You don't need more than 8gb ram for simple planes. You don't need a beefy graphics card either. But the physics for parts is the big performance killer, so on max physics you will need at least an i7/ryzen 7 to be able to run the best builds. However, I'm using a 2nd gen Ryzen 5 (2500U) and that runs almost everything on minimum physics just fine (30fps-ish), bar maybe the 4-5000 part builds which get a bit slideshowy, closer to 15-20 FPS.
But as the other people have said, you need to balance it with cost. I don't know what your budget is but I wouldn't expect it to be a gaming laptop worth £2000 xD so I would get a laptop with a latest gen i5/Ryzen 5 at maybe £8-900
Just a quick thought - didn't the F.2B have a Lewis gun mounted on the top of the wing that could point upwards and a forward facing Vickers above the engine cowling? Might be wrong and I can't run this design anyway to see if you have added it or not but just a thought.
So I use postimage to help me with screenshots:
1. Save the image
2. Upload the photo to postimage
3. Copy the 'direct link'
4. Use:  to add the link in.
For videos I don't know, I presume you upload to YouTube and paste the link in? Someone back me up on this?
@xXMrCoolDudeXx um it was a real plane so it did fly, probably because it was very fast.
However it had a hilariously high landing speed because of the short wings
@asteroidbook345 I warn you the area behind the inlets is hard - I had a small inaccuracy there which escalated into me not being able to faithfully recreate the gear
@Mustang51 thanks - one thing I found about the starfighter is that due to the position of the large tail surfaces, it had very good elevator authority, especially at high speeds. This is why it is so good at turning at low speeds, creating a really high AoA in the process. what I forgot to account for was compressing at high speeds which limits controllability xD
also i need to learn how to funk trees correctly haha
I aim with all of my planes to post updated versions including new tricks i have learned
@Mustang51 thank you! itsmanoeuvrability is actually pretty accurate - it was not designed to turn-fight at all, more to just blow unsuspecting enemies up and run away! the main difference in performance is that it's max speed is slightly too low, and it's acceleration too high... both perfectly solvable i guess? any tips on getting engine performance right?
by the way for the invite, when you enter it remember to REMOVE the
https://from the front or it will not work!Happy bday
@Mustang51 I think it displays g at that time, but i cant get it to work
@SnoWFLakE0s I cant find it? i just get expressionsDebug as inva;lid
@wonkapilot aaah ok
@Mustang51 tahkns
@TheFantasticTyphoon ah ok I think it will be useful
You don't need more than 8gb ram for simple planes. You don't need a beefy graphics card either. But the physics for parts is the big performance killer, so on max physics you will need at least an i7/ryzen 7 to be able to run the best builds. However, I'm using a 2nd gen Ryzen 5 (2500U) and that runs almost everything on minimum physics just fine (30fps-ish), bar maybe the 4-5000 part builds which get a bit slideshowy, closer to 15-20 FPS.
But as the other people have said, you need to balance it with cost. I don't know what your budget is but I wouldn't expect it to be a gaming laptop worth £2000 xD so I would get a laptop with a latest gen i5/Ryzen 5 at maybe £8-900
Just a quick thought - didn't the F.2B have a Lewis gun mounted on the top of the wing that could point upwards and a forward facing Vickers above the engine cowling? Might be wrong and I can't run this design anyway to see if you have added it or not but just a thought.
hithis is fun
hello
@Mustang51 um yeh I can't find an accurate g meter can you post one unlisted for me please??? Sorry 😂
So I use postimage to help me with screenshots:
1. Save the image
2. Upload the photo to postimage
3. Copy the 'direct link'
4. Use:
to add the link in.For videos I don't know, I presume you upload to YouTube and paste the link in? Someone back me up on this?
Um hi@Warhammer55 AHHAHAHAHAHAHA
sorry xD
Oh and also quick little trick of mine: make it shiny and people love it, hence why I'm doing a Cuban mig 15 and an Indian mig 21 (oops leaks xD)
@xXMrCoolDudeXx um it was a real plane so it did fly, probably because it was very fast.
However it had a hilariously high landing speed because of the short wings
@AzureCorp wehey thank you!
the invite is invalid though :(
@ACEPILOT109 ive finished it and tagged you
@MAHADI I love the early US Jet look of unpainted metal... so might make a russian mig 21 xD
@asteroidbook345 I warn you the area behind the inlets is hard - I had a small inaccuracy there which escalated into me not being able to faithfully recreate the gear
@Mustang51 thanks - one thing I found about the starfighter is that due to the position of the large tail surfaces, it had very good elevator authority, especially at high speeds. This is why it is so good at turning at low speeds, creating a really high AoA in the process. what I forgot to account for was compressing at high speeds which limits controllability xD
also i need to learn how to funk trees correctly haha
I aim with all of my planes to post updated versions including new tricks i have learned
@Mustang51 thank you! itsmanoeuvrability is actually pretty accurate - it was not designed to turn-fight at all, more to just blow unsuspecting enemies up and run away! the main difference in performance is that it's max speed is slightly too low, and it's acceleration too high... both perfectly solvable i guess? any tips on getting engine performance right?
@Noname918181 my name on CoC is boi
@Sinacraft i love that people actually downloaded this... after i warned them that it can corrupt simpleplanes
@ACEPILOT109
@winterisstark111 yeah the models are very similar, nothing to be sorry about!
and you did a pretty good job of the f1 without even realising xD
still upvoting though it looks and flies great!
hate to tell you this, but you built an f1 not an e1
noice
@asteroidbook345 waaaaay to many people
@asteroidbook345 because it's a nuke
WATHAVEYOUDONEYOU'VECURSEDUSALL
@Spitfirelad05 and another nickname for it, was the 'widowmaker' because that's what it was
@ACEPILOT109 in the final model? will do
@asteroidbook345 already done that! all sorted!
@mohsen ahhh ok ive never had to check
@Aeromen hahahaha thank you!
@JolyLoly aha thanks
@Mustang51 @rexzion um i have tested it... i put the engines on backwards and it... still flies (sort of)?!
@rexzion i dont know what you were doing that made this thing fly backwards xD
@Noname918181 aha ok its simple then... not exactly good at funky trees stuff yet. Thanks!!
might end up calling on you a few more times, sorry xD
any way to have 2 inputs for a hinge or rotator - I.E: roll and pitch for elevons? @edensk
if you have overload installed, then i think you can? not sure
@rexzion you want crazy? Move the CoM back a tad... And try to fly it xD
@ShermanFirefly hehehe been a while, but it's on its way now xD
@Mustang51 tanks!
@ChemPHoenix05 tbf i don't know many aesthetically pleasing death planes, so i think you did a good job with this one xD
proud to give you your first upvote, I love this thing
@Vidal99977 I wish you the best. sayonara my friend.