People are "jerks" if you let them be that, and if they have a cause to be. Many people complain about other people here, but those other people also complain about those accusing them. If you aren't a jerk, you won't have any trouble with jerks. Just learn the art of conversation.
I suggest you try to talk some sense into him. Life goes on, and he needs a small push to finish school. We all have tragedies, misfortunes, bad runs... the trick is to get up again when something knocks you down.
@Hawkeye156 I have experimented with better suspensions. Unfortunately, they have proven worse in the field, not giving satisfactory performance. What I mean with my previous comment is: you don't need the round part under the front end of the boat. Fast boats have sharp fronts to cut through water. Only big and slow ships need that part to negate some drag.
Too short. None of this stories has the right form. You failed to introduce the information, explain it, and give a conclusion. These are just titles for the news.
I'm not sure. I'm pretty sure it was featured by a dev, and I guess it's because:
a) He liked the challenge that much, or
b) He wanted to make its amazing entries more easily available.
@F104Deathtrap I guess there are a few failed attempts. Some entries also failed to be successors. And many probably downloaded just to see how I made the picture, and were shocked to see how messy it acually is :)
@AndrewGarrison we shouldn't have made diesel engines. They made steam ones obsolete and useless. So what if we lose old builds? I would be the first to sacrifice all my old builds for a chance to make new, better ones.
I can still spotlight you, but I don't see the point of doing that. You get a lot of upvotes already, so I save spotlights for builds I consider underrated.
@phd614871 please start writing descriptions. I assume you are Chinese from your comments. You can ask an English-speaking chinese player to translate your description to English, or write it in Chinese, and I'll use Google Translate to see what it's about.
.
請開始撰寫說明。我從你的評論中認為你是中國人。你可以要求說英語的中國玩家將你的描述翻譯成英文，或者用中文寫，並且我會用谷歌翻譯來查看它的含義。
(Google Translate used to translate to Chinese)
@SkullHunter29 I'm following you since before you took your break, which means you are good. I understand it might take you some time to get back in shape after such a long pause.
Since you are new, I'll give you some useful tips. I haven't noticed any XML edited parts during my quick checkup of this build, so I'll start with that. XML editing is modifying parts in the ways you can't normally do in the game. You can do that by accessing game files, or, more easily, through Overload mod. Here are some useful inputs. Unfortunately, you can't edit color through Overload. So, we have Color Editor mod. There's also Fine Tuner mod, older and more accurate version of the stock rotation tool, that also allows you to scale parts, or even an entire build.
If you need any more tips or other help here, feel free to ask.
@PyrusEnderhunter eh, we placed empty chopped up containers over the guns. Pull the string, and they fall in the water. It might have something to do with the public announcement a week earlier that transport ships will make an unescorted pass through pirate infested waters, and M.Corp officials not liking pirates XD
@Botfinder we probably won't get anything fancy there. Devs are focusing on SR2, which is supposed to bring money, and thus keep Jundroo alive. Then they'll have to fix bugs on SR2. So, a simple gun is the best we can hope for.
@SirDino4t7 SimplePlanes doesn't really do numbers well. Mass, drag, power, and similar are arbitrary numbers, more or less. They are not very well simulated. Just get the plane to feel right and look right, and ignore the stats. That's how the most of us do it. You can also use Overload to remove drag from parts. SP's drag calculations are awful, so it's not considered cheating or anything.
It flies like a brick. It could use more power and more elevator and rudder authority. I like the cockpit and the engine though. Great work on those. Overall design is so believable that I thought it was a replica until I read the description. I think that cutting the wingtips at an angle like on the Fokker E.lll would make the plane look a bit better from above and below, and the machine gun could use some attention.
While I support the sentiment, posts like this have no place on the site due to possible political fallout. Especially not as builds. It could have been a forum post.
Btw, greetings from Serbia (:
It's a pretty good Handley Paige Type O, but I do have a few suggestions. I'll happily explain every single one if you'd like, but I'll just list them now so I don't waste my breath (keyboard) if you don't want them. They are in no way meant to cause offense, and are just advice from a guy who has been playing this thing for the last ten years and knows a trick or two.
You could use better wings, but these are fine for this detail level. You could use custom (rotator powered) control surfaces with this kind of wings to get both more realistic shape of the control surface and smoother movement.
I'd suggest using either camera aiming or automatic aiming for the defensive turrets instead of manual inputs. They are really difficult to accurately aim with Yaw and VTOL on PC.
Yaw doesn't seem to move the rudders as it should. Combined with the atrocious directional stability of this plane, they are kind of necessary. Also, you could hide a bigger vertical stabilizer inside the rear fuselage to improve directional stability.
Maximum speed is way too high. You can make the plane lighter or wings more effective with XML editing (Overload mod) to allow it to remain stable at lower speed, and then you can reduce engine power. I think that would improve realism.
Overall, I like the build. It feels heavy like it should, it has interior, and I can see you actually put some time into making it good. Even if you don't want to publish another version, it might be worth a try implementing my tips into it so you know how to use them for the next one. As I've said, I will gladly explain them to you if you want.
@ThePurPledEngineer2025 take your time with complex techniques. They're usually worth trying out and adding them to your arsenal. As for the ownership of the build, as long as it is successor, it's fine. You can modify it all you want. Also, according to upvotes, Astro12 doesn't seem to mind. Modifying other people's builds is a great way to learn new and better ways of doing things.
The wing technique I sent you isn't very complicated, but it gives a pretty decent airfoil and is easy to get into the right shape. I suggest copying it piece by piece to see how it works. After that, it should be easy to apply to any build.
It's advisable to have a structural wing spanning most of the lenth of the ship, positioned vertically, and a rudded under the stern as a real ship would. Edit liftScale of the big wing ("keel") so it prevents drifting but not turning. Adjust liftScale of the rudder to get adequate turn radius.
If you'd like to learn more about shipbuilding techniques, you can find useful tutorials on PortSP Discord server. You can find a link in my bio.
This is a really nice ship for its part count. Keep up the good work.
@Noobslayer21 you managed to break two rules with one post. Political statements are not allowed on the site, and the thumbnail must depict the build itself, not what the build is supposed to look like. I suggest removing and reposting it with an appropriate thumbnail before the moderators get to it.
Not bad for a new guy. Proportion is way off, but that's usual for the first few builds. I suggest trying to match the blueprints of a real aircraft on your next build to get a sense of proportion and what goes where. You have a lot more details than is usual for new guys, and I can see you have spent some time and effort on this build. Here's a little tutorial for more realistic wings for when you feel comfortable enough to try slightly more advanced stuff. If you need any tips regarding the building, feel free to ask.
By the way, pictures in your description don't work because your formatting is wrong. It should be . Make sure the link is to the image itself (the one you get when you open the image in a new tab), and not a link to the page containing the image.
(edit)
I forgot to mention, it flies quite well. I enjoyed flying it. Cockpit layout is a bit unconventional, but I guess it works well with VR.
@SimpleEric no problem.
+2It's a good climber.
+2Very nice. I managed to win on the first try :)
+2People are "jerks" if you let them be that, and if they have a cause to be. Many people complain about other people here, but those other people also complain about those accusing them. If you aren't a jerk, you won't have any trouble with jerks. Just learn the art of conversation.
+2I suggest you try to talk some sense into him. Life goes on, and he needs a small push to finish school. We all have tragedies, misfortunes, bad runs... the trick is to get up again when something knocks you down.
+2The end of that description is, indeed, a derping meme. Nice build.
+2@Hawkeye156 I have experimented with better suspensions. Unfortunately, they have proven worse in the field, not giving satisfactory performance. What I mean with my previous comment is: you don't need the round part under the front end of the boat. Fast boats have sharp fronts to cut through water. Only big and slow ships need that part to negate some drag.
+2Interesting idea.
+2If Jundroo took their time to read all of this when they were making SP, we'd have much better airport experience.
+2WNP discovered that ages ago. I have used it on a few builds to reduce apparent drag, but never as propulsion.
+2UnstableOrbit. Now there's one I haven't heard of in a while.
+2@Chancey21 no problem. I like overkills, and these wheels definitely are one.
+2Not bad. It's still slightly lacking in terms of details, but it's nice. Your grips are too thin though.
+2Too short. None of this stories has the right form. You failed to introduce the information, explain it, and give a conclusion. These are just titles for the news.
+2I'm not sure. I'm pretty sure it was featured by a dev, and I guess it's because:
+2a) He liked the challenge that much, or
b) He wanted to make its amazing entries more easily available.
@FarrowAirlines what I have considered and rated under "quality" is:
What I have rated in "design" for fictional aircraft is:
I understand that you have worked hard on your build, but I have to judge based on the build I get in the end, not on work invested.
+2lol
+2@F104Deathtrap I guess there are a few failed attempts. Some entries also failed to be successors. And many probably downloaded just to see how I made the picture, and were shocked to see how messy it acually is :)
+2@AndrewGarrison we shouldn't have made diesel engines. They made steam ones obsolete and useless. So what if we lose old builds? I would be the first to sacrifice all my old builds for a chance to make new, better ones.
+2@BlazeInfinity my attempt was a fail. And it would have been a V/STOL carrier, not a full-size.
+2I can still spotlight you, but I don't see the point of doing that. You get a lot of upvotes already, so I save spotlights for builds I consider underrated.
+2Looks great. The part count is surprisingly low. Looking at it, I was expecting around 800. Good job.
+2@phd614871 please start writing descriptions. I assume you are Chinese from your comments. You can ask an English-speaking chinese player to translate your description to English, or write it in Chinese, and I'll use Google Translate to see what it's about.
+2.
請開始撰寫說明。我從你的評論中認為你是中國人。你可以要求說英語的中國玩家將你的描述翻譯成英文，或者用中文寫，並且我會用谷歌翻譯來查看它的含義。
(Google Translate used to translate to Chinese)
@SkullHunter29 I'm following you since before you took your break, which means you are good. I understand it might take you some time to get back in shape after such a long pause.
+2Unfortunately, this entry doesn't meet the requirement of minimum part count. Challenge asks for 150 parts or more.
+2They are supposed to swing down at high angle of attack, reducing stall speed.
+2Ships need lengthwise stabilisation too. Add large vertical stabilizers to stern, and nudge them in.
+2Very nice. As for XML parts, you can take them from other peoples builds.
+2Since you are new, I'll give you some useful tips. I haven't noticed any XML edited parts during my quick checkup of this build, so I'll start with that. XML editing is modifying parts in the ways you can't normally do in the game. You can do that by accessing game files, or, more easily, through Overload mod. Here are some useful inputs. Unfortunately, you can't edit color through Overload. So, we have Color Editor mod. There's also Fine Tuner mod, older and more accurate version of the stock rotation tool, that also allows you to scale parts, or even an entire build.
+2If you need any more tips or other help here, feel free to ask.
@PyrusEnderhunter eh, we placed empty chopped up containers over the guns. Pull the string, and they fall in the water. It might have something to do with the public announcement a week earlier that transport ships will make an unescorted pass through pirate infested waters, and M.Corp officials not liking pirates XD
+2@Botfinder we probably won't get anything fancy there. Devs are focusing on SR2, which is supposed to bring money, and thus keep Jundroo alive. Then they'll have to fix bugs on SR2. So, a simple gun is the best we can hope for.
+2@Awsomur thanks
+2U were nooob O_O
+2@TheBlueRobotProduct they cause damage to AI vehicles like USS Beast, destroyers, and convoy trucks. User-made planes are not affected.
+2On a person's comment, click on the down-facing arrow. It gives you a few options, including "Block User".
+2@SirDino4t7 SimplePlanes doesn't really do numbers well. Mass, drag, power, and similar are arbitrary numbers, more or less. They are not very well simulated. Just get the plane to feel right and look right, and ignore the stats. That's how the most of us do it. You can also use Overload to remove drag from parts. SP's drag calculations are awful, so it's not considered cheating or anything.
+1It flies like a brick. It could use more power and more elevator and rudder authority. I like the cockpit and the engine though. Great work on those. Overall design is so believable that I thought it was a replica until I read the description. I think that cutting the wingtips at an angle like on the Fokker E.lll would make the plane look a bit better from above and below, and the machine gun could use some attention.
+1While I support the sentiment, posts like this have no place on the site due to possible political fallout. Especially not as builds. It could have been a forum post.
+1Btw, greetings from Serbia (:
It's a pretty good Handley Paige Type O, but I do have a few suggestions. I'll happily explain every single one if you'd like, but I'll just list them now so I don't waste my breath (keyboard) if you don't want them. They are in no way meant to cause offense, and are just advice from a guy who has been playing this thing for the last ten years and knows a trick or two.
You could use better wings, but these are fine for this detail level. You could use custom (rotator powered) control surfaces with this kind of wings to get both more realistic shape of the control surface and smoother movement.
I'd suggest using either camera aiming or automatic aiming for the defensive turrets instead of manual inputs. They are really difficult to accurately aim with Yaw and VTOL on PC.
Yaw doesn't seem to move the rudders as it should. Combined with the atrocious directional stability of this plane, they are kind of necessary. Also, you could hide a bigger vertical stabilizer inside the rear fuselage to improve directional stability.
Maximum speed is way too high. You can make the plane lighter or wings more effective with XML editing (Overload mod) to allow it to remain stable at lower speed, and then you can reduce engine power. I think that would improve realism.
Overall, I like the build. It feels heavy like it should, it has interior, and I can see you actually put some time into making it good. Even if you don't want to publish another version, it might be worth a try implementing my tips into it so you know how to use them for the next one. As I've said, I will gladly explain them to you if you want.
+1@ThePurPledEngineer2025 take your time with complex techniques. They're usually worth trying out and adding them to your arsenal. As for the ownership of the build, as long as it is successor, it's fine. You can modify it all you want. Also, according to upvotes, Astro12 doesn't seem to mind. Modifying other people's builds is a great way to learn new and better ways of doing things.
+1The wing technique I sent you isn't very complicated, but it gives a pretty decent airfoil and is easy to get into the right shape. I suggest copying it piece by piece to see how it works. After that, it should be easy to apply to any build.
Just join a discord server and make some friends. There's dozens of servers.
+1Not really 1:1, real one being considerably smaller, but it looks great nonetheless. Good job.
+1@Cuboidable I literally had the tag made for this build (:
+1Maybe for those yet to come too, if I ever stick with one for long enough to finish it.
𐎨 𐎪𐎭𐎮𐎼 𐏂𐎧𐎨𐎽 𐎦𐎸𐏀
+1Nice build, especially for the part count.
I see that the predecessor is in an appropriate color (:
+1It's advisable to have a structural wing spanning most of the lenth of the ship, positioned vertically, and a rudded under the stern as a real ship would. Edit
liftScaleof the big wing ("keel") so it prevents drifting but not turning. AdjustliftScaleof the rudder to get adequate turn radius.If you'd like to learn more about shipbuilding techniques, you can find useful tutorials on PortSP Discord server. You can find a link in my bio.
This is a really nice ship for its part count. Keep up the good work.
+1@Noobslayer21 you managed to break two rules with one post. Political statements are not allowed on the site, and the thumbnail must depict the build itself, not what the build is supposed to look like. I suggest removing and reposting it with an appropriate thumbnail before the moderators get to it.
+1Another amazing dieselpunk build.
+1@JanissaryAviation sorry. I've fixed the link.
+1Not bad for a new guy. Proportion is way off, but that's usual for the first few builds. I suggest trying to match the blueprints of a real aircraft on your next build to get a sense of proportion and what goes where. You have a lot more details than is usual for new guys, and I can see you have spent some time and effort on this build.
Here's a little tutorial for more realistic wings for when you feel comfortable enough to try slightly more advanced stuff. If you need any tips regarding the building, feel free to ask.
By the way, pictures in your description don't work because your formatting is wrong. It should be
. Make sure the link is to the image itself (the one you get when you open the image in a new tab), and not a link to the page containing the image.(edit)
+1I forgot to mention, it flies quite well. I enjoyed flying it. Cockpit layout is a bit unconventional, but I guess it works well with VR.