@IceCraftGaming it is very easy to keep a server SFW. On my own server, PortSP, posting NSFW content results in an immediate permanent ban, Admin involvement in conversations encourages more professional tone, and server is of the kind where peoole really don't want to get banned.
This is a beautiful build. It flies very well, behaves like an airship, weapons are functional...
It is under-detailed. If your device can run more parts, I suggest going all out on this concept. If not, perhaps build a smaller one so you can detail it.
Either way, I enjoyed playing with this build. Cheers.
@BluestBoi this challenge template has been developed by me years ago, and has since been copied by pretty much every successful challenge. If you don't like it, you don't have to participate.
Besides, while I would accept criticism of a fellow veteran player, I will not accept it from someone who hasn't even seen a fraction of this community yet, or explored one hundredth of the possibilities this game has to offer.
Nice upgrade to the landing gear.
I advise against covering wings with fuselage blocks like that. Control surfaces clipping through is considered more of a noob move than naked wings. You can experiment with one of many custom wing techniques that actually give good looking wings. here's mine.
Custom wings still need wing parts inside them. Control surfaces on them are usually done with hinges moving a sculpted fuselage piece with a small wing hidden inside it, or by having custom surfaces empty and using stock control surfaces.
If you go with stock control surfaces on hidden wings, scale the wing thinner so control surfaces move less and don't clip out of the custom wing body.
You really ought to experiment with traction settings of single wheels. You're making some really nice builds, and these twin wheels are just taking away from them.
I have finally tested it. It looks as good up close as it does in the screenshots. Suspension is quite stiff for this kind of vehicle though, and you should invest into FT engine inputs that allow both realistic acceleration and good hill climbing.
@FRIGGLES it's the best aiming system currently available for artillery. Camera is very accurate, especially with zoom. And you get to look at the fancy build while shooting stuff.
While it could use a bit of refinement, it's really good for its part count. Pilot view is great. Might be a bit too agile for a medium bomber, and acceleration is too quick. I advise reducing engine power and reducing drag so it can get to the same max speed slower.
Overall, nice build. I enjoyed playing with it.
@Chillybaconface it's a HUD. Why should we bother? I trust Juan enough to believe the pictures he provided, knowing his previous builds, and I have nothing to put it on. Still, I find it a good part, cleverly put together in decent or better quality, making it worth the upvote.
@AdvisedPotato @Griffon1 use a rotator. Time it precisely to counter the retraction of the landing gear. Works for wing landing gear only, as the others retract into their own housing.
Acceleration is a bit hard. You should have reduced drag and power. Other than that, very nice bird, especially for the part count. I enjoyed playing with it.
The shape and flight model are great, but the build is unfinished and there's z fighting (colors glitching) on control surfaces. I think it can be properly finished with an hour or so of work.
Every game must run out of updates at some point. I can't envision any further major gamechangers like fuselage cutting. However, this community has managed to keep making great content for a year between updates. I don't think we'll get bored of it anytime soon.
Besides, this update will allow users with lower end devices to produce great builds, and will make the learning curve a lot less steap for new guys.
I agree with CoolPeach. Purpose of stock builds is to teach new builders what is possible in this game, and they should range in complexity from the ugly and boring Kicking Fish to sculpted builds like the new Mustang, and should demonstrate various building methods and options like funky trees. Besides, potatoes that can't run 300 parts are usually old phones which are getting pretty rare. Most newer low end devices can handle over 500.
Frankly, I was expecting more. You have a very good base here, but you should have invested a bit more into tweaking performance, adding some gauges, engine details, and making a proper gun. The one you have is a box on a stick with a pipe in it. Turret ring and a simple machine gun would have only taken additional dozen or so parts. Also, having machine gun fire regardless of activation group while allowing tail to take damage is bad. Accidentally pressing the trigger blows the tail fin off. I suggest setting the machine gun to activate1, setting machine gun rotators to activate1, and setting control surface rotators to -activate1, with ZeroOnDeactivate set to true. Also, I suggest putting the cockpit to where the pilot PoV is.
This build isn't far from being great, it only needs some tweaks, but without those tweaks it's quite bad.
@1x1x1x1x2 that's the whole point. Back in a day, we didn't have a cannon, so we used what we had. This was one option, detachers that shoot Boom25s were the other.
Leaving a challenge unrated is against the rules. If you do not publish the ratings within two days, the challenge will be removed, along with all successor points, and you will be temporarily banned from the site.
Fourth plus generation fighters are still very effective. According to its specifications, Rafale is a pier to MiG-29 and MiG-35,something very few fighters can brag about. It seems to be a very capable aircraft.
@Lerkov1991 being one of the highest rated users on the site, I feel the pressure to deliver top quality builds. Even this is, given the restrictions, a quality build with a decent amount of planning, math, an hour of balancing so it sails well, etc. While making the most with limited part count is my thing, something like a decently detailed 200m ship is still ought of my reach.
@FairFireFlight drag is disabled on most parts. It was re-introduced to a few large parts to achieve somewhat realistic top speed. Without drag, it would have kept accelerating indeffinitely.
@zhangqinke there's nothing to be sorry about. Mistakes happen. I'm just giving you some feedback for if you want to improve, or for your future projects.
@IceCraftGaming it is very easy to keep a server SFW. On my own server, PortSP, posting NSFW content results in an immediate permanent ban, Admin involvement in conversations encourages more professional tone, and server is of the kind where peoole really don't want to get banned.
+2Very nice ship, mate. Very round too. Hardly a Dreadnought due to the lack of turrets, but still a very interesting build.
+2This is a beautiful build. It flies very well, behaves like an airship, weapons are functional...
+2It is under-detailed. If your device can run more parts, I suggest going all out on this concept. If not, perhaps build a smaller one so you can detail it.
Either way, I enjoyed playing with this build. Cheers.
@BluestBoi this challenge template has been developed by me years ago, and has since been copied by pretty much every successful challenge. If you don't like it, you don't have to participate.
+2Besides, while I would accept criticism of a fellow veteran player, I will not accept it from someone who hasn't even seen a fraction of this community yet, or explored one hundredth of the possibilities this game has to offer.
The heart of the greatest plane ever made!
+2@MAPA you're welcome buddy.
+2Nice upgrade to the landing gear.
+2I advise against covering wings with fuselage blocks like that. Control surfaces clipping through is considered more of a noob move than naked wings. You can experiment with one of many custom wing techniques that actually give good looking wings. here's mine.
Custom wings still need wing parts inside them. Control surfaces on them are usually done with hinges moving a sculpted fuselage piece with a small wing hidden inside it, or by having custom surfaces empty and using stock control surfaces.
If you go with stock control surfaces on hidden wings, scale the wing thinner so control surfaces move less and don't clip out of the custom wing body.
You really ought to experiment with traction settings of single wheels. You're making some really nice builds, and these twin wheels are just taking away from them.
+2Flight model is quite good. I like it. Very nice simple build.
+2You could/should have used single wheels for landing gear, but that's a minor detail.
Hey look! A Wolfy build! Looks great mate, I just love the wood in the cockpit.
+2I have finally tested it. It looks as good up close as it does in the screenshots. Suspension is quite stiff for this kind of vehicle though, and you should invest into FT engine inputs that allow both realistic acceleration and good hill climbing.
+2Credit for the original build would be greatly appreciated. As per the rules, you should give it.
+2I don't really mind, but others could.
Troll
+2I really like these kinds of builds. They are rare on the site. Thingies that are cool in real life, but can't really be used on SP.
+2@KerlonceauxIndustries @Kangy thanks.
+2@FRIGGLES nice.
+2@FRIGGLES it's the best aiming system currently available for artillery. Camera is very accurate, especially with zoom. And you get to look at the fancy build while shooting stuff.
+2@PorterTM if you have a good PC, go for it. It's not that much of a monster. My medium end PC can't.
+2While it could use a bit of refinement, it's really good for its part count. Pilot view is great. Might be a bit too agile for a medium bomber, and acceleration is too quick. I advise reducing engine power and reducing drag so it can get to the same max speed slower.
+2Overall, nice build. I enjoyed playing with it.
@Grroro eh, I'm happier without that stuff.
+2@Chillybaconface it's a HUD. Why should we bother? I trust Juan enough to believe the pictures he provided, knowing his previous builds, and I have nothing to put it on. Still, I find it a good part, cleverly put together in decent or better quality, making it worth the upvote.
+2@AdvisedPotato @Griffon1 use a rotator. Time it precisely to counter the retraction of the landing gear. Works for wing landing gear only, as the others retract into their own housing.
+2Acceleration is a bit hard. You should have reduced drag and power. Other than that, very nice bird, especially for the part count. I enjoyed playing with it.
+2It's good to see you back. I can't wait to see what you'll do with the new fuselage slicing.
+2The shape and flight model are great, but the build is unfinished and there's z fighting (colors glitching) on control surfaces. I think it can be properly finished with an hour or so of work.
+2@RussianAce add "run", differentiate root and tip width, and you can have any wing shape you want.
+2Every game must run out of updates at some point. I can't envision any further major gamechangers like fuselage cutting. However, this community has managed to keep making great content for a year between updates. I don't think we'll get bored of it anytime soon.
+2Besides, this update will allow users with lower end devices to produce great builds, and will make the learning curve a lot less steap for new guys.
I agree with CoolPeach. Purpose of stock builds is to teach new builders what is possible in this game, and they should range in complexity from the ugly and boring Kicking Fish to sculpted builds like the new Mustang, and should demonstrate various building methods and options like funky trees. Besides, potatoes that can't run 300 parts are usually old phones which are getting pretty rare. Most newer low end devices can handle over 500.
+2@Strucker very well. Have the server owner submit the new description via DM on Discord.
+2Good idea. If the new parts work the way I expect them to work, it will be possible to simulate the gun perfectly,
+2@BSKPlays2009 you forgot to provide a link to the challenge.
+2@ThomasRoderick sure.
+2Frankly, I was expecting more. You have a very good base here, but you should have invested a bit more into tweaking performance, adding some gauges, engine details, and making a proper gun. The one you have is a box on a stick with a pipe in it. Turret ring and a simple machine gun would have only taken additional dozen or so parts. Also, having machine gun fire regardless of activation group while allowing tail to take damage is bad. Accidentally pressing the trigger blows the tail fin off. I suggest setting the machine gun to
+2activate1, setting machine gun rotators toactivate1, and setting control surface rotators to-activate1, withZeroOnDeactivateset totrue. Also, I suggest putting the cockpit to where the pilot PoV is.This build isn't far from being great, it only needs some tweaks, but without those tweaks it's quite bad.
@1x1x1x1x2 that's the whole point. Back in a day, we didn't have a cannon, so we used what we had. This was one option, detachers that shoot Boom25s were the other.
+2@GuianLorenzo done.
+2Leaving a challenge unrated is against the rules. If you do not publish the ratings within two days, the challenge will be removed, along with all successor points, and you will be temporarily banned from the site.
+2Incredible work. She's beautiful.
+2@Sadboye12 it's not forbidden. However, it is pointless, in my opinion. Upvotes are, in a way, a "thank you" for posting a build.
+2Fourth plus generation fighters are still very effective. According to its specifications, Rafale is a pier to MiG-29 and MiG-35,something very few fighters can brag about. It seems to be a very capable aircraft.
+2@PapaWii sure.
+2@MrACEpilot you have been issued a strike for insulting a moderator. Your comment has been removed.
+2How did you get condensation trails in the thumbnail?
+2The beauty rarely seen on the site.
+2@Kipo some comment that you posted on a number of posts a while ago. Not offensive or anything, but spammy.
+2@MemriNotTheNewsChannel half of the forum section are invites for this server.
+2@VerargerterVortex thanks. I've been taking a break. Lack of motivation and stuff.
+2@Lerkov1991 being one of the highest rated users on the site, I feel the pressure to deliver top quality builds. Even this is, given the restrictions, a quality build with a decent amount of planning, math, an hour of balancing so it sails well, etc. While making the most with limited part count is my thing, something like a decently detailed 200m ship is still ought of my reach.
+2@FairFireFlight drag is disabled on most parts. It was re-introduced to a few large parts to achieve somewhat realistic top speed. Without drag, it would have kept accelerating indeffinitely.
+2@zhangqinke there's nothing to be sorry about. Mistakes happen. I'm just giving you some feedback for if you want to improve, or for your future projects.
+2@SCP1471 I don't know who banned that particular alt, but it was terminated as an alt used predominantly for breaking the rules.
+2