@LancasterAce I've been trying to build something with a lower part count but am really struggling. I've made a ww2 fighter with no cockpit, no custom engine or custom fuselage yet I'm still rocking in at 600parts and I havnt even finished yet.... if you delete the rocket pods from this build does it work?
@RedRoosterII thanks but you have to actually press the upvote button for it to count ;) if you want to learn to make camo have a closer look at this or one of my newer builds to see how I do it.
@RedRoosterII your not wrong, it takes more time (and sometimes parts) than the rest of the build. I'm still hoping that this one will be my first build to 100 upvotes :)
Every time I build something of late i get asked for a mobile friendly version, now as most of my parts come from camo or hollow fuselage etc it's pretty difficult to remove all of that and keep the look just to make it more friendly. I'm all for smaller part count to help mobile users but I enjoy building details... just my thoughts on the matter
@DestinyAviation yeah if looked at doing that before, I like the concept but have to be very careful as too much mass causes the detacher to compress or extend during flight... I tried to have some jettisonable pusher props on a previous build but again detacher just didn't like that and caused a vibration which lead to destructive flutter.
@ChiChiWerx around 300 parts for just the camo, I used a similar technique to my canberra this time where I have over layered panels onto the base build (I have been trying to shape pieces to form the camo within the base model of late as it's neater, but I already had the base model for this). The crashing will be linked to the load time which has been extended due to some scaling which was done on the base build (whoops).
@LancasterAce was there a "please" missing there? :p. I don't have it on a mobile and thus far my experiments with "mobile friendly" builds hasn't been a success.
Do you mean overload? If so there's really not much to it, click the bit you want and then change the value of nudge to what you want and click the button until you are happy. 1 game measurement is 0.5 on the nudge scale.
@Treadmill103 @ThePrototype @Trainzo thanks for the comments, the upvotes and the support, i still cant stop building lol. Ive got over 1000 plastic kits in boxes still for me to play with but instead i build things on here =)
@Tang0five @xXRaindropXx thanks guys, i was just doodling at work (dont tell the boss) and drew something with booms but they where too far apart to connect like a vampire so i added some small tail units which got me thinking the booms where weak and likely to bend, hence the concept of doing it intentionally. As with all good ideas it was then cemented in my mind as the virgin space launch happened where the little plane has variable geometry booms... =)
@Notaleopard but the landing gear should be just behind centre of gravity / mass to allow the plane to rotate easily on take off, purring it so far back just looks daft.
@OC3LOT1142 @BaconRoll Thanks guys, I have a vtol fighter version ready for release but it's a bit soon after this, will submit it in a couple of days :)
Upvotes are pretty random, some things get loads of votes even with massive construction flaws, others are awesome and get very few votes, it's just the way it is.
@CrazyCatZe not that long, couple of evenings, took longer to sort the flight characteristics with factored thrust than to build the airframe. Thanks for your upvote and comments.
@Tank6376 yes but a water based aircraft has no need for wheels, i did originally look at doing a land version but wheels dont fit easily on this and im bored of making wheels anyway.
@AdlerSteiner he's alive! Holy moly does this mean your challenge will get decided now?
@LancasterAce I've been trying to build something with a lower part count but am really struggling. I've made a ww2 fighter with no cockpit, no custom engine or custom fuselage yet I'm still rocking in at 600parts and I havnt even finished yet.... if you delete the rocket pods from this build does it work?
@Akhtar04 no worries, it was a nice effort to build an awkward shape, I always liked the stumpy look of the i-16
@RedRoosterII good man, thanks.
@RedRoosterII it's a big button towards the bottom that says "upvote." Thanks
@RedRoosterII thanks but you have to actually press the upvote button for it to count ;) if you want to learn to make camo have a closer look at this or one of my newer builds to see how I do it.
You spelt "Germany" and "prototypes" wrong ;)
@RedRoosterII your not wrong, it takes more time (and sometimes parts) than the rest of the build. I'm still hoping that this one will be my first build to 100 upvotes :)
Every time I build something of late i get asked for a mobile friendly version, now as most of my parts come from camo or hollow fuselage etc it's pretty difficult to remove all of that and keep the look just to make it more friendly. I'm all for smaller part count to help mobile users but I enjoy building details... just my thoughts on the matter
+1@DestinyAviation yeah if looked at doing that before, I like the concept but have to be very careful as too much mass causes the detacher to compress or extend during flight... I tried to have some jettisonable pusher props on a previous build but again detacher just didn't like that and caused a vibration which lead to destructive flutter.
@ChiChiWerx around 300 parts for just the camo, I used a similar technique to my canberra this time where I have over layered panels onto the base build (I have been trying to shape pieces to form the camo within the base model of late as it's neater, but I already had the base model for this). The crashing will be linked to the load time which has been extended due to some scaling which was done on the base build (whoops).
@ACEPILOT109 eh?
@LancasterAce I'll have a think, what do you consider mobile friendly?
@BaconRoll Thanks, I aim to please :)
+1@LancasterAce was there a "please" missing there? :p. I don't have it on a mobile and thus far my experiments with "mobile friendly" builds hasn't been a success.
@Ariathe lol, thanks, when i was typing it i had a memory block and couldnt remember what i had assigned to 3, i had meant to check and update....
@lllKenlll this
Do you mean overload? If so there's really not much to it, click the bit you want and then change the value of nudge to what you want and click the button until you are happy. 1 game measurement is 0.5 on the nudge scale.
+1@lllKenlll cool, are you going to do the air show version? You know the one where the wing falls off? ;)
+2@TitanIncorporated I'm not at the pc at present, why not ask the fellow who designed it to alter it?
@TitanIncorporated nah just the 2c stripped down one
@TitanIncorporated try mk2d
Or
Mk2c
Or
Simple 2c
@TitanIncorporated so you want a hurricane?
@MallardDuckAviation yeah sounds good, just create a non-public post on here and share some links (I use discord as it works straight off) =)
@LotterCrafts @LOWEWAYY lol i suppose id better start creating smaller part count builds...
@Mechaneon the same way you would on any other build I guess. Any suggestions?
@Treadmill103 @ThePrototype @Trainzo thanks for the comments, the upvotes and the support, i still cant stop building lol. Ive got over 1000 plastic kits in boxes still for me to play with but instead i build things on here =)
@mikoyanster thanks for the spotlight :)
@Tang0five @xXRaindropXx thanks guys, i was just doodling at work (dont tell the boss) and drew something with booms but they where too far apart to connect like a vampire so i added some small tail units which got me thinking the booms where weak and likely to bend, hence the concept of doing it intentionally. As with all good ideas it was then cemented in my mind as the virgin space launch happened where the little plane has variable geometry booms... =)
+1@Flamingpepperz ? The cockpit isn't meant to be if that's what you are on about (See the dh sea vixen for inspiration)
@Notaleopard but the landing gear should be just behind centre of gravity / mass to allow the plane to rotate easily on take off, purring it so far back just looks daft.
@Heihachi no worries, it's a nice looking build, much better than most of the new posts :)
+1Johnny 5 is alive!
I like the shape but those rear wheels are way too far back.
@OC3LOT1142 @BaconRoll Thanks guys, I have a vtol fighter version ready for release but it's a bit soon after this, will submit it in a couple of days :)
@horatio no sorry, I play on pc so don't tend to build much with low part count.
@Spitfirelad05 lol yeah I used my sc500s and scaled them down a bit to fit :)
@Tang0five yeah it's got a bit of all sorts, enjoyable build though
@Tang0five Thanks, 12 upvotes lol, mby I should have made it American...
@Winstonlharambe help yourself. Thanks for asking
@AdlerSteiner what's happening with this then? Or have I entered yet another competition that just falls by the way side...
+2I built one of these a while back, the uc doors are a pain, have fun with your build :)
Upvotes are pretty random, some things get loads of votes even with massive construction flaws, others are awesome and get very few votes, it's just the way it is.
+3@AeroplaneBuilder thanks :)
@CrazyCatZe not that long, couple of evenings, took longer to sort the flight characteristics with factored thrust than to build the airframe. Thanks for your upvote and comments.
I'd just like the ability to change a shape in the one axis that's stuck at rectangular at present....
@MAHADI thanks :) I'm still puzzled as to why things like this get so few votes...
What about the sound changing as if you have throttled back a bit even if full throttle is still applied.
@Tank6376 yes but a water based aircraft has no need for wheels, i did originally look at doing a land version but wheels dont fit easily on this and im bored of making wheels anyway.
@Briancat24 Nah, id have to rebuild the entire fuselage and remove the snebs