Great cockpit, maybe a bit overkill but still, looks good. Just watch out for misaligned parts, there are a couple knobs that aren’t aligned with their bases in the cockpit (see centre bottom).
I think that while a certain aspect may be true to this correlation, there is much more to it. Many builds with many likes are based upon the stock designer. Those builds happen to be made by generally skilled builders, some of which know the game quite well and know about custom designers. Hence one could deduce that creations with a custom designer get more likes not because they attention seeking, but because they have been made by builders with some reasonable aspect of knowledge to apply a custom designer in the first place.
Sure there are exceptions to this, but I believe this to be the case.
I think that Flyout targets a subset of the audience in SP and it does it really well. What would take months to do in SP can be done in a few days on Flyout, and look a lot better too. Is there less flexibility? In some ways yes and other ways no, but as stated they are different games and that is a good thing. Whilst I agree that FT and logic control are far more developed on SP, I’m almost certain that such a feature will arrive to Flyout some day, given it’s only early days.
.
So in the end, are SPs days numbered? Unfortunately probably, I think it would be naive to think not, especially given the end of its (very long and well supported) development cycle. I don’t really think I (or many other builders) want to return back to tedious fuselage panelling, nor do I even have the time nowadays, and that’s a dealbreaker for me. Whilst SP has been a great game, I’m happy to hang up my boots now that Flyout is here.
Unfortunately most auto-aims doesn't work with AI because the AI won't fire the cannons unless the target is in front of the cockpit. @UmbrellaCorporation
I think its a current limitation of how the label part works, cause the letters don't actually curve when you do curve the label. Maybe they can work around it somehow, but I wouldn't put my money on it. @jamesPLANESii
People are free to express their opinions. You may think that something is good, but many of those example builds you pointed out are pretty average. I also believe that Toxic’s builds are far better than Knights. In the specific example you pointed out, the craftsmanship in the wings alone is superior in every way to Knights, but maybe ur trying to bait us. If anything it’s ironic your attacking Toxic at the end, when you yourself literally said that we should support each other.... hypocrisy much?
@ChrisETH
If you are aiming for Plat or some point milestone, you’ll actually need to upload on a fairly regular basis. While quality is great, and getting builds with +100 upvotes every few months or so is nice, ur more likely to achieve such a goal with builds every week or so that get 30-40 upvotes. This is not my preferred method of building, but it is what many other users who achieve plat quickly do. Here, quantity and quality are equally important.
No I mean SP1 files in SP2, but either way how clumsy is that? We’ll have the less than ideal wings and fuselages from SP1 with the realistic airfoils and parts in SP2. Let’s not forget mass scaling of these parts, fuel, most importantly drag? SP’s drag model is less than ideal to say the least, I don’t want that in SP2. Its better we start off with a clean slate that we can really make good, having backwards compatibility would just make the game more complicated than it needs to be. No point in having “antique” parts. @Notaleopard
I don’t believe the F-4E had countermeasures (unless they were retrofitted, if you know there are some please show me). I’ll consider those suggestions for next time though @ThomasRoderick
I know it’s the windshield wiper, it’s very nice btw, its just I was reading your thing and it says VTOL UP is luggage compartment/luggage movement restrictor?
@Winstonlharambe
I managed to download this and it runs quite well, better than some other crafts with lower part count. Anyways I decided to fly/test it. I see the door you talk about has increased drag, but at the speed this plane flies at it barely effects flight performance, I don’t see why (other than game issues) it shouldn’t just be on AG2. I’m not 100% certain on the flight chracteristics of this plane, but I’ve noticed that yaw stability is quite unstable, there’s lots of slip when in a roll and it’s hard to counter without yaw. Couldn’t get the engine on fire, not sure how that works (flew nose down from 20000ft at speeds excess of 500mph), although that might just be my incompetence. Not really sure what VTOL up does, all I saw was a block rotating on a rotator in the fuselage. Take off speed is closer to 100mph, 80 is slightly low. A useful tip for improving performance is to disable drag calculations (via xml/overload) on detail parts (e.g. Your corrugated fuselage pieces). Cosmetically, the fuselage is very nice, very well made, probably some of the best craftsmanship on the site. The wings however are messy and could do with improvements, specially towards the tips where the panelling geometry isn’t perfect and the airelon trailing edges are flat not sharp. Getting the wings right is much harder than you would think, it helps to preplan that stuff. Overall, it is a stunning build, it looks amazing and flies well, but there’s lots to improve on. I would be careful calling it perfect, nothing is ever perfect, there’s always something that could be improved. However, for the rank that you are, you certainly have more potential than many of us and given some time, you might become one of the best builders on the site.
Soz for the slab of text
@Winstonlharambe
Looks good, shame I cannot test it properly due to the number of parts. I’m surprised you didn’t have Bogan as a predecessor, seems he’ll get 0 points out of this...
I would prefer (and I know a few people who’d agree with me) a build that looks great and flies great too to a build that looks even better but sucks to fly. However, I do fancy some ultra-high detail builds, if they’re done within a somewhat reasonable part limit.
As for the amount of detail that’ll impress me, I’m not really sure. Lots of functional stuff is quite impressive (e.g. working cockpit instruments, realistic landing gear (suspension, doors ect), a nice paint job, smooth/accurate modelling of the plane and so on. But there’s a point where, as Aaron said below, you can kinda go overboard, but that point is different according to everyone’s preferences
Honestly this isn’t even that complicated and shouldn’t even have sparked this much confusion. SP calculates lift for all wings regardless of their purpose. You have a very very light craft and have just happened to place your engines and horizontal stabilisers so that it can somewhat fly. No, there is no such thing as body lift on SP, just take the wings from the back off and the plane no longer flies.
Pretty nice build! Something of note for next time is the remove the massive crease between the control surfaces and the wing, it's a bit jarring. Overall, great build!
Cockpits with interiors are time intensive, part intensive and all round very intensive builds, especially if you’re going for replica accuracy. Learn how to panel fuselages properly, along the likes of the TSAD team. QingyuZhou has some very nice airline cockpits, look at them and learn how he does them. Once you make a hollow fuselage, it’s relatively easy to panel the inside with fuselages, just be sure to leave till last to avoid breaking anything you might have in there.
As Qingyu said, it’s obvious that none of us want you to leave. We all have periods where we have no inspiration, no motivation to keep going, so we take a break. But after that break we can come back better than ever, with more inspiration to try new things. Adding on to that, personally I think the constraint of not doing what you want to do (e.g. WW2) is a bad thing, we shouldn’t let others dictate what we want to do. Look at me for example, I only make WW2 planes and barely any ships or cars. Many of us specialise in one thing, and I think what we first build is what we like the most. But the choice is yours, sometimes we just have to move on.
Highly appreciate the feedback, @ollielebananiaCFSP. The moving of the entire craft could probably be fixed by placing another rotator to cancel out the torque from the camera rotation, and i’ll adjust the suspension slightly to make it softer. (Edit: Has been updated) The main view is already centred on the gunsight, so i thought the default zoom feature was sufficient, but if a fixed gunsight camera is nicer then that can be added. I’ll also update the manual with some images to show where things are as well (also updated as of 1.1)
Usually those solutions work fine if you compensate for their inaccuracy with a larger explosive radius, and they are much easier and more convenient to implement so they work alright. But SenSkysh’s formula becomes more inaccurate the further away the target is. You can test this by spawning a tanker plane and firing a cannon at it using SenSkyshs formula and you’ll see quickly that at longer distances it undershoots the target whereas mine does not because it solves the actual ballistic equation. The neat side affect of this is that mine is also able to compensate for a targets acceleration.
@ReinMcDeer
Huh, this one stumped me for a bit, but the turret seems to work again if you rename the engine RPM variable to RPM or something instead of Rpm1. I don’t know why this would cause issues though but seems to get it working again…
**Edit: Actually I think I know why Rpm1 breaks the turret, I believe Rpm1 is a legacy variable name that the game used to store the RPM data of engines, so essentially it’s a reserved variable name and is probably why the game doesn’t like it when you try to overwrite it again. Basically don’t name anything Rpm1 or Rpm2 etc.
Yes i know the entire panel can come off to access the centreline MGs. And yes, those flaps are definitely cooling flaps (not radiator flaps my bad). Your point? @Sparky6004
Hmmm, I don’t think anyone can just keep placing parts and make it look good, there is still definitely a lot of skill required there. There are pros and cons to building with few parts and with lots of parts, neither is inherently better than the other if done well either way. @Dathcha
Great cockpit, maybe a bit overkill but still, looks good. Just watch out for misaligned parts, there are a couple knobs that aren’t aligned with their bases in the cockpit (see centre bottom).
+4I think that while a certain aspect may be true to this correlation, there is much more to it. Many builds with many likes are based upon the stock designer. Those builds happen to be made by generally skilled builders, some of which know the game quite well and know about custom designers. Hence one could deduce that creations with a custom designer get more likes not because they attention seeking, but because they have been made by builders with some reasonable aspect of knowledge to apply a custom designer in the first place.
Sure there are exceptions to this, but I believe this to be the case.
+4Very nice camo!
+4I think that Flyout targets a subset of the audience in SP and it does it really well. What would take months to do in SP can be done in a few days on Flyout, and look a lot better too. Is there less flexibility? In some ways yes and other ways no, but as stated they are different games and that is a good thing. Whilst I agree that FT and logic control are far more developed on SP, I’m almost certain that such a feature will arrive to Flyout some day, given it’s only early days.
+3.
So in the end, are SPs days numbered? Unfortunately probably, I think it would be naive to think not, especially given the end of its (very long and well supported) development cycle. I don’t really think I (or many other builders) want to return back to tedious fuselage panelling, nor do I even have the time nowadays, and that’s a dealbreaker for me. Whilst SP has been a great game, I’m happy to hang up my boots now that Flyout is here.
Unfortunately most auto-aims doesn't work with AI because the AI won't fire the cannons unless the target is in front of the cockpit. @UmbrellaCorporation
+3That would be too generous haha
+3@BogdanX
I think its a current limitation of how the label part works, cause the letters don't actually curve when you do curve the label. Maybe they can work around it somehow, but I wouldn't put my money on it. @jamesPLANESii
+3People are free to express their opinions. You may think that something is good, but many of those example builds you pointed out are pretty average. I also believe that Toxic’s builds are far better than Knights. In the specific example you pointed out, the craftsmanship in the wings alone is superior in every way to Knights, but maybe ur trying to bait us. If anything it’s ironic your attacking Toxic at the end, when you yourself literally said that we should support each other.... hypocrisy much?
+3@ChrisETH
Damn, wish I had that on my USS MIssouri. Looks great though, very nice work!
+3If you are aiming for Plat or some point milestone, you’ll actually need to upload on a fairly regular basis. While quality is great, and getting builds with +100 upvotes every few months or so is nice, ur more likely to achieve such a goal with builds every week or so that get 30-40 upvotes. This is not my preferred method of building, but it is what many other users who achieve plat quickly do. Here, quantity and quality are equally important.
+3This could actually save a lot of parts for displays for cockpits or huds, interesting stuff.
+3Well the intention was so that you could hide the camera without it being visible, which is actually not that bad of an idea @Dad
+3What if you removed the glass? Do you still get the same number of frames?
+3Someone’s a bit salty...
+3No I mean SP1 files in SP2, but either way how clumsy is that? We’ll have the less than ideal wings and fuselages from SP1 with the realistic airfoils and parts in SP2. Let’s not forget mass scaling of these parts, fuel, most importantly drag? SP’s drag model is less than ideal to say the least, I don’t want that in SP2. Its better we start off with a clean slate that we can really make good, having backwards compatibility would just make the game more complicated than it needs to be. No point in having “antique” parts. @Notaleopard
+3Pretty soon, possibly this week
+3@Nerfenthusiast
I don’t believe the F-4E had countermeasures (unless they were retrofitted, if you know there are some please show me). I’ll consider those suggestions for next time though @ThomasRoderick
+3lol, raspy isn’t a disease, it’s just a word used to describe what someone’s voice sounds like, usually when their ill
+3I know it’s the windshield wiper, it’s very nice btw, its just I was reading your thing and it says VTOL UP is luggage compartment/luggage movement restrictor?
+3@Winstonlharambe
I managed to download this and it runs quite well, better than some other crafts with lower part count. Anyways I decided to fly/test it. I see the door you talk about has increased drag, but at the speed this plane flies at it barely effects flight performance, I don’t see why (other than game issues) it shouldn’t just be on AG2. I’m not 100% certain on the flight chracteristics of this plane, but I’ve noticed that yaw stability is quite unstable, there’s lots of slip when in a roll and it’s hard to counter without yaw. Couldn’t get the engine on fire, not sure how that works (flew nose down from 20000ft at speeds excess of 500mph), although that might just be my incompetence. Not really sure what VTOL up does, all I saw was a block rotating on a rotator in the fuselage. Take off speed is closer to 100mph, 80 is slightly low. A useful tip for improving performance is to disable drag calculations (via xml/overload) on detail parts (e.g. Your corrugated fuselage pieces). Cosmetically, the fuselage is very nice, very well made, probably some of the best craftsmanship on the site. The wings however are messy and could do with improvements, specially towards the tips where the panelling geometry isn’t perfect and the airelon trailing edges are flat not sharp. Getting the wings right is much harder than you would think, it helps to preplan that stuff. Overall, it is a stunning build, it looks amazing and flies well, but there’s lots to improve on. I would be careful calling it perfect, nothing is ever perfect, there’s always something that could be improved. However, for the rank that you are, you certainly have more potential than many of us and given some time, you might become one of the best builders on the site.
+3Soz for the slab of text
@Winstonlharambe
Looks good, shame I cannot test it properly due to the number of parts. I’m surprised you didn’t have Bogan as a predecessor, seems he’ll get 0 points out of this...
+3I would prefer (and I know a few people who’d agree with me) a build that looks great and flies great too to a build that looks even better but sucks to fly. However, I do fancy some ultra-high detail builds, if they’re done within a somewhat reasonable part limit.
As for the amount of detail that’ll impress me, I’m not really sure. Lots of functional stuff is quite impressive (e.g. working cockpit instruments, realistic landing gear (suspension, doors ect), a nice paint job, smooth/accurate modelling of the plane and so on. But there’s a point where, as Aaron said below, you can kinda go overboard, but that point is different according to everyone’s preferences
+3Honestly this isn’t even that complicated and shouldn’t even have sparked this much confusion. SP calculates lift for all wings regardless of their purpose. You have a very very light craft and have just happened to place your engines and horizontal stabilisers so that it can somewhat fly. No, there is no such thing as body lift on SP, just take the wings from the back off and the plane no longer flies.
+3I actually just built one cylinder and rotated it around by 40° and mirrored it across. @Mainblocks
+3Take out all the wing pieces and replace them back in, that should remove any funny connections. Check drag, check wing area, check COM to COL
+3Pretty nice build! Something of note for next time is the remove the massive crease between the control surfaces and the wing, it's a bit jarring. Overall, great build!
+3Cockpits with interiors are time intensive, part intensive and all round very intensive builds, especially if you’re going for replica accuracy. Learn how to panel fuselages properly, along the likes of the TSAD team. QingyuZhou has some very nice airline cockpits, look at them and learn how he does them. Once you make a hollow fuselage, it’s relatively easy to panel the inside with fuselages, just be sure to leave till last to avoid breaking anything you might have in there.
+3Rotating the fusalage by 45° and setting a pair of the edges to hard usually does the trick
+3Funny enough, this was the System before upvotes were a thing
+3It’s to prevent spam, it’s in the rules
+3Great job, it's a shame your friend had to leave, but hopefully you can carry on his legacy.
+3As Qingyu said, it’s obvious that none of us want you to leave. We all have periods where we have no inspiration, no motivation to keep going, so we take a break. But after that break we can come back better than ever, with more inspiration to try new things. Adding on to that, personally I think the constraint of not doing what you want to do (e.g. WW2) is a bad thing, we shouldn’t let others dictate what we want to do. Look at me for example, I only make WW2 planes and barely any ships or cars. Many of us specialise in one thing, and I think what we first build is what we like the most. But the choice is yours, sometimes we just have to move on.
+3Indeed, let us hope that the fate of others will not fall upon us.
+3Did you really spotlight this?@EpicPigster1
+3Highly appreciate the feedback, @ollielebananiaCFSP. The moving of the entire craft could probably be fixed by placing another rotator to cancel out the torque from the camera rotation, and i’ll adjust the suspension slightly to make it softer. (Edit: Has been updated) The main view is already centred on the gunsight, so i thought the default zoom feature was sufficient, but if a fixed gunsight camera is nicer then that can be added. I’ll also update the manual with some images to show where things are as well (also updated as of 1.1)
+2Usually those solutions work fine if you compensate for their inaccuracy with a larger explosive radius, and they are much easier and more convenient to implement so they work alright. But SenSkysh’s formula becomes more inaccurate the further away the target is. You can test this by spawning a tanker plane and firing a cannon at it using SenSkyshs formula and you’ll see quickly that at longer distances it undershoots the target whereas mine does not because it solves the actual ballistic equation. The neat side affect of this is that mine is also able to compensate for a targets acceleration.
+2@ReinMcDeer
Thanks for the kind words! Thought I should push myself to try some different camera shots this time
+2@IceCraftGaming
Yea the sound effects were edited in, if only SP had custom sounds
+2@Soardivision160th
Not to toot my own horn but i made this a while back which explains most of the aerofoils here
+2Should be hopefully, I think without the camo and a few other small details it might be around 1500 parts (maybe). @DerVito
+2Ooo, I look forward to seeing how that turns out, the last few updates have really made so much more possible @PlaneFlightX
+2Haha yep, that was the main source of inspiration @MrShenanigansSP
+2There happens to be filter that filters out spotlight posts from posts from the people you follow…
+2@IICXLVIICDLXXXIIIDCXLVII
Huh, this one stumped me for a bit, but the turret seems to work again if you rename the engine RPM variable to RPM or something instead of Rpm1. I don’t know why this would cause issues though but seems to get it working again…
+2**Edit: Actually I think I know why Rpm1 breaks the turret, I believe Rpm1 is a legacy variable name that the game used to store the RPM data of engines, so essentially it’s a reserved variable name and is probably why the game doesn’t like it when you try to overwrite it again. Basically don’t name anything Rpm1 or Rpm2 etc.
Started uni this year so just been too busy lately, might finish off later this year if i get time
+2@realSavageMan
Yes i know the entire panel can come off to access the centreline MGs. And yes, those flaps are definitely cooling flaps (not radiator flaps my bad). Your point? @Sparky6004
+2Hmmm, I don’t think anyone can just keep placing parts and make it look good, there is still definitely a lot of skill required there. There are pros and cons to building with few parts and with lots of parts, neither is inherently better than the other if done well either way. @Dathcha
+2The best solution to this problem is to just build your own planes.
+2Incredible work, absolutely in love with the cold engine start up! Camera views are also incredibly well done, very enjoyable to play around with.
+2You realise how ridiculous you sound? @LotusCarsSub
+2