@randomusername There is no auto-roll on any of my builds. None. Again, you are trying to teach the basics to someone who is many levels above you in skill.
@randomusername Well, for one thing, work on your English. Or failing that, if you're fluent in some other language, just comment in that language and I can try using an online translator.
More importantly, try to be a less negative person. There are many notable positive things about this build -- the smoothness of the build, the decorative trim that follows the contours of the airframe exactly, the exceptional flight stability, the two agility modes, and a bunch of other stuff. And all you had to say was "your plane doesn't have good stallability and maneuverability." Consider what that says about you.
Third, think before you criticize something that was made by someone with obviously far better skills than you. I find it hilarious that people who couldn't do what I do, not in a million years, feel free to point out what they think are flaws in my builds, instead of asking questions to make sure they understand what they're talking about. It's like a 400-pound slob walking up to Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime and telling him "ur body sux LOL!" (To head off the haters: I'm not saying I'm anywhere near as great as Arnold Schwarzenegger, just trying to make a point using an example.)
Finally, don't say things like "don't write a paragraph." Because one, it's not polite, and two, if you think the ability to write a detailed, cogent, and articulate answer off the cuff is somehow funny and worth mocking, you're not headed for a bright future.
@Kerbango That's interesting, a mathematical reference in a children's movie. Edit: I appreciate the attempt to defuse the situation, but there's no need.
And can a plane lose alt when pitching up? You don't have to write a paragraph.
You're right, I don't, because I already wrote one in my previous reply:
If you're saying that this plane can't stay nose up and still lose altitude, you're simply wrong. Would you like me to upload a video of it doing just that?
If you can't be bothered to read, stop wasting my time.
@randomusername It's pretty clear your English isn't very good, because you don't understand what I'm saying (and I don't understand half the stuff you're saying).
So you are telling me, if I fly an airliner it won't fall out of the sky, instead just pitch down?
If you fly an airliner and what? If you pull up too much, it will stall. If you reduce speed too much, it will stall. How it responds to a stall depends on the plane's characteristics, and its attitude just before the stall, but yes, it will tend to pitch down, unless it was in some crazy attitude before the stall. As a matter of fact, the center of mass is placed in front of the center of lift very deliberately for this exact reason: so that the default tendency of the airplane is to nose down and gain speed, instead of nosing up and losing speed. You can watch a Boeing 747 going into a stall from a vertical climb, and guess what, it pitches down.
If you're saying that this plane can't stay nose up and still lose altitude, you're simply wrong. Would you like me to upload a video of it doing just that?
But yes, if I could build anything, I'd build a plane. Or just something.
I don't know what this is a reply to, but it's completely meaningless. You'd build "a plane... or something." So you'd build anything?
And I don't like "realistic." If I wanted to play RealPlanes I'd get a pilot's license. To me, the entire point of SP is a game where the limitations of real life don't apply, where an SR-71 can have plasma cannons and turn within a few thousand feet at Mach 6. I find your and others' obsession with realism boring and indicative of a crippling lack of imagination. It's like we're in the Matrix, and I'm saying "hey guys, we can do anything in here! We can leap tall buildings, we can fly, we can punch through concrete!" And a bunch of guys are shaking their heads and saying "No, no, we must re-implement all the limitations of real life. Because all that is too much fun."
You don't have to comment on this.
Yes I do. If you post a critical comment on my build, I will reply. If you don't like your points rebutted, don't start an argument. It would be much more pleasant for both you and me if, instead of starting out by criticizing, you were to ask questions. For instance: "How/why does it accelerate so fast? What's the optimal landing speed and stall speed? Why doesn't it have missiles? Why are the guns so powerful?" Etc.
As for the word that does not exist "Stallability" I meant that your plane is not capable of pitching up to 50 degrees and not gain altitude when landing.
50 degrees is a bit much, did you mean 15 degrees? And yes, this plane can do that just fine. Would you like me to upload a video?
It will not allow a range of maneuvers for ease of operation and missile avoidance.
What maneuvers would those be? Did you notice that it allows things like near-instant acceleration and deceleration from 1000 to 3800 mph and back, tight turn radius, and exceptional flight stability?
When I start I will click all the activation groups to find all the hidden features if I forget.
If you take 30 seconds to read the instructions, you won't have to guess. You're complaining because you use a silly way of figuring out controls, and were disappointed when there was nothing bound to AGs 3 and above? Seriously?
The plane cannot do a stall maneuver by maneuvering to much.
Not sure what this means.
Your plane cannot do a loop and instantly blast off.
Not sure what this means.
But why have it accelerate so quickly?
Because I wanted to... what other reason is there?
That's only if you do it too fast, or cut the throttle entirely using brake. It's a feature, not a bug. Or did you not notice the instant acceleration and deceleration between 0-1000 mph, and between 1000-3800 mph?
But it just nose dives when landing.
It lands just fine at around 150 mph. If you go below the stall speed, of course it will nose down.
I am not going to start a competition it's immature. You are upset on this comment. Sorry but I am critical on physics. It's just me.
I'm not upset at all. I love critical thought and discussion, just not when people don't bother to understand something before they start criticizing.
@randomusername What's stallability? That's not a word. As for maneuverability, if you're not going to read the instructions....
How about you try building a plane that handles smoothly at all speeds from 500 to 4000 mph, and has precise enough handling to get gun hits on ships from over 8 miles away? Then we can talk.
If it's the first crash in all this time, that's actually a pretty good record. It's good to remember that there probably has never been a large, complex, cutting-edge technology project that didn't have some failures. 12 SR-71s were lost to accidents. The F-22 has had 4 losses, plus one YF-22.
@Texasfam04 Those are just the configs, the inputs to the program. To see the actual code you'll have to look at the source code of the generator. It took a few hours to write the code for the initial prototype, a few days to polish it. Thinking about the solution took longer :)
Flies much better than the last one, good job. Visually there could've been more improvements. Pitch authority is too weak, you can increase it by using scaled (and/or hidden) wings/control surfaces. The engine noise is annoying and the afterburner flame is way too long. If you want to increase engine power, set the powerMultiplier instead of increasing max.
@ViciousTNT Yeah, and the SR-71 didn't even have to try. It was in another class altogether. Over Mach 2.8, the Foxbat's engines would disintegrate in a matter of minutes, while the SR-71's J-58s could keep it up for hours and hours. In the words of the most famous MiG-25 pilot of all time:
"Chasing the SR-71 along the Siberian Coast, I could not match its speed. One flight in the MiG-25 and we had to change our engines. I could not believe that such technologies existed."
The pilot was Viktor Belenko, who defected to the US (via Japan) in a MiG-25. The SR-71 was part of the reason for his defection, because he began to question how, if the Americans were as decadent and stupid as the Soviet government would have him believe, they could produce technology so much better than the Soviets. That's the Blackbird for you: destroying Communism from within, simply by existing. One hell of a plane, and it has never been equaled.
Thanks, @Ariathe. I wasn't really thinking of the FB-22 when I made this, but the resemblance is definitely there. Someone asked me to make something F-22-ish, and this is what I came up with.
@randomusername There is no auto-roll on any of my builds. None. Again, you are trying to teach the basics to someone who is many levels above you in skill.
@FGW2014
@AWESOMENESS360 All I have to say about the cheating accusation is this:
Thanks for the appreciation, one comment like yours makes up for all the negativity, jealousy, and hate.
@randomusername Well, for one thing, work on your English. Or failing that, if you're fluent in some other language, just comment in that language and I can try using an online translator.
More importantly, try to be a less negative person. There are many notable positive things about this build -- the smoothness of the build, the decorative trim that follows the contours of the airframe exactly, the exceptional flight stability, the two agility modes, and a bunch of other stuff. And all you had to say was "your plane doesn't have good stallability and maneuverability." Consider what that says about you.
Third, think before you criticize something that was made by someone with obviously far better skills than you. I find it hilarious that people who couldn't do what I do, not in a million years, feel free to point out what they think are flaws in my builds, instead of asking questions to make sure they understand what they're talking about. It's like a 400-pound slob walking up to Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime and telling him "ur body sux LOL!" (To head off the haters: I'm not saying I'm anywhere near as great as Arnold Schwarzenegger, just trying to make a point using an example.)
Finally, don't say things like "don't write a paragraph." Because one, it's not polite, and two, if you think the ability to write a detailed, cogent, and articulate answer off the cuff is somehow funny and worth mocking, you're not headed for a bright future.
@Kerbango That's interesting, a mathematical reference in a children's movie. Edit: I appreciate the attempt to defuse the situation, but there's no need.
Merci, @grizzlitn, your comment got lost in all le bruit.
@randomusername Well, your comments are pretty much garbage, but leave them there, or my replies will lose context.
@randomusername Here's a video. Nose up, losing altitude. Any further questions?
+1@randomusername
You're right, I don't, because I already wrote one in my previous reply:
If you're saying that this plane can't stay nose up and still lose altitude, you're simply wrong. Would you like me to upload a video of it doing just that?
If you can't be bothered to read, stop wasting my time.
@randomusername It's pretty clear your English isn't very good, because you don't understand what I'm saying (and I don't understand half the stuff you're saying).
If you fly an airliner and what? If you pull up too much, it will stall. If you reduce speed too much, it will stall. How it responds to a stall depends on the plane's characteristics, and its attitude just before the stall, but yes, it will tend to pitch down, unless it was in some crazy attitude before the stall. As a matter of fact, the center of mass is placed in front of the center of lift very deliberately for this exact reason: so that the default tendency of the airplane is to nose down and gain speed, instead of nosing up and losing speed. You can watch a Boeing 747 going into a stall from a vertical climb, and guess what, it pitches down.
If you're saying that this plane can't stay nose up and still lose altitude, you're simply wrong. Would you like me to upload a video of it doing just that?
I don't know what this is a reply to, but it's completely meaningless. You'd build "a plane... or something." So you'd build anything?
@randomusername
No idea what any of the above means.
Like all aircraft... it's called "stalling."
@randomusername
And I don't like "realistic." If I wanted to play RealPlanes I'd get a pilot's license. To me, the entire point of SP is a game where the limitations of real life don't apply, where an SR-71 can have plasma cannons and turn within a few thousand feet at Mach 6. I find your and others' obsession with realism boring and indicative of a crippling lack of imagination. It's like we're in the Matrix, and I'm saying "hey guys, we can do anything in here! We can leap tall buildings, we can fly, we can punch through concrete!" And a bunch of guys are shaking their heads and saying "No, no, we must re-implement all the limitations of real life. Because all that is too much fun."
Yes I do. If you post a critical comment on my build, I will reply. If you don't like your points rebutted, don't start an argument. It would be much more pleasant for both you and me if, instead of starting out by criticizing, you were to ask questions. For instance: "How/why does it accelerate so fast? What's the optimal landing speed and stall speed? Why doesn't it have missiles? Why are the guns so powerful?" Etc.
+3@randomusername
50 degrees is a bit much, did you mean 15 degrees? And yes, this plane can do that just fine. Would you like me to upload a video?
What maneuvers would those be? Did you notice that it allows things like near-instant acceleration and deceleration from 1000 to 3800 mph and back, tight turn radius, and exceptional flight stability?
@randomusername
If you take 30 seconds to read the instructions, you won't have to guess. You're complaining because you use a silly way of figuring out controls, and were disappointed when there was nothing bound to AGs 3 and above? Seriously?
Not sure what this means.
Not sure what this means.
Because I wanted to... what other reason is there?
@Spectre2520 It sort of emulates rocket boosters. See RATO/JATO.
@Spectre2520 See this comment.
@randomusername
English, please.
And?
That's only if you do it too fast, or cut the throttle entirely using brake. It's a feature, not a bug. Or did you not notice the instant acceleration and deceleration between 0-1000 mph, and between 1000-3800 mph?
It lands just fine at around 150 mph. If you go below the stall speed, of course it will nose down.
I'm not upset at all. I love critical thought and discussion, just not when people don't bother to understand something before they start criticizing.
@Mick1234567890 Why?
@randomusername What's stallability? That's not a word. As for maneuverability, if you're not going to read the instructions....
How about you try building a plane that handles smoothly at all speeds from 500 to 4000 mph, and has precise enough handling to get gun hits on ships from over 8 miles away? Then we can talk.
@destroyerP ?
If it's the first crash in all this time, that's actually a pretty good record. It's good to remember that there probably has never been a large, complex, cutting-edge technology project that didn't have some failures. 12 SR-71s were lost to accidents. The F-22 has had 4 losses, plus one YF-22.
+1@FGW2014 Some background here. After that, the description should be self-explanatory.
@XjayIndustrys No harm done.
Thanks, @CRJ900Pilot
@XjayIndustrys You 3D printed one of my builds? Photos, please.
+2@AWESOMENESS360 The smoothest? No. The smoothest with contour-hugging decorations? Yes. Well, it's the only one of its kind so far...
@Texasfam04 Those are just the configs, the inputs to the program. To see the actual code you'll have to look at the source code of the generator. It took a few hours to write the code for the initial prototype, a few days to polish it. Thinking about the solution took longer :)
@XjayIndustrys I know exactly what you mean.
+1Nicely done, @Mumpsy
Thanks, @Stingray
Thanks, @Spectre2520
Glad you like it, @ChickenMcNuggets007, but this one doesn't have tiny details, either...?
@XjayIndustrys No offence at all.
@BaconRoll Gushing? :)
+1Thanks, @ThePilotDude
@LiamW Hmm ok. I don't get it, but to each his own.
@LiamW Why wouldn't you use it? I'm curious.
Thanks, @TheGuyYouMightKnow @sexylips35
@AWESOMENESS360 Whoa, never noticed that. Beast level 10?
Thanks, @CRJ900Pilot
@XjayIndustrys I guess people are upvoting on their mobiles, and will download on another device later...?
+1Thanks, @Trijets, let me know how it goes.
Thanks, @RailfanEthan
@Mattangi2 That would depend on her body fat percentage.
@EliteArsenals24 Have you built anything with it?
Flies much better than the last one, good job. Visually there could've been more improvements. Pitch authority is too weak, you can increase it by using scaled (and/or hidden) wings/control surfaces. The engine noise is annoying and the afterburner flame is way too long. If you want to increase engine power, set the powerMultiplier instead of increasing max.
+2@ViciousTNT Yeah, and the SR-71 didn't even have to try. It was in another class altogether. Over Mach 2.8, the Foxbat's engines would disintegrate in a matter of minutes, while the SR-71's J-58s could keep it up for hours and hours. In the words of the most famous MiG-25 pilot of all time:
The pilot was Viktor Belenko, who defected to the US (via Japan) in a MiG-25. The SR-71 was part of the reason for his defection, because he began to question how, if the Americans were as decadent and stupid as the Soviet government would have him believe, they could produce technology so much better than the Soviets. That's the Blackbird for you: destroying Communism from within, simply by existing. One hell of a plane, and it has never been equaled.
+4Thanks, @Ariathe. I wasn't really thinking of the FB-22 when I made this, but the resemblance is definitely there. Someone asked me to make something F-22-ish, and this is what I came up with.
@tylerdeveneuxmusic Have you had a play with it? It's very easy once you understand the concept.
+1Thanks, @FalconGT12