@Lego787 Yes, actually. I also play Naval craft and several other games. I play mods with BSC, so I know what a pain it is these days :/ . I also play in a community which roleplays with it(I go under Rth, which is what my old username on here was)
Apple is the one who restricted modding. And even if modding was added, if you have 8.3+, you need to jailbreak regardless, as file system browsers for computers can no longer access the files of apps unless the devs specify(and even then I don't think it fixes anything :/ )
You know, Steam has never killed any game I know of. In fact, usually Steam helps games get noticed, and really simplifies certain processes(EG modding). And youtubers, well, you'll have to deal with them. There is a bunch of games where if a youtuber is there, a BUNCH of people will come with and try to do the stuff said here. But will it kill the community? No. In fact, it will bring a lot of attention to simple planes, and more people will start to notice the game. SP might turn into a messy place for 1 or 2 months, but it'll sort itself out. And the benefits greatly outweigh the cons in the long run.
and to clarify which rotator, I mean the one that turns the turret when I said partially(it's mostly because I'm not sure if I should make them full height with the rotators or like half block height)
Well, I need my South Dakota turret modded(For starters, I can't clip the middle barrel through the turret by adjusting length of the turret, so getting that positioned is a must. I was going to do the rangefinder independently, but that's out the window too(only 1 block out from turret side required, 0.5 over top of turret, block extending down at the back .5 blocks, outside area should result as 1block tall). And a faceplate in a halfblock that is .75 blocks long.).
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/TK77ap/Turret
I know that's a lot, but it would really help me out(and could you also make a turret which has the rotator partially inside?)
@UnstableOrbit Yes, actually. Naval Craft to be specific. I'm probably going to change it though, all things considered, as it really isn't that good in terms of quality(which was intentional when I first took it).
@Oi- Just saying, you don't need to do that(And a bit annoying sounding, to be fair). Also, I'm pretty sure your aircraft couldn't fit the missiles without sacrificing some of it's traits. This was already designed with the weapon systems in mind. It can easily fit 4 small missiles, and I was going to post it with them, but my missiles were dodgy in terms of stability and performance, so I removed them. Once I build working missiles that will fit this aircraft, I will reupload this with missile systems included. And just saying, 2,400 mph is nearly impossible without some form of XML modding and/or game glitches like detachers(which I think is patched, idk though)
How about a few replica's? even if that's not up your alley, making something cool would be nice(Tbh, I actually don't know what advice to give you. I usually build replica's now, because custom fictional aircraft usually don't get that many likes, plus I like building IRL stuff into the game. I have a bunch of plans for future builds, and many of them are basically being re-designed for the newest version)
@XWING when I designed this, I was going for realistic performance, not uber-good looks. this has mediocre looks at best. But I haven't seen any of his reach 1000+ mph or do backflips in midair. I may have made this a bit too manevearible, but I still consider this a success in my book(looks at other planes)
Though, I will give out something helpful. The red stars have a few extra pieces in them, which you could remove(they have 2 instead of 1), though it's pretty minor.
While this may look like a PAK FA, it certainly doesn't operate or have functions like it. For one, there is no thrust vectoring, which the PAK FA IRL uses 3 directional thrust vectoring. Second, this has no stabilator, which the PAK FA does have. And you also have an improper flap in the front where the intakes are, which the PAK FA doesn't have. I could say more, but I don't really feel like it.
Yes I did realize that. But basing it solely on ratings is kinda discriminating against those who have decent aircraft, but almost no ratings. Basically only a popularity contest instead of what it is supposed to be, a contest of design.
.................
He only got there with the detacher glitch. If it weren't for that it wouldn't have even gotten off the ground. At least mine was an actual aircraft..........
Horrid roll control, non-existent pitch control, and don't look anything like a B-747. Gear can't be retracted, gear are in the wrong place(all are on the fuselage for the most part), and there is NOT 5 gear points. Speed is non-existent, can barely even climb at any rate, and the engine spars are extremely off-scale compared to the engines. The rest of it doesn't look anywhere near like a B-747.
well, which do you prefer, very jerky and fairly unreactive pitch controls without using thrust vectoring, or highly reactive and no delay controls?@TheStar
Wait, that completely flies. Suriously, I've flown it on both mobile and Mac, and it flies like a charm(provided you run it on high physics setting). I think your just not used to the high degree of maneuverability it has(which happens to be super high). You should look at your own flaws on that, just saying :P.
Although it's a bit disqualified due to lots of general part clipping(including engines). The main purpose for it when I designed it was to be as close looking to the PAK FA IRL as humanly possible on a small aircraft.
Also, you should make the rules concrete before the contest even starts. You don't mention in the comments that part clipping of engines is not allowed, so it basically isn't part of the rules. The only rule you stated is it has to fly(which it does) and go faster than mach 1(which it does when it's low on fuel) @TheStar
Ik that, I just didn't want to do it, seeing as how it's easier just to give a link to the aircraft. Plus I really feel posting an exact copy of the aircraft is, well, pointless. I'll do it later. @TheStar
I'm assuming it also has to run on a mobile device? If not, I think I already have something for it.
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/ma842J/Stratgetic-Bomber
Decent, could use work though.
I could probably build the turrets(though that raised bow could pose a small problem with line of sight stuff)
@Madlycat I usually don't paint my aircraft :/. plus didn't see the point in painting this one
@JacobHardy64 Yeah
Awesome! This is an amazing build. I applaud you.
@Lego787 Yes, actually. I also play Naval craft and several other games. I play mods with BSC, so I know what a pain it is these days :/ . I also play in a community which roleplays with it(I go under Rth, which is what my old username on here was)
Xenda Industries (Mutliple branches, the main one being Xenda Aircraft Industries, and there is also XSI and XLI)
Apple is the one who restricted modding. And even if modding was added, if you have 8.3+, you need to jailbreak regardless, as file system browsers for computers can no longer access the files of apps unless the devs specify(and even then I don't think it fixes anything :/ )
You know, Steam has never killed any game I know of. In fact, usually Steam helps games get noticed, and really simplifies certain processes(EG modding). And youtubers, well, you'll have to deal with them. There is a bunch of games where if a youtuber is there, a BUNCH of people will come with and try to do the stuff said here. But will it kill the community? No. In fact, it will bring a lot of attention to simple planes, and more people will start to notice the game. SP might turn into a messy place for 1 or 2 months, but it'll sort itself out. And the benefits greatly outweigh the cons in the long run.
@Stickseler I just took the guns off @Authos 's Bismarck
@stickseler
Try adjusting the length of the turret to 4, and u'll see what I mean. The center barrel sticks out from the rest, and I don't want that
and to clarify which rotator, I mean the one that turns the turret when I said partially(it's mostly because I'm not sure if I should make them full height with the rotators or like half block height)
Well, I need my South Dakota turret modded(For starters, I can't clip the middle barrel through the turret by adjusting length of the turret, so getting that positioned is a must. I was going to do the rangefinder independently, but that's out the window too(only 1 block out from turret side required, 0.5 over top of turret, block extending down at the back .5 blocks, outside area should result as 1block tall). And a faceplate in a halfblock that is .75 blocks long.). https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/TK77ap/Turret I know that's a lot, but it would really help me out(and could you also make a turret which has the rotator partially inside?)
to bake...
Ok, doesn't work in comments, lol
*Nice*
Just to give you a helping hand :) (might check it out later, idk)
This competition has become an engine spamming game, lol @kikasshes
@UnstableOrbit- Umm............. It's me, Rth. XD. Forgot to mention I changed my username on here, didn't I?
@UnstableOrbit Yes, actually. Naval Craft to be specific. I'm probably going to change it though, all things considered, as it really isn't that good in terms of quality(which was intentional when I first took it).
@Oi- Just saying, you don't need to do that(And a bit annoying sounding, to be fair). Also, I'm pretty sure your aircraft couldn't fit the missiles without sacrificing some of it's traits. This was already designed with the weapon systems in mind. It can easily fit 4 small missiles, and I was going to post it with them, but my missiles were dodgy in terms of stability and performance, so I removed them. Once I build working missiles that will fit this aircraft, I will reupload this with missile systems included. And just saying, 2,400 mph is nearly impossible without some form of XML modding and/or game glitches like detachers(which I think is patched, idk though)
I already made a plane for a different challenge which already goes 1500+mph @ 30000ft. Mind if I use that in this challenge?
Love the new changes. And I'm definately going to use the Gravatar stuff for this.
How about a few replica's? even if that's not up your alley, making something cool would be nice(Tbh, I actually don't know what advice to give you. I usually build replica's now, because custom fictional aircraft usually don't get that many likes, plus I like building IRL stuff into the game. I have a bunch of plans for future builds, and many of them are basically being re-designed for the newest version)
Umm, just saying, I don't think you can do stuff like this anymore.........
I'll probably make one.
@XWING when I designed this, I was going for realistic performance, not uber-good looks. this has mediocre looks at best. But I haven't seen any of his reach 1000+ mph or do backflips in midair. I may have made this a bit too manevearible, but I still consider this a success in my book(looks at other planes)
Though, I will give out something helpful. The red stars have a few extra pieces in them, which you could remove(they have 2 instead of 1), though it's pretty minor.
While this may look like a PAK FA, it certainly doesn't operate or have functions like it. For one, there is no thrust vectoring, which the PAK FA IRL uses 3 directional thrust vectoring. Second, this has no stabilator, which the PAK FA does have. And you also have an improper flap in the front where the intakes are, which the PAK FA doesn't have. I could say more, but I don't really feel like it.
Well, I'm probably going to be Russia, cause why not?
I'm definitely going to partake.
Just to help you along your way. I actually didn't test this.
@Allstarship It didn't submit as a succecor, but I'll give the link to my jet. https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/3f008m/MIG-25-Foxbat
@MonumentCo - yeah, I had the same issue. Although it's probably because I used an IPad instead.
My aircraft didn't submit properly. It's a MIG 25 though. https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/3f008m/MIG-25-Foxbat
Definitely going to join this. I'll see what I can make.
Yes I did realize that. But basing it solely on ratings is kinda discriminating against those who have decent aircraft, but almost no ratings. Basically only a popularity contest instead of what it is supposed to be, a contest of design.
@Allstarship- ............. Isn't this not supposed to be judged by ratings, and rather actual looks, performance, and realism?
................. He only got there with the detacher glitch. If it weren't for that it wouldn't have even gotten off the ground. At least mine was an actual aircraft..........
Horrid roll control, non-existent pitch control, and don't look anything like a B-747. Gear can't be retracted, gear are in the wrong place(all are on the fuselage for the most part), and there is NOT 5 gear points. Speed is non-existent, can barely even climb at any rate, and the engine spars are extremely off-scale compared to the engines. The rest of it doesn't look anywhere near like a B-747.
............................
@JoCaleb02 it didn't used to be there, but it is now
well, which do you prefer, very jerky and fairly unreactive pitch controls without using thrust vectoring, or highly reactive and no delay controls?@TheStar
Wait, that completely flies. Suriously, I've flown it on both mobile and Mac, and it flies like a charm(provided you run it on high physics setting). I think your just not used to the high degree of maneuverability it has(which happens to be super high). You should look at your own flaws on that, just saying :P. Although it's a bit disqualified due to lots of general part clipping(including engines). The main purpose for it when I designed it was to be as close looking to the PAK FA IRL as humanly possible on a small aircraft. Also, you should make the rules concrete before the contest even starts. You don't mention in the comments that part clipping of engines is not allowed, so it basically isn't part of the rules. The only rule you stated is it has to fly(which it does) and go faster than mach 1(which it does when it's low on fuel) @TheStar
Ik that, I just didn't want to do it, seeing as how it's easier just to give a link to the aircraft. Plus I really feel posting an exact copy of the aircraft is, well, pointless. I'll do it later. @TheStar
I'm assuming it also has to run on a mobile device? If not, I think I already have something for it. https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/ma842J/Stratgetic-Bomber
It's odd how you haven't looked at mine..................................
I think this uses hacked engines.................(either that or a ton of VTOL engines.)
Rating it so others see it.