@rexzion Funny enough, that's pretty close to real-life issues that had to be solved over the years. In the early days of jets, guns would be positioned in the nose and the shell casings would sometimes get eaten by the engine air intake causing a variety of bad things to happen.
Other times, explosive gasses and residue would build up in improperly ventilated gun compartments, causing some pretty scary stuff.
With machines so complicated, and often crossing the limit of human experience, there's always an element of trial-and-error.
The skills to build something that works effectively and looks good can only come from experience. You get experience by tearing apart things other people have built and by building things yourself.
To find the inspiration to build new things, you have to look around. People don't just pull ideas out of thin air, they smash together what they know into something unknown. Science fiction artists usually look at images of the past to create new art. A 1930s airplane could become a starship, a suit of medieval armor could become a tank. 3D modelers often use concept art paintings to create things for movies, television and games. Here is a website specializing in such artwork
Finally, some advice: try to imagine the purpose of your creation before you start building. What kinds of things does it need to do and how does it accomplish those things. Dont just say "it flies," give it wings and engines that look like they could really fly. Think about the machinery inside of it. Where do the people sit? Where are the fuel tanks? Does the landing gear have room to fold up inside? If I see one more jet with landing gear that folds into the engine compartment I swear to god I will scream! Anyway, good luck.
@HappyFeetWhyshouldi I am relatively certain the Camel could reach trans-sonic speeds in a vertical climb. I think they mentioned that on the History Channel
@SimplyPlain Yes and no. A good pilot will almost always determine the outcome, but tactics, doctrine and equipment played a heavier role than usual over Vietnam. NVAF pilots depended on Ground Intercept Controllers to plot effective routes to ambush incoming bombers (much like the RAF over England during the Blitz), these radar personnel were instrumental to their success. On the other hand, US pilots suffered heavily as a result of being issued long-range weapon systems but given standing orders demanding close-range encounters, poor, often repetitive attack planning and inconsistent goals. An interesting divide between pragmatism and politics that cost many lives. The United States allowed hubris to minimize a considerable technological advantage, whereas by sticking close to their intended purpose, the NVAF was able to maximize the impact of their fewer and less sophisticated fighters.
This is the same variant on display at the National Air and Space Museum in Virginia. It's parked right next to it's two greatest rivals, a F-105D Thunderchief and a modernized F-4J Phantom II. The Mig is tiny by comparison, and you can really get a sense of the David-and-Goliath struggle that transpired between these planes over Southeast Asia.
@PhantomAviator I think the F-15 and Su-27 (and the Su-27 derivatives) are pretty close to one another, but they're both the most successful fighters in service today.
I think the P-47 and deHavilland Mosquito might be the best multi roles of all time, by virtue of the sheer number of missions carried out.
@PhantomAviator Yes, this is why I do 10 saves per project. I often make mistakes without noticing for a long time, usually I can undo them without reloading but sometimes they're so big that I have to go back to before the mistake.
@PhantomAviator I'm sorry. For a long time, I thought governments and corporations did stuff because they thought it was the right decision, or at least made sense. That was a load of crap I probably picked up from watching too much TV.
@rexzion What @edensk said is correct. If you look at a missile you will notice fins halfway along its length, these provide a pivot-point for the control fins in the rear to rotate the missile.
You've made at least 10 uploads in the last two weeks and average one forum post every single day. Couldn't you maybe spend a few minutes each day checking out what people made for you instead of building stuff and goofing around on the Forums? Offering some poor sap 5 upvotes to do the work you've already gotten credit for seems a bit... well anyway, good luck.
This was a common situation in WW2. Well, not with missiles, but still. Mid-air collisions were very common in the bomb raids carried out by the 8th Airforce over Europe. Fighters often crashed into bombers they were attacking, and sometimes the bombers would manage to fly home with horrifying collision damage and even peices of a German plane lodged inside of them.
You don't use yaw to turn an airplane in flight. It's used for more subtle purposes that are difficult to explain briefly, like keeping the plane flying straight in a crosswind or reducing the amount of roll in a slow turn.
I've been burned by Mac a few times in the past. The software's pretty good, and the packaging can't be beat, but their hardware, pricing, service and ethics are intolerable to me. Simpleplanes is an old game, and no computer built in the last 8 years should have any trouble running at least 750 parts or so.
I don't mean to insult your taste or anything. And I wish you good luck with the search for your next computer.
There are more tigers living in captivity in the USA than there are in all the jungles of Asia. Most of them lead miserable lives in small enclosures with no possibility for exercise, so they get morbidly obese like the one in the photo above.
Be careful, triangles are really addictive. I had to panel some of my current project... fast forward a few weeks and the entire thing is paneled and now, looking at your wing here I am tempted to rebuild the airfoil for the FOURTH time.
THIS ONE is a list of all the suffixes for US aircraft.
This one is for communist or former-communist aircraft. We give them cute nicknames that actually follow a code. So "Bear" means "propeller-driven bomber," "Fishbed" means "jet powered fighter" and "Hind" is an attack helicopter. So if you were to make a Chinese propeller bomber, you could name it "Beast".
This way, you can invent any kind of aircraft you want, and it'll fit right in with history. Good luck.
There's a lot of us wrestling with this kind of stuff, you are not alone. I've heard others say almost this exact thing on discord recently, as a matter of fact. Hang in there, it's been an awful year but there are good ones ahead. Stay strong, I know it's not easy going through it and I respect your struggle.
@lilsniper334 Sometimes the gear can be "soft" and not center properly after a turn. Or it can sit wrong and lean on the nose instead of the main wheels. Try turning the traction down all the way on all wheels and see if you still have a problem.
@SavageMan Back at you
@rexzion Funny enough, that's pretty close to real-life issues that had to be solved over the years. In the early days of jets, guns would be positioned in the nose and the shell casings would sometimes get eaten by the engine air intake causing a variety of bad things to happen.
Other times, explosive gasses and residue would build up in improperly ventilated gun compartments, causing some pretty scary stuff.
With machines so complicated, and often crossing the limit of human experience, there's always an element of trial-and-error.
+1The skills to build something that works effectively and looks good can only come from experience. You get experience by tearing apart things other people have built and by building things yourself.
To find the inspiration to build new things, you have to look around. People don't just pull ideas out of thin air, they smash together what they know into something unknown. Science fiction artists usually look at images of the past to create new art. A 1930s airplane could become a starship, a suit of medieval armor could become a tank. 3D modelers often use concept art paintings to create things for movies, television and games. Here is a website specializing in such artwork
Finally, some advice: try to imagine the purpose of your creation before you start building. What kinds of things does it need to do and how does it accomplish those things. Dont just say "it flies," give it wings and engines that look like they could really fly. Think about the machinery inside of it. Where do the people sit? Where are the fuel tanks? Does the landing gear have room to fold up inside? If I see one more jet with landing gear that folds into the engine compartment I swear to god I will scream! Anyway, good luck.
+2I really hate this plane, but you get an upvote anyway for doing a good job.
TEASERS ARE EXCITING PHOTOS
NOT BORING WALLS OF TEXT
ALWAYS PUT PICS IN YOUR TEASERS
+1@FLOWRIDER0
KSP counts. The others are incidental at best, contraption games that half-heartedly allow flying machines.
@HappyFeetWhyshouldi I am relatively certain the Camel could reach trans-sonic speeds in a vertical climb. I think they mentioned that on the History Channel
+5@Numbers One way or another, somebody's gonna have a rough flight.
@MrSilverWolf Yeah, but it pays off. You've got quite a reputation for quality around here.
@SheriffHackdogMCPE I sincerely hope so.
+1HAIL SATAN
+5The wheels look a bit small for such a large plane. Also, exposed props are like a gigantic lighthouse beacon for radar.
+1@SimplyPlain Yes and no. A good pilot will almost always determine the outcome, but tactics, doctrine and equipment played a heavier role than usual over Vietnam. NVAF pilots depended on Ground Intercept Controllers to plot effective routes to ambush incoming bombers (much like the RAF over England during the Blitz), these radar personnel were instrumental to their success. On the other hand, US pilots suffered heavily as a result of being issued long-range weapon systems but given standing orders demanding close-range encounters, poor, often repetitive attack planning and inconsistent goals. An interesting divide between pragmatism and politics that cost many lives. The United States allowed hubris to minimize a considerable technological advantage, whereas by sticking close to their intended purpose, the NVAF was able to maximize the impact of their fewer and less sophisticated fighters.
+2This is the same variant on display at the National Air and Space Museum in Virginia. It's parked right next to it's two greatest rivals, a F-105D Thunderchief and a modernized F-4J Phantom II. The Mig is tiny by comparison, and you can really get a sense of the David-and-Goliath struggle that transpired between these planes over Southeast Asia.
+1Solid
+1@PhantomAviator I think the F-15 and Su-27 (and the Su-27 derivatives) are pretty close to one another, but they're both the most successful fighters in service today.
I think the P-47 and deHavilland Mosquito might be the best multi roles of all time, by virtue of the sheer number of missions carried out.
+1@PhantomAviator Yes, this is why I do 10 saves per project. I often make mistakes without noticing for a long time, usually I can undo them without reloading but sometimes they're so big that I have to go back to before the mistake.
+1@PhantomAviator I'm sorry. For a long time, I thought governments and corporations did stuff because they thought it was the right decision, or at least made sense. That was a load of crap I probably picked up from watching too much TV.
+1Money. Corporations do things because they think it will make money.
+3@BucketBucketTheCan No idea
@QuitePossiblyMangled Oh, I thought that's what I was seeing. I must've forgot about the windshield. XD
+1@rexzion What @edensk said is correct. If you look at a missile you will notice fins halfway along its length, these provide a pivot-point for the control fins in the rear to rotate the missile.
+1Reasons people upvote (in order of significance)
- Pretty thumbnail picture
- Friends with the uploader
- Meme/joke/funny
- Actual build quality
- Supporting a new player
+1@Greggory005 Cool
Call me crazy, but a 12 hour old player with two 1500 part uploads smells a bit fishy to me.
Did you actually build this, or did you modify someone else's plane?
+1You've made at least 10 uploads in the last two weeks and average one forum post every single day. Couldn't you maybe spend a few minutes each day checking out what people made for you instead of building stuff and goofing around on the Forums? Offering some poor sap 5 upvotes to do the work you've already gotten credit for seems a bit... well anyway, good luck.
This was a common situation in WW2. Well, not with missiles, but still. Mid-air collisions were very common in the bomb raids carried out by the 8th Airforce over Europe. Fighters often crashed into bombers they were attacking, and sometimes the bombers would manage to fly home with horrifying collision damage and even peices of a German plane lodged inside of them.
You don't use yaw to turn an airplane in flight. It's used for more subtle purposes that are difficult to explain briefly, like keeping the plane flying straight in a crosswind or reducing the amount of roll in a slow turn.
+2Is that a F-105-G? Coooool.
+1I've been burned by Mac a few times in the past. The software's pretty good, and the packaging can't be beat, but their hardware, pricing, service and ethics are intolerable to me. Simpleplanes is an old game, and no computer built in the last 8 years should have any trouble running at least 750 parts or so.
I don't mean to insult your taste or anything. And I wish you good luck with the search for your next computer.
+1@DonaldAs1515 Yes. Oh lawd he comin. I know
5 year old Mac struggles to play a 5 year old game kids play on their phones, that sounds about right to me.
+1There are more tigers living in captivity in the USA than there are in all the jungles of Asia. Most of them lead miserable lives in small enclosures with no possibility for exercise, so they get morbidly obese like the one in the photo above.
@KnightOfRen How dramatic
@Pizzaschnitzel Amazingly so.
Doubt it.
+4@ChiChiWerx You are the classiest man here, you know that?
@PointlessWhyshouldi It's ok. I know she fat. I like her that way.
+1@PointlessWhyshouldi :( She just big boned.
+2Be careful, triangles are really addictive. I had to panel some of my current project... fast forward a few weeks and the entire thing is paneled and now, looking at your wing here I am tempted to rebuild the airfoil for the FOURTH time.
+5@KnightOfRen Slower than 2020
@KnightOfRen
@Toasthead
THIS ONE is a list of all the suffixes for US aircraft.
This one is for communist or former-communist aircraft. We give them cute nicknames that actually follow a code. So "Bear" means "propeller-driven bomber," "Fishbed" means "jet powered fighter" and "Hind" is an attack helicopter. So if you were to make a Chinese propeller bomber, you could name it "Beast".
This way, you can invent any kind of aircraft you want, and it'll fit right in with history. Good luck.
A- is the designation suffix for Light or Medium Attack aircraft. Interceptors are given F- for Fighter. Otherwise, good job. :)
I wonder if we can use this trick to simulate something.
There's a lot of us wrestling with this kind of stuff, you are not alone. I've heard others say almost this exact thing on discord recently, as a matter of fact. Hang in there, it's been an awful year but there are good ones ahead. Stay strong, I know it's not easy going through it and I respect your struggle.
+1@lilsniper334 Sometimes the gear can be "soft" and not center properly after a turn. Or it can sit wrong and lean on the nose instead of the main wheels. Try turning the traction down all the way on all wheels and see if you still have a problem.
@lilsniper334 I do not think its weight or the plane would fly wrong.
@lilsniper334 If it flies straight then it's probably the landing gear.