As for the word that does not exist "Stallability" I meant that your plane is not capable of pitching up to 50 degrees and not gain altitude when landing.
50 degrees is a bit much, did you mean 15 degrees? And yes, this plane can do that just fine. Would you like me to upload a video?
It will not allow a range of maneuvers for ease of operation and missile avoidance.
What maneuvers would those be? Did you notice that it allows things like near-instant acceleration and deceleration from 1000 to 3800 mph and back, tight turn radius, and exceptional flight stability?
When I start I will click all the activation groups to find all the hidden features if I forget.
If you take 30 seconds to read the instructions, you won't have to guess. You're complaining because you use a silly way of figuring out controls, and were disappointed when there was nothing bound to AGs 3 and above? Seriously?
The plane cannot do a stall maneuver by maneuvering to much.
Not sure what this means.
Your plane cannot do a loop and instantly blast off.
Not sure what this means.
But why have it accelerate so quickly?
Because I wanted to... what other reason is there?
That's only if you do it too fast, or cut the throttle entirely using brake. It's a feature, not a bug. Or did you not notice the instant acceleration and deceleration between 0-1000 mph, and between 1000-3800 mph?
But it just nose dives when landing.
It lands just fine at around 150 mph. If you go below the stall speed, of course it will nose down.
I am not going to start a competition it's immature. You are upset on this comment. Sorry but I am critical on physics. It's just me.
I'm not upset at all. I love critical thought and discussion, just not when people don't bother to understand something before they start criticizing.
@randomusername What's stallability? That's not a word. As for maneuverability, if you're not going to read the instructions....
How about you try building a plane that handles smoothly at all speeds from 500 to 4000 mph, and has precise enough handling to get gun hits on ships from over 8 miles away? Then we can talk.
@Texasfam04 Those are just the configs, the inputs to the program. To see the actual code you'll have to look at the source code of the generator. It took a few hours to write the code for the initial prototype, a few days to polish it. Thinking about the solution took longer :)
Thanks, @Ariathe. I wasn't really thinking of the FB-22 when I made this, but the resemblance is definitely there. Someone asked me to make something F-22-ish, and this is what I came up with.
@ChickenMcNuggets007 Adding tiny details to smooth builds like this one isn't as easy as you think, and very expensive in terms of part count. The wing/body section on this build is made up of about 400 parts. If I wanted one single line running across it, following its contours, that would be another 400 parts.
And metallic greys are what I like, that's not going to change. But if you want to change a build's color, you literally just have to drag one slider. The body material on my builds is always the last color in the palette, just select it, and set the color to whatever you like.
@ChickenMcNuggets007 "Realistic" means "boring" to me. I build planes that go 0-1000 mph in 1 second, you really think I'm interested in realism? Still, I might give cockpits a try sometime. It won't be anything like your usual SP cockpit, though.
@Spectre2520 My script only hides comments, it doesn't delete them (when I wrote it, deleting comments from the browser wasn't possible on SP.com). All you have to do is click on the arrow next to 'Reply' above their comment, then 'Remove'. You can also block a user to stop them commenting on your posts.
And by the way, "Sparrow Hawk/Sparrowhawk" is a very common name on SP.
@shipster You've been on SP for nearly two years, how did you think curves like this could be done with a hundred parts? The nose alone is around 100 parts.
@randomusername
50 degrees is a bit much, did you mean 15 degrees? And yes, this plane can do that just fine. Would you like me to upload a video?
What maneuvers would those be? Did you notice that it allows things like near-instant acceleration and deceleration from 1000 to 3800 mph and back, tight turn radius, and exceptional flight stability?
@randomusername
If you take 30 seconds to read the instructions, you won't have to guess. You're complaining because you use a silly way of figuring out controls, and were disappointed when there was nothing bound to AGs 3 and above? Seriously?
Not sure what this means.
Not sure what this means.
Because I wanted to... what other reason is there?
@Spectre2520 It sort of emulates rocket boosters. See RATO/JATO.
@Spectre2520 See this comment.
@randomusername
English, please.
And?
That's only if you do it too fast, or cut the throttle entirely using brake. It's a feature, not a bug. Or did you not notice the instant acceleration and deceleration between 0-1000 mph, and between 1000-3800 mph?
It lands just fine at around 150 mph. If you go below the stall speed, of course it will nose down.
I'm not upset at all. I love critical thought and discussion, just not when people don't bother to understand something before they start criticizing.
@Mick1234567890 Why?
@randomusername What's stallability? That's not a word. As for maneuverability, if you're not going to read the instructions....
How about you try building a plane that handles smoothly at all speeds from 500 to 4000 mph, and has precise enough handling to get gun hits on ships from over 8 miles away? Then we can talk.
@destroyerP ?
@FGW2014 Some background here. After that, the description should be self-explanatory.
@XjayIndustrys No harm done.
Thanks, @CRJ900Pilot
@AWESOMENESS360 The smoothest? No. The smoothest with contour-hugging decorations? Yes. Well, it's the only one of its kind so far...
@Texasfam04 Those are just the configs, the inputs to the program. To see the actual code you'll have to look at the source code of the generator. It took a few hours to write the code for the initial prototype, a few days to polish it. Thinking about the solution took longer :)
Nicely done, @Mumpsy
Thanks, @Stingray
Thanks, @Spectre2520
Glad you like it, @ChickenMcNuggets007, but this one doesn't have tiny details, either...?
@XjayIndustrys No offence at all.
Thanks, @ThePilotDude
@LiamW Hmm ok. I don't get it, but to each his own.
@LiamW Why wouldn't you use it? I'm curious.
Thanks, @TheGuyYouMightKnow @sexylips35
@AWESOMENESS360 Whoa, never noticed that. Beast level 10?
Thanks, @CRJ900Pilot
Thanks, @Trijets, let me know how it goes.
Thanks, @RailfanEthan
@Mattangi2 That would depend on her body fat percentage.
@EliteArsenals24 Have you built anything with it?
Thanks, @Ariathe. I wasn't really thinking of the FB-22 when I made this, but the resemblance is definitely there. Someone asked me to make something F-22-ish, and this is what I came up with.
Thanks, @FalconGT12
@Stingray Nice gun :)
Thanks, @Trijets
@ChickenMcNuggets007 Adding tiny details to smooth builds like this one isn't as easy as you think, and very expensive in terms of part count. The wing/body section on this build is made up of about 400 parts. If I wanted one single line running across it, following its contours, that would be another 400 parts.
And metallic greys are what I like, that's not going to change. But if you want to change a build's color, you literally just have to drag one slider. The body material on my builds is always the last color in the palette, just select it, and set the color to whatever you like.
@ChickenMcNuggets007 "Realistic" means "boring" to me. I build planes that go 0-1000 mph in 1 second, you really think I'm interested in realism? Still, I might give cockpits a try sometime. It won't be anything like your usual SP cockpit, though.
@Spectre2520 My script only hides comments, it doesn't delete them (when I wrote it, deleting comments from the browser wasn't possible on SP.com). All you have to do is click on the arrow next to 'Reply' above their comment, then 'Remove'. You can also block a user to stop them commenting on your posts.
And by the way, "Sparrow Hawk/Sparrowhawk" is a very common name on SP.
@ChickenMcNuggets007 What bee?
@StallFlight I only ever did that once, when a build had 664 parts, and I added two.
Thanks, @Chancey21
@Ephwurd I would've thought this or this would fit that description.
@StallFlight Completely unintentional. It doesn't make much sense to reference a Boeing in a fighter plane, anyway.
@Spectre2520 That's an... interesting... flight technique :)
Thanks, @CRJ900Pilot @BaconRoll
@shipster You've been on SP for nearly two years, how did you think curves like this could be done with a hundred parts? The nose alone is around 100 parts.
Flies well, except that roll is inverted.
@bang091 thanks, but I think you know it's good when you see it, regardless of how many upvotes it gets.
@ThomasRoderick Bless you
@ChallengerHellcat Well, it's a rocket-spaceship... it's from this Tintin comic.
@ChallengerHellcat Hmm, not my thing at all. It's like SP with all the good bits taken out.
@Johawks1976 OK, I'll put them on my list.
@EternalDarkness Let me see if I can figure it out on my own first. If I can't, I'll take you up on your offer. Thanks :)