T

@TheFlightGuySP makes sense

@phrongus I know this. I simply chose this method a few months ago and have stuck with it since then.
Simply a preference of mine, and it also has some nice advantages.

@TheFlightGuySP you could just make an (almost) invisible flight model by scaling down large wings and hiding them inside the fuselage

@IceCraftGaming Haha, thanks. It's not making the shell that's hard though; that's easy. It's adjusting all 34 individual wing panels to fit near-perfectly into the fuselage sections using the XML editor to manually adjust wing coordinates to very specific numbers that's a bit challenging (or at least time consuming).

@TheFlightGuySP gotta say though, sure did pay off. Looks very smooth

@IceCraftGaming @AlbertanPlaneMaker If I didn't make custom wings the hard way then this amount of segments wouldn't be of any concern, but as you may have guessed I do do it the hard way...

rookie numbers

@TheFlightGuySP Yes, The Curved Control Surfaces Make That Impossible .

@MrCOPTY Interesting. I'm not sure how well it would work on this though, since the control surfaces are curved instead of straight.
If you nudge a hinge rotator into just the right position, it should move just fine.

@TheFlightGuySP Using Small Rotator For Control Surfaces Make Theme Move Better, Look At This

@ollielebananiaCFSP It probably is. I just favor it for whatever reason over the more efficient scaling method.
Thanks for the suggestion though.

@TheFlightGuySP just sounds like a waste of parts and a difficult way to make a correct flight model.
but it's your build :)

@ollielebananiaCFSP It's simply a preference of mine. A time consuming one? Yes. But so far the results I've gotten from using this technique have been pretty good.

why would you put multiple wing panels instead of a scaled one on both sides ?

T

@jamesPLANESii I also needed something for the title, and this is what came to mind, so I stuck with it.

@DvalinAirlines Nope. Entirely different.
I might consider an interceptor role for this thing though (like the Gluhareff Dart), depending on how it performs.

@jamesPLANESii Normally yes.

In my case however, it becomes a bit much when several (if not all) of the segments that make up the wings have to have wing panels hidden inside. Those wing panels also have to be manually adjusted using the XML editor (changing things like rootTrailingOffset to something like 0.437875, then repeating it four times for every wing panel). There are easier options (like scaling down a single wing section), but where's the fun in that?

I realize that this is nothing compared to the paneling masterpieces or the 2000+ part replicas, but it's still going to be a time consuming task.

Gluhareff 'Dart' ?

that's a pretty standard number of sections

@temporaryplanetester Thank you, kind user. Your request to have your unique user identifier typed into the comment section of the shown creation shall be fulfilled when the time for publishing of the shown creation arrives.

dunno what this is but I'm curious, ahem...

Greetings my good sir, I write this to kindly request that you type my unique user identifier (a.k.a. "username") preceded by an "@" on the event that you share this creation, so that I may be made aware of its availability and therefore, can utilize it.
— Yours truly, Korzalerke.