Actually, just to correct why the YF-22 was picked over the YF-23 was because of maneuverability, not cost. Also, I think you would like my version :) (might try flying this one, idk yet)
I would help, but I don't feel like it. Plus I'm going to be making a M4A3E8 for the challenge, and that alone is going to be a massive undertaking, as it will be designed with a full interior, cameras for the crew positions, and, if possible, a fully functioning track system. Not to mention possible attachments for the tank, like the dozer blade and bridge layer(probably not the bridge layer, but you get the general idea).
I'm going to be honest, I have a lot of favorites. There is the X planes, of which I like a few of, and then there is the fighter aircraft, which I like most of them.
So true. Many of my designs have been buried because of timing. I'm not very good at it, as the time for people being on is kinda sporadic and very unreliable. And I usually stick with the in-game cockpits, because I've always had an issue with fuselage cones(or really, cones in general) for the cockpit. But now that I have XML editing with my Ipad... We will see.
I might win in uniqueness, though at this point everyone is aiming for performance and looks. Mine might be good for looks, though it's performance isn't that great.
@FighterCrafter14 umm, which aircraft, specifically? And also, the aircraft was still accelerating as I mentioned before. I don't even know if the engines were at max thrust(I grabbed a 1000x engine probably on a download, meaning to grab a 1.5x(largest jet, btw)). I backed off on the engines before it completely killed the aircraft, but it probably could have kept going if I wanted to...
@BigCat Thanks! I figured taking a combination aircraft would be something unique. Otherwise, performance is average, and looks are about average as well.
@AlphaPrion Well, joint projects don't tend to work that well in a community such as this. Plus, I'm pretty sure people would prefer to build their own. I'm not resistant to working on this(in fact, I could probably provide a lot of things, XML modding included.). But while the idea is all well and good, the mere fact that everyone will have differing opinions as for what to build and what it will have and etc, will cause a lot of trouble and potentially a completely collapse of the project.
I'm going to say this, but even making a working fission reactor would be nearly impossible. I will try making that reactor though, I like a good challenge. Though it's functionality won't be great due to certain stuff, namely the fact there is no way to repulse stuff and etc. And it's fusor, not fusion reactor.
Just to help you start out. And just saying, when I was using modded engines(accidently used 1000x or smtg), I accidently got my hypno prototype plane to do 2300mph, and it was still accelerating. Completely unintentional...
All of this is definitely true. I usually prefer going with the editor, because I'm pretty lame at social stuff... If I tried going social, I might get somewhere, but at this point, I don't really have the time to do social things often. Plus, I actually like playing around in the editor, and with the dimension of XML modding, I'll be able to further it. I'm still kinda restricted, though... For one, neither iOS or OS X can run mods, and my Ipad mini 1st gen can only do basic XML modding due to the fact it's a mobile device(and my primary source for XML modding). But given a computer and a jailbroken iOS device is a luxury among certain users, I'm not that bad off. But yeah, not that great with social media. I'm ok with talking to some people(mainly in my BSCN roleplay), but I'm kinda a shy person. I'm pretty bad at making friendships unless they are people similar to me.
@BigCat Thanks! This is also my first aircraft which uses XML modding pretty extensively. And now that this is finished, I can now finish with my USS South Dakota, as I was previously stuck waiting for others to XML mod the turret.
Hey, I've been here 10 months, and I haven't gotten much further. In fact, I was here before the rating system was implemented. So... I don't see why you are really complaining. And while I may not have much points, my aircraft are pretty good.
@TheReaper It's not that bad for me. Often, I just leave it on regardless, because it helps with maneuvering. And also, one important thing to note is that while it may be useful, which one is more useful, having the RCN button, or have 2-4 extra activation groups? considering you could assign the RCN to an activation group with that, you would have more activation groups to use. IMO, a lot more useful overall.
If you mean vertical stabilizers, Idrc. They generally don't work well anyway. Horizontal... It depends. If it's a custom, again, idrc. If it's a replica, preferably with something similar to what it has IRL at the very least(same goes for vert)
I very much like the inlets idea(It would be nice for those with inlets in odd locations, like the P-80 Shooting star and nose inlets like the P-86 Sabre)
@Delsin Well, it depends. With mobile, simplicity is ideal, though having complexity using fuselage pieces isn't an un-heard of thing. Those with computers usually have more complex aircraft. I think you should follow what you want, as following other people's ways isn't the best. I usually like making large and complex aircraft, though with the new fuselage parts I can often reduce the part count(to like 200) to something that would normally be thousands of parts. And I also prefer doing replica's.
@LjSpike Yeah, like I said, the missiles aren't required.
And as for the rotators, that's not going to work for me. This is a replica, and I want it to be as close to it as possible in terms of functionality, and neither of those methods will achieve it, as the V-tail is a stabilator, so it rotates for both yaw and pitch.
Also, I was already going for XML editing for the V-tail, so either way, it wouldn't matter much(I can already do my own XML editing, but I'm still pretty new to it, so I'm going to let other people handle this first one, but after this, I will likely use my own editing). And I'm completely new to editing the fuselage blocks, so I don't know how to do those shapes.
@XVIdarkLithium Well, I have the body mostly finished already, I just need a few things added, which either requires XML editing or have a very hard time fitting one(missile bay) to it.
I should add the missile bay needs 4 missiles, to match what the IRL version has for the central missile bay. Though like I said, it's not really required.
@PuhBuhGuh Agreed. I usually like to scale the rest of the aircraft off the cockpit.
@DeezDucks Yeah, I've seen it happen to a few of my aircraft myself
Actually, just to correct why the YF-22 was picked over the YF-23 was because of maneuverability, not cost. Also, I think you would like my version :) (might try flying this one, idk yet)
@Tribaldragon1 I'll check it out, though I can't promise any results until I can get my Ipad and can look through the XML.
I would help, but I don't feel like it. Plus I'm going to be making a M4A3E8 for the challenge, and that alone is going to be a massive undertaking, as it will be designed with a full interior, cameras for the crew positions, and, if possible, a fully functioning track system. Not to mention possible attachments for the tank, like the dozer blade and bridge layer(probably not the bridge layer, but you get the general idea).
I'm going to be honest, I have a lot of favorites. There is the X planes, of which I like a few of, and then there is the fighter aircraft, which I like most of them.
So true. Many of my designs have been buried because of timing. I'm not very good at it, as the time for people being on is kinda sporadic and very unreliable. And I usually stick with the in-game cockpits, because I've always had an issue with fuselage cones(or really, cones in general) for the cockpit. But now that I have XML editing with my Ipad... We will see.
I might win in uniqueness, though at this point everyone is aiming for performance and looks. Mine might be good for looks, though it's performance isn't that great.
"Drive more faster"
Bad grammer... but meh
@DeezDucks Yeah, I showed him the challenge(we happen to talk on other sites), and I told him after when I saw that it wasn't a successor.
@FighterCrafter14 umm, which aircraft, specifically? And also, the aircraft was still accelerating as I mentioned before. I don't even know if the engines were at max thrust(I grabbed a 1000x engine probably on a download, meaning to grab a 1.5x(largest jet, btw)). I backed off on the engines before it completely killed the aircraft, but it probably could have kept going if I wanted to...
@BigCat Thanks! I figured taking a combination aircraft would be something unique. Otherwise, performance is average, and looks are about average as well.
@YoYoJ16 just checked the updated date... which actually happens to be my birthday. Kinda nice, but eh, coincidences happen...
...
Umm...
It's currently October 18th.
@AlphaPrion Well, joint projects don't tend to work that well in a community such as this. Plus, I'm pretty sure people would prefer to build their own. I'm not resistant to working on this(in fact, I could probably provide a lot of things, XML modding included.). But while the idea is all well and good, the mere fact that everyone will have differing opinions as for what to build and what it will have and etc, will cause a lot of trouble and potentially a completely collapse of the project.
Hmm... Not sure that will work, tbh.
Umm..........................
I'm going to say this, but even making a working fission reactor would be nearly impossible. I will try making that reactor though, I like a good challenge. Though it's functionality won't be great due to certain stuff, namely the fact there is no way to repulse stuff and etc. And it's fusor, not fusion reactor.
@LBYSteven Ur welcome. I usually keep an eye on mods that I might get in the future once I get a PC.
Just to help you start out. And just saying, when I was using modded engines(accidently used 1000x or smtg), I accidently got my hypno prototype plane to do 2300mph, and it was still accelerating. Completely unintentional...
All of this is definitely true. I usually prefer going with the editor, because I'm pretty lame at social stuff... If I tried going social, I might get somewhere, but at this point, I don't really have the time to do social things often. Plus, I actually like playing around in the editor, and with the dimension of XML modding, I'll be able to further it. I'm still kinda restricted, though... For one, neither iOS or OS X can run mods, and my Ipad mini 1st gen can only do basic XML modding due to the fact it's a mobile device(and my primary source for XML modding). But given a computer and a jailbroken iOS device is a luxury among certain users, I'm not that bad off. But yeah, not that great with social media. I'm ok with talking to some people(mainly in my BSCN roleplay), but I'm kinda a shy person. I'm pretty bad at making friendships unless they are people similar to me.
it is done
ahahahahaha, that's so funny.
@WWIIPlaneBuilder Well, mine is >:)
I'll get to it... Tomorrow.
Almost done with my aircraft... P-38, F2R, and Me262 combined.
Well, I just checked what you have, and your in luck. I may not be the creator of the mod, but there is a mod for that specific purpose.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SimplePlanes/comments/3it5ls/modlimitlesseditorcamerav050panandzoom/
And yes, it does work on windows.
Hmm... Interesting... I might join this.
@BigCat Thanks! This is also my first aircraft which uses XML modding pretty extensively. And now that this is finished, I can now finish with my USS South Dakota, as I was previously stuck waiting for others to XML mod the turret.
Hey, I've been here 10 months, and I haven't gotten much further. In fact, I was here before the rating system was implemented. So... I don't see why you are really complaining. And while I may not have much points, my aircraft are pretty good.
@Nickasaurus @Authros @Allstar @XVIdarkLithium
(mostly pointing you out because I happen to know you mod, so I figured you could come up with something)
Ever think about the difference in height on your wheels? not to mention how close they are together.
Well, I could certainly help with the testing(I don't really have any reason not to, not much in terms of developments like aircraft yet...)
you've only been here 6 months from what your account says... I've been here 10 months.
@TheReaper It's not that bad for me. Often, I just leave it on regardless, because it helps with maneuvering. And also, one important thing to note is that while it may be useful, which one is more useful, having the RCN button, or have 2-4 extra activation groups? considering you could assign the RCN to an activation group with that, you would have more activation groups to use. IMO, a lot more useful overall.
If you mean vertical stabilizers, Idrc. They generally don't work well anyway. Horizontal... It depends. If it's a custom, again, idrc. If it's a replica, preferably with something similar to what it has IRL at the very least(same goes for vert)
Well, technically, they are turbo props, so having jet engines wouldn't be a bad idea...
I very much like the inlets idea(It would be nice for those with inlets in odd locations, like the P-80 Shooting star and nose inlets like the P-86 Sabre)
... Hmm, almost never. Plus, why do you need to turn RCN off anyway?
Also, I think there is enough room for 2 or 3 activation groups in the space RCN on/off takes up
+1@XVIdarkLithium Ok.
@XVIdarkLithium Umm, are you doing it? Just had to ask
@Delsin Well, it depends. With mobile, simplicity is ideal, though having complexity using fuselage pieces isn't an un-heard of thing. Those with computers usually have more complex aircraft. I think you should follow what you want, as following other people's ways isn't the best. I usually like making large and complex aircraft, though with the new fuselage parts I can often reduce the part count(to like 200) to something that would normally be thousands of parts. And I also prefer doing replica's.
@Delsin It's hard to get started, so I usually give people a head start when I'm around. I've been there before, so I do know.
Giving you a upvote to help get you started.
@LjSpike Yeah, like I said, the missiles aren't required.
And as for the rotators, that's not going to work for me. This is a replica, and I want it to be as close to it as possible in terms of functionality, and neither of those methods will achieve it, as the V-tail is a stabilator, so it rotates for both yaw and pitch.
Also, I was already going for XML editing for the V-tail, so either way, it wouldn't matter much(I can already do my own XML editing, but I'm still pretty new to it, so I'm going to let other people handle this first one, but after this, I will likely use my own editing). And I'm completely new to editing the fuselage blocks, so I don't know how to do those shapes.
@XVIdarkLithium Well, I have the body mostly finished already, I just need a few things added, which either requires XML editing or have a very hard time fitting one(missile bay) to it.
I should add the missile bay needs 4 missiles, to match what the IRL version has for the central missile bay. Though like I said, it's not really required.
Just a question, are we allowed to modify things such as the wings? @TMach5
What is this madness...... Also, the rear is a bit too thin compared to the front, but otherwise this is really good.
Looks nice. Could use work, but your new, so I'll give you the upvote :) (it's Rth BTW)
So true. Though I always remember it's youtube. Still do it anyway......
Awesome, Walrus! Congrats.