@asteroidbook345 Very vulnerable. I'm not saying everyone did it, either. I'm sure there were plenty of guys too scared to, but they probably weren't very good at their job.
@asteroidbook345 Periscope is there to use while taking or expecting to take fire. It doesn't provide the awareness one would need to navigate rough terrain or watch out for danger. As a matter of fact it was common for the crew to park the tank while the commander got out and walked ahead to scout the other side of a hill.
@asteroidbook345 A good WW2 tank commander almost always had their eyes outside the tank. Situational awareness was impossible from within a "buttoned up" vehicle, and it was the commanders duty to his crew to maintain that awareness.
@sailor666 You've done great work here. A very faithful rendition of a very uncommon tank.
@Frenchman @Gestour You might want to go with the StuG III instead. It's very similar, but had a much larger impact on the war. The Germans churned out about 10,000 Stug 3's using the outdated Panzer-3 layout vs only about 1,000 Stug-4's using the more valuable Panzer-4 chassis.
@ACEPILOT109 I think they used the number 28 in reference to the MIG-29 Fulcrum which was the most feared Soviet fighter at the time (we hadn't yet learned to properly fear the unholy terror that is the Su-27). I figured you knew all this stuff but I posted anyway in case anybody here was curious. Nice Tiger by the way, probably one of the most under rated designs to come out of the 1950's.
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.
@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.
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.
@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.
Sure thing, looks great
KAVINSKY
@asteroidbook345 Very vulnerable. I'm not saying everyone did it, either. I'm sure there were plenty of guys too scared to, but they probably weren't very good at their job.
@asteroidbook345 Periscope is there to use while taking or expecting to take fire. It doesn't provide the awareness one would need to navigate rough terrain or watch out for danger. As a matter of fact it was common for the crew to park the tank while the commander got out and walked ahead to scout the other side of a hill.
@Shadowed As mentioned above, I have mass set to one thousand for each rotator.
@asteroidbook345 A good WW2 tank commander almost always had their eyes outside the tank. Situational awareness was impossible from within a "buttoned up" vehicle, and it was the commanders duty to his crew to maintain that awareness.
@sailor666 You've done great work here. A very faithful rendition of a very uncommon tank.
This is an impressive level of detail for 700 parts and clearly a labor of love. Congratulations!
@SnoWFLakE0s Ok, will do. Thanks for your time
A very extensive glossary, great work!
@SnoWFLakE0s Thanks! What's the exclamation point mean? Do I use that as the input or AG?
By "fly like it should" do you mean "litter the West German countryside with flaming wreckage?"
@Frenchman @Gestour You might want to go with the StuG III instead. It's very similar, but had a much larger impact on the war. The Germans churned out about 10,000 Stug 3's using the outdated Panzer-3 layout vs only about 1,000 Stug-4's using the more valuable Panzer-4 chassis.
@ACEPILOT109 I think they used the number 28 in reference to the MIG-29 Fulcrum which was the most feared Soviet fighter at the time (we hadn't yet learned to properly fear the unholy terror that is the Su-27). I figured you knew all this stuff but I posted anyway in case anybody here was curious. Nice Tiger by the way, probably one of the most under rated designs to come out of the 1950's.
@DEVINBOSS I'm pleased you like it! Back when I made this, I was trying to get people interested in planes from the 1920's and 30's. Anyway, cheers
@Fighterjester I'm pleased you like it
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.
@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.
@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.
Thanks! @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!
Use the roleplay tag.
OFF TOPIC
Will it tear itself apart in midair just like the real thing?
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.
@RamboJutter Affirmative
FOR MAKE GLORY OF SOVIET AGRICULTURAL!
@Gestour Would you mind being a bit more specific? There's a lot going on and I'm not sure where to begin.
@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 
This is not a teaser. This is boring.
Awesome job. I love seeing these 1930's French designs on the front page!
Inhumanly good, as expected.
Why did you make it so gigantic?