@Tang0five Just did some quick research, yup, those Russians have a different design philosophy than pretty much everyone else on cockpit layout. At least according to a page on Quora about a similar design on Il-76, the glass nose was built for navigation and map-reading.
Did the Russians just forgot to remove the glass nose of their bombers when converting them to jetliners? I mean the Tu-104 have a glass nose, the Tu-114 (based on the Tu-95 airframe) have a glass nose, and the Tu-116 also have a glass nose (also based on the Tu-95)...
Spefy! Good to see you again! For the question I would say lights and panels as always, and I think something similar to either the Wakerider or the Crimera would be helpful. Also, judging by the pictures, perhaps painting the fuselage darker and with better reflection would also be helpful. Afterall, although this craft is similar in style to the Wakerider, it should have its own style as well. Also, I don't quite consider hexagonal shapes would suit this particular craft that well - I think they work better on long, broad trapezoidal wings, as demonstrated by the Axiom of Luxury and the aforementioned Wakerider, but I'm quite sure a hexagonal paintjob sticks out like a sore thumb on a jet fighter with narrow wings. TL;DR: A mix between the Crimera and Wakerider would be fine, but hexagons might have poor synergy with this craft. Also, paint it in a darker shade.
@Minecraftpoweer Sorry, It's just me thinking about why the show decided to use the Schwerer Gustav as the basis for their railway artillery... If I accidentally sounds accusative then sorry. Perhaps I should have worded it better, or simple not have posted that comment at all.
@nadvgia They have a relatively low thrust, I think perhaps adding 4 or more of them for each booster is a good idea. Those things start as fairly small rockets.
@nadvgia RATO Boosters, grab by the detachers (gray parts); if you have an Overload XML editor, change the value behind "burnTimer" on those rockets into whatever you need. My default is 30 seconds. Activate by firing rockets.
@nadvgia How many seconds of boost do you need? Although if you have Overload XML editor just change the value behind the "burnTimer" to your needed value.
@nadvgia I mean from the original drawing those things do look like booster rockets... With the Overload XML Editor I think you can make actual boosters. I have made a few experimental boosters a while ago, although I haven't uploaded any. Also, to make your builds more flyable, you can stack multiple layers of the same wing (by mirroring the part, moving the mirrored part up/down by a few nudges, mirror back, mirror the craft, repeat). `
@SledDriver I know it's not a replica, I'm just commenting on how the wings/panels resembles that of a TIE Advanced, while the cannons kinda looks like that of the TIE Interceptor. Anyways, I have to say that your designs looks cooler than the original...
A MH-60 Blackhawk (the stealthy variant) combined with a V-22 Osprey? This thing is cool, I have to say, but I think that those engines are less stealthy than the rest of the plane...
@otayahiromo8211 Well I re-did some researches, and found that those things are not bazookas but M8 rockets, the same as the one used on the Sherman "Calliope", and that the designation "M10" refers to the triple-tube launcher. However, the fact that the M8 rocket have a smaller warhead (2 kg) compared to the HVAR (3.5 kg), and that a plane could carry more HVAR rockets as they do not require launch tubes, made the M8 far less successful than the HVAR.
Why are so many of your builds feature those triple bazookas? I mean HVARs are much more common for American fighters historically, and those aircraft-mounted bazookas are pretty rare and were only featured on a few aerial liaison units with their lighter, less powerful planes, if I remembered correctly. That said, those things are indeed cool...
@randomusername Presumably there is an in-universe justification to it, I mean it is basically a plasma blow torch, so I think it is more jarring of it is actually longer-ranged.
@WarHawk95 "Alouette" means "Lark" in French, I assume that this player is not fluent in English, and might be using translation softwares - which does sometimes cause awkward syntaxes and grammatical mistakes, as well as names that makes no sense - translating one language into another and then translate it back is not efficient or accurate by any means.
@LotterCrafts Thanks a lot! By the way, what are the tech-level limitations? Should we stick with (more or less) current technology (rockets, jets, and kinetic/explosive weapons), or we are allowed to use things like plasma cannons, FTL drives (or at least, drives that works with the principles of an FTL drive regardless of actual speed), energy shields, retractor beams, or even repair nanites? And finally, is a player restricted to building for only one side, or can the player build for both sides?
@LotterCrafts So... does "closed cockpit" mean "The cockpit must at least looks like a sealed one", or "it must be completely sealed in-game"? I'm not asking this question for myself, for most detailing would fry my (potato of a) phone to a crisp anyway, but many more detailed platinum builds do seem to have at least some simulations for a cockpit without using the glass mod. That said, I'm also asking this for that I'm wondering who will be idiotic enough to bring a WWI biplane to a war in solar orbit...
Technically speaking, this is not a helicopter due to its lack of rotors... It should be considered as a tiltjet, given the wingtip engines. On the same vein, I'm quite sure this thing have more than two engines, given the amount of intakes and nozzles...
@WDRoosevelt Cool! BTW, when were those ships launched? Around the beginning of WWII, judging by the radar? Also, given their roles and shapes, I assume they are slower than their contemporaries, but better protected against both enemy gunfire and torpedoes?
Looks cool! Is this ship supposed to be half American and half British? The turrets, rangefinders, rear mast, and stacks looks quite American, but the bridge, fore mast, catapult, and secondary guns look somewhat British.
@IisFailing The cannon is the point, but the cannon got a bit too heavy... The engines are a bit weaker than the other twin-engine plane with a monster cannon (700 hp compared to 1,700 hp of the B-25 Mitchell), so...
Welcome Back!
@uniunikunn Cool!
Is it just me, or are some parts specifically designed for tanks?
+1@Tang0five Just did some quick research, yup, those Russians have a different design philosophy than pretty much everyone else on cockpit layout. At least according to a page on Quora about a similar design on Il-76, the glass nose was built for navigation and map-reading.
Did the Russians just forgot to remove the glass nose of their bombers when converting them to jetliners? I mean the Tu-104 have a glass nose, the Tu-114 (based on the Tu-95 airframe) have a glass nose, and the Tu-116 also have a glass nose (also based on the Tu-95)...
Spefy! Good to see you again! For the question I would say lights and panels as always, and I think something similar to either the Wakerider or the Crimera would be helpful. Also, judging by the pictures, perhaps painting the fuselage darker and with better reflection would also be helpful. Afterall, although this craft is similar in style to the Wakerider, it should have its own style as well. Also, I don't quite consider hexagonal shapes would suit this particular craft that well - I think they work better on long, broad trapezoidal wings, as demonstrated by the Axiom of Luxury and the aforementioned Wakerider, but I'm quite sure a hexagonal paintjob sticks out like a sore thumb on a jet fighter with narrow wings.
+1TL;DR: A mix between the Crimera and Wakerider would be fine, but hexagons might have poor synergy with this craft. Also, paint it in a darker shade.
@Minecraftpoweer Sorry, It's just me thinking about why the show decided to use the Schwerer Gustav as the basis for their railway artillery... If I accidentally sounds accusative then sorry. Perhaps I should have worded it better, or simple not have posted that comment at all.
@nadvgia They have a relatively low thrust, I think perhaps adding 4 or more of them for each booster is a good idea. Those things start as fairly small rockets.
@nadvgia RATO Boosters, grab by the detachers (gray parts); if you have an Overload XML editor, change the value behind "burnTimer" on those rockets into whatever you need. My default is 30 seconds. Activate by firing rockets.
@nadvgia How many seconds of boost do you need? Although if you have Overload XML editor just change the value behind the "burnTimer" to your needed value.
Give me a shout if you need booster rockets, although I'm more than sure their thrust cannot be modified through conventional means.
@nadvgia I mean from the original drawing those things do look like booster rockets... With the Overload XML Editor I think you can make actual boosters. I have made a few experimental boosters a while ago, although I haven't uploaded any. Also, to make your builds more flyable, you can stack multiple layers of the same wing (by mirroring the part, moving the mirrored part up/down by a few nudges, mirror back, mirror the craft, repeat). `
Are those rockets at the rear used for take-off assists?
This thing looks quite sci-fi, if you ask me...
@spefyjerbf Say, from the side?
Well, actually it should be designated as the AH-47 Chinook - the "C" in "CH" stands for Cargo, and "A" in "AH" stands for Attack.
@SledDriver I know it's not a replica, I'm just commenting on how the wings/panels resembles that of a TIE Advanced, while the cannons kinda looks like that of the TIE Interceptor. Anyways, I have to say that your designs looks cooler than the original...
TIE Advanced?
Twin mustang only with a permanent gun/radar pod in the nose, and a bunch of jet engines?
Why the US emblem?
A MH-60 Blackhawk (the stealthy variant) combined with a V-22 Osprey? This thing is cool, I have to say, but I think that those engines are less stealthy than the rest of the plane...
+2@otayahiromo8211 Well I re-did some researches, and found that those things are not bazookas but M8 rockets, the same as the one used on the Sherman "Calliope", and that the designation "M10" refers to the triple-tube launcher. However, the fact that the M8 rocket have a smaller warhead (2 kg) compared to the HVAR (3.5 kg), and that a plane could carry more HVAR rockets as they do not require launch tubes, made the M8 far less successful than the HVAR.
Why are so many of your builds feature those triple bazookas? I mean HVARs are much more common for American fighters historically, and those aircraft-mounted bazookas are pretty rare and were only featured on a few aerial liaison units with their lighter, less powerful planes, if I remembered correctly. That said, those things are indeed cool...
Wait, that tomato roundel? Am I the only one who is thinking about the Irresponsible Captain Tylor anime?
Hi welcome back!
@RamboJutter THX for the information!
Soooo... The cockpit is shared with the Vagabond, and is the side-window used for celestial navigation?
Well you made it! Congrats!
+1Where the hell does the extra cockpit come from?
@otayahiromo8211 Thanks.
It's... Beautiful...
+1@spefyjerbf So what are the guns shown in the intro? The new Intercipias Prime? 'Cause the one shown in the intro is more Mara than Intercipias.
@randomusername Presumably there is an in-universe justification to it, I mean it is basically a plasma blow torch, so I think it is more jarring of it is actually longer-ranged.
With the press of a button, the Earth became the sun, and the moon became Mercury?
+2Is this a pre-dreadnought?
@WarHawk95 "Alouette" means "Lark" in French, I assume that this player is not fluent in English, and might be using translation softwares - which does sometimes cause awkward syntaxes and grammatical mistakes, as well as names that makes no sense - translating one language into another and then translate it back is not efficient or accurate by any means.
@LotterCrafts Thanks! This would help shaping my basics on what to and what not to include in the craft.
@LotterCrafts Thanks a lot! By the way, what are the tech-level limitations? Should we stick with (more or less) current technology (rockets, jets, and kinetic/explosive weapons), or we are allowed to use things like plasma cannons, FTL drives (or at least, drives that works with the principles of an FTL drive regardless of actual speed), energy shields, retractor beams, or even repair nanites? And finally, is a player restricted to building for only one side, or can the player build for both sides?
@LotterCrafts So... does "closed cockpit" mean "The cockpit must at least looks like a sealed one", or "it must be completely sealed in-game"? I'm not asking this question for myself, for most detailing would fry my (potato of a) phone to a crisp anyway, but many more detailed platinum builds do seem to have at least some simulations for a cockpit without using the glass mod. That said, I'm also asking this for that I'm wondering who will be idiotic enough to bring a WWI biplane to a war in solar orbit...
@Irobert55 And cargo transports, I assume? Also, what does closed cockpits mean?
Does the craft need to survive re-entry to count?
+2It's... Beautiful...
+2Technically speaking, this is not a helicopter due to its lack of rotors... It should be considered as a tiltjet, given the wingtip engines. On the same vein, I'm quite sure this thing have more than two engines, given the amount of intakes and nozzles...
@WDRoosevelt Cool!
@WDRoosevelt Cool! BTW, when were those ships launched? Around the beginning of WWII, judging by the radar? Also, given their roles and shapes, I assume they are slower than their contemporaries, but better protected against both enemy gunfire and torpedoes?
+1Looks cool! Is this ship supposed to be half American and half British? The turrets, rangefinders, rear mast, and stacks looks quite American, but the bridge, fore mast, catapult, and secondary guns look somewhat British.
+1@IisFailing Sorry for the confusion!
@IisFailing The cannon is the point, but the cannon got a bit too heavy... The engines are a bit weaker than the other twin-engine plane with a monster cannon (700 hp compared to 1,700 hp of the B-25 Mitchell), so...
@IisFailing The entire point of this plane...
@Alexiozo And they blast away at your tank/SPAAG/whatever with its monster-sized cannon as you are helpless to stop it?