@ZeroWithSlashedO oh yeah it would be two...
I still use regular cockpit blocks as the cockpit camera so I got confused
Idk, just try it and see what happens
@ZeroWithSlashedO it's just one, but I forgot to mention for it to work, the camera has to physically change direction for it to work
It's like what you did in the High Off Boresight video you made, just replace that flight computer with a camera with Missile Locking set to Yes
I found this out when I was messing with the TGP on my A-10
I know this is old, but I made an accidental discovery and thought about this post.
If you have a camera block set to cockpit with Missile Locking set to Yes, it will lock like the normal cockpit block based on where it is looking.
So you might be able to install the HMCS by having the cockpit in the plane (not moving) and having a camera block do the locking.
It's very popular (TOPGUN? idk), but out of all the other popular planes like the F-4 Phantom, P-51, Su-27 variants, and F-15, the Tomcat one of the harder ones to make due to the overall shape and swing-wings.
@JamezTV well akshulee
This has a universal C-type wing because it has the extra slots for a 20mm hispano or 50 cal M2. Although afaik, the C-type wing was never fitted to anything before the Mk.V. Granted, it is indeed in a B-configuration with 2 20's and 4 7.7's.
A small innaccuracy, but still a beautiful spit, the blending of the wing into the fuselage is very well done.
I like the LORE and that blueprint is clean asf.
Definitely an interesting reason to use a pedestal-wing design.
Edit: Also, nice job sticking to the Blackburn aesthetic
Low-part simple creations would make good adversaries. Hell, if someone makes another combat challenges mod, builds like this would be perfect for enemies.
You can spawn a couple, but it won't lag because they're so simple. And they don't need high part counts either since you're not flying them.
@ThatKindaWeeb Sometimes.
The Abrams build gave me a lot of practice with paneling so an may be F-117 is plausible...
Although I'm still planning to do the MiG-15 after this and maybe an F-86 to go with it
Phlight model and the rear landing gear are pretty wonky, but it looks pretty good.
Since you're starting to put weapons on your jets, you should start researching the loadouts. It's actually quite phun (Or at least I think it is.). Phantoms didn't carry Sparrows on the wings afaik.
You should also try taking a stab at making the Sparrows act like SARH missiles by sticking a guardian in them. And AGM-65's are Mavericks, not HARM's. That's the AGM-88.
Unless they are HARM's here and this is some E-G mishmash type thing?
Greetings, salutations fellow members of the SimplePlanes community.
May I humbly provide my inquiry on the subject matter of being notified of new virtual vehicular content? I do believe that the letter in question, T, the twentieth letter of the English alphabet, solely on its own feels quite lazy. Do you not have further commentary on these builds that you are so eagerly awaiting the release of? Do you not wish to provide your commentary? What is it that motivates you to expend the energy to momentarily pause your perusing of this internet forum and request a tag? Even with an excessively verbose statement as substitute, such sophistication of language is in vain and beauty of written English lost if it is copied and pasted and says no more than what hath already been accomplished through a single letter.
Thank you, and good day and good night.
𝓡𝓮𝓲𝓷𝓜𝓬𝓓𝓮𝓮𝓻
Judging from the spaghetti...
You should try multiplying instead of subtracting. Pitch*.5*(f(IAS))+Trim*.07+Roll*.5
Where f(IAS) is some function of your airspeed. This should be more gradual and less spazzy if f(IAS) doesn't involve the Condition ? True : False. A clamped linear or exponential function should do.
Now I wanna redo my typhoon...
Also, you should try making the targeting pod functional, it's really satisfying to track your targets and see them get smacked by a GBU
BVR capability? Probably even more important than snap maneuverability.
At least some level of stealth.
Extremely tough
I think survivability would be more important, which you mentioned. Better to not get hit at all when increasing armor enough to reliably stop modern weapon systems decreases performance.
Deployable in mass
As long as it doesn't compromise the quality of a single aircraft, I guess. But, generally, less is more. (Do more with less units) Of course, I'm no expert, so take that with a boulder of salt.
Oh, and ability to find and secure WMD's, AKA oil.
l i f e i s a r a c e a n d w e a r e t h e r a c i s t s
+4nice forgfruit
@rexzion ngl, if I had the choice to fly one or the other
+1I'd take the frogfoot
@ZeroWithSlashedO oh yeah it would be two...
I still use regular cockpit blocks as the cockpit camera so I got confused
Idk, just try it and see what happens
For those curious, the part count is lower than expected, at around 370-390 depending loadout.
@ZeroWithSlashedO it's just one, but I forgot to mention for it to work, the camera has to physically change direction for it to work
It's like what you did in the High Off Boresight video you made, just replace that flight computer with a camera with Missile Locking set to Yes
I found this out when I was messing with the TGP on my A-10
@ZeroWithSlashedO the cockpit would have its camera disabled, it's just there to pick up the flight data for your other systems in this setup
I think sometimes we forget how revolutionary the Wii was. Amazing console, it was.
+1I know this is old, but I made an accidental discovery and thought about this post.
If you have a camera block set to cockpit with Missile Locking set to Yes, it will lock like the normal cockpit block based on where it is looking.
So you might be able to install the HMCS by having the cockpit in the plane (not moving) and having a camera block do the locking.
@rexzion okie dokie
Still working on mine
The A-10 has a titanium bathtub.
+15Literally every modern anti-air system laughs.
It's very popular (TOPGUN? idk), but out of all the other popular planes like the F-4 Phantom, P-51, Su-27 variants, and F-15, the Tomcat one of the harder ones to make due to the overall shape and swing-wings.
+2CLAAAAARKSON!!!!
@JamezTV well akshulee
+1This has a universal C-type wing because it has the extra slots for a 20mm hispano or 50 cal M2. Although afaik, the C-type wing was never fitted to anything before the Mk.V. Granted, it is indeed in a B-configuration with 2 20's and 4 7.7's.
A small innaccuracy, but still a beautiful spit, the blending of the wing into the fuselage is very well done.
kok
@Star737 Funny you mention that because F1 cars are designed to do the exact opposite of flying.
+4F-16 is definitely easier to build, but choose what you like
Thanks devs!
+20@MOPCKOEDNISHE It works now 👍
I Can't Believe it's not Margarine
+1(butter)
@SoupTime9957 Thought about it. It would be good paneling practice since it's not nearly as complex in shapes as other stealth aircraft.
I like the LORE and that blueprint is clean asf.
+6Definitely an interesting reason to use a pedestal-wing design.
Edit: Also, nice job sticking to the Blackburn aesthetic
Low-part simple creations would make good adversaries. Hell, if someone makes another combat challenges mod, builds like this would be perfect for enemies.
+2You can spawn a couple, but it won't lag because they're so simple. And they don't need high part counts either since you're not flying them.
The hump on top could be smoother but I'm assuming that's WIP?
Next: Windows 10 in SP
+3@MOPCKOEDNISHE 3rd person. The zoom reset still works when paused though.
JF-17, A-10C, Su-25
@ThatKindaWeeb Sometimes.
+3The Abrams build gave me a lot of practice with paneling so an may be F-117 is plausible...
Although I'm still planning to do the MiG-15 after this and maybe an F-86 to go with it
@rexzion I dunno, I'm juggling my hobbies with college. SP is really on/off for me right now.
If I had to take a guess, maybe late this month?
Congratulations
+2@rexzion sorry sometimes i forget i'm blind
still like frog feet tho (that would be cool)
'ery noice. Love the flight model.
Don't forget to disable collisions on your pylon stores!
@rexzion Not the next project in queue, but I do like me some frog feet
Phlight model and the rear landing gear are pretty wonky, but it looks pretty good.
+2Since you're starting to put weapons on your jets, you should start researching the loadouts. It's actually quite phun (Or at least I think it is.). Phantoms didn't carry Sparrows on the wings afaik.
You should also try taking a stab at making the Sparrows act like SARH missiles by sticking a guardian in them.
And AGM-65's are Mavericks, not HARM's. That's the AGM-88.
Unless they are HARM's here and this is some E-G mishmash type thing?
A simple addition that adds a lot
+1nice
It's a trick question. A circle is round and flat. What if it's both?
+7jk it's a donut obviously
There's a small bug with the newest version where you can't change the zoom when paused
is it me or are the roads slightly too small :/
This is 100% possible in SP, the lasers, the rocket boosters, the PSM, all of it.
+13It's got serious winterro and Walvis vibes
@Korzalerke 1. The inside mesh is not rendered (You can see through connected glass blocks)
+22. They break like glass
Kinda sorta
+2why turn when you can have THRUST
+2Greetings, salutations fellow members of the SimplePlanes community.
+6May I humbly provide my inquiry on the subject matter of being notified of new virtual vehicular content? I do believe that the letter in question, T, the twentieth letter of the English alphabet, solely on its own feels quite lazy. Do you not have further commentary on these builds that you are so eagerly awaiting the release of? Do you not wish to provide your commentary? What is it that motivates you to expend the energy to momentarily pause your perusing of this internet forum and request a tag? Even with an excessively verbose statement as substitute, such sophistication of language is in vain and beauty of written English lost if it is copied and pasted and says no more than what hath already been accomplished through a single letter.
Thank you, and good day and good night.
𝓡𝓮𝓲𝓷𝓜𝓬𝓓𝓮𝓮𝓻
Judging from the spaghetti...
+1You should try multiplying instead of subtracting.
Pitch*.5*(f(IAS))+Trim*.07+Roll*.5Where f(IAS) is some function of your airspeed. This should be more gradual and less spazzy if f(IAS) doesn't involve the
Condition ? True : False. A clamped linear or exponential function should do.Now I wanna redo my typhoon...
+1Also, you should try making the targeting pod functional, it's really satisfying to track your targets and see them get smacked by a GBU
@CarrotSlicingCat he always says T :P
+1T
+3BVR capability? Probably even more important than snap maneuverability.
At least some level of stealth.
I think survivability would be more important, which you mentioned. Better to not get hit at all when increasing armor enough to reliably stop modern weapon systems decreases performance.
As long as it doesn't compromise the quality of a single aircraft, I guess. But, generally, less is more. (Do more with less units)
Of course, I'm no expert, so take that with a boulder of salt.
Oh, and ability to find and secure WMD's, AKA oil.
@Nerfaddict but he has already made forum posts...
@ThatKindaWeeb I've been thinking about doing a morgan
+1But for the most part nope
@Bobyo Bouncing?
+2Pfft, APFSDS shatters like it's fragile depleted uranium ego.