@FRIGGLES it's the best aiming system currently available for artillery. Camera is very accurate, especially with zoom. And you get to look at the fancy build while shooting stuff.
While it could use a bit of refinement, it's really good for its part count. Pilot view is great. Might be a bit too agile for a medium bomber, and acceleration is too quick. I advise reducing engine power and reducing drag so it can get to the same max speed slower.
Overall, nice build. I enjoyed playing with it.
@Chillybaconface it's a HUD. Why should we bother? I trust Juan enough to believe the pictures he provided, knowing his previous builds, and I have nothing to put it on. Still, I find it a good part, cleverly put together in decent or better quality, making it worth the upvote.
@AdvisedPotato @Griffon1 use a rotator. Time it precisely to counter the retraction of the landing gear. Works for wing landing gear only, as the others retract into their own housing.
Acceleration is a bit hard. You should have reduced drag and power. Other than that, very nice bird, especially for the part count. I enjoyed playing with it.
The shape and flight model are great, but the build is unfinished and there's z fighting (colors glitching) on control surfaces. I think it can be properly finished with an hour or so of work.
Every game must run out of updates at some point. I can't envision any further major gamechangers like fuselage cutting. However, this community has managed to keep making great content for a year between updates. I don't think we'll get bored of it anytime soon.
Besides, this update will allow users with lower end devices to produce great builds, and will make the learning curve a lot less steap for new guys.
I agree with CoolPeach. Purpose of stock builds is to teach new builders what is possible in this game, and they should range in complexity from the ugly and boring Kicking Fish to sculpted builds like the new Mustang, and should demonstrate various building methods and options like funky trees. Besides, potatoes that can't run 300 parts are usually old phones which are getting pretty rare. Most newer low end devices can handle over 500.
Frankly, I was expecting more. You have a very good base here, but you should have invested a bit more into tweaking performance, adding some gauges, engine details, and making a proper gun. The one you have is a box on a stick with a pipe in it. Turret ring and a simple machine gun would have only taken additional dozen or so parts. Also, having machine gun fire regardless of activation group while allowing tail to take damage is bad. Accidentally pressing the trigger blows the tail fin off. I suggest setting the machine gun to activate1, setting machine gun rotators to activate1, and setting control surface rotators to -activate1, with ZeroOnDeactivate set to true. Also, I suggest putting the cockpit to where the pilot PoV is.
This build isn't far from being great, it only needs some tweaks, but without those tweaks it's quite bad.
@1x1x1x1x2 that's the whole point. Back in a day, we didn't have a cannon, so we used what we had. This was one option, detachers that shoot Boom25s were the other.
Leaving a challenge unrated is against the rules. If you do not publish the ratings within two days, the challenge will be removed, along with all successor points, and you will be temporarily banned from the site.
Fourth plus generation fighters are still very effective. According to its specifications, Rafale is a pier to MiG-29 and MiG-35,something very few fighters can brag about. It seems to be a very capable aircraft.
@Lerkov1991 being one of the highest rated users on the site, I feel the pressure to deliver top quality builds. Even this is, given the restrictions, a quality build with a decent amount of planning, math, an hour of balancing so it sails well, etc. While making the most with limited part count is my thing, something like a decently detailed 200m ship is still ought of my reach.
@FairFireFlight drag is disabled on most parts. It was re-introduced to a few large parts to achieve somewhat realistic top speed. Without drag, it would have kept accelerating indeffinitely.
@zhangqinke there's nothing to be sorry about. Mistakes happen. I'm just giving you some feedback for if you want to improve, or for your future projects.
@RadiumOxide you have been warned for mass tagging. Don't beg people for attention, earn it. Make better screenshots, for example. Your thumbnail shows the build from so far away most people won't be able to see what it is, and it's pixelated. Be sure to provide the best possible quality of screenshot, best possible angle, show as much build as you can. You have been issued a warning for begging for attention and mass tagging. You are not allowed to tag people who haven't requested to be tagged.
@Minecraftpoweer then it's all right. I can't even see it due to something about formatting, but friend pointed me to it and I saw it in the post edit window when I went for a closer look. If ti just scrolls down, it's fine.
I believe Jundroo does give free copies or significant discount for educational purposes. You will have to use the contact link in the site footer for more details.
@CaptFoxworth19 @Krikkit42 real flaps modify the airflow of the wing, but custom flaps on SP cannot detect they are a part of the wing and thus act as independent lifting surfaces. Since flaps are usually placed behind CoM, increasing their angle of attack creates more lift behind the Center of Mass, pushing the nose down. Leave custom flaps empty so they don't do anything, and hide two wing pieces on rotators in the fuselage slightly ahead of CoM to simulate the effect.
@AsteroidAsteroidTheBook it will not, unless you make a post to do it or do it in such a way that you are intentionally drawing public attention to the matter. Moderators make mistakes, and we're always open to discuss our decisions with those involved. We are not, however, open to discuss our decisions with friends of those involved, especially while they're trying to use the situation to gain popularity.
Troll
+2I really like these kinds of builds. They are rare on the site. Thingies that are cool in real life, but can't really be used on SP.
+2@KerlonceauxIndustries @Kangy thanks.
+2@FRIGGLES nice.
+2@FRIGGLES it's the best aiming system currently available for artillery. Camera is very accurate, especially with zoom. And you get to look at the fancy build while shooting stuff.
+2@PorterTM if you have a good PC, go for it. It's not that much of a monster. My medium end PC can't.
+2While it could use a bit of refinement, it's really good for its part count. Pilot view is great. Might be a bit too agile for a medium bomber, and acceleration is too quick. I advise reducing engine power and reducing drag so it can get to the same max speed slower.
+2Overall, nice build. I enjoyed playing with it.
@Grroro eh, I'm happier without that stuff.
+2@Chillybaconface it's a HUD. Why should we bother? I trust Juan enough to believe the pictures he provided, knowing his previous builds, and I have nothing to put it on. Still, I find it a good part, cleverly put together in decent or better quality, making it worth the upvote.
+2@AdvisedPotato @Griffon1 use a rotator. Time it precisely to counter the retraction of the landing gear. Works for wing landing gear only, as the others retract into their own housing.
+2Acceleration is a bit hard. You should have reduced drag and power. Other than that, very nice bird, especially for the part count. I enjoyed playing with it.
+2It's good to see you back. I can't wait to see what you'll do with the new fuselage slicing.
+2The shape and flight model are great, but the build is unfinished and there's z fighting (colors glitching) on control surfaces. I think it can be properly finished with an hour or so of work.
+2@RussianAce add "run", differentiate root and tip width, and you can have any wing shape you want.
+2Every game must run out of updates at some point. I can't envision any further major gamechangers like fuselage cutting. However, this community has managed to keep making great content for a year between updates. I don't think we'll get bored of it anytime soon.
+2Besides, this update will allow users with lower end devices to produce great builds, and will make the learning curve a lot less steap for new guys.
I agree with CoolPeach. Purpose of stock builds is to teach new builders what is possible in this game, and they should range in complexity from the ugly and boring Kicking Fish to sculpted builds like the new Mustang, and should demonstrate various building methods and options like funky trees. Besides, potatoes that can't run 300 parts are usually old phones which are getting pretty rare. Most newer low end devices can handle over 500.
+2@Strucker very well. Have the server owner submit the new description via DM on Discord.
+2Good idea. If the new parts work the way I expect them to work, it will be possible to simulate the gun perfectly,
+2@BSKPlays2009 you forgot to provide a link to the challenge.
+2@ThomasRoderick sure.
+2Frankly, I was expecting more. You have a very good base here, but you should have invested a bit more into tweaking performance, adding some gauges, engine details, and making a proper gun. The one you have is a box on a stick with a pipe in it. Turret ring and a simple machine gun would have only taken additional dozen or so parts. Also, having machine gun fire regardless of activation group while allowing tail to take damage is bad. Accidentally pressing the trigger blows the tail fin off. I suggest setting the machine gun to
+2activate1, setting machine gun rotators toactivate1, and setting control surface rotators to-activate1, withZeroOnDeactivateset totrue. Also, I suggest putting the cockpit to where the pilot PoV is.This build isn't far from being great, it only needs some tweaks, but without those tweaks it's quite bad.
@1x1x1x1x2 that's the whole point. Back in a day, we didn't have a cannon, so we used what we had. This was one option, detachers that shoot Boom25s were the other.
+2@GuianLorenzo done.
+2Leaving a challenge unrated is against the rules. If you do not publish the ratings within two days, the challenge will be removed, along with all successor points, and you will be temporarily banned from the site.
+2Incredible work. She's beautiful.
+2@Sadboye12 it's not forbidden. However, it is pointless, in my opinion. Upvotes are, in a way, a "thank you" for posting a build.
+2Fourth plus generation fighters are still very effective. According to its specifications, Rafale is a pier to MiG-29 and MiG-35,something very few fighters can brag about. It seems to be a very capable aircraft.
+2@PapaWii sure.
+2@MrACEpilot you have been issued a strike for insulting a moderator. Your comment has been removed.
+2How did you get condensation trails in the thumbnail?
+2The beauty rarely seen on the site.
+2@Kipo some comment that you posted on a number of posts a while ago. Not offensive or anything, but spammy.
+2@MemriNotTheNewsChannel half of the forum section are invites for this server.
+2@VerargerterVortex thanks. I've been taking a break. Lack of motivation and stuff.
+2@Lerkov1991 being one of the highest rated users on the site, I feel the pressure to deliver top quality builds. Even this is, given the restrictions, a quality build with a decent amount of planning, math, an hour of balancing so it sails well, etc. While making the most with limited part count is my thing, something like a decently detailed 200m ship is still ought of my reach.
+2@FairFireFlight drag is disabled on most parts. It was re-introduced to a few large parts to achieve somewhat realistic top speed. Without drag, it would have kept accelerating indeffinitely.
+2@zhangqinke there's nothing to be sorry about. Mistakes happen. I'm just giving you some feedback for if you want to improve, or for your future projects.
+2@SCP1471 I don't know who banned that particular alt, but it was terminated as an alt used predominantly for breaking the rules.
+2Your best one so far.
+2@RadiumOxide you have been warned for mass tagging. Don't beg people for attention, earn it. Make better screenshots, for example. Your thumbnail shows the build from so far away most people won't be able to see what it is, and it's pixelated. Be sure to provide the best possible quality of screenshot, best possible angle, show as much build as you can. You have been issued a warning for begging for attention and mass tagging. You are not allowed to tag people who haven't requested to be tagged.
+2@Typhoon03 yup.
+2Do not use "upvote to be tagged" please.
+2@Davidloopie your comment has been removed for excessive profanity.
+2@Minecraftpoweer then it's all right. I can't even see it due to something about formatting, but friend pointed me to it and I saw it in the post edit window when I went for a closer look. If ti just scrolls down, it's fine.
+2I believe Jundroo does give free copies or significant discount for educational purposes. You will have to use the contact link in the site footer for more details.
+2Hey, it's a Su-17 XD
+2@CaptFoxworth19 @Krikkit42 real flaps modify the airflow of the wing, but custom flaps on SP cannot detect they are a part of the wing and thus act as independent lifting surfaces. Since flaps are usually placed behind CoM, increasing their angle of attack creates more lift behind the Center of Mass, pushing the nose down. Leave custom flaps empty so they don't do anything, and hide two wing pieces on rotators in the fuselage slightly ahead of CoM to simulate the effect.
+2This is all very nice and mostly true, but don't put your artistic screenshots as the thumbnail. Use it as a second oic or in description.
+2@xboxseriesx that's very nice of you :)
+2@AsteroidAsteroidTheBook it will not, unless you make a post to do it or do it in such a way that you are intentionally drawing public attention to the matter. Moderators make mistakes, and we're always open to discuss our decisions with those involved. We are not, however, open to discuss our decisions with friends of those involved, especially while they're trying to use the situation to gain popularity.
+2