Your post has been removed. Please read these rules about posting planes.
Please try to make major changes to a plane before posting it. Simply painting an object a different color, or adding a few guns is not enough to consider it your own. In the future please credit the original maker, and try to post your own work.
@ChiyomiAnzai even completely fictional designs are valid entries as long as they are realistic. What I mean is no railguns, plasma cannons, pulse cannons, and other sci-fi stuff.
@SimpleTanks apparently, the image host you are using has the same problem Imgur.com does. You need to remove "s" from "https" part to make the image show. I edited it for you here.
F-16 has a very complex shape. It can't even be done right with sculpting (overlapping fuselage blocks). You'd need paneling, which would probably be too much to expect from the first build. I suggest trying a more builder-friendly design, like a jet trainer or an attacker. Those tend to have easier shapes and more obvious proportions. If you are on PC or Android, I suggest looking up Fine Tuner and Overload on the "Mods" page, as those are very helpful while building. They are second and third highest rated, I think.
@Alexiozo I advise going with conventional technologies. Lasers as effective air defence weapon are still fiction, and I'm not sure aa mines can be effectively used on SP.
Your post has been removed. Please read these rules about posting planes.
Please try to make major changes to a plane before posting it. Simply painting an object a different color, or adding a few guns is not enough to consider it your own. In the future please credit the original maker, and try to post your own work.
Your post has been removed. Please read these rules about posting planes.
Please try to make major changes to a plane before posting it. Simply painting an object a different color, or adding a few guns is not enough to consider it your own. In the future please credit the original maker, and try to post your own work.
@Shippy456 as for making custom missiles, if the detacher doesn't fly with the missile, you've attached it the wrong way. Missile must be attached to the large part of the detacher, body to the connection point on the back of the detacher, and the entire thing must be connected to the plane via small side of the detacher.
@Shippy456 that wouldn't really work. You see, radar needs to separate one channel for every missile and one for every target. That means it can control a limited number of missiles. It is more beneficial to have more big missiles that can engage multiple targets in a wide area then to have one missile with a number of sub-missiles that will engage small area that can be covered by a single missile with a large warhead. There's also the cost issue.
@0n33 sure. Just mention in description of the old one that it's not for the challenge, so I won't to judge both by mistake.
@BlueCitrus tutorial tag has already been added.
Dobro izgleda. Vraćaš se na SP?
@PvPSky no problem.
+1@ForeverPie I'll inform Andrew.
+2@PvPSky I've explained the picture in a few comments below.
+1@HarryBen47 once we get a post that is a tutorial so I can make a tag on it. Tag me as soon as you find one. And go convince someone to make one.
@Hiluks1 ok.
I don't think this fits the challenge. It's more of an infantry fighting vehicle (IFV).
Your post has been removed. Please read these rules about posting planes.
Please try to make major changes to a plane before posting it. Simply painting an object a different color, or adding a few guns is not enough to consider it your own. In the future please credit the original maker, and try to post your own work.
Well, they're pretty good lately.
@ChiyomiAnzai even completely fictional designs are valid entries as long as they are realistic. What I mean is no railguns, plasma cannons, pulse cannons, and other sci-fi stuff.
Use the Air Defence tag. Otherwise, entry won't be accepted. If seems to fulfill all other requirements.
@iLikePlanes100 no problem.
@88blaroo it has been accepted. I won't give any feedback on any of the entries until judging.
@DaKraken it can be a standalone launcher.
@IGNikolaev yes, your entry has been accepted. Thanks for participating :)
+1@SimpleTanks no problem.
+1Btw, that's one nice looking tank hull.
@SimpleTanks apparently, the image host you are using has the same problem Imgur.com does. You need to remove "s" from "https" part to make the image show. I edited it for you here.
+1Your post has been removed for bypassing successor system. You have been issued a strike.
@Alienbeef0421 no problem.
@88blaroo ok, thanks for the entry.
F-16 has a very complex shape. It can't even be done right with sculpting (overlapping fuselage blocks). You'd need paneling, which would probably be too much to expect from the first build. I suggest trying a more builder-friendly design, like a jet trainer or an attacker. Those tend to have easier shapes and more obvious proportions. If you are on PC or Android, I suggest looking up Fine Tuner and Overload on the "Mods" page, as those are very helpful while building. They are second and third highest rated, I think.
+2I like it. Looks like a fusion of Antonov An-2 and a trailer house.
@MTakach I've already left comments below explaining it.
@DarDragon oh, my bad. You posted that nice quad AAA. That is perfectly acceptable.
@DarDragon that rocket of yours doesn't meet the rules anyway. It's not a complete system, and part count is to low.
@DarDragon no. Read the description of the challenge please.
@Alexiozo I advise going with conventional technologies. Lasers as effective air defence weapon are still fiction, and I'm not sure aa mines can be effectively used on SP.
@JohnnyBoythePilot that's not really air defence, I think. More of an active protection system. I can't find any info on such systems though.
@CustomAircraftMods depends on the server. You can join two open servers through links in my bio.
@HarrisCraft I don't think so. I haven't checked lately though.
I won't issue a strike for bypassing successor system as I understand it's a joke. I'll issue a strike next time though.
Your post has been removed. Please read these rules about posting planes.
Please try to make major changes to a plane before posting it. Simply painting an object a different color, or adding a few guns is not enough to consider it your own. In the future please credit the original maker, and try to post your own work.
@MTakach yes.
@kshatria ok, thanks.
Very nice build. Clean, enough details, and well performing.
+2Your post has been removed. Please read these rules about posting planes.
Please try to make major changes to a plane before posting it. Simply painting an object a different color, or adding a few guns is not enough to consider it your own. In the future please credit the original maker, and try to post your own work.
@ChiyomiAnzai dunno. I'm not supposed to give advices on my challenge. I'll rate whatever you come up with.
@ChiyomiAnzai I will. I don't advise using rockets for ammo, as I can't guarantee my accuracy with it.
+1@ChiyomiAnzai it's all up to you.
@Hawkeye156 dunno.
@Zippy6 no. It's an interceptor aircraft, not a land-based system.
@Zyvx you won't be disappointed. It's still one of the most popular maps for testing ground vehicles.
@Zyvx thanks :)
@Zyvx I'm glad you like it.
@Hawkeye156 yes, probably.
@Shippy456 as for making custom missiles, if the detacher doesn't fly with the missile, you've attached it the wrong way. Missile must be attached to the large part of the detacher, body to the connection point on the back of the detacher, and the entire thing must be connected to the plane via small side of the detacher.
@Shippy456 that wouldn't really work. You see, radar needs to separate one channel for every missile and one for every target. That means it can control a limited number of missiles. It is more beneficial to have more big missiles that can engage multiple targets in a wide area then to have one missile with a number of sub-missiles that will engage small area that can be covered by a single missile with a large warhead. There's also the cost issue.