While this is a cute build, I think I should give you a bit of constructive criticism on it:
Wings aren't very strong, and main landing gear, which bears most of the weight, shouldn't be on wingtips. Only planes with main gear under the fuselage in bicycle fashion have wingtip outriggers, like Harrier. Also, you should go for all-moving horizontal stabilizers. Put structural wings on rotators and give them input Pitch + Trim/10. That will give you both pitch control and trim that is 10% of pitch. Adjust the max angle and speed of rotators to avoid pitch oscillations.
Money prize wouldn't be a problem, it wouldn't be the first time steam cards were given to winners. However, upvote prize system is simple. If the winner is to receive five upvotes, you go to their profile and upvote five builds.
@Alta2809 I have linked my example of the technique, as it is the only tutorial for it that I know of. It is unlisted and I'm not getting upvotes on it.
@Brencool35 not really a lead indicator, as you cannot input target properties. A sight that would compensate for movement of the plane is possible though. One good input I got from my friend reduces turning angle of a wheel as the speed increases, preventing user from flipping the build over. Another limits horsepower on level terrain and adds power on climbs, allowing for an off-road vehicle with realistic acceleration.
Funky Trees allow you to combine multiple inputs along with mathematical functions in inlut fields of rotators and other moving bits. I suggest checking WNP78's post for better explanation.
You should be more specific about xml editing. Can one scale mass along with size? Also, maybe count smoothness of flight, and explain judging criteria. For example, every 100m off the end of Wright runway adds 1 point, looks 5 points, smoothness of flight 5 points...
The way challenge is written now, users don't know how their entries will be rated. You may use other ways of rating, I'm just giving an example of whst I think could work.
For the measurement of distsnce off the end of the runway, save location there, spawn an ai cockpit, and check distance to it in air-to-air targeting mode. Also, maybe punish sideways deviation (auto roll).
Alternately, do not come to a game related site seeking compassion. Open a Facebook account, or, if you really insist on sharing your pain with SP community, consider visiting one of many Discord servers.
I don't remember requesting to be tagged. I'm following you, so I would have seen it as soon as I'm online anyway.
Nice build. Could have been smoother in some areas, but given the complexity of the shape I'd say it's not bad. Performance seem decent enough, as good as SP will allow I think.
Try using Heading input on two rotators, one set to quickly move the pointer off center, the other, with the same input in opposite direction, to slowly move it back to the starting position.
Velocity. It's the old input for speed. Input will go from 0 to 1 when the cockpit is traveling at more than 800m/s. It is still useable, and better for some things than new inputs.
@ChisP it damages with impact if that's what you meant with the first question, and explosion scales with caliber. A 1000mm gun scaled to look like a 20mm will have explosions of a 1000mm gun.
I have saved a location off the end ofthe Wright runway to snipe with my 180mm naval cannon, as it is a fixed emplacement. If yor platform is mobile, just spawn on Wright and taxy to the end of the runway. As BlackhattAircraft mentioned, Wright North is also a good location for sniping.
@LeonardoEngineering yes as long as that plane is in the post too. I have suggested an exception to the rule for challenges though, and I'll come back to you when I get conclusive results.
@mikoyanster I felt the need to ping you personally, as you have the habit of using unrealted images for your challenges. I suggest you experiment a bit with fuselage art. It's easier than it seems.
@Parshainaerospace to save you an effort of asking me for every single build, everyone can play with my builds any way they like. Yes, you can have it.
Buddy, this is a game about planes. While I've got nothing against posts like this one, you should probably post some planes to get a bit of reputation before assaulting forum section.
I'm not sure about trim tabs. I have noticed upon a brief inquiry that later versions have split elevator, but I think full span one looks much better. Your choice though. Also, I notice you date yours to 1945, making full span elevator a more realistic option, as split elevator is a 1948 modification.
Actual custom elevator would have been easy to make and would make the build significantly better. Also, it's missing flaps. Other than that, very nice build. Good performance and surprisingly low part count.
We do not care what a user is doing off the site. The person in question can join just like anyone else, but must uphold the rules of this community, including "No sexually suggestive content or foul language". Same applies for SP-related Discord servers that I am moderating.
I'm focusing on part count reduction, so I have sacrificed detachers and and base rings you have on your launchers, reducing part count by 16. I'm trying to make some highly functional builds that even people on low end devices will be able to use.
I have made a simplified ripoff of this system for my upcoming IFV. Mine doesn't use detachers. You simply launch rockets with very short delay. You'll still get credit for the idea. Also, these are fun to use near bridges and wind turbines.
@FENRIRpapapa no problem. However, I was expecting a lot more from this build. Simple builds like this one usually have good performance, but this one doesn't. You have too much drag, forcing you to use way too much power for achieving realistic top speed. That means you have extreme acceleration and climb rate, unrealistic for a plane like this. Also, it pitches down even at full speed and takeoff speed is too high. To fix these issues, I advise reducing drag a lot, reducing engine power to get the same max speed, and moving CoM back by removing mass from the front (adding mass in the back would further increase takeoff speed).
While this is a cute build, I think I should give you a bit of constructive criticism on it:
+2Wings aren't very strong, and main landing gear, which bears most of the weight, shouldn't be on wingtips. Only planes with main gear under the fuselage in bicycle fashion have wingtip outriggers, like Harrier. Also, you should go for all-moving horizontal stabilizers. Put structural wings on rotators and give them input
Pitch + Trim/10. That will give you both pitch control and trim that is 10% of pitch. Adjust the max angle and speed of rotators to avoid pitch oscillations.Money prize wouldn't be a problem, it wouldn't be the first time steam cards were given to winners. However, upvote prize system is simple. If the winner is to receive five upvotes, you go to their profile and upvote five builds.
+2@KerlonceauxIndustries do not "owo"!
+2Congratulations on silver :)
+2@Skyler717 207k.
+2Mass scale one part and clone it around.
+2@Alta2809 I have linked my example of the technique, as it is the only tutorial for it that I know of. It is unlisted and I'm not getting upvotes on it.
+2@Brencool35 not really a lead indicator, as you cannot input target properties. A sight that would compensate for movement of the plane is possible though. One good input I got from my friend reduces turning angle of a wheel as the speed increases, preventing user from flipping the build over. Another limits horsepower on level terrain and adds power on climbs, allowing for an off-road vehicle with realistic acceleration.
+2Funky Trees allow you to combine multiple inputs along with mathematical functions in inlut fields of rotators and other moving bits. I suggest checking WNP78's post for better explanation.
+2You should be more specific about xml editing. Can one scale mass along with size? Also, maybe count smoothness of flight, and explain judging criteria. For example, every 100m off the end of Wright runway adds 1 point, looks 5 points, smoothness of flight 5 points...
+2The way challenge is written now, users don't know how their entries will be rated. You may use other ways of rating, I'm just giving an example of whst I think could work.
For the measurement of distsnce off the end of the runway, save location there, spawn an ai cockpit, and check distance to it in air-to-air targeting mode. Also, maybe punish sideways deviation (auto roll).
It looks very nice. Good job.
+2Alternately, do not come to a game related site seeking compassion. Open a Facebook account, or, if you really insist on sharing your pain with SP community, consider visiting one of many Discord servers.
+2Don't tag me, I'm following you.
+2I don't remember requesting to be tagged. I'm following you, so I would have seen it as soon as I'm online anyway.
Nice build. Could have been smoother in some areas, but given the complexity of the shape I'd say it's not bad. Performance seem decent enough, as good as SP will allow I think.
+2@YAMATOBATTLESHIP2222 having a huge vertical stabiliser near CoM and a smaller one astern usually stops the excess drifting.
+2Long time no see friend. Nice comeback.
+2Try using
+2Headinginput on two rotators, one set to quickly move the pointer off center, the other, with the same input in opposite direction, to slowly move it back to the starting position.I have made the link clickable. Edit the post to see how.
+2Velocity. It's the old input for speed. Input will go from
+20to1when the cockpit is traveling at more than 800m/s. It is still useable, and better for some things than new inputs.New inputs allow us to programme our crafts anyway we want though, and cannon is amazing. You're missing out on a lot.
+2You could have posted unlisted though.
+2Oh, sorry then.
+2@ChisP it damages with impact if that's what you meant with the first question, and explosion scales with caliber. A 1000mm gun scaled to look like a 20mm will have explosions of a 1000mm gun.
+2Congratulations. People will be expecting more from you now, so you better start practicing custom control surfaces :)
+2I have saved a location off the end ofthe Wright runway to snipe with my 180mm naval cannon, as it is a fixed emplacement. If yor platform is mobile, just spawn on Wright and taxy to the end of the runway. As BlackhattAircraft mentioned, Wright North is also a good location for sniping.
+2@Lorileni @Evenstsrike333 I'm glad you like it.
+2@LeonardoEngineering yes as long as that plane is in the post too. I have suggested an exception to the rule for challenges though, and I'll come back to you when I get conclusive results.
+2@LeonardoEngineering post was just edited to address that. Logos and texts are perfectly fine.
+2@mikoyanster I felt the need to ping you personally, as you have the habit of using unrealted images for your challenges. I suggest you experiment a bit with fuselage art. It's easier than it seems.
+2@Parshainaerospace oh, ok then :)
+2@Parshainaerospace to save you an effort of asking me for every single build, everyone can play with my builds any way they like. Yes, you can have it.
+2Of this old ugly thing?! Sure XD
+2@Parshainaerospace
@ChiyomiAnzai "If you are continually telling people their airplanes suck, then maybe you suck."
+2Your comment has been removed.
100th :)
+2Buddy, this is a game about planes. While I've got nothing against posts like this one, you should probably post some planes to get a bit of reputation before assaulting forum section.
+2I'm not sure about trim tabs. I have noticed upon a brief inquiry that later versions have split elevator, but I think full span one looks much better. Your choice though. Also, I notice you date yours to 1945, making full span elevator a more realistic option, as split elevator is a 1948 modification.
+2Try combining tags Cargo and Vehicle.
+2Actual custom elevator would have been easy to make and would make the build significantly better. Also, it's missing flaps. Other than that, very nice build. Good performance and surprisingly low part count.
+2@enzoBoeing757 what problem exactly do you have with challenges ending on your birthday?
+2We do not care what a user is doing off the site. The person in question can join just like anyone else, but must uphold the rules of this community, including "No sexually suggestive content or foul language". Same applies for SP-related Discord servers that I am moderating.
+2No problem. Very interesting design.
+2I'm focusing on part count reduction, so I have sacrificed detachers and and base rings you have on your launchers, reducing part count by 16. I'm trying to make some highly functional builds that even people on low end devices will be able to use.
+2I have made a simplified ripoff of this system for my upcoming IFV. Mine doesn't use detachers. You simply launch rockets with very short delay. You'll still get credit for the idea. Also, these are fun to use near bridges and wind turbines.
+2That's huge, Đorđe.
+2@HellFireKoder you're a dev. Just put it in the next update.
+2I love the moment when the drone blew up. Best SP video I've ever seen.
+2First time I'm seeing a deep V to shallow V hull better than on my river class. Good job.
+2@FENRIRpapapa no problem. However, I was expecting a lot more from this build. Simple builds like this one usually have good performance, but this one doesn't. You have too much drag, forcing you to use way too much power for achieving realistic top speed. That means you have extreme acceleration and climb rate, unrealistic for a plane like this. Also, it pitches down even at full speed and takeoff speed is too high. To fix these issues, I advise reducing drag a lot, reducing engine power to get the same max speed, and moving CoM back by removing mass from the front (adding mass in the back would further increase takeoff speed).
+2@MailboxIsMyGender aww, thanks :)
+2@ThomasRoderick thanks for the entry.
+2