@Wewee2010 I mean I have a MiG-21-93 I did a month or two back. Could try that out.
.
At some point or another I may do the PFV for funsies. Also redo my old F-13 Fishbed-C in the "new" build style I have.
.
Also easy on caps friend ;)
Hold up...I think that red and black F-14 is based on my old F-14A model. It has my cockpit style and I can clearly see it has the old panel-built "Pancake."
.
Upon closer inspection it totally is. Huh. Interesting.
.
Also I would have loved to have been part of this; I just put together a new F-14A that would've gone perfectly with these ones.
@Diloph Just a typo I'm assuming. :)
.
As I explained towards the bottom of the description, those are called the glove vanes. In simplified terminology they're basically tiny wings that extended out when the Tomcat goes above Mach 1.4 to allow for greater control. In theory they were supposed to let you do 7.5G max turns at supersonic, with wings fully swept. Later in service they were disabled because they added more complexity and...really the Tomcat shouldn't be doing 7.5G at supersonic. Save that kind of pilot stuff for dogfighting.
@SimpleJets Which I managed to program with the Funky Tree system :D However I feel as though I may have gotten the wrong angle threshold cuz i went for 57 degrees of sweep before the spoilers disable themselves. Also I programmed it based on airspeed rather than sweep angle, so I still have much to learn.
.
I am seriously falling in love with the Funky Trees; I took a programming class at community college but that was more like C/C+/C++. This is equally cool though.
@TOMJeb117 I might do a Super-Tomcat as one of the variations, but it's gonna need a totally new cockpit interior to go along with the real upgrades. Plus I really want to figure out how to do a realistic guided bomb that doesn't behave like a missile.
@ChisP I tell you...it was so satisfying to see the Funky Tree statements working the way I wanted them to once I got the syntax and stuff down. The shaping of the "pancake" and the fact I fit basically the entire pilot's instrument panel was pretty cool too.
.
Most surprising was how nicely this thing flew as it was coming together. The F-14 supposedly has a lifting body of sorts and so I stuck a bunch of hidden wings inside the fuselage. The agility I got from doing that was way more than I expected, but it's still smooth too.
@SnoWFLakE0s Doesn't seem to like your name with how I spell it (which is...I'm certain the same as how it's displayed on your profile.) Can't dm, can't friend request. Iz weird.
Looking good so far. Seems like a Challenger 1 or 2 to me, hence the title. :)
.
I was hoping to get some help with a build of mine that's using funky tree stuff, but I can't seem to find you on Discord and such. Iz cool if you're busy.
At least your cockpit has working instruments via the funky tree system. I'm still only doing a partial cockpit and only the vaguest implication of instrumentation.
@Baldovino I'd love to do an F-104S to spinoff this build, but I'd probably do one of the Italian models which keeps the gun and has radar-guided missiles. Thing is - and other users have found this too - camouflage is kinda clunky to do in SP without massive part counts (so I've seen.)
@ChiChiWerx You know what I've realised the wing area stat isn't just the main wing either and that ticks me off.
.
Tube with wings; perfect description for the Starfighter.
.
I'll try to keep this stuff in mind for next build. :)
@ChiChiWerx I wonder how one could replicate the BLCS in SP. Might be kinda neat to try.
.
I actually took another user's advice and put hidden structural wings in the fuselage to give lifting force for the body. Also I did my best to balance the CoM and CoL to give the best turning performance that was stable (didn't start rolling the opposite direction.) I did cheat a little and set the hidden wings to semi-symmetric, but I thought it might be appropriate.
.
The cockpit view in this build is so nice, I have to agree. I think I had enough usable room to put the other instrument panels inside (resting along the pilot's sides, you'd probably know) and give them sparse detail, but I forgot. It seems correct for the 104-Charlie at least.
@Mustang51 You're okay. This is something totally new to me as well (funky trees and such). I did make sure to mark the Groups as I always do. Hopefully this is something I'll keep experimenting with :)
@Mustang51 Activate 3 does that. It also lowers the slats on the leading edge. The VTOL slider does nothing, but I'm not sure how I can make it disappear from the HUD without totally resetting the input.
@Nobodygood There's one jet in particular that also gets called Widowmaker famously, but I can't recall what it is at the moment.
.
Appreciate the comment. :)
@243687034 What kind of feel are you going for? Something arcade-like, realistic, something in the middle?
.
My only recommendation would probably be make a physical change to the model as well (removing the missiles is an easy one). Just cuz I dunno how particular the "enough changes" rule or whatever can be. Maybe I'm just being over-cautious.
.
Otherwise go ahead. :)
@WolfSpark We'll see. Given how I incorporate cockpits with the fuselage cores I create, sometimes these new cockpit details aren't able to be realized in a satisfying way. I don't exactly want to make a plane with...3 gauges on the instrument panel. That's boring to me :/
.
On the flipside I don't feel confident enough in my panelwork to create a FULL interior space. Maybe with the right aircraft I'll give it a shot.
@Tang0five I've never messed with the power multiplier for the jet engines as it never appeared to do what it says, so I've always just stuck the stock engines into my builds and compensated naturally for them. Perhaps the next build I'll try something else.
@Tang0five Ironically the engine I used here has around 3,000lbf thrust more than the real A-4E's J65 engine, so more power would've been less realistic than it already is. More drag point reduction would satisfy that 'more power' thing easily.
.
I could try the wheel thing and see what it does. I seriously don't know what's making it go to the right; MAYBE it's the nosewheel not being absolutely dead center.
.
Also I really wish we had official Cluster bomb weapons. That would've been a little more realistic for SEAD missions (assuming there were any squadrons that flew those with bombs at all), but I wasn't about to kill my computer making my own.
@BigOLSushi Pretty much the same thing everyone else says to do; grab each missile by their detachers (some are slightly hidden by fins, so don't panic) and create a subassembly for them.
Man I wish I could spotlight this bad boy because there was substantial thought put into this build. I am certainly going to try it out, even though my laptop is iffy about builds with 600-700 parts and above. Also no problem on the MiG-21; glad you enjoyed it when I posted it :)
@Falkenwut I may or may not be planning a 747-200... ;)
.
I can't seem to find a suitable blueprint for the -100 series, but Imma keep looking and try to make this work...somehow.
@ChiChiWerx My god dude...THAT is some good critique.
.
In terms of how the jet handled and felt I was completely winging it, but I HAVE learned some general stuff about the Fishbed which let me get a rough idea of what might be appropriate. The MiG-21 does turn well, but it bleeds that airspeed like a dumptruck the tighter you go. Also dropping the tank to gain extra agility worked out nicely, so I was jazzed about that.
.
The build itself I did put about the same effort into as my newest Hornet, especially with the finer details of all the bumps and openings. I missed a couple of bulges on the lower fuselage, but I can live with that. I KNEW I wanted to make a truly silhouette-accurate MiG-21, and I think I did that.
.
No excuse for the landing gear. I hate it too :/
.
I have to wonder if the loadout would be feasible IRL. Those dual R-60 pylons and the R-27's must weigh more than my custom ones do...I'm just about skirting max takeoff weight here which was ~22-23k lbs.
@Mustang51 sonuvagun...
.
Okie, thanks for letting me know. I need to change my R-60 subassembly then. I never worried about it cuz I always fired all of them for testing. That and I forgot.
@MailboxIsMyGender It baffles me why AC7 used the 21bis when the series had the 21-93 in AC5. It would've made far more sense with the SP weapon selection in Skies Unknown because as far as I know, the 21bis cannot use the R-27 missile. It only had a SARH variant of the R-3 Atoll and that weird beam-riding missile.
I have to agree with you that there's plenty of MiG-21 builds on SP; I just put out my own Ace Combat-inspired MiG lol
.
Nice to see a different livery for the ol' Balalaika than the usual Soviet/Russian stuff. I definitely would love to see someone put out an East German MiG-21 because those camouflage schemes look amazing. Personally I also would like to see different models of Fishbed (the F, F-13 for example don't get nearly as much love as say the MF or the bis)
@Wewee2010 lol
@Wewee2010 I mean I have a MiG-21-93 I did a month or two back. Could try that out.
.
At some point or another I may do the PFV for funsies. Also redo my old F-13 Fishbed-C in the "new" build style I have.
.
Also easy on caps friend ;)
@ACEPILOT109 Ye. I don't mean any of that in a bad way if it came across as such.
@UFNNICF5TF G o t t a G o F a s t Y ' a l l
+1Hold up...I think that red and black F-14 is based on my old F-14A model. It has my cockpit style and I can clearly see it has the old panel-built "Pancake."
.
Upon closer inspection it totally is. Huh. Interesting.
.
Also I would have loved to have been part of this; I just put together a new F-14A that would've gone perfectly with these ones.
@SimpleJets Hopefully nothing as horrendously complex. XD
+1@MailboxIsMyGender Aww well that doesn't seem fair to everyone else that make dang good stuff.
@Diloph Just a typo I'm assuming. :)
.
As I explained towards the bottom of the description, those are called the glove vanes. In simplified terminology they're basically tiny wings that extended out when the Tomcat goes above Mach 1.4 to allow for greater control. In theory they were supposed to let you do 7.5G max turns at supersonic, with wings fully swept. Later in service they were disabled because they added more complexity and...really the Tomcat shouldn't be doing 7.5G at supersonic. Save that kind of pilot stuff for dogfighting.
@SimpleJets Which I managed to program with the Funky Tree system :D However I feel as though I may have gotten the wrong angle threshold cuz i went for 57 degrees of sweep before the spoilers disable themselves. Also I programmed it based on airspeed rather than sweep angle, so I still have much to learn.
.
I am seriously falling in love with the Funky Trees; I took a programming class at community college but that was more like C/C+/C++. This is equally cool though.
@SimpleJets Thankies :)
@Shippy456 I was certainly hoping to surpass the old one. It's definitely a cleaner build than the first build (especially the pancake).
@Diloph Everything I've seen, read, or heard says otherwise but okie. Also lel F-24
@TOMJeb117 I might do a Super-Tomcat as one of the variations, but it's gonna need a totally new cockpit interior to go along with the real upgrades. Plus I really want to figure out how to do a realistic guided bomb that doesn't behave like a missile.
@ChisP I tell you...it was so satisfying to see the Funky Tree statements working the way I wanted them to once I got the syntax and stuff down. The shaping of the "pancake" and the fact I fit basically the entire pilot's instrument panel was pretty cool too.
.
Most surprising was how nicely this thing flew as it was coming together. The F-14 supposedly has a lifting body of sorts and so I stuck a bunch of hidden wings inside the fuselage. The agility I got from doing that was way more than I expected, but it's still smooth too.
@Kungfuevan If I do it'll be the F-5E Tiger II rather than the F-5A Freedom Fighter, but yes that is in the backlog :)
+1@Kungfuevan Okie dokie
This is freaking awesome :)
+2@SnoWFLakE0s Doesn't seem to like your name with how I spell it (which is...I'm certain the same as how it's displayed on your profile.) Can't dm, can't friend request. Iz weird.
Looking good so far. Seems like a Challenger 1 or 2 to me, hence the title. :)
.
I was hoping to get some help with a build of mine that's using funky tree stuff, but I can't seem to find you on Discord and such. Iz cool if you're busy.
At least your cockpit has working instruments via the funky tree system. I'm still only doing a partial cockpit and only the vaguest implication of instrumentation.
+1@StephenS0 Sorry if you got bored or didn't read. I don't blame you. :)
@Diloph lol ok
@Baldovino I'd love to do an F-104S to spinoff this build, but I'd probably do one of the Italian models which keeps the gun and has radar-guided missiles. Thing is - and other users have found this too - camouflage is kinda clunky to do in SP without massive part counts (so I've seen.)
+1@ChiChiWerx You know what I've realised the wing area stat isn't just the main wing either and that ticks me off.
.
Tube with wings; perfect description for the Starfighter.
.
I'll try to keep this stuff in mind for next build. :)
@ChiChiWerx I wonder how one could replicate the BLCS in SP. Might be kinda neat to try.
.
I actually took another user's advice and put hidden structural wings in the fuselage to give lifting force for the body. Also I did my best to balance the CoM and CoL to give the best turning performance that was stable (didn't start rolling the opposite direction.) I did cheat a little and set the hidden wings to semi-symmetric, but I thought it might be appropriate.
.
The cockpit view in this build is so nice, I have to agree. I think I had enough usable room to put the other instrument panels inside (resting along the pilot's sides, you'd probably know) and give them sparse detail, but I forgot. It seems correct for the 104-Charlie at least.
@Mustang51 Probably. Just have to figure out the proper sequence and syntax. :)
+1@Mustang51 You're okay. This is something totally new to me as well (funky trees and such). I did make sure to mark the Groups as I always do. Hopefully this is something I'll keep experimenting with :)
@AerialFighterSnakes Thankies :)
@Mustang51 Activate 3 does that. It also lowers the slats on the leading edge. The VTOL slider does nothing, but I'm not sure how I can make it disappear from the HUD without totally resetting the input.
@SodiumChloride Thankies for the spotlight :)
+1@Nobodygood There's one jet in particular that also gets called Widowmaker famously, but I can't recall what it is at the moment.
+1.
Appreciate the comment. :)
Hi. Just another Mustard fan passing through lol :3
Hee Hee :3
Welcome back friend. I've just built an early A-4E recently so I'm gonna compare this to it. It already looks beautiful. :)
@243687034 What kind of feel are you going for? Something arcade-like, realistic, something in the middle?
+2.
My only recommendation would probably be make a physical change to the model as well (removing the missiles is an easy one). Just cuz I dunno how particular the "enough changes" rule or whatever can be. Maybe I'm just being over-cautious.
.
Otherwise go ahead. :)
@WolfSpark We'll see. Given how I incorporate cockpits with the fuselage cores I create, sometimes these new cockpit details aren't able to be realized in a satisfying way. I don't exactly want to make a plane with...3 gauges on the instrument panel. That's boring to me :/
.
On the flipside I don't feel confident enough in my panelwork to create a FULL interior space. Maybe with the right aircraft I'll give it a shot.
@Tang0five I've never messed with the power multiplier for the jet engines as it never appeared to do what it says, so I've always just stuck the stock engines into my builds and compensated naturally for them. Perhaps the next build I'll try something else.
@Tang0five Ironically the engine I used here has around 3,000lbf thrust more than the real A-4E's J65 engine, so more power would've been less realistic than it already is. More drag point reduction would satisfy that 'more power' thing easily.
.
I could try the wheel thing and see what it does. I seriously don't know what's making it go to the right; MAYBE it's the nosewheel not being absolutely dead center.
.
Also I really wish we had official Cluster bomb weapons. That would've been a little more realistic for SEAD missions (assuming there were any squadrons that flew those with bombs at all), but I wasn't about to kill my computer making my own.
I can already tell these will work far more realistically than my recent missile pack lol. Cool weapons pack :)
@BigOLSushi Pretty much the same thing everyone else says to do; grab each missile by their detachers (some are slightly hidden by fins, so don't panic) and create a subassembly for them.
@BogdanX Thanks buddy. :)
Man I wish I could spotlight this bad boy because there was substantial thought put into this build. I am certainly going to try it out, even though my laptop is iffy about builds with 600-700 parts and above. Also no problem on the MiG-21; glad you enjoyed it when I posted it :)
@Falkenwut I may or may not be planning a 747-200... ;)
+1.
I can't seem to find a suitable blueprint for the -100 series, but Imma keep looking and try to make this work...somehow.
God those AIM-9's are beautiful...
.
Nice to see the F-20 Tigershark get some love :)
@SlavicStalin eventually...when I finally rebuild the Su-35 tails with rubber airbrakes x)
@Thelegitpilot13 Bro...those gunpods are SO fun to use ingame ^.^
+1@ChiChiWerx My god dude...THAT is some good critique.
.
In terms of how the jet handled and felt I was completely winging it, but I HAVE learned some general stuff about the Fishbed which let me get a rough idea of what might be appropriate. The MiG-21 does turn well, but it bleeds that airspeed like a dumptruck the tighter you go. Also dropping the tank to gain extra agility worked out nicely, so I was jazzed about that.
.
The build itself I did put about the same effort into as my newest Hornet, especially with the finer details of all the bumps and openings. I missed a couple of bulges on the lower fuselage, but I can live with that. I KNEW I wanted to make a truly silhouette-accurate MiG-21, and I think I did that.
.
No excuse for the landing gear. I hate it too :/
.
I have to wonder if the loadout would be feasible IRL. Those dual R-60 pylons and the R-27's must weigh more than my custom ones do...I'm just about skirting max takeoff weight here which was ~22-23k lbs.
@Mustang51 sonuvagun...
.
Okie, thanks for letting me know. I need to change my R-60 subassembly then. I never worried about it cuz I always fired all of them for testing. That and I forgot.
@MailboxIsMyGender It baffles me why AC7 used the 21bis when the series had the 21-93 in AC5. It would've made far more sense with the SP weapon selection in Skies Unknown because as far as I know, the 21bis cannot use the R-27 missile. It only had a SARH variant of the R-3 Atoll and that weird beam-riding missile.
I have to agree with you that there's plenty of MiG-21 builds on SP; I just put out my own Ace Combat-inspired MiG lol
+1.
Nice to see a different livery for the ol' Balalaika than the usual Soviet/Russian stuff. I definitely would love to see someone put out an East German MiG-21 because those camouflage schemes look amazing. Personally I also would like to see different models of Fishbed (the F, F-13 for example don't get nearly as much love as say the MF or the bis)