@MalaySmoker I understand your concern about the final results, especially since the scores were so close—it really was a tough decision. There was indeed a tie in points between your build and the one placed 3rd. In such cases, I had to make a final decision to select only one winner for fairness and clarity.
While efficient part usage was definitely appreciated and reflected in the scoring, I also considered the overall effort and complexity of the builds. The 3rd place build had around 7 times more parts, and I believe that creating such a detailed and high-part-count structure requires significant effort and time. That level of exertion played a role in my final call.
Another point is the post content. While your post presentation improved a lot—and I’m really glad you updated it—it’s something that can be changed easily after feedback. In contrast, the 3rd place entry didn’t benefit from such updates and remained quite minimal in its description, which balanced things out in terms of scoring.
So, to honor the extra design effort and complexity behind that build, I gave it the 3rd place spot. It was a very close decision, and your work was absolutely worth recognizing—please don’t feel discouraged.
@MalaySmoker This doesn't mean yours is not good. In a condition of tie to ensure there is one winner of an award i'm comparing both builds to choose one.
• Why parachute is located on the top! When its falling stable, it tilts to the angle which COM and the parachutes location which pulls the bomb up gets on a straight line perpendicular to the ground. This happens because parachute generates torque equal to,
perpendicular distance to COM x rope tension force.
Shortly when you drop it falls annoyingly tilted.
• Weapons (2 points)
• only changing couple of xml doesn't makes it good.
• Overall good but you have to pay more attention to body design. Srill it has really good details and i can see your effort. Keep it up.
• Movement Performance (4 points)
• Speed is insanely high. This makes it unrealistic. Also its nearly impossible to manuever at lower speeds. But flaps does a good job for atabilizing the plane.
• Weapons (6 points)
• Cool bomb bay.
• Post Content (10 points)
• Finally a great post. I want to see this effort from more participants.
• Playability (6 points)
• It,s really great but high speed and lack of manueverability makes it annoying.
@TateNT34 Please give a credit for the cat. Maybe not an autocredit but if you are using someones build you have to tell that. I will judge it when you give the credit.
@SilverStar Why are trim and flaps reversed on this build?
Great question! This was a necessary adjustment to ensure that the visual control surfaces match the actual aerodynamic behavior of the aircraft in SimplePlanes. Here's how it works:
Technical Explanation:
Hidden Wings & Structural Covering:
Like many builders, I covered the wings with structural parts for a more realistic appearance. The actual lift-generating wings are hidden beneath.
Control Inputs for Pitch Adjustment:
The horizontal stabilizers (at the rear) control pitch and can be adjusted by both the trim slider and the main pitch input.
The flaps (on the mid-wings) are normally controlled by the VTOL slider but also affect pitch slightly, much like stabilizers do.
Flap Lift vs. Trim Lift:
On most aircraft, flaps generate more lift than the Trim of horizontal stabilizers, but in my build, the horizontal stabilizers actually produce more lift than the flaps.
To match the expected movement, I assigned the trim function to the visual flap covers (fuselage which looks like a flap), so they move when the trim slider is adjusted, giving the illusion that the flaps are responding to trim.
Reversing the Controls for Realism:
Since my aircraft's trim (horizontal stabilizers) has a greater aerodynamic effect than the flaps, I assigned the trim adjuster to control the flaps visually while the VTOL slider adjusts the stabilizers.
This way, what you see on the aircraft matches how it actually behaves aerodynamically, creating a more immersive and realistic flight experience.
Final Note:
I originally tried switching the technical control inputs (instead of the visuals), but it didn't work correctly. So, I adjusted the visual control assignments instead. The end result? The aircraft behaves correctly while also looking accurate!
What is the problem why auto credit isnt working?
+1Yes again
+1Because previous one's propeler's invert is wrong (:
"Spirit of Onat67" is a good detail :)
+1@dekanii I think you have to be more than 25k to be platinium.
@SleepyKitty
Here it is
(Click the link)
But probably due to it's topic, there are not any participation. I will understand If you don't want to join too.
@SleepyKitty It's ended but if you post something i can rate it just for fun.
Here, open the link
@LoganSuleski1
There is already one. With interior
@wahl sure
@MobileBuilder21 Oh i understand
@MobileBuilder21 Wait, why?
@Bombowantus Only for NPC missles like Ice base and destroyers. Player made missles still lock but most can't hit.
@MobileBuilder21
@ComradeComissar
@Onat67 if you still can't fix it, upolad your plane on simpleplanes and tag me below. I will download and fix it by.
@Bombowantus Your cockpit has to be connexted with only piston and your jammer's body has to be connected with piston and your plane
@MalaySmoker
@MalaySmoker I will consider that. And sure, i will mention you.
@MalaySmoker I understand your concern about the final results, especially since the scores were so close—it really was a tough decision. There was indeed a tie in points between your build and the one placed 3rd. In such cases, I had to make a final decision to select only one winner for fairness and clarity.
While efficient part usage was definitely appreciated and reflected in the scoring, I also considered the overall effort and complexity of the builds. The 3rd place build had around 7 times more parts, and I believe that creating such a detailed and high-part-count structure requires significant effort and time. That level of exertion played a role in my final call.
Another point is the post content. While your post presentation improved a lot—and I’m really glad you updated it—it’s something that can be changed easily after feedback. In contrast, the 3rd place entry didn’t benefit from such updates and remained quite minimal in its description, which balanced things out in terms of scoring.
So, to honor the extra design effort and complexity behind that build, I gave it the 3rd place spot. It was a very close decision, and your work was absolutely worth recognizing—please don’t feel discouraged.
@MalaySmoker This doesn't mean yours is not good. In a condition of tie to ensure there is one winner of an award i'm comparing both builds to choose one.
@LunarEclipseSP
@SemedianIndustries
@HalleuvinaXeneries
@MalaySmoker Yes there is, but as i did in previous challenges i'm choosing the post which will be awarded in case of a tie.
TODAY I'M OFFICIALLY ENDING THIS CHALLENGE! THANKS TO ALL PARTICIPANTS AND CONGURATULATIONS TO WINNERS:
1st: @LunarEclipseSP
2nd:@SemedianIndustries
3rd: @HalleuvinaXeneries
REWARDS WILL BE GIVEN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
• Design (3 points)
• Totally unmanned drone with cocpit carrying a giant nuclear mortar shell.
• Movement Performance (3 points)
• With payload it's pain to fly straight.
• Weapons (3 points)
• Mortar shell.
• Post Content (2 points)
• Needs images.
• Playability (3 points)
• To escape explosion radius you have to drop it from high but you need to fly first to get high which this thing cant do with payload.
Total: 14/50
• Design (1 points)
• 3 parts
• Movement Performance (1 points)
• Why parachute is located on the top! When its falling stable, it tilts to the angle which COM and the parachutes location which pulls the bomb up gets on a straight line perpendicular to the ground. This happens because parachute generates torque equal to,
perpendicular distance to COM x rope tension force.
Shortly when you drop it falls annoyingly tilted.
• Weapons (2 points)
• only changing couple of xml doesn't makes it good.
• Post Content (1 points)
• No
• Playability (2 points)
• Maybe?
Total: 7/50
I cant control this
@Powderheimer
• Design (2 points)
• Cursed blocky tank.
• Movement Performance (4 points)
• Wheels?
• Weapons (3 points)
• 2 or 3 of these shells has to be bigger than the tanks itself!
• Post Content (2 points)
• Nothing too musch to see.
• Playability (3 points)
• Low.
Total: 14/50
• Design (2 points)
•MY EYES ARE BLEEDING!
• Movement Performance (6 points)
• Maybr you should try putting this in a rocket.
•Weapons (5 points)
•Cannon has infinite rpm! Its making my game laggy.
• Post Content (2 points)
• No, this is not enough.
• Playability (6 points)
• Why i enjoyed this that much?
Total: 21/50
@LowQualityRepublic Well, i tested it. This is not a superweapon.
@Panzer22 Yes it needs weapons to be a superweapon
@HEEYAIYAI007 This not a superweapon.
• Design (5 points)
• Overall good but you have to pay more attention to body design. Srill it has really good details and i can see your effort. Keep it up.
• Movement Performance (4 points)
• Speed is insanely high. This makes it unrealistic. Also its nearly impossible to manuever at lower speeds. But flaps does a good job for atabilizing the plane.
• Weapons (6 points)
• Cool bomb bay.
• Post Content (10 points)
• Finally a great post. I want to see this effort from more participants.
• Playability (6 points)
• It,s really great but high speed and lack of manueverability makes it annoying.
Total: 31/50
• Design (1 points)
• An oversized 8.000 tonnes muzzle mounted on a fuselage.
• Movement Performance (0 points)
• No movement
• Weapons (2 points)
• Im not talking about its insane mass, how magically instantly loads even without a firing chamber or unrealistic diameter-lenght ratio.
THIS 25000 MM SHELLS ARE NOT DEALING ANY REASONABLE DAMAGE!!!
• Post Content (1 points)
• Nothing.
• Playability (2 points)
• Not fun.
Total 6/50
• Design (3 points)
• Needs details.
• Movement Performance (3 points)
• No lift, no speed, no manueverability, no parasite fighter controls.
• Weapons (4 points)
• Parasite figters are not seperating, and not controlable and they are not armed.
• Post Content (4 points)
• Good thumbnail but text and photos are not enough.
• Playability (3 points)
• I can't even fly the plane.
Total: 17/50
• Design (3 points)
• Looks cursed.
• Movement Performance (4 points)
• Stable but not agile.
• Weapons (5 points)
• Nuclear CAS 💀💀
• Post Content (4 points)
• Only thumnail.
• Playability (5 points)
• Not bad.
Total: 21/50
• Design (4 points)
• Good
• Movement Performance (5 points)
• Good.
• Weapons (4 points)
• Big Explosion.
• Post Content (3 points)
• Only description and a thumbnail without description.
• Playability (5 points)
• Not bad.
Total: 21/50
@TateNT34 Please give a credit for the cat. Maybe not an autocredit but if you are using someones build you have to tell that. I will judge it when you give the credit.
@StopBreathingMyAir Yeah this is not a superweapon.
• Design (3 points)
• Simple.
• Movement Performance (5 points)
• Perfect for a missile.
• Weapons (4 points)
• Needs better explosion effects.
• Post Content (2 points)
• Only a short description.
• Playability (5 points)
• Not bad.
Total: 19/50
• Design (5 points)
• Realistic.
• Movement Performance (5 points)
• Good appearence but is there a way to turn it faster?
• Weapons (7 points)
• Great.
• Post Content (5 points)
• Good thumbnail and description but why how it works is empty?
• Playability (6 points)
• Only if you mount on a naval craft.
Total: 28/50
@LowQualityRepublic How to Operate this fuselage?
@Dunderhead1 Your submission has to be or have weapons
• Design (4 points)
• Looks good for 120 parts.
• Movement Performance (6 points)
• Overall good. Speed is really high but when i activate 2 it gets harder to control.
• Weapons (6 points)
• Cannon has really good appearence but just need more damage. As you tell in description, missiles have some problems.
• Post Content (4 points)
• Good thumbnail but text and photos are not enough.
• Playability (6 points)
• Not bad.
Total: 26/50
@AeroTactical So there is nothing that prevents you from entering.
• Design (4 points)
• Very Huge. Can be more detailed
• Movement Performance (2 points)
• No movement. Only drop physics
• Weapons (3 points)
• Isn't exsplosion small?
• Post Content (6 points)
• Short but includes main features.
• Playability (2 points)
• Very big size makes it hard to play.
Total: 17/50
@Icey21
Here is the link
@DeeganishCountryball
@ShinyGemsBro
@SuperSuperTheSylph
@MobileBuilder21 Wait for it!
@MobileBuilder21 Sorry I can't do that. But I'm planning a new challenge after current one ends. You can join that.
@SilverStar
Why are trim and flaps reversed on this build?
Great question! This was a necessary adjustment to ensure that the visual control surfaces match the actual aerodynamic behavior of the aircraft in SimplePlanes. Here's how it works:
Technical Explanation:
Hidden Wings & Structural Covering:
Control Inputs for Pitch Adjustment:
Flap Lift vs. Trim Lift:
Reversing the Controls for Realism:
Final Note:
I originally tried switching the technical control inputs (instead of the visuals), but it didn't work correctly. So, I adjusted the visual control assignments instead. The end result? The aircraft behaves correctly while also looking accurate!