I don’t agree with this. The very fact that these don’t exist has led to lots of creativity among the SP community. The one thing (as CoolPeach said) that would be nice, would be the ability to link pistons and rotators to altitude and fuel usage.
Unfortunately this is just what happens with pistons and hinges at high speeds (or when they are supporting lots of mass). I think it is to do with the actual mass of the aircraft on which it is mounted. The reason I believe this is because I created a turret, and when mounted on a small aircraft it was perfectly stable; but when mounted it on a large cargo aircraft it wobbled when traversing. It’s just the unfortunate reality of SP physics, there’s nothing you can really do (at least to my knowledge).
I guess this is proof that the devs feature builds just based on looks. You need to work on the handling on your aircraft. There is no point uploading a build that has nice aesthetics if the functionality suffers.
Quite nice, but there is a lot of space for details that was wasted. Overall I like the aircraft but give more time to exterior detailing, it could really improve the aesthetics of this build. Still, good job.
The damper suppresses the suspension. If the damper is low then the suspension will continue to vibrate and wobble for quite a long time after the original compression because there is little to dampen the effect. If there is a lot of damper then the spring will be quite stiff after the original compression because the spring is heavily dampened. @Ryn176
I would suggest adding a gyroscope with high stability and speed which is set on the same AG as the turret. This means that the turret can be linked to roll and pitch, and thanks to the gyro, it won’t make the aircraft roll or pitch when using the turret. If you tag me on an unlisted post I can show you how to do it very effectively and simply. @JohnnyBoythePilot
This aircraft is capable of landing on carriers and is equipped with a very good braking system. You should be able land relatively easily on the USS Tiny 2 with it
You don’t need to make it too big, just used scaled down rocket pods nudged into each other and there would be no difference apart from the fact that it can shoot @pixelconcqueror
Minimum part count 500 is a problem though. Great aircraft don’t need to be high part counts to be good, I’ve got a very high detailed civilian aircraft with a full cockpit that is only 273 parts. I would recommend dropping it to 100, that seems to be threshold that separates amateur builds from the rest
@asteroidbook345 No it's not lmao, forgetting the part where it's culturally nothing like the rest of Europe, the majority of the country is classified as being in 'West Asia', and a countries location is classified by where the vast majority of it's land is. I.e. we wouldn't call USA 'a country in the middle of the Pacific' just because Hawaiis there.
A small minority of the country, East Thrace, is in South-East Europe. But historically that was Greek anyway. Turkey is not a European country.
@asteroidbook345 Turkey isn't part of Europe, The Balkans are stable compared to most other places on Earth.
By Earth standards, Europe is a very peaceful continent. The vast majority of it is in one defensive alliance, and generally it features a stability and crime rate lower than most of the rest of the world. (Although with the rate of illegal immigrants flooding in the crime rates are climbing)
This just in, it has been confirmed that many players are leaving the site and the game to go join a separate community: Flyout. Apparently this game boasts "better graphics" "more optimization" and "more realism." WHAT A LOAD OF MALARKEY!!! Simpleplanes is, and will always be, superior to Flyout. Please, Please remain faithful to this game."
I hate to break it to you, but I'm fairly closely involved with FlyOut, and I've also been part of the SP community for almost 8 years. Yes, FlyOut is better, it's not even close. Graphics, modelling, armament, physics simulations, ease of building, features are all superior. I mean it's not surprising, SP was fairly archaic even when it launched in 2014, let alone now. It got such a community because there was nothing really like it. Now there is, with a 9 year advantage, and it's better. Such is progress, don't try and deny it though because you feel a tribal defensiveness. The only use SP will have in a couple weeks when FlyOut releases is for mobile users.
Np @FastDan
+1Very interesting!
+1To stop bots going on an upvote spree.
+1Who do you think are the top 10 greatest SP builders of all time?
+1Great ideas! Especially the comments in biography
+1I’m sorry, what was wrong with it?
+1Incredible as always!
+1Revolutionary work here!
+1300 points in 6 months isn’t very impressive.
+1I don’t agree with this. The very fact that these don’t exist has led to lots of creativity among the SP community. The one thing (as CoolPeach said) that would be nice, would be the ability to link pistons and rotators to altitude and fuel usage.
+1Thanks for using my song in your biography :) @Pianoman
+1Unfortunately this is just what happens with pistons and hinges at high speeds (or when they are supporting lots of mass). I think it is to do with the actual mass of the aircraft on which it is mounted. The reason I believe this is because I created a turret, and when mounted on a small aircraft it was perfectly stable; but when mounted it on a large cargo aircraft it wobbled when traversing. It’s just the unfortunate reality of SP physics, there’s nothing you can really do (at least to my knowledge).
+1I guess this is proof that the devs feature builds just based on looks. You need to work on the handling on your aircraft. There is no point uploading a build that has nice aesthetics if the functionality suffers.
+1Quite nice, but there is a lot of space for details that was wasted. Overall I like the aircraft but give more time to exterior detailing, it could really improve the aesthetics of this build. Still, good job.
+1Nice design
+1Are you going to add a cockpit?
+1I love revolutionary builds like this, good job!
+1The damper suppresses the suspension. If the damper is low then the suspension will continue to vibrate and wobble for quite a long time after the original compression because there is little to dampen the effect. If there is a lot of damper then the spring will be quite stiff after the original compression because the spring is heavily dampened. @Ryn176
+1Nice!
+1I would suggest adding a gyroscope with high stability and speed which is set on the same AG as the turret. This means that the turret can be linked to roll and pitch, and thanks to the gyro, it won’t make the aircraft roll or pitch when using the turret. If you tag me on an unlisted post I can show you how to do it very effectively and simply. @JohnnyBoythePilot
+1the lettering and details are very nice, good job! @Razor3278
+1Thankyou so much; that honestly means so much to me! Hopefully I will be back one day... :) @ViridiCinis
+1Boeing 2707
+1Make some mechs you’re the pianoman
+1Make us some mechs tonight
Well we’re all in the mood for a great mech
And your mechs got us feeling alright
This aircraft is capable of landing on carriers and is equipped with a very good braking system. You should be able land relatively easily on the USS Tiny 2 with it
+1How dare you: phrase spoken. used for telling someone how shocked and angry you are about something that they have done or said.
+1How dare you @FGW2014
+1Thanks @pixelconcqueror
+1All good, you definitely deserve it @pixelconcqueror
+1It’s ok though, I don’t really mind whether it fires or not; great job on this build! @pixelconcqueror
+1It would only add 4 or 5 more parts @pixelconcqueror
+1You don’t need to make it too big, just used scaled down rocket pods nudged into each other and there would be no difference apart from the fact that it can shoot @pixelconcqueror
+1A B17 can take a massive beating in WT, but bombers like the Wellington and Stirling are extremely easy to take out @TheOwlAce
+1Minimum part count 500 is a problem though. Great aircraft don’t need to be high part counts to be good, I’ve got a very high detailed civilian aircraft with a full cockpit that is only 273 parts. I would recommend dropping it to 100, that seems to be threshold that separates amateur builds from the rest
+1Very interesting and unique design choices... nice job!
+1Don’t beg for upvotes, the creation is nice but telling people to upvote your stuff is nothing less than attention seeking
+1This looks incredible! T
@52REX https://www.simpleplanes.com/Mods/View/886628/Simple_Land
@asteroidbook345 No it's not lmao, forgetting the part where it's culturally nothing like the rest of Europe, the majority of the country is classified as being in 'West Asia', and a countries location is classified by where the vast majority of it's land is. I.e. we wouldn't call USA 'a country in the middle of the Pacific' just because Hawaiis there.
A small minority of the country, East Thrace, is in South-East Europe. But historically that was Greek anyway. Turkey is not a European country.
@realSavageMan lmao yes indeed xD
@asteroidbook345 Turkey isn't part of Europe, The Balkans are stable compared to most other places on Earth.
By Earth standards, Europe is a very peaceful continent. The vast majority of it is in one defensive alliance, and generally it features a stability and crime rate lower than most of the rest of the world. (Although with the rate of illegal immigrants flooding in the crime rates are climbing)
@MobileBuilder21 lmao
I mean SimplePlanes will keep its mobile userbase because there's no alternative and lose 90% of its PC userbase. @TinyMaus
This just in, it has been confirmed that many players are leaving the site and the game to go join a separate community: Flyout. Apparently this game boasts "better graphics" "more optimization" and "more realism." WHAT A LOAD OF MALARKEY!!! Simpleplanes is, and will always be, superior to Flyout. Please, Please remain faithful to this game."
I hate to break it to you, but I'm fairly closely involved with FlyOut, and I've also been part of the SP community for almost 8 years. Yes, FlyOut is better, it's not even close. Graphics, modelling, armament, physics simulations, ease of building, features are all superior. I mean it's not surprising, SP was fairly archaic even when it launched in 2014, let alone now. It got such a community because there was nothing really like it. Now there is, with a 9 year advantage, and it's better. Such is progress, don't try and deny it though because you feel a tribal defensiveness. The only use SP will have in a couple weeks when FlyOut releases is for mobile users.
@jamesPLANESii Thanks!
A rather perplexing post
The good old days :)
He was pretty toxic and deleted all of his comments, personally it seemed to me like he had some serious issues
It's against regulations to smoke near an aircraft 😄
lmao this guy