@TTL Oh well, my bad for misunderstanding then, the wording just made it sound a bit like as if you are trying to make me look like a hypocrite (given that my most recent build is exactly 2k parts I thought you were referring to that). I apologize for the misunderstanding
@TTL And I never said that. My 2k+ part builds are definitely not low part, I never even claimed that, but the way they are built is still efficient because I used methods that create the same amount of detail but with fewer parts than it would otherwise take. If they were inefficient, they would be twice the part count
Had no intention of insult or envy, but Part Efficient Aircraft or PEA is way more popular than my Surface Props/Targets creations.
.
Let me tell you a story, back in the day when I was first played SP and joined this site, I invented some static, stationary vehicles with an extremely low parts as low as possible, intended for a target practice (Target type) or world decoration (Prop type). At first stage it is so booming for my page and it helps me to gain large amount of points and ranked up. But unlike PEA, only a very small amount of users are making their own version of my Surface Targets or Props.
@Default4. Check BMilan's latest reply. I'm pretty sure he already have mentioned things I meant to say. Again, as he mentioned on one of his comments, low part ≠ efficiency.
@Default4 Let'S take a look at some of Chii's original PEA builds, I think they represent what PEA should be about very well.
Take a look at this one:
- uses labels for the roundels
- uses sliced fuselages to make the structural beams on both sides on the wing (also for the landing gear as well)
- uses a single part with different edges to make that curved cover for the wheels
- uses a fuselage cone for the structure behind the pilot
- uses curved edge fuselages for the tail fins
Or look at this one:
- once again, it uses slicing at multiple places to save on parts (including the structural beams of the engines, or the windows on the side)
- uses a single stretched ball part for the engine pods
- curved edge fuselages on the tail fins to add just a little bit of extra detail
Both of these builds also represent the shape and look of the aircraft very well (I didn't match them up with blueprints but I'm willing to assume if I did, they'd match up perfectly. This is another thing I often see about recent PEA builds, that they are just eyeballed and not bothering to actually follow the aircraft's dimensions) and they use some creative solutions to add just a little bit more detail to the build, or to save on parts. They are "genius" in terms that they use very clever solutions to actually lower the part count as much as possible. Most recent PEA builds wouldn't do these. If you don't mind, I don't want to go through the recent brainrot PEAs to find one newer example of what I'm talking about, but I hope you get the idea.
Anyway, I'm glad someone made this post about the poor quality of PEA and it didn't cause too much drama and the post wasn't deleted (it hasn't been yet).
The problem with PEA is that most players seem to misunderstand the meaning of it:
low part count =/= efficiency.
Most users seem to think that just building a simple plane with like 50 parts counts as efficiency and the mindlessly brand it as "PEA". Efficiency is when you come up with a solution that creates the same or almost the same result but with fewer parts than before. To give you a simple example: using a fuselage cone to make the plane's nose instead of using half a dozen fuselage segments for it, that's efficiency. Another example would be to let's say, using label images to make the roundel on the fuselage, instead of building it, that's efficiency. Or let's say I use fuselage slicing to build the railings on my ship on both sides at one, that's efficiency. I could list more examples but you get the idea. Now what many players are uploading as "PEA", are sometimes the exact opposite of this. I've seen some that are very wasteful with parts, use no creative solutions at all and are just simply low detail. That's not efficiency, that's just a low part plane. And that's the problem with PEA, that half the users are just using it as an excuse for low detail (and sometimes low effort) planes, acting like as if they did it in the name of efficiency. That being said, I'm not saying all PEA is like this, there are many PEA builds that are actually efficient and use genius solutions. What I'm saying is that a huge percentage of the PEA builds are what I described previously.
PEA is a good idea that are often executed horribly. While it is true that keeping the part count low is a feat, creating a good model for it is another. Most players (I assume) create PEAs to mass produce builds. PEAs that took effort to build are uncommon and those who make them actually exert effort to give it a somewhat-decent (or on-par) performance compared to other aircraft of similar model (which takes time). Mostly, PEAs are just builds that has low parts although lacks certain effort on the model itself. PEAs are 'annoying' because they are everywhere and because nearly everyone can create a horrible model and call it a PEA.
While I do not think that PEAs are terrible, there is an abundance of PEAs that really needs a lot effort.
I agree with you and it sucks that PEAs got out of hand so now everyone is on the bandwagon.
@Majakalona
First of all, another wronged artwork
Second of all, you are bouncydogfuneral and you won't change my mind
Third of all, is that literally the only insult you have for me lol
@SILVERPANZER The first one confuses me too honestly, can't tell the difference between AI and PEA, but I think PEA requires 96 parts maximum while AI can go to like ~100 I think
And Monarchii didn't stop overseeing PEA, he indefinitely left the SP community to focus on important things going on in real life
@TTL Thanks, Im glad you liked my builds:)
@BMilan It’s fine man
I don’t think id call you a hypocrite, you’re like a hero to me, made amazing builds I played with when I was younger.
@TTL Oh well, my bad for misunderstanding then, the wording just made it sound a bit like as if you are trying to make me look like a hypocrite (given that my most recent build is exactly 2k parts I thought you were referring to that). I apologize for the misunderstanding
@BMilan wait wait I meant it as a joke
@TTL And I never said that. My 2k+ part builds are definitely not low part, I never even claimed that, but the way they are built is still efficient because I used methods that create the same amount of detail but with fewer parts than it would otherwise take. If they were inefficient, they would be twice the part count
@BMilan low part=/=2000 props
But I actually have to say, PEA is such a revolutionary creation or even genre of SimplePlanes.
Had no intention of insult or envy, but Part Efficient Aircraft or PEA is way more popular than my Surface Props/Targets creations.
.
Let me tell you a story, back in the day when I was first played SP and joined this site, I invented some static, stationary vehicles with an extremely low parts as low as possible, intended for a target practice (Target type) or world decoration (Prop type). At first stage it is so booming for my page and it helps me to gain large amount of points and ranked up. But unlike PEA, only a very small amount of users are making their own version of my Surface Targets or Props.
90% shitty low part builds 10% actual efficient builds
@Default4. Check BMilan's latest reply. I'm pretty sure he already have mentioned things I meant to say. Again, as he mentioned on one of his comments, low part ≠ efficiency.
@Default4 Let'S take a look at some of Chii's original PEA builds, I think they represent what PEA should be about very well.
Take a look at this one:
- uses labels for the roundels
- uses sliced fuselages to make the structural beams on both sides on the wing (also for the landing gear as well)
- uses a single part with different edges to make that curved cover for the wheels
- uses a fuselage cone for the structure behind the pilot
- uses curved edge fuselages for the tail fins
Or look at this one:
- once again, it uses slicing at multiple places to save on parts (including the structural beams of the engines, or the windows on the side)
- uses a single stretched ball part for the engine pods
- curved edge fuselages on the tail fins to add just a little bit of extra detail
Both of these builds also represent the shape and look of the aircraft very well (I didn't match them up with blueprints but I'm willing to assume if I did, they'd match up perfectly. This is another thing I often see about recent PEA builds, that they are just eyeballed and not bothering to actually follow the aircraft's dimensions) and they use some creative solutions to add just a little bit more detail to the build, or to save on parts. They are "genius" in terms that they use very clever solutions to actually lower the part count as much as possible. Most recent PEA builds wouldn't do these. If you don't mind, I don't want to go through the recent brainrot PEAs to find one newer example of what I'm talking about, but I hope you get the idea.
@BMilan Where are these genius PEA aircraft? I genuinely have yet to find one
@ShiroNeko "often" Please report back with an accurately modeled pea aircraft. I'm quite intrigued
Anyway, I'm glad someone made this post about the poor quality of PEA and it didn't cause too much drama and the post wasn't deleted (it hasn't been yet).
The problem with PEA is that most players seem to misunderstand the meaning of it:
low part count =/= efficiency.
Most users seem to think that just building a simple plane with like 50 parts counts as efficiency and the mindlessly brand it as "PEA". Efficiency is when you come up with a solution that creates the same or almost the same result but with fewer parts than before. To give you a simple example: using a fuselage cone to make the plane's nose instead of using half a dozen fuselage segments for it, that's efficiency. Another example would be to let's say, using label images to make the roundel on the fuselage, instead of building it, that's efficiency. Or let's say I use fuselage slicing to build the railings on my ship on both sides at one, that's efficiency. I could list more examples but you get the idea. Now what many players are uploading as "PEA", are sometimes the exact opposite of this. I've seen some that are very wasteful with parts, use no creative solutions at all and are just simply low detail. That's not efficiency, that's just a low part plane. And that's the problem with PEA, that half the users are just using it as an excuse for low detail (and sometimes low effort) planes, acting like as if they did it in the name of efficiency. That being said, I'm not saying all PEA is like this, there are many PEA builds that are actually efficient and use genius solutions. What I'm saying is that a huge percentage of the PEA builds are what I described previously.
PEA is a good idea that are often executed horribly. While it is true that keeping the part count low is a feat, creating a good model for it is another. Most players (I assume) create PEAs to mass produce builds. PEAs that took effort to build are uncommon and those who make them actually exert effort to give it a somewhat-decent (or on-par) performance compared to other aircraft of similar model (which takes time). Mostly, PEAs are just builds that has low parts although lacks certain effort on the model itself. PEAs are 'annoying' because they are everywhere and because nearly everyone can create a horrible model and call it a PEA.
While I do not think that PEAs are terrible, there is an abundance of PEAs that really needs a lot effort.
I agree with you and it sucks that PEAs got out of hand so now everyone is on the bandwagon.
@Majakalona okay but like
What does that got to do with this?
@TheUltimatePlaneLover on some of your posts it says "This is a cry for help"
And I don't think anyone is even answering them..
@Majakalona ??
@TheUltimatePlaneLover your cries of help aren't working, nobody is answering them and this is what's come out of it.
@Majakalona y'are
@TheUltimatePlaneLover I'm not bouncydogfuneral
@Majakalona
First of all, another wronged artwork
Second of all, you are bouncydogfuneral and you won't change my mind
Third of all, is that literally the only insult you have for me lol
@SILVERPANZER The first one confuses me too honestly, can't tell the difference between AI and PEA, but I think PEA requires 96 parts maximum while AI can go to like ~100 I think
And Monarchii didn't stop overseeing PEA, he indefinitely left the SP community to focus on important things going on in real life
@TheUltimatePlaneLover says the same one who defends skibidy toilet.