incorrect
Air is still something (it is made up of gases, has mass, interacts with the world around it, etc.), so you cannot become air by simply doing nothing. Otherwise, most of us would probably have sublimated by now.
SAMs do funny things, yeah (as I unfortunately discovered yesterday while trying the Missile Evasion challenge again). As for cannons, there's some code you can add to them that makes them airburst once they've traveled a certain distance, but other than that you need to achieve a direct hit on the target. Also note that unlike gun bullets, cannon shells will pass through their target (if it's another build) if the cannon has aircraft collisions disabled.
Here's a few of mine, one with the nice sunset angle (and dust from the convoy) and one showing most of the folks that were involved (missing Venus and jangelelcangry because they had left by then)
The main thing to change with the opening bomber sequence of The Last Jedi is to increase - drastically - the amount of damage that the MG-100s are able to take. I'm talking engines shot out, parts and external bits being blown off, the works. But after the TIES make their initial passes (which in the movie leave only the somewhat-plot-armored bomber flying), the StarFortresses emerge from the fire and smoke, damaged but doggedly flying onwards. Not only would this look absolutely amazing on-screen, it would make the MG-100 make a lot more sense in-canon. In a book I haven't read, Poe Dameron describes the StarFortress as "the best bomber the Resistance ever had", but its performance on-screen not only makes this claim laughable, it brings into question the entire purpose of the ship. Redefining the StarFortress as a tough, durable heavy bomber, instead of the wet piece of paper it is unfortunately depicted to be, would be a huge improvement for both the opening sequence of The Last Jedi and the MG-100 itself as a design.
I actually like the StarFortress aesthetically, and heavy bombers are something that don't get much attention in Star Wars (plus I love ships with turrets), but the way it is shown in the movie is an insult to the ship's entire design and purpose.
It's pretty clear that the ship is based fairly directly on the B-17 bomber, both in design and performance. As shown in the initial bombing run on the dreadnought, the StarFortress' main characteristic is its ability to fly in formation, in a straight line, to deliver a prodigious quantity of ordinance over a relatively large area, again pretty similar to the WWII-era bomber it is based on. However, the main thing that differs from the B-17 (in fact the StarFortress' main weakness) is its incredibly poor survivability.
During the Second World War, one of the most notable properties of the B-17 bomber, other than its sheer quantity and effectiveness, was the aircraft's ability to take massive amounts of damage and keep flying. Fortresses returned to base with destroyed engines, gaping holes shot in the fuselage, occasionally entire stabilizers missing, and, on at least two occasions, after being nearly blown in half. The B-17 was originally dubbed the Flying Fortress because of its large quantity of defensive armament, but lived up to the name through sheer durability.
This is the main thing missing from the StarFortress. As depicted in the unfortunately quite poorly-thought-out opening sequence, the MG-100s are really not capable of taking any damage whatsoever. In fact, given how rapidly they fall victim to TIE fire (which even X-Wings are able to survive, and many other ships are able to shrug off with little to no damage), I wonder whether the deflector shielding on the StarFortress is even military-grade, as it does very little to protect the bomber from damage.
I completely agree, the bombers were a cool idea but the execution was terrible. I actually wrote a short bit on what they should have been like. Lemme find it real quick and I'll paste it here; it addresses several of your points (particularly the durability).
A new island/archipelago would be great, though the only place I could really see them putting it would be somewhere south of Sky Park City (Maywar and the Kraken are to the east of Wright/Krakabloa, Snowstone is to the north, and the Brown Pearl kind of requires open sea to the west). Sky Park is close enough to Wright that I could see them adding another island beyond it without too much trouble.
Maybe, but I don't think it's super likely. It would be a neat thing to add, but the complexity required to do so might be infeasible.
I'd love a new town or two, though I think they'd go best on a new island rather than being added to existing places. Maybe a few smaller structures scattered around, though. That being said, there's a fine line between feeling-empty-because-there-aren't-buildings and feeling-empty-because-there-aren't-people, and I really don't see them adding NPCs at any point in the future.
Some sort of radar/ECM systems for manually guiding missiles would be really cool, yeah.
Yes (except for the fact that there's a noticeable cutoff around each of the islands where the land mesh ends, so it wouldn't be a very "clean" implementation unless they decided to add seafloor to the entire map)
Please yes. Better yet, make a few updates and QoL changes to the existing Tracks 2 mod and package it in the game like Overload and FineTuner so existing builds with tracks still work.
Problem with official online multiplayer is that it requires money to constantly run servers, which means they will eventually shut down at some point in the future. LAN could possibly work though. The other issue is the same one faced by the existing MP mod, which is that some things (i.e. guns, engine animations, etc.) are exclusively client-side, and don't show up for others. Not sure if that's something that could be easily changed.
YES. I want to do more things!
I could see that being a thing, yeah. They already brought image effects (i.e. ouch the sun is really bright) over to mobile several years ago (As an aside, the display resolution quality doesn't have anything to do with whether a device can run it; that's on the graphics processing power)
AI parameters (spawn only prop engine planes, etc.) would be excellent! Also, more generic "simple" planes to spawn as AI, but that take advantage of the newer parts and techniques, would be nice as well.
@CarMakerFry20 If you have more points than the person you're spotlighting (you might also need to be above a certain number of points, I don't remember), an orange button with a magnifying glass icon will appear next to the Download button on an aircraft's page.
Very cool! Neat how games these days can work alongside real-world events like this. And those new solar panel animations are just fantastic! Can't say anything about the map changes since I still haven't cleared Juno orbit though, but someday!
Depending on the input (like, for example, if it's a FT equation you have stored in a variable), it might be easier to use a slightly simplified code: (IAS > X ? input : 0)
X = desired speed (m/s) input = desired input (i.e. brakes, throttle, FT variable, etc.)
Ooh, that'd be neat! I think the VR version of the game only runs on the low physics setting though (might be wrong, you'd have to check) so you'd need to make sure it works properly on that as well. Mechanical systems are always cool though, and I'd imagine they'd be especially so in VR!
Not a bad idea on the surface (pun intended), but the problem is that it would require a full, decent-resolution UV map to be done for every single part in the game, instead of the current basic materials system that the game uses.
Currently, a part (say, a prop engine) is essentially split into three or four sub-models, each of which can be colored independently. To the average player, these are known as the part's Primary, Trim 1, Trim 2, and (sometimes) Trim 3 colors. When painting a part, currently all the game has to do is specify which color slot gets applied to that section of the part.
For example, if you have a part painted with the first three colors as Primary, Trim 1, and Trim 2, all the game has to know, code-wise, for how to color that part is material=1,2,3 (along with the associated color codes that occupy those slots, which are defined elsewhere in the plane file).
Switching to a fully texture-able system would require the game to be able to store (and generate) not only the basic color data, but also much more complex data like size, position, and orientation, as well as the actual graphic being applied. That goes for every single part in the game, and for every piece of imagery or color applied to them.
Tl;dr not a bad idea on the surface, but technically infeasible given the way the game works (and likely for performance reasons as well).
The numbers are for the blueprint scale, which you can adjust to make the image be whatever size you want to build from. I typically will start by just laying out a bunch of fuselage blocks to get the overall length (as determined via the craft properties tab of the Menu window in the editor), and then scale the blueprint to fit that.
The position is just if you need to move it horizontally/vertically from the default for whatever reason. Blueprint position is locked to the active cockpit block, so if you move that to a different spot on the build you might need to readjust your blueprint so it isn't shifted out of position.
Great idea, except Apple decided several years ago to prevent third-party mods from running on their devices (or something to that effect), so there's really no way for it to work. Additionally, mod downloads (on other devices at least) are already pretty much the same as downloading a plane.
At the time of posting this forum, your build that "didn't even get seen by people" had been up for approximately three hours. That's both within your "5 hours" window and an utterly insignificant amount of time for a build to be on the site, sorry.
Plus, keep in mind that the time you post stuff matters, particularly for your "5 hours" window. People might be sleeping or working or whatever.
Hmm. Maybe try LMMS? It's not super user-friendly for beginners, but you can sort of do a "put in the instruments you want and then tell them what to do" kind of thing. Plus it's free, which is a better price than a lot of other music programs out there.
@FlirBlitz Yeah, dunno what might be going on. Without a specific date for the image it's hard to say. The USS George H. W. Bush was last reported 5 days ago off Italy, but there's no telling where it might have been before that (at least, not from publicly available data).
The Bush is really the only carrier that it could be though, since there's literally no other operational (cough cough Kuznetzov cough cough) carriers in that part of the world (other than the Turkish TCG Anadolu, which doesn't have the same deck profile).
It seems we have more questions than answers here. Maybe there'll be something in the news in a few weeks, but I doubt it.
Definitely looks like a carrier with the way the upper deck is shaped. Interestingly, though it's visible in both Google Maps and Google Earth, it is not visible on Apple Maps or other publicly available software (that I've seen, anyway). Which carrier, though, is a bit of a mystery, since none of the Black Sea navies have a carrier with that profile and the US Navy's task group is supposed to be in the Mediterranean.
The stock P-51-B has a bit of a center-of-gravity issue; it's a little too close to the center of lift. Hopefully this gets fixed since it's odd for a stock plane to have an issue like this, but if not it's a really simple thing to correct.
@Numbers2 @Blb1981 Oh, I fully agree that SimplePlanes' AI needs an update (or even a complete overhaul). It's such an outdated system that I'm surprised it works as well as it does. (For example, the AI still doesn't know how to fly helicopters even though dedicated rotor parts have been in-game for... how long now?)
Honestly it's somewhat of a miracle that the AI functions as smoothly as it does, given the huge variations between different player-built aircraft. With regards to the F-22, the AI didn't use the thrust vectoring simply because it didn't know it could. The AI is limited to the basic flight controls plus weapons, and will try to keep itself away from what it thinks is a stall whenever possible. This means that it will never intentionally perform post-stall maneuvers. Similar thing for activation groups and the VTOL and Trim sliders. The AI never uses them because it just doesn't know what they do, and therefore can't know [i]when[/i] to use them.
It is theoretically possible to build a plane that would "trick" the AI into performing some semblance of post-stall maneuvers, but it would undoubtedly be very tricky and I don't think anyone's tried it.
Tl;dr the AI was only designed to fly basic aircraft, and doesn't know how to take full advantage of more advanced designs (and therefore loses control of them somewhat often, leading to unplanned kinetic disassembly).
Regarding the "hit with its guns like a decillion times and I can still fly", that's just a discrepancy between the gun damage and the part health, both of which are set by the players who built the planes. Either the health-to-damage ratio was just off, or you just didn't get hit anywhere vital, neither of which are related to the AI.
Under Game Settings (Pause menu -> Settings -> Game Settings), set AI Air Traffic to "None". This will make the game stop automatically spawning AI planes.
I haven't found one single source that states specifically what the Northrop A-17's bomb load consisted of, but three independent sources provided the following information when combined:
* 20x 30lb fragmentation bombs in internal bay (in vertical chutes)
* 4x 100lb bombs on external racks
The sources did conflict with regards to the aircraft's total bomb load but I assume the actual bomb counts are accurate and the discrepancies originated elsewhere, though I can't say for certain.
A lot of learning how to make "good planes" comes from digging into planes that other people have made, seeing and then understanding the methods and techniques they use, and then adapting those techniques to fit your own personal building style. It isn't just a flip-of-the-switch, "follow these steps and you'll build good planes" thing.
Sure, there's general tips to be had ("use blueprints", etc.), but there can be no definitive answer on what makes a "good plane", because everyone has their own standards regarding what makes something "good".
Additionally, clickbait posts like this are really not helpful for those who are actually looking for information and tips on how to advance their building skills.
+1incorrectAir is still something (it is made up of gases, has mass, interacts with the world around it, etc.), so you cannot become air by simply doing nothing. Otherwise, most of us would probably have sublimated by now.
No.
+1P
+3R
I
S
M
The mod still overrides the "official" first-person zoom if you restart the level without first exiting back to the designer.
+1SAMs do funny things, yeah (as I unfortunately discovered yesterday while trying the Missile Evasion challenge again). As for cannons, there's some code you can add to them that makes them airburst once they've traveled a certain distance, but other than that you need to achieve a direct hit on the target. Also note that unlike gun bullets, cannon shells will pass through their target (if it's another build) if the cannon has aircraft collisions disabled.
You need to put an exclamation point in front of it if you want it to show as an image instead of a link, i.e.
+1Alternatively,
+2(TAS>v) ? Throttle : 0. I think they'll both work about the same though, so pick whichever you like.Is this another one of those horror games specifically marketed to children for the sole purpose of selling toys?
Here's a few of mine, one with the nice sunset angle (and dust from the convoy) and one showing most of the folks that were involved (missing Venus and jangelelcangry because they had left by then)
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/998493137649541120/1095886156681466038/Screenshot_407.pnghttps://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/998493137649541120/1095886157184762007/Screenshot_403.pngThe main thing to change with the opening bomber sequence of The Last Jedi is to increase - drastically - the amount of damage that the MG-100s are able to take. I'm talking engines shot out, parts and external bits being blown off, the works. But after the TIES make their initial passes (which in the movie leave only the somewhat-plot-armored bomber flying), the StarFortresses emerge from the fire and smoke, damaged but doggedly flying onwards. Not only would this look absolutely amazing on-screen, it would make the MG-100 make a lot more sense in-canon. In a book I haven't read, Poe Dameron describes the StarFortress as "the best bomber the Resistance ever had", but its performance on-screen not only makes this claim laughable, it brings into question the entire purpose of the ship. Redefining the StarFortress as a tough, durable heavy bomber, instead of the wet piece of paper it is unfortunately depicted to be, would be a huge improvement for both the opening sequence of The Last Jedi and the MG-100 itself as a design.
I actually like the StarFortress aesthetically, and heavy bombers are something that don't get much attention in Star Wars (plus I love ships with turrets), but the way it is shown in the movie is an insult to the ship's entire design and purpose.
(2/2)
+1It's pretty clear that the ship is based fairly directly on the B-17 bomber, both in design and performance. As shown in the initial bombing run on the dreadnought, the StarFortress' main characteristic is its ability to fly in formation, in a straight line, to deliver a prodigious quantity of ordinance over a relatively large area, again pretty similar to the WWII-era bomber it is based on. However, the main thing that differs from the B-17 (in fact the StarFortress' main weakness) is its incredibly poor survivability.
During the Second World War, one of the most notable properties of the B-17 bomber, other than its sheer quantity and effectiveness, was the aircraft's ability to take massive amounts of damage and keep flying. Fortresses returned to base with destroyed engines, gaping holes shot in the fuselage, occasionally entire stabilizers missing, and, on at least two occasions, after being nearly blown in half. The B-17 was originally dubbed the Flying Fortress because of its large quantity of defensive armament, but lived up to the name through sheer durability.
This is the main thing missing from the StarFortress. As depicted in the unfortunately quite poorly-thought-out opening sequence, the MG-100s are really not capable of taking any damage whatsoever. In fact, given how rapidly they fall victim to TIE fire (which even X-Wings are able to survive, and many other ships are able to shrug off with little to no damage), I wonder whether the deflector shielding on the StarFortress is even military-grade, as it does very little to protect the bomber from damage.
(1/2)
I completely agree, the bombers were a cool idea but the execution was terrible. I actually wrote a short bit on what they should have been like. Lemme find it real quick and I'll paste it here; it addresses several of your points (particularly the durability).
+1- A new island/archipelago would be great, though the only place I could really see them putting it would be somewhere south of Sky Park City (Maywar and the Kraken are to the east of Wright/Krakabloa, Snowstone is to the north, and the Brown Pearl kind of requires open sea to the west). Sky Park is close enough to Wright that I could see them adding another island beyond it without too much trouble.
- Maybe, but I don't think it's super likely. It would be a neat thing to add, but the complexity required to do so might be infeasible.
- I'd love a new town or two, though I think they'd go best on a new island rather than being added to existing places. Maybe a few smaller structures scattered around, though. That being said, there's a fine line between feeling-empty-because-there-aren't-buildings and feeling-empty-because-there-aren't-people, and I really don't see them adding NPCs at any point in the future.
- Some sort of radar/ECM systems for manually guiding missiles would be really cool, yeah.
- Yes (except for the fact that there's a noticeable cutoff around each of the islands where the land mesh ends, so it wouldn't be a very "clean" implementation unless they decided to add seafloor to the entire map)
- Please yes. Better yet, make a few updates and QoL changes to the existing Tracks 2 mod and package it in the game like Overload and FineTuner so existing builds with tracks still work.
- Problem with official online multiplayer is that it requires money to constantly run servers, which means they will eventually shut down at some point in the future. LAN could possibly work though. The other issue is the same one faced by the existing MP mod, which is that some things (i.e. guns, engine animations, etc.) are exclusively client-side, and don't show up for others. Not sure if that's something that could be easily changed.
- YES. I want to do more things!
- I could see that being a thing, yeah. They already brought image effects (i.e. ouch the sun is really bright) over to mobile several years ago (As an aside, the display resolution quality doesn't have anything to do with whether a device can run it; that's on the graphics processing power)
- AI parameters (spawn only prop engine planes, etc.) would be excellent! Also, more generic "simple" planes to spawn as AI, but that take advantage of the newer parts and techniques, would be nice as well.
+2@CarMakerFry20 If you have more points than the person you're spotlighting (you might also need to be above a certain number of points, I don't remember), an orange button with a magnifying glass icon will appear next to the Download button on an aircraft's page.
+2Ooooooo, that looks great!
T
Very cool! Neat how games these days can work alongside real-world events like this. And those new solar panel animations are just fantastic! Can't say anything about the map changes since I still haven't cleared Juno orbit though, but someday!
(SimplePlanes news when?)
+1I'm pretty sure there's a ToS violation here somewhere...
+1@YeetDoctor They work for me
Depending on the input (like, for example, if it's a FT equation you have stored in a variable), it might be easier to use a slightly simplified code:
+1(IAS > X ?
input: 0)X = desired speed (m/s)
input= desired input (i.e. brakes, throttle, FT variable, etc.)Happy birthday!
+1Unfortunately not (devs please)
Ooh, that'd be neat! I think the VR version of the game only runs on the low physics setting though (might be wrong, you'd have to check) so you'd need to make sure it works properly on that as well. Mechanical systems are always cool though, and I'd imagine they'd be especially so in VR!
+1@Dogedogebread13 Well, someone made a mod for that if you want to try it out.
+1https://www.simpleplanes.com/Mods/View/1379397/Textured-Fuselage-Block
Not a bad idea on the surface (pun intended), but the problem is that it would require a full, decent-resolution UV map to be done for every single part in the game, instead of the current basic materials system that the game uses.
Currently, a part (say, a prop engine) is essentially split into three or four sub-models, each of which can be colored independently. To the average player, these are known as the part's Primary, Trim 1, Trim 2, and (sometimes) Trim 3 colors. When painting a part, currently all the game has to do is specify which color slot gets applied to that section of the part.
For example, if you have a part painted with the first three colors as Primary, Trim 1, and Trim 2, all the game has to know, code-wise, for how to color that part is
material=1,2,3(along with the associated color codes that occupy those slots, which are defined elsewhere in the plane file).Switching to a fully texture-able system would require the game to be able to store (and generate) not only the basic color data, but also much more complex data like size, position, and orientation, as well as the actual graphic being applied. That goes for every single part in the game, and for every piece of imagery or color applied to them.
Tl;dr not a bad idea on the surface, but technically infeasible given the way the game works (and likely for performance reasons as well).
+5T
Ooh this looks neat
+1@NawcandoAK47 Sorry, my mistake. I meant the "Cockpit Interior" section.
There's a text label part under the "Cockpits" section.
Happy Easter!
+2The WING
+1An UwUAV, if you will
+1The numbers are for the blueprint scale, which you can adjust to make the image be whatever size you want to build from. I typically will start by just laying out a bunch of fuselage blocks to get the overall length (as determined via the craft properties tab of the Menu window in the editor), and then scale the blueprint to fit that.
The position is just if you need to move it horizontally/vertically from the default for whatever reason. Blueprint position is locked to the active cockpit block, so if you move that to a different spot on the build you might need to readjust your blueprint so it isn't shifted out of position.
Great idea, except Apple decided several years ago to prevent third-party mods from running on their devices (or something to that effect), so there's really no way for it to work. Additionally, mod downloads (on other devices at least) are already pretty much the same as downloading a plane.
+2At the time of posting this forum, your build that "didn't even get seen by people" had been up for approximately three hours. That's both within your "5 hours" window and an utterly insignificant amount of time for a build to be on the site, sorry.
Plus, keep in mind that the time you post stuff matters, particularly for your "5 hours" window. People might be sleeping or working or whatever.
Hmm. Maybe try LMMS? It's not super user-friendly for beginners, but you can sort of do a "put in the instruments you want and then tell them what to do" kind of thing. Plus it's free, which is a better price than a lot of other music programs out there.
+1@FlirBlitz Yeah, dunno what might be going on. Without a specific date for the image it's hard to say. The USS George H. W. Bush was last reported 5 days ago off Italy, but there's no telling where it might have been before that (at least, not from publicly available data).
The Bush is really the only carrier that it could be though, since there's literally no other operational (cough cough Kuznetzov cough cough) carriers in that part of the world (other than the Turkish TCG Anadolu, which doesn't have the same deck profile).
It seems we have more questions than answers here. Maybe there'll be something in the news in a few weeks, but I doubt it.
+1Definitely looks like a carrier with the way the upper deck is shaped. Interestingly, though it's visible in both Google Maps and Google Earth, it is not visible on Apple Maps or other publicly available software (that I've seen, anyway). Which carrier, though, is a bit of a mystery, since none of the Black Sea navies have a carrier with that profile and the US Navy's task group is supposed to be in the Mediterranean.
Here's the Google Maps coords for anyone who wants to take a look themselves.
Those are some nice pictures!
Theoretically I think it should be possible through some (ab)use of the control base, but I'm not sure how.
The stock P-51-B has a bit of a center-of-gravity issue; it's a little too close to the center of lift. Hopefully this gets fixed since it's odd for a stock plane to have an issue like this, but if not it's a really simple thing to correct.
+3@Numbers2 @Blb1981 Oh, I fully agree that SimplePlanes' AI needs an update (or even a complete overhaul). It's such an outdated system that I'm surprised it works as well as it does. (For example, the AI still doesn't know how to fly helicopters even though dedicated rotor parts have been in-game for... how long now?)
+2Honestly it's somewhat of a miracle that the AI functions as smoothly as it does, given the huge variations between different player-built aircraft. With regards to the F-22, the AI didn't use the thrust vectoring simply because it didn't know it could. The AI is limited to the basic flight controls plus weapons, and will try to keep itself away from what it thinks is a stall whenever possible. This means that it will never intentionally perform post-stall maneuvers. Similar thing for activation groups and the VTOL and Trim sliders. The AI never uses them because it just doesn't know what they do, and therefore can't know [i]when[/i] to use them.
It is theoretically possible to build a plane that would "trick" the AI into performing some semblance of post-stall maneuvers, but it would undoubtedly be very tricky and I don't think anyone's tried it.
Tl;dr the AI was only designed to fly basic aircraft, and doesn't know how to take full advantage of more advanced designs (and therefore loses control of them somewhat often, leading to unplanned kinetic disassembly).
Regarding the "hit with its guns like a decillion times and I can still fly", that's just a discrepancy between the gun damage and the part health, both of which are set by the players who built the planes. Either the health-to-damage ratio was just off, or you just didn't get hit anywhere vital, neither of which are related to the AI.
+3Under Game Settings (Pause menu -> Settings -> Game Settings), set AI Air Traffic to "None". This will make the game stop automatically spawning AI planes.
[text you want to display](url)For example:
This link goes to the main page of the site
[This link goes to the main page of the site](https://www.simpleplanes.com)If you're good at keeping your aircraft stable, you can also fly under the wing of the tanker and hit a propeller with your vertical stabilizer.
+1Ok bye.
I haven't found one single source that states specifically what the Northrop A-17's bomb load consisted of, but three independent sources provided the following information when combined:
* 20x 30lb fragmentation bombs in internal bay (in vertical chutes)
* 4x 100lb bombs on external racks
Sources:
https://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/northrop_a-17.php
https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/198097/northrop-a-17a/
https://www.boeing.com/history/products/a-17-8a-light-attack-bomber.page
The sources did conflict with regards to the aircraft's total bomb load but I assume the actual bomb counts are accurate and the discrepancies originated elsewhere, though I can't say for certain.
+1A lot of learning how to make "good planes" comes from digging into planes that other people have made, seeing and then understanding the methods and techniques they use, and then adapting those techniques to fit your own personal building style. It isn't just a flip-of-the-switch, "follow these steps and you'll build good planes" thing.
Sure, there's general tips to be had ("use blueprints", etc.), but there can be no definitive answer on what makes a "good plane", because everyone has their own standards regarding what makes something "good".
Additionally, clickbait posts like this are really not helpful for those who are actually looking for information and tips on how to advance their building skills.
3: Move the CoM and CoL closer together (note that this may also make the plane more unstable when pitching, so adjust with care).
+1T