@DrunkenRaider I have removed all comments from that post and disabled the comments on it, as some very salty people made quite a mess there. As for featuring, since around two and a half years ago, you have an option to feature a build yourself. Option is called spotlight, and it shows all your followers the build that you like.
@RussianAS I do like ships. But I don't want to deal with "why was this featured?" comments on them when I feature them, so I simply upvote and spotlight.
@Benny3053 only way I could help you is by building it for you, and that's way too much work. A few hours, at least. That's why I generally don't build airliners.
It's a nice debate you've got here. However, it's basically yelling at the cloud. Featured builds are chosen by moderators and developers according to their own taste, not a list of requirements, and you never know who featured it or why. "Feature" feature was succeeded by spotlight, but wasn't removed for some reason. It's not even that beneficial to a build really. A spotlight from, let's say, me puts your build into 979 jet streams where people can't miss it. Feature just puts it on the front page, along with builds everyone has already seen. Also, this debate doesn't really stand a chance of changing anything. Mods will continue featuring builds that they like or consider exceptional.
@randomusername dude, I was sleeping. Have a bit of patience. Yes, eFans are allowed, as they are actually ducted propellers. Just make sure to actually make the engines and not use a jet.
@CustomAircraftMods it would carry two 12.7mm MGs with ammo, camera pod, and two 50l tanks and would struggle to take off... The most engineous solution I ever saw for a COIN aircraft was adding pylons to a crop duster. They are generally lightweight, can carry more than their own weight, have ridiculous loiter time... Perfect planes for the job. I don't mind you making another successor to my build, but it would be a bit ridiculous.
@CustomAircraftMods yes, last version would be unnecessary. Also, strike version would be pretty useless. With full fuel load, this plane could carry some 240kg and fly for some four hours under full load. Floats would also limit the useful load and reduce the speed via drag.
@GeneralPatrick2 I wasn't looking at blueprints of either one. I just wanted to make a plane somewhat like Utva Kobac, so I made a generic turboprop trainer.
Nice looking build, but not quite Fi-156. Window panels of Fi-156 extend beyond trailing edges of wings, wingtips are more rounded, and so are elevator tips, and it's smaller. Also, wing loading is 10% of what it should be and drag is, I believe, way too high.
@ND40X there are always things to add. Real planes have thousands of parts. Check if you are lacking some antennas, play around with custom landing gear, paint scheme,...
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.
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.
@TheDestroyer818 there's usually not quite a lot of activity on the site during the winter. Also, I'm not posting as much as I used to. Btw, you should join a few Discord servers to more easily chat with other members of the community. You can find some in my bio.
Your entry has been rejected as its part count is below the required 150. I suggest upgrading your entry with detail you would find on the real plane (antennas, doors, canopy frame...) and posting again.
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.
@DrunkenRaider I have removed all comments from that post and disabled the comments on it, as some very salty people made quite a mess there. As for featuring, since around two and a half years ago, you have an option to feature a build yourself. Option is called spotlight, and it shows all your followers the build that you like.
@Chancey21 that's still a modification. Intended purpose of Twin Otter is commercial transport.
+1@The3Box6With0AXOnIt yes, it's basically a small civilian plane.
+1@RussianAS I do like ships. But I don't want to deal with "why was this featured?" comments on them when I feature them, so I simply upvote and spotlight.
@Benny3053 only way I could help you is by building it for you, and that's way too much work. A few hours, at least. That's why I generally don't build airliners.
It's a nice debate you've got here. However, it's basically yelling at the cloud. Featured builds are chosen by moderators and developers according to their own taste, not a list of requirements, and you never know who featured it or why. "Feature" feature was succeeded by spotlight, but wasn't removed for some reason. It's not even that beneficial to a build really. A spotlight from, let's say, me puts your build into 979 jet streams where people can't miss it. Feature just puts it on the front page, along with builds everyone has already seen. Also, this debate doesn't really stand a chance of changing anything. Mods will continue featuring builds that they like or consider exceptional.
+4With spotlights, featuring planes is an obsolete function.
+5@randomusername dude, I was sleeping. Have a bit of patience. Yes, eFans are allowed, as they are actually ducted propellers. Just make sure to actually make the engines and not use a jet.
+3@CustomAircraftMods ok.
@CustomAircraftMods it would carry two 12.7mm MGs with ammo, camera pod, and two 50l tanks and would struggle to take off... The most engineous solution I ever saw for a COIN aircraft was adding pylons to a crop duster. They are generally lightweight, can carry more than their own weight, have ridiculous loiter time... Perfect planes for the job. I don't mind you making another successor to my build, but it would be a bit ridiculous.
@CustomAircraftMods yes, last version would be unnecessary. Also, strike version would be pretty useless. With full fuel load, this plane could carry some 240kg and fly for some four hours under full load. Floats would also limit the useful load and reduce the speed via drag.
@DerekSP I don't think you've missed any.
@GeneralPatrick2 I wasn't looking at blueprints of either one. I just wanted to make a plane somewhat like Utva Kobac, so I made a generic turboprop trainer.
Thanks for the entry.
Thanks for the entry.
Part count of this build is below the required 150 parts.
@CustomAircraftMods it's good. I wouldn't have invested more effort into it myself.
You can find a link to the biggest SP Discord server in my bio. It's Builders Chat.
+1Nice looking build, but not quite Fi-156. Window panels of Fi-156 extend beyond trailing edges of wings, wingtips are more rounded, and so are elevator tips, and it's smaller. Also, wing loading is 10% of what it should be and drag is, I believe, way too high.
@ND40X I've seen it and commented on it. Not a winner material, but I'll accept it.
+1@RYAviation you can rip parts with no collisions off my builds.
@ND40X there are always things to add. Real planes have thousands of parts. Check if you are lacking some antennas, play around with custom landing gear, paint scheme,...
+2Thanks for the entry.
Ok, so, I rate this one?
@Deboss311 sure.
@BlackhattAircraft well, he did ask for it. Challenges are meant to inspire users to build things of certain kind.
+1@Deboss311 it would make it a bit complicated for me to track your entry if it is not a successor and you already have a successor entry.
+1Thanks for the entry.
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.
@Chancey21 rip
@Chancey21 if one is a single and one a twin, you can enter both.
+1Your 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 as it doesn't offer a significant improvement over the original.
@Shippy456 no. It has to be intended for personal transport. It may be capable of aerobatics.
+1@8bitgamer33 it would realistically take at least half an hour to reach that speed.
+1@asteroidbook345 can't wait to see it. I'm glad you like my challenge.
Join my General Aviation challenge. You can find it in my highlighted posts.
+3@TheDestroyer818 oh. That sucks.
+1@TheDestroyer818 there's usually not quite a lot of activity on the site during the winter. Also, I'm not posting as much as I used to. Btw, you should join a few Discord servers to more easily chat with other members of the community. You can find some in my bio.
+1@TheDestroyer818
@jamesPLANESii
@Chancey21
@ChiChiWerx
@JetFly
Here's the RG version :)
Thanks @CustomAircraftMods :)
@TheDestroyer818 I get fewer notifications than you'd expect actually. Also, I have a lot of spare time lately.
+1@bolty no problem.
Ok.
Ok, I can forgive it lacking one part. Your entry has been accepted.
Your entry has been rejected as its part count is below the required 150. I suggest upgrading your entry with detail you would find on the real plane (antennas, doors, canopy frame...) and posting again.
+1Your 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.
@DaKraken a number of your comments has been removed as spam.
+111068 including this one.
+4