Complaints about the tail swastika WILL BE IGNORED. I do not support Fascism or Nazis in any way nor do I praise their ideologies, isms, and horrendous activities. It was simply put there for historical representations, fictional or otherwise, and the plane itself is a play on the original German Corsair which caused a ton of controversy in it's heyday but is now seen more as a meme, which many today find hilarious.
. Report all you want if it makes you feel better. My conscience is clear and the moderators know that I have no ill intent.
@ANNYUI I gave no permission whatsoever to this user. I don't have any connections or an account in that website. Autotranslate doesn't always work there too. If you can lend a hand in getting this into attention of good-minded people, I'd be grateful.
@ANNYUI No. It's stolen. If people can band together and take it down, that'd be great. Even the descriptions are copy-pasta'd with translation defects.
@Thelegitpilot13 Okay, key words: certain situations. But the big question here is how often do you think those certain situations present themselves and circumstances allow for one to pull off a stunt like that and actually succeed.
.
Here's some points I've laid down:
- The F-14 and MiG-29 were able to pull it off cause their engines are far apart from each other, which allows boosted asymmetric thrust to let the fighter turn.
- Tomcats aren't in active service anymore. And unless you have an Iranian with their busted up F-14 or Russian pilot with their Flanker or Fulcrum around who's insane enough to do that move in real combat and live to tell the tale, then you got yourself something to tell stories about at the bar.
- The situation. What if your adversary has their missile prox detonator set to have a wider triggering radius? What if they get far enough from you to turn back in and get a gun solution on you? What if they're not alone and someone else gets a bead on you while you pull the maneuver?
- The move was done in a simulated environment(DCS) and scripted to happen and succeed (the movie). Sim/Movie ≠ real life. You and I don't need to argue whether or not DCS is perfect.
- If you're alone, deep in hostile airspace, and you have minimal weapons along with the jet being an outdated, vintage fighter, you're better off just winging it to the closest friendly turf or close enough with whatever gas you have left.
- Combat performance of jets in DCS are not fully accurate to their real life versions. No military would just gladly submit the full specs and stats of their fighters for a game lest they want their enemies/potential enemies to cook up a recipe for their airpower downfall. Especially since that game can just be bought up by anyone who can play it.
.
In conclusion: Realistically, Maverick could've just done a full forward negative G dive, or just used the stick in general to make a regular turn since he had enough airspeed during that scene to move. And DCS is indeed the best combat flight sim readily available for purchase, but it definitely isn't perfect. (which I know you never said, but from the way you put up your reply to me and CommentaryGuy, it looked and felt like you're saying the game is just real life in a screen)
It's largely for cosmetic purposes. If you're planning to build a classic gunpowder cannon, you'd pick the sphere round. Meanwhile the slug is more for current-era/conventional guns.
.
Neither are more explosive or accurate than each other. It's just for looks.
Not to mention that since SP runs on an older Unity setup, it's gonna take a ton more resources to have the parts and simulation that you want to actually work, which might be a major downside for mobile users since they're already at a disadvantage of having lower processing power and RAM. They did add the text labels part for many reasons. One of them is to reduce the reliance of builders on fuselage blocks to create letters and logos for cosmetic purposes, such as tailcodes and roundels, which @hpgbproductions patented a way to make such things possible
@LeaveUsAlone You can pretty much just make your own armor parts via XML editing the health value of that part/plate that you want to be "armored" for now.
I do very much agree with you on the radar aspect, though. Every build having a radar warning receiver right off the bat is kind of ridiculous.
.
but then again, this game is called SimplePlanes for a reason. Not ComplexPlanes. If you're really looking for more realism until whether or not Jundroo will actually implement new stuff, then you might want to stick to DCS or any other flight sim that has what you like.
It's gonna be difficult to implement these features since SP uses an older Unity setup. Jundroo's gonna have to make SP2 for these stuff cause new programming and codes make it easier, which I doubt they'll do at all since they're focusing more on SimpleRockets.
@FirstFish83828 They can. I had a few cases of autocredit problems with my modified build posts and I just tagged one of them to fix it, and they did. (Mostly Bacon, but I'm quite certain all mods have the ability to do so.)
@FirstFish83828 Alright. But it's better off with the autocredit fixed so it'd be immediately known right off the bat that it's a successor to the original. We wouldn't want some smart people going around telling everyone that you "stole" the build. Not everyone thoroughly reads descriptions or comments.
Regarding armor for builds:
- Just like what @IAlsoBuildPlane said. You can just increase the Health Points of certain parts that you want to be "armored" through XML.
- You have countermeasures. Chaff and Flares. Slap a couple onto your builds and fire off a few whenever you're being locked onto. You want more chaff and flares for every launcher? XML change the ammo of each launcher to how much you want. Regarding ground vehicles being "too weak or slow"
- You want to outrun rounds fired from AA vehicles? Beef up the engine horsepower, pray you don't crash.
- Again, you can XML the HP of vehicle parts so they can withstand more punishment from enemy fire. Or, in an alternative way, don't get hit in the first place. Regarding laser guided missiles and cursor following rotators:
- Laser guided ordnance sounds great. Nothing like a some good ol' paint your target for strike
- It would be nice if mouse-aimed rotators are stock in-game, but the devs would probably have to do some heavy code rewriting for that to be added. For now, we just have to stick with XML rotators.
Even the throttle split move to out-turn the Felon doesn't make sense. The F-14A's sucky engines could barely get the fighter to recover energy after it turned unless it was in a dive. Doing that stunt while on a climb and at low airspeed wouldn't do anything.
.
And, even if the engines were strong enough like those in later models of the Tomcat, doing the split throttle and hard yaw would just basically be asking for you to run into a flat spin or just outright stall the jet since the engine placement is real far apart from each other.
.
The point above is proven by this video made by @Griffon1 . I know SP physics are balls but the bad general idea of pedal turning with split throttle is shown
Simple-chan
+3Boing C-17 Worldlord the third
+2@Khanhlam Probably would. Assuming I don't wreck the base plane build when I replace the regular fuselage with a hollow one for the cockpit
+2@SheriffHackdogMCPE Then what's with the heads up? I never said anything in the description about the USAF using the F4U in Europe.
+2@SheriffHackdogMCPE I never mentioned anything about the USAF using it in the European Front.
+2Yeet bois
@Alisuchanka - for the WEP FunkyTrees code
@BogdanX - For the Corsair base
YEET BOIS
Complaints about the tail swastika WILL BE IGNORED. I do not support Fascism or Nazis in any way nor do I praise their ideologies, isms, and horrendous activities. It was simply put there for historical representations, fictional or otherwise, and the plane itself is a play on the original German Corsair which caused a ton of controversy in it's heyday but is now seen more as a meme, which many today find hilarious.
.
Report all you want if it makes you feel better. My conscience is clear and the moderators know that I have no ill intent.
@LeaveUsAlone Not everyone who plays SP owns an iPad like you
+2The Tomcat before the Tomcat
@ANNYUI I gave no permission whatsoever to this user. I don't have any connections or an account in that website. Autotranslate doesn't always work there too. If you can lend a hand in getting this into attention of good-minded people, I'd be grateful.
@ANNYUI No. It's stolen. If people can band together and take it down, that'd be great. Even the descriptions are copy-pasta'd with translation defects.
@Thelegitpilot13 Okay, key words: certain situations. But the big question here is how often do you think those certain situations present themselves and circumstances allow for one to pull off a stunt like that and actually succeed.
+1.
Here's some points I've laid down:
- The F-14 and MiG-29 were able to pull it off cause their engines are far apart from each other, which allows boosted asymmetric thrust to let the fighter turn.
- Tomcats aren't in active service anymore. And unless you have an Iranian with their busted up F-14 or Russian pilot with their Flanker or Fulcrum around who's insane enough to do that move in real combat and live to tell the tale, then you got yourself something to tell stories about at the bar.
- The situation. What if your adversary has their missile prox detonator set to have a wider triggering radius? What if they get far enough from you to turn back in and get a gun solution on you? What if they're not alone and someone else gets a bead on you while you pull the maneuver?
- The move was done in a simulated environment (DCS) and scripted to happen and succeed (the movie). Sim/Movie ≠ real life. You and I don't need to argue whether or not DCS is perfect.
- If you're alone, deep in hostile airspace, and you have minimal weapons along with the jet being an outdated, vintage fighter, you're better off just winging it to the closest friendly turf or close enough with whatever gas you have left.
- Combat performance of jets in DCS are not fully accurate to their real life versions. No military would just gladly submit the full specs and stats of their fighters for a game lest they want their enemies/potential enemies to cook up a recipe for their airpower downfall. Especially since that game can just be bought up by anyone who can play it.
.
In conclusion: Realistically, Maverick could've just done a full forward negative G dive, or just used the stick in general to make a regular turn since he had enough airspeed during that scene to move. And DCS is indeed the best combat flight sim readily available for purchase, but it definitely isn't perfect. (which I know you never said, but from the way you put up your reply to me and CommentaryGuy, it looked and felt like you're saying the game is just real life in a screen)
It's largely for cosmetic purposes. If you're planning to build a classic gunpowder cannon, you'd pick the sphere round. Meanwhile the slug is more for current-era/conventional guns.
+1.
Neither are more explosive or accurate than each other. It's just for looks.
@teddyone02 ok
Not to mention that since SP runs on an older Unity setup, it's gonna take a ton more resources to have the parts and simulation that you want to actually work, which might be a major downside for mobile users since they're already at a disadvantage of having lower processing power and RAM. They did add the text labels part for many reasons. One of them is to reduce the reliance of builders on fuselage blocks to create letters and logos for cosmetic purposes, such as tailcodes and roundels, which @hpgbproductions patented a way to make such things possible
+2@LeaveUsAlone You can pretty much just make your own armor parts via XML editing the
+2healthvalue of that part/plate that you want to be "armored" for now.I do very much agree with you on the radar aspect, though. Every build having a radar warning receiver right off the bat is kind of ridiculous.
.
but then again, this game is called SimplePlanes for a reason. Not ComplexPlanes. If you're really looking for more realism until whether or not Jundroo will actually implement new stuff, then you might want to stick to DCS or any other flight sim that has what you like.
It's gonna be difficult to implement these features since SP uses an older Unity setup. Jundroo's gonna have to make SP2 for these stuff cause new programming and codes make it easier, which I doubt they'll do at all since they're focusing more on SimpleRockets.
+1If it chonks, it flonks.
omaigad nyoo nem chens eksdee beri gud gud eksdee
XDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDeksdee
Yonkers
+2@FirstFish83828 They can. I had a few cases of autocredit problems with my modified build posts and I just tagged one of them to fix it, and they did. (Mostly Bacon, but I'm quite certain all mods have the ability to do so.)
@FirstFish83828 Alright. But it's better off with the autocredit fixed so it'd be immediately known right off the bat that it's a successor to the original. We wouldn't want some smart people going around telling everyone that you "stole" the build. Not everyone thoroughly reads descriptions or comments.
@FirstFish83828 So you did this from scratch and not modified the original?
@BaconAircraft Successor fix pls
@Talon7192 Dump tea into the sea
Killing
Fish
Chips
518 parts with great detail and control. Take a solid upvote.
The Salt Mirage
They'd be hanging out with demons and still wouldn't be harmed
+2@Hedero - P-39Q-5 base
@Alisuchanka - WEP system
More like Tsar Bomba airburst
Ja. Deutsch Engineering
+2yonkers
+2Hey, if it works, it works.
Added advantage of being a smaller target since you don't have wings anymore too
str wrs
0/10
+3still cried
@DISHWASHER2005 Cause we live in the same country.
@KudaOni @JoddyFubuki788 It means crazy/insane in our language.
Ladies and gentlemen, the moment you've all been waiting for.
IT'S
GRUMMIN'
TIME
About time someone made a beefed up TutorialPlane. Instant download and updoot
+2Can't fly this cause of huge part count. Take an upvote and spotlight instead
+3The Salt Mirage
+1AH-64D abajee
Fortinaiti
ekis bokis seris ekis
labalablei steshon faiiiiiiiv
lojitik haibr ekis ekis ekis ekis
For those who didn't get it, click me and watch.
+2Original build belongs to @GuyFolk
Check it out by clicking me
Krop duster? feeld teelr? kompliketed enhansd farrmeeng devais???
DA, TOVARISCH. DIS CYKA OF A MA'SHIN IS ALL OF DEM BLYAT.
Regarding armor for builds:
+2- Just like what @IAlsoBuildPlane said. You can just increase the Health Points of certain parts that you want to be "armored" through XML.
- You have countermeasures. Chaff and Flares. Slap a couple onto your builds and fire off a few whenever you're being locked onto. You want more chaff and flares for every launcher? XML change the
ammoof each launcher to how much you want.Regarding ground vehicles being "too weak or slow"
- You want to outrun rounds fired from AA vehicles? Beef up the engine horsepower, pray you don't crash.
- Again, you can XML the HP of vehicle parts so they can withstand more punishment from enemy fire. Or, in an alternative way, don't get hit in the first place.
Regarding laser guided missiles and cursor following rotators:
- Laser guided ordnance sounds great. Nothing like a some good ol' paint your target for strike
- It would be nice if mouse-aimed rotators are stock in-game, but the devs would probably have to do some heavy code rewriting for that to be added. For now, we just have to stick with XML rotators.
@JustDragon It's an open discussion. Doesn't matter if it matters at all. We talk about stuff. That's what the forums are for.
Even the throttle split move to out-turn the Felon doesn't make sense. The F-14A's sucky engines could barely get the fighter to recover energy after it turned unless it was in a dive. Doing that stunt while on a climb and at low airspeed wouldn't do anything.
+3.
And, even if the engines were strong enough like those in later models of the Tomcat, doing the split throttle and hard yaw would just basically be asking for you to run into a flat spin or just outright stall the jet since the engine placement is real far apart from each other.
.
The point above is proven by this video made by @Griffon1 . I know SP physics are balls but the bad general idea of pedal turning with split throttle is shown