@AdlerSteiner A very good question! While the F-104 does have a dark history abroad, it was a very capable high altitude interceptor. The first plane capable of mach 2 in level flight, she was a marvel of technology. The ugly stuff didn't happen until Lockheed got greedy marketed her for roles she was never designed for.
So because you had some issues after messing around with the game in a way that the designers never intended, now they need to revise their code for you, free of charge?
Scaling engines is fine. Mass scaling engines is a quick and effective way to turn your plane into a bug filled disaster.
As others have mentioned, wing pieces are unaffected by scaling. The provide the same lift no matter how they are scaled, but ailerons that are 40 feet out from the centerline of your plane are much stronger than seemingly identical ailerons 2 feet from the centerline of your plane. In other words your control surfaces can be affected by scaling, but not the way you expected.
Also, be sure to scale all 3 dimensions evenly, otherwise things get hilariously messy.
@Stellarlabs Well, like I told Mostly, I agree that the Wright Flyer was pretty good at the time, and it helped the Wrights make planes that were stunningly effective later on. There were other planes that flew better than the "Flyer," but they didn't take off untill several months later.
The video does explain some of that, you should check it out. I am certainly not typing out the list for the next post, people are gonna have to watch the video if they want to argue about the 11 worst planes of the USSR.
@Stellarlabs If I was forced to venture a guess, I'd probably say "Just to piss you off." But I am not of the Sunshine State, nor did I make the list. Watch the video, mendicant.
@Mostly Nothing, that's why it only comes up during another segment where it was a driving purpose of the other plane. Like I said, I agree with you but I think they explained their point well enough.
@Mostly I agree, but they do a good job explaining that one in the video. They also cover what huge jerks the Wrights were in the "Langley Aerodrome" segment.
@randomusername Is the F-35 less useful than the F-22? Both of them are more or less capable of their respective job, they're just outrageously expensive. Cost aside, their teething issues aren't much worse than some other aircraft. The F-86 didn't become a reliable weapon until the "F" model, but nowadays she's a triumph of aviation. 6th times a charm, I guess.
That said, I'm not a fan of our current generation of combat aircraft. I prefer Eagles and A-10's, or just use drones.
@ForeverPie LOL Have you read the performance specs? It's like they were trying to be funny.
Performance
Maximum speed: 300 mph (483 km/h; 261 kn) (estimated), 35 mph (56 km/h) (actual)
Range: 995 mi (865 nmi; 1,601 km) (estimated), 79 mi (127 km) (actual)
Service ceiling: 10,000 ft (3,000 m) (estimated), 3 ft (0.91 m) (actual)
This thing looks much better than my Dauntless. The flaps are very well executed. My only complaint is the handling and the machinegun controls. Turrets should be pitch/yaw, not trim sliders.
Awsomur is right. Not only are the necessary engines incredibly loud on their own, but there has yet to be an aircraft sleek enough to pass through the sound barrier without a very loud (and often destructive) boom.
Landing gear can be tricky to make, rotators tend to be a hassle, so try to build moving parts last. A properly build set of landing gear is very satisfying to see, especially as it unfolds, and it's a great way to show people just how skilled you are.
@Kerbango In no way do I think you were being rude, I was just explaining how I personally approach this.
Anyway. The way I see it is like this: 1/15th of the people who play the game actually log in, so only 1/15th could upvote. I almost never download anything, but I upvote stuff all the time. If it looks like someone really spent some time on it, then I upvote. But I only download stuff that I really want to fly, and if it's good I might download it a couple times before I finally save it to my hard drive.
I think this is not unusual. If you look at someone who consistently makes stuff that works well and is fun to use, you will notice that downloads outnumber upvotes by a wide margin. Bogdanx is a great example. This Catalina has 155 votes, but over 10,000 downloads.
@randomusername Horizontal stabilizers, particularly the elevators, control how hard your plane can turn. Too small and not only will the plane spin out of control, you also won't be able to turn very fast.
Maneuverability seems pretty simple, but its deceptively huge. Tied into that word are things like stability, acceleration, momentum, agility. But the one thing you should remember is that maneuverability is more than just how fast you can turn.
Planes handle differently at different speeds and different altitudes. So when you design one, try to think "where does this plane live? Does it hug the ground and slip below enemy radar at high speed? Does it carefully sip gas at low speed and high altitude? Or maybe its like the SR71 and it goes unbelievably fast at amazing height? Design your plane to fit in properly somewhere.
The most maneuverable planes are also the least stable. They change direction easily because they are light, and their weight isn't spread out. The easiest way to do this is to keep the blue center of lift just a little bit behind the red center of mass. The further apart these two are, the more stable the plane becomes and the more effort it will take to pull the nose up when you turn. But be careful, if your plane becomes too unstable it will become difficult or impossible to control.
@Kerbango I am not here to discuss why or why not your builds get the attention you think they deserve. What I am trying to impart is that only a handful of people actually create an account and log in to this site. There is a massive amount of people downloading and using our creations that do not upvoteanything.
A considerable amount of people who do actually upvote things merely take a look at the 3 photos, click the button and move on.
This is a gloriously open ended game. There are astonishingly few obstacles for our creativity here, and each person must chase their own personal definition of success. I have chosen to honor the aircraft that I've grown up obsessed with by sharing them with other people. My success is determined by how many people I can share this obsession with and I choose to measure that by downloads.
@Kerbango They matter. If the plane sucks, people won't bother downloading again. That's the problem on here. People make pretty planes that fly like garbage because "pretty" will get the votes. Sure, any high rated build will get a few downloads, even a stupid meme-post. But only quality stuff that works properly and is fun to use will get hundreds or thousands of downloads. Treat people right, and they come back.
I'm one of the people that stressed you out. I'm sorry it stressed you out, but I'm not sorry I said something.
It takes 20-30 minutes to link some builds. It took each of those people many many hours to build something for your challenge, and you get credit for their work.
@JelloAircraftCorporation Indian drivers are amazing. I spent a week in Delhi and I was astounded at how well people handle the unbelievable traffic congestion. I do not think I have the nerves or skill to get by in such conditions, but I was mighty impressed. If American and European drivers are airplane pilots, Indian drivers are surely helicopter pilots.
@FuzzyAircraftProductions I provided a video.
@AdlerSteiner A very good question! While the F-104 does have a dark history abroad, it was a very capable high altitude interceptor. The first plane capable of mach 2 in level flight, she was a marvel of technology. The ugly stuff didn't happen until Lockheed got greedy marketed her for roles she was never designed for.
+1@DPSAircraftManufacturer
A little optmized
So because you had some issues after messing around with the game in a way that the designers never intended, now they need to revise their code for you, free of charge?
+4Scaling engines is fine. Mass scaling engines is a quick and effective way to turn your plane into a bug filled disaster.
As others have mentioned, wing pieces are unaffected by scaling. The provide the same lift no matter how they are scaled, but ailerons that are 40 feet out from the centerline of your plane are much stronger than seemingly identical ailerons 2 feet from the centerline of your plane. In other words your control surfaces can be affected by scaling, but not the way you expected.
Also, be sure to scale all 3 dimensions evenly, otherwise things get hilariously messy.
+4@Mostly There will be a short quiz before I let you out for recess.
@Stellarlabs Well, like I told Mostly, I agree that the Wright Flyer was pretty good at the time, and it helped the Wrights make planes that were stunningly effective later on. There were other planes that flew better than the "Flyer," but they didn't take off untill several months later.
The video does explain some of that, you should check it out. I am certainly not typing out the list for the next post, people are gonna have to watch the video if they want to argue about the 11 worst planes of the USSR.
@Botfinder Heheheh. Nice.
What part of "I agree with you" is too much to grasp?
I can also tell that you haven't watched the video because they compare it to planes that were under development that same year.
@Mostly
@Stellarlabs If I was forced to venture a guess, I'd probably say "Just to piss you off." But I am not of the Sunshine State, nor did I make the list. Watch the video, mendicant.
+1@Mostly Nothing, that's why it only comes up during another segment where it was a driving purpose of the other plane. Like I said, I agree with you but I think they explained their point well enough.
@Mostly I agree, but they do a good job explaining that one in the video. They also cover what huge jerks the Wrights were in the "Langley Aerodrome" segment.
Four posts is kinda overkill, don't you think?
@randomusername Is the F-35 less useful than the F-22? Both of them are more or less capable of their respective job, they're just outrageously expensive. Cost aside, their teething issues aren't much worse than some other aircraft. The F-86 didn't become a reliable weapon until the "F" model, but nowadays she's a triumph of aviation. 6th times a charm, I guess.
That said, I'm not a fan of our current generation of combat aircraft. I prefer Eagles and A-10's, or just use drones.
+1@ForeverPie LOL Have you read the performance specs? It's like they were trying to be funny.
Performance
Maximum speed: 300 mph (483 km/h; 261 kn) (estimated), 35 mph (56 km/h) (actual)
+1Range: 995 mi (865 nmi; 1,601 km) (estimated), 79 mi (127 km) (actual)
Service ceiling: 10,000 ft (3,000 m) (estimated), 3 ft (0.91 m) (actual)
@ForeverPie Nice catch! Canada gets credit for that piece of engineering genius.
Getorge The Biplane King lives!
This thing looks much better than my Dauntless. The flaps are very well executed. My only complaint is the handling and the machinegun controls. Turrets should be pitch/yaw, not trim sliders.
Can it really be called a "sim" if it's so low-fi that you're running it through a browser window?
That's kind of like drawing a bunch of eyes on the back of your hand and calling it a tarantula.
+3@Billythekidusa04 search through the stuff people have made, if theres one that's close then fix it to look like the one you want.
Use search tool. Plenty of of Ford Mustangs and North American Mustangs ro pick from.
Awsomur is right. Not only are the necessary engines incredibly loud on their own, but there has yet to be an aircraft sleek enough to pass through the sound barrier without a very loud (and often destructive) boom.
+2@Awsomur Or don't crash and actually land safely.
Gotdang
@lancelot3340 I am not saying "take someone elses landing gear." I am saying "use parts that have collisions disabled."
I understand what you are saying. The cover opens, then the legs come out. Delay. But also you don't want to use too many parts. That makes sense.
The only problem is that modded parts means most people won't be able to use it. People would have to install the mod just to fly your plane.
Covers can be made to open and close with a delay, but it takes many extra parts and is not easy.
+1@Kimcotupan15 I'll keep an eye. The one I saw today properly credited you, I think. This is a cool car, I can totally understand its popularity.
@tsampoy good luck and link me when shes ready
@BaconAircraft LOLBBQROFL
I don't want to scare anyone but
There's nobody flying the plane!
#ghosts
Man, take a hike with your phoney baloney reddit drama. We don't care about your underage friend getting perma-banned for breaking the law.
+2I've seen this thing uploaded way more than 5 times. I have a feeling some people have been stealing.
Now remake it with 600 parts.
+1@tsampoy That's how I chose the name.
You shall name it
FAILURE
@lancelot3340 The most important part is xml modding the parts to disableAircraftCollisions = true
You can "borrow" modified parts from other planes and reshape them to fit yours or use the wonderful Overload modding tool.
@Physoman Speed?
@Physoman Did you actually manage that?! I always assumed she was immune to bullets
Landing gear can be tricky to make, rotators tend to be a hassle, so try to build moving parts last. A properly build set of landing gear is very satisfying to see, especially as it unfolds, and it's a great way to show people just how skilled you are.
+2Clickable link here
Nice job, Han.
@tsampoy Oh, sorry. Were we posting too much? Does that bother you?
@Kerbango lol
@Kerbango In no way do I think you were being rude, I was just explaining how I personally approach this.
Anyway. The way I see it is like this: 1/15th of the people who play the game actually log in, so only 1/15th could upvote. I almost never download anything, but I upvote stuff all the time. If it looks like someone really spent some time on it, then I upvote. But I only download stuff that I really want to fly, and if it's good I might download it a couple times before I finally save it to my hard drive.
I think this is not unusual. If you look at someone who consistently makes stuff that works well and is fun to use, you will notice that downloads outnumber upvotes by a wide margin. Bogdanx is a great example. This Catalina has 155 votes, but over 10,000 downloads.
@randomusername Horizontal stabilizers, particularly the elevators, control how hard your plane can turn. Too small and not only will the plane spin out of control, you also won't be able to turn very fast.
+1Maneuverability seems pretty simple, but its deceptively huge. Tied into that word are things like stability, acceleration, momentum, agility. But the one thing you should remember is that maneuverability is more than just how fast you can turn.
Planes handle differently at different speeds and different altitudes. So when you design one, try to think "where does this plane live? Does it hug the ground and slip below enemy radar at high speed? Does it carefully sip gas at low speed and high altitude? Or maybe its like the SR71 and it goes unbelievably fast at amazing height? Design your plane to fit in properly somewhere.
The most maneuverable planes are also the least stable. They change direction easily because they are light, and their weight isn't spread out. The easiest way to do this is to keep the blue center of lift just a little bit behind the red center of mass. The further apart these two are, the more stable the plane becomes and the more effort it will take to pull the nose up when you turn. But be careful, if your plane becomes too unstable it will become difficult or impossible to control.
+3@Kerbango I am not here to discuss why or why not your builds get the attention you think they deserve. What I am trying to impart is that only a handful of people actually create an account and log in to this site. There is a massive amount of people downloading and using our creations that do not upvote anything.
A considerable amount of people who do actually upvote things merely take a look at the 3 photos, click the button and move on.
This is a gloriously open ended game. There are astonishingly few obstacles for our creativity here, and each person must chase their own personal definition of success. I have chosen to honor the aircraft that I've grown up obsessed with by sharing them with other people. My success is determined by how many people I can share this obsession with and I choose to measure that by downloads.
+1@Kerbango They matter. If the plane sucks, people won't bother downloading again. That's the problem on here. People make pretty planes that fly like garbage because "pretty" will get the votes. Sure, any high rated build will get a few downloads, even a stupid meme-post. But only quality stuff that works properly and is fun to use will get hundreds or thousands of downloads. Treat people right, and they come back.
Points are for suckers. Go for downloads.
+1Must be rare indeed! The P-38 was the "Lightning"
You're probably thinking P-39
I'm one of the people that stressed you out. I'm sorry it stressed you out, but I'm not sorry I said something.
It takes 20-30 minutes to link some builds. It took each of those people many many hours to build something for your challenge, and you get credit for their work.
+1Plan A) copy the engine, snap the copy to the belly near first engine, nudge the copy up into the plane so the it's even with the first one.
Plan B) Steal the engine off this plane and use it instead.
@JelloAircraftCorporation Indian drivers are amazing. I spent a week in Delhi and I was astounded at how well people handle the unbelievable traffic congestion. I do not think I have the nerves or skill to get by in such conditions, but I was mighty impressed. If American and European drivers are airplane pilots, Indian drivers are surely helicopter pilots.
+2