Hey, guy, can you mod a wing gun to:
900 rounds per minute
900 m/s velocity
23mm shell diameter
Very serious damage, able to down a plane in only a few hits. Take out a 2x2x2 fuselage block in 2 hits, but almost a 1 hit. Or maybe less, IDK, whatever you think is appropriate so long as it is more than the normal wing guns damage
Please and thank you.
In return I can offer you a sneak peek of the incomplete Type 92
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/2wjn86/Type-92-v-1-2-Finned
Comrade, the Type 92 prototype is here to haunt you. Why have you forgotten the Infinities project?
@MaximusTheMinimus
And of course, the one time I make a jet fighter capable of mach 2.7+ at around 40,000 feet, and is capable of maintaining total control until control surfaces don't even work (in alt), as well as being capable of turning with a biplane.
Okay so new problem with the AI, it's friggin retarded as we all know, but the BK28 has just demonstrated it is literally more maneuverable than the AI is capable of accounting for. So! When this actually happens, when the AI does literally nothing but wait like 5 full seconds before it decides to nearly ram the aggressor by spinning around and going head to head because reasons, just know that you're more maneuverable and going to win, the AI is just too stupid to do jack.
And! At medium range! Advantage spawning... This is cancer, literally cancer, so basically the new thing is just timing how fast the AI achieves a lock at low energy because the AI thinks it's in a race to set a new chapter in retarded.
Okay so as it turns out that when I am able to beat it by a huge margin the AI proves it is too retarded to comprehend the concept that maybe turning to engage actually on time is a thing. Instead of you know, flying until you get locked onto, fired on, and then turn out of the way of the missile and ram the enemy AI cause genius right?
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/pf60W6/Project-33-2U-Aggressor
This is the only aggressor craft I have on hand. I broke it partially somehow and that's why the structural panel is there. It is a rather dangerous opponent...
I am thinking that aircraft should not need realistic fuel range. Probably half or a third is more than enough. @MaximusTheMinimus
EDIT! Turns out the Project 33-2U should get a new name. Terminator. It just wiped out some of my most capable aircraft...
Don't be worried if you lose to it, when I meant "Advanced" I meant it.
I reduced range to improve close quarters agility, she should be better than before for an aggressor aircraft. Medium ranged performance is similarly improved.
Exactly, just no other characteristics beyond appearance. Except for modifying structural wings to have control surfaces.
Please try to keep each plane below 200 parts
@kingofsteam
@MaximusTheMinimus
https://www.simpleplanes.com/u/slenderp51/Posts
Some decent aggressor aircraft I have seen, very good, deserve up votes!
I'll modify them and post them as unlisted, thus FORCING the originals to be up voted! Because I never asked to use them...
They aren't perfect though, and their lacking fuel is a bit much, so I plan to use hack fuel on the aggressors to make them actual opponents...
Aggressor aircraft, by the way, are just enemies to test your planes with. For the sake of making them harder kills, I will give them hack fuel and moderately improve performance, and fix issues. You can pick up the original, or I can post an easier version.
There is only one exception. When an aircraft which is unflyable by the AI, piloting the aircraft is acceptable.
Know! That medium range is more important than close quarters! If an aircraft wins at medium range fight, but cannot turn fast enough in CQC, it wins! The ONLY exception, is when an aircraft proves that it is far beyond the agility of a missile, and is able to complete each level by dodging SAM's.
I actually found the usage of fuselage blocks distasteful, and made it a point never to use them for coating the wings. This in my opinion was more realistic and attractive... @Mainblocks
This design wasn't inherently particularly maneuverable. It was actually very disappointing from the base turn rate. So from ground Zero I kept upping it's turn rate into the first version. The multilayer wings are much better than coating it with fuselage parts. @Mainblocks
Remember to edit the engine power to make it move better.
I have a question however. What do you think is wrong with it? A lack of visual detail? I think it maneuvers too heavily, doesn't act "sprightly" enough for a Zero-like aircraft. I'm thinking of trying to push the wing loading even lower in the vanilla version.
You will also notice that due to certain problems, her elevators are not to the same size as earlier iterations. This is a problem I'm planning to solve if at all possible.
Thanks
@Mainblocks
I'm looking at your planes, and mine can't hold a candle to yours anymore can they?
By any chance, did you use some XML?
If you did, I'd like you to take a look at this;
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/Fquo0o/A6M2-V3-1-0-4-5-Fix
As I want to get a final version out. I gave up alot more flight performance than I would have wanted for aesthetics. Specifically the lowest set of wings are panels because of a problem with landing gear. I tried to push it's turn time into the 10 second category. @Mainblocks
So... I shouldn't be too worried about my 100% vanilla Zero being totally outclassed by an XML version? Hokay, that's better... That completely helps...
While you're at it, would you mind XML-ing a set of guns for me?
I'd like the guns to be the armament of the historical A6M2 Zero
@JoddyFubuki788
Just letting you all know, the engine is not to a historical thrust to weight. It's much lower than it's historical counterpart, about 1850 hp should be enough for it to fly properly. As the Zero could climb at a 30* angle.
My Zero needs to get it's weight "hacked" down. A canopy is also needed.
The canopy rebuild will take a pretty big reconstruction, and the landing gear is very annoying. I'd like someone to lower the drag on the airplane with XML. Beyond that the airplane is mostly done.
No no it's fine. Was just thinking it was somewhat ahistorical :P
Nothing to worry about.
The funny thing is that when I edited your plane (engine only) to be somwhat more realistic was that mine kept getting the first shot. I would be by margins of up to 3 full seconds of firing and then yours would snap a single burst in for the kill...
Exactly how much XML did you use? I noticed why the planes gunnery was so good given that you... "Modified" the cockpit.
@JoddyFubuki788
Hey mate, do you happen to recall my existence? You know, I not picked on one of your uh... Garuda things a long time ago.
It's been quite some time and I am now your Kouhai.
So while we are on the topic of Zero-sen, senpai, I'd like to introduce to you my A6M2 Zero.
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/Fquo0o/A6M2-V3-1-0-4-5-Fix
By the way, I'm taking a look at your Zero. Really good agility, but... 2000 hp for 2.7 metric tons is a bit off the mark mate. I run mine at 1050 hp for over 7.0 metric tons...
Granted this difference does happen to turn each dogfight into a onesided slaughter and that is likely what you had in mind. Yet two can play the same game...
To be honest mate I'm not sure if it was built with realism as much as performance in mind, though mine was just built to look right...
Agility was significantly improved over the V3.1.0.4 (5) Broken, which suffered from instability in a sustained turn.
Being tested against previous Zero attempts result in a butchering of it's predecessors, so a passing grade.
I think I'll be tossing some of the more complicated dreams for this aircraft, as combat flaps... Are basically impossible...
Also letting you guys know, the landing gear causes this version to be absolutely brutally murdered without a chance compared to it's predecessors. Therefore I most certainly recommend their removal (they are attached to 2nd wing from top) when trying to maximize dogfighting performance to keep it in line with previous versions.
The cockpit is nowhere close to done, I haven't really touched it since I built the plane.
I sort of have a fascination with the Zero...
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/Yo3kE9/A6M2-V3-1-0-4-5-Broken
It's not really broken in any way that I can find so it's questionable as to the validity of "broken".
Just look at my wall, I've actually deleted some of my attempts to depict Zero-sen.
Alas, it has been long since I have touched her...
O_O
+3@hfusiwjf29 How. Just how do you do such excellent landing gear?! Please Senpai, XML mod that kind of worshipful gear into my Type 27B Concept!
+3Wouldn't XML for performance be cheating to begin with in an honest dogfight tournaments? @Trijets
+1It kinda looks squished though...
+1Don't have enough points to kiss your feet lol
+1@Trijets Yeah ok whatever. I'll just leave again
@Trijets but by default using XML is a big advantage...
I remember why I quit now
No XML or bust.
Two engines modded for 2.3x power..
This airplane has double power on both engines using XML... @belugasub
The engine is 5000 hp...
Hey, guy, can you mod a wing gun to:
900 rounds per minute
900 m/s velocity
23mm shell diameter
Very serious damage, able to down a plane in only a few hits. Take out a 2x2x2 fuselage block in 2 hits, but almost a 1 hit. Or maybe less, IDK, whatever you think is appropriate so long as it is more than the normal wing guns damage
Please and thank you.
In return I can offer you a sneak peek of the incomplete Type 92
A good first entry
Keep improving
Not bad, looking nice, but it could use some improvements.
Get that gun right. The tank is armed with 75mm L/24, 75mm L/43, 88mm L/56, 105mm L/47, or 105mm L/52
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/2wjn86/Type-92-v-1-2-Finned
Comrade, the Type 92 prototype is here to haunt you. Why have you forgotten the Infinities project?
@MaximusTheMinimus
@Kerbango
Now at 20 downloads one upvote :D
And of course, the one time I make a jet fighter capable of mach 2.7+ at around 40,000 feet, and is capable of maintaining total control until control surfaces don't even work (in alt), as well as being capable of turning with a biplane.
No one cares. 10/10.
It can actually maintain complete control and stability right up until control surfaces lose effect. This is because of it's design.
Type 92 is designed to operate straight up until the limits of actual engine altitude though. The Type 91 for export, Type 92 for actual service.
Type 92 is harder to make, and will take some time.
I will make my Type 91 and 92 Russian just to screw with your desc XD
Good plane!
Okay so new problem with the AI, it's friggin retarded as we all know, but the BK28 has just demonstrated it is literally more maneuverable than the AI is capable of accounting for. So! When this actually happens, when the AI does literally nothing but wait like 5 full seconds before it decides to nearly ram the aggressor by spinning around and going head to head because reasons, just know that you're more maneuverable and going to win, the AI is just too stupid to do jack.
And! At medium range! Advantage spawning... This is cancer, literally cancer, so basically the new thing is just timing how fast the AI achieves a lock at low energy because the AI thinks it's in a race to set a new chapter in retarded.
Okay so as it turns out that when I am able to beat it by a huge margin the AI proves it is too retarded to comprehend the concept that maybe turning to engage actually on time is a thing. Instead of you know, flying until you get locked onto, fired on, and then turn out of the way of the missile and ram the enemy AI cause genius right?
@MaximusTheMinimus We'll see.
How does your best aircraft stack up to an AI functional BK29?
https://www.simpleplanes.com/Forums/View/619314/Simple-Fighters-Infinities-Project
If you are interested in mostly vanilla airplane warfare. @poopatron71
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/pf60W6/Project-33-2U-Aggressor
This is the only aggressor craft I have on hand. I broke it partially somehow and that's why the structural panel is there. It is a rather dangerous opponent...
I am thinking that aircraft should not need realistic fuel range. Probably half or a third is more than enough. @MaximusTheMinimus
EDIT! Turns out the Project 33-2U should get a new name. Terminator. It just wiped out some of my most capable aircraft...
Don't be worried if you lose to it, when I meant "Advanced" I meant it.
I reduced range to improve close quarters agility, she should be better than before for an aggressor aircraft. Medium ranged performance is similarly improved.
Exactly, just no other characteristics beyond appearance. Except for modifying structural wings to have control surfaces.
Please try to keep each plane below 200 parts
@kingofsteam
@MaximusTheMinimus
https://www.simpleplanes.com/u/slenderp51/Posts
Some decent aggressor aircraft I have seen, very good, deserve up votes!
I'll modify them and post them as unlisted, thus FORCING the originals to be up voted! Because I never asked to use them...
They aren't perfect though, and their lacking fuel is a bit much, so I plan to use hack fuel on the aggressors to make them actual opponents...
Aggressor aircraft, by the way, are just enemies to test your planes with. For the sake of making them harder kills, I will give them hack fuel and moderately improve performance, and fix issues. You can pick up the original, or I can post an easier version.
There is only one exception. When an aircraft which is unflyable by the AI, piloting the aircraft is acceptable.
Know! That medium range is more important than close quarters! If an aircraft wins at medium range fight, but cannot turn fast enough in CQC, it wins! The ONLY exception, is when an aircraft proves that it is far beyond the agility of a missile, and is able to complete each level by dodging SAM's.
Performance rated in:
Speed
Payload (armament)
Structural strength
Agility
Stability
Power/Weight
A worthy aggressor aircraft, great agility in battles, but I was dismayed by it's somewhat wanting energy and fuel range.
It is unable to defeat Prototype 105 despite this however, without all fights with the result of AI stupidity, the 105 coming out on top.
Yes, this is approximately the iteration I intend to remain true to. Though without it's landing flaws, and it's rudimentary appearance. @Mainblocks
You downloaded it right? I mean I know it looks awful here, but in the actual application it looks pretty fine to me. @Mainblocks
Maybe? How not so?
I actually found the usage of fuselage blocks distasteful, and made it a point never to use them for coating the wings. This in my opinion was more realistic and attractive... @Mainblocks
This design wasn't inherently particularly maneuverable. It was actually very disappointing from the base turn rate. So from ground Zero I kept upping it's turn rate into the first version. The multilayer wings are much better than coating it with fuselage parts. @Mainblocks
I think I used circular fuselage already. The current multilayer wings are to increase maneuverability and visual appearance. @Mainblocks
I really like your planes! But the proportions seem a bit off... Especially the wings.
Remember to edit the engine power to make it move better.
I have a question however. What do you think is wrong with it? A lack of visual detail? I think it maneuvers too heavily, doesn't act "sprightly" enough for a Zero-like aircraft. I'm thinking of trying to push the wing loading even lower in the vanilla version.
You will also notice that due to certain problems, her elevators are not to the same size as earlier iterations. This is a problem I'm planning to solve if at all possible.
Thanks
@Mainblocks
345 downloads and one upvote...
With 94 downloads you'd think it'd be upvoted T_T
If anyone is wondering why my points are so high despite my lack of upvoted aircraft, it's because I have this thing for removing my old builds.
Elitism is now being applied to my aircraft builds :P
If you want me to save something, tell me, otherwise, everything beyond a certain point is dead.
Okay so I'll work on this if I can now that there are adjustable air intakes.
Really hard to make a plane like this work at all...
I'm looking at your planes, and mine can't hold a candle to yours anymore can they?
By any chance, did you use some XML?
If you did, I'd like you to take a look at this;
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/Fquo0o/A6M2-V3-1-0-4-5-Fix
As I want to get a final version out. I gave up alot more flight performance than I would have wanted for aesthetics. Specifically the lowest set of wings are panels because of a problem with landing gear. I tried to push it's turn time into the 10 second category. @Mainblocks
@Mainblocks Did I do something?
So... I shouldn't be too worried about my 100% vanilla Zero being totally outclassed by an XML version? Hokay, that's better... That completely helps...
While you're at it, would you mind XML-ing a set of guns for me?
I'd like the guns to be the armament of the historical A6M2 Zero
@JoddyFubuki788
Just letting you all know, the engine is not to a historical thrust to weight. It's much lower than it's historical counterpart, about 1850 hp should be enough for it to fly properly. As the Zero could climb at a 30* angle.
My Zero needs to get it's weight "hacked" down. A canopy is also needed.
The canopy rebuild will take a pretty big reconstruction, and the landing gear is very annoying. I'd like someone to lower the drag on the airplane with XML. Beyond that the airplane is mostly done.
No no it's fine. Was just thinking it was somewhat ahistorical :P
Nothing to worry about.
The funny thing is that when I edited your plane (engine only) to be somwhat more realistic was that mine kept getting the first shot. I would be by margins of up to 3 full seconds of firing and then yours would snap a single burst in for the kill...
Exactly how much XML did you use? I noticed why the planes gunnery was so good given that you... "Modified" the cockpit.
@JoddyFubuki788
Hey mate, do you happen to recall my existence? You know, I not picked on one of your uh... Garuda things a long time ago.
It's been quite some time and I am now your Kouhai.
So while we are on the topic of Zero-sen, senpai, I'd like to introduce to you my A6M2 Zero.
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/Fquo0o/A6M2-V3-1-0-4-5-Fix
By the way, I'm taking a look at your Zero. Really good agility, but... 2000 hp for 2.7 metric tons is a bit off the mark mate. I run mine at 1050 hp for over 7.0 metric tons...
Granted this difference does happen to turn each dogfight into a onesided slaughter and that is likely what you had in mind. Yet two can play the same game...
To be honest mate I'm not sure if it was built with realism as much as performance in mind, though mine was just built to look right...
Why do I get this odd feeling the proportions are off...
Agility was significantly improved over the V3.1.0.4 (5) Broken, which suffered from instability in a sustained turn.
Being tested against previous Zero attempts result in a butchering of it's predecessors, so a passing grade.
I think I'll be tossing some of the more complicated dreams for this aircraft, as combat flaps... Are basically impossible...
Also letting you guys know, the landing gear causes this version to be absolutely brutally murdered without a chance compared to it's predecessors. Therefore I most certainly recommend their removal (they are attached to 2nd wing from top) when trying to maximize dogfighting performance to keep it in line with previous versions.
The cockpit is nowhere close to done, I haven't really touched it since I built the plane.
I sort of have a fascination with the Zero...
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/Yo3kE9/A6M2-V3-1-0-4-5-Broken
It's not really broken in any way that I can find so it's questionable as to the validity of "broken".
Just look at my wall, I've actually deleted some of my attempts to depict Zero-sen.
Alas, it has been long since I have touched her...
Dihedral seems to be insufficient... Rear fuselage has a stretched yet fat appearance. Wings are too stocky for a Bf 109...
Definitely needs a ~95% grade in the least.