Hello,

I wrote up a lion's list of wishful items a while back and I've returned to bug you all with my newest wish list ... some may be repeats but I think most are new, at least, for me.

1. The option to either select for a canopy (or other part) to be of semi-gloss transparency for a whole new level of detail in cockpit work. I'm not talking completely invisible, its the same principle as the mirroring effect only that it reveals what is on the other side of the aircraft from that angle - and what is concealed within. Working on a warship really made me want to doll up a bridge but I wanted it to at least appear to have glazing covering it. Ultimately my part count went way above and beyond any other project I've undertaken so I gave up the idea this time around. For the stock cockpits and those that either cannot or do not know how to XML mod I also recommend the option to add the silhouette of a pilot figure at the least.

2. I know I mentioned this one in my last list but I again request the application of a hinge appliance that is in the vicinity of the thickness of a wing to 0.25 in height. Rotators can be used as a hinge with enough room and creativity but to do so requires the project to be built far out of scale.

3. If the hinge is not possible how about single direction rotators in the gizmo section that will only pivot in one direction and then back to its default state? Perhaps since it does not require the flexibility to move equally in both directions it can be perhaps 0.5 by 0.5? This would be great for everyone I think. At least there will be no errors in retracting custom gear or bomb bay doors in the wrong direction causing a catastrophic situation for the aircraft!

4. Further on rotators, is there nothing that can be done about the torque situation with these things?? This morning while testing a reasonably light turret that can rotate 90 degrees, the torque was strong enough to actually move my 450-ish ton ship by several degrees, while immobile on the water, though the rotator speed was only set at 50%.

5. I would like a T500 introduced that can go from 50-200 HP.

6. I think two new gizmos would be nice for players - aerial radar and surface radar that does not try to lock onto targets but just reveals where they are beyond weapon range. Perhaps this could be an option for fuselage cones and/or nose cones, naturally increasing their weight of course.

7. Could you per chance separate the propeller assemblies from the current and suggested T500 giving us an option of different propeller types, no spinner (WW1-like), bare spinner (B-17, P-47, etc.), a spinner with a rounded point, a spinner with a pointed tip and a spinner that is concave at the tip?

8. While I love the T1000 I think it should be capable of even higher performance than 1,000 HP. It is, after all, our only option for an "inline engine" configuration and there were many such engines far more powerful than 1,000 HP - just look at the SimplePlanes favorite, the P-51 Mustang 2.0. She's lacking in many areas of the real deal even or especially so as a racing plane. Consider this; How about we combine the T1000 and T2000 and make it the new T3000 where you can opt between "Radial - Air Cooled" or "Inline - Liquid Cooled" and the result is the appearance of the T1000 or T2000 but with up to a maximum of 3,000 HP. This would account for the MANY historically weaker radial engines and historically more powerful inline engines. I believe that the weight of the engine should be calculated via a formula on the horsepower.

9. Although the Inline Engines have the advantage in being more aerodynamic I think we need to take into account the same thing we do with our jets. Essentially all inline engines have an air intake to expose the radiator to cool down the liquid that prevents the engine from overheating. In both cases though we NEED to have further intake options and the addition of exhaust options, whether a straight pipe, a bank of separate pipes, etc. There were a myriad of types throughout history.

10. I've only begun to delve into building other mobile objects besides aircraft but I'm already seeing the limitations in terms of creativity. By separating the propeller assembly you leave other options open as well. For example, a T1000 could be mounted behind and under the cockpit turning a drive train that leads to the nose. A great builder produced a beautiful P-63 Kingcobra just days ago but it got me to thinking; Her balance is all off from the real thing as a result of our limitations. (Granted, it flies great - but if built in the customary way it would be far better!)

11. I know I mentioned this in my last post but I'll throw this in here again; Spinner mounted guns. Many highly successful designs of fighters featured spinner mounted machine guns or cannons. I think the simple most conclusion would be to allow the wing gun to "grab" at the centermost point of a spinner the way it does with a wing at least until light cannons are introduced as in the previous mentions of a "ship parts update."

12. Previously I requested the propeller assembly to be separated from the T1000, T2000, the suggested T500 and/or the suggested new T3000. (The original T3000 will be mentioned below.) This was not merely a whim looking for higher part counts but preparation. I mentioned a drive train, preferably of adjustable length, be added to drive propellers further from the engine. In terms of basic tools though we are still missing an important one. Rope and pulley which translates mechanically to a flexible multi-purpose part, which could be interpretted as a belt, a cable or a chain with a pulley or sprocket that can attach to engines, drive trains and rotators. Thus instead of relying on jet engines to control our ground vehicles we can actually produce vehicles in the game that have practical fuel economy and further increase the creativity of our members. (Each drive train that deviates from the primary would divide the horsepower between the branches. Drive trains would also have to be able to be chosen as Inverted or Not.) It would also lead to the addition of new features for some of our ships; A functioning underwater propeller arrangement would be VERY possible and an arrestor cable would be possible so long as the rotators can be set up so that they provide limited resistance but don't work as a catapult to fling the aircraft off the back of the ship. XD

13. This leads me to my next request, this time for landing gear. I mentioned previously that we need more single wheel landing gear and a more practical system for making them larger or smaller. Our builds are severely limited both by strut length and wheel size at the present. A practical single tailwheel assembly, both retractable and fixed is so needed I practically BEG you for them. (They'd be far lighter than the existing dual wheel and retractable dual wheel already available. Consider this. Your' old crash test dummy that has since been removed from the game indicates that the existing tailwheels, by scale, are about waist high. Either way a tailwheel should not be of the same size as the main gear.) That aside, my real request this time goes hand in hand with the introduction of pulleys, gears and the multi-functional flexible part; An arrestor hook. I do not think this should automatically lower with the main landing gear but instead be set to lower and raise with an AG and the VTOL slider.

14. I believe nudging should be introduced in the starter tutorial.

15. If you cannot fix the existing fuselage block's curved feature I believe a NEW fuselage block should be introduced as "tubular fuselage block" that even at 5x5 will retain it's tubular shape. Very few modern airliners let alone aircraft going way back looked like boxes with curved edges - for those that did have that appearance we have that already with the smooth edges.

16. While XML modding might not be all that difficult few players are going to attempt to learn it. Thus I make this request on behalf of all we non XML modding players - reduce the minium height/width of parts to 0.25 AND make it so that not only the length but height and width reduce/increase by 0.25. This would allow for far greater creativity and customization. Think of the beautiful tapering fuselages without such major sudden changes in height/width. I also ask that the length/height/width of parts be increased from 5x5 to 10x10. With a reduced part count creations like ships and airliners can be made more mobile friendly.

17. Increase the option of existing control surface functions by one; elevons to either control both pitch and roll in flying wings OR to act primarily as elevators but to aid in rolls.

18. Although possible through nudging two wings together it shouldn't be exclusive to such features - I suggest a new control surface to be added. I am unsure of it's technical name but it replaces rudder control in flying wing designs by a control surface that splits horizontally with one part going above the wing and the other below.

19. While brought up ad nauseum, including my last part request, I again ask for the inclusion of a flap control surface that can only be used via the use of an AG and one method chosen or another. The best would be the VTOL slider of course. YES I know flaps are easily made through rotators and structural wings but those additions are heavy and limit it to larger aircraft.

20. For the love of all that is either holy or unholy can we get a couple more action groups?! Whose bright idea was it to stop with 8? Is that person one who would answer the question; "How many fingers do you have," with "eight since the other two are thumbs?" lol Jokes aside another pair of AGs linked to 9 and 0 would be immensely helpful for complicated projects.

21. I nearly forgot the actual T3000! While it has an intake built into it, which is good, I think could be redesigned so that it is still as long as it presently is but not as tall by omitting the built in intake in favor of a slim intake that can be placed elsewhere OR two of the new intakes for the "new T3000" I mentioned earlier. Something ALL turboprop engines need though is an exhaust as they are a variation on a turbine engine that rotates the propeller it needs a way for those hot gasses to escape.

22. Modern turbofans and turboprops are often capable of reverse thrusting to slow down and assist in braking. Naturally it takes a little bit of time for the engine to slow in its normal rotation and go into reverse thrust. I think this function should be added to the existing T3000 (hopefully the future T4000) and to both turbofan types.

23. With the new system of drive trains and gearing I think it is time to introduce a true helicopter drive system. Helicopters function through a system of vertical thrust, with slight rotor blade adjustments to lead to pitching forward or backward to gain forward or rearward momentum. Rolling is also possible through the same mechanism. In some helicopters yaw might also be possible through this means but typically the main rotor causes enough torque that it requires a counter rotor mounted at the side of the tail. Yaw is then controlled via this tail rotor. The tail rotor, to my knowledge, never has its own engine but instead is controlled by a drive train that leads back from the primary engine(s). Many helicopters today use turbines for power, including most if not all military helicopters. Thus I propose that a few turbines with an attachment for a specialized rotor assembly of adjustable size, number and shaped blades be made available with an obvious attachment point at the back of the turbine assemblies for the drive train. These will also require the use of intakes and exhausts. Furthermore for early helicopters, through the use of drive trains these specialized rotating control surfaces could also be mounted on the other engine types - provided they have the power to lift the aircraft.

24. This final suggestion is not about parts but rather about the AI in sandbox mode. While in the first day or two I think I saw one plane fire a missile randomly at a hillside I have not had a single aircraft, even when locked onto, use their missiles. I've seen them try to ram and use their guns. I think it would make the dogfights a bit more interesting in that mode if they would engage you after you've tried to obtain missile lock with their own. Which reminds me, I've noticed that air to air kills made with missiles do NOT count towards the Ace of Aces achievement. Was this intentional, since all of Hartmann's 352 kills were made exclusively with guns, or was this an oversight?

That's it this time around~

D.A.