I have gotten into SR2 a lot more recently and while I am not a huge fan of the HUD and designer HUD, or the website site tbh. But this is gonna be sick
Well five devs upvoted this... I agree with @PoinX25tlessWhyShouldI because SR2 is really advanced compared to SP, the flight models for planes are even better. The thing is, adding something like the screen into the current SP would stand out like a sore thumb -- even the new glass and smoothing is cutting it close. SP2 is really the only way to advance what we have now, or it appear very contrived.
So taking stuff from SR2 and transforming it from a rocket game compatible for planes into a plane game compatible with rockets. I would assume they would take away all the time warping, navball stuff, advanced orbit mechanics, and extra planets except earth and maybe the moon. However, I could definitely see the adjustable rockets remaining(less presets though), with more jets added.
I doubt that @AndrewGarrison and his team of devs will talk about it here, but it is very much a statement, in my opinion, that they have all upvoted this(unless in the horrible case that they have been hacked).
@asteroidbook345 idk if you taper your wings' thickness -- I dont, too hard for me -- but if you do not usually you could taper just the inboard wing in thickness, adding space for the wheels.
@asteroidbook345 ok yeah I see it now. Details I dont really notice until I dig deeper; fuselage shapes are what I tend to look at to immediately narrow down possibilities. Like with the Mirage IV, it looks like at least three different fuselage bodies, which means lots of nudging to see blueprints and stuff. The MiG 17 has just one fuselage and a simple canopy, but as you said the details are more advanced
If I hadn't already built a Mirage 2000 twice I'd do that... and Rafale has too hard of a fuselage shape. Maybe I'll go heli like Bagel -- Pilatus PC-21 also seems like a viable option.
@EternalDarkness could you please make this a successor of this?
@ThomasRoderick thank you
@Sgtk thanks for spotlight!
+1@rexzion ha did you spend 30 minutes flying it
Glad to see the braking is realistic
@Thecatbaron thank you for the spotlight!
@PapaKernels thx
Looks ok
Slightly worse than your point count describes. Your planes end up kinda weird looking but you can see the effort and that's what counts :)
+1Excessive and extensive pitch down sends you into a very fun PSM tumble, which can be twisted into flatpsins and other cool tricks.
Damn
@rexzion is it an abomination?
Nice job!
@TheLurkingVexedVortex by a long shot
@Airlancashire ha I've been here 3 months
I have gotten into SR2 a lot more recently and while I am not a huge fan of the HUD and designer HUD, or the website site tbh. But this is gonna be sick
+6Woah...
@Wolf329 FT in the blade pitch and throttle
@Airlancashire um sorry no? What do I know you from?
alrighty then
Let's see what Boeing can do to hire you
+1super cool dudeHow it feels to chew 5Gum
+1Truly sorry to output such a peice of trash :/
@UsualPiooneer lmao
@Cathay001 an office fan?
Well five devs upvoted this... I agree with @PoinX25tlessWhyShouldI because SR2 is really advanced compared to SP, the flight models for planes are even better. The thing is, adding something like the screen into the current SP would stand out like a sore thumb -- even the new glass and smoothing is cutting it close. SP2 is really the only way to advance what we have now, or it appear very contrived.
+9So taking stuff from SR2 and transforming it from a rocket game compatible for planes into a plane game compatible with rockets. I would assume they would take away all the time warping, navball stuff, advanced orbit mechanics, and extra planets except earth and maybe the moon. However, I could definitely see the adjustable rockets remaining(less presets though), with more jets added.
I doubt that @AndrewGarrison and his team of devs will talk about it here, but it is very much a statement, in my opinion, that they have all upvoted this(unless in the horrible case that they have been hacked).
Also sorry to spam but the heli has waaay too much power -- should hover at around 90% collective with 60% power soooo
+1Lmao the gun FT could use some work but still better than having to f'ing aim yourself
+1Such a clean build, nice job
@PapaKernels lol ok
@WarHawk95 thanks man
@rexzion I can fly it just fine, sorry
But seriously it should be like 100mph
*I think
@rexzion ok fine 15kph is for warbirds
Make it 30kph stall speed
*for historic accuracy
@rexzion you lie
Woah T
@WiFly sheeeeeesh
@asteroidbook345 idk if you taper your wings' thickness -- I dont, too hard for me -- but if you do not usually you could taper just the inboard wing in thickness, adding space for the wheels.
@asteroidbook345 ok yeah I see it now. Details I dont really notice until I dig deeper; fuselage shapes are what I tend to look at to immediately narrow down possibilities. Like with the Mirage IV, it looks like at least three different fuselage bodies, which means lots of nudging to see blueprints and stuff. The MiG 17 has just one fuselage and a simple canopy, but as you said the details are more advanced
If I hadn't already built a Mirage 2000 twice I'd do that... and Rafale has too hard of a fuselage shape. Maybe I'll go heli like Bagel -- Pilatus PC-21 also seems like a viable option.
@asteroidbook345 how is a MiG-17 difficult? Seems easier than Mirage IV
@MajorSix find me some HD blueprints and I'm in! Nothing I can see tho...
@Memri yeah crazy design
@Hedero yeah I just went with a flat bottom on mine
@Memri lol with its wings
@PapaKernels no, sorry that's too clutterfull
@UsualPiooneer well if you want to get technical
@ReinMcDeer you were close enough!