Damn got hir by multiple missiles this thing still standing (Destroyer escort missiles)

@SledDriver Probably the first.

@Belloaka Also, what's simpler: a wing subassembly attached to one rotator, or a complex shape built out of hundreds of independently rotating airbrakes?

@Belloaka I'm just doing what I can with airbrakes. It's a tragedy that SP doesn't have a "cosmetic" rotator that simply rotates the parts attached to it without affecting physics.

@SledDriver Yes, I like that in your builds. I also like that you harness the power of airbrakes to get really cool but simple movements.

@Belloaka I always aim for maximum freedom: all you need to fly any of my builds is to throttle up, my weapon systems are as simple as possible, and the functionality of my builds let you do pretty much anything it's possible to do in the sandbox. As for creativity, I've released a bunch of flight modules and other subassemblies to enable people to build whatever they want.

@SledDriver yeah, I try to stay away from super specific instructions. Though I do let people know how to control the plane still allowing for plenty of freedom and creativity on their part.

@Belloaka Yeah, I like the fact that I can perfect a flight module once, then reuse it in multiple builds. So if I'm making a sci-fi or fun build like my X-Wing, I can use my 100,000 lb "fun" flight module; if I build a precision bomber I can use my 500,000 lb "heavy bomber" flight module, and so on.

Another benefit of this is that I and the people who download my builds don't need to "train" on each new build to be able to fly it well. You don't need to rack up those flight hours for each new build; if you've flown a build with the same flight module before, that experience transfers across seamlessly. One of the things that keeps me from enjoying a lot of the builds posted on SP is the very specific instructions: enable AG1, set throttle to 17%, set VTOL to 25% while touching your nose with your left hand, pitch up exactly 38%, etc.

Yes, @SledDriver I agree, the most important thing is performance. And I like the idea of build consistency. Where you can have the same basic control system for each plane. Regardless of the shade or outward appearance.

@Belloaka Symmetry is optional, the main benefit is build quality -- you get that machine-like precision with every shape instead of the rough approximation that handmade builds can achieve.

@SledDriver Yeah, that's a smart thing to do. That way you can make all your planes perfectly symmetrically shaped.

@Belloaka I know, right? That's why I wrote software to do the calculations for me. It's such an obvious thing to do.

Cool, @SledDriver I've tried to do some perfect fuselage shaping manually and it is really hard. It requires a calculator and a lot of time and patience.

@Belloaka All the calculations are done by my own software. Before you ask, no, that's not the reason I don't build accurately-sized replicas.

May I ask, what software do you use to calculate the size of each fuselage, or do you just do it yourself?

@Brendorkus Tell me about it. It sounds like somebody whacking a chair with a wooden plank, which is almost certainly what it is. We should start a kickstarter or something to pay for better sound effects.

Thank you! I absolutely despise the sound of the cannon. @SledDriver

@Brendorkus Set launchVolume="0" on the cannon.

The main thing that I love about this build is the fact that the cannons don’t make sound. How did you do that? @SledDriver

@SledDriver hah

@Trijets Oh, right, now I remember. Terrible movie.

@SledDriver Red Tails is a movie

@Trijets Never played Red Tails, but yeah.

Destroys ships with machine guns just like in Red Tails :P

@SteadfastContracting Thanks, a 'fun' flight model is the whole idea.