@asteroidbook345 The F-104 was designed as a fighter, pushed into both the interceptor role (alongside the F-102 and F-101) and fighter-bomber (most infamously by Germany) roles.
Not gonna lie this anime is kinda trashy but I still love it because of all the historical references. This however is seriously impressive and I hope to get as good as this one day.
@CRJ900Pilot The F-4 started life as an advanced version of the F3H equipped with the GE J79 engine and newer radar, but the Navy wasn't impressed with that plan and so McDonnell went back to the draft board and redesigned the entire fighter. Thus the F4H (which became the F-4 after '62) was born.
@Wewee2010 I mean I have a MiG-21-93 I did a month or two back. Could try that out.
.
At some point or another I may do the PFV for funsies. Also redo my old F-13 Fishbed-C in the "new" build style I have.
.
Also easy on caps friend ;)
Hold up...I think that red and black F-14 is based on my old F-14A model. It has my cockpit style and I can clearly see it has the old panel-built "Pancake."
.
Upon closer inspection it totally is. Huh. Interesting.
.
Also I would have loved to have been part of this; I just put together a new F-14A that would've gone perfectly with these ones.
@Diloph Just a typo I'm assuming. :)
.
As I explained towards the bottom of the description, those are called the glove vanes. In simplified terminology they're basically tiny wings that extended out when the Tomcat goes above Mach 1.4 to allow for greater control. In theory they were supposed to let you do 7.5G max turns at supersonic, with wings fully swept. Later in service they were disabled because they added more complexity and...really the Tomcat shouldn't be doing 7.5G at supersonic. Save that kind of pilot stuff for dogfighting.
@SimpleJets Which I managed to program with the Funky Tree system :D However I feel as though I may have gotten the wrong angle threshold cuz i went for 57 degrees of sweep before the spoilers disable themselves. Also I programmed it based on airspeed rather than sweep angle, so I still have much to learn.
.
I am seriously falling in love with the Funky Trees; I took a programming class at community college but that was more like C/C+/C++. This is equally cool though.
@TOMJeb117 I might do a Super-Tomcat as one of the variations, but it's gonna need a totally new cockpit interior to go along with the real upgrades. Plus I really want to figure out how to do a realistic guided bomb that doesn't behave like a missile.
@ChisP I tell you...it was so satisfying to see the Funky Tree statements working the way I wanted them to once I got the syntax and stuff down. The shaping of the "pancake" and the fact I fit basically the entire pilot's instrument panel was pretty cool too.
.
Most surprising was how nicely this thing flew as it was coming together. The F-14 supposedly has a lifting body of sorts and so I stuck a bunch of hidden wings inside the fuselage. The agility I got from doing that was way more than I expected, but it's still smooth too.
@SnoWFLakE0s Doesn't seem to like your name with how I spell it (which is...I'm certain the same as how it's displayed on your profile.) Can't dm, can't friend request. Iz weird.
Looking good so far. Seems like a Challenger 1 or 2 to me, hence the title. :)
.
I was hoping to get some help with a build of mine that's using funky tree stuff, but I can't seem to find you on Discord and such. Iz cool if you're busy.
@ChiChiWerx You know what I've realised the wing area stat isn't just the main wing either and that ticks me off.
.
Tube with wings; perfect description for the Starfighter.
.
I'll try to keep this stuff in mind for next build. :)
@ChiChiWerx I wonder how one could replicate the BLCS in SP. Might be kinda neat to try.
.
I actually took another user's advice and put hidden structural wings in the fuselage to give lifting force for the body. Also I did my best to balance the CoM and CoL to give the best turning performance that was stable (didn't start rolling the opposite direction.) I did cheat a little and set the hidden wings to semi-symmetric, but I thought it might be appropriate.
.
The cockpit view in this build is so nice, I have to agree. I think I had enough usable room to put the other instrument panels inside (resting along the pilot's sides, you'd probably know) and give them sparse detail, but I forgot. It seems correct for the 104-Charlie at least.
@Mustang51 You're okay. This is something totally new to me as well (funky trees and such). I did make sure to mark the Groups as I always do. Hopefully this is something I'll keep experimenting with :)
@Mustang51 Activate 3 does that. It also lowers the slats on the leading edge. The VTOL slider does nothing, but I'm not sure how I can make it disappear from the HUD without totally resetting the input.
@WolfSpark We'll see. Given how I incorporate cockpits with the fuselage cores I create, sometimes these new cockpit details aren't able to be realized in a satisfying way. I don't exactly want to make a plane with...3 gauges on the instrument panel. That's boring to me :/
.
On the flipside I don't feel confident enough in my panelwork to create a FULL interior space. Maybe with the right aircraft I'll give it a shot.
@Tang0five I've never messed with the power multiplier for the jet engines as it never appeared to do what it says, so I've always just stuck the stock engines into my builds and compensated naturally for them. Perhaps the next build I'll try something else.
@Tang0five Ironically the engine I used here has around 3,000lbf thrust more than the real A-4E's J65 engine, so more power would've been less realistic than it already is. More drag point reduction would satisfy that 'more power' thing easily.
.
I could try the wheel thing and see what it does. I seriously don't know what's making it go to the right; MAYBE it's the nosewheel not being absolutely dead center.
.
Also I really wish we had official Cluster bomb weapons. That would've been a little more realistic for SEAD missions (assuming there were any squadrons that flew those with bombs at all), but I wasn't about to kill my computer making my own.
@BigOLSushi Pretty much the same thing everyone else says to do; grab each missile by their detachers (some are slightly hidden by fins, so don't panic) and create a subassembly for them.
Man I wish I could spotlight this bad boy because there was substantial thought put into this build. I am certainly going to try it out, even though my laptop is iffy about builds with 600-700 parts and above. Also no problem on the MiG-21; glad you enjoyed it when I posted it :)
@ChiChiWerx My god dude...THAT is some good critique.
.
In terms of how the jet handled and felt I was completely winging it, but I HAVE learned some general stuff about the Fishbed which let me get a rough idea of what might be appropriate. The MiG-21 does turn well, but it bleeds that airspeed like a dumptruck the tighter you go. Also dropping the tank to gain extra agility worked out nicely, so I was jazzed about that.
.
The build itself I did put about the same effort into as my newest Hornet, especially with the finer details of all the bumps and openings. I missed a couple of bulges on the lower fuselage, but I can live with that. I KNEW I wanted to make a truly silhouette-accurate MiG-21, and I think I did that.
.
No excuse for the landing gear. I hate it too :/
.
I have to wonder if the loadout would be feasible IRL. Those dual R-60 pylons and the R-27's must weigh more than my custom ones do...I'm just about skirting max takeoff weight here which was ~22-23k lbs.
@Mustang51 sonuvagun...
.
Okie, thanks for letting me know. I need to change my R-60 subassembly then. I never worried about it cuz I always fired all of them for testing. That and I forgot.
@MailboxIsMyGender It baffles me why AC7 used the 21bis when the series had the 21-93 in AC5. It would've made far more sense with the SP weapon selection in Skies Unknown because as far as I know, the 21bis cannot use the R-27 missile. It only had a SARH variant of the R-3 Atoll and that weird beam-riding missile.
I want to give major thanks to the user @SnoWFLakE0s for helping me out and providing a funky tree logic statement for the inlet cone, and to @FranzPeterSiegfried for the inspiration and design of the Osean roundel used on the build!
@SnoWFLakE0s I already explained what I wanted, but I guess I'll formalize it a bit here;
.
I'm using a piston with the speed at 50% and the range of motion 0.40. I XML modded the min and max range of the piston to be <0, 0.86> respectively.
.
For speeds above 500mi/hr I want the piston to extend to the full range, so I guess it'd look like this;
.TAS > 500mph, piston extend to "full" (1.0)
.TAS <or= 500mph, piston retracts (0.0)
.
No other variables other than that, so I'm not counting altitude, AoA, etc.
@ChisP Yes, unfortunately the wording of the entry in the beta linernotes might be throwing people off. As I am now understanding it;
.
Multirole missiles in the context of the 1.9 update means I can have, for example, an A2A interceptor and an A2G interceptor loaded onto the same plane and they will appear in the respective weapon modes without errors or weird grossness. Same would go for the Guardian, Cleaver, and the Inferno.
.
I don't know 100% if that helps you since I kinda just explained the same thing as the post, but try that out and see what happens. Take two of the same missile and set one to "function: AirToAir" and the other to "function: AirToSurface." They should work as expected without interfering with each other (for example in earlier builds this would have neutered one missile or the other into picking a single function, or maybe not functioning at all).
@Wewee2010 wut
@asteroidbook345 The F-104 was designed as a fighter, pushed into both the interceptor role (alongside the F-102 and F-101) and fighter-bomber (most infamously by Germany) roles.
Aside from the star not being totally refined (too big and not rotated to match the vertical stabs) this is kinda neat. :)
@Zuig5 Sure, go ahead.
I can already tell this is better than my F-104. Hats off to you friend
Not gonna lie this anime is kinda trashy but I still love it because of all the historical references. This however is seriously impressive and I hope to get as good as this one day.
@ThePilotDude We're just high on our own weebiness X)
@CRJ900Pilot The F-4 started life as an advanced version of the F3H equipped with the GE J79 engine and newer radar, but the Navy wasn't impressed with that plan and so McDonnell went back to the draft board and redesigned the entire fighter. Thus the F4H (which became the F-4 after '62) was born.
@Zuig5 I've been thinking about it. Perhaps at some point I'll give it a shot, and after learning stuff from this F-14 I'm definitely inspired
@Wewee2010 lol
@Wewee2010 I mean I have a MiG-21-93 I did a month or two back. Could try that out.
.
At some point or another I may do the PFV for funsies. Also redo my old F-13 Fishbed-C in the "new" build style I have.
.
Also easy on caps friend ;)
@ACEPILOT109 Ye. I don't mean any of that in a bad way if it came across as such.
Hold up...I think that red and black F-14 is based on my old F-14A model. It has my cockpit style and I can clearly see it has the old panel-built "Pancake."
.
Upon closer inspection it totally is. Huh. Interesting.
.
Also I would have loved to have been part of this; I just put together a new F-14A that would've gone perfectly with these ones.
@MailboxIsMyGender Aww well that doesn't seem fair to everyone else that make dang good stuff.
@Diloph Just a typo I'm assuming. :)
.
As I explained towards the bottom of the description, those are called the glove vanes. In simplified terminology they're basically tiny wings that extended out when the Tomcat goes above Mach 1.4 to allow for greater control. In theory they were supposed to let you do 7.5G max turns at supersonic, with wings fully swept. Later in service they were disabled because they added more complexity and...really the Tomcat shouldn't be doing 7.5G at supersonic. Save that kind of pilot stuff for dogfighting.
@SimpleJets Which I managed to program with the Funky Tree system :D However I feel as though I may have gotten the wrong angle threshold cuz i went for 57 degrees of sweep before the spoilers disable themselves. Also I programmed it based on airspeed rather than sweep angle, so I still have much to learn.
.
I am seriously falling in love with the Funky Trees; I took a programming class at community college but that was more like C/C+/C++. This is equally cool though.
@SimpleJets Thankies :)
@Shippy456 I was certainly hoping to surpass the old one. It's definitely a cleaner build than the first build (especially the pancake).
@Diloph Everything I've seen, read, or heard says otherwise but okie. Also lel F-24
@TOMJeb117 I might do a Super-Tomcat as one of the variations, but it's gonna need a totally new cockpit interior to go along with the real upgrades. Plus I really want to figure out how to do a realistic guided bomb that doesn't behave like a missile.
@ChisP I tell you...it was so satisfying to see the Funky Tree statements working the way I wanted them to once I got the syntax and stuff down. The shaping of the "pancake" and the fact I fit basically the entire pilot's instrument panel was pretty cool too.
.
Most surprising was how nicely this thing flew as it was coming together. The F-14 supposedly has a lifting body of sorts and so I stuck a bunch of hidden wings inside the fuselage. The agility I got from doing that was way more than I expected, but it's still smooth too.
@Kungfuevan Okie dokie
@SnoWFLakE0s Doesn't seem to like your name with how I spell it (which is...I'm certain the same as how it's displayed on your profile.) Can't dm, can't friend request. Iz weird.
Looking good so far. Seems like a Challenger 1 or 2 to me, hence the title. :)
.
I was hoping to get some help with a build of mine that's using funky tree stuff, but I can't seem to find you on Discord and such. Iz cool if you're busy.
@StephenS0 Sorry if you got bored or didn't read. I don't blame you. :)
@Diloph lol ok
@ChiChiWerx You know what I've realised the wing area stat isn't just the main wing either and that ticks me off.
.
Tube with wings; perfect description for the Starfighter.
.
I'll try to keep this stuff in mind for next build. :)
@ChiChiWerx I wonder how one could replicate the BLCS in SP. Might be kinda neat to try.
.
I actually took another user's advice and put hidden structural wings in the fuselage to give lifting force for the body. Also I did my best to balance the CoM and CoL to give the best turning performance that was stable (didn't start rolling the opposite direction.) I did cheat a little and set the hidden wings to semi-symmetric, but I thought it might be appropriate.
.
The cockpit view in this build is so nice, I have to agree. I think I had enough usable room to put the other instrument panels inside (resting along the pilot's sides, you'd probably know) and give them sparse detail, but I forgot. It seems correct for the 104-Charlie at least.
@Mustang51 You're okay. This is something totally new to me as well (funky trees and such). I did make sure to mark the Groups as I always do. Hopefully this is something I'll keep experimenting with :)
@AerialFighterSnakes Thankies :)
@Mustang51 Activate 3 does that. It also lowers the slats on the leading edge. The VTOL slider does nothing, but I'm not sure how I can make it disappear from the HUD without totally resetting the input.
Hi. Just another Mustard fan passing through lol :3
Hee Hee :3
Welcome back friend. I've just built an early A-4E recently so I'm gonna compare this to it. It already looks beautiful. :)
@WolfSpark We'll see. Given how I incorporate cockpits with the fuselage cores I create, sometimes these new cockpit details aren't able to be realized in a satisfying way. I don't exactly want to make a plane with...3 gauges on the instrument panel. That's boring to me :/
.
On the flipside I don't feel confident enough in my panelwork to create a FULL interior space. Maybe with the right aircraft I'll give it a shot.
@Tang0five I've never messed with the power multiplier for the jet engines as it never appeared to do what it says, so I've always just stuck the stock engines into my builds and compensated naturally for them. Perhaps the next build I'll try something else.
@Tang0five Ironically the engine I used here has around 3,000lbf thrust more than the real A-4E's J65 engine, so more power would've been less realistic than it already is. More drag point reduction would satisfy that 'more power' thing easily.
.
I could try the wheel thing and see what it does. I seriously don't know what's making it go to the right; MAYBE it's the nosewheel not being absolutely dead center.
.
Also I really wish we had official Cluster bomb weapons. That would've been a little more realistic for SEAD missions (assuming there were any squadrons that flew those with bombs at all), but I wasn't about to kill my computer making my own.
I can already tell these will work far more realistically than my recent missile pack lol. Cool weapons pack :)
@BigOLSushi Pretty much the same thing everyone else says to do; grab each missile by their detachers (some are slightly hidden by fins, so don't panic) and create a subassembly for them.
@BogdanX Thanks buddy. :)
Man I wish I could spotlight this bad boy because there was substantial thought put into this build. I am certainly going to try it out, even though my laptop is iffy about builds with 600-700 parts and above. Also no problem on the MiG-21; glad you enjoyed it when I posted it :)
God those AIM-9's are beautiful...
.
Nice to see the F-20 Tigershark get some love :)
@SlavicStalin eventually...when I finally rebuild the Su-35 tails with rubber airbrakes x)
@ChiChiWerx My god dude...THAT is some good critique.
.
In terms of how the jet handled and felt I was completely winging it, but I HAVE learned some general stuff about the Fishbed which let me get a rough idea of what might be appropriate. The MiG-21 does turn well, but it bleeds that airspeed like a dumptruck the tighter you go. Also dropping the tank to gain extra agility worked out nicely, so I was jazzed about that.
.
The build itself I did put about the same effort into as my newest Hornet, especially with the finer details of all the bumps and openings. I missed a couple of bulges on the lower fuselage, but I can live with that. I KNEW I wanted to make a truly silhouette-accurate MiG-21, and I think I did that.
.
No excuse for the landing gear. I hate it too :/
.
I have to wonder if the loadout would be feasible IRL. Those dual R-60 pylons and the R-27's must weigh more than my custom ones do...I'm just about skirting max takeoff weight here which was ~22-23k lbs.
@Mustang51 sonuvagun...
.
Okie, thanks for letting me know. I need to change my R-60 subassembly then. I never worried about it cuz I always fired all of them for testing. That and I forgot.
@MailboxIsMyGender It baffles me why AC7 used the 21bis when the series had the 21-93 in AC5. It would've made far more sense with the SP weapon selection in Skies Unknown because as far as I know, the 21bis cannot use the R-27 missile. It only had a SARH variant of the R-3 Atoll and that weird beam-riding missile.
I want to give major thanks to the user @SnoWFLakE0s for helping me out and providing a funky tree logic statement for the inlet cone, and to @FranzPeterSiegfried for the inspiration and design of the Osean roundel used on the build!
@SnoWFLakE0s I already explained what I wanted, but I guess I'll formalize it a bit here;
.
I'm using a piston with the speed at 50% and the range of motion 0.40. I XML modded the min and max range of the piston to be <0, 0.86> respectively.
.
For speeds above 500mi/hr I want the piston to extend to the full range, so I guess it'd look like this;
.TAS > 500mph, piston extend to "full" (1.0)
.TAS <or= 500mph, piston retracts (0.0)
.
No other variables other than that, so I'm not counting altitude, AoA, etc.
@ChisP Yes, unfortunately the wording of the entry in the beta linernotes might be throwing people off. As I am now understanding it;
.
Multirole missiles in the context of the 1.9 update means I can have, for example, an A2A interceptor and an A2G interceptor loaded onto the same plane and they will appear in the respective weapon modes without errors or weird grossness. Same would go for the Guardian, Cleaver, and the Inferno.
.
I don't know 100% if that helps you since I kinda just explained the same thing as the post, but try that out and see what happens. Take two of the same missile and set one to "function: AirToAir" and the other to "function: AirToSurface." They should work as expected without interfering with each other (for example in earlier builds this would have neutered one missile or the other into picking a single function, or maybe not functioning at all).
Honestly this looks better than my Bf-109B. I look forward to this series :)