@V Cannons. Whereas projectileLifetime is a fixed value, fuseInput supports funky trees and alows for timed detonation - something invaluable for making flak guns.
@TheAviator77
They detect missile lock alright - and that's why I said such a weapon might be pointless in the first place! The difference, though, is that IIRC the target only detect missile lock after the missile ignites, and you don't need to worry about actually "locking" onto the target as the missile automatically counts as locked.
The only way to make a truly undetectable missile in SP is through tons upon tons of FT-based XML'ing - something I have problems doing myself due to both hardware (phone is already as crispy as-is, laptop cannot funky tree) and personal skill (read: me dumb) issues.
@RamboJutter
First thing first, a Mustang isn't a British design either - it's an American one that just happen to function better with British engines than their homegrown counterparts. Plus, a P-51 fin flares out at its base at the leading edge, while the Halocene's flares out at the trailing edge... and TBPH the Supermarine Attacker looks much closer to a British-built "jet P-51".
.
Plus, a trapezoidal fin (or a triangular tailplane) does not as readily identify an airframe's lineage (especially because the Ju 287 had a very similar fin) as the shape of its engine nacelles and the canopy - and both are all German.
.
Seriously, this plane is a dead ringer for the Junkers/OKB-1 EF-131 sans the third pair of engines (preemptive apologies for not being able to find a good English source), which, given that IRL British post-war designs usually take a drastically different approach with a cylindrical cross-section, cigar-shaped outline, sharp nose, bubble canopy, and trapezoidal wings (see: de Havilland Vampire, Gloster Meteor, EE Canberra, Hawker Sea Hawk, and the aforementioned Supermarine Attacker; incidentally the Canberra looks like an overgrown Meteor) compared to their WWII counterparts, still look really out of place.
.
..
... and sorry for hogging the channel.
TL;DR: Incorporating elements from captured enemy planes is all well and fine, but a British designer building something without any British features but rather a mish-mash of Junkers, Heinkel, and Arado would probably be a bit out of place.
Beautiful as always! ... although... why does a supposedly British design have a Junkers' cockpit and an Arado's engine arrangement? Did RJ Ltd. collab with those two aircraft manufacturers after German surrender?
@MonarchiiwithastolenMG
NVM then. I thought I've seen a setup w/ localized FCs somewhere, probably one of PlanariaLab's or hpgbproductions' deleted posts on a second thought...
@Speedhunter The "flying flapjack" is the Vought XF5U, and the "flying pancake" is the Vought V-173; and TBPH when I said "Luftwaffle" this is what I had in mind...
I never knew the word "Gyatt" had any other meaning beyond a rare surname and this particular ship... Now I knew, and somehow I lost even more faith in humanity even though I thought I've already got none left to lose...
@WinsWings Actually, a Gloster-looking Ho 229 sounds mighty fine as of now.... or a Northrop-looking one, for that matter.
.
Also, aside from vertical stabilizers and wingtips, this Allied flying wing design would probably also have large round or square intakes (like the ones shown here), unlike the elliptical monstrosities on the 229.
IIRC this type of design had been seriously considered back in early Cold War? So... no, reality didn't sneeze, and this doesn't even look too insane by IRL drone design standards.
@WinsWings
It's the same picture as the one shown there, right?
... and among all three models, only the green "Italian" design actually looks flyable, whereas the shovelwing (aka Monarchii's build) is tail-heavy (would've made much more sense to extend the wing all the way back), and this "British" jet incapable of surviving asymmetrical thrust.
... and something tells me flying wings also work pretty nicely with split brakes.
The only thing I can think about is the asymmetrical thrust if anything happened to one of the engines... Seriously, it would've looked much more realistic if we moved the nacelles closer to the cockpit.
OI! I'Z 'ERE FOIST! ! WAAAGGGHHH! ! !
+1@V Sorry, wrong guy.
Thanks anyways for keeping the XML sheet up and running either way.
@TheMouse Thanks!
@V Cannons. Whereas projectileLifetime is a fixed value, fuseInput supports funky trees and alows for timed detonation - something invaluable for making flak guns.
+1@V You missed
fuseInputNorrköping-class?
@TheAviator77
They detect missile lock alright - and that's why I said such a weapon might be pointless in the first place! The difference, though, is that IIRC the target only detect missile lock after the missile ignites, and you don't need to worry about actually "locking" onto the target as the missile automatically counts as locked.
The only way to make a truly undetectable missile in SP is through tons upon tons of FT-based XML'ing - something I have problems doing myself due to both hardware (phone is already as crispy as-is, laptop cannot funky tree) and personal skill (read: me dumb) issues.
S Q U I D
+1@RamboJutter
First thing first, a Mustang isn't a British design either - it's an American one that just happen to function better with British engines than their homegrown counterparts. Plus, a P-51 fin flares out at its base at the leading edge, while the Halocene's flares out at the trailing edge... and TBPH the Supermarine Attacker looks much closer to a British-built "jet P-51".
.
Plus, a trapezoidal fin (or a triangular tailplane) does not as readily identify an airframe's lineage (especially because the Ju 287 had a very similar fin) as the shape of its engine nacelles and the canopy - and both are all German.
.
Seriously, this plane is a dead ringer for the Junkers/OKB-1 EF-131 sans the third pair of engines (preemptive apologies for not being able to find a good English source), which, given that IRL British post-war designs usually take a drastically different approach with a cylindrical cross-section, cigar-shaped outline, sharp nose, bubble canopy, and trapezoidal wings (see: de Havilland Vampire, Gloster Meteor, EE Canberra, Hawker Sea Hawk, and the aforementioned Supermarine Attacker; incidentally the Canberra looks like an overgrown Meteor) compared to their WWII counterparts, still look really out of place.
.
..
... and sorry for hogging the channel.
@RichardScepton @SenSkysh
Here is my personal backup of table 1.
To make sure the table would not get damaged again through either accident or vandalism, the sheet is protected this time.
@Hahahahaahahshs
True, presumably just like how the XP-72 was a P-47 Jug with elements from captured Fw-190s, and the F-86 Sabre was a jet-powered P-51D Mustang (aka the FJ-1 Fury) with the wings of an Me 262, the OG Halocene B1 9.8 was probably a Mossie with a lot of elements from captured Ju 287 and Ju 288s... then the Halocene A2 11.6 variant incorporated some elements from both an He 219 and a B-26, and now apparently an Arado Ar 234C as well...
TL;DR: Incorporating elements from captured enemy planes is all well and fine, but a British designer building something without any British features but rather a mish-mash of Junkers, Heinkel, and Arado would probably be a bit out of place.
Where did the original biplane go?
Beautiful as always! ... although... why does a supposedly British design have a Junkers' cockpit and an Arado's engine arrangement? Did RJ Ltd. collab with those two aircraft manufacturers after German surrender?
Pantsir?
Chii's catapults, eh?
+1f i d d l e r j e t
+1J E T S T U K A
+1Wright Flyer but on super-steroids, eh?
+1@MonarchiiwithastolenMG
NVM then. I thought I've seen a setup w/ localized FCs somewhere, probably one of PlanariaLab's or hpgbproductions' deleted posts on a second thought...
@MonarchiiwithastolenMG
Ever heard of localized Fire Control systems? (aka use inputs from flight computers located right in the middle of the turret)
Also, that's why I'm using wing guns for my turrets, XML-ed bullet sizes work just as nicely as far as proximity-fused autocannons goes.
+1Or just an accurate enough turret with high enough damage; or a weapon with a good enough proximity fuse. Or both.
+1S H O R K
+1@Graingy
+1Yeah, chose that picture specifically because I'm constantly behaving like an old grouch even though I'm actually Gen Z by birth....
@Graingy @Gs
I'm right 'ere, y'know!
Special Thanks to @PlanariaLab for the auto-aim codes.
... have to say this AVIC looks a lot more utilitarian (and far less garish) than her old one...
Gina's new car after the incident with her previous one?
+2@ZerkkOtakuGuy
+1@ShinnyGlassy
Thanks!
@Speedhunter The "flying flapjack" is the Vought XF5U, and the "flying pancake" is the Vought V-173; and TBPH when I said "Luftwaffle" this is what I had in mind...
+2Ah, the pan to go with the Flying Flapjack and the Luftwaffle...
+1Alway' goo' ta' see ya', Kako!
+1Ground-Effect Vehicle?
+1Welcome back!
+1@C47skytrain Solidarity fist bump 🤜🤛
+1@LunarEclipseSP Thanks!
+2Shows only six.
@WinsWings Dis. Iz. Bootiful.
+1I never knew the word "Gyatt" had any other meaning beyond a rare surname and this particular ship... Now I knew, and somehow I lost even more faith in humanity even though I thought I've already got none left to lose...
+2@WinsWings Well, feel free to use this and its companion piece in your upcoming builds!
+1@WinsWings Actually, a Gloster-looking Ho 229 sounds mighty fine as of now.... or a Northrop-looking one, for that matter.
+1.
Also, aside from vertical stabilizers and wingtips, this Allied flying wing design would probably also have large round or square intakes (like the ones shown here), unlike the elliptical monstrosities on the 229.
@WinsWings Nah, I'm just sifting through your entire upload history and I won't stop until I upvoted each and every high-quality build of yours...
+1* sniff * Someone please make it into a reality...
+1IIRC this type of design had been seriously considered back in early Cold War? So... no, reality didn't sneeze, and this doesn't even look too insane by IRL drone design standards.
@WinsWings
It's the same picture as the one shown there, right?
... and among all three models, only the green "Italian" design actually looks flyable, whereas the shovelwing (aka Monarchii's build) is tail-heavy (would've made much more sense to extend the wing all the way back), and this "British" jet incapable of surviving asymmetrical thrust.
... and something tells me flying wings also work pretty nicely with split brakes.
+1The only thing I can think about is the asymmetrical thrust if anything happened to one of the engines... Seriously, it would've looked much more realistic if we moved the nacelles closer to the cockpit.
+1hmm...
+2Rollerskates are not what we usually imagine when we say "wheeled platform", though...
+4Damn... just... damn. Also, please build the other two in the pic.
f I R s T
+2Jus' sayin', but staysails are more than welcomed on any square-rigged ship...
+1