That's actually pretty smart, using the halo of the lights... Although I think it would be more accurate if you used IAS, angle of attack, and the area of the wing/airfoil(including flaps) instead of just g-force
on). But I hope they don't follow suit, and start going around not upvoting builds just because they lack functionality(even if they themselves liked those builds). Going back to your first statement, This is a game, it is meant to be played... as the player sees fit. They make what they want to make, and post what they want to post. Nothing is immediately worthless if there was a good amount of effort put into it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Lastly, a message for the people who are reading this; other people share their builds because thy want to share them. If what they make get a lot of upvotes, so be it. If you want to see a build get more attention(and if you really cared), help them, not just by upvoting. And if it's your own build that you want to see rise(talking to the people not you Mr. PilotDude, your builds are already pretty neat), then I suggest taking better screenshots :)
P.S. Sorry if it's a bit messy. I'm running low on sleep
@ThePilotDude OK thanks!
Also a few comments on your answers:
A game is meant to be played however the user wants to, in any way that would please them. If they want to use the game as a way to design planes(design as in aesthetically), then why not? Why would planes like that be worthless and objectively bad? They were just playing the game, and wanted to share what they made.
Secondly, you didn't say it was bad? then what is "objectively bad" Is that not "bad?" On the point of being undeserving of your upvote, that is your own opinion, and I respect that. But saying that a certain build does not deserve most of it's upvotes? People have different opinions than you. They have different standards. They look for different things in a build. For all we know, there are people on this site looking for nice designs of cars, planes, ships, etc. with no regard for the functionality. You are saying that this mindset is wrong. But is it? Do you have the right to say that these perfectly reasonable actions... are wrong?
This bring us to the next point: subjectivity. Different people base the quality of builds on their own feelings. What they want to look at, what they want to experience. If, for example, there was a build that flew really well, let's say it was a replica, and had a perfect flight model, but it wasn't that good looking. In fact, let's say it looked like trash. No livery, very plain(pun intended; sorry couldn't help it), rough edges, probable took a few minutes. People, would still give it upvotes right? Especially if they saw good comments about that build from players with high statuses. Comments like "good job on the flight model, try working on the design a bit next time." Why can't it be like that for people who prefer design? Why does a build have to be "essentially worthless" and "objectively bad" right off the bat, just because it doesn't fly? Or rather, just because it doesn't meet your standards for functionality.
To set the record straight, I agree with you that more functional builds should get more attention. What I don't, and never will agree on is that builds that don't fly, drive, or float properly, are immediately trash, worthless. It you have the right to upvote and not upvote anything that you want. Same goes for the people who upvote those builds which you think are crap. Sure, many people might agree with you(although, this is most probably a popular opinion among arrogant people who think their builds deserve more attenti
@tarikGR Are you going to be testing this on Android? I haven't tested my aircraft on android, so I'm not sure if it'll work properly(it has a lot of funky trees code, and lag sometimes messes with the FBW)
132.9m in length
250mm guns x 8
speed slower than 14 knots
turns 1 deg a second
I dunno, that sounds like at least a battle cruiser(but with an extremely low draft)
But that aside, very nice build!
@jakes54panhead maybe you forgot the idle switch? Also, if you're using mobile it might not work properly, because for some reason some Funky trees code breaks down for mobile users
@Winterfield @Diloph Why does everyone keep saying "the music tho" The music is really good. It's from a really great movie from my childhood: Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole. Made by the same guy who made Fireflies btw...
@GuyFolk Thanks! It does break though when you move the gun over it slowly at its lowest elevation(didn't spot it and a lot of other things since I wasn't able to test it extensively)
@IceCraftGaming I've just been teaching it some basics of the code. It can solve/make equations by mostly itself, you just have to define the rules and variables properly. I've posted some pics of what I've managed to teach it on the funky trees discord. Unfortunately I've stopped teaching it for a while because I've been a bit busy
@Kittyhawk208 I meant an ai version where the boom actually works and you can refuel from it. Obviously people have made the KC-10 before. It's literally a modified DC-10
@SimpleDynamincs Missing? I'm pretty sure it's still there. There is still space above the weapons bay for structural reinforcement. The reason why it's pinched there is because I was trying to move the peak of the cs area a bit further back so the graph would be more gradual.
Kids these days; they treat everything like facebook
+13That's actually pretty smart, using the halo of the lights... Although I think it would be more accurate if you used IAS, angle of attack, and the area of the wing/airfoil(including flaps) instead of just g-force
+6@KeanuMiis I cannot stress this enough: YOU(and your friends) made this site a warzone. Don't act so innocent about it.
+6Yes goodbye, thank you for turning the sp website into twitter lite
+6Damn that looks amazing
+4Continuing from "attenti":
on). But I hope they don't follow suit, and start going around not upvoting builds just because they lack functionality(even if they themselves liked those builds). Going back to your first statement, This is a game, it is meant to be played... as the player sees fit. They make what they want to make, and post what they want to post. Nothing is immediately worthless if there was a good amount of effort put into it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Lastly, a message for the people who are reading this; other people share their builds because thy want to share them. If what they make get a lot of upvotes, so be it. If you want to see a build get more attention(and if you really cared), help them, not just by upvoting. And if it's your own build that you want to see rise(talking to the people not you Mr. PilotDude, your builds are already pretty neat), then I suggest taking better screenshots :)
P.S. Sorry if it's a bit messy. I'm running low on sleep
+4@ThePilotDude OK thanks!
Also a few comments on your answers:
A game is meant to be played however the user wants to, in any way that would please them. If they want to use the game as a way to design planes(design as in aesthetically), then why not? Why would planes like that be worthless and objectively bad? They were just playing the game, and wanted to share what they made.
Secondly, you didn't say it was bad? then what is "objectively bad" Is that not "bad?" On the point of being undeserving of your upvote, that is your own opinion, and I respect that. But saying that a certain build does not deserve most of it's upvotes? People have different opinions than you. They have different standards. They look for different things in a build. For all we know, there are people on this site looking for nice designs of cars, planes, ships, etc. with no regard for the functionality. You are saying that this mindset is wrong. But is it? Do you have the right to say that these perfectly reasonable actions... are wrong?
This bring us to the next point: subjectivity. Different people base the quality of builds on their own feelings. What they want to look at, what they want to experience. If, for example, there was a build that flew really well, let's say it was a replica, and had a perfect flight model, but it wasn't that good looking. In fact, let's say it looked like trash. No livery, very plain(pun intended; sorry couldn't help it), rough edges, probable took a few minutes. People, would still give it upvotes right? Especially if they saw good comments about that build from players with high statuses. Comments like "good job on the flight model, try working on the design a bit next time." Why can't it be like that for people who prefer design? Why does a build have to be "essentially worthless" and "objectively bad" right off the bat, just because it doesn't fly? Or rather, just because it doesn't meet your standards for functionality.
To set the record straight, I agree with you that more functional builds should get more attention. What I don't, and never will agree on is that builds that don't fly, drive, or float properly, are immediately trash, worthless. It you have the right to upvote and not upvote anything that you want. Same goes for the people who upvote those builds which you think are crap. Sure, many people might agree with you(although, this is most probably a popular opinion among arrogant people who think their builds deserve more attenti
+4Customizable bomb needed(because bombs don't change their explosion radius when scaled, just the explosion animation)
+4Gold best rating
+3@tarikGR Are you going to be testing this on Android? I haven't tested my aircraft on android, so I'm not sure if it'll work properly(it has a lot of funky trees code, and lag sometimes messes with the FBW)
+3Why are the trees speaking vietnamese
+3skynet intensifies
+3.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The AI are taking over!!!
You have a hole in your left wing
+3132.9m in length
+3250mm guns x 8
speed slower than 14 knots
turns 1 deg a second
I dunno, that sounds like at least a battle cruiser(but with an extremely low draft)
But that aside, very nice build!
When you're in a leopard(WW2), and a KV-2 looks at you
+3SimplePlanes MERCH! LES GOO
+2panavia tornado
+2@jakes54panhead maybe you forgot the idle switch? Also, if you're using mobile it might not work properly, because for some reason some Funky trees code breaks down for mobile users
+2bloopers of top gun maverick be like:
+2@TRD6932 Sure, go ahead
+2@BeastHunter
+2@KDnotSpy
@X99STRIKER
@xNotDumb
+2@IceCraftGaming
@Aviator01
hmm I'll probably join this challenge instead, because the stealth challenge seems to be missing
+2@Winterfield @Diloph Why does everyone keep saying "the music tho" The music is really good. It's from a really great movie from my childhood: Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole. Made by the same guy who made Fireflies btw...
+2@GuyFolk Thanks! It does break though when you move the gun over it slowly at its lowest elevation(didn't spot it and a lot of other things since I wasn't able to test it extensively)
+2You can clearly see it's a stealth helicopter
+2So you turned your plane into a tank?
+2I only gave beds to those who listened
+2Those who don't follow quarantine will die, purging the country of dumba*ses
ooh cool! I have that gundam in my collection!
+2@Burtcrusher Oh sorry change Activate3 to Activate1(whoops)
so instead:
+2floor(smooth(clamp01(Activate1), 0.1))(Sees challenge)
+2Me: "Let's see... I've got to have a tank laying around here somewheres... Hmmmm... Nope... Whelp, screw school, it's building time"
@ThomasRoderick Thanks!, oh but I changed the rate of fire of the guns to be as realistic as possible
+2Wow, maybe this can be used for bomber sights or something?
+2noice
+1eyy
+1@ReinMcDeer Mirage IIIE
+1@Krikkit42 there was a recent one with a semi detailed cockpit and CptLiar(FalconDynamics) is also working on one
+1@L0RR3B0RR3 Yes! That's the spirit! A.I.! Funky Trees! WOOO!(It's pretty cool)
+1@IceCraftGaming I've just been teaching it some basics of the code. It can solve/make equations by mostly itself, you just have to define the rules and variables properly. I've posted some pics of what I've managed to teach it on the funky trees discord. Unfortunately I've stopped teaching it for a while because I've been a bit busy
+1@WinsWings Thank youuuu! Awesome challenge! Might make more AI planes from now on because of it
+1@OkaNieba Sure!
+1@rexzion because I needed the cockpit to be in the same place as the refuel probe on the wasp
+1@Magnavox20MS233S They are phasing out the KC-10. It will stop operations completely by September 2024
+1@CL125 hey I saw you too!
+1@Kittyhawk208 I meant an ai version where the boom actually works and you can refuel from it. Obviously people have made the KC-10 before. It's literally a modified DC-10
+1I might join. I need a break from the complex planes and cockpits. Plus, my current project needs a tanker
+1bruh
+1@IceCraftGaming Noot Noot
+1@SimpleDynamincs Missing? I'm pretty sure it's still there. There is still space above the weapons bay for structural reinforcement. The reason why it's pinched there is because I was trying to move the peak of the cs area a bit further back so the graph would be more gradual.
+1awesome
+1