@pancelvonat Thanks! But my comment was really a general commentary on how random the upvoting can be here. I wasnt fishing for upvotes! You are most kind, though.
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?
Its ok. You made good points. I knew about the canopy hood - early mk1 Spits had the smaller hood too. I didnt know about the exhausts, though. Every days a school day! @WarHawk95
Its ok. Im glad you like it. I guess Im getting a wee bit touchy in my old age. I look forward to seeing your mk20! Tag me when its up?
Do you really think it is the cockpit that makes the difference in terms of d/l? Odd... Anyway, here is a spot and an updoot. @logizAircrafts
@logizAircrafts I just think it is a bit off that you liked my Spitfire enough to make your own version, but you dont even mention that pretty much 99% of it is my work in the description, thats all. The d/l and u/v thing is really a secondary consideration.
You are correct. This is a repaint and slight adjustment of my Spitfire Mk1. Thanks for the aggressive pedantry, though. Always appreciated. @WarHawk95
Right. Someones going to have to explain this to me. This must be a young guys thing that us old guys dont get.
Someone takes my Spit, chops out the cockpit, removes most of the details, repaints it and gets more downloads and upvotes than the original.
Thank god for autocredit.
Cheers old bean! She is a rather interesting proposition indeed. A word to the wise; I may have forgotten to assign the cruise jets (on top of the fuselage) to AG1. Hovering might be a bit... interesting unless you fix this. @Tang0five
Cheers! Thanks for the spot, upvote and kind comment. I had a back story in my head that the Soviets were looking for a use for some surplus TU-4 bomber fuselages... Alas I am too late for the challenge... @Treadmill103
I would say keep the sliders, so that you can get an overall feel for where you want your part to sit, but also have the ability to type in the final angle. @DerekSP
I also find it frustrating to fine tune the angle on rotators etc. Is like the slider jumps a little each time I take my finger off. Although this might be a flaw indicative of the Apple touch screen, rather than something Jundroo can actually fix. I think the ability to physically type in the angle, speed, etc would fix a lot of issues. @jamesPLANESii
I dont think it makes any difference, from a control point of view. I have it on authority that torque effects are not modeled with prop engines. The reason I built her as a counter rotating rotor job is that I needed the extra power - I only had a 1100 hp engine to use. I found this 2000+ hp job in my sub assemblies. @Tang0five
Roundels. Warpaint. Right-oh old bean. I was considering making this one an Aussie or Kiwi; you know, some colonial type...
As for keeping her flying and not crashing in a large fire ball, well, the secret is to have an articulating rotor head and just enough gyro stabilisation so that it dampens my ham fisted piloting, but doesnt completely immobilise her. That and swearing. Lots of swearing. @Tang0five
Very cool!
Thanks Spitfirelad05! @Spitfirelad05
Cheers! The Wurger was one of my influences! @Spitfirelad05
Hey, what can I say? Im like chopped liver over here... Thanks, though! @ChiChiWerx
Im struggling to believe that this is possible with less than 1000 parts. Well done.
Thanks! @ThePrototype
@pancelvonat Thanks! But my comment was really a general commentary on how random the upvoting can be here. I wasnt fishing for upvotes! You are most kind, though.
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?
+11Yep, based on the River Clyde to the west of Glasgow, Scotland. They never really built anything like this, but I really liked the name. @Boundslayer
This is really very good. Very very good. @Tang0five
It looks very nice. Did you smooth out the tail fin? Overall an improvement over my model. Well done!
Tally bloody ho!!!! @Tang0five
Its ok. You made good points. I knew about the canopy hood - early mk1 Spits had the smaller hood too. I didnt know about the exhausts, though. Every days a school day! @WarHawk95
+1Its ok. Im glad you like it. I guess Im getting a wee bit touchy in my old age. I look forward to seeing your mk20! Tag me when its up?
Do you really think it is the cockpit that makes the difference in terms of d/l? Odd... Anyway, here is a spot and an updoot. @logizAircrafts
@logizAircrafts I just think it is a bit off that you liked my Spitfire enough to make your own version, but you dont even mention that pretty much 99% of it is my work in the description, thats all. The d/l and u/v thing is really a secondary consideration.
Seriously? Youre going to ignore my comment? Not even an honorable mention? @logizAircrafts
I think a version 2 is in order...
... not in this case... I didnt think of that. This is a two blade constant speed job. @ThePrototype
You are correct. This is a repaint and slight adjustment of my Spitfire Mk1. Thanks for the aggressive pedantry, though. Always appreciated. @WarHawk95
+4@EternalDarkness Cheers!
Thanks! @TMach5
This would melt my phone, but well played all the same. Nicely done!
Right. Someones going to have to explain this to me. This must be a young guys thing that us old guys dont get.
+1Someone takes my Spit, chops out the cockpit, removes most of the details, repaints it and gets more downloads and upvotes than the original.
Thank god for autocredit.
Thanks! She is an interesting specimin, no doubt. Four turboprops and eight turbojets... And she is still underpowered, I think. @ChiChiWerx
Cheers old bean! She is a rather interesting proposition indeed. A word to the wise; I may have forgotten to assign the cruise jets (on top of the fuselage) to AG1. Hovering might be a bit... interesting unless you fix this. @Tang0five
He he look at the Bell v-22; that was my inspiration for this. She has them big props too. @Carbonfox1
Im good? Good! And sorry about the part count. @ACEPILOT109
Excellent! Im in! @ACEPILOT109
Im still good? Good! And sorry about the part count. @ACEPILOT109
Why thank you kind sir. @Texasfam04
Iknowrite? @Strikefighter04
Many thanks! I was thinking that this would be perfect if you happened to have a hundred or so Spetznaz to move around...@grizzlitn
Cheers! Thanks for the spot, upvote and kind comment. I had a back story in my head that the Soviets were looking for a use for some surplus TU-4 bomber fuselages... Alas I am too late for the challenge... @Treadmill103
Im a wee bit (ok, a lot) late here. I also went a wee bit nuts with the part count. I guess Im disqualified?
Good stuff! Youre not.... Scottish, are you? @Tang0five
I would say keep the sliders, so that you can get an overall feel for where you want your part to sit, but also have the ability to type in the final angle. @DerekSP
I also find it frustrating to fine tune the angle on rotators etc. Is like the slider jumps a little each time I take my finger off. Although this might be a flaw indicative of the Apple touch screen, rather than something Jundroo can actually fix. I think the ability to physically type in the angle, speed, etc would fix a lot of issues. @jamesPLANESii
+1I would be very happy, indeed overjoyed, should this small issue be addressed.
A real shame this wanst ready on time. It would have won. Absolutely awesome job.
Damn! I thought I had until end of month! I have another chopper almost ready. Ah well... Also hey! 5th place with 8 kills!
Totally bloody agree! @doge should at least send an upvote your way. This is a bloody lovely build.
Second place! I’ll take it! Thanks poopatron71 for an awesome challenge!
Could we get a little more description?
Thanks! Im glad you liked it. I have another on the way, too. @TheRussiansAreComing
+1Me. For every build I make. I build on an iPhone.
You can never have too many Spitfires. @pavthepilot
What if I were to say «Spitfire»?
I dont think it makes any difference, from a control point of view. I have it on authority that torque effects are not modeled with prop engines. The reason I built her as a counter rotating rotor job is that I needed the extra power - I only had a 1100 hp engine to use. I found this 2000+ hp job in my sub assemblies. @Tang0five
Roundels. Warpaint. Right-oh old bean. I was considering making this one an Aussie or Kiwi; you know, some colonial type...
As for keeping her flying and not crashing in a large fire ball, well, the secret is to have an articulating rotor head and just enough gyro stabilisation so that it dampens my ham fisted piloting, but doesnt completely immobilise her. That and swearing. Lots of swearing. @Tang0five
+1Well that is most kind of you! @SledDriver