@FrankieB @Feanor @Sunnyskies All that does is invert the block surface, which for some reason, people think is transparency.. Sunny is after a block that is shown fully in exterior view, and is not rendered at all in interior view. This would be quite nice. It would let you make canopies out of more than just one large fuselage cone, while still being usable as an interior
@Liquidfox So I tried the whole XFA-27 thing, but there's just too many parts of the plane I cant get any reference on at all, including even basic dimensions. I'll never be happy with it till i can get anything concrete, so hate to say it man, but it probably wont happen, at least any time soon
Love the paintjob, but i have to agree with @ForeverPie The wings look too short, also the fuselage appears to be too narrow, it should be fatter and rounder. Still though, great plane nonetheless
It's a very nice plane but that name literally doesn't exist. This is either a Sukhoi-33/37 Flanker-F, not 35, or it's a Shenyang J-15 Flying Shark. Not Chengdu.
@HSAeroWerkes1 Heres a solution: make forward wings flat bottom, and elevators semi-symmetric. Also, one of your rudder directions is backwards. Hope that helps ya :)
@ForeverPie @CL4TRP A 3D version of the wing system would be great, and would get rid of having to deal with annoying set values for rise and run, instead being a click and drag system. However, to the main point, you cannot simply bend fuselages in the middle because that's not how geometry works. One section of fuselage is a single length of edges, which needs edge loops in order to appear to bend, with more edge loops appearing smoother. Having multiple edge loops is the same visual geometry as multiple fuselage pieces, with the only difference being there's no center faces between the two sections. If you had the ability to divide a single fuselage block into multiple sections, it would make for more efficient models, but don't delude yourself, its not a miracle worker for mobile gaming. Geometry is geometry and the more there is, the better it looks, and the worse it runs. Parts count is just a simplification of this and also isn't an entirely true system. A model made entirely of square edges should be almost 4x easier to run than one of the same count of round pieces, assuming a circle is 16 points around. That said if you want parts to bend continuously to the next one, it should be possible to rotate the whole end face of a fuselage piece and extend the next one at an angle. THAT is what i'd ask for.
Supermaneuverability is NOT assisted roll and pitch. It is the ability to perform maneuvers impossible by pure aerodynamics, like Cobras or J turns. TVC for Assisted pitch is just high maneuverability, but is a component required for full supermaneuverability. For instance, the Harrier featured vectored thrust for assisted turns but was not supermaneuverable. So yea, don't misuse terms.
For high maneuverability, you need a perfectly balanced plane that can pitch up eagerly even at very low speeds. with this, you can add thrust vectored jets that pivot up and down at about 15 degrees to assist turning, and of course, they need good leverage over the plane, so they should be at the very back and move with the elevators. For true supermaneurverability, you need a bit more. The center of mass needs to be balanced vertically with the thrust such that if the plane was pointing 90 degrees up and standstill, the thrust would not force it to flip up or down. This combined with TVC independently enabled for roll and yaw as well will enable full control when any other plane would stall. Finally, for supermaneuverability, wing loading must be high enough (75+lbs/sqft) that when pulling up hard enough, the entire plane can break free of its winged flight and drift or use the entire plane as an airbrake. For just high maneuverability, lighter wing loads are better (under 50lbs/sqft), as your goal is to turn on a regular path faster. Hope you enjoyed reading this book of a comment :P
@AceOfSpade Someones already rebuilding theirs, no sense in me making the same thing.. also, i don't really take requests because i'm slow and will never actually get it done in a reasonable time
Instead of running out the door from jealousy, why not take the time to wonder why you think other users are better? Study their stuff and find what works and what doesn't. Use that knowledge to improve yours. I truly hate impulsive posts like this, which are just entirely negative. I'm not gonna force you to stay, but like everyone else, I will tell you your reasoning is poor.
@RedstoneAeroAviation Try it on pc! I hate removing parts i worked hard on for mobile use. That makes it feel... butchered. Also i'm lazy. Actually... mostly that.
Yea, they're too simple. 40 parts won't be impressing anyone, hate to say. As shmexy said, people will judge the newest list with a junk filter, and if you don't catch someone's eye within half an hour, it's most certainly fallen into the graveyard. Generally even a good quick build is upwards of 100 parts, and the best visuals can be more than 400 parts. So uh... welcome to not-so-simple planes! Feel free to ask for advice though
@RedstoneAeroAviation XD All your 3 examples are the same thing. Frostbite is an engine developed by DICE, which is a subsidiary of EA, who publishes their games. I just found that funny :P Also EA is a horrible company to work for lol
@GluonicGaming yea I want air intakes that can blend in better... also that don't always break and claim they're not getting enough air.. I'd say they should also add the scale options in the ingame ui, because those parts already are resizable through hidden options.
@RedstoneAeroAviation Personally, being a developer myself, my goal is to make money and make the customer satisfied... their move just spits in the face of customer satisfaction. theyre basically saying ** you, buy our $80 pre order to bolster sales so you can get the thing you actually wanted.. also you HAVE to get this, its the only way. I was just stunned when I saw that because its a downright hostile business practice that has no positive for the devs or consumers.
@RedstoneAeroAviation Idk if i can get it any lower than that though.. id have to sacrifice all the fancy moving nozzles :c i cant even reduce the body part count because its ALL structural
@Wildblueyonder578 The wings in this setup allow for drag to be fairly even in a tailslide, whereas if the wings were to be back swept, the drag is too great at the rear to allow those maneuvers unless fairly large canards were added to equalise it. Then you'd have the issue of too much lift, which means the plane wouldn't be able pull into a slide anyway. For its weight though, i'd say it handles pretty well anyway. Its pretty realistic in terms of stats for a large fighter
@RedstoneAeroAviation It's pretty hard to strip this plane down without significantly hurting the visuals or removing all the cool parts.. To get it to 253 parts I had to strip the interior, remove custom landing gear, and cut off all the surface details. Is that runnable for you?
Hooks would be pretty great. I've landed on it with most of my jets, but it would definitely be cool to have the proper equipment for more realistic landings
@iFalco yea, models are a great reference, most of the vector drawings on google are all poorly fan made and inaccurate anyway, so gotta get the real deal
@iFalco nah, I don't mean making it was the issue, its making it accurate to the real deal. I went overkill on the model accuracy for this so it took forever. I used the 3D model and everything to make this just right, but of course it can never be 100% because i didnt no-life it XD Made a nifty comparison too https://gyazo.com/3b5b7fc9e1fc4abfb78a370a68b359e2
@iFalco Yea this thing definitely took a good bunch of days to build. Most of that time went into shaping the intake ducts and making all those moving parts work.. those weapon bays, man.. those things are so hard to make functional.
@iFalco For sure, people have their reasons, but from what I've seen, they aren't well thought out. If people want to leave, that's fine, but I want people to know that deleting their account is foolish either way because there's no going back, should they ever decide to pick it up at a later point to make a few planes. They don't seem to realise that they can just not play it instead. When I'm done with any regular game, I don't just dive right in and delete all my save data. I leave it until I need more room and I'm sure i'll never be playing it, which is months later, if at all.
@VarcJohn The pilot died the first turn you made XD Also, this post was supposed to be about visuals too.. yes do some visuals. Also, focus on the side profile of the jets too. Your tops are cool shapes, but the sides are straight and lame. too many people forget to work with height, and it really hurts their designs
@VarcJohn yea, so relatively, its the weight of a feather with the lift of an airliner lol. Personally I find those harder to fly because theyre so sensitive you can never line up shots or have a smooth landing
@VarcJohn Glad i can help. Also something to note, is that full supermaneuverability including mainly the ability to cobra, is only possible above a certain level of wing loading. If the wing load is very low, the plane will feel on rails, which is good to most people, but it also means the plane will not be able to "drift" into maneuvers. On the other hand, too high of a load will not be able to turn. Having relatively high wing loads does of course mean its turning time is longer
I'm more on the side of realism though, and real planes can't do 2 second full turns XD In fact, a real Su-33 can have a wing load of almost 100 lbs/sqft, so its easy to see how it can tailslide at lower speeds
@Bagas oh, you mean the MQ-90l Quox? If so.. I don't think that could ever fly. It's too short and has no rudders or leverage for elevators. I could easily make the model, but it would never work well if it does at all
@StrongAndMighty Well you only actually need 1 engine, multiple will give it more force, but after 2 or so youre not gonna benefit any more. What you really need is faster jets, and u can get that with a quick xml mod.
Farewell for now o/
ok... so just move the files back..? >.>
@FrankieB @Feanor @Sunnyskies All that does is invert the block surface, which for some reason, people think is transparency.. Sunny is after a block that is shown fully in exterior view, and is not rendered at all in interior view. This would be quite nice. It would let you make canopies out of more than just one large fuselage cone, while still being usable as an interior
yea attachment is maddening.
@Liquidfox So I tried the whole XFA-27 thing, but there's just too many parts of the plane I cant get any reference on at all, including even basic dimensions. I'll never be happy with it till i can get anything concrete, so hate to say it man, but it probably wont happen, at least any time soon
Love the paintjob, but i have to agree with @ForeverPie The wings look too short, also the fuselage appears to be too narrow, it should be fatter and rounder. Still though, great plane nonetheless
nice build :D
Very nice.
Good work, glad to help
It's a very nice plane but that name literally doesn't exist. This is either a Sukhoi-33/37 Flanker-F, not 35, or it's a Shenyang J-15 Flying Shark. Not Chengdu.
@Stampede Yours is pretty nice but the wing shapes aren't quite right
@HSAeroWerkes1 Heres a solution: make forward wings flat bottom, and elevators semi-symmetric. Also, one of your rudder directions is backwards. Hope that helps ya :)
well it flies pretty badly, but its balanced and pitches eagerly. ill see what i can do
@ForeverPie Its ok, i'm used to pointless responses to my long technical posts XD
Of those 2, mod's takes the cake, but uh... of all of them, @Sunnyskies build is definitely on top
@ForeverPie @CL4TRP A 3D version of the wing system would be great, and would get rid of having to deal with annoying set values for rise and run, instead being a click and drag system. However, to the main point, you cannot simply bend fuselages in the middle because that's not how geometry works. One section of fuselage is a single length of edges, which needs edge loops in order to appear to bend, with more edge loops appearing smoother. Having multiple edge loops is the same visual geometry as multiple fuselage pieces, with the only difference being there's no center faces between the two sections. If you had the ability to divide a single fuselage block into multiple sections, it would make for more efficient models, but don't delude yourself, its not a miracle worker for mobile gaming. Geometry is geometry and the more there is, the better it looks, and the worse it runs. Parts count is just a simplification of this and also isn't an entirely true system. A model made entirely of square edges should be almost 4x easier to run than one of the same count of round pieces, assuming a circle is 16 points around. That said if you want parts to bend continuously to the next one, it should be possible to rotate the whole end face of a fuselage piece and extend the next one at an angle. THAT is what i'd ask for.
@HSAeroWerkes1 I can help If you need it
Well you're right, its pretty big
Supermaneuverability is NOT assisted roll and pitch. It is the ability to perform maneuvers impossible by pure aerodynamics, like Cobras or J turns. TVC for Assisted pitch is just high maneuverability, but is a component required for full supermaneuverability. For instance, the Harrier featured vectored thrust for assisted turns but was not supermaneuverable. So yea, don't misuse terms.
For high maneuverability, you need a perfectly balanced plane that can pitch up eagerly even at very low speeds. with this, you can add thrust vectored jets that pivot up and down at about 15 degrees to assist turning, and of course, they need good leverage over the plane, so they should be at the very back and move with the elevators. For true supermaneurverability, you need a bit more. The center of mass needs to be balanced vertically with the thrust such that if the plane was pointing 90 degrees up and standstill, the thrust would not force it to flip up or down. This combined with TVC independently enabled for roll and yaw as well will enable full control when any other plane would stall. Finally, for supermaneuverability, wing loading must be high enough (75+lbs/sqft) that when pulling up hard enough, the entire plane can break free of its winged flight and drift or use the entire plane as an airbrake. For just high maneuverability, lighter wing loads are better (under 50lbs/sqft), as your goal is to turn on a regular path faster. Hope you enjoyed reading this book of a comment :P
+2@AceOfSpade Someones already rebuilding theirs, no sense in me making the same thing.. also, i don't really take requests because i'm slow and will never actually get it done in a reasonable time
Instead of running out the door from jealousy, why not take the time to wonder why you think other users are better? Study their stuff and find what works and what doesn't. Use that knowledge to improve yours. I truly hate impulsive posts like this, which are just entirely negative. I'm not gonna force you to stay, but like everyone else, I will tell you your reasoning is poor.
lookin good
@GALM1 I might get around to that, but i was probably gonna try an XFA-27 first
Never heard of this thing before but its definitely cool
Love the front and interior work
@RedstoneAeroAviation Try it on pc! I hate removing parts i worked hard on for mobile use. That makes it feel... butchered. Also i'm lazy. Actually... mostly that.
Yea, they're too simple. 40 parts won't be impressing anyone, hate to say. As shmexy said, people will judge the newest list with a junk filter, and if you don't catch someone's eye within half an hour, it's most certainly fallen into the graveyard. Generally even a good quick build is upwards of 100 parts, and the best visuals can be more than 400 parts. So uh... welcome to not-so-simple planes! Feel free to ask for advice though
@RedstoneAeroAviation XD All your 3 examples are the same thing. Frostbite is an engine developed by DICE, which is a subsidiary of EA, who publishes their games. I just found that funny :P Also EA is a horrible company to work for lol
@GluonicGaming yea I want air intakes that can blend in better... also that don't always break and claim they're not getting enough air.. I'd say they should also add the scale options in the ingame ui, because those parts already are resizable through hidden options.
@RedstoneAeroAviation Personally, being a developer myself, my goal is to make money and make the customer satisfied... their move just spits in the face of customer satisfaction. theyre basically saying ** you, buy our $80 pre order to bolster sales so you can get the thing you actually wanted.. also you HAVE to get this, its the only way. I was just stunned when I saw that because its a downright hostile business practice that has no positive for the devs or consumers.
@RedstoneAeroAviation Idk if i can get it any lower than that though.. id have to sacrifice all the fancy moving nozzles :c i cant even reduce the body part count because its ALL structural
@RedstoneAeroAviation Its funny, inf warfare doesnt even look THAT bad as a game, but oh man, that preorder thing triggered so many people.
isn't this the sole reason infinite warfare is a failure? XD
@RedstoneAeroAviation Nudged and modded parts aren't any harder to render though... they're the same meshes, just repositioned and rescaled
@Wildblueyonder578 The wings in this setup allow for drag to be fairly even in a tailslide, whereas if the wings were to be back swept, the drag is too great at the rear to allow those maneuvers unless fairly large canards were added to equalise it. Then you'd have the issue of too much lift, which means the plane wouldn't be able pull into a slide anyway. For its weight though, i'd say it handles pretty well anyway. Its pretty realistic in terms of stats for a large fighter
@NumNumz :D
@RedstoneAeroAviation It's pretty hard to strip this plane down without significantly hurting the visuals or removing all the cool parts.. To get it to 253 parts I had to strip the interior, remove custom landing gear, and cut off all the surface details. Is that runnable for you?
Hooks would be pretty great. I've landed on it with most of my jets, but it would definitely be cool to have the proper equipment for more realistic landings
@Benkelmans Thanks :D
@iFalco yea, models are a great reference, most of the vector drawings on google are all poorly fan made and inaccurate anyway, so gotta get the real deal
@iFalco nah, I don't mean making it was the issue, its making it accurate to the real deal. I went overkill on the model accuracy for this so it took forever. I used the 3D model and everything to make this just right, but of course it can never be 100% because i didnt no-life it XD Made a nifty comparison too https://gyazo.com/3b5b7fc9e1fc4abfb78a370a68b359e2
@iFalco Yea this thing definitely took a good bunch of days to build. Most of that time went into shaping the intake ducts and making all those moving parts work.. those weapon bays, man.. those things are so hard to make functional.
@iFalco I'll be sure not to disappoint :P Just know that i'm painfully slow when it comes to making things XD
@redbear89 @FNGENGR @iFalco Thanks guys, glad to see so many people enjoy it ^^
@iFalco For sure, people have their reasons, but from what I've seen, they aren't well thought out. If people want to leave, that's fine, but I want people to know that deleting their account is foolish either way because there's no going back, should they ever decide to pick it up at a later point to make a few planes. They don't seem to realise that they can just not play it instead. When I'm done with any regular game, I don't just dive right in and delete all my save data. I leave it until I need more room and I'm sure i'll never be playing it, which is months later, if at all.
@VarcJohn The pilot died the first turn you made XD Also, this post was supposed to be about visuals too.. yes do some visuals. Also, focus on the side profile of the jets too. Your tops are cool shapes, but the sides are straight and lame. too many people forget to work with height, and it really hurts their designs
@VarcJohn yea, so relatively, its the weight of a feather with the lift of an airliner lol. Personally I find those harder to fly because theyre so sensitive you can never line up shots or have a smooth landing
@VarcJohn Glad i can help. Also something to note, is that full supermaneuverability including mainly the ability to cobra, is only possible above a certain level of wing loading. If the wing load is very low, the plane will feel on rails, which is good to most people, but it also means the plane will not be able to "drift" into maneuvers. On the other hand, too high of a load will not be able to turn. Having relatively high wing loads does of course mean its turning time is longer
I'm more on the side of realism though, and real planes can't do 2 second full turns XD In fact, a real Su-33 can have a wing load of almost 100 lbs/sqft, so its easy to see how it can tailslide at lower speeds
@Bagas oh, you mean the MQ-90l Quox? If so.. I don't think that could ever fly. It's too short and has no rudders or leverage for elevators. I could easily make the model, but it would never work well if it does at all
@StrongAndMighty Well you only actually need 1 engine, multiple will give it more force, but after 2 or so youre not gonna benefit any more. What you really need is faster jets, and u can get that with a quick xml mod.