@Maksim4567 it’s a lot of time and practice. Just keep making new planes and try out new ways of making them. Try to add lots of realistic details such as outlines of panels, control surfaces, etc. Make sure to try out making wings from fuselage parts. That will make a nice difference. Take apart my planes and those from other people to see how we built it. That helped me a lot too
Well that was a very Air Force landing for a navy jet. Nice work! Landing gear does retract or extend but apart from that, it took off and landed all on its own. Very very nice job
@TheScrapyard vast majority was within a month of when it came out. It’s really not to do with popularity, you just gotta make something good and interesting. That does take time and effort but if you do it right, you’ll get good results. The part I think you feel is unfair is when you put in effort for something you think is very good but then it doesn’t get the reception you feel it deserves because people can’t see the effort you put into the build. Again, just takes time and practice
@Whills ohhh I get what you mean. And yeah I use a calculator which just automatically tells me the mach number at a certain altitude I put in. I also have a mach calculator display that takes altitude into account. That’s why I find it annoying when people say that a planes top speed is a certain mach number but they don’t say the altitude it reaches that number at hahaha. My issue with high and low altitude though is more that if I build a transonic aircraft that can reach 0.9 mach at 5000ft, but in real life can’t break the sound barrier in level flight, in SP the plane will exceed mach 1 when at high altitude since I don’t think SP’s air model can model the issues that occur at transonic speeds. Would be nice if fuselage tapering for the area affect would be modelled on SimplePlanes but sadly such a thing isn’t possible
@EpsilonAerospace only the first three tags will see they have been tagged in a message btw. But you can also add air breaks to slow the plane down. They can be very effective
@Whills oh I never thought of using FT to control its max speed! Do you just add that to the engines and in what part would you put that in? I’m far from a pro at FT hahaha. But this would be a really nice input because at the moment, I feel like I can make my planes either only realistic at low altitude or high altitude. With a code like this, the max speed can be realistic at both
@TheScrapyard bro I made this when I had fewer points than you do right now. It really doesn’t matter as long as the build is good or interesting https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/01ZJC1/Bombardier-Dash-8-Q300
Beautiful build! Really amazing recreation of this plane! If you’re looking for a unique and quick build idea, the wild weasel version of this would be pretty awesome
@100 no I mean it moves in the opposite direction of how it’s supposed to for the planes movement. When the plane is pitching up, the elevators pitch down
Wow your choice of planes to build is amazing! These are mostly all amongst my favourite aircraft and I try to find diecast versions of these as much as I can. I’ve not had any luck with this one though but it’s fun to see it in SimplePlanes!
@Skykid028 no worries, after you replied to me, when I looked at it quickly I actually read that too but then I checked a second time and it didn’t say that hahaha
@AtotallynormalAircoDH2 nah. The previous post already did that. You didn’t even actually make this, you just deleted the rest and posted this, so it’s even a copy without any changes made by yourself
Just an fyi, the rules state “ Don't use offensive symbols, unless they are necessary for historical accuracy (ie - Swastikas should only be used on things like a WW2 German Bomber).”
@Aifleron This only allows for trim. It’s not a stabilator
The Sr.177 would have been a great interceptor aircraft. Shame the Germans didn’t buy it in the end
+1They’re a business. They need to make money somehow @MrCOPTY
+1It’s been a good run
Hey welcome back!
+1@PlaneFlightX ahhh shoot it doesn’t seem to work
@PlaneFlightX there’s no way to have this be Mach one though instead of a specific speed right?
@PlaneFlightX thank you so much!
@MrCOPTY somewhat modern is what I said. It was still receiving modernisation updates until relatively recently even
+1Because its a simplistic shape but a somewhat modern fighter. Also its one of my all time favourites so I definitely don’t mind
+1100% a great improvement on your previous builds! Nice work friend and keep it up!
@WolfHunter9111 how’d that German corsair become a meme
How’d this plane become a meme
Very cool!
@Maksim4567 it’s a lot of time and practice. Just keep making new planes and try out new ways of making them. Try to add lots of realistic details such as outlines of panels, control surfaces, etc. Make sure to try out making wings from fuselage parts. That will make a nice difference. Take apart my planes and those from other people to see how we built it. That helped me a lot too
+1@Graingy same. OG military analysts of the highest order we are
Red bull goes brrrrrrrrr
Well that was a very Air Force landing for a navy jet. Nice work! Landing gear does retract or extend but apart from that, it took off and landed all on its own. Very very nice job
Iraqi radar operators hate this guy
+5Most OP Fat Amy I’ve ever seen. I love it
+1@Graingy it’s the best most true sauce of media of course
I love this plane and you did a great job of it! I wish I could find a diecast model of this
@TheScrapyard vast majority was within a month of when it came out. It’s really not to do with popularity, you just gotta make something good and interesting. That does take time and effort but if you do it right, you’ll get good results. The part I think you feel is unfair is when you put in effort for something you think is very good but then it doesn’t get the reception you feel it deserves because people can’t see the effort you put into the build. Again, just takes time and practice
+1Ngl this is pretty fun to fly
Okay I know the media likes to downplay the capabilities of the F-35 but this just hyped up its performance immensely hahaha. Cool build though :)
+3@Whills ohhh I get what you mean. And yeah I use a calculator which just automatically tells me the mach number at a certain altitude I put in. I also have a mach calculator display that takes altitude into account. That’s why I find it annoying when people say that a planes top speed is a certain mach number but they don’t say the altitude it reaches that number at hahaha. My issue with high and low altitude though is more that if I build a transonic aircraft that can reach 0.9 mach at 5000ft, but in real life can’t break the sound barrier in level flight, in SP the plane will exceed mach 1 when at high altitude since I don’t think SP’s air model can model the issues that occur at transonic speeds. Would be nice if fuselage tapering for the area affect would be modelled on SimplePlanes but sadly such a thing isn’t possible
+2@EpsilonAerospace only the first three tags will see they have been tagged in a message btw. But you can also add air breaks to slow the plane down. They can be very effective
+1@Whills oh I never thought of using FT to control its max speed! Do you just add that to the engines and in what part would you put that in? I’m far from a pro at FT hahaha. But this would be a really nice input because at the moment, I feel like I can make my planes either only realistic at low altitude or high altitude. With a code like this, the max speed can be realistic at both
+1@Skykid028 dyslexia rocks
+1@0rion5212 no problem! It’s a decent build and deserves more than just my upvote
@TheScrapyard bro I made this when I had fewer points than you do right now. It really doesn’t matter as long as the build is good or interesting https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/01ZJC1/Bombardier-Dash-8-Q300
+1Beautiful build! Really amazing recreation of this plane! If you’re looking for a unique and quick build idea, the wild weasel version of this would be pretty awesome
@100 no I mean it moves in the opposite direction of how it’s supposed to for the planes movement. When the plane is pitching up, the elevators pitch down
One of my favourite aircraft of all time! I absolutely love the Six
Wow your choice of planes to build is amazing! These are mostly all amongst my favourite aircraft and I try to find diecast versions of these as much as I can. I’ve not had any luck with this one though but it’s fun to see it in SimplePlanes!
Love this build! I have a 1/72 model of this plane and I always thought the nose looked very SimplePlanes like.
Wonderful build! Love the look of this aircraft and you made it fly pretty well!
@DalandanMan23 yes I did! It’s some cool details added to it which made it even better
@Skykid028 no worries, after you replied to me, when I looked at it quickly I actually read that too but then I checked a second time and it didn’t say that hahaha
@AtotallynormalAircoDH2 nah. The previous post already did that. You didn’t even actually make this, you just deleted the rest and posted this, so it’s even a copy without any changes made by yourself
This is really neat! Flies pretty well
@Skykid028 sorry but for what challenge? The build it’s from is just a post of different WWII flags and uniforms from over 4 years ago
Just an fyi, the rules state “ Don't use offensive symbols, unless they are necessary for historical accuracy (ie - Swastikas should only be used on things like a WW2 German Bomber).”
Pretty good job!
Nice build but just fyi, the elevators move in the opposite direction than they’re supposed to!
F-16 who ate too much?
Pretty cool looking! And don’t worry it’s not hard to land :)
+2Nice job! Feels a little small but still looks good and is fun to fly
Pretty decent!
Jeez what a monster! Nice build
+2