I’m not, I was only trying to give a small reminder, and didn’t mean to start an argument. And by the way, I didn’t get ‘triggered’ that it didn’t have 100 parts, I was simply stating it to remind you, I was literally not angry at all... I don’t know why you thought I was @MrDoolittle
Face ID didn’t fail, you know how when you fail Touch ID too many times and it says ‘password required’? That’s what happened at the keynote: people had been playing with it before and locked the ability to use face ID until the password had been put in @Awsomur
Well considering it has an A11 and 3GB RAM (more than enough because iOS is so optimised) which is faster than an A10X which is already a ridiculously advanced and fast chip (fastest mobile processor on a tablet or phone ever) I think it’s safe to say it’s performance will far outstrip any rivals @Awsomur
Ive noticed that in twin (or more) engined aircraft, when one engine is hit it loses a lot of horsepower (probably too much) and the entire aircraft just spins out. I would like to see this fixed, so the engine only loses a small amount of horsepower (5-12%), and then as the fire burns it loses more and more horsepower (1% per second?). This would be a more realistic and enjoyable damage experience rather than the entire craft simply completely spinning out of control the moment one of the engines is hit. Overall though, great update! I love it! This is the only issue that I have with 1.7, the rest is simply incredible! @NathanMikeska @PhilipTarpley @AndrewGarrison
This certainly doesn’t constitute to be marked with works that are experimental, radical, or unorthodox with respect to art, culture, or society (the meaning of avant-garde). However, nice plane! Something like ‘Revolution 9’ would represent avant-garde in the music industry, so for a creation to be similarly drastic and profound would be a sight I’ve never seen on SimplePlanes!
It’s just a basic design choice, though if you want to look deeper you can see that in the 1920’s many aircraft had canvas and wooden strut wings, so when the Dual MG’s are concentrated on the port wing and aimed, they would both be firing slightly left to the target, increasing the chance of the enemies wing or engines (if the engines were on the wing) being destroyed. @samg32332
I suggest you stop complaining about small details unless you could do any better (which you definitely can’t) and simply appreciate this great creation! @temporaryaccount
I wasn’t attempting to state it friendly or with malice, it was meant to be simply neutral. Also, the elevator system was invented before WW1, it was existent over 30 years before the timeframe in which my aircraft was created... @MrDoolittle
Yes! And my fictional company (me) decided that the elevators would be much more effective and be able to be withstand more damage before being destroyed! It is realistic! @MrDoolittle
I know, but it was used again in the “Spitz” because it allowed more armour to be installed on the tail, and it also improved manoeuvrability. It was not used, but my aircraft is fictional and I am the creator of it, so if these advantages were evident, why wouldn’t I use it? @MrDoolittle
Ok, I think you need to calm down. I didn’t mean to provoke you in any way, I was just stating mere facts. Also, the elevators from my “Spitz” existed as far back as ww1, and the elevators on my “Kingston” were the standard ones for ww2.@MrDoolittle
Yes, he’s been upgrading them, but he does that after they’ve been accepted. And also, he’s not upgrading all the aircraft, he’s only doing some of them. Anyway, he clearly says in the rules ‘if you break the rules you will be disqualified @MrDoolittle
Yeah I know how to do it, but the problem I had with my “Spitz” was that the wing landing gear was pulling the wing out of the fuselage blocks which is why I asked for your help @alexchub1
What do you mean? @MrDoolittle
I’m not, I was only trying to give a small reminder, and didn’t mean to start an argument. And by the way, I didn’t get ‘triggered’ that it didn’t have 100 parts, I was simply stating it to remind you, I was literally not angry at all... I don’t know why you thought I was @MrDoolittle
When is the ending date?
Ok thanks! @QingyuZhou
First, and beautiful tank!
Very nice! Looks and flight are both top notch! @Razor3278
Face ID didn’t fail, you know how when you fail Touch ID too many times and it says ‘password required’? That’s what happened at the keynote: people had been playing with it before and locked the ability to use face ID until the password had been put in @Awsomur
Well considering it has an A11 and 3GB RAM (more than enough because iOS is so optimised) which is faster than an A10X which is already a ridiculously advanced and fast chip (fastest mobile processor on a tablet or phone ever) I think it’s safe to say it’s performance will far outstrip any rivals @Awsomur
Ok, can I please have a 2 width 1.5 height tb3000?@Lylian
But what about the iPhone X?@Billybobjoe
No problem, it’s a great aircraft! @Dzeta8
Thanks! @samg32332 @CoolPeach It’s designed like that to increase cargo bay capacity and also to accomodate heavier armour
Ive noticed that in twin (or more) engined aircraft, when one engine is hit it loses a lot of horsepower (probably too much) and the entire aircraft just spins out. I would like to see this fixed, so the engine only loses a small amount of horsepower (5-12%), and then as the fire burns it loses more and more horsepower (1% per second?). This would be a more realistic and enjoyable damage experience rather than the entire craft simply completely spinning out of control the moment one of the engines is hit. Overall though, great update! I love it! This is the only issue that I have with 1.7, the rest is simply incredible! @NathanMikeska @PhilipTarpley @AndrewGarrison
@Cedy117 @Seeras
Don’t take other people’s aircraft and upload them with no differences. I’ll give you 5 minutes to take it down and then I’m tagging a moderator
Ok, thanks @QingyuZhou
Oh ok, I see! Well Thankyou, and you make incredible ships! @satanplane
I’m sorry? I’m afraid I don’t understand @satanplane
This certainly doesn’t constitute to be marked with works that are experimental, radical, or unorthodox with respect to art, culture, or society (the meaning of avant-garde). However, nice plane! Something like ‘Revolution 9’ would represent avant-garde in the music industry, so for a creation to be similarly drastic and profound would be a sight I’ve never seen on SimplePlanes!
Just want to point out, biplane is a single word and is not hyphenated
When will it be rated? @QingyuZhou
Solid upgrade!
This is a really nice jet!
Thanks! @QingyuZhou
It’s just a basic design choice, though if you want to look deeper you can see that in the 1920’s many aircraft had canvas and wooden strut wings, so when the Dual MG’s are concentrated on the port wing and aimed, they would both be firing slightly left to the target, increasing the chance of the enemies wing or engines (if the engines were on the wing) being destroyed. @samg32332
There was no “iPhone 1”, the first IPhone was the IPhone 2G in 2007
First. Great idea!
Speaking of literal input controllers, can you make iOS devices connected to keyboards able to recognise all the keyboard controls?
I have a keyboard, but SimplePlanes doesn’t recognise keyboards for controls on iOS @dootdootbananabus
I suggest you stop complaining about small details unless you could do any better (which you definitely can’t) and simply appreciate this great creation! @temporaryaccount
I wasn’t attempting to state it friendly or with malice, it was meant to be simply neutral. Also, the elevator system was invented before WW1, it was existent over 30 years before the timeframe in which my aircraft was created... @MrDoolittle
And how did I use ‘terrible wording?’ I simple stated it neutrally @MrDoolittle
Yes! And my fictional company (me) decided that the elevators would be much more effective and be able to be withstand more damage before being destroyed! It is realistic! @MrDoolittle
Incredible! Great job on this one!
Use the colour changing mod
Oh ok, well iOS then...@tomtaj123
I know, but it was used again in the “Spitz” because it allowed more armour to be installed on the tail, and it also improved manoeuvrability. It was not used, but my aircraft is fictional and I am the creator of it, so if these advantages were evident, why wouldn’t I use it? @MrDoolittle
Do you have any plans to put slow motion on iOS and Android? @NathanMikeska
Ok, I think you need to calm down. I didn’t mean to provoke you in any way, I was just stating mere facts. Also, the elevators from my “Spitz” existed as far back as ww1, and the elevators on my “Kingston” were the standard ones for ww2.@MrDoolittle
Yes, he’s been upgrading them, but he does that after they’ve been accepted. And also, he’s not upgrading all the aircraft, he’s only doing some of them. Anyway, he clearly says in the rules ‘if you break the rules you will be disqualified @MrDoolittle
Hey just a reminder, the minimum part count is 100, so this is below the part count and breaks the rules.
Incredible! You need to get more attention for the work that you do!
Yeah I know how to do it, but the problem I had with my “Spitz” was that the wing landing gear was pulling the wing out of the fuselage blocks which is why I asked for your help @alexchub1
My entry
Incredible!
Can I please order a wing landing gear capable of attaching to fuselage blocks? @Lylian
Thanks! I’ll try your advice... @Lylian
Interesting concept...
Andrew Garrison suggested something, and I’m going to try it this afternoon... I’ll let you know if it worked. @Lylian
Never mind I got it sorted @Lylian