Rockets, singular, were used in in WW2, rocket pods were not. Up until now, if you were making a WW2 replica you couldn't include rockets and instead had to use bombs. Rockets are much, much easier to use than bombs. This is a good thing.
You're probably talking about one of our country's numerous "broken arrow" incidents where we lost nuclear weapons somewhere. Quite a few B-36s crashed in remote parts of Canada, and we lost a few B-52s in the Southern US (and one in Spain). There was even a sunken Soviet missile sub that we tried to steal off the ocean floor!
@DJ123 Nah, they make all kinds of stuff, from cheapest of cheap all the way to the top. I was just joking about the ukulele, I guess it wasn't a good joke. Anyway, good luck with the cars.
This issue has come up so many times! There have been numerous attempts by some of the most generous build masters on here to explain how to avoid the most common problems but sadly, their posts get pushed back into obscurity within a few days. I wish the mods would sticky informative posts like that.
@Flightsonic It's an identity thing. Apple has created a brand that focuses on getting consumers to identify with their product. Sports teams also do this, and you can see how that works out. People who make the brand part of their identity are personally offended by attacks on the brand. It actually strengthens their resolve to support the brand because it distracts them from their true role as a consumer (one who could CHOOSE a product based on its value). Try telling a sports fan his team is awful based on stats, would he care? It's irrelevant, the team is part of his identity now. Apple works the same way.
@Flightsonic I think a fair comparison would be Beats headphones or Air Jordans. Sure they're solid products, and their approach is somewhat innovative, but in the end they're brands more than products. A label, something people notice, and their most distinguishing feature is price, not performance.
So what you're saying is you want someone to give you a free copy of Windows. The hard drive can be wiped when you do a new install, but you need an operating system to do so, and I'm assuming you aren't interested in a free open-source OS.
Apple is selling a lifestyle, and you've decided to buy it. That's why you're offended by people insulting a multibillion dollar company. One needs only to examine the hardware to see their componants are the same third party electronics that the other guys use, as a matter of fact, they often install lower grade hardware than the competition. Ever heard of "integrated graphics?" That's when your computer is so cheap that they don't even bother to install a graphics card. I'd never heard of the term, untill I bought a MacBook. Does $1300 for a laptop that can't even play last year's games sound like a good deal to you? Their software is relatively solid, and their strict rules make it harder for viruses and hackers. Their phones are sleek, and the GUI is easy to use. It makes sense that they have fans. But there are people who want more value from their devices, who want to be able to customize and control their own gear, and they don't particularly care about brand names.
@Testin123 There is not a very good correlation between quality and votes, unfortunately. People vote for favorites (Spitfire anyone?), jokes, and shiny details (whether or not it works). Unfamiliar stuff like original creations, obscure mecha, and a lot of ground vehicles just don't get the credit they deserve.
If you have a demonstrable bug to report, then submit it and the steps to repeat it and your hardware info. Otherwise, how about you let the grownups do their work?
At the extreme end of quality, both require a similar amount of effort and skill. That being said, it's much easier to make a decent looking plane with unrealistically good handling than it is to make a decent looking car with unrealistic handling. These are just my opinions, I don't think it's a matter of car/truck/train/boat/tank builders vs plane builders so much as excellent builders vs mediocre ones.
The game works by connecting blocks, when it's red it means the block is not connected to anything. If you want to put a block somewhere, but it turns red, then move it until it turns green and then nudge (q e w a s d for Windows users, not sure how mobile devices work) the block into the position you want it.
@alexchub1 Boolean used to be 1 or 0, now it's 1 or -1. Boolean means only 2 possible outputs, like a light switch. Also, there are a couple ways we can reverse the controls now.
Hey man, I just want to thank you for making this. I probably would have quit playing months ago if it wasn't for the amazing power of this mod. Thank you so much.
Heyyyyy, you might have missed the part where everyone decided it was a bad idea to keep arguing. So, here I am on one of your posts from a month ago where no one will find us! I have a few things I'd like to respond to, so heeere we go. 1) I agree with you about nuclear bombing being obsolete by the end of the 50's and said as much a few times back there. 2) The F-104 was a FANTASTIC testbed for future technology that never should have seen mass production. The very concept of a DOWNWARD firing ejection seat, wings that don't provide enough lift without air bled off the compressor, and a tail that gets completely blanked when you try to turn... I don't know where to begin. At the time it was designed, the USAF were willing to make sacrifices for speed. The F104 offered levels of performance head and shoulders above anything else in the air. It really was like a spaceship. But it was also horribly unreliable, and I'm not just talking about people ignoring the stick kicker! Inlet failures, afterburner failures, engine fires, poor handling characteristics. You name it, she had it. And as for the Germans using it for the wriong role, they didn't exactly hold a gun to Lockheed demanding they change the role. Lockheed assured them the Starfighter could do the job, bribed German officials, and sold them a plane that was dangerous on a sunny day to fly low level all-weather missions. DO NOT GET ME WRONG: the Starfighter was a milestone of aviation, certainly ahead of its time, but so was the X-15. Eventually, after many revisions, the F104 served in Spain where it was used in its proper role by people well aware of its limitations in exceptionally lovely weather. I do not think the 104 was a bad plane, I think Kelly Johnson was a genius, but I also think the executives who tried to shoe horn it into places it didn't belong are criminals. Also, cool LRV. :)
Has anyone else noticed the irony of someone railing against the name of a phone by making a forum post that is itself, misspelled? Dox, did you make this post from an iPhone?
After WW2, the US military got it's act together and combined the naming rules around 1950. The current names work like this: F for Fighter, B for bomber, A for attack, O for observation (patrol), C for cargo, T for trainer, E for electronic (surveillance, jamming, etc), U for utility, R for recon . There are other designations, but I can't remember them right now.
Soviet planes: These are the most fun! The Soviets themselves just assign a Manufacturer prefix (MiG for Mikoyan-Gurevich, An for Antonov, Tu for Tupelov, etc.) and a sequential number (MiG-3 was designed many years before MiG-15).
During the cold war, the Soviets were not going to share all their information with NATO enemies, so when NATO spotted new Soviet aircraft they had to come up with a name on their own. AND HERE'S WHERE IT GETS FUNNY. The name rules were simple and few: F words for fighters, B words for Bombers, one syllable for propellers, two syllables for Jets. These names were usually comical, but not always. So someone mentions "Fishbed, incoming!" You know a jet-fighter is approaching, whereas the "Bull" was obviously a slow, prop driven bomber.
American Navy Aircraft in WW2: this is more complicated. Each manufacturer was assigned a code letter and each plane the manufacturer designed was given a number. They also included code letters for the specific role of the plane. For example SBD3 stands for Scout / Bomber (the role) by Douglas (the manufacturer) 3 (the third design Douglas made for the Navy. The manufacturer letter are pretty random (Y for Consolidated, U for Vought, etc.) But the roles are pretty consistant: F for fighter, PB for patrol bomber, SB for Scout Bomber, TB for torpedo bomber etc.
American military aircraft during WW2: USAAF: "P" pursuit (fighters), B for (Heavy Strategic) Bombers, A for attack ( light tactical bombers), F (for Foto?) for photo reconnaissance aircraft (spy planes), C for cargo. Each plane had a number after the letter and if the plane was a prototype, you add an X or Y to the first letter (example YB-24)
You would absolutely need to multiply the power of the engines to reach its theoretical max speed. You will also have to multiply it's mass quite a bit in order to get the enormous turning radius and brutish handling characteristics. Bear in mind, this plane was big and heavy, designed to go fast in a straight line, NOT twist and turn like a Mig17. This build looks GREAT, you owe it to yourself to finish it.
@ChiChiWerx It is apples to oranges, the TSR has more in common with the F-105 or the A-5 Vigilante, except for one main similarity: they were both expensive strategic strike projects that got cancelled because they were more expensive and less effective than missiles. Could the TSR have soldiered on as a recon aircraft? Sure, just like the A-5. But would that have justified the enormous effort it took to bring such a cutting edge plane into production? Unlikely. In many ways, the UK sidestepped quite a few of the expensive boondoggles that the US undertook during the second generation of jet aircraft.
Hey, no need to feel bad. This place is just a little more strict because there's a LOT of kids here. Imagine it like a museum with parents leading their kids around and pointing to things.
I'd really like to see a Czech Hetzer, or a StuG III ausf G. People post so many experimental tanks like the Maus, or tanks that saw limited production like the Tiger, that most of the real work horses of WWII get overlooked.
Quick question. Why did you start a thread about a theoretical plane you DON'T want to discuss?
Rockets, singular, were used in in WW2, rocket pods were not. Up until now, if you were making a WW2 replica you couldn't include rockets and instead had to use bombs. Rockets are much, much easier to use than bombs. This is a good thing.
YUSSSSSSSSS!
@shipster XD
@F4f879 Debatable. The US claimed the sub broke up while it was being lifted, the Soviets suspected otherwise.
You're probably talking about one of our country's numerous "broken arrow" incidents where we lost nuclear weapons somewhere. Quite a few B-36s crashed in remote parts of Canada, and we lost a few B-52s in the Southern US (and one in Spain). There was even a sunken Soviet missile sub that we tried to steal off the ocean floor!
@DJ123 Nope, not a modder. Maybe @Gestour could help, but I am not sure.
@DJ123 Nah, they make all kinds of stuff, from cheapest of cheap all the way to the top. I was just joking about the ukulele, I guess it wasn't a good joke. Anyway, good luck with the cars.
+1@DJ123 You sure that little guitar isn't a ukulele? You've never heard of a Fender Stratocaster?!
+1This issue has come up so many times! There have been numerous attempts by some of the most generous build masters on here to explain how to avoid the most common problems but sadly, their posts get pushed back into obscurity within a few days. I wish the mods would sticky informative posts like that.
@Flightsonic It's an identity thing. Apple has created a brand that focuses on getting consumers to identify with their product. Sports teams also do this, and you can see how that works out. People who make the brand part of their identity are personally offended by attacks on the brand. It actually strengthens their resolve to support the brand because it distracts them from their true role as a consumer (one who could CHOOSE a product based on its value). Try telling a sports fan his team is awful based on stats, would he care? It's irrelevant, the team is part of his identity now. Apple works the same way.
I'd wait. That's a cool build and there's a lot of people that would get left out.
@Flightsonic I think a fair comparison would be Beats headphones or Air Jordans. Sure they're solid products, and their approach is somewhat innovative, but in the end they're brands more than products. A label, something people notice, and their most distinguishing feature is price, not performance.
@doge Oh! I keep forgetting how Dell does all that sneaky stuff with hardware. Sorry about my irrelevant earlier comment and good luck.
So what you're saying is you want someone to give you a free copy of Windows. The hard drive can be wiped when you do a new install, but you need an operating system to do so, and I'm assuming you aren't interested in a free open-source OS.
When I clicked this, I thought you were talking about guitars.
+1Apple is selling a lifestyle, and you've decided to buy it. That's why you're offended by people insulting a multibillion dollar company. One needs only to examine the hardware to see their componants are the same third party electronics that the other guys use, as a matter of fact, they often install lower grade hardware than the competition. Ever heard of "integrated graphics?" That's when your computer is so cheap that they don't even bother to install a graphics card. I'd never heard of the term, untill I bought a MacBook. Does $1300 for a laptop that can't even play last year's games sound like a good deal to you? Their software is relatively solid, and their strict rules make it harder for viruses and hackers. Their phones are sleek, and the GUI is easy to use. It makes sense that they have fans. But there are people who want more value from their devices, who want to be able to customize and control their own gear, and they don't particularly care about brand names.
@Testin123 There is not a very good correlation between quality and votes, unfortunately. People vote for favorites (Spitfire anyone?), jokes, and shiny details (whether or not it works). Unfamiliar stuff like original creations, obscure mecha, and a lot of ground vehicles just don't get the credit they deserve.
@EarthwormJim XD
If you have a demonstrable bug to report, then submit it and the steps to repeat it and your hardware info. Otherwise, how about you let the grownups do their work?
At the extreme end of quality, both require a similar amount of effort and skill. That being said, it's much easier to make a decent looking plane with unrealistically good handling than it is to make a decent looking car with unrealistic handling. These are just my opinions, I don't think it's a matter of car/truck/train/boat/tank builders vs plane builders so much as excellent builders vs mediocre ones.
The game works by connecting blocks, when it's red it means the block is not connected to anything. If you want to put a block somewhere, but it turns red, then move it until it turns green and then nudge (q e w a s d for Windows users, not sure how mobile devices work) the block into the position you want it.
@Pilotmario :)
@RamboJutter Agreed, thanks for understanding.
@MechWARRIOR57 Are you sure your stabilizers are large enough and far enough to the rear of your bomber?
@alexchub1 Boolean used to be 1 or 0, now it's 1 or -1. Boolean means only 2 possible outputs, like a light switch. Also, there are a couple ways we can reverse the controls now.
Hey man, I just want to thank you for making this. I probably would have quit playing months ago if it wasn't for the amazing power of this mod. Thank you so much.
Heyyyyy, you might have missed the part where everyone decided it was a bad idea to keep arguing. So, here I am on one of your posts from a month ago where no one will find us! I have a few things I'd like to respond to, so heeere we go. 1) I agree with you about nuclear bombing being obsolete by the end of the 50's and said as much a few times back there. 2) The F-104 was a FANTASTIC testbed for future technology that never should have seen mass production. The very concept of a DOWNWARD firing ejection seat, wings that don't provide enough lift without air bled off the compressor, and a tail that gets completely blanked when you try to turn... I don't know where to begin. At the time it was designed, the USAF were willing to make sacrifices for speed. The F104 offered levels of performance head and shoulders above anything else in the air. It really was like a spaceship. But it was also horribly unreliable, and I'm not just talking about people ignoring the stick kicker! Inlet failures, afterburner failures, engine fires, poor handling characteristics. You name it, she had it. And as for the Germans using it for the wriong role, they didn't exactly hold a gun to Lockheed demanding they change the role. Lockheed assured them the Starfighter could do the job, bribed German officials, and sold them a plane that was dangerous on a sunny day to fly low level all-weather missions. DO NOT GET ME WRONG: the Starfighter was a milestone of aviation, certainly ahead of its time, but so was the X-15. Eventually, after many revisions, the F104 served in Spain where it was used in its proper role by people well aware of its limitations in exceptionally lovely weather. I do not think the 104 was a bad plane, I think Kelly Johnson was a genius, but I also think the executives who tried to shoe horn it into places it didn't belong are criminals. Also, cool LRV. :)
Hey, I just wanted to apologize about the mess on your TSR2 comments. You did a great job with it and I hope there's no hard feelings.
@Dzeta8 Yes. Gestour is of the Great Old Ones, proud is his lineage, mighty are his designs.
Has anyone else noticed the irony of someone railing against the name of a phone by making a forum post that is itself, misspelled? Dox, did you make this post from an iPhone?
A supersonic P-38, I like it!
Heh, it takes me over a month to build one plane.
Ever thought about doing a 1930's armored war train? I haven't searched your entire catalog, but I don't THINK I've seen you do one yet.
And you posted this awful garbage why?
After WW2, the US military got it's act together and combined the naming rules around 1950. The current names work like this: F for Fighter, B for bomber, A for attack, O for observation (patrol), C for cargo, T for trainer, E for electronic (surveillance, jamming, etc), U for utility, R for recon . There are other designations, but I can't remember them right now.
Soviet planes: These are the most fun! The Soviets themselves just assign a Manufacturer prefix (MiG for Mikoyan-Gurevich, An for Antonov, Tu for Tupelov, etc.) and a sequential number (MiG-3 was designed many years before MiG-15).
During the cold war, the Soviets were not going to share all their information with NATO enemies, so when NATO spotted new Soviet aircraft they had to come up with a name on their own. AND HERE'S WHERE IT GETS FUNNY. The name rules were simple and few: F words for fighters, B words for Bombers, one syllable for propellers, two syllables for Jets. These names were usually comical, but not always. So someone mentions "Fishbed, incoming!" You know a jet-fighter is approaching, whereas the "Bull" was obviously a slow, prop driven bomber.
American Navy Aircraft in WW2: this is more complicated. Each manufacturer was assigned a code letter and each plane the manufacturer designed was given a number. They also included code letters for the specific role of the plane. For example SBD3 stands for Scout / Bomber (the role) by Douglas (the manufacturer) 3 (the third design Douglas made for the Navy. The manufacturer letter are pretty random (Y for Consolidated, U for Vought, etc.) But the roles are pretty consistant: F for fighter, PB for patrol bomber, SB for Scout Bomber, TB for torpedo bomber etc.
American military aircraft during WW2: USAAF: "P" pursuit (fighters), B for (Heavy Strategic) Bombers, A for attack ( light tactical bombers), F (for Foto?) for photo reconnaissance aircraft (spy planes), C for cargo. Each plane had a number after the letter and if the plane was a prototype, you add an X or Y to the first letter (example YB-24)
You said it better than I could, and with tact. Thank you for taking the time.
You would absolutely need to multiply the power of the engines to reach its theoretical max speed. You will also have to multiply it's mass quite a bit in order to get the enormous turning radius and brutish handling characteristics. Bear in mind, this plane was big and heavy, designed to go fast in a straight line, NOT twist and turn like a Mig17. This build looks GREAT, you owe it to yourself to finish it.
Very nice, this is probably the best 111 ever posted on here.
@RamboJutter Right on. Good build. Sorry.
@ChiChiWerx It is apples to oranges, the TSR has more in common with the F-105 or the A-5 Vigilante, except for one main similarity: they were both expensive strategic strike projects that got cancelled because they were more expensive and less effective than missiles. Could the TSR have soldiered on as a recon aircraft? Sure, just like the A-5. But would that have justified the enormous effort it took to bring such a cutting edge plane into production? Unlikely. In many ways, the UK sidestepped quite a few of the expensive boondoggles that the US undertook during the second generation of jet aircraft.
@superdeltaforce https://youtu.be/R7uC5m-IRns
Hey, no need to feel bad. This place is just a little more strict because there's a LOT of kids here. Imagine it like a museum with parents leading their kids around and pointing to things.
...Or you could delete your post making fun of Spanish people. Just an idea.
I'd really like to see a Czech Hetzer, or a StuG III ausf G. People post so many experimental tanks like the Maus, or tanks that saw limited production like the Tiger, that most of the real work horses of WWII get overlooked.
Yes, you start with the saved velocity but quickly lose speed because you also start with engines off. This is not a bug.
No thanks, how about you leave the political stuff on Reddit.