@TheCommentaryGuy
if we're going there, I might as well say that the whole landing gear assembly is innacurate
but I won't, landing gears are a pain in the arse to figure out anyway and it's like a really slight oversight so I won't bother to mention it
if I may, I'm going to add a little bit of input on details you may have missed for the F-15J, just because I'm a little goober that can't go a little away without the urge to judge the accuracy of an f15 modelling so uh, I'm sorry in advance
the F-15J had a symmetrical antenna on both of the tail, this one didn't (understandably so)
no wing camber but understandable
front antenna close to the radome actually needed to be taller
bit of a wrong nozzle model but good lord I can understand why you wouldn't want to model it
otherwise this aircraft is very epique this one actually made me realize the protrusion at the back of the F-15 was actually longer for the J than the C
got question, do mobile players get a chance?
I'm not expecting it, but it would be nice for mobile players to have a bit of look at how the game would perform.
make the track by yourself. including the suspension, roadwheels, idlers, and the track itself.
though this does require a lot of effort and understanding of the game's physics. potentially a lot of your device's processing power.
I personally wouldn't bother, so I'd just put a lot of wheels on the vehicle.
After the whole ordeal of trying to make this godforsaken MBT work, and finally uploading it to the website, I took a pretty long break. And came back today to try finishing the SPAA I had made from the same hull a while back.
One of the inspirations, well, more like the whole inspiration was from the Type 87, so yeah.
@Monarchii
I do know someone that can help, but honestly you can kinda replicate the soviet style mbts very easily since when it comes to mbts they kept a rather consistent hull design xd
@Bobr122
What he means is he needs your submission to be this post's successor. There's no instance of a text citing that Flight Computer is not allowed. The only reason you need to use this cockpit to start building the tank is because that way, the build you're making is considered a successor of this post. Although you can also do this in other ways.
it very much depends on the context
if you're writing your own lore about a fictional aircraft you can write one accident to point out it's flaws that can possibly lead to it's reputation be crumpled or to explain the reason of improvement over the systems it has.
other than for lore or memoriam imo, it's not so great.
especially not good if it's "just for the sake of it", like hpgb said.
yknow
my name is not exactly creative.
so he might be referencing to something else other than me?
I mean for god's sake the post linked to a completely different interest. Dare I say... Almost childish.
@TheCommentaryGuy
+1if we're going there, I might as well say that the whole landing gear assembly is innacurate
but I won't, landing gears are a pain in the arse to figure out anyway and it's like a really slight oversight so I won't bother to mention it
if I may, I'm going to add a little bit of input on details you may have missed for the F-15J, just because I'm a little goober that can't go a little away without the urge to judge the accuracy of an f15 modelling so uh, I'm sorry in advance
+1the F-15J had a symmetrical antenna on both of the tail, this one didn't (understandably so)
no wing camber but understandable
front antenna close to the radome actually needed to be taller
bit of a wrong nozzle model but good lord I can understand why you wouldn't want to model it
otherwise this aircraft is very epique
this one actually made me realize the protrusion at the back of the F-15 was actually longer for the J than the C
@IMCI
+1dm gw, kirim link invit di dm gw.
@IMCI
+1beuh
punya discord kg? gw males suruh nyebarin nomor disini
@IMCI
+1masuk grup spid gk?
nomr w dsitu
got question, do mobile players get a chance?
+1I'm not expecting it, but it would be nice for mobile players to have a bit of look at how the game would perform.
I'd like a challenge
+1but I'm busy with another thing and I can't be bothered with making a project that is months due of work
@IFVuser
+1that's not almost that's half
one gripe I have about this is the wing
+1way too small
but aside from that, great concept
"the rdf lt is good
+1but we like this"
-us army, 1980s
should've went with XM274
+1make the track by yourself. including the suspension, roadwheels, idlers, and the track itself.
+1though this does require a lot of effort and understanding of the game's physics. potentially a lot of your device's processing power.
I personally wouldn't bother, so I'd just put a lot of wheels on the vehicle.
@IFVuser
close, but like I said:
One of the inspirations, well, more like the whole inspiration was from the Type 87, so yeah.
+1@Thydoirito
+1@LowQualityRepublic
@MIGFOXHOUND31BSM
+1@CaptainBrayden
@SPsidearm
@BlackGearCompany
+1@SPairforce
@DJRianGamerTheHololiveFan
@PrussianAirlines
+1@B1BLancer
@Antares1
@MrCOPTY
+1@SuperSuperTheSylph
@rorrE
I'm curious as to how do you arrange the VTOL nozzles, I'm interested.
+1@SuperSuperTheSylph
+1it's a fictional
oh my god the war is so one sided lmao
+1in what world
+1is that a hellcat chassis
bakso nuklir jir
+1@B1BLancer
+1@SPairforce
@LunarEclipseSP
+1I saw it, yeah
got inspired to do my own spin
@Monarchii
+1I do know someone that can help, but honestly you can kinda replicate the soviet style mbts very easily since when it comes to mbts they kept a rather consistent hull design xd
@SuperSuperTheSylph
+1would gladly use this if you don't mind
+1@Bobr122
+1What he means is he needs your submission to be this post's successor. There's no instance of a text citing that Flight Computer is not allowed. The only reason you need to use this cockpit to start building the tank is because that way, the build you're making is considered a successor of this post. Although you can also do this in other ways.
chii back at it again with the PEAs
+1it's ok man we all have that moment
+1just gotta wait for another several hundred months to get back to playing sp again
hatties desert circa 2005 real
+1taking "I'm spiked" to the next level
+1it very much depends on the context
+1if you're writing your own lore about a fictional aircraft you can write one accident to point out it's flaws that can possibly lead to it's reputation be crumpled or to explain the reason of improvement over the systems it has.
other than for lore or memoriam imo, it's not so great.
especially not good if it's "just for the sake of it", like hpgb said.
@SuperSuperTheSylph
+1I... have not updated the xml.
@Pnut
+1lebih enak lagi menurutku malem malem makan ayam geprek pake es teh
tidak terbandingkan
w liat komen isinya indo
+1melu
@SuperSuperTheSylph
+1planning on redoing them, just because their base airframe has improved so much compared to the previous frame
interesting
+1yknow
+1my name is not exactly creative.
so he might be referencing to something else other than me?
I mean for god's sake the post linked to a completely different interest. Dare I say... Almost childish.
@jamalitothetostito
+1disgusting (I was the maintenance crew)
I like this.
+1@SuperSuperTheSylph
+1@Pnut
@Calliope
@LunarEclipseSP
+1it looks out of shape.
oh god what is that front profile
+1@ShirakamiShimada
+1professionals
have standards
people seem to misconcept that the Su-33 has TVC
it doesn't.
also for canards, I don't really do anything else except putting a variant of:
GS>1?AngleOfAttack/(RotatorRange):0
since that's what canards pretty much only do on real-life flankers
+1awesome.
+1wish I could do this
interesting.
+1tri engine dogfighting
+1insane