I try to always make sure my replicas handle well. With the right XML tweaks pretty much any airplane can be tuned for performance without sacrificing looks. I also try to give them somewhat realistic handling at least for their role. A fighter needs to pitch and roll quickly, an interceptor needs straight line speed and stability, a bomber needs stability and weight, ground attack aircraft need speed and maneuverability, etc.
Also, @NovaTopaz, I agree with you completely. A jet may look cool and be really fast, but if it's got pitch issues or a turning circle the size of Texas, it's going to be handicapped.
@AviownCorp Not all, and most certainly not me. There is a few minor exception's(ConSon's older creations, which most couldn't even do what they were made to look like, but they looked cool nether the less. But these days, creations that are only for looks won't go too much of anywhere if they can't do something other than sit and look pretty.), but for the most part, looks will only get you so far. It's like I always say in BSC(or really, any game like it). It may look like a really nice ship, but how long will it last facing a super ship that doesn't care for looks? Performance matters much, much, much more than looks in my opinion. Looks may get someone's attention(and maybe some upvotes), but Performance takes up the majority of the way people will respond and give feedback on.
@AviownCorp ahh, my mistake, I misread your post. Yeah, non-replicas don't have so much of an excuse unless there was some other feature that they really wanted to include
Performance above all else, regardless of aircraft or type(including replicas. Sure, it may look good, but can it fly like said jet? If not, it makes it kinda poor regardless of it's looks, to me at least). And any aircraft that doesnn't will get it eventually
@AviownCorp sometimes keeping a replica accurate makes good performance more or less impossible. So long as it is at least flyable I don't mind, though, it doesn't have to be especially fast or agile
@KingDeadshot edit means xml edit?
@AgDynamics yes I am agree with you. But I always prefer performance over looks
@AgDynamics Well, yeah. There is also acceleration and other things, but yeah, agreed.
I try to always make sure my replicas handle well. With the right XML tweaks pretty much any airplane can be tuned for performance without sacrificing looks. I also try to give them somewhat realistic handling at least for their role. A fighter needs to pitch and roll quickly, an interceptor needs straight line speed and stability, a bomber needs stability and weight, ground attack aircraft need speed and maneuverability, etc.
Also, @NovaTopaz, I agree with you completely. A jet may look cool and be really fast, but if it's got pitch issues or a turning circle the size of Texas, it's going to be handicapped.
I always do crude tests on my planes before uploading
@lucasmah yes even I go for it too
@NovaTopaz yes I am agree with you. Performance should be the first choice. That's why I don't want to make replicas.
@AeroEngineering actually this is what I prefer
@AviownCorp I ALWAYS go for performance, even in replicas.
@AviownCorp Not all, and most certainly not me. There is a few minor exception's(ConSon's older creations, which most couldn't even do what they were made to look like, but they looked cool nether the less. But these days, creations that are only for looks won't go too much of anywhere if they can't do something other than sit and look pretty.), but for the most part, looks will only get you so far. It's like I always say in BSC(or really, any game like it). It may look like a really nice ship, but how long will it last facing a super ship that doesn't care for looks? Performance matters much, much, much more than looks in my opinion. Looks may get someone's attention(and maybe some upvotes), but Performance takes up the majority of the way people will respond and give feedback on.
I usually putperformance over looks, expert when I have a specific look for my plane or I'm building a replica
@ronyseptian17 I am agree with you
@NovaTopaz but people here go for the look first
@AviownCorp don't agree with me
@AviownCorp ahh, my mistake, I misread your post. Yeah, non-replicas don't have so much of an excuse unless there was some other feature that they really wanted to include
Performance above all else, regardless of aircraft or type(including replicas. Sure, it may look good, but can it fly like said jet? If not, it makes it kinda poor regardless of it's looks, to me at least). And any aircraft that doesnn't will get it eventually
@Skua I have said about non-replicas
@AviownCorp sometimes keeping a replica accurate makes good performance more or less impossible. So long as it is at least flyable I don't mind, though, it doesn't have to be especially fast or agile
@sidcgr Yes I have seen you have upvoted my planes. Thank you very much friend. You are a good builder too
@Skua I have seen many non-repicas with super look but poor performance. Yet they became featured and hottest
@Delphinus I have tried your shark like boat! Just excellent!
@ronyseptian17 don't what?
Depends on the plane. If it's a replica then looks usually come first, otherwise performance
Yes,i agree. But maybe they are don't