@NovaTopaz and all the rest of you, tags (along with formatting) don't work in descriptions, only in comments. @BigCat thank you very much! Great idea for a contest
@bolt an alternative to icecoldlava's totally valid suggestion is to do the wings in a couple of sections. If you split your wing in to two or three smaller parts, you can attach a vertical structural panel at the end of each section, and have that lead to the upper/lower wing
That depends - do you mean modding as in the XML editing that a lot of people on this site do to build their planes, or do mean modding as in actually changing parts of the game and adding new content?
There you go, getting advice from the guy who is basically at the top of the game! I'm gonna add one more small thing: do give your planes custom colour schemes. Using the default one kinda implies a lack of effort, even if you really did work hard on it
You gotta remember a couple of things: firstly, most people are able to make a plane that flies well, so another person's plane that just flies well doesn't really offer anything to them. You need some sort of novelty or interesting feature to get the attention of other people. The other thing is that almost nothing on this site will get many upvotes, because it takes quite a lot of things for that to happen. The plane needs to catch somebody's interest amongst all the other good planes out there, interest them enough to download it, and then perform well enough for them to come back and upvote it after they tested it. It's a bit more involved than upvoting a cat picture on reddit or liking a status on Facebook. Now, don't take this to mean "give up, nobody cares", because that is absolutely not what I mean - just remember that it's okay to not be super successful, and every upvote you do get is actually a pretty big deal.
If you want feedback, try entering challenges (and putting a good effort in to them, naturally). Most good challenge hosts will try every entry that doesn't get immediately disqualified for something, and people will see it as a successor to the challenge.
Alright so I'm commenting on your oldest upload as a sort of private message - here's the link to the concept for the duo challenge. It's not bad just now, but definitely unfinished. I'm looking forward to seeing what you do with it! The only thing I request is that you don't add too many parts, or my phone won't be able to fly it.
Also, a couple of notes about the plane itself: firstly, almost every wing on it (maybe every wing) is currently symmetric, because it was responding to other options weirdly; second, the main wings are almost entirely made of structural wings because they were flexing and then locking in to the flexed position before, which meant that it would continue any turn you started making. It doesn't do that any more, but... yeah, sorry for sending something so messed up haha
@Quintasoarus aren't the Fantan's intakes basically the exact same shape as the current small intakes? I agree with your post completely though, I feel the intakes are the biggest limitation on replicas just now.
@Planeez that's not all that matters, but it's a good start (and it does mean a low wing loading). You also want a CoL very close to the CoM, and control surfaces (particularly for pitch) that are as big as possible without making the plane wobble when they are used. A high thrust-to-weight ratio also helps you maintain speed throughout hard manouevres.
I posted in the forums about it a while back; apparently quite a lot of people have this issue and it's a known bug, but there isn't a workaround besides saving regularly yet.
Indeed! Also I dunno if you know this, but when linking stuff, you have to include the "http://" at the start of the link, or it just tacks whatever you linked to on to the end of the current URL - so in this case, it links to https://www.simpleplanes.com/Forums/View/99918/example.com, as opposed to http://example.com
If you knew this and didn't care, please ignore the above hahaha
@DeezDucks oh, of course! Yeah, it's 2 points per upvote on a forum post, so they're looking at 186 just now. Not too shabby considering they only wrote one sentence haha
@Homersdonut I feel like we probably shouldn't use a default plane and a dozen other people's work for our entry haha! If you want, though, I can get us started and then we can work in a similar way between the two of us?
@DeezDucks I use Inkscape because a) I can't afford the Adobe suite and b) I've been using Inkscape and GIMP for so long that I'm actually far better with those than I am with the Adobe suite
@Planeez wing loading is the weight of your aircraft divided by the area of your wings - so, basically, the amount of lift each unit of area of wing has to provide. Big wings and low weight mean low wing loading. Generally speaking wing loading is one of the bigger factors in manoeuverability, but it's far from the whole story.
The deck extends 142 blocks forward from the cockpit, and 26 back. There's a chamfer about 1.5 blocks long included at the end of the 142. So, taking in to account the 2 blocks for the cockpit, that's 170 blocks / 85m / 280ish ft
This is a really small thing, but can we have the weight-per-area of wings included in their part descriptions? Right now it just says 22lbs for all of them
Bats need love too! They're not just vampires and inspirations for comic heroes, they're also fun to watch. They help keep insect populations under control too. I've also had a couple fly alongside me when I'm out running before, which was an awesome experience.
But yeah, on topic: crows are my favourites, partly for their intelligence, and partly because they can and will eat basically anything. Ain't no stopping a crow.
@Nethereal thanks, I really appreciate that you took the time to give such detailed feedback. I'll be sure to check out your planes and send a few upvotes your way!
Structural wings really are heavier than regular ones, despite both of them being listed as 22 lbs - I think that's just because they don't have a defined weight, and are instead dependent on area. Perhaps they should have "mass per m^2 " or something. However, I just tested quickly and the difference was actually smaller than I thought. For small wings, the structural one was around 20% heavier, and for large ones, about 30% heavier.
I went back to check the flex issue; under hard alternating pitching, I do see some flex, but not enough to affect flight at all, so I'm afraid I honestly don't know why we're getting different results. I'm on Android as well. I guess I never noticed it before because I was only building it for distance on this challenge, and therefore flew it very steadily and cautiously. That said, it also has less drag points listed in the app than on this site, and occasionally spawns in rotated 90° in the yaw axis, so I'm gonna have to go with my glider being haunted or something. If I build another glider, I'll definitely take your advice in to account. Thanks again!
@Nethereal I don't see it flexing at all. What physics setting are you playing on? Using structural wings would also make it heavier, and require that the control surfaces are moved from where they currently are - that being as far from the CoM as possible in their respective axes, so they can be as small as possible
@NovaTopaz and all the rest of you, tags (along with formatting) don't work in descriptions, only in comments. @BigCat thank you very much! Great idea for a contest
@Dullwolf wait what? That sounds hilarious but I actually found it to be really good at skimming the water when I was testing it hahaha
@bolt an alternative to icecoldlava's totally valid suggestion is to do the wings in a couple of sections. If you split your wing in to two or three smaller parts, you can attach a vertical structural panel at the end of each section, and have that lead to the upper/lower wing
Aww man I am so up for this
Dihedral is your friend. You actually don't even need very much. This plane of mine is only just stable, but it definitely works.
@BlueWhiskySP @bobthetitan123 thank you both!
The devs have you covered
That depends - do you mean modding as in the XML editing that a lot of people on this site do to build their planes, or do mean modding as in actually changing parts of the game and adding new content?
There you go, getting advice from the guy who is basically at the top of the game! I'm gonna add one more small thing: do give your planes custom colour schemes. Using the default one kinda implies a lack of effort, even if you really did work hard on it
You gotta remember a couple of things: firstly, most people are able to make a plane that flies well, so another person's plane that just flies well doesn't really offer anything to them. You need some sort of novelty or interesting feature to get the attention of other people. The other thing is that almost nothing on this site will get many upvotes, because it takes quite a lot of things for that to happen. The plane needs to catch somebody's interest amongst all the other good planes out there, interest them enough to download it, and then perform well enough for them to come back and upvote it after they tested it. It's a bit more involved than upvoting a cat picture on reddit or liking a status on Facebook. Now, don't take this to mean "give up, nobody cares", because that is absolutely not what I mean - just remember that it's okay to not be super successful, and every upvote you do get is actually a pretty big deal.
If you want feedback, try entering challenges (and putting a good effort in to them, naturally). Most good challenge hosts will try every entry that doesn't get immediately disqualified for something, and people will see it as a successor to the challenge.
@icecoldlava I feed on disappointment
Alright so I'm commenting on your oldest upload as a sort of private message - here's the link to the concept for the duo challenge. It's not bad just now, but definitely unfinished. I'm looking forward to seeing what you do with it! The only thing I request is that you don't add too many parts, or my phone won't be able to fly it.
Also, a couple of notes about the plane itself: firstly, almost every wing on it (maybe every wing) is currently symmetric, because it was responding to other options weirdly; second, the main wings are almost entirely made of structural wings because they were flexing and then locking in to the flexed position before, which meant that it would continue any turn you started making. It doesn't do that any more, but... yeah, sorry for sending something so messed up haha
I think we can generally agree that the undo function is, in general, a bit broken
Maybe go for one rule of no XML editing, otherwise this is gonna go to whoever adds the most zeroes to the end of the their engine's thrust
Ah man I didn't realise anyone was still working on this, sorry for not including you in the forum post
@Homersdonut nah man he definitely meant a layer of frost on everything... or it's just Scooby Doo
@Quintasoarus aren't the Fantan's intakes basically the exact same shape as the current small intakes? I agree with your post completely though, I feel the intakes are the biggest limitation on replicas just now.
@Planeez hahaha, I'm a little underqualified for that
@Planeez that's not all that matters, but it's a good start (and it does mean a low wing loading). You also want a CoL very close to the CoM, and control surfaces (particularly for pitch) that are as big as possible without making the plane wobble when they are used. A high thrust-to-weight ratio also helps you maintain speed throughout hard manouevres.
@dsr1aviation what sort of things are you looking for then? Performance? Accuracy to an real-life plane? Novelty?
I posted in the forums about it a while back; apparently quite a lot of people have this issue and it's a known bug, but there isn't a workaround besides saving regularly yet.
Indeed! Also I dunno if you know this, but when linking stuff, you have to include the "http://" at the start of the link, or it just tacks whatever you linked to on to the end of the current URL - so in this case, it links to https://www.simpleplanes.com/Forums/View/99918/example.com, as opposed to http://example.com
If you knew this and didn't care, please ignore the above hahaha
@tominator seriously? Man online communities suck sometimes. People need to be friendlier.
@DeezDucks oh, of course! Yeah, it's 2 points per upvote on a forum post, so they're looking at 186 just now. Not too shabby considering they only wrote one sentence haha
@CarterIndustries sorry, I promise we'll keep it to our unfinished plane when it's up!
@Homersdonut sweet, I'll tag you when it's uploaded
@DeezDucks not particularly, but any time I see one (and don't feel too lazy) I'll do it. I like to think I'm being helpful
@DeezDucks what master post?
@DeezDucks I definitely want to play this now
@Homersdonut alright! Any particular themes or features you want, or shall I just make something up?
@Rohan it's not really a formal forum, I think we can accept "any of you..." since it's a pretty common way to actually say it in real life.
@AeroEngineering Put at least 3 underscores in a row
@DeezDucks nice! What sorta games did you do?
@Homersdonut I feel like we probably shouldn't use a default plane and a dozen other people's work for our entry haha! If you want, though, I can get us started and then we can work in a similar way between the two of us?
@DeezDucks I use Inkscape because a) I can't afford the Adobe suite and b) I've been using Inkscape and GIMP for so long that I'm actually far better with those than I am with the Adobe suite
@TheFlyingPlane21 No need to sign up just to view videos. Take a look! Props on being honest, though
@DeezDucks I made it last night and uploaded it to Gravatar. However, since it's a bit rubbish, I'm gonna make a better one tonight
@Planeez wing loading is the weight of your aircraft divided by the area of your wings - so, basically, the amount of lift each unit of area of wing has to provide. Big wings and low weight mean low wing loading. Generally speaking wing loading is one of the bigger factors in manoeuverability, but it's far from the whole story.
I suggest requiring videos for this kind of thing haha
The deck extends 142 blocks forward from the cockpit, and 26 back. There's a chamfer about 1.5 blocks long included at the end of the 142. So, taking in to account the 2 blocks for the cockpit, that's 170 blocks / 85m / 280ish ft
See here
The Star Destroyer on the front page didn't wow you? You must have high standards
What a cunning way to get loads of successor points ;) just joking, I'm gonna have a look and see what I can work on!
This is a really small thing, but can we have the weight-per-area of wings included in their part descriptions? Right now it just says 22lbs for all of them
Bats need love too! They're not just vampires and inspirations for comic heroes, they're also fun to watch. They help keep insect populations under control too. I've also had a couple fly alongside me when I'm out running before, which was an awesome experience.
But yeah, on topic: crows are my favourites, partly for their intelligence, and partly because they can and will eat basically anything. Ain't no stopping a crow.
@AgDynamics I rescind everything, bring on the stacked salsa-guac goodness
@Nethereal thanks, I really appreciate that you took the time to give such detailed feedback. I'll be sure to check out your planes and send a few upvotes your way!
Structural wings really are heavier than regular ones, despite both of them being listed as 22 lbs - I think that's just because they don't have a defined weight, and are instead dependent on area. Perhaps they should have "mass per m^2 " or something. However, I just tested quickly and the difference was actually smaller than I thought. For small wings, the structural one was around 20% heavier, and for large ones, about 30% heavier.
I went back to check the flex issue; under hard alternating pitching, I do see some flex, but not enough to affect flight at all, so I'm afraid I honestly don't know why we're getting different results. I'm on Android as well. I guess I never noticed it before because I was only building it for distance on this challenge, and therefore flew it very steadily and cautiously. That said, it also has less drag points listed in the app than on this site, and occasionally spawns in rotated 90° in the yaw axis, so I'm gonna have to go with my glider being haunted or something. If I build another glider, I'll definitely take your advice in to account. Thanks again!
This is the multiplayer masterpost
@Nethereal I don't see it flexing at all. What physics setting are you playing on? Using structural wings would also make it heavier, and require that the control surfaces are moved from where they currently are - that being as far from the CoM as possible in their respective axes, so they can be as small as possible
@Homersdonut you mean this challenge?