@Wiksi123 I second this, that drag point value is...whoo, not great. The number of parts might not be too bad, but yeah heavy drag points and performance cost kills this for me. :/
@WinsWings I did peruse the instructions, hence my question. I just wanted to know how far the believability went for people that decided to build a non-replica, is all. Looks are just one component of that.
On the subject of fictional builds, how 'fictional' is one allowed to go?
. If I entered (and therefore broke my rule to not come back to SP website lol), I have a fictional (strangereal-esque?) nation that utilizes a fictional metal which has the material strength of steel but the weight of, say, a high strength composite/polymer or something. Would that be an instant throwaway entry?
I tried doing something like this a long while ago using a Boeing 787-8. It didn't look all that different from this build even down to the built-up square engines (I added working thrust reversers too, so that was fun.) Very nice. :)
.
What did you do for the windows?
@DafaAdya Yeah I tend to remove drag points from everything except the engine if we're talking just the plane. I'm also leaning towards leaving drag calculation on for pylons, fuel tanks when used in drop tanks, and weapons just for some extra realism.
Hmm, I made a simple MiG-21PF following the rules of WinWing's MAPA challenge, and it spawns in even with the fuel tank part (can take a while but the AI seems to accept it.) Might need to build a second plane to see if I got lucky
I wish this info was known when I started playing SP. I really do. FINALLY someone comes along that actually explains the exact requirements for AI-friendly planes to spawn in. You have my thanks.
.
I will add that the no-drag fuselage trick is just better for builds period; makes balancing realistic speed way easier. Also useful for multiplayer when someone inevitably spawns with a 1000+ part build and wonders why there's lag everywhere lol
@ReinMcDeer I believe this is true, but given the ground clearance (or lack of) the USAF didn't use it that often if at all - the bomber mafia would certainly turn their nose up at this spiffy little hot rod fighter being used as...a fighter. :0
.
I believe other nations did use those launchers on their Starfighters more regularly however.
@Falkenwut In my opinion, the USAF was already sitting on a plane that perfectly fit their wants; The F-5A Freedom Fighter (not the later -5E Tiger II, just to be clear.) Light, small, cheap, no radar, can still use IR missiles, had 20mm cannon (and actually reliable ones unlike the US Navy), and was decently fast and agile. Then again it could carry bombs and rockets too so...lol
Okay but what if I entered the absolute most trash design I could that still fits the bill? Cuz that's pretty much what these "reformers" (read; idiots lol) wanted for the 21st century. ;)
@ReinMcDeer If you're looking for loadout ideas, I'd love to see one that I use a lot for ground strikes in the old Strike Fighters 2 games;
.
4 Sparrows, 4 Sidewinders
1x 600gal centerline tank
18x Mk.82 bombs on two MER and two TER's
.
Was never good at ground attack in that game but was still fun to dump all 18 500lb freedom leaflets on my target lol
"I have no idea who in their right mind thought 14x (AN/)M2 Brownings were a good idea..."
.
...This IS the USA we're talking about here. They clearly did - take what you will from what I'm implying ;)
.
I am legit excited for that Phantom though
Quite stable when flying, rock solid in roll response, the missile bay is cute, and I love the overall style and aesthetic of this build. Not bad at all. :)
.
The only odd thing is lack of cockpit view, but that's only an issue when trying to use the gun. Otherwise I like this a lot
Yo mods plz yell at me if description needs changing; this one definitely feels a bit spicier than my old affair, so...yeah :>
@DatRoadTrainGuy19 I don't do tags, sorry
@teddyone02 uncultured lol
@teddyone02 Could we even say,
.
Bustin' makes you feel good? ~(o.o~) (~o.o)~
@SweetSuccubus ye
.
am b e k
@Goofs102232 Ye.
.
Hmm...might need more time to answer that second question. My brain doesn't work all the time lol
I'm very much psyched to see your F-14 build(s?) come to fruition :>
I see you with that Dave Mustaine gif in the description
+1If German X-Plane, maybe VAK 191 or VJ 101C? :0
I feel like this thing would fit right into the world of Crimson Skies just on the physical design alone. Weird sure, but it's quite aesthetic :)
+4Lookin pretty good, bro. X-54 has best silhouette, Hyena is cool too.
.
Also yeah 5th gen aircraft are pain
Finally
+1If the Shrike only works half the time then just chalk it up to unintended realism ;)
+3@Wiksi123 I second this, that drag point value is...whoo, not great. The number of parts might not be too bad, but yeah heavy drag points and performance cost kills this for me. :/
@WinsWings I did peruse the instructions, hence my question. I just wanted to know how far the believability went for people that decided to build a non-replica, is all. Looks are just one component of that.
+1On the subject of fictional builds, how 'fictional' is one allowed to go?
+1.
If I entered (and therefore broke my rule to not come back to SP website lol), I have a fictional (strangereal-esque?) nation that utilizes a fictional metal which has the material strength of steel but the weight of, say, a high strength composite/polymer or something. Would that be an instant throwaway entry?
I tried doing something like this a long while ago using a Boeing 787-8. It didn't look all that different from this build even down to the built-up square engines (I added working thrust reversers too, so that was fun.) Very nice. :)
+1.
What did you do for the windows?
@DafaAdya Yeah I tend to remove drag points from everything except the engine if we're talking just the plane. I'm also leaning towards leaving drag calculation on for pylons, fuel tanks when used in drop tanks, and weapons just for some extra realism.
+4The stock wings look fine to me. I really like the nose section and the bulges along the sides
Hmm, I made a simple MiG-21PF following the rules of WinWing's MAPA challenge, and it spawns in even with the fuel tank part (can take a while but the AI seems to accept it.) Might need to build a second plane to see if I got lucky
+2I wish this info was known when I started playing SP. I really do. FINALLY someone comes along that actually explains the exact requirements for AI-friendly planes to spawn in. You have my thanks.
+1.
I will add that the no-drag fuselage trick is just better for builds period; makes balancing realistic speed way easier. Also useful for multiplayer when someone inevitably spawns with a 1000+ part build and wonders why there's lag everywhere lol
finally Dutch will get his comeuppance for going on about plans, mangos, and Tahiti instead of lying low like he should have
+2iz verr noice :)
watching the suspension is oddly mesmerizing with how naturally they move. nice
I bet I could recreate the Master of Puppets album art with these
+1@V Absolute chad reference
@Kangy I did the clicky
.
Do I ded nao :0:0:0:0
@ReinMcDeer I believe this is true, but given the ground clearance (or lack of) the USAF didn't use it that often if at all - the bomber mafia would certainly turn their nose up at this spiffy little hot rod fighter being used as...a fighter. :0
+2.
I believe other nations did use those launchers on their Starfighters more regularly however.
I see catamaran launcher B)
+1Adam looks like a nice boi :)
@Falkenwut In my opinion, the USAF was already sitting on a plane that perfectly fit their wants; The F-5A Freedom Fighter (not the later -5E Tiger II, just to be clear.) Light, small, cheap, no radar, can still use IR missiles, had 20mm cannon (and actually reliable ones unlike the US Navy), and was decently fast and agile. Then again it could carry bombs and rockets too so...lol
+1Okay but what if I entered the absolute most trash design I could that still fits the bill? Cuz that's pretty much what these "reformers" (read; idiots lol) wanted for the 21st century. ;)
+2@Sparky6004 Man, hardly anyone even knows about the Marauder. :/
+2.
No I won't make it, for I am the ded lol
@ReinMcDeer Nah, I think they'd be rolling in their graves lol
+2.
Now a 120mm cannon on the other hand...
@donkski See, you can, but Americans can't understand that lol
+2Funny, seems like most people are building 104-Charlies as of late lol
.
You gonna include a tactical nuke?
@ReinMcDeer I have my 600gal from my F-4E still laying around so iz fin :)
+1"Otaku Special"
.
Eeeeyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy I c u derr
:0
+1GLORY TO ARSTOTSKA
+1yo that art looks super nice tho
+1liking the Swordsmen livery on that -14B. very stylish :)
wao :0
+1.
childhood nostalgia right there - even if it does look a little jank at times (it's just SP being SP). Very faithful. nice work :)
:0
@ReinMcDeer If you're looking for loadout ideas, I'd love to see one that I use a lot for ground strikes in the old Strike Fighters 2 games;
+2.
4 Sparrows, 4 Sidewinders
1x 600gal centerline tank
18x Mk.82 bombs on two MER and two TER's
.
Was never good at ground attack in that game but was still fun to dump all 18 500lb freedom leaflets on my target lol
@ReinMcDeer You're fine, I'm just being a glasses-wearing cringe nerd lol
"I have no idea who in their right mind thought 14x (AN/)M2 Brownings were a good idea..."
+1.
...This IS the USA we're talking about here. They clearly did - take what you will from what I'm implying ;)
.
I am legit excited for that Phantom though
I really hope the Phantom is scaled correctly for a short-nose model, cuz I am very picky about that kind of stuff lol
+2whines in the comments :>
+1Quite stable when flying, rock solid in roll response, the missile bay is cute, and I love the overall style and aesthetic of this build. Not bad at all. :)
+1.
The only odd thing is lack of cockpit view, but that's only an issue when trying to use the gun. Otherwise I like this a lot