The master of biplanes builds the mother of all biplanes for his final project. I know it's been a long time, but I hope you return to build some more.
The afterburner is beautiful, the livery looks awesome but the most impressive thing is just how real this jet seems. You really captured the spirit of the 1950's with this one and it just feels right. Great job.
@Freerider2142 It was a joke, amigo. The F-5 was a design well ahead of it's time, but the technology inside of it wasn't. As a result, you can see time and again where the design itself impacted the world of aviation in the form of newer aircraft using better technology and the solid F-5 design as a starting point.
What a pleasant surprise. I logged in to see what's new and boom, there's an F5 on the front page. I love F5's. Ooh, it's the elusive Tigershark. Chichi made it? I had to try it out!
I was quite disturbed when the fuel tank flew off the belly (I had no idea that could happen in SP), but I didn't have much time to consider the matter because it was around that time I was introduced to some vicious aileron reversal. (Not sure if that's the proper term for it, but pitching all the way up certainly causes roll input to get very tricky). You've been making great looking jets for a long time on here (especially your 1950's designs) but this flight model is very sophisticated by SP standards and I am mightily impressed. Thank you for taking the time to build this and share it.
@ChiChiWerx @Freerider2142 The USN version of the F-5 is known today as the F/A-18 :b
@JumpingJack oh jeez, I made that comment over a year ago... I think it has something to do with multiplying the dimensions as opposed to assigning them all a number. But I could be very, very wrong. I don't build anymore.
@Thelegitpilot13 No problemo. There's a few explanations floating around about the specific HTML tags you need to use, and you may need to read up on how to handle screenies on IOS.
@Bmcclory As I've said elsewhere, SR2 and SP have different design goals right now. While it is possible to make crude approximations of some of SP, SR2 doesn't cover much of what keeps people playing here. Maybe they'll add more overlap, maybe not. We will see.
@Jetpackturtle I like the visuals, but I would like the ability to make hollow or transparent shapes, larger shapes and concave curves. Additional deforming options would also be nice. Anything that can allow more detail with fewer parts, really, as most of the "best" creations are beyond the capacity for mobile devices. There are other features, like multiplayer, that would also be nice. Basically, take all the things Jundroo has learned over the years, combine it with the best of what the community has added, and see if you can gain a bit of performance by designing that way from the start.
I freely admit, I'm not programmer. Maybe bolting on new features is just as efficient as starting over, I don't know. But I think a sequel realeased in 2021 or so would be a good idea.
@Thelegitpilot13 Cant you just hold some buttons down to take a screen grab? What kind of crazy nightmare situation have Apple users subjected themselves to?
Anyway, get a screenshot, slap it up on flickr and don't forget your password.
@Awsomur What a thoughtful, productive thing to say. Thank you for not only taking the time to read and consider the contents of this thread, but also to formulate that magnum opus of a response.
@Mod Fair enough, but you understand where I'm going here: a design focused on atmospheric flight with considerations for land and water. Not soon, but eventually.
@Jim1the1Squid For the most part, yes. A quick glance at the most popular mods or extended use of the builder reveals there's plenty of room for improvement. Transparency, concave or hollow shapes, large components are all problematic as-is and those are just the things off the top of my head after almost a year of not playing.
As I said elsewhere, they could simply include SP features in SR2. I think everyone would love that, but I don't think it would be good for the company because most of the people who want this already own both games.
I'm talking about a new design from the ground-up. Increasing efficiency and expanding possibilities where ever possible, even at the cost of reverse compatibility.
@Gameboi14 I have SR2, in its current iteration it is not a true sequel to this game. You can't build propellers, for instance. While I would certainly applaud Jundroo if they decided to include all the features of Simple Planes, that would be a lot of work that would not likely net them much in terms of new sales as most of us own both games already.
@Nerfenthusiast In the early 50's technology was moving pretty fast. The Starfighter represented the cutting edge of aircraft design, especially in terms of performance. Tensions with the Soviets and the threat of nuclear war made it imperative to utilize science as quickly as possible. In this case, it created a jet dangerously ahead of its time. Pilots weren't ready to handle that much speed, leaders weren't clear minded enough to utilize the jet properly and finally, designers had sacrificed too much practicality for the plane to be safe.
This is a really impressive reimagining of the Thud. Not only does it embody the spirit and impact of the original, but the stealth elements blend perfectly with the original intentions of the design.
Journalists have repeatedly compared the F-105 to the F-35, and the Thunderchief was actually quite stealthy for its time. I am really blown away here.
This plane looks very nice, but you can do better. You captured the overall shape very well, the outline looks great and everything is pretty much to scale. The cockpit area and air intakes look great.
But there are problems here. Your tail has split elevators, that's a big no-no for anything supersonic. All superson aircraft have all-moving horizontal tails, no exceptions. You left out the "dog-tooth" on the leading edge of the main wings, one of the Phantom's most distinguishing features. Aside from that, consider putting more effort into the tail instead of attaching vanilla wings back there and building your own landing gear.
I know this is pretty harsh, but you're gold now and you've been building for a long time. This is a great looking build and I can see from the parts of the plane that you got right that you've got the skills to improve the parts you missed.
@RedRoosterII They had to make quite a few sacrifices to achieve mach 2 performance, engines back then weren't nearly as powerful as what is available today and a lot of the design knowledge we take for granted had to be learned the hard way.
@RedRoosterII It was literally the first combat plane that could hit mach 2 in level flight. In an era when speed was everything, she was the fastest. It just so happened that WW3 never happened and for that we should all be grateful.
@RedRoosterII These planes were literally the best in the world when they were designed. Unfortunately, they were very difficult to learn, and used in ways they were never intended. A high altitude interceptor makes a very poor ground attack platform, and the bleeding edge fighter technology of the early 1950's was incredibly short lived. There are a lot of good ideas in this design, the M-61 Vulcan, Boundary Layer Control System, and J-79 engine, for instance.
@RedRoosterII Yes, you can hear his affection for her. "You can't hurt this plane," he says at one point.
The 105 was unique for her generation. The largest single engine, single seater. Among the other Century Series fighters (F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104, F-106) the Thunderchief was the only one to prove itself in combat, none of the others had a single confirmed air to air victory. Not bad, considering all the others were designed primarily as interceptors and the Thud was a bomber. Her pilots loved her.
The master of biplanes builds the mother of all biplanes for his final project. I know it's been a long time, but I hope you return to build some more.
+1The afterburner is beautiful, the livery looks awesome but the most impressive thing is just how real this jet seems. You really captured the spirit of the 1950's with this one and it just feels right. Great job.
@Freerider2142 Pretty much. The engines, radar, 20mm cannon and payload were all perfectly adequate in the 50's and 60's but tech moved forward..
+1@Freerider2142 It was a joke, amigo. The F-5 was a design well ahead of it's time, but the technology inside of it wasn't. As a result, you can see time and again where the design itself impacted the world of aviation in the form of newer aircraft using better technology and the solid F-5 design as a starting point.
+2What a pleasant surprise. I logged in to see what's new and boom, there's an F5 on the front page. I love F5's. Ooh, it's the elusive Tigershark. Chichi made it? I had to try it out!
I was quite disturbed when the fuel tank flew off the belly (I had no idea that could happen in SP), but I didn't have much time to consider the matter because it was around that time I was introduced to some vicious aileron reversal. (Not sure if that's the proper term for it, but pitching all the way up certainly causes roll input to get very tricky). You've been making great looking jets for a long time on here (especially your 1950's designs) but this flight model is very sophisticated by SP standards and I am mightily impressed. Thank you for taking the time to build this and share it.
@ChiChiWerx @Freerider2142 The USN version of the F-5 is known today as the F/A-18 :b
+1@DaModder01 You've got the right attitude. This game can be so confusing and helpful people like yourself are really what keeps this place going.
@DaModder01 Yes. I made this post 2 years ago before I learned about overload and fine tuner.
@JumpingJack No problem at all, I am glad to hear you figured it out.
+1@JumpingJack oh jeez, I made that comment over a year ago... I think it has something to do with multiplying the dimensions as opposed to assigning them all a number. But I could be very, very wrong. I don't build anymore.
+1@AtomicCashew He's a NECROMANCER!
+1@communisticbanana I'm just playin, we are good
@Thelegitpilot13 No problemo. There's a few explanations floating around about the specific HTML tags you need to use, and you may need to read up on how to handle screenies on IOS.
@Awsomur Divide by zero!
@Bmcclory As I've said elsewhere, SR2 and SP have different design goals right now. While it is possible to make crude approximations of some of SP, SR2 doesn't cover much of what keeps people playing here. Maybe they'll add more overlap, maybe not. We will see.
@communisticbanana Understood. Sorry to bother you, sir.
@Nerfenthusiast And we love you for it.
@Jetpackturtle I like the visuals, but I would like the ability to make hollow or transparent shapes, larger shapes and concave curves. Additional deforming options would also be nice. Anything that can allow more detail with fewer parts, really, as most of the "best" creations are beyond the capacity for mobile devices. There are other features, like multiplayer, that would also be nice. Basically, take all the things Jundroo has learned over the years, combine it with the best of what the community has added, and see if you can gain a bit of performance by designing that way from the start.
I freely admit, I'm not programmer. Maybe bolting on new features is just as efficient as starting over, I don't know. But I think a sequel realeased in 2021 or so would be a good idea.
@CruzerBlade I see. Is UE4 more efficient?
@Jerba Thanks. Likewise.
@YourWife And they can just do all that for free?
@Thelegitpilot13 Cant you just hold some buttons down to take a screen grab? What kind of crazy nightmare situation have Apple users subjected themselves to?
Anyway, get a screenshot, slap it up on flickr and don't forget your password.
@CruzerBlade Interesting. Could you elaborate a bit? My programming experience is limited to a single failing grade.
@Awsomur What a thoughtful, productive thing to say. Thank you for not only taking the time to read and consider the contents of this thread, but also to formulate that magnum opus of a response.
@Mod Fair enough, but you understand where I'm going here: a design focused on atmospheric flight with considerations for land and water. Not soon, but eventually.
@Jim1the1Squid For the most part, yes. A quick glance at the most popular mods or extended use of the builder reveals there's plenty of room for improvement. Transparency, concave or hollow shapes, large components are all problematic as-is and those are just the things off the top of my head after almost a year of not playing.
As I said elsewhere, they could simply include SP features in SR2. I think everyone would love that, but I don't think it would be good for the company because most of the people who want this already own both games.
@asteroidbook345
I'm talking about a new design from the ground-up. Increasing efficiency and expanding possibilities where ever possible, even at the cost of reverse compatibility.
@Gameboi14 I have SR2, in its current iteration it is not a true sequel to this game. You can't build propellers, for instance. While I would certainly applaud Jundroo if they decided to include all the features of Simple Planes, that would be a lot of work that would not likely net them much in terms of new sales as most of us own both games already.
All your planes are chonky as hell. People see these pictures like "Oh lawd, he comin"
+3Thanks! @Railfanethan
@FuzzyAircraftProductions I'm glad you like it! I wanted to do something more traditional, but the curve of the nose had other plans.
@ThomasVc thanks!
@Nerfenthusiast In the early 50's technology was moving pretty fast. The Starfighter represented the cutting edge of aircraft design, especially in terms of performance. Tensions with the Soviets and the threat of nuclear war made it imperative to utilize science as quickly as possible. In this case, it created a jet dangerously ahead of its time. Pilots weren't ready to handle that much speed, leaders weren't clear minded enough to utilize the jet properly and finally, designers had sacrificed too much practicality for the plane to be safe.
+1Use the roleplay tag.
OFF TOPIC
Will it tear itself apart in midair just like the real thing?
AWWWW YISSSSS
+1This is a really impressive reimagining of the Thud. Not only does it embody the spirit and impact of the original, but the stealth elements blend perfectly with the original intentions of the design.
Journalists have repeatedly compared the F-105 to the F-35, and the Thunderchief was actually quite stealthy for its time. I am really blown away here.
@RamboJutter Affirmative
This plane looks very nice, but you can do better. You captured the overall shape very well, the outline looks great and everything is pretty much to scale. The cockpit area and air intakes look great.
But there are problems here. Your tail has split elevators, that's a big no-no for anything supersonic. All superson aircraft have all-moving horizontal tails, no exceptions. You left out the "dog-tooth" on the leading edge of the main wings, one of the Phantom's most distinguishing features. Aside from that, consider putting more effort into the tail instead of attaching vanilla wings back there and building your own landing gear.
I know this is pretty harsh, but you're gold now and you've been building for a long time. This is a great looking build and I can see from the parts of the plane that you got right that you've got the skills to improve the parts you missed.
+2@RedRoosterII They had to make quite a few sacrifices to achieve mach 2 performance, engines back then weren't nearly as powerful as what is available today and a lot of the design knowledge we take for granted had to be learned the hard way.
+1@RedRoosterII It was literally the first combat plane that could hit mach 2 in level flight. In an era when speed was everything, she was the fastest. It just so happened that WW3 never happened and for that we should all be grateful.
+1FOR MAKE GLORY OF SOVIET AGRICULTURAL!
@RedRoosterII These planes were literally the best in the world when they were designed. Unfortunately, they were very difficult to learn, and used in ways they were never intended. A high altitude interceptor makes a very poor ground attack platform, and the bleeding edge fighter technology of the early 1950's was incredibly short lived. There are a lot of good ideas in this design, the M-61 Vulcan, Boundary Layer Control System, and J-79 engine, for instance.
+1No thanks
+3@Gestour Would you mind being a bit more specific? There's a lot going on and I'm not sure where to begin.
[COMMUNISM INTENSIFIES]
+5@jamesPLANESii lololol
+1@RedRoosterII Yes, you can hear his affection for her. "You can't hurt this plane," he says at one point.
The 105 was unique for her generation. The largest single engine, single seater. Among the other Century Series fighters (F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104, F-106) the Thunderchief was the only one to prove itself in combat, none of the others had a single confirmed air to air victory. Not bad, considering all the others were designed primarily as interceptors and the Thud was a bomber. Her pilots loved her.
@BlackhattAircraft Remove the S from HTTPS if your pictures are hosted by imgur
+2@BlackhattAircraft 
This is not a teaser. This is boring.