@atgxtg Absolutely! Not to mention it's the most direct way to improve almost every aspect of performance. When Ed Heinemann was designing the AD-1 Skyraider he discovered that:
"every 100 lb (45 kg) of weight reduction the take-off run was decreased by 8 feet (2.4 m), the combat radius increased by 22 miles (35 km) and the rate-of-climb increased by 18 feet/min (0.091 m/s)."
His team managed to cut almost two tons of "unnecessary equipment." That was probably the best designed ground attack platform ever built.
Yes. Make the controls pitch and roll. Then it's the same as a FPS shooter. Put all the control surfaces on AG8 and maybe throw a gyro on AG7, then the plane will fly straight and steady while you aim.
The real question is, does the person posting the challenge deserve all the sucessor points that they'll get off of other people? Most challenges are pretty awesome, but I've seen a lot of "LOL, sorry guys. 2 busy 2 judge"* posts lately. Some people won't even take the time to properly link the winning build in the completion announcement.
@Chancey21 I think you should go for it, but I also think you should spend extra time getting the handling right.
Unlike most planes on here, this thing is all about low speed handling and the takeoff/landing phase. People usually ignore this stuff, often to the point where the plane can't be landed safely.
Furthermore, tilt-wings are much more difficult to get right than fixed wing planes. For example , the F8 Crusader was an excellent dogfighter but often crashed on landing. The problem: the tilt-wing changes the AOA and adds lift to the wing, but that same change in AOA drastically changes how the ailerons work, resulting in poor (and sometimes reversed) control.
I recommend you have tailerons and maybe a gyro to help keep the plane stable and controllable at low speed.
Maneuverability seems pretty simple, but its deceptively huge. Tied into that word are things like stability, acceleration, momentum, agility. But the one thing you should remember is that maneuverability is more than just how fast you can turn.
Planes handle differently at different speeds and different altitudes. So when you design one, try to think "where does this plane live? Does it hug the ground and slip below enemy radar at high speed? Does it carefully sip gas at low speed and high altitude? Or maybe its like the SR71 and it goes unbelievably fast at amazing height? Design your plane to fit in properly somewhere.
The most maneuverable planes are also the least stable. They change direction easily because they are light, and their weight isn't spread out. The easiest way to do this is to keep the blue center of lift just a little bit behind the red center of mass. The further apart these two are, the more stable the plane becomes and the more effort it will take to pull the nose up when you turn. But be careful, if your plane becomes too unstable it will become difficult or impossible to control.
One was a short-range interceptor, the other was a high-altitude, long-range escort.
Just because they both were fighters does not mean they were doing the same job. It's like comparing a hammer to a drill. You're smarter than this, people.
@asteroidbook345 Itvis a lengthy process, and not always fair either. Replica planes get the most attention, followed by replica tanks. Cars, ships and Sci-fi builds get some attention, but not as much. Fictional aircraft struggle to get any attention at all unless they're extremely well done.
Aside from cynically "gaming" that heirarchy, the best way to win attention is to become a highly skilled modeler. I really do hope this helps.
@randomusername The sea monster is immortal. Be thankful it is not the Great Sleeper, for his awakening would herald the undoing of all you know. Humanity, the Earth, even reality itself would unravel like digesting meat in the belly of a great beast.
Let's be honest. You never posted stuff very often. You probably worked on stuff a lot though. I can tell because almost everything you ever uploaded is amazing. Not amazing like "good job." Amazing like "jeeze, I don't think practice will help me get that good."
Long story short, that's a shame you won't be posting much anymore, but the fact that you're using your skills to maybe have a career more than makes up for it. I'm glad you posted this.
OK, first question. How do you make such smooth hollow cones? I think I have a handle on the math to scale the fuselage "ribs" properly, but how do you physically place them? Do you just mathematically input everything into XML or do you have a method of dragging and dropping them into the right position?
The most prolific builders on here are usually the most supportive of new players. When white and copper players upload something that shows promise, the first upvote is usually from a gold or platinum user. I tend to give feedback, (move the back landing gear forward, usually), but I also try to tell them my favorite parts as well.
Once people go gold, then I start being a bit more choosy about what I upvote. I figure that by gold, they've got people that know them and support them, and more importantly they know whats what.
Yes, @FastDan suggestion to use Overload is your best bet. Not only is it an extremely powerful and easy-to-use mod, but everything you build will still be compatible. No need for people to download anything besides your plane.
As for the XB-70 itself, the key will be testing, testing, testing. I recommend you fly up to 70,000 feet with a fast plane (800mph or more if possible), pause the game and Save the location. That way you can repeatedly spawn your Valkyrie there to test cruising speed at high altitude. The plane should fly smoothly at mach 3.
The other main details to consider are the adjustable wingtips, massive landing gear, all-moving canards, and the ability to land safely.
I've found that the easiest way to balance planes is to use fuselage pieces that (via Overload) are modded to weigh 0.01x normal weight. That way, the plane is very light. Then add two or three very heavy fuselage pieces to determine where you want the center of mass.
Doing it this way allows you to balance the plane around the wings and landing gear instead of the other way around.
Never modify the weight of parts beside fuselage blocks. Moving parts like engines and rotators get buggy is you mess with their weight.
@Johawks1976 I don't hold that against him, mind you. I just noticed that the very well built Messerschmitts glancing the front page every week had a different uploader.
Captivating is nice but most people just wanna know how it works, so clearly list the controls first. If you used any activation groups, list them and what they do. If you have sliders, explain what they're for. If it's a car, explain if you use roll, or yaw to steer.
If you really want to impress people, test your plane enough to know how to land it, and how fast you should do it. List the stall speed (the slowest speed the plane can fly and maintain altitude).
Is there anything dangerous? Does the plane do weird things if you try to roll and pitch at the same time? Is there a cruising speed where the plane will fly straight without gaining or losing altitude?
That kind of stuff goes first. At the bare minimum, at least list what 'AG's you have and what they do
After that you can make up a backstory (if its a fictional plane) or write about its history. Why was it made, what was its job, did it do anything important, etc.
Pictures are a good idea, both of the real thing but especially screenshots of the thing flying. A good screenshot does a great job of stoking peoples imagination and really sets it apart from the plain black background in the builder.
A lot goes into presentation. Most of the really serious builds get uploaded Thursday or Friday so they can sit on the page for the weekend. People download mods to make the backfround look fancy. They post teasers. Some people even go further than that, the list goes on.
But consider this from another angle. All this presentation can ne helpful, but it'll only take you so far. The stuff that gets a ton of downloads is usually the stuff where someone spent a lot of time on the actual build. When I upload something and it doesn't get as much attention as I'd hoped, I don't think "darn, must've been the wrong time zone." I think "how could I have made this build better."
If you want a boatload of points, make a Spitfire with camouflage, a P-51 with fancy nose art or an airliner with a cockpit so detailed that it makes cellphones melt. That's the kind of stuff people upvote.
You can't make people like stuff, you can only hope they like what you make or pander to them and make stuff you already know they like.
Anyway, no matter how many upvotes you get, it'll never be enough if you don't enjoy what you're doing.
IMPOSSIBLE
+3They should use these to promote the game.
+3Why not just link to the guy's website? He's got a whole mess of altered classics that look pretty neat. CLICKY CLICKY
+3@atgxtg Absolutely! Not to mention it's the most direct way to improve almost every aspect of performance. When Ed Heinemann was designing the AD-1 Skyraider he discovered that:
"every 100 lb (45 kg) of weight reduction the take-off run was decreased by 8 feet (2.4 m), the combat radius increased by 22 miles (35 km) and the rate-of-climb increased by 18 feet/min (0.091 m/s)."
His team managed to cut almost two tons of "unnecessary equipment." That was probably the best designed ground attack platform ever built.
+3Yes. Make the controls pitch and roll. Then it's the same as a FPS shooter. Put all the control surfaces on AG8 and maybe throw a gyro on AG7, then the plane will fly straight and steady while you aim.
+3To be fair, that is exactly how the Soviets designed numerous aircraft, weapons and equipment.
They almost never said please or thank you.
Communists, I tell ya, they just don't have any respect for private property.
+3Can you imagine what this place would look like if everyone made a post like this whenever their parents bought them a new phone?
+3ok
+3The real question is, does the person posting the challenge deserve all the sucessor points that they'll get off of other people? Most challenges are pretty awesome, but I've seen a lot of "LOL, sorry guys. 2 busy 2 judge"* posts lately. Some people won't even take the time to properly link the winning build in the completion announcement.
+3And my answer will always be
GR8 as long as long as it's not another P51Messerschmittfire
+3Don't forget the Spitfire!
Honestly, they're great planes and I do sympathize with people who love them. But there are so many wonderful planes that are overlooked.
+3That guy got busted for drugs and had all his guns confiscated. True story.
+3@RailfanEthan Then why comment at all, other than to draw attention to yourself?
Nothing political about it, the man was an aviator long before his political career.
+3@Chancey21 I think you should go for it, but I also think you should spend extra time getting the handling right.
Unlike most planes on here, this thing is all about low speed handling and the takeoff/landing phase. People usually ignore this stuff, often to the point where the plane can't be landed safely.
Furthermore, tilt-wings are much more difficult to get right than fixed wing planes. For example , the F8 Crusader was an excellent dogfighter but often crashed on landing. The problem: the tilt-wing changes the AOA and adds lift to the wing, but that same change in AOA drastically changes how the ailerons work, resulting in poor (and sometimes reversed) control.
I recommend you have tailerons and maybe a gyro to help keep the plane stable and controllable at low speed.
+3Test it before you post it. If it doesn't fly like wet dog excrement it'll at least be an improvement over the other 700 Messerschmitts this week.
+3Can it really be called a "sim" if it's so low-fi that you're running it through a browser window?
That's kind of like drawing a bunch of eyes on the back of your hand and calling it a tarantula.
+3Maneuverability seems pretty simple, but its deceptively huge. Tied into that word are things like stability, acceleration, momentum, agility. But the one thing you should remember is that maneuverability is more than just how fast you can turn.
Planes handle differently at different speeds and different altitudes. So when you design one, try to think "where does this plane live? Does it hug the ground and slip below enemy radar at high speed? Does it carefully sip gas at low speed and high altitude? Or maybe its like the SR71 and it goes unbelievably fast at amazing height? Design your plane to fit in properly somewhere.
The most maneuverable planes are also the least stable. They change direction easily because they are light, and their weight isn't spread out. The easiest way to do this is to keep the blue center of lift just a little bit behind the red center of mass. The further apart these two are, the more stable the plane becomes and the more effort it will take to pull the nose up when you turn. But be careful, if your plane becomes too unstable it will become difficult or impossible to control.
+3Add 50 pounds to the left wing. If it starts rolling left, make it 25. If it rolls right again, make it 37. And so on, untill its even.
+3Yeah, don't upload or screenshot anything, that's for suckers. Just immediately demand the head of the company take a look, he's not busy. /s
+3@CruzerBlade Here's a link to the most complete XML guide know of. It covers how to change input controllers etc.
Courtesy of WNP78
+3Bogdan posted a really great Catalina. And memes. Lots and lots of lazy, not funny memes.
+3Not comparable.
One was a short-range interceptor, the other was a high-altitude, long-range escort.
Just because they both were fighters does not mean they were doing the same job. It's like comparing a hammer to a drill. You're smarter than this, people.
+3@asteroidbook345 Itvis a lengthy process, and not always fair either. Replica planes get the most attention, followed by replica tanks. Cars, ships and Sci-fi builds get some attention, but not as much. Fictional aircraft struggle to get any attention at all unless they're extremely well done.
Aside from cynically "gaming" that heirarchy, the best way to win attention is to become a highly skilled modeler. I really do hope this helps.
+3OFF TOPIC
+3No wings, landing gear too short. No visible means of propulsion. Questionable weight distribution. Good detail. 2/5
+3You should use the off topic tag, women love men who use tags appropriately. Also, don't ask for romantic advice on a gaming website.
PS, good luck with the depression. One foot in front of the other, time will help.
+3Are you snitching on my man @Dllama4 ? Is Wayne Brady gonna have to... uh, nevermind.
+3@randomusername The sea monster is immortal. Be thankful it is not the Great Sleeper, for his awakening would herald the undoing of all you know. Humanity, the Earth, even reality itself would unravel like digesting meat in the belly of a great beast.
+3Whatever your rig can handle. I've seen 3,000 parts and I've also had people demand that I post stuff with less than 300.
+3Let's be honest. You never posted stuff very often. You probably worked on stuff a lot though. I can tell because almost everything you ever uploaded is amazing. Not amazing like "good job." Amazing like "jeeze, I don't think practice will help me get that good."
Long story short, that's a shame you won't be posting much anymore, but the fact that you're using your skills to maybe have a career more than makes up for it. I'm glad you posted this.
+3OK, first question. How do you make such smooth hollow cones? I think I have a handle on the math to scale the fuselage "ribs" properly, but how do you physically place them? Do you just mathematically input everything into XML or do you have a method of dragging and dropping them into the right position?
+3I'm so glad to see a good P-38 build. It's been a long time since one of these was on the front page!
+3UNNECESSARILY LONG WALL OF BLUE TEXT!!!
+3Anyone got any popcorn?
+3This is officially the coolest thing I have ever seen on here.
+3"OH GOD, not another Musta- Hey... this thing looks pretty good."
+3I'm readung a book about that. Unsurprisingly, it was banned in the Soviet Union.
+3The most prolific builders on here are usually the most supportive of new players. When white and copper players upload something that shows promise, the first upvote is usually from a gold or platinum user. I tend to give feedback, (move the back landing gear forward, usually), but I also try to tell them my favorite parts as well.
Once people go gold, then I start being a bit more choosy about what I upvote. I figure that by gold, they've got people that know them and support them, and more importantly they know whats what.
+3@JangoTheMango Not if you fail to display that quality. There are many many many good builds that get very little attention.
+3Yes, @FastDan suggestion to use Overload is your best bet. Not only is it an extremely powerful and easy-to-use mod, but everything you build will still be compatible. No need for people to download anything besides your plane.
As for the XB-70 itself, the key will be testing, testing, testing. I recommend you fly up to 70,000 feet with a fast plane (800mph or more if possible), pause the game and Save the location. That way you can repeatedly spawn your Valkyrie there to test cruising speed at high altitude. The plane should fly smoothly at mach 3.
The other main details to consider are the adjustable wingtips, massive landing gear, all-moving canards, and the ability to land safely.
I've found that the easiest way to balance planes is to use fuselage pieces that (via Overload) are modded to weigh 0.01x normal weight. That way, the plane is very light. Then add two or three very heavy fuselage pieces to determine where you want the center of mass.
Doing it this way allows you to balance the plane around the wings and landing gear instead of the other way around.
Never modify the weight of parts beside fuselage blocks. Moving parts like engines and rotators get buggy is you mess with their weight.
+3@Tobydustin1989
A) Download plane with guns that fire through props
B) Steal the guns
C)Profit!
+3Oh, I think you all know by now what I'd suggest.
+3@Johawks1976 I don't hold that against him, mind you. I just noticed that the very well built Messerschmitts glancing the front page every week had a different uploader.
+3Your obsession with nazi planes and identical style were dead giveaways. You make good planes, I don't know why you bothered swapping accounts.
+3Captivating is nice but most people just wanna know how it works, so clearly list the controls first. If you used any activation groups, list them and what they do. If you have sliders, explain what they're for. If it's a car, explain if you use roll, or yaw to steer.
If you really want to impress people, test your plane enough to know how to land it, and how fast you should do it. List the stall speed (the slowest speed the plane can fly and maintain altitude).
Is there anything dangerous? Does the plane do weird things if you try to roll and pitch at the same time? Is there a cruising speed where the plane will fly straight without gaining or losing altitude?
That kind of stuff goes first. At the bare minimum, at least list what 'AG's you have and what they do
After that you can make up a backstory (if its a fictional plane) or write about its history. Why was it made, what was its job, did it do anything important, etc.
Pictures are a good idea, both of the real thing but especially screenshots of the thing flying. A good screenshot does a great job of stoking peoples imagination and really sets it apart from the plain black background in the builder.
+3STOP RIGHT THERE, CRIMINAL SCUM
+3People of the forums, you know the words. SING IT WITH ME!
PZL M15 "BELPHEGOR"
+3A lot goes into presentation. Most of the really serious builds get uploaded Thursday or Friday so they can sit on the page for the weekend. People download mods to make the backfround look fancy. They post teasers. Some people even go further than that, the list goes on.
But consider this from another angle. All this presentation can ne helpful, but it'll only take you so far. The stuff that gets a ton of downloads is usually the stuff where someone spent a lot of time on the actual build. When I upload something and it doesn't get as much attention as I'd hoped, I don't think "darn, must've been the wrong time zone." I think "how could I have made this build better."
+3If you want a boatload of points, make a Spitfire with camouflage, a P-51 with fancy nose art or an airliner with a cockpit so detailed that it makes cellphones melt. That's the kind of stuff people upvote.
You can't make people like stuff, you can only hope they like what you make or pander to them and make stuff you already know they like.
Anyway, no matter how many upvotes you get, it'll never be enough if you don't enjoy what you're doing.
+3@jamesPLANESii In my day, we only had Etch-a-sketch and the only way to run multiplayer was by sharing the knobs!
+3