@RepublicOfCursedPlanes fourth screenshot shows where the pilot sits

Where does the pilot sit lol

I found Hans Klaus' 1917 camera

@brians1209 @PoinX25tlessWhyShouldI
If I came across as patronizing or insulting, I apologize, that wasn't my intent!
I was just trying to offer a relatively simple suggestion as a work-around for the whole (very unfortunate) debacle.

I can see tempers are still high, which I can empathize over, and I'm sorry for bringing that up as I didn't mean to stir things up again. :)

@Formula350
If you have read the previous comments, MAHADI did not expect these type of aircrafts,
therefore he did not mention it in the rules.

We did not add wings on purpose, the concept of the aircraft we were basing it off was 'wingless', that's the concept.
If we were so desperate about the challenge, we would have done it already by ourselves.

If we wanted to make something with wings we would but we didn’t and we won’t. (Also we know how XML works) @Formula350

My suggestion, withdraw this design as your submission.
1) Add wings to those ""wing roots" near where the tail starts.
2) Encase them to look snazzy and match the rest of the build's aesthetics.
3) XML edit all the parts newly added and: Set Mass to 0, Disable Caclulation of Drag, Disable any wing parts' Lift function (making them just structural parts). Since they are now all weightless, dragless, liftless parts, the flight characteristics should theoretically be unchanged!
4) Re-submit the new build which now incorporates "wings", and define it as the fictional precursor to the later-developed wing-less variant; thus, putting you within the requirements of the rules. ^_^

However, I can also appreciate if the entire situation has caused you guys to have lost interest in the challenge and have no motivation to make those modifications in an effort to validate the design.
Challenge aside, it's a great build and clearly a sentiment shared by everyone! :) (Even Mahadi I'd say, since he upvoted it)

@brians1209 I never thought people would make a tubular design for a WWI challenge and I am sorry for that.

@MAHADI
Yeah, I have agreed with the fact that you disqualified me.
But haven't you thought about the confusion you would bring with your vague 'rules'?
And if Pointless and I were the 'first' to be confused and disqualified with your rule, are you going to ignore it because you think that nobody will, and ever had been confused with your rules?

@brians1209 look. I have hosted a handful of challenges. but nobody made something based on multiple timelines and called it a fictional WWI design. and obviously this is my challenge. I can do whatever I want and I obviously can disqualify a build if it doesn't look plausible to me.

@MAHADI

your 'rule'

How could have we known that our build was not realistic enough by your standards in your head when you never mentioned it in the description?
Seems like the rule changes every second.

@MAHADI
what you have said from all the comments
'I would have' / 'I don't think this looks like'
you don't have specific standard. how are players supposed to build aircrafts that fulfill your 'rules' in your head?

@brians1209 I did say to keep it realistic. and by real I meant within the timeline. I never said you can make from alternate timeline. also this doesn't look like from alternate timeline. it is in our timeline however a bit later in the future. so it doesn't count. if you made the Duck I would have allowed it without any questions because I know there were crazy designs like those. but the tubular design is still too much to be considered a WWI plane.

@MAHADI now that I'm disqualified, I just want to ask stuff about what you think, I mean, if you allowed fictional builds, doesn't it mean we have a 'alternate timeline'?
Fictional builds will never come alive.
Anything can happen inside that alternate timeline, I don't really understand why this is such a big deal.

@Vincent Could you please remove this post from the challenge please? Sorry to ask this twice.

DISQUALIFIED @brians1209

@MAHADI Speaking of wings, the elevator, and the vertical stabilizer are also 'wings'.
Just telling, they do produce lift!!!11!!!!!1

@brians1209 look, the tubular design was invented after the war. if you still want to keep this as a WWI challenge entry, I am sorry to say but I have to disqualify it.
and that duck is a completely different plane than yours.

ok but tubes fly pretty well :/ @MAHADI

@MAHADI
Stipa-Carponi, for it has wings, it does not mean the fusealge does not produce lift. You're saying as if a monoplane and a biplane works differently. Its a matter of choice to implement a technology if it is possible. In the Stipa-Carponi, they used both lift produced from a conventional wing and from the fusealge.

We have sent the pic of the duck to tell you that you have not told the standards of what a WWI aircraft for your challenge should look like.

@brians1209 @PoinX25tlessWhyShouldI the Stipa-Caproni and the Goupil duck have at least something called wings. yours don't.

WW1 plane

@MAHADI
What is your standard of 'Oh it looks like a WWI aircraft'?
You have not mentioned any of those in your challenge description.
Also, speaking of '14' years after WWI, try thinking differently, it flew '40'years before the Dornier Aerodyne, what you call as 'Modern Technology' worked quite well.

@brians1209 still, it doesn't look like a plane from the WWI era. I don't care what was made after 14 yrs after WWI. the challenge is clearly for WWI planes. if you make something fictional it has to be based on planes from 1914-1918. I never said this was a physics challenge.