@SheriffHackdogMCPE
Not trying to start anything, but in my opinion, just rotating a symbol 45 degrees doesn't exactly change the logo is any way apart from its rotation.
Yep, it just so happens that after I watch a Mustard video about this aircraft, not long after, the aircraft shows up on SimplePlanes :p
It looks good however good work.
This is definitely good for people who need it.
But I will say something about paint jobs. Please for the love of God, do not use a lot of neon colours, preferably none, as this just makes things harder to look at. I would die these colours down. For example, you could use pastel colours instead of neon colours.
Nugget of info: The Brown and Green camo is the 'RAF Temperate Land scheme', used before 1941, and the Grey and Green camo is the 'RAF Day Fighter scheme', used after 1941. (Relating to the 'Outro' section)
@RicardoAs1515
I dunno if it bothers anyone else or not, but I'm going to point it out anyways (not being rude, just observant). The drop-tanks are still attached in the pictures of the Mig-19 engaged in combat, which they realistically shouldn't be.
1) How much focus was Rooster's backstory supposed to have anyways? It only gets talked about two or three times if I remember and not in massive detail.
=-=
2) Maybe, but consider the terrain. Also, even if they went completely vertical, they still have to put the Hornets into that attitude in the first place. And they are pulling up from a high speed dive which just increases the G's they'd be pulling.
=-=
3) This is a person we're talking about. Just because Coyote was seemingly the only one who experienced G-lock during the training, doesn't mean he's the only person ever who experiences it.
I guess the Hornet stalling though is a bit odd.
=-=
4) This is supposed to be realistic-ish and set in real life. When is reality ever truly equal when it comes to military tech?
=-=
5) Mmm, depends. You're obviously not going to put a prop fighter against a 4th or 5th gen fighter, but the tech in the movie is close enough that the pilot matters in a dogfight.
=-=
6) Uh, no? Just get any military pilot(s) who know stuff to look at the movie. This has been done already. Not saying everything is accurate, but it's not limited to the Hawkeye comms.
=-=
7) I guess, but he wasn't in the main strike package, so, different plans (or whatever you want to call it)?
@YpaYpafromCN
Looks really nice and quality.
One thing though, I think you could benefit from having at least one photo of the cockpit and it's details, because I can see there is detail there, would be good for those that don't or can't download it to see it.
@ThomasRoderick
Well, I don't serve in the RAF, just the Air Cadets, which is technically part of the RAF, but not the actual force.
I'm just a big aviation nerd.
What goboygo1 said. 1 engine will work, but you have to have an even number of engines (aka, 2 of them) to have thrust vectoring on all axis: Pitch, Yaw and Roll.
Quite the amazing build. I do have to say that the livery is one of the best parts of it, because it's clear that it's not an easy thing to make in SimplePlanes.
@SheriffHackdogMCPE
+3Not trying to start anything, but in my opinion, just rotating a symbol 45 degrees doesn't exactly change the logo is any way apart from its rotation.
Very cool, but am I the only one that when placing this onto their own build, stuff in the middle of the 'box' doesn't work?
+3I think you're talking about caramelldansen.
+3If so, the lyrics you've put in the post are way off.
Amazing work, well done!
+3Good christ
+3@Numbers
+3Hm, yes. Let's hope that they provide something useful.
Maintenance is my best guess.
+3@MemeLordMASTERMEMES
+3Did you know Gordan is technically an A0, an experimental locomotive?
@FairFireFight
+3Do you mind if I use these in a build I'm working on?
Yep, it just so happens that after I watch a Mustard video about this aircraft, not long after, the aircraft shows up on SimplePlanes :p
+3It looks good however good work.
It is dude. You sound like you are American going by that. (I'm British). It's just short for: 16th April 2020
+3@MrPorg137
This is definitely good for people who need it.
+3But I will say something about paint jobs. Please for the love of God, do not use a lot of neon colours, preferably none, as this just makes things harder to look at. I would die these colours down. For example, you could use pastel colours instead of neon colours.
The addition of actual cannons into the game is great, many great creations (such as this) will be made
+3@Noname918181
+3You don't need a therapist..., you need Jesus...
@DPSAircraftManufacturer here is the Link
+3I must say, this is a pretty supurb trailer.
+2Nugget of info: The Brown and Green camo is the 'RAF Temperate Land scheme', used before 1941, and the Grey and Green camo is the 'RAF Day Fighter scheme', used after 1941. (Relating to the 'Outro' section)
+2I hate all of these
+2This needs a lot more attention, simply put.
+2Bloomin hell, so detailed!
+2Well done Otana, it looks amazing
Huh....that's really good actually, well done.
+2@Australianbulider676
+2You pull up 10 of their builds and upvote them. That's how I do it at least.
@RicardoAs1515
+2I dunno if it bothers anyone else or not, but I'm going to point it out anyways (not being rude, just observant). The drop-tanks are still attached in the pictures of the Mig-19 engaged in combat, which they realistically shouldn't be.
1) How much focus was Rooster's backstory supposed to have anyways? It only gets talked about two or three times if I remember and not in massive detail.
+2=-=
2) Maybe, but consider the terrain. Also, even if they went completely vertical, they still have to put the Hornets into that attitude in the first place. And they are pulling up from a high speed dive which just increases the G's they'd be pulling.
=-=
3) This is a person we're talking about. Just because Coyote was seemingly the only one who experienced G-lock during the training, doesn't mean he's the only person ever who experiences it.
I guess the Hornet stalling though is a bit odd.
=-=
4) This is supposed to be realistic-ish and set in real life. When is reality ever truly equal when it comes to military tech?
=-=
5) Mmm, depends. You're obviously not going to put a prop fighter against a 4th or 5th gen fighter, but the tech in the movie is close enough that the pilot matters in a dogfight.
=-=
6) Uh, no? Just get any military pilot(s) who know stuff to look at the movie. This has been done already. Not saying everything is accurate, but it's not limited to the Hawkeye comms.
=-=
7) I guess, but he wasn't in the main strike package, so, different plans (or whatever you want to call it)?
@SheriffHackdogMCPE
+2Photoshop. Lightroom if it's a photograph.
@YpaYpafromCN
+2Looks really nice and quality.
One thing though, I think you could benefit from having at least one photo of the cockpit and it's details, because I can see there is detail there, would be good for those that don't or can't download it to see it.
That's really good!
+2@PlaneFlightX
+2That's a computer though...
Sacrificed a certain number of goats.
+2@IceCraftGaming
+2Funeral...?
Getting banned doesn't mean they're dead...
@ThomasRoderick
+2Well, I don't serve in the RAF, just the Air Cadets, which is technically part of the RAF, but not the actual force.
I'm just a big aviation nerd.
@X99STRIKER
+2@asteroidbook345
King Charles III, Queen Elizabeth II's son has become the king now.
Wow!
+2This is great by Simpleplanes cinematic standards.
Most interesting aspect in my opinion is the Camera work, by far.
I don't get what your issue with auto-prop pitch is....
+2HOOHHHHH, MY, GOD!
+2How many goats did you sacrifice to get this prize?
@MisterT
+2Fair. Though I did make the same thing on a build I'll release soon, which functions for cosmetic purposes, so :shrug:
@Tookan
+2"Shanks"
What goboygo1 said. 1 engine will work, but you have to have an even number of engines (aka, 2 of them) to have thrust vectoring on all axis: Pitch, Yaw and Roll.
+2@Shimamurahougetsu
+2Mind if I do a remaster of an older build?
My childhood.
+2I like it. Thanks for the entering.
+2@Bernkastel
+2I guess, as long as something about it says that it can operate in the arctic circle.
You've shown this already
(Still good though)
+2@KingOfTypos
+2I get that...but the the 'tail' is very specific, considering it means the back of the fuselage.
@X4JB
+2What makes you class it as 'unfinished'?
Very interesting.
+2Quite nice, I must say.
+2Nice build
+2(Going to point it out now before someone else does, this is almost identical to the Tornado F.3)
@WaitBreadIsntAfruit
+2well, yeah, I can tell, but my point still stands.
Quite the amazing build. I do have to say that the livery is one of the best parts of it, because it's clear that it's not an easy thing to make in SimplePlanes.
+2