@Kangy how am I wrong? I’m arguing that in a combat scenario it would have a longer takeoff roll, especially considering the plane in question has a shorter wing and would be much heavier. I’m sick of it too but people need to understand how basic aerodynamics work
@FeatherWing it’s not from overload, there’s a little box with an x in it above the part transform tool in the designer you can use to make custom variables
@BogdanX Young man, not once did I say your math was wrong. I also never said your video was forged. I fail to understand how pointing out differing results in different atmospheric conditions is "hate", though knowing you defining "hate" as anything that goes against your supposed godlike building skill isn't out of the question. This has nothing to do with "thinking for yourself" and everything to do with the straight facts that a 15s takeoff run in a heavier plane with less wing area and full fuel load in the same atmospheric conditions as a warm, dry day is not justifiable. I don't know what is preventing you from understanding that a different mathematical outcome and facts that don't align with your opinions are just as valid as your other sources. You can't just rely on one source for everything and discount one that disagrees. I don't know what is preventing you from simply looking up the title of the video but since you're apparently incapable of utilizing a search bar here is the link.
You clearly didn't even read the post either, as I both posted the thumbnail and title of your video so people can look it up themselves and check, and I said that the time on there is just as valid, and this puts the takeoff roll time between 16.5 and 28 seconds. I didn't have to do any of this, by the way. I was trying to help you make your flight model just that much more realistic, since I know how much you value realism and accuracy in replicas. I've spent my own free time finding sources, comparing videos, fiddling with the flight model myself, and doing a lot of stuff nobody asked of me because I think everything can be better. My reworked version isn't perfect either, and I never claimed it was.
But always look up the designation first. Things like the P-66 and P-43 were real things and you ideally should try to avoid that. Also, American designation uses classes rather than the factory/design bureau name like Russia. If you want to go that route you can put your company name and use the first two letters followed by a number. In Russian variants aren't listed alphabetically (Bis, M, UB, etc) and do actually stand for certain things. NATO reporting names also work differently, with F denoting fighters, C for civilian or transport aircraft, B for bombers, M for training aircraft and H for helicopters, and have two syllables for jets and one for propeller aircraft. China does something similar to the us with J for fighters, H for bombers, Y for cargo and transport and JL for trainers. There are some exceptions but it's generally pretty regular, kind of like the US. They usually have NATO reporting names if they're older, but modern ones tend not to.
@BogdanX Ah that's better identifying the problem and offering a solution we love to see it
@rexzion yeb
MP's been being a little weird lately
Wonderful
+1@BogdanX Wonderful constructive criticism, by the way
But hey it looks nice
It's at like 2x scale too lol, you should probably use finetuner to scale everything down
+1@HelloHelloTheUnt yes
AGAINST THE RULES REPORTED
@Nerfaddict heheh that was the idea
@Bellcat it has the teaser tag lol
You must obtain skill
+1Obtain skill
+5@ChrisPy yes
Flight model isn’t done or anything, I just slapped some wings on for fun/screenshots
@Kangy thank you
+1Yay Cherokee!
+1Nice ball turret
+1@Default4 oh ok
@Kangy how am I wrong? I’m arguing that in a combat scenario it would have a longer takeoff roll, especially considering the plane in question has a shorter wing and would be much heavier. I’m sick of it too but people need to understand how basic aerodynamics work
+1@Kennneth I do I just like explaining basic math to people
@FeatherWing it’s not from overload, there’s a little box with an x in it above the part transform tool in the designer you can use to make custom variables
The only appropriate thumbnail for a Ryanair plane lol
+18Jet boat for the win baby
@Kangy Yeah you can't have facts either or people call it forgery and misinformation
+2@WiiMini what goes around comes around
@Sparky6004 Thank you
@BogdanX Young man, not once did I say your math was wrong. I also never said your video was forged. I fail to understand how pointing out differing results in different atmospheric conditions is "hate", though knowing you defining "hate" as anything that goes against your supposed godlike building skill isn't out of the question. This has nothing to do with "thinking for yourself" and everything to do with the straight facts that a 15s takeoff run in a heavier plane with less wing area and full fuel load in the same atmospheric conditions as a warm, dry day is not justifiable. I don't know what is preventing you from understanding that a different mathematical outcome and facts that don't align with your opinions are just as valid as your other sources. You can't just rely on one source for everything and discount one that disagrees. I don't know what is preventing you from simply looking up the title of the video but since you're apparently incapable of utilizing a search bar here is the link.
Video
You clearly didn't even read the post either, as I both posted the thumbnail and title of your video so people can look it up themselves and check, and I said that the time on there is just as valid, and this puts the takeoff roll time between 16.5 and 28 seconds. I didn't have to do any of this, by the way. I was trying to help you make your flight model just that much more realistic, since I know how much you value realism and accuracy in replicas. I've spent my own free time finding sources, comparing videos, fiddling with the flight model myself, and doing a lot of stuff nobody asked of me because I think everything can be better. My reworked version isn't perfect either, and I never claimed it was.
@NakAk Oh no an irrefutable argument
@rexzion sad
@rexzion Thanks poopion!
@BaconEggs Nah just took about, well, the takeoff roll of a Gloster Meteor to confirm.
+1Yes...that's what stealth means...
+10BESH
+6Also AI that knows where the ground is and doesn’t just dive into it
+5Tonk
+1@WhyBreadSoFattning monopoly, planned obsolescence, I could go on
@WhyBreadSoFattning Idk man apple sucks
+1Probably your device sounds kinda crig
+2But always look up the designation first. Things like the P-66 and P-43 were real things and you ideally should try to avoid that. Also, American designation uses classes rather than the factory/design bureau name like Russia. If you want to go that route you can put your company name and use the first two letters followed by a number. In Russian variants aren't listed alphabetically (Bis, M, UB, etc) and do actually stand for certain things. NATO reporting names also work differently, with F denoting fighters, C for civilian or transport aircraft, B for bombers, M for training aircraft and H for helicopters, and have two syllables for jets and one for propeller aircraft. China does something similar to the us with J for fighters, H for bombers, Y for cargo and transport and JL for trainers. There are some exceptions but it's generally pretty regular, kind of like the US. They usually have NATO reporting names if they're older, but modern ones tend not to.
Return of the King
+6Tetrarch be like
@jamesPLANESii bruh lmao
@TheNightmareCompany Yeah the KC-46s are 767 modifications that are two-engined but larger
@Inuyasha8215 np
KC-135
@Inuyasha8215
@DerVito ah ok
+1You can now control tanks like in Wart Hunder
+6Crudader II
+1Oh hey it's one of the boats James Bond used in one of the Sean Connery ones (From Russia With Love if I'm not mistaken)
+3