Also, don't build to meet somebody's expectations. Build for fun. If you can't make a car today, who cares? I sometimes upload three days in a row, sometimes once a month, and nobody cares. And I'm fifth highest rated user. It's not end of the world if the build isn't on schedule.
@Flu why? Take a break, gather some inspiration, make something that's not a car... If you continue just making another one of the same thing every day, people will get bored and stop upvoting.
There are a few ways. I suggest XML editing two wing guns to have the same rate of fire. Set collisions of one to "false" and point it forward. Set damage of the other to "0" and point it backwards. Puth both guns on a small wing piece and hide them in the decorative "barrel". Put the assembly you just made on a shock, so that the rear-facing gun shoots at the shock. You might need to experiment with impactForce of the rear-facing gun and strength of the spring.
@Mostly SAM tubes were a quick improvisation. I was having second thoughts about adding them, and then went for a simplest design possible. I have kept top-heaviness of BOV-3, since this is based on it. Zastava M55 guns don't have noticeable recoil, so I didn't bother with that either. Thanks for noticing cooldown. It is in accurate intervals, although it should be ten minutes, not seconds. I thought that would kill the fun, so I shortened it. Reticle, well, I was a bit lazy to scale it :)
@Lilsmok rules are the rules, kiddo. I have just cited them and explained how I knew it's a copy. I'll let moderators do the rest. Best way to get respect in this community is to develop your technique by studying other people's builds and making your own from scratch.
@mikoyanster great. I'll sign you in as soon as I see some decent WIP. I'm not signing anyone who hasn't made a good start on their build, so I don't get people giving up.
You have a nice design, good maneuverability, and great cockpit here. However, this plane is overpowered, and you have some kind of thrust vectoring set to the same input as flaps.
It's a pre-arranged scenario. Notice how the "chemical attack" happened just days after allied coalition said that they will attack if there's a chemical attack. They apparently did just that. However, when you look into some details known so far, Syrian military airport seems to have been evacuated days before the attack, and that chemical plants (if they were even actual chemical plants) were cleared of chemicals and personnel. This we can conclude from the lack of reported victims and chemical fallout. Also, they aimed as far from the Russian positions as they could, and Emmanuel Macron said that Russia was informed in advance.
Why I doubt that there was an actual chemical attack? Well, just look at the video of cleaning up its aftermath. They are sanitising the area and affected people with water instead of appropriate chemicals for neutralising the poison. Also, nobody is wearing a gas mask or any other protective equipment.
I come from a country that is mostly neutral in this matter, and my informations mostly come from our national network, so I consider them reliable. I have also done a brief research on the internet to compare them to other sources.
@Phoza I accidentally deleted my notes, but I think it was either nose down or nose up attitude, or poor pitch authority. Those are the most common problems on which I deduced performance points.
Thanks for the entry. I can somehow run this version, but still, I'd love a version with lower part count so I can do better testing of performance. I think reduction to 1000 parts would suffice.
@ShockRF thanks. I'm glad to see it still being popular.
+1@JangoTheMango you have a very good sense of smell. Although, I'm not "fuming". Just merely making an appearance.
+1@JangoTheMango and the one five posts below mine in the "new" section.
+1Also, don't build to meet somebody's expectations. Build for fun. If you can't make a car today, who cares? I sometimes upload three days in a row, sometimes once a month, and nobody cares. And I'm fifth highest rated user. It's not end of the world if the build isn't on schedule.
+1@Flu why? Take a break, gather some inspiration, make something that's not a car... If you continue just making another one of the same thing every day, people will get bored and stop upvoting.
+1Finally. Can't wait to get to my computer and try it out.
+1@RocCrafter101 lol
+1@klm747klm747 You must have missed something. Picture is not showing. It should look like this.
+1There are a few ways. I suggest XML editing two wing guns to have the same rate of fire. Set collisions of one to "false" and point it forward. Set damage of the other to "0" and point it backwards. Puth both guns on a small wing piece and hide them in the decorative "barrel". Put the assembly you just made on a shock, so that the rear-facing gun shoots at the shock. You might need to experiment with impactForce of the rear-facing gun and strength of the spring.
+1Cool concept. With a bit of perfecting, it would make a good hovercraft.
+1@typeZERO lol
+1@Aeroman77 if you manage to hit them. It's difficult to hit a plane from the ground. But it also has missiles.
+1@Mostly SAM tubes were a quick improvisation. I was having second thoughts about adding them, and then went for a simplest design possible. I have kept top-heaviness of BOV-3, since this is based on it. Zastava M55 guns don't have noticeable recoil, so I didn't bother with that either. Thanks for noticing cooldown. It is in accurate intervals, although it should be ten minutes, not seconds. I thought that would kill the fun, so I shortened it. Reticle, well, I was a bit lazy to scale it :)
+1@mikoyanster ok, I'll add a link.
+1@Lilsmok rules are the rules, kiddo. I have just cited them and explained how I knew it's a copy. I'll let moderators do the rest. Best way to get respect in this community is to develop your technique by studying other people's builds and making your own from scratch.
+1@Milo1628xa you don't have an idea of how common it is. Good thing we have good moderators.
+1This post is obviously a repost (copy) of another user's plane. That is against the rules. Please remove this post.
+1@mikoyanster great. I'll sign you in as soon as I see some decent WIP. I'm not signing anyone who hasn't made a good start on their build, so I don't get people giving up.
+1@A3 I know about it. My schedule is overflowing, so it's unlikely I'll make it.
+1@A3 lol. No, I suck at airliners.
+1@BlazeInfinity sleeping, I guess.
+1@A3 I already have way too many planes of that kind. I think someone has made one of those already.
+1@RedstoneAeroAviation 0.5. One old, square block.
+1@SledDriver I have suggested that on Uservoice ages ago.
+1I have had this problem with early versions of a ballistic missile I was making. I don't know how I got around it.
+1You have a nice design, good maneuverability, and great cockpit here. However, this plane is overpowered, and you have some kind of thrust vectoring set to the same input as flaps.
+1@SledDriver still, it is interesting.
+1It's a pre-arranged scenario. Notice how the "chemical attack" happened just days after allied coalition said that they will attack if there's a chemical attack. They apparently did just that. However, when you look into some details known so far, Syrian military airport seems to have been evacuated days before the attack, and that chemical plants (if they were even actual chemical plants) were cleared of chemicals and personnel. This we can conclude from the lack of reported victims and chemical fallout. Also, they aimed as far from the Russian positions as they could, and Emmanuel Macron said that Russia was informed in advance.
+1Why I doubt that there was an actual chemical attack? Well, just look at the video of cleaning up its aftermath. They are sanitising the area and affected people with water instead of appropriate chemicals for neutralising the poison. Also, nobody is wearing a gas mask or any other protective equipment.
I come from a country that is mostly neutral in this matter, and my informations mostly come from our national network, so I consider them reliable. I have also done a brief research on the internet to compare them to other sources.
@zerogamer you might need to manually transfer it to the mod folder. Some Android devices have that issue.
+1Spotlight the build by a low ranking users that you think deserves more attention. Quality will attract followers over time.
+1Yet another amazing creation. I hope we'll be seeing more from you now that your game is working again.
+1Incredible. I've seen tons of planes with detailed interiors, but detailed electronics bay is something completely new to me. Good job.
+1@Strikefighter04 from what I see, yes. Nice tail.
+1- Here you go.
- Yes, if you are using custom landing gear.
+1brakeTorque = "x"@Datom no problem. I'm glad you managed to use it well.
+1@FarrowAirlines I know. But compare your build to winners. You got thick wings, no custom surfaces, training wheels layout is unrealistic...
+1@kingofsteam optimally, through Overload mod. Edit "powerMultiplier" option on engine.
+1@ploptro7 I'm glad you like it.
+1Bad idea buddy. Jundroo is not EA.
+1@Benkelmans if a white user posted the best entry, write user would win. But platinums are the most experienced, and it shows.
+1@Phoza I accidentally deleted my notes, but I think it was either nose down or nose up attitude, or poor pitch authority. Those are the most common problems on which I deduced performance points.
+1@DestinyAviation
+1@Tessemi
@Thueerra
Thanks for the entry. I can somehow run this version, but still, I'd love a version with lower part count so I can do better testing of performance. I think reduction to 1000 parts would suffice.
+1@Marine no problem
+1Thanks for the entry
+1Hey, you forgot to mention server's most amazingly awesome moderators!!!
+1You'll melt my laptop...
+1Realising your mistakes is a big first step. Second one is not repeating them. I hope we'll have you as a respectable user from now on.
+1You should at least credit WNP78 for the script. He's the guy who wrote it.
+1@newclear sure
+1