@Tully2001 You can take a look at the videos ... Your plane has been amazing.
https://youtu.be/2geqgq8FkCQ
https://youtu.be/mpRzdWG4L1g
https://youtu.be/54KVoq0_pAw
@Dimkal Hi! I´m from Spain. I design this Hellenic Air Force F-16 because the roundels insignias could be Portugal, Turkey and Greece. I like Greece much more ;-) i hope you like it! i will make a Greek F-4 Phantom II ;-)
@alexJgameYTukraine000000 Yes, but this challenge is looking for modernized, updated aircraft. That's why current fighters no longer use four cannons, only one or two at most. Let's say you're modernizing an F-80 Shooting Star. Realistically, if you want to add missiles, you'll probably need space for a radar. That reduces the number of cannons it can carry... That's why I think reducing the number of cannons is reasonable.
@Michiganstatepolicethe2nd i believe you dont need to use that wing specifically, its just a reference for what they should be like?
The wing provided in this challenge is a reference point due to its scale: 0.85 x 0.85 x 0.85.
This would cease to be a challenge if there weren't a rule in this regard, since hyper-maneuverable aircraft could be built if the wing scale were smaller, and then we wouldn't be playing on a level playing field. It's about fair play.
The fun, interesting, and enjoyable aspect of these challenges is playing with clear rules regarding weapons and wing scale, so that our aircraft are balanced.
@Michiganstatepolicethe2nd oh no no no i know how to make fuselage wings, i just mean putting wings in planes with wider fuselages ro simulate fuselage lift.
You can do it, as long as you comply with the principles and rules of the challenge.
@sakkijarven Don't worry, I don't know when SimplePlanes2 will be released, but this will most likely be the last SimplePlanes1 challenge, at least the last ones I organize...
@Michiganstatepolicethe2nd Yes, I use the wing you see in the cart in this post. It has a scale of 0.85 x 0.85 x 0.85, which is suitable for simulating the lift of a real wing. First, I create the wing using fuselage parts, and then I place the 0.85 x 0.85 x 0.85 scale wing inside, covering the entire wing surface from the inside. There are many tutorials on this: https://youtu.be/rHZTg9DBwIQ
@alexJgameYTukraine000000 The idea is to modernize the fighter jets of previous generations so that they use modern weapons. Otherwise, older light jet fighters will be unable to compete against modern ones. ;-) If you decide to use an F-5 Freedom Fighter, it's about modernizing it, adapting it, modifying it to make it competent.
@SpetzavodHeavyIndustries Welcome! You have plenty of time to complete both projects. The next challenge after this one might involve attack helicopters...
@Michiganstatepolicethe2nd You can use fuselage wings. This is a fuselage shaped like a wing, and inside a visible wing. The type of construction I'm referring to is the invisible wing, which is a wing on a very small scale, for example, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, used to create a false lift and hide it anywhere on the aircraft's fuselage.
@alexJgameYTukraine000000 I invite you to participate in the next challenge I'm preparing. I'd love for you to try it; you deserve to be on the podium.
Realism (70/100): Concept and appearance are consistent with late-1950s design trends, inspired by the Saab Draken. However, its top speed (1,450 km/h at sea level and 2,000 km/h at altitude) exceeds the challenge’s limits (950 mph / 1,350 mph), which disqualifies it on performance grounds.
Weapons (30/30): Historically plausible loadout with 2×30 mm ADEN cannons and 4×AIM‑9B Sidewinders, within allowed limits.
Appearance (23/30): Clean and balanced form echoing Scandinavian design, though overall surfaces and finishing are basic.
Build Quality (17/30): Solid assembly and functioning systems; cockpit is simple but complete.
Fair Play (0/30): Disqualified — performance surpasses maximum speed regulation.
Description (0/30)
Total: 140/250 points – Disqualified (speed limit violation).
Good concept and execution, but excessive performance removes it from eligibility despite the build’s strong narrative and structure.
Realism (70/100): Concept and appearance are consistent with late-1950s design trends, inspired by the Saab Draken. However, its top speed (1,450 km/h at sea level and 2,000 km/h at altitude) exceeds the challenge’s limits (950 mph / 1,350 mph), which disqualifies it on performance grounds.
Weapons (30/30): Historically plausible loadout with 2×30 mm ADEN cannons and 4×AIM‑9B Sidewinders, within allowed limits.
Appearance (23/30): Clean and balanced form echoing Scandinavian design, though overall surfaces and finishing are basic.
Build Quality (17/30): Solid assembly and functioning systems; cockpit is simple but complete.
Fair Play (0/30): Disqualified — performance surpasses maximum speed regulation.
Description (30/30): Excellent lore, combining historical context and technical explanation with clarity and immersion.
Total: 170/250 points – Disqualified (speed limit violation).
Good concept and execution, but excessive performance removes it from eligibility despite the build’s strong narrative and structure.
Realism (60/100): The general silhouette resembles the real Su-7, but the model lacks aerodynamic detail and surface refinement. Flight behavior is acceptable but oversimplified.
Weapons (25/30): Armament not specified; assuming compliance with challenge limits, it’s acceptable but basic.
Appearance (20/30): Recognizable Su-7 shape, yet wings, fuselage, and landing gear are extremely simple. Cockpit lacks any detailing.
Build Quality (12/30): Structurally stable but very rudimentary. Minimal complexity in surfaces and components.
Fair Play (25/30): Part count is below minimum (only 101, while 200 required), which disqualifies the entry.
Description (15/30): No defined history or specs beyond basic parameters.
Total: 157/250 points – Disqualified (below part limit).
A basic early-stage build resembling a Su-7, but lacking realism, cockpit work, and fine detailing. Needs major improvement for competition standards.
Realism (65/100): The concept fits well within 1950s Soviet jet design philosophy—twin-engine, subsonic interceptor. Flight profile and stats are believable, though the aircraft’s form and aerodynamic detailing are overly simple.
Weapons (30/30): Armament (four 23mm cannons + four missiles) fits both the era and the challenge rules. Properly integrated and balanced.
Appearance (14/30): Simplistic but coherent design. Lacks finesse in shaping—especially fuselage curvature, landing gear, and cockpit detailing.
Build Quality (17/30): Solid and functional with decent performance; structure could benefit from finer detailing and more defined control surfaces.
Fair Play (30/30): Fully compliant with challenge limits (part count, weight, and speed).
Description (28/30): Fun and creative lore written with a clear Cold War tone, complemented by proper credits and context.
Total: 184/250 points.
A straightforward, functional build with a clear 1950s Soviet aesthetic—technically compliant, but visually and structurally basic compared to top-tier entries.
Realism (30/100): Unfinished and highly unrealistic. The design lacks coherence with 1950s aircraft technology, and flight behavior is exaggerated.
Weapons (10/30): Includes a ground weapons cart, which falls outside challenge parameters.
Appearance (10/30): Extremely basic and incomplete, with minimal shaping or detailing.
Build Quality (15/30): Very rough construction, limited control surfaces, and incomplete systems.
Fair Play (0/30): Violates multiple rules—does not reach the 200-part minimum, uses external items not allowed, and doesn’t meet realism or performance standards.
Description (10/30): Lacks proper technical or historical information.
Total: 75/250 points – Disqualified.
The build is an unfinished concept and does not meet the challenge’s technical or construction requirements.
Realism (45/100): Very poor aerodynamic design; shape and proportions are far from the real T-37. Boxy fuselage and unrealistic flight profile make it feel inaccurate for a 1950s jet trainer.
Weapons (—/30): Not applicable or minimal, but compliant with the rules if unarmed.
Appearance (15/30): Extremely basic model with rough geometry and minimal surface or cockpit detail.
Build Quality (20/30): Functional but very rudimentary structure, lacking refinement in assembly and proportions.
Fair Play (25/30): Low part count (146) falls below challenge minimum (200), disqualifying it technically. No sign of cheating or mods, however.
Description (27/30): Historical background is accurate and well-written, providing good informational value.
Total: 132/250 points.
A basic, beginner-level build: functional but poorly shaped, lacking realism and aerodynamic refinement. Needs major visual and structural improvement to meet challenge standards.
Realism (50/100): Design and flight model are very basic and far from realistic 1950s jet behavior. Handling and proportions feel simplified, with doubtful aerodynamic coherence.
Weapons (25/30): Armament within the allowed limit, but mix of missile types and gun calibers feels unbalanced for the era.
Appearance (15/30): Very low detail level; rough shapes, simple geometry, and minimal surface work. Cockpit interior is crude and lacks realism.
Build Quality (20/30): Functional but primitive. Visible alignment issues and structural simplicity reduce build quality.
Fair Play (25/30): Within rule limits, though part count is below minimum (requires at least 200).
Description (25/30): Provides some creative lore, but it’s fictional and lacks technical depth compared with historical entries.
Total: 160/250 points.
A functional but very rough aircraft—basic geometry, unrealistic flight model, and low detail. Creativity noted, but major refinement is needed for realism and build quality.
Realism (97/100): Highly accurate model with proportions, flight characteristics, and performance matching real data. The four-gun setup (instead of six) complies with challenge requirements without breaking realism.
Weapons (30/30): Correctly implemented and balanced armament, following the challenge limits.
Appearance (30/30): Outstanding detail inside and out; exceptional surface work, paint accuracy, and cockpit realism. One of the most visually complete builds of the challenge.
Build Quality (30/30): Perfect structural integrity, all controls and systems function smoothly.
Fair Play (30/30): Fully within all rule limits—part count, performance, and armament compliant.
Description (30/30): Thorough historical and technical context, well-written, and complete.
Total: 247/250 points.
A top-tier entry—superbly detailed, realistic, and fully compliant. One of the strongest candidates in the challenge.
Realism (88/100): Good overall shape and proportions, accurate to the real MiG-15Bis, with convincing flight dynamics. Slightly high power/weight ratio (2.918) compared to real specs but still balanced.
Weapons (30/30): Correct historical armament configuration—one N-37 and two NR-23 cannons—properly implemented.
Appearance (25/30): Exterior model captures the main lines well but lacks surface and small structural detailing compared to similar entries.
Build Quality (29/30): Solidly built with functional controls; no technical issues observed.
Fair Play (30/30): Within all rule limits—part count, performance, and weight are compliant.
Description (27/30): Clear and informative, though slightly more historical depth or specs could improve immersion.
Total: 229/250 points.
A faithful and clean MiG-15Bis build—accurate in shape and performance, but with less detail and cabin refinement than higher-rated entries.
Realism (90/100): Faithful representation of the MiG-17 with correct proportions and behavior. Flight dynamics feel authentic for a 1950s transonic fighter. The power/weight ratio may be slightly unrealistic (3.225), but performance seems balanced in practice.
Weapons (30/30): Historically accurate cannon setup—one N-37 and two NR-23s—properly used and compliant.
Appearance (26/30): The exterior looks accurate and clean, but landing gear details and cockpit interior could use refinement.
Build Quality (28/30): Solid structure and functional controls; however, minor imperfections on gear mechanics.
Fair Play (30/30): Fully within all challenge parameters and rule limits.
Description (28/30): Thorough historical and technical background with good clarity and structure.
Total: 232/250 points.
A well-balanced and realistic build, slightly rough in cockpit and landing gear detail but fully valid for the challenge.
Realism (95/100): Excellent handling and realistic flight performance based on real specs. Acceleration modeling is thoughtfully tuned, and small fictional touches (inner AIM-9 mounts) are acceptable.
Weapons (30/30): Correct and balanced armament—four ADEN cannons and four AIM-9Bs, properly integrated.
Appearance (27/30): Clean, elegant model with accurate proportions. Visual detailing could be higher; roundels built from parts instead of decals slightly lower realism.
Build Quality (30/30): Very well assembled; strong structure and good surface alignment.
Fair Play (30/30): Fully within all challenge limits—part count, weight, and performance are compliant.
Description (28/30): Informative and technical, though a bit brief compared to the standard required for immersion.
Total: 240/250 points.
Beautifully built and perfectly within the challenge rules—a solid and realistic entry.
@alexJgameYTukraine000000 I think a pro-rata system for penalty kicks is better, so it's proportional to all players who exceed the maximum number of parts. Keep in mind that the purpose of the maximum number of parts is to prevent the game from crashing during dogfights with Simpleplanes' AI. In other words, it's a rule there for a reason: to facilitate combat and ensure the game runs smoothly. Furthermore, you don't need that many parts to build a good aircraft model. So less is more, and this also tests your ability to build the same aircraft with fewer parts and better optimization, without compromising its details.
@CapnCrunk Ok Ok! I'll do it :-) I add it to the list. Loaded with bombs, right?
+1@Tully2001 You can take a look at the videos ... Your plane has been amazing.
+1https://youtu.be/2geqgq8FkCQ
https://youtu.be/mpRzdWG4L1g
https://youtu.be/54KVoq0_pAw
@AudioDud3 It was difficult this tournament in the Indy Race ...
+1@RAF1 Thank you friend!
+1@JoddyFubuki788 on my phone works perfectly ...
+1@PlanesWorkShopUSER5 @JoddyFubuki788 Thanks!!!
+1Excellent plane! I like your works! Keep it up!
+1@Dimkal Hi! I´m from Spain. I design this Hellenic Air Force F-16 because the roundels insignias could be Portugal, Turkey and Greece. I like Greece much more ;-) i hope you like it! i will make a Greek F-4 Phantom II ;-)
+1Thanks! @General360 @EternalDarkness This plane reproduce real airbrakes of pakfa and rotated vertical wings. It takes me several time. Enjoy it!
+1@Michiganstatepolicethe2nd Ok i take a look. Give me a little time... ;-)
@Michiganstatepolicethe2nd I'm sorry, but I don't understand the problem... The rules of the challenge are clear and precise.
@alexJgameYTukraine000000 Yes, but this challenge is looking for modernized, updated aircraft. That's why current fighters no longer use four cannons, only one or two at most. Let's say you're modernizing an F-80 Shooting Star. Realistically, if you want to add missiles, you'll probably need space for a radar. That reduces the number of cannons it can carry... That's why I think reducing the number of cannons is reasonable.
The wing provided in this challenge is a reference point due to its scale: 0.85 x 0.85 x 0.85.
This would cease to be a challenge if there weren't a rule in this regard, since hyper-maneuverable aircraft could be built if the wing scale were smaller, and then we wouldn't be playing on a level playing field. It's about fair play.
The fun, interesting, and enjoyable aspect of these challenges is playing with clear rules regarding weapons and wing scale, so that our aircraft are balanced.
@Krikkit42 This was done to simplify the rules. But you're right, it's already been increased to a maximum of two cannons, except for the GAU8.
You can do it, as long as you comply with the principles and rules of the challenge.
@sakkijarven Don't worry, I don't know when SimplePlanes2 will be released, but this will most likely be the last SimplePlanes1 challenge, at least the last ones I organize...
@Michiganstatepolicethe2nd Yes, I use the wing you see in the cart in this post. It has a scale of 0.85 x 0.85 x 0.85, which is suitable for simulating the lift of a real wing. First, I create the wing using fuselage parts, and then I place the 0.85 x 0.85 x 0.85 scale wing inside, covering the entire wing surface from the inside. There are many tutorials on this: https://youtu.be/rHZTg9DBwIQ
@alexJgameYTukraine000000 The idea is to modernize the fighter jets of previous generations so that they use modern weapons. Otherwise, older light jet fighters will be unable to compete against modern ones. ;-) If you decide to use an F-5 Freedom Fighter, it's about modernizing it, adapting it, modifying it to make it competent.
@SpetzavodHeavyIndustries Welcome! You have plenty of time to complete both projects. The next challenge after this one might involve attack helicopters...
@Michiganstatepolicethe2nd You can use fuselage wings. This is a fuselage shaped like a wing, and inside a visible wing. The type of construction I'm referring to is the invisible wing, which is a wing on a very small scale, for example, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, used to create a false lift and hide it anywhere on the aircraft's fuselage.
@alexJgameYTukraine000000 You can do it now, I've increased the number of entries to 4. I hope this challenge is epic!
@AquaViT Welcome, and delighted to see you here
@VarisOnAviation Yes XML mod is allowed
@KPLBall yes of course
@alexJgameYTukraine000000 I invite you to participate in the next challenge I'm preparing. I'd love for you to try it; you deserve to be on the podium.
Youtube Challenge Video https://youtu.be/Chm3bxEourA
Evaluation Phase 3 - Final Recapitulation
Mikoyan Gurevich MiG-17 Fresco — 292 pts
Chang-An SJ-2 — 274 pts
Dekara KP-12 Onslaught — 234 pts
Crackovovich CRA-4 Forest — 224 pts
Evaluation Phase 2 - Dogfight
Evaluation Phase 1
Disqualified. It doesn't have the shape of a 1950s airplane.
Disqualified for insufficient parts and armament.
J36 XSG(VR) – Evaluation
Realism (70/100): Concept and appearance are consistent with late-1950s design trends, inspired by the Saab Draken. However, its top speed (1,450 km/h at sea level and 2,000 km/h at altitude) exceeds the challenge’s limits (950 mph / 1,350 mph), which disqualifies it on performance grounds.
Weapons (30/30): Historically plausible loadout with 2×30 mm ADEN cannons and 4×AIM‑9B Sidewinders, within allowed limits.
Appearance (23/30): Clean and balanced form echoing Scandinavian design, though overall surfaces and finishing are basic.
Build Quality (17/30): Solid assembly and functioning systems; cockpit is simple but complete.
Fair Play (0/30): Disqualified — performance surpasses maximum speed regulation.
Description (0/30)
Total: 140/250 points – Disqualified (speed limit violation).
Good concept and execution, but excessive performance removes it from eligibility despite the build’s strong narrative and structure.
J36 XSG Typhon – Evaluation
Realism (70/100): Concept and appearance are consistent with late-1950s design trends, inspired by the Saab Draken. However, its top speed (1,450 km/h at sea level and 2,000 km/h at altitude) exceeds the challenge’s limits (950 mph / 1,350 mph), which disqualifies it on performance grounds.
Weapons (30/30): Historically plausible loadout with 2×30 mm ADEN cannons and 4×AIM‑9B Sidewinders, within allowed limits.
Appearance (23/30): Clean and balanced form echoing Scandinavian design, though overall surfaces and finishing are basic.
Build Quality (17/30): Solid assembly and functioning systems; cockpit is simple but complete.
Fair Play (0/30): Disqualified — performance surpasses maximum speed regulation.
Description (30/30): Excellent lore, combining historical context and technical explanation with clarity and immersion.
Total: 170/250 points – Disqualified (speed limit violation).
Good concept and execution, but excessive performance removes it from eligibility despite the build’s strong narrative and structure.
1850 SU-7 Export – Evaluation
Realism (60/100): The general silhouette resembles the real Su-7, but the model lacks aerodynamic detail and surface refinement. Flight behavior is acceptable but oversimplified.
Weapons (25/30): Armament not specified; assuming compliance with challenge limits, it’s acceptable but basic.
Appearance (20/30): Recognizable Su-7 shape, yet wings, fuselage, and landing gear are extremely simple. Cockpit lacks any detailing.
Build Quality (12/30): Structurally stable but very rudimentary. Minimal complexity in surfaces and components.
Fair Play (25/30): Part count is below minimum (only 101, while 200 required), which disqualifies the entry.
Description (15/30): No defined history or specs beyond basic parameters.
Total: 157/250 points – Disqualified (below part limit).
A basic early-stage build resembling a Su-7, but lacking realism, cockpit work, and fine detailing. Needs major improvement for competition standards.
Crackovovich Cra-4 “Forest” – Evaluation
Realism (65/100): The concept fits well within 1950s Soviet jet design philosophy—twin-engine, subsonic interceptor. Flight profile and stats are believable, though the aircraft’s form and aerodynamic detailing are overly simple.
Weapons (30/30): Armament (four 23mm cannons + four missiles) fits both the era and the challenge rules. Properly integrated and balanced.
Appearance (14/30): Simplistic but coherent design. Lacks finesse in shaping—especially fuselage curvature, landing gear, and cockpit detailing.
Build Quality (17/30): Solid and functional with decent performance; structure could benefit from finer detailing and more defined control surfaces.
Fair Play (30/30): Fully compliant with challenge limits (part count, weight, and speed).
Description (28/30): Fun and creative lore written with a clear Cold War tone, complemented by proper credits and context.
Total: 184/250 points.
A straightforward, functional build with a clear 1950s Soviet aesthetic—technically compliant, but visually and structurally basic compared to top-tier entries.
Accidentally Supermaneuverable Prototype – Evaluation
Realism (30/100): Unfinished and highly unrealistic. The design lacks coherence with 1950s aircraft technology, and flight behavior is exaggerated.
Weapons (10/30): Includes a ground weapons cart, which falls outside challenge parameters.
Appearance (10/30): Extremely basic and incomplete, with minimal shaping or detailing.
Build Quality (15/30): Very rough construction, limited control surfaces, and incomplete systems.
Fair Play (0/30): Violates multiple rules—does not reach the 200-part minimum, uses external items not allowed, and doesn’t meet realism or performance standards.
Description (10/30): Lacks proper technical or historical information.
Total: 75/250 points – Disqualified.
The build is an unfinished concept and does not meet the challenge’s technical or construction requirements.
Cessna T-37 Simple – Evaluation
Realism (45/100): Very poor aerodynamic design; shape and proportions are far from the real T-37. Boxy fuselage and unrealistic flight profile make it feel inaccurate for a 1950s jet trainer.
Weapons (—/30): Not applicable or minimal, but compliant with the rules if unarmed.
Appearance (15/30): Extremely basic model with rough geometry and minimal surface or cockpit detail.
Build Quality (20/30): Functional but very rudimentary structure, lacking refinement in assembly and proportions.
Fair Play (25/30): Low part count (146) falls below challenge minimum (200), disqualifying it technically. No sign of cheating or mods, however.
Description (27/30): Historical background is accurate and well-written, providing good informational value.
Total: 132/250 points.
A basic, beginner-level build: functional but poorly shaped, lacking realism and aerodynamic refinement. Needs major visual and structural improvement to meet challenge standards.
SVD-1 – Evaluation
Realism (50/100): Design and flight model are very basic and far from realistic 1950s jet behavior. Handling and proportions feel simplified, with doubtful aerodynamic coherence.
Weapons (25/30): Armament within the allowed limit, but mix of missile types and gun calibers feels unbalanced for the era.
Appearance (15/30): Very low detail level; rough shapes, simple geometry, and minimal surface work. Cockpit interior is crude and lacks realism.
Build Quality (20/30): Functional but primitive. Visible alignment issues and structural simplicity reduce build quality.
Fair Play (25/30): Within rule limits, though part count is below minimum (requires at least 200).
Description (25/30): Provides some creative lore, but it’s fictional and lacks technical depth compared with historical entries.
Total: 160/250 points.
A functional but very rough aircraft—basic geometry, unrealistic flight model, and low detail. Creativity noted, but major refinement is needed for realism and build quality.
Republic F-84G "Thunderjet" – Evaluation
Realism (97/100): Highly accurate model with proportions, flight characteristics, and performance matching real data. The four-gun setup (instead of six) complies with challenge requirements without breaking realism.
Weapons (30/30): Correctly implemented and balanced armament, following the challenge limits.
Appearance (30/30): Outstanding detail inside and out; exceptional surface work, paint accuracy, and cockpit realism. One of the most visually complete builds of the challenge.
Build Quality (30/30): Perfect structural integrity, all controls and systems function smoothly.
Fair Play (30/30): Fully within all rule limits—part count, performance, and armament compliant.
Description (30/30): Thorough historical and technical context, well-written, and complete.
Total: 247/250 points.
A top-tier entry—superbly detailed, realistic, and fully compliant. One of the strongest candidates in the challenge.
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15Bis – Evaluation
Realism (88/100): Good overall shape and proportions, accurate to the real MiG-15Bis, with convincing flight dynamics. Slightly high power/weight ratio (2.918) compared to real specs but still balanced.
Weapons (30/30): Correct historical armament configuration—one N-37 and two NR-23 cannons—properly implemented.
Appearance (25/30): Exterior model captures the main lines well but lacks surface and small structural detailing compared to similar entries.
Build Quality (29/30): Solidly built with functional controls; no technical issues observed.
Fair Play (30/30): Within all rule limits—part count, performance, and weight are compliant.
Description (27/30): Clear and informative, though slightly more historical depth or specs could improve immersion.
Total: 229/250 points.
A faithful and clean MiG-15Bis build—accurate in shape and performance, but with less detail and cabin refinement than higher-rated entries.
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-17 Fresco – Evaluation
Realism (90/100): Faithful representation of the MiG-17 with correct proportions and behavior. Flight dynamics feel authentic for a 1950s transonic fighter. The power/weight ratio may be slightly unrealistic (3.225), but performance seems balanced in practice.
Weapons (30/30): Historically accurate cannon setup—one N-37 and two NR-23s—properly used and compliant.
Appearance (26/30): The exterior looks accurate and clean, but landing gear details and cockpit interior could use refinement.
Build Quality (28/30): Solid structure and functional controls; however, minor imperfections on gear mechanics.
Fair Play (30/30): Fully within all challenge parameters and rule limits.
Description (28/30): Thorough historical and technical background with good clarity and structure.
Total: 232/250 points.
A well-balanced and realistic build, slightly rough in cockpit and landing gear detail but fully valid for the challenge.
Hawker Hunter/J34 – Evaluation
Realism (95/100): Excellent handling and realistic flight performance based on real specs. Acceleration modeling is thoughtfully tuned, and small fictional touches (inner AIM-9 mounts) are acceptable.
Weapons (30/30): Correct and balanced armament—four ADEN cannons and four AIM-9Bs, properly integrated.
Appearance (27/30): Clean, elegant model with accurate proportions. Visual detailing could be higher; roundels built from parts instead of decals slightly lower realism.
Build Quality (30/30): Very well assembled; strong structure and good surface alignment.
Fair Play (30/30): Fully within all challenge limits—part count, weight, and performance are compliant.
Description (28/30): Informative and technical, though a bit brief compared to the standard required for immersion.
Total: 240/250 points.
Beautifully built and perfectly within the challenge rules—a solid and realistic entry.
@alexJgameYTukraine000000 Your plane it´s great, i like so much... but must be sucessor, may you change this matter?
@MajorMapleLeaf Relax, no problem. I play for fun.
@alexJgameYTukraine000000 I think a pro-rata system for penalty kicks is better, so it's proportional to all players who exceed the maximum number of parts. Keep in mind that the purpose of the maximum number of parts is to prevent the game from crashing during dogfights with Simpleplanes' AI. In other words, it's a rule there for a reason: to facilitate combat and ensure the game runs smoothly. Furthermore, you don't need that many parts to build a good aircraft model. So less is more, and this also tests your ability to build the same aircraft with fewer parts and better optimization, without compromising its details.
@alexJgameYTukraine000000 Yes, in some cases that has been the case; depending on what is fulfilled or not, there will be a penalty in the score.
Thank you for organizing this very interesting challenge. I think there were some great competitors and it was fantastic to participate! Thanks all!
Very nice!!! Thank you very much!!
hahahah Great!