s trying to have a little fun, going completely bananas like a baby is unwarranted. @Aeromen
+8Just because they’re good creators doesn’t mean they should become moderators, no offence intended of course.
+8Very useful for camos, saves a bunch of time doing manual calculations
+7Just looking back at your past few posts. You get annoyed when people make declarative statements in science (which has some physical evidence to support the theory), and yet you too are also making declarative statements (which arguably have less evidence to support your theory). What do I see here? Quintessential hypocrisy. Gave me a good laugh.
+7It’s a whole different community over there
+7This is pretty decent, but not astounding. The wings shouldn’t curve towards the tips, their built at an equal and constant dihedral. Also, I don’t know why, but you never seem to cover up the root of the wings so that you don’t get a weird gap between the fusalage and the wing. The plane, though possibly scaled correctly, is way too large in every dimension for 1:1 scale. The vertical stabilisers are also quite odd in terms of the way they’ve been built and modeled, they should be resembling almost a circle and be curved all the way through, instead they’re far too blocky, triangly and edgy. The clipping control surfaces is also simply disappointing for someone who is clearly capable of much more. The strips are also really poorly constructed, I’m not sure how you decided to build them, but one could of easily taken a single fusalage and copied the specific angle of that cylinders side, resulting in a much cleaner result. Overall, this plane is mediocre, I’d really, honestly expect better from someone like you and your relationship to TSAD. Ask yourself, is this plane built to that sort of level? Please take the criticism on board and improve, we’re all here to get better, one way or another.
+7P.S. At least include some description and not just some cliché “like, subscribe and share” statement.
nah this isn’t just real-time reflections, this is something better @jamesPLANESii
+6Yeah many others have already pointed out some of the potential issues. While on the surface it seems like a decent idea, I mean I do think the divide and the learning is quite steep especially if you’re going through it alone, having an ambiguous ’advanced mode’ seems like it may act as another barrier to entry for beginners.
+6.
I remember when I first downloaded the game and I thought that the only way to build crafts was with those terrible premade block pieces. That was before I downloaded a craft and realised that most people actually built with fuselage blocks (which I had assumed to just be round cylinders that could not be edited). I feel an advanced mode would just confuse beginners more, and kinda deter them away.
.
Instead I think that the in game tutorial isn’t enough, it barely teaches you anything substantial. However I’m not too sure how willing the devs would be to commit to adding a better tutorial in SP, but perhaps for SP2 in future.
Well RU is gone now, for better or for worse. So you can all stop talking about it now.
+6I’m not sure if its just an android thing but try and max out your graphics so that you can get better screenshots. That’s probably gonna help the most. I’d personally not bother with ‘Electric engines’, waste of time imo. Tagging people is also kinda obnoxious unless they wanted to be tagged.
+6I’m going to be straight up honest here, sometimes you’ve just gotta toughen up and move on. If you care so much about the attention of your builds then maybe you should reconsider your priorities. I’ve experienced situations were I have builds that end up with less attention than others even though I put more work into them. Does that stop me though? No. In fact it makes me want to find better ways to build, it makes me build better and better. And instead of whinging about it, why don’t you find a solution to your “problem”? There’s no point complaining if you ain’t got some sort of fix for it. As of lately, the community’s lost a bit of that casual vibe it once had, nowadays there a far too many people who care about the number of upvotes on their builds. Just my two cents.
+6Yeah, a lot of the functional parts (rotators, pistons ect.) are very flimsy when under heavy loads. Like you could totally make LG that retracts via a piston, but then it 1.) cannot hold its own weight and 2.) will pop out under high g turns or something
+6@randomusername
It’s the paint that’s giving it that super glossy affect, not the part hence why you don’t get it when you put it in.
+6You should consider making the cowl flaps function, that would seriously be the cherry on top
+6I don’t mean to be rude, but maybe your absolute thirst for attention is what is making you depressed and sad. Cheer Up, this game isn’t about who can be the most popular user, it’s about making the planes that you like. Try looking at builds you like and observe the techniques they use to make your builds look better.
+6Where is the money coming from???
+5Less lag, if only it was that easy lol
+5The wasp offers an insight into what is possible to players who might not want to download crafts. There are still many very simplistic stock aircraft available, but there should be something a bit more complex just so new players know what is possible. Otherwise they might go on thinking that the Helleska is the most advanced thing they can build, which is what happened to me until I downloaded other crafts.
+5If someone tells you your planes are bad, there’s obviously a reason. If you had some desire to improve, u would ask them why. Perfection is impossible obviously, but I know that your planes have so much room for improvement. @KnightOfRen
+5Once again in a pitiful attempt to stop drama someone makes a post which only fuels more drama.
+5.
When will they learn...
New updates don’t make as much money as a new game, they need to make a living you know
+5I don’t mean to be rude, but these are getting really spammy and out of hand. To preserve your dignity and reputation, you might want to stop posting these or at least, post them as an unlisted. What you’re doing is the main reason why we have upload limits now...
+5The one thing is that we need to be able to link our aircrafts altitude and speed to rotators and hinges, that would open up a wide range of opportunities.
+5Might be due to the square collider of fuselage blocks (even if they are circular) on the wheels
+4They plan to give these parts an output function like the Heli rotar part, so you will be able to map the switches to the new variables in an upcoming update (presumably the next beta release)
+4Far out, didn’t think it was ever possible but damn I’m impressed. Opens up so many potential techniques for the game, cannot wait for the communities innovation.
+4Geez 600m long lol and 90m wide, what is that behemoth ahahah!
+4@RussianAce
Good to see that ur back once again with a stunning airliner. @REW
+4What happened to the follow button? Mass tagging is simply redundant regardless of whether it is requested or not.
+4Actually the flight model is really accurate, it even factors in P-factor. Much better than nearly any other plane on this site tbh.
+4@Mostly
Looks great visually, cannot fault it at all really. But everything’s static other than the throttle and joystick. We have so many funky tree inputs that could’ve made this amazing, but instead it’s just a bit boring, kinda of a shame to be honest.
+4Multiplayer... haha
+4I wouldn’t call it a dark age, if anything were seeing some of the best builds this sites has ever seen. The overall build quality has increased substantially.
+4I don’t know if anyone else is having this issue, but on Mac it seems to crash the game when active. Nonetheless, great work.
+4You don’t
+4