@pushthelimits No, it is just what a choose
@Strikefighter04 Thx
@TheGuyYouMightKnow no problem
Interesting
@KillShot86 Tag me
@Dllama4 No problemo! LandingGear is not something I am good at
@Dllama4 I tried to figure the LandingGear out, couldn't though. Sorry
I know I lost the challenge
Thanks @Dynimerous
@Kerbango We won't leave without you . . .
@Strikefighter04
United Native Nations Air Force
@Tully2001 Correct, I was just in a rush and had to leave when Visify contacted me
@WEAPONSMITH correct
@TheOwlAce Or overload
@TheOwlAce Ok
@Visify
@Visify I have some
@TheOwlAce When using counter-rotating propellers use .xml to disable collisions between the two engines
@MAHADI Yes, they are blinking
My eyes . . .
@vonhubert Sounds good
14
@GhostHTX Which one should I grade?
Looks - 18 points Realism - 20 points Functionality - 20 points Originality - 20 points Detail - 15
NOTES: The wing panels on the fuselage should be thinner, you could have added more detail on the fuselage. Love the retro design.
Please wait your entry is being scored . . .
Thanks! @DownUnderWing
@RedHawk :-)
Thanks! @AndrewGarrison Appreciate it!
Thanks! @realluochen9999 @RedHawk @TemDesBur
@Treadmill103 Thanks!
Thanks @TheGuyYouMightKnow
@GhostHTX Sure thing, gifts are appreciated
@KDS :-)
Thanks Guys! @Insertname @KDS Rugpeersdude
Thanks! @AceOfSpade
My Jaw just dropped
Thanks! @Dllama4
@EliteIndustries1 Oh
@ChaMikey Those dots are just fuselage cones right?
@ChiChiWerx @GhostHTX Congratulations you are the latest contractors! Welcome to UNNAF.
Thanks! xXCrazyPlaneCreatorXx
@EliteIndustries1 I dont see how he is
@Dllama4 I could try, you might
@Dllama4 Need Help?
@Visify You have been accepted!
@Visify April 1st
@Visify Good question, hmm . . . .
@Kevinairlines No problemo
Looks - 15 Realism - 20 Detail - 5 Originality - 15 Functionality - 10
NOTES: Had some issues in flight with the #3 engine (first on right) when pitching up hardly, this caused you to loose points in the "functionality" category.
Your entry will be scored shortly please wait . . .
@pushthelimits No, it is just what a choose
@Strikefighter04 Thx
@TheGuyYouMightKnow no problem
Interesting
@KillShot86 Tag me
@Dllama4 No problemo! LandingGear is not something I am good at
@Dllama4 I tried to figure the LandingGear out, couldn't though. Sorry
I know I lost the challenge
Thanks
@Dynimerous
@Kerbango We won't leave without you . . .
@Strikefighter04
United
Native
Nations
Air
Force
@Tully2001 Correct, I was just in a rush and had to leave when Visify contacted me
@WEAPONSMITH correct
@TheOwlAce Or overload
@TheOwlAce Ok
@Visify
@Visify I have some
@TheOwlAce When using counter-rotating propellers use .xml to disable collisions between the two engines
@MAHADI Yes, they are blinking
My eyes . . .
@vonhubert Sounds good
14
@GhostHTX Which one should I grade?
Looks - 18 points
Realism - 20 points
Functionality - 20 points
Originality - 20 points
Detail - 15
NOTES: The wing panels on the fuselage should be thinner, you could have added more detail on the fuselage. Love the retro design.
Please wait your entry is being scored . . .
Thanks! @DownUnderWing
@RedHawk :-)
Thanks! @AndrewGarrison Appreciate it!
Thanks!
@realluochen9999
@RedHawk
@TemDesBur
@Treadmill103 Thanks!
Thanks @TheGuyYouMightKnow
@GhostHTX Sure thing, gifts are appreciated
@KDS :-)
Thanks Guys!
@Insertname
@KDS
Rugpeersdude
Thanks!
@AceOfSpade
My Jaw just dropped
Thanks!
@Dllama4
@EliteIndustries1 Oh
@ChaMikey Those dots are just fuselage cones right?
@ChiChiWerx @GhostHTX Congratulations you are the latest contractors! Welcome to UNNAF.
Thanks!
xXCrazyPlaneCreatorXx
@EliteIndustries1 I dont see how he is
@Dllama4 I could try, you might
@Dllama4 Need Help?
@Visify You have been accepted!
@Visify April 1st
@Visify Good question, hmm . . . .
@Kevinairlines No problemo
Your Score
Looks - 15
Realism - 20
Detail - 5
Originality - 15
Functionality - 10
NOTES: Had some issues in flight with the #3 engine (first on right) when pitching up hardly, this caused you to loose points in the "functionality" category.
Your entry will be scored shortly please wait . . .