@Novaxomix I’d say you’re probably not. The number 30 is just an arbitrary score they gave. A plane doesn’t explode after just a couple rounds of .50 going through a non-essential part of the fuselage or wing, especially with no fuel in it. The consensus seems to be that .50 damage is around 5 damage points in this game. In real life, it could take dozens or even hundreds of .303 rounds to shoot down a small to medium size enemy aircraft and .303 has similar ballistic capabilities to .308 in terms of velocity and energy. The 30 damage seems to be more similar to 20mm Hispano. There is also a calculation which many have done to make realistic gun damage models and depending on who you ask, the damage for a .50 should be between 4-10
@jamesPLANESii ahhh that kinda makes sense. One thing that I have noticed though is that when I use four T2000 engines instead of my custom 250+ part custom engines on my plane, it does make the frame rate way better
This is really excellent! You made it look real good but also fly fairly realistically which is pretty rare to see. Very nicely done. A couple small changes I would make is to increase the roll rate, lower the drag while decreasing the engine thrust to give it a more realistic acceleration rate, and maybe add a few air breaks that open when you pull a high AoA so that the aircraft decreases in speed when pulling 9gs instead of still gaining speed. Amazing build overall
@SILVERPANZER sorry what do you mean by FT? Also why do builds that are based on the same basic craft have different FPS performance after adding hundreds of cosmetic detailing parts in that case?
@IceCraftGaming really? I feel like they don’t considering that each individual part can still come apart if the plane gets damaged or crashes. Also since my device gets a lot more laggy when I go from an aircraft with hundreds of parts to above a thousand, even if it’s just cosmetics that have been added
@jamesPLANESii yeah that I understand but I meant it more for the purpose of reducing total part count so that a detailed engine made up of hundreds of parts will only be recognised as one, thus lowering total part count and increasing fps and overall performance on the device used to run the game. The other useful part of this is that, especially when mirroring a complex part only used for detailing, no strange part connections are accidentally established which I’ve noticed sometimes occurs when mirroring complex wings. Does that explain it better?
@HuskyDynamics01 I use a mac and iOS devices for SimplePlanes so sadly mods isn’t something I can do. I can download mods on the Mac but it can hardly run SP which is strange because my iPhone 11 and iPad can run it perfectly fine even with upwards of 1500 part builds
@phrongus hey yes I do! I stopped uploading because I felt to much pressure from myself to make each craft look better and more detailed than the previous hahaha. Now I just make simple(ish) planes that fly very realistic so that I can play DCS on my iPad 😂
Change the water to be like that of Juno new origins (SimpleRockets2), make the engines customisable like in SimpleRockets2, make a dogfight mode where neither aircraft engages until after the merge, have a separation part clicker like in SR2, have a duplication part clicker like in SR2, a tinker panel like in SR2……. Basically take all the cool build features from SimpleRockets2 and add them here. That would be the perfect game.
Did you ever get this to work? I tried a few times in various ways and I’ve been trying the same thing with VTOL engines now but it just doesn’t look good. How is yours?
Dude this is awesome! You made it look good and fly well. One thing I would recommend is to put the landing gear right behind the CoM. That way taking off will be both easier and feel more realistic. It will also have a much lower takeoff speed
It looks really good but doesn’t fly too great. The CoM should be a little more forward than the CoL. Cool plane overall though and could be easily made much better :)
@Mechboy9000 I see!
Mexicana
@Dathcha welp. Time to make a machine gun that fires missiles then
@Novaxomix I’d say you’re probably not. The number 30 is just an arbitrary score they gave. A plane doesn’t explode after just a couple rounds of .50 going through a non-essential part of the fuselage or wing, especially with no fuel in it. The consensus seems to be that .50 damage is around 5 damage points in this game. In real life, it could take dozens or even hundreds of .303 rounds to shoot down a small to medium size enemy aircraft and .303 has similar ballistic capabilities to .308 in terms of velocity and energy. The 30 damage seems to be more similar to 20mm Hispano. There is also a calculation which many have done to make realistic gun damage models and depending on who you ask, the damage for a .50 should be between 4-10
@Anomalocaris I didn’t even know that plane proposal existed! It looks like it would have been a cool design
+1@Novaxomix I think a .50 cal does something like 5 damage and these do 30. They’re way stronger
@jamesPLANESii ahhh that kinda makes sense. One thing that I have noticed though is that when I use four T2000 engines instead of my custom 250+ part custom engines on my plane, it does make the frame rate way better
@CheeseTruffles I mean hopefully no one survives to tell the United Nations about it 😂
+5This is really excellent! You made it look real good but also fly fairly realistically which is pretty rare to see. Very nicely done. A couple small changes I would make is to increase the roll rate, lower the drag while decreasing the engine thrust to give it a more realistic acceleration rate, and maybe add a few air breaks that open when you pull a high AoA so that the aircraft decreases in speed when pulling 9gs instead of still gaining speed. Amazing build overall
@SILVERPANZER ohhh right. But what does that have to do with the performance cost of high part counts?
@IceCraftGaming hey thanks!
+1@SILVERPANZER sorry what do you mean by FT? Also why do builds that are based on the same basic craft have different FPS performance after adding hundreds of cosmetic detailing parts in that case?
@IceCraftGaming really? I feel like they don’t considering that each individual part can still come apart if the plane gets damaged or crashes. Also since my device gets a lot more laggy when I go from an aircraft with hundreds of parts to above a thousand, even if it’s just cosmetics that have been added
@jamesPLANESii yeah that I understand but I meant it more for the purpose of reducing total part count so that a detailed engine made up of hundreds of parts will only be recognised as one, thus lowering total part count and increasing fps and overall performance on the device used to run the game. The other useful part of this is that, especially when mirroring a complex part only used for detailing, no strange part connections are accidentally established which I’ve noticed sometimes occurs when mirroring complex wings. Does that explain it better?
@rexzion thanks for this. I’ll check out the forum post
It’s not a cluster bomb when each is fired directly from the plane… right? 🙃
+2@FirstFish83828 probably not but I use Google translate to speak to like a quarter of the people on here
@ZeroWithSlashedO I hope they do something like this whenever they decide to update next. Would be an awesome addition
@Dragoranos I do but I also like to have cool flyable terrain and air to air combat
+1@Kangy would love to hear what a dev thinks about this. I think it would be a great edition that seems relatively possible to do
@Kangy thanks! I never really leave but just don’t post hahaha
@HuskyDynamics01 I use a mac and iOS devices for SimplePlanes so sadly mods isn’t something I can do. I can download mods on the Mac but it can hardly run SP which is strange because my iPhone 11 and iPad can run it perfectly fine even with upwards of 1500 part builds
Oh and add rocket engines and the ability to choose which fuel tanks to use first so we can have actually useful drop tanks
+3@phrongus would be so useful. Also parts wouldn’t accidentally randomly connect with other parts next to it
+1@FloppyShoes I know this is old but no sorry. I never really keep downloaded builds saved. Otherwise my saved list would be too long lol
@Carsonkiddy2 I haven’t posted my P-51s hahaha. Doesn’t mean I never made one 😜
@phrongus hey yes I do! I stopped uploading because I felt to much pressure from myself to make each craft look better and more detailed than the previous hahaha. Now I just make simple(ish) planes that fly very realistic so that I can play DCS on my iPad 😂
+1@Magnavox20MS233S I’ve been dreaming of this. Would love to see it
@Magnavox20MS233S or we can just turn collision off on all the parts 😁
+3Change the water to be like that of Juno new origins (SimpleRockets2), make the engines customisable like in SimpleRockets2, make a dogfight mode where neither aircraft engages until after the merge, have a separation part clicker like in SR2, have a duplication part clicker like in SR2, a tinker panel like in SR2……. Basically take all the cool build features from SimpleRockets2 and add them here. That would be the perfect game.
+3@temporaryplanetester okay ill try this out. Thanks!
+1@AlbertanPlaneMaker oh of course! Why didn’t i think of that hmmm lol
+1@OPaiTaOn yeah I’ve done this one too but it didn’t look good. I’m going to try with tinted glass maybe
Did you ever get this to work? I tried a few times in various ways and I’ve been trying the same thing with VTOL engines now but it just doesn’t look good. How is yours?
You got it now!
@PakPuma75 congrats on silver!
@PakPuma75 no problem :) Take a look at how it’s done on real planes. You’ll see the rear wheels are much further than often expected
Lovely work! You really make some excellent aircraft
+1You make some amazing looking aircraft! Nice concepts. From the back while flying, this feels a little like an F-14 with the wings swept back
Dude this is awesome! You made it look good and fly well. One thing I would recommend is to put the landing gear right behind the CoM. That way taking off will be both easier and feel more realistic. It will also have a much lower takeoff speed
@PakPuma75 hahaha that’s true. He hasn’t learnt the method of how to remove the original post credit yet 😂
Why does it wobble the way it does?
It looks really good but doesn’t fly too great. The CoM should be a little more forward than the CoL. Cool plane overall though and could be easily made much better :)
+3@LEEEEEX I’ve played around with a few more of you AA builds and they are real fun! I think I’ve downloaded more of your creations than anyone else’s
+1Nice work!
+1Crazy coincidence but I have been working on a plane that is also a mix of an L-39 and F-5! It’s a really cool idea
+2I love your taste in planes
Love the lightning!
Looks like somebody needs to download SimpleRockets2!
+4@ThomasRoderick pretty sure that was his inspiration hahaha
+1