@F104Deathtrap it also helps if you shelve a build for a while, if you can remember what month you where building something you can find it again:) I can never remember the actual build name.
@AsteroidAsteroidTheBook aw man you beat me to it, I saw a pirate in a photo of a cutlass while researching my last build and thought that would be a nice second entry... :)
@mikoyanster looks like I've dropped a clanger, thought it was 780 part limit like your other challenge (my bad, should have read it in more detail). Do you want me to have it removed from the challenge?
@DerpTheSoyacfartala its going to have about 6 seats (vulcan had 5 and this has double the engines). I'll send you an unlisted link at some point then you can do all the exporting etc yourself without needing to email etc
@BoganBoganTheWoman no worries, im not even bothered how long it takes, just thought you had abandoned the challenge when there was no update after deadline and your last post was over 2 weeks ago 😉
@thebanbehindtheslaughter any particular one you are interested in? I'm just curious at present as to what sort of things are attractive to people other than me :)
@EternalDarkness ah ok, sorry, that name changing is by far the worst thing that has been introduced, all these silly names that keep changing, impossible to keep track of who is who.
@EternalDarkness ah k, didn't know they where in spmc, not heard of them before this, sorry. They didn't respond to my query and last post was over 2 weeks ago so just assumed they had left.
@EternalDarkness another competition that isn't being judged and the creator isn't replying to messages or updating the post. I'm getting fed up joining competitions like this, is it worth removing the successor links? (Not that it matters as the creator is obv afk)
@MethaManAerospace thanks for the reply, its good to discuss these things. I do tend to make the builds slightly nose heavy, as you say with keyboard inputs its all or nothing so you need to reduce the rotation around col - easiest way is move cog forward a bit. It also harks back to my rc model aircraft were you start off with the build being nose heavy to ensure its stable before fine tuning it (nothing worse than getting your 100hr+ build to the field and watching it fly like a sycamore leaf into the ground on first flight...)
This game, in my opinion, is only really missing the 4 axis on blocks to allow a twist, if we had that we could much more easily make aero shaped wings etc without using the triangle method which is time consuming and not exact.
@Dimkal no worries man, I looked back at my more recent builds and agree they do lack some pizaz (the ww1 ones are good though). See where my next creations take me :)
@Dimkal thanks :) glad you like it and thanks fir the support as always. Sorry you feel some of the more recent builds have been sub-par, they were never intended to be.
@MethaManAerospace further to the below I've just had a flick through my last couple of pages and I don't think your comments regarding dihedral and wing thickness/taper are accurate. Have a look at !this for one example
@MethaManAerospace tha for the comments. This one was a bit heavy on wing load but otherwise relatively close to a "real" aircraft but I found that acceleration was unrealistic thus having to play with drag and thrust etc.
I always build with drag and mass off then add it where required, this stops random autoroll and other effects that come with the game calculations. It also speeds up load times (im pretty sure it was eternaldarkness that told me about this a good few years ago.)
In regards to dihedral etc. I fo use it but only on builds that would benefit, check out my ww1 builds, most have dihedral on them as that's period accurate, more modern aircraft tend not to have much dihedral and tend to be horizontal or have anhedral (i white often use anhedral on tail planes like the first etc.) Its horses for courses really.
As for thicker wing ribs at the root as opposed to the tip, I use that on quite a lot of wings (look st my weasel build for instance) however I do sacrifice this bit if I want to add a complicated colour scheme as panelling becomes more complicated otherwise.
@ChiChiWerx yep, brit draken sums it up nicely, I used a modified lighting fuselage with single engine etc so it definitely has the brit bit. I always struggle with the compromise between speed at altitude and speed at low level. If I have it right for one its wrong on the other... I was fighting the game again towards the end of the build or it would have had some more red bits (eg im fitting a pitot tube to the nise cone but the right hand u/c and adjacent door become stuck...) thanks again for your input, it gives me something to work on.
@MethaManAerospace fair enough but then when you angle everything you reflect the radar signals away from the plane not back to the receiver thus reducing the aircrafts radar cross section hence the design used here. In addition the forward swept wing can't have any more detrimental impact on radar Cross section than any other wing as it has the same dimensions just it goes forwards. In essence if the shape was an issue the f117 wouldn't work as the radar rrceivers are looking for both approaching (wing swept back) and receding (looking at the trailing edge, which is the same as a forward swept wing).
Oh and I have not seen or played ace combat so no idea what the aircraft on there look like :)
@RomanTorchwick I don't know, I realise that some of my followers/upvoters left after that but I don't really agree with the whole sp is dying theories
@RomanTorchwick don't worry about it, it happens all the time. I've given up being bothered by it, I just build what I want and if I finish it and post it then thats a bonus now.
@SupremeDorian fair enough, thanks for clarifying that. On that basis we can use other forms of art to embellish our thumbnails, here come some bikini models sketches :) Nah, I will behave, where do we draw the line though?
@SupremeDorian im confused, you cant add something to your build in the picture as thats against the rules (I fully agree with this), but you can add a picture of a girl that isnt in your build to the picture and thats fine? eh? Surely its the same rule.
That picture is so dark I couldn't even see the b17... what's that about?
@F104Deathtrap it also helps if you shelve a build for a while, if you can remember what month you where building something you can find it again:) I can never remember the actual build name.
+1Similar to what I do, I start with the date and then 1.0 followed by 1.1 etc. Saved my bacon a few times.
+1@ThomasRoderick no worries, im building lots of things but a drone isn't one :)
+1@AsteroidAsteroidTheBook sshh... no one else will spot that. Its not the only bit of JP on the plane either =)
@AsteroidAsteroidTheBook aw man you beat me to it, I saw a pirate in a photo of a cutlass while researching my last build and thought that would be a nice second entry... :)
@mikoyanster can you clarify if this meets the challenge requirements please (I keep getting messages to tell me it doesn't). Thanks
@AzureCorp thanks for the comment, I don't really have much time for a co-op build at present, struggling to have time to work on my own stuff...
+1@mikoyanster looks like I've dropped a clanger, thought it was 780 part limit like your other challenge (my bad, should have read it in more detail). Do you want me to have it removed from the challenge?
@AsteroidAsteroidTheBook its completely different apart from the bits that aren't.. :)
+1@mikoyanster Just had a look your link for the AA Atol missile doesnt work. Im working on something, see how it goes =)
@DerpTheSoyacfartala its going to have about 6 seats (vulcan had 5 and this has double the engines). I'll send you an unlisted link at some point then you can do all the exporting etc yourself without needing to email etc
@DerpTheSoyacfartala its the sp cockpit, uts easier to just nudge it up when building.
@GrizzlitnCFSP you made a much better job of it than I did, might have to revisit the design myself:)
+1@BoganBoganTheWoman no worries, im not even bothered how long it takes, just thought you had abandoned the challenge when there was no update after deadline and your last post was over 2 weeks ago 😉
@Thecatbaron I dont know if it will defeat the object of the design, but it certainly makes landing a whole load safer...
@BoganBoganTheWoman no worries, just thought you had left the game or something, seems to happen when i enter a challenge =)
@thebanbehindtheslaughter any particular one you are interested in? I'm just curious at present as to what sort of things are attractive to people other than me :)
@EternalDarkness ah ok, sorry, that name changing is by far the worst thing that has been introduced, all these silly names that keep changing, impossible to keep track of who is who.
@EternalDarkness ah k, didn't know they where in spmc, not heard of them before this, sorry. They didn't respond to my query and last post was over 2 weeks ago so just assumed they had left.
@EternalDarkness another competition that isn't being judged and the creator isn't replying to messages or updating the post. I'm getting fed up joining competitions like this, is it worth removing the successor links? (Not that it matters as the creator is obv afk)
Change the setting on the bomb to turn collisions off
@BoganBoganTheWoman just wondering when to expect the results of this?
Aw man, here i go again :)
Try this biplane here
@Afellowuser09 maybe, i have something nearly built, thinking about doing a 2 seat version so might do that in NZ colours.
@Belloaka I even built a better one a little while ago but it wasn't as popular. Here
@Belloaka thanks, old one this.
+1@MethaManAerospace thanks for the reply, its good to discuss these things. I do tend to make the builds slightly nose heavy, as you say with keyboard inputs its all or nothing so you need to reduce the rotation around col - easiest way is move cog forward a bit. It also harks back to my rc model aircraft were you start off with the build being nose heavy to ensure its stable before fine tuning it (nothing worse than getting your 100hr+ build to the field and watching it fly like a sycamore leaf into the ground on first flight...)
This game, in my opinion, is only really missing the 4 axis on blocks to allow a twist, if we had that we could much more easily make aero shaped wings etc without using the triangle method which is time consuming and not exact.
+1@Dimkal no worries man, I looked back at my more recent builds and agree they do lack some pizaz (the ww1 ones are good though). See where my next creations take me :)
@Dimkal thanks :) glad you like it and thanks fir the support as always. Sorry you feel some of the more recent builds have been sub-par, they were never intended to be.
@spectre118 well aye, after all any puller triplane would just look like a dr1 :)
@MethaManAerospace further to the below I've just had a flick through my last couple of pages and I don't think your comments regarding dihedral and wing thickness/taper are accurate. Have a look at !this for one example
@MethaManAerospace tha for the comments. This one was a bit heavy on wing load but otherwise relatively close to a "real" aircraft but I found that acceleration was unrealistic thus having to play with drag and thrust etc.
I always build with drag and mass off then add it where required, this stops random autoroll and other effects that come with the game calculations. It also speeds up load times (im pretty sure it was eternaldarkness that told me about this a good few years ago.)
In regards to dihedral etc. I fo use it but only on builds that would benefit, check out my ww1 builds, most have dihedral on them as that's period accurate, more modern aircraft tend not to have much dihedral and tend to be horizontal or have anhedral (i white often use anhedral on tail planes like the first etc.) Its horses for courses really.
As for thicker wing ribs at the root as opposed to the tip, I use that on quite a lot of wings (look st my weasel build for instance) however I do sacrifice this bit if I want to add a complicated colour scheme as panelling becomes more complicated otherwise.
+1@ChiChiWerx yep, brit draken sums it up nicely, I used a modified lighting fuselage with single engine etc so it definitely has the brit bit. I always struggle with the compromise between speed at altitude and speed at low level. If I have it right for one its wrong on the other... I was fighting the game again towards the end of the build or it would have had some more red bits (eg im fitting a pitot tube to the nise cone but the right hand u/c and adjacent door become stuck...) thanks again for your input, it gives me something to work on.
@bogdanx thanks for the spotlight and upvote, glad to see you back.
@MethaManAerospace fair enough but then when you angle everything you reflect the radar signals away from the plane not back to the receiver thus reducing the aircrafts radar cross section hence the design used here. In addition the forward swept wing can't have any more detrimental impact on radar Cross section than any other wing as it has the same dimensions just it goes forwards. In essence if the shape was an issue the f117 wouldn't work as the radar rrceivers are looking for both approaching (wing swept back) and receding (looking at the trailing edge, which is the same as a forward swept wing).
Oh and I have not seen or played ace combat so no idea what the aircraft on there look like :)
@RomanTorchwick I don't know, I realise that some of my followers/upvoters left after that but I don't really agree with the whole sp is dying theories
@MethaManAerospace care to elaborate? How's it the worst stealth config?
@RomanTorchwick don't worry about it, it happens all the time. I've given up being bothered by it, I just build what I want and if I finish it and post it then thats a bonus now.
@Blue0Bull Well here we have the entry for your challenge if you would be so kind as to link it. I think i have met your criteria =)
@Daylight thanks :) built it before the blueprint mod as well.
How would anyone know and why would anyone care?
@mackenzie1 thanks :)
@MRpingouin thanks :) I'm glad someone noticed the effort that went into those wings.
@Hedero aw man thats not meant to happen... I will fix it.
part collisions are on i would imagine. Try disabling collisions on your bombs
+2@CreeperOfTheFortress well its certainly different.
@SupremeDorian fair enough, thanks for clarifying that. On that basis we can use other forms of art to embellish our thumbnails, here come some bikini models sketches :) Nah, I will behave, where do we draw the line though?
+4@SupremeDorian im confused, you cant add something to your build in the picture as thats against the rules (I fully agree with this), but you can add a picture of a girl that isnt in your build to the picture and thats fine? eh? Surely its the same rule.