This is nice, really nice. I like this a lot, so please do not take what I am about to write next as an attack on you or your lovely superfort: it is more a commentary on the out and out oddness of the upvote patterns of the SP community.
I recently did a B-50 (the younger twin of the B-29). It has custom control surfaces, flaps, usable gun turrets as well as everything this model has. I just want to point out again that this B-29 is awesome.
The B-50 has as of now 9 upvotes. This model (which I think is comparable in quality to mine) has, at the time of my typing this, 40 more.
Now, I dont build for upvotes, I really dont, but I just dont get it. Is it because I smell or something?
You are correct. This is a repaint and slight adjustment of my Spitfire Mk1. Thanks for the aggressive pedantry, though. Always appreciated. @WarHawk95
Let it go, son.
One missile takes out more or less everything in SP. Let me let you in on a secret; this isnt really a First Order space ship. It is a fictional model built in a sandbox computer game. @Wabo73
@Razor3278 Even the chubby Swedish girls are hot. True fact.
@ChiChiWerx Thanks! She really was a fairly good equivalent to the Sabre. The early ones, at least.
@Tang0five Cheers! Ive read that the Flygvapnet pilots liked to rat race against F-86 pilots, as the J-29 had a little bit of a performance advantageon some areas. Against the MiG-15? I havent read much, but the Faggot was conceived as a bomber interceptor, the Tunnan as a fighter-interceptor first, and a fighter-bomber second. Any comparitive on line talk on the three very very quickly descends into a mig vs sabre slagging match.
Im tempted to think that the tree are all more or less equal.
@Spacedoge12345plane
Youre getting hung up too much on the whole rank thing. It really doesnt matter and is no clear reflection on how good a builder/community member you are. Upvotes are nice but they should not have such a big influence on what you choose to build and when. That little yellow sticker next to my name could disappear tomorrow and I couldnt care less.
@OC3LOT1142 Totally! It isnt about the upvotes, but they are nice to receive. I build for my own gratification and actually like comments, criticism and encouragement more. Someone taking the time to interact with me because of something Ive built is of more worth to me than a simple upvote. Still, upvotes are nice.
@WarLightning Full on replicas are not allowed. You’ll just be copying a solution that someone else came up with. I could end up with a competition full of V bombers… Which isn’t a bad thing per se, but against the spirit of the competition.
That being said, if someone were to make a cursed Victor, or a chibi Vulcan then I would be happy… so long as it can still drop the nuke.
I would also love to see how a P-47 could be made to deliver this, though. I would judge that any P-47 modified to deliver a 7250lb strategic nuke isn’t really a replica any more…
You got me. The Marauder was the first thing I thought of when I read "medium bomber". I would have loved to have done one, too. But replicas are way above my skill level. @Tang0five
Spin as in spin. One wing is stalling and forcing her out of controlled flight. But its ok - its the low speed handling that is sketchy. Once up to speed she handles quite nicely - if a little heavy. But overall this is an awesome build! @Zippy6
Thanks! @TMach5 BTW; the damage report on firing the guns is harmless.
The nose gun has recoil (by @Minecraftpoweer ). There is actually two guns; one firing outward at the target and another with high bullet mass but zero damage, which with the use of a spring creates recoil and a nice gunsmoke type effect. It shoots back into itself, yes, but doesnt actually do any damage.
Ok, after a two minute test flight;
Good things;
1- overall she is a very pretty model.
2- those flaps! Oh my those flaps!
3- smooth enough to fly
The not so good;
1- the main gear is vibrating like crazy (on high physics)
2- she wants to veer right on the take off roll
3- the elevator trim is inverted
4- there is a part of the rudder that clips through the tail fin when rolling. I get thatcthis is to counter the nose drop, but if the real kite didnt have this, then I would remove it.
@Wabo73 @Ephwurd
I often find that the innability to discern fiction from reality points to a somewhat stunted intellect. I also like the green jelly babies best.
The cool kids group where things are happening? Where someone needs to be? Ok... I think that we inhabit very different realities. @Spacedoge12345plane
My two cents;
I like this, but the shape is quite far off. The wings chord is too thick and the wing root extensions aft are missing.
The cannon protrusions are too long.
The nose is too thin (shallow) and thee should be six exhaust stubs (two per cylinder).
The canopy is too big and the wrong shape. Early Spits had small cannopies.
The tailplane is close to correct shape, but blocky.
The tail fin is quite far off in terms of shape and blocky.
There are more points, but I think Ive covered the main points.
This is constructive critique, im not trying to be an ass. I look forward to the next build!
Cheers me old mucker! Have fun with her. Oh, and for better performance, try drainkng all fuel from her and filling up the main fuselage behind the cockpit only. I gave her a wee bit too much fuel, you see... @Tang0five
Now that you mention it, I really see your point. It really isnt meant to be related to the Provost at all, but I can see the resemblence. It is suppost to be a too big, too heavy losing competitor to the Tucano. Only a few built blah blah. I just need to find time to do the write up. @Mustang51
Ok. Firstly, it was Reginald Mitchell who designed both the Supermarine Spitfire and the Supermarine S series.
Secondly, the max take off weight for a Spit was (generally) in the region of 5,000 to 7,000 lbs. this thing weighs 30,000 lbs. it also has in excess of 11,000 drag points. 5,000 hp isnt going to cut the mustard. The poor kite is on the verge of stalling at all times. Using auto prop pitch helps, but this bird needs to lose weight.
Thirdly the Spit is generally (with variations from type to type) 36 feet from wingtip to wingtip, 29 feet from spinner tip to rudder trailing edge and 11 feet high. Your dimensions are off.
Fourthly, using rotators is a great idea for control surfaces, but if you want trim too you need to double up on the rotators and have one as the control actuator and the other as the trim actuator. Take a look at my Lancaster to see how I did it.
You have a lot of skill already as a builder - there are a lot of advanced techniques on show here - but the basics are lacking a wee bit for me.
It looks nice.
But, does she require mods? I tried to fly this thing in iOS and, well, it doesnt. She won't lift her nose. Major lawn dart.
Plus there doesn't seem to be landing gear of any sort. Lastly, she has in excess of 2 million gallons of fuel?
So, lovely model. Very nice, but isn't functional for me.
@WarLightning its a big boy, no doubt. But dont lose heart! Think outside the box! Think big! Think small! Think pink! Or blue! Green? You choose! You have until 20.01.26, so take your time…
@TateNT34
First, thanks for the interest and the upvote! Second - answers!
1- As a general rule you cant recolour the bomb itself. It is green with a black head and orange stripes. But! If its a hassle to not recolour, of if the colouring makes it awesome, then I might even give added bonus points…
2- you can add things (like parachutes, detatchers etc) yeah. As it is, it is set to drop on an AG. AG3, if I dont remember wrong. But if you want to use a detatcher to make it drop on firing weapons or whatever its totally fine.
Rename it? Rename what?
As a rule Im not going to disqualify folks unless the rule breaking is flagrant, egregious, reprehensible, or just generally really bad.
Please just build something, and if its inkeeping with the spirit of the competition then youre all good.
Quick question regarding the hinge / rotator parts - I see they are set up for use as elevators, and that you stipulate using the structural wing only for our builds. Is it allowed to modify the structural wing you require so that it can have control surfaces? And if so, can we use it for flaps, rudder, ailerons and so on (keeping the g-limit you have in the code)?
@ChiChiWerx Thanks! She rolls really well too, huh?
I think I finally found my groove in terms of building stuff. I figured that since I hate doing cockpits, why bother? I build primarily for myself anyway… Just build until Im happy and release the damn thing. Thats my motto from now on.
This is nice, really nice. I like this a lot, so please do not take what I am about to write next as an attack on you or your lovely superfort: it is more a commentary on the out and out oddness of the upvote patterns of the SP community.
I recently did a B-50 (the younger twin of the B-29). It has custom control surfaces, flaps, usable gun turrets as well as everything this model has. I just want to point out again that this B-29 is awesome.
The B-50 has as of now 9 upvotes. This model (which I think is comparable in quality to mine) has, at the time of my typing this, 40 more.
Now, I dont build for upvotes, I really dont, but I just dont get it. Is it because I smell or something?
+11You are correct. This is a repaint and slight adjustment of my Spitfire Mk1. Thanks for the aggressive pedantry, though. Always appreciated. @WarHawk95
+4Let it go, son.
+4One missile takes out more or less everything in SP. Let me let you in on a secret; this isnt really a First Order space ship. It is a fictional model built in a sandbox computer game. @Wabo73
@Razor3278 Even the chubby Swedish girls are hot. True fact.
@ChiChiWerx Thanks! She really was a fairly good equivalent to the Sabre. The early ones, at least.
@Tang0five Cheers! Ive read that the Flygvapnet pilots liked to rat race against F-86 pilots, as the J-29 had a little bit of a performance advantageon some areas. Against the MiG-15? I havent read much, but the Faggot was conceived as a bomber interceptor, the Tunnan as a fighter-interceptor first, and a fighter-bomber second. Any comparitive on line talk on the three very very quickly descends into a mig vs sabre slagging match.
+4Im tempted to think that the tree are all more or less equal.
@HuskyDynamics01
Youre a good man/woman/camera/internet person :-)
+3This makes me happy.
+3@Spacedoge12345plane
Youre getting hung up too much on the whole rank thing. It really doesnt matter and is no clear reflection on how good a builder/community member you are. Upvotes are nice but they should not have such a big influence on what you choose to build and when. That little yellow sticker next to my name could disappear tomorrow and I couldnt care less.
@OC3LOT1142 Totally! It isnt about the upvotes, but they are nice to receive. I build for my own gratification and actually like comments, criticism and encouragement more. Someone taking the time to interact with me because of something Ive built is of more worth to me than a simple upvote. Still, upvotes are nice.
+3@nwa This competition requires smart and dumb in equal measures.
Thanks very much for the spotlight, btw!
+2@WarLightning Full on replicas are not allowed. You’ll just be copying a solution that someone else came up with. I could end up with a competition full of V bombers… Which isn’t a bad thing per se, but against the spirit of the competition.
That being said, if someone were to make a cursed Victor, or a chibi Vulcan then I would be happy… so long as it can still drop the nuke.
I would also love to see how a P-47 could be made to deliver this, though. I would judge that any P-47 modified to deliver a 7250lb strategic nuke isn’t really a replica any more…
+2Im in.
+2Im from the UK, but live in Norway. The Scandinavian one, not the Michigan one.
+2Ah. You went for the Kelvin, eh? Very nice, old boy!
+2@Tang0five Many thanks! Im considering doing the Valiant and the Vulcan too. What challenges do you recommend?
+2Probably? For me it is the one bit of building in SP that I really couldnt care less for.
+2Fifth place and an honorable mention? I’ll take it :-)
+2You got me. The Marauder was the first thing I thought of when I read "medium bomber". I would have loved to have done one, too. But replicas are way above my skill level. @Tang0five
+2Spin as in spin. One wing is stalling and forcing her out of controlled flight. But its ok - its the low speed handling that is sketchy. Once up to speed she handles quite nicely - if a little heavy. But overall this is an awesome build! @Zippy6
+2...which will live in infamy.
+2I amended the deadline, chaps! Take note!
+2Thanks! @TMach5 BTW; the damage report on firing the guns is harmless.
+2The nose gun has recoil (by @Minecraftpoweer ). There is actually two guns; one firing outward at the target and another with high bullet mass but zero damage, which with the use of a spring creates recoil and a nice gunsmoke type effect. It shoots back into itself, yes, but doesnt actually do any damage.
@Tang0five
+2Cheers matey!
I feel the need, the need for speed!
+2Ok, after a two minute test flight;
Good things;
1- overall she is a very pretty model.
2- those flaps! Oh my those flaps!
3- smooth enough to fly
The not so good;
1- the main gear is vibrating like crazy (on high physics)
2- she wants to veer right on the take off roll
3- the elevator trim is inverted
4- there is a part of the rudder that clips through the tail fin when rolling. I get thatcthis is to counter the nose drop, but if the real kite didnt have this, then I would remove it.
Very nice bird, this.
+2@Wabo73 @Ephwurd
I often find that the innability to discern fiction from reality points to a somewhat stunted intellect. I also like the green jelly babies best.
Very nice build.
+2The cool kids group where things are happening? Where someone needs to be? Ok... I think that we inhabit very different realities. @Spacedoge12345plane
+2My two cents;
+2I like this, but the shape is quite far off. The wings chord is too thick and the wing root extensions aft are missing.
The cannon protrusions are too long.
The nose is too thin (shallow) and thee should be six exhaust stubs (two per cylinder).
The canopy is too big and the wrong shape. Early Spits had small cannopies.
The tailplane is close to correct shape, but blocky.
The tail fin is quite far off in terms of shape and blocky.
There are more points, but I think Ive covered the main points.
This is constructive critique, im not trying to be an ass. I look forward to the next build!
Huh, you did. Sorry! I missed it. I got second prize, too! Yay me! @Sgtk
+2Best Zero on SP. Lots of parts, though.
+2Thats why she has trim and a stick that moves gradually from left to right. ;-) @BogdanX
+2Sexy is what I do. @MrDoolittle
+2Cheers me old mucker! Have fun with her. Oh, and for better performance, try drainkng all fuel from her and filling up the main fuselage behind the cockpit only. I gave her a wee bit too much fuel, you see... @Tang0five
+2Im loving these models you are building lately. The Supermarine 300 especially. This is awesome too!
+2Now that you mention it, I really see your point. It really isnt meant to be related to the Provost at all, but I can see the resemblence. It is suppost to be a too big, too heavy losing competitor to the Tucano. Only a few built blah blah. I just need to find time to do the write up. @Mustang51
+2Ok. Firstly, it was Reginald Mitchell who designed both the Supermarine Spitfire and the Supermarine S series.
+2Secondly, the max take off weight for a Spit was (generally) in the region of 5,000 to 7,000 lbs. this thing weighs 30,000 lbs. it also has in excess of 11,000 drag points. 5,000 hp isnt going to cut the mustard. The poor kite is on the verge of stalling at all times. Using auto prop pitch helps, but this bird needs to lose weight.
Thirdly the Spit is generally (with variations from type to type) 36 feet from wingtip to wingtip, 29 feet from spinner tip to rudder trailing edge and 11 feet high. Your dimensions are off.
Fourthly, using rotators is a great idea for control surfaces, but if you want trim too you need to double up on the rotators and have one as the control actuator and the other as the trim actuator. Take a look at my Lancaster to see how I did it.
You have a lot of skill already as a builder - there are a lot of advanced techniques on show here - but the basics are lacking a wee bit for me.
As im sitting here now, this 52 has 52 upvotes...
+2It looks nice.
+2But, does she require mods? I tried to fly this thing in iOS and, well, it doesnt. She won't lift her nose. Major lawn dart.
Plus there doesn't seem to be landing gear of any sort. Lastly, she has in excess of 2 million gallons of fuel?
So, lovely model. Very nice, but isn't functional for me.
@Boeing727200F You know what? Go for it. Whats the worst that could happen?
+1Wow. Very big. BUFF, one could say…
+1Its as if a Hughes XF-11 and a Lockheed P-38 loved each other very much… Some might say too much…
+1@WarLightning its a big boy, no doubt. But dont lose heart! Think outside the box! Think big! Think small! Think pink! Or blue! Green? You choose! You have until 20.01.26, so take your time…
+1@TateNT34
First, thanks for the interest and the upvote! Second - answers!
1- As a general rule you cant recolour the bomb itself. It is green with a black head and orange stripes. But! If its a hassle to not recolour, of if the colouring makes it awesome, then I might even give added bonus points…
2- you can add things (like parachutes, detatchers etc) yeah. As it is, it is set to drop on an AG. AG3, if I dont remember wrong. But if you want to use a detatcher to make it drop on firing weapons or whatever its totally fine.
Rename it? Rename what?
As a rule Im not going to disqualify folks unless the rule breaking is flagrant, egregious, reprehensible, or just generally really bad.
Please just build something, and if its inkeeping with the spirit of the competition then youre all good.
+1@tetozz a Spotlight?!? Youre too kind.
+1@Spitfirelad05 Thanks. The Lightning was a beast, for sure. Funny to think that it was developed in the early 50s.
+1Quick question regarding the hinge / rotator parts - I see they are set up for use as elevators, and that you stipulate using the structural wing only for our builds. Is it allowed to modify the structural wing you require so that it can have control surfaces? And if so, can we use it for flaps, rudder, ailerons and so on (keeping the g-limit you have in the code)?
+1VARK VARK VARK VARK!
+1Thanks! A very well run challenge! Looking forward to the next one!
+1@WinsWings Thank you! Im glad you like it!
+1@ChiChiWerx Thanks! She rolls really well too, huh?
I think I finally found my groove in terms of building stuff. I figured that since I hate doing cockpits, why bother? I build primarily for myself anyway… Just build until Im happy and release the damn thing. Thats my motto from now on.
+1@TASTEinc kein problem, kamerat! Im just happy to be here.
+1@LieutenantSOT ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!
+1