Wow... That belt mechanism is actually genius! (I assume it's just some rounds on a spinner) I spent so many hours thinking about how to make a MG look belt fed, and you came up with such an elegant solution!
@Strikefighter04 Thank you so much! I went very much crazy during my hiatus and decided that this is what I would do with my free time. Glad you enjoyed it!
Honestly, The X-32 holds a special place in my heart. I keep a picture of it in my wallet, and any time someone says "You look ugly" I just whip out the photo and cry because I'm so alone.
Nice build. Interesting to imagine what would happen if Boeing was pretty much the only american supplier of fighters.
@Hpaccelli Not saying you're making this up as you go, but that's not mentioned in the rules,
"Allowed, but for rockets and bombs weapon mass and drag should be realistic and proportional to weapon size, and "Mass scale" for fuel carrying parts should be proportional. Editing guns is not allowed (Except for visual characteristics and rate of fire within a 30% margin). Editing the health of a part is not allowed"
I followed these rules, but the "You can't modify drag on parts that do NOT carry fuel either" rule may have been left out.
@TinyBearTim Cannons are set to cycle at the same rate, so if you have two cannons set to fire 0.3s between shots, it will alternate between them, they won't fire at the same time. so you COULD put 100 guns on your plane, but you may as well just have one.
Mmm yes the Widow maker... Not to be confused with every OTHER plane that has that title, because when it comes to naming things we, collectively, are VERY unoriginal.
Great plane, I enjoyed the read of the description. (You call that long? I'll 'ave ya!)
@IngenerMakogon2007 Hi! I've also been doing testing, and while your complaint is correct when it comes to the real world war two, what the criteria is named is:
Plausibility (How realistic and in WWII context your plane is): 10 points
Not what did happen, but what COULD have been.
The number of torpedoes it takes is actually only 6, the carrier starts to sink after the second, and if you wait it out, it will sink. (Tested both on Tiny and Tiny two) With this information, we can work on making a realistic world war two era ship killer.
The primary problem with the current SP weapons is that they de-spawn under water. This makes bombs very, very useless unless you get a direct hit. Rockets a better weapon for hitting the target, but they trade this off for explosive potential, which, while not reflected in their ground attack role, is miniscule compared to a cannon or bomb. The Torpedo is a rocket with a different propulsion, and has the opposite problem to the rocket, it is almost useless on land, but very effective in the water, only being surpassed by the Boom 50 and the cannon.
Many bombers had the carrying capacity to carry more than four torpedoes, and bare minimum, that is what you need to carry to kill the two escorts, and then you can just send a twenty rocket salvo at the carrier, which is undefended.
Even so, if you want actual realism, with real planes, then there is NO rule against a formation of, say, B52Ns, or Swordfish (Which would be awesome!) Also no rule against using a "cannon" (Rockets in a tube, like my CASAC-15) on your plane, it would just take upwards of four passes and you would need a very strong, or fast, plane.
Not to mention the many maritime patrol aircraft of the 1940s and 1950s that can carry up to ten torpedoes, like the P-3, heck, even the Marlin, which is 1943 tech at the latest, could carry the four torpedoes needed to sink the escorts.
Not bothered by the rule change, just letting you know that it isn't AS impossible as you make it seem. Have a good day.
@TheReturningHound
Just some little things, your build is awesome, wish my first post looked as smooth as this one, however, your flight model is actually inverted, pulling back, (Down) usually makes the plane go up, and vice versa, on yours it's the opposite. Nothing wrong with that, just found it interesting. I love how it flies though, once I got used to that up and down confusion. Good luck in future builds!
@Hpaccelli
So, I assume you will be flying the planes out to destroy the three destroyers, will you be trying multiple times, or just a one and done sort of thing?
@TheFantasticTyphoon Oh, right, the Mossie. The PBJ is one of the more common examples of a cannon armed plane though. Always thought it was bigger or a comparable size to the JU-88
@TheFantasticTyphoon @rexzion
Not here to run this challenge or anything, but I'm betting he WANTS this to be a difficult challenge. Cannons make sinking the two destroyers easy. You can kill all three ships with less than twenty cannon rounds. One pass, if you have a fast enough firing cannon. Not even rockets can do that. Torpedoes and bombs were the most common anti-ship weapons anyway, and nothing smaller than a JU-88 was ever fitted with a ship killing gun, to my knowledge.
So, here are some things you've probably already figured out, firstly, it's the shocks, if you get rid of them, then the gear works perfectly. I have no idea why it breaks physics, but it does. Only at reg and fast speeds though, slow motion fixes the gear and the suspension. You seem to have created a perpetual motion machine that can propel this thing up to 27 mph.
just a question though, why do you have your main struts (The ones going out of the fuselage) connected to another fuselage, and then the rotator?
Awesome looking, but just a few things.
For something like this, a gyroscope may help you out, it keeps everything pretty stable no matter what you do.
Also, structural wing, or wing-2 (I think) doesn't flex under stress, and you can XML mod it so that it can have control surfaces,
I love the design on it, and that decal is epic.
Keep up the good work!
Just figured I would let you know that you credited me for Barracuda, which I did not build, and seeing as how it did very well in the combat trials, I hope the rightful creator is credited!
@JakeJakeTheSnake
I believe the words you were looking for were ' I Made the F3H-2 Demon."
+1I now this is a bit late, but that 7 on the tail is a beauty. How'd you do it? was it manual, or is there a mod for stuff like that?
Wow... That belt mechanism is actually genius! (I assume it's just some rounds on a spinner) I spent so many hours thinking about how to make a MG look belt fed, and you came up with such an elegant solution!
@qwerty132 Thank you! I'll see if I can figure out how to make custom control surfaces for the future!
@Strikefighter04 Thank you so much! I went very much crazy during my hiatus and decided that this is what I would do with my free time. Glad you enjoyed it!
Well.. now that it's a battle for second place...
Amazing build! That cockpit view looks awesome!
@JediWolf
... "Mass scale" for fuel carrying parts should be proportional. ...
So no one is going to talk about his sister clearly being murdered in the background?
ooo lore! I like lore!
Honestly, The X-32 holds a special place in my heart. I keep a picture of it in my wallet, and any time someone says "You look ugly" I just whip out the photo and cry because I'm so alone.
Nice build. Interesting to imagine what would happen if Boeing was pretty much the only american supplier of fighters.
@Hpaccelli Not saying you're making this up as you go, but that's not mentioned in the rules,
"Allowed, but for rockets and bombs weapon mass and drag should be realistic and proportional to weapon size, and "Mass scale" for fuel carrying parts should be proportional. Editing guns is not allowed (Except for visual characteristics and rate of fire within a 30% margin). Editing the health of a part is not allowed"
I followed these rules, but the "You can't modify drag on parts that do NOT carry fuel either" rule may have been left out.
Something so beautiful about AWACS planes..
Looks awesome!
@TinyBearTim To get that size of cannon you need to XML mod them, I can do that for you if you'd like.
+1@TinyBearTim Cannons are set to cycle at the same rate, so if you have two cannons set to fire 0.3s between shots, it will alternate between them, they won't fire at the same time. so you COULD put 100 guns on your plane, but you may as well just have one.
Kamchatka sweats nervously
+1Mmm yes the Widow maker... Not to be confused with every OTHER plane that has that title, because when it comes to naming things we, collectively, are VERY unoriginal.
Great plane, I enjoyed the read of the description. (You call that long? I'll 'ave ya!)
+1The gear on this thing are awesome. I like how they retract asymmetrically.
@IngenerMakogon2007 Hi! I've also been doing testing, and while your complaint is correct when it comes to the real world war two, what the criteria is named is:
Plausibility (How realistic and in WWII context your plane is): 10 points
Not what did happen, but what COULD have been.
The number of torpedoes it takes is actually only 6, the carrier starts to sink after the second, and if you wait it out, it will sink. (Tested both on Tiny and Tiny two) With this information, we can work on making a realistic world war two era ship killer.
The primary problem with the current SP weapons is that they de-spawn under water. This makes bombs very, very useless unless you get a direct hit. Rockets a better weapon for hitting the target, but they trade this off for explosive potential, which, while not reflected in their ground attack role, is miniscule compared to a cannon or bomb. The Torpedo is a rocket with a different propulsion, and has the opposite problem to the rocket, it is almost useless on land, but very effective in the water, only being surpassed by the Boom 50 and the cannon.
Many bombers had the carrying capacity to carry more than four torpedoes, and bare minimum, that is what you need to carry to kill the two escorts, and then you can just send a twenty rocket salvo at the carrier, which is undefended.
Even so, if you want actual realism, with real planes, then there is NO rule against a formation of, say, B52Ns, or Swordfish (Which would be awesome!) Also no rule against using a "cannon" (Rockets in a tube, like my CASAC-15) on your plane, it would just take upwards of four passes and you would need a very strong, or fast, plane.
Not to mention the many maritime patrol aircraft of the 1940s and 1950s that can carry up to ten torpedoes, like the P-3, heck, even the Marlin, which is 1943 tech at the latest, could carry the four torpedoes needed to sink the escorts.
Not bothered by the rule change, just letting you know that it isn't AS impossible as you make it seem. Have a good day.
+3@rexzion Do i need to pack my bags and find a new solar system?
I feel like they keep getting smaller and smaller.
inb4 "Ooops I made a black hole" post
Reminds me of toothless. It's soo cute and tiny. awesome stuff!
Every time I see it I weep tears of Canadian sorrow and scream diefenbaker's name.
Which is why I got kicked out of the library.
Awesome build. shame you didn't put the roundel on the side, but the maple leaf is a pain.
@TheReturningHound
+1Just some little things, your build is awesome, wish my first post looked as smooth as this one, however, your flight model is actually inverted, pulling back, (Down) usually makes the plane go up, and vice versa, on yours it's the opposite. Nothing wrong with that, just found it interesting. I love how it flies though, once I got used to that up and down confusion. Good luck in future builds!
@Hpaccelli
So, I assume you will be flying the planes out to destroy the three destroyers, will you be trying multiple times, or just a one and done sort of thing?
@TheFantasticTyphoon Oh, right, the Mossie. The PBJ is one of the more common examples of a cannon armed plane though. Always thought it was bigger or a comparable size to the JU-88
+1@TheFantasticTyphoon @rexzion
+1Not here to run this challenge or anything, but I'm betting he WANTS this to be a difficult challenge. Cannons make sinking the two destroyers easy. You can kill all three ships with less than twenty cannon rounds. One pass, if you have a fast enough firing cannon. Not even rockets can do that. Torpedoes and bombs were the most common anti-ship weapons anyway, and nothing smaller than a JU-88 was ever fitted with a ship killing gun, to my knowledge.
So, here are some things you've probably already figured out, firstly, it's the shocks, if you get rid of them, then the gear works perfectly. I have no idea why it breaks physics, but it does. Only at reg and fast speeds though, slow motion fixes the gear and the suspension. You seem to have created a perpetual motion machine that can propel this thing up to 27 mph.
just a question though, why do you have your main struts (The ones going out of the fuselage) connected to another fuselage, and then the rotator?
+1@Sadboye12 Username checks out
+1@DanDaFreakinMan Lol, just means my 34 or so followers see your awesome work.
+1Awesome looking, but just a few things.
For something like this, a gyroscope may help you out, it keeps everything pretty stable no matter what you do.
Also, structural wing, or wing-2 (I think) doesn't flex under stress, and you can XML mod it so that it can have control surfaces,
I love the design on it, and that decal is epic.
Keep up the good work!
XML modding allowed?
Would something like the "Nikitin-Shevchenko IS" be allowed?
@JolyLoly Thank you!
Just got home from 24 hours of work to see this, good job to all the contestants! (Finally my writing pays off XD)
+1Those pictures are awesome, love the filters!
+1@BagelPlane Interesting... Thanks for letting me know, I'll see if I can figure out what happened...
@CZECHSPACEPROGRAM
Líbí se mi „Umění války“, ale všechny jejich písně jsou skvělé. orry pro špatné české, já používám Google translate.
@Brields95 If OnLy ThErE wAs SoMeThInG YoU cOuLd Do AbOuT iT
@asteroidbook345 I find it's only fair, because you make good stuff and you gave me the spotlight, so thank you :)
@jim1the1squid @TheFantasticTyphoon
YEEES, it must dieeee
@JolyLoly That's fair XD
aww many you changed your profile picture :(
Great build, love the details you put in the paint scheme!
Do you have plans to make the H.L Hunley? Cause I would love to see it fight this thing XD
@Spaceflower Glad you liked it!, Feel free to use it for your builds!
@jamesPLANESii Probably doing a colab with Dan Bull and/or mr Content Cop himself XD
awesome! Good stuff guys!
+1Just figured I would let you know that you credited me for Barracuda, which I did not build, and seeing as how it did very well in the combat trials, I hope the rightful creator is credited!
+1That is wonderful! I have no idea who you are, but I'm sure you'll make a great father :)