@OpenHere Lmao yea ur right but the B1B Lancer program wasn’t introduced in 1985. The Tu95 Bear was introduced in 1956. Almost 30 years apart, so I am comparing it today with modern standards. But you are right in the way that you are describing it.
@Graingy but heres the thing, yes the B52 is good but doesn’t have the speed or survivability in heavier circumstances. I almost started laughing when I heard the term, “Tu-95”. The thing looks like it is stuck in 1947. It still has turboprops for some weird reason, the engineers must’ve thought, “hmm, I am definitely 100% positive a turboprop bomber that wont stand a real chance against modern fighters within 20-30 years of the first deployment will be a great idea compared to a jet bomber with engines to be refined further in the years to come!” The Tu-95 literally needs to have tires strapped to its wings and fuselage to stop any missiles from causing any damage over Ukraine. The tires don't even help they just contribute to drag, limit maneuverability and evasive maneuvers, make it heavier, pose a hazard to pretty much everything because if it is hit by a missile or whatever the flammable rubber and structural integrity side effects the tires bring just make it an easier target. Can’t believe they actually think tires are effective defensive measures lmao. (Btw I don’t want to cause a debate, I am just talking about my opinion backed up with factual evidence and stuff, dont take it too seriously :D)
@TalonTheCRTguy does the T-38C Talon have variable sweep wings, internal weapons bays, heavy bombing capability, low radar visibility, and nuclear capability?
@TheNewSPplayer like lag and processing power im pretty sure.
Right now it’s at 425 which isn’t bad. My BS61-100 however… well I think we can tell how many people on a phone can’t play with it right here. Just look at the very last “parts” detail in the specifications
@TheNewSPplayer so far it’s 172. Not including cockpit, windows, framing, parts of the wings, engines, landing gear, funky trees parts, tail, stabilizers, details, and just smaller parts.
Note: not carrier operable. The aircraft carrier images are just cool in my opinion
@TalonTheCRTguy does look badass though and lives up to the reputation
@FOXHOUND26 its not just that, they lack the technology to make one that can now compete with the West
@TheMouse yea
@TheMouse
@OpenHere Lmao yea ur right but the B1B Lancer program wasn’t introduced in 1985. The Tu95 Bear was introduced in 1956. Almost 30 years apart, so I am comparing it today with modern standards. But you are right in the way that you are describing it.
@Graingy a bit less is an understatement
@FOXHOUND26 … (I mean I don't want to fight against that it’s good enough, Ill take it)
@Graingy but heres the thing, yes the B52 is good but doesn’t have the speed or survivability in heavier circumstances. I almost started laughing when I heard the term, “Tu-95”. The thing looks like it is stuck in 1947. It still has turboprops for some weird reason, the engineers must’ve thought, “hmm, I am definitely 100% positive a turboprop bomber that wont stand a real chance against modern fighters within 20-30 years of the first deployment will be a great idea compared to a jet bomber with engines to be refined further in the years to come!” The Tu-95 literally needs to have tires strapped to its wings and fuselage to stop any missiles from causing any damage over Ukraine. The tires don't even help they just contribute to drag, limit maneuverability and evasive maneuvers, make it heavier, pose a hazard to pretty much everything because if it is hit by a missile or whatever the flammable rubber and structural integrity side effects the tires bring just make it an easier target. Can’t believe they actually think tires are effective defensive measures lmao. (Btw I don’t want to cause a debate, I am just talking about my opinion backed up with factual evidence and stuff, dont take it too seriously :D)
@TalonTheCRTguy does the T-38C Talon have variable sweep wings, internal weapons bays, heavy bombing capability, low radar visibility, and nuclear capability?
just my opinion, ;) don’t take it too seriously if you simp for the Tu160
@Apollo018362 W helicopter
@Christiant2 no cockpit on the CT-4? :(
@Christiant2 nope
@TheMouse yes
if you want to be tagged on any future builds, comment T on the teasers or ask to be put on my tagging list located (here)
@TheMouse
@Mav3r1ck
@IzzyTheCat
Lmao, I made this but in a glass
MiG-29 lookin’ ahh
@AeroCheese 18 downloads*
@TheNewSPplayer like lag and processing power im pretty sure.
Right now it’s at 425 which isn’t bad. My BS61-100 however… well I think we can tell how many people on a phone can’t play with it right here. Just look at the very last “parts” detail in the specifications
@Christiant2 chonker
@Christiant2 big chungus
Le chonk
@TheNewSPplayer Lol, thats my estimate on the part count. I reckon the performance cost will be quite high
@TheNewSPplayer 300+
@Christiant2 fieter chet
@TheNewSPplayer so far it’s 172. Not including cockpit, windows, framing, parts of the wings, engines, landing gear, funky trees parts, tail, stabilizers, details, and just smaller parts.
@L1nus Agreed
@Graingy It is this one
Yes
CONGRATS!
Just curious, what helicopter will you make?
@Noob101 ;)
@Eggplant B1B
Im sorry but i cannot rate it as it is passed the due date. I will still give an upvote though for the effort. (Btw this looks cool! :D)
@Graingy lol
@FOXHOUND26 i guess it does
@MAPA thanks! I need to refine the wing transitioning so I can fit the rotation
@MAPA I have no idea why its coming along so well!
@TheMouse
@MAPA
@TalonTheCRTguy noo
@TheMouse my artwork is very fine indeed
@Tingly06822 yes
@Eggplant i have no idea what you are saying
@Eggplant like with the curves and stuff
@Graingy no, the Tu160 not only looks like crap but also performs as such. Lmao
@TalonTheCRTguy bruh stfu
T