I don't know if this will change your mind, but maybe try to uninstall and reinstall the game and see if that works for uploading again? Also having no mods on when you attempt the upload might help too.
.
If you're firm in leaving, then see you later. :) Stay well, wear a mask, yadda yadda.
Oh...I guess my Osea roundel from my MiG-21 is here. Kewl. Well hopefully it worked out well. :)
.
Dat pfp tho; Pixy, uh...you okay? Going ultra instinct there? Gonna pull a Fist of the North Star on someone? ...Cipher?
@KCferrari I actually had your F-15C as one of the inspirations behind my recent F-15A Eagle, just because of how nice this one was for the version of the game it was made with.
Definitely an interesting footnote in the Me 262's history (I also love the Nightfighter version), and in some ways it's probably good that the A1a/U4 didn't enter service. From what I recall in addition to performance losses the Bk5 cannon itself was not reliable at all, and just firing the cannon could slow the plane in flight.
.
Maybe I should build a unique Me 262 instead of the A1; I bet the HGIII concept would be fun to pull off.
Nearly 3 years later and I still have a fond opinion of this build. One of the best F-15 Eagles on the website, hands down. It isn't horrendously massive in part count, but it has all the important details. Handles well. Could use custom missiles, but that's a minor thing.
What a world it would be if this or any of the other VFX contenders won that contract instead of Grumman...though honestly I don't miss the McDD entry because from what I know it was just an F-4 Phantom with swing wings? Maybe that was a different design altogether, but regardless.
.
I quite like the look of the Vagabond, and I mean...that name is just as cool as the Tomcat. It has a nice ring to it; F-14 Vagabond.
@ChrisPy Honestly I think his Phantom rolls better with just the custom ailerons than mine with both the custom and stock ailerons.
.
.
I'm debating on and off if I wanna build another set of F-4 Phantoms; another Navy/Marine F-4B or J, an F-4E(J) or F-4G, and an RN FAA F-4K FG.1. I want to see how much I can improve after the F-14, F-15, and F-1.
This isn't a bad build. Shaping is good, flies just fast enough, pitch control is good and smooth. I didn't like how slippery and over sensitive the roll response is though. Overall it's nice. :)
@Hedero The Heinkel 178 if I recall the configuration was a single-engine turbojet in the fuselage, rather than the twin engine in pods style of the 280. Both jets had the same razorback spine, so appearance wise they were quite alike there. The 178 also didn't have the twin tails.
.
I'm just going off memory since I'm too lazy to look it up lol.
@BubbleLukasie Lemme see if I can get it to work on one of my jets and I'll just copy/paste the function into here. I'm no sn0wflakes, but I'll see if I can do it.
.
Here's what I did.
.IAS < 120.894 ? clamp(Activate3,0,-1) + Roll : Roll
.I used the right wing as reference. For the left wing just take the clamp command and replace '-1' with '1.'
@WolfSpark I do have plans to continue building Vietnam-Era jets. The RA-5 is definitely on there especially since it'd probably be a fairly simple jet to replicate.
.
I might like to see this ejection seat. I dunno when I'll use it but one day.
.
@Homerboi Hello
@BubbleLukasie I might give it a shot. I do want to keep making more than just US or Soviet/Russian fighters, which has kind of been my focus unconsciously (hence the Japanese F-1). Also you say the Rafale-C, which is the Air Force single seater; I'll be sure to look for the appropriate blueprint when I get to it.
.
@SwiftFoxe ...Hmmm...I'm a bit reserved when it comes to stealth aircraft just because I don't think my panelwork is good enough to make a full aircraft using that technique COUGHF-22COUGH. I'll keep the YF-23 in mind for a future project, but it ain't happening soon - especially with me doing Uni summer classes
Eventually I'm gonna take a crack at the Voodoo as well, but I have to agree with you; thing is that to my knowledge the F-101 didn't have all that exciting of a career (with exception of the RF-101C), So perhaps not as many people know about it compared to, say, the F-15.
.
Small correction in the blurb on the jet's background; the F-101C was not a carrier version, but rather a modified and updated F-101A. If either jet had a tailhook it was for emergency landings only since the undercarriage on Air Force jets (except the F-4) were far more trim compared to navy jets.
.
Unfortunately my crappy laptop probably would have a stroke if I tried to download this, but I will say nice job on the build regardless. :)
@DarkMarble1 I would be okay with it, but from reading the blurb on your F-14 variant...isn't it based on the -14D Super Tomcat? I actually have some plans in the future to do an F-14D (and maybe and F-14A+/B), which would just be a modification of my F-14A that I would publicly post.
.
I'm just asking since it sounds like you'll need a completely different cockpit layout, but go ahead anyways. :)
I definitely want to take a dive into building aircraft without weapons or even civilian planes, and I'm happy to see a relatively obscure Japanese plane represented here on SP.
.
There are supposedly armed versions of the basic Ki-46 airframe which had machine gun or cannon (including a version set up with the schrage musik.) I wouldn't know how prolific they were in the Pacfic though.
@FennVectorCWA Unfortunately so. On the flipside the hook isn't there for carrier operations, but emergency landings (even the F-15 had a tailhook for such situations.)
.
I really should have done more XML weight distribution or given more time to work on the landing gear. I partially blame the blueprints I was using, but I could've done far better reference hunting too.
This looks pretty cool. I'll be sure to test this out against some of my builds and see how it does.
.
Are those my AGM-45's? I can't 100% tell but it looks like it.
@Cobrahuey It's my home state too :) Figured I would try something fun for this build. It was that or an Ace Combat marking set (COUGHpixyorcipherCOUGH)
@UFNNICF5TF In terms of the technology advantage I don't feel like it's fair to judge the Su-27 (assuming we're talking plain jane original Su-27 and not the SM1,SM2, etc) with the latest and most advanced F-15C. If we must compare the two I wouldn't go any further than the model of F-15C that was concurrent to the introduction of the Flanker-B, or to be EXTRA fair the F-15A and Flanker-B. In that case we're a bit more even tech-wise and the Flanker is arguably more agile than the Eagle (hypermaneuverability vs energy fighting)
.
Honestly I don't think either fighter is obviously better; it all comes down to who's in the seat and who makes the fatal mistake first. The Eagle has shot down MiG-29's before and that fighter is often said to have much better overall maneuvering.
I can't stop laughing at this sudden turn of events XD
.
HOWEVER for the time (and the relevant beta level of SP) this is a great build. The control surfaces and fuselage and done quite well, good use of those stock air intakes. I would've done the wing landing gear for the main gear but maybe those were too tall? Anyways not bad at all. :)
@asteroidbook345 The F-104 was designed as a fighter, pushed into both the interceptor role (alongside the F-102 and F-101) and fighter-bomber (most infamously by Germany) roles.
Not gonna lie this anime is kinda trashy but I still love it because of all the historical references. This however is seriously impressive and I hope to get as good as this one day.
@CRJ900Pilot The F-4 started life as an advanced version of the F3H equipped with the GE J79 engine and newer radar, but the Navy wasn't impressed with that plan and so McDonnell went back to the draft board and redesigned the entire fighter. Thus the F4H (which became the F-4 after '62) was born.
I don't know if this will change your mind, but maybe try to uninstall and reinstall the game and see if that works for uploading again? Also having no mods on when you attempt the upload might help too.
+1.
If you're firm in leaving, then see you later. :) Stay well, wear a mask, yadda yadda.
I apolgize, but I won't be tagging people whenever it comes out. Sowwy.
@CodenameMorgan No problem. :)
Oh...I guess my Osea roundel from my MiG-21 is here. Kewl. Well hopefully it worked out well. :)
.
Dat pfp tho; Pixy, uh...you okay? Going ultra instinct there? Gonna pull a Fist of the North Star on someone? ...Cipher?
@KCferrari I actually had your F-15C as one of the inspirations behind my recent F-15A Eagle, just because of how nice this one was for the version of the game it was made with.
+1Definitely an interesting footnote in the Me 262's history (I also love the Nightfighter version), and in some ways it's probably good that the A1a/U4 didn't enter service. From what I recall in addition to performance losses the Bk5 cannon itself was not reliable at all, and just firing the cannon could slow the plane in flight.
+1.
Maybe I should build a unique Me 262 instead of the A1; I bet the HGIII concept would be fun to pull off.
Nearly 3 years later and I still have a fond opinion of this build. One of the best F-15 Eagles on the website, hands down. It isn't horrendously massive in part count, but it has all the important details. Handles well. Could use custom missiles, but that's a minor thing.
+1@WarHawk95 Seems to only detect the bomb though; the advanced targeting reticle AND the lock-on ring are gone when I try this.
@IrFritzruss Do you happen to know or recall the path to accessing XML aircraft and assembly files on windows?
Awww, thank you so much everyone. :D
.
I was NOT expecting so much traffic on this post lol
@IrFritzruss @exosuit @TheAllCarryingOne Thanks for the suggestions, friends. :) Should help me to put the final touches on a small side-project.
+2What a world it would be if this or any of the other VFX contenders won that contract instead of Grumman...though honestly I don't miss the McDD entry because from what I know it was just an F-4 Phantom with swing wings? Maybe that was a different design altogether, but regardless.
+1.
I quite like the look of the Vagabond, and I mean...that name is just as cool as the Tomcat. It has a nice ring to it; F-14 Vagabond.
@ChrisPy Honestly I think his Phantom rolls better with just the custom ailerons than mine with both the custom and stock ailerons.
.
.
I'm debating on and off if I wanna build another set of F-4 Phantoms; another Navy/Marine F-4B or J, an F-4E(J) or F-4G, and an RN FAA F-4K FG.1. I want to see how much I can improve after the F-14, F-15, and F-1.
This is gonna be sweet :)
Pretty interesting skeleton to test a swing wing with. Looks like we'll have another F-14 to look forwards to. :)
This isn't a bad build. Shaping is good, flies just fast enough, pitch control is good and smooth. I didn't like how slippery and over sensitive the roll response is though. Overall it's nice. :)
+2@Hedero The Heinkel 178 if I recall the configuration was a single-engine turbojet in the fuselage, rather than the twin engine in pods style of the 280. Both jets had the same razorback spine, so appearance wise they were quite alike there. The 178 also didn't have the twin tails.
.
I'm just going off memory since I'm too lazy to look it up lol.
AC6 gang rise up :D
+2.
Looks great, but Imma fly it to see how well it handles.
@BubbleLukasie No problem.
+1.
Just to clarify when I say right or left I'm looking from behind the plane. Good luck on finishing your Falcon :)
@BubbleLukasie Lemme see if I can get it to work on one of my jets and I'll just copy/paste the function into here. I'm no sn0wflakes, but I'll see if I can do it.
.
Here's what I did.
.IAS < 120.894 ? clamp(Activate3,0,-1) + Roll : Roll
.I used the right wing as reference. For the left wing just take the clamp command and replace '-1' with '1.'
@WolfSpark I do have plans to continue building Vietnam-Era jets. The RA-5 is definitely on there especially since it'd probably be a fairly simple jet to replicate.
.
I might like to see this ejection seat. I dunno when I'll use it but one day.
.
@Homerboi Hello
@BubbleLukasie I might give it a shot. I do want to keep making more than just US or Soviet/Russian fighters, which has kind of been my focus unconsciously (hence the Japanese F-1). Also you say the Rafale-C, which is the Air Force single seater; I'll be sure to look for the appropriate blueprint when I get to it.
.
@SwiftFoxe ...Hmmm...I'm a bit reserved when it comes to stealth aircraft just because I don't think my panelwork is good enough to make a full aircraft using that technique COUGHF-22COUGH. I'll keep the YF-23 in mind for a future project, but it ain't happening soon - especially with me doing Uni summer classes
Eventually I'm gonna take a crack at the Voodoo as well, but I have to agree with you; thing is that to my knowledge the F-101 didn't have all that exciting of a career (with exception of the RF-101C), So perhaps not as many people know about it compared to, say, the F-15.
.
Small correction in the blurb on the jet's background; the F-101C was not a carrier version, but rather a modified and updated F-101A. If either jet had a tailhook it was for emergency landings only since the undercarriage on Air Force jets (except the F-4) were far more trim compared to navy jets.
.
Unfortunately my crappy laptop probably would have a stroke if I tried to download this, but I will say nice job on the build regardless. :)
Another Ghostriders Tomcat has entered the realm... :)
+1@HawaiiRanger No problem friend. :)
@DarkMarble1 I would be okay with it, but from reading the blurb on your F-14 variant...isn't it based on the -14D Super Tomcat? I actually have some plans in the future to do an F-14D (and maybe and F-14A+/B), which would just be a modification of my F-14A that I would publicly post.
.
I'm just asking since it sounds like you'll need a completely different cockpit layout, but go ahead anyways. :)
I definitely want to take a dive into building aircraft without weapons or even civilian planes, and I'm happy to see a relatively obscure Japanese plane represented here on SP.
+2.
There are supposedly armed versions of the basic Ki-46 airframe which had machine gun or cannon (including a version set up with the schrage musik.) I wouldn't know how prolific they were in the Pacfic though.
@FennVectorCWA Unfortunately so. On the flipside the hook isn't there for carrier operations, but emergency landings (even the F-15 had a tailhook for such situations.)
+1.
I really should have done more XML weight distribution or given more time to work on the landing gear. I partially blame the blueprints I was using, but I could've done far better reference hunting too.
@DarkMarble1 Nice :)
This looks pretty cool. I'll be sure to test this out against some of my builds and see how it does.
.
Are those my AGM-45's? I can't 100% tell but it looks like it.
@Cobrahuey It's my home state too :) Figured I would try something fun for this build. It was that or an Ace Combat marking set (COUGHpixyorcipherCOUGH)
@Mikey101234 HAH! I was so hoping that was the case! XD
Always love a good Ace Combat build :)
+2@UFNNICF5TF In terms of the technology advantage I don't feel like it's fair to judge the Su-27 (assuming we're talking plain jane original Su-27 and not the SM1,SM2, etc) with the latest and most advanced F-15C. If we must compare the two I wouldn't go any further than the model of F-15C that was concurrent to the introduction of the Flanker-B, or to be EXTRA fair the F-15A and Flanker-B. In that case we're a bit more even tech-wise and the Flanker is arguably more agile than the Eagle (hypermaneuverability vs energy fighting)
.
Honestly I don't think either fighter is obviously better; it all comes down to who's in the seat and who makes the fatal mistake first. The Eagle has shot down MiG-29's before and that fighter is often said to have much better overall maneuvering.
@Alphawolf41 Indeed. Am excited :)
@UFNNICF5TF ...I don't get it? X)
@HawkerAviation Bro lay off the caps for real. X)
.
Appreciate the enthusiasm tho.
@typeZERO See problem is the entire series is FULL of that kinda crap so I'm just numb to it. And I'm a fan of Strike Witches.
@ChiChiWerx I'll consider the invitation, thank you. :)
@typeZERO Baka hentai ecks dee
@Wewee2010 wut
I can't stop laughing at this sudden turn of events XD
+4.
HOWEVER for the time (and the relevant beta level of SP) this is a great build. The control surfaces and fuselage and done quite well, good use of those stock air intakes. I would've done the wing landing gear for the main gear but maybe those were too tall? Anyways not bad at all. :)
@asteroidbook345 The F-104 was designed as a fighter, pushed into both the interceptor role (alongside the F-102 and F-101) and fighter-bomber (most infamously by Germany) roles.
Aside from the star not being totally refined (too big and not rotated to match the vertical stabs) this is kinda neat. :)
@Zuig5 Sure, go ahead.
I can already tell this is better than my F-104. Hats off to you friend
Not gonna lie this anime is kinda trashy but I still love it because of all the historical references. This however is seriously impressive and I hope to get as good as this one day.
@ThePilotDude We're just high on our own weebiness X)
@CRJ900Pilot The F-4 started life as an advanced version of the F3H equipped with the GE J79 engine and newer radar, but the Navy wasn't impressed with that plan and so McDonnell went back to the draft board and redesigned the entire fighter. Thus the F4H (which became the F-4 after '62) was born.
@Zuig5 I've been thinking about it. Perhaps at some point I'll give it a shot, and after learning stuff from this F-14 I'm definitely inspired