Yo it's me the man who isn't that good but want to say what's wrong on a lot of your builds : the part count.
First I want to say why I try to make "low part" builds (max 1500 parts but with details, a cockpit interior, good looking custom parts, ect ect...), the reason is in the name of the game, I want my builds to be SIMPLE but efficient, because this game is about sharing things to others, not showing who has the best PC with is 5000 parts build. Some builds are really impressive, I have in mind a Zero with waaaaaay too much parts but it's a true piece of art, but sometimes I see builds with 2000 parts even if the plane looks like a 600 parts build, and without a cockpit ! (more than 1000 parts without a cockpit interior is a shame)
So please learn how to save parts, make your build lighter, part efficiency.
good night :)
@exosuit of course, a low part count build isn't always a good build. So guys don't be cocky because you make low parts builds.
Using less part to achieve something may be called as part efficient
.
But not every low part build is a part efficient build
I have a super undetailed Kiev-class with 1636 parts but it's because it has so many missiles on it
@KnightOfRen ohwww
@ollielebananiaCFSP
it was a joke
@KnightOfRen well it's 2000 parts not 3000 and the build kind of deserve them
Have you ever heard the tragedy of F-14 the 3000 part?
Its not a story the devs would tell you. Its an SP legend.
@ollielebananiaCFSP Yes, I meant 1000. There are a lot of airplanes that have 1k parts but no cockpit interior, but it still looks good. Mostly because of paneling and such.
I agree, all my high part count builds have interior
@CoolPeach if the parts are usefully used, there's no problem for me. But for exemple making a really tiny thing that you only see rarely on your buind with a lot of parts for nothing isn't good.
While I agree that all builds should at least strive to be somewhat part efficient, a build with a high part count isn’t necessarily flawed. There’s a certain trade-off that needs to be made between details (and accuracy for replicas) and parts, which is up for the creator to decide. Somethings just require more parts to get right.
@FinnZachary once again please stop saying that something sounds rude if it doesn't. I get your point of view, I really do. Even I said that some very high part count build are awesome (I took the zero for exemple). I have sole trouble with english so maybe you took my message wrong and I apologize. I'll say it again but of course people can share and do whatever they want, as you say, it's a sandbox game and it would be boring if everybody had to follow some rules that only a few players have in mind (Like the importance of part efficiency for me). What I wanted to say is that when you share a build to others, it's also nice to think of all the people without a beast pc (ps I do have a good pc, so I really say it for others) or those who want to play with AI or even make videos which really is FPS consuming. I was more talking about those builds who doesn't look like they have so much parts, because yes, it's a flaw. All this is only my opinion of course, for me you can do whatever you want and do it as you please, but I will not see you as a good player if you don't know how to save parts.
"this game is about sharing things to others, not showing who has the best PC with is 5000 parts build"
Wasn't this a sandbox game? if someone has a powerful PC which can run a 5000 parts build, then why can't he share his 5000 parts build?
unefficient parts can be flaws but not evils, changing your wording may bring people closer to what you really mean.
this site gives everyone the chances to share their builds, as long as they didn't break the rules, if you want to show your part-count-control skills, then just do it. if someone tried his best to make a 1000p-like build but finally got a 2000p build, that's not a wrong, unless he raise part counts for raising part counts'sake.
by the way,since the "fuselage" part appeared, we are playing not only SimplePlanes, but also ComplexPlanes, SimpleCars, SimpleWatercrafts, SimpleStarship......we can consider those high-part-count-but-low-look builds as a lack of part-count-control skill, but we needn't label them "right" or "wrong".
I mean, if someone is still being pointed, talked, or laughed at even when playing sandbox games, then this world is too boring and disappointing.
like another bro said, this may sound rude.
@SodiumIodide well your Zero is more like a piece of art, I would never fly it again but it's a true master piece
@YourWife well tell me what takes soooo many parts uh
@Rawhide you can have a detailed plane without too many parts, just check MisterT's Spitfire or my Ta 152
@Red0Bull Smh my head
do you still have your lightsaber?
that's actually a really good idea but it would probably be terrifyingly hard to implement
@raceplaneVIBEZ
@ollielebananiaCFSP i feel the devs should add a feature where you can make subassemblies where you can choose if it is one part or the original amount of parts it was made of.
@ollielebananiaCFSP That's my style. My new plane (not yet posted) has only 66 parts. And it looks pretty good.
Hmm
@ollielebananiaCFSP youd be surprised funny man
This isn't the biggest issue, though I don't like that practically unusable builds get so many upvotes.
@ollielebananiaCFSP I think maybe I may be a bit vague earlier, I do agree with those high part builds that claim they are usable but aren’t but my only thing is when they are what they are said to be, those are the ones I’m referring to with my last comment
(also I probably overreact to these as I build higher part builds, and by all means I just want to make clear I’m not saying this is wrong or false, and my last comment feels snappy and rude looking back on it, apologizes)