@ThomasRoderick It's not wrong, it's just a bit circular. I upvote your post to say "thanks for posting a quality build"; then you thank me for thanking you; then maybe I could thank you for thanking me for thanking you; and so on.
@ThomasRoderick Absolutely, we must only upvote builds that actually deserve it -- anything else is corruption. I don't give out upvotes to "return the favor," or out of pity, or friendship, or anything other than build quality. So if I upvote your build, you can rest assured it's because it's a good build.
@Belloaka Also, what's simpler: a wing subassembly attached to one rotator, or a complex shape built out of hundreds of independently rotating airbrakes?
@Belloaka I'm just doing what I can with airbrakes. It's a tragedy that SP doesn't have a "cosmetic" rotator that simply rotates the parts attached to it without affecting physics.
@Belloaka I always aim for maximum freedom: all you need to fly any of my builds is to throttle up, my weapon systems are as simple as possible, and the functionality of my builds let you do pretty much anything it's possible to do in the sandbox. As for creativity, I've released a bunch of flight modules and other subassemblies to enable people to build whatever they want.
@Belloaka Yeah, I like the fact that I can perfect a flight module once, then reuse it in multiple builds. So if I'm making a sci-fi or fun build like my X-Wing, I can use my 100,000 lb "fun" flight module; if I build a precision bomber I can use my 500,000 lb "heavy bomber" flight module, and so on.
Another benefit of this is that I and the people who download my builds don't need to "train" on each new build to be able to fly it well. You don't need to rack up those flight hours for each new build; if you've flown a build with the same flight module before, that experience transfers across seamlessly. One of the things that keeps me from enjoying a lot of the builds posted on SP is the very specific instructions: enable AG1, set throttle to 17%, set VTOL to 25% while touching your nose with your left hand, pitch up exactly 38%, etc.
@Belloaka Symmetry is optional, the main benefit is build quality -- you get that machine-like precision with every shape instead of the rough approximation that handmade builds can achieve.
@Physoman What's with you kids these days? This is your first interaction with me, and your opening line is "I DARE YOU." Learn some manners, then talk to me, kid.
@grizzlitn Believe it or not, "swing wing" is the colloquial term for variable-geometry aircraft. And that toy is ridiculous, who came up with that idea? And more importantly, how do you know of it?
@TheFinalWitchingHour No offence, but that's a very strange question. If I can think of a better way to do something, I use it. I'm pretty sure most people act the same way.
If you read the original post, right under the heading Original post, it says:
I left the game running and went away, and when I came back my airplane was being shot at by an insanely fast-moving galleon with unlimited missiles. I've tried to discover how I triggered it, but haven't had any luck so far.
@Triggerstrider1 More like a MiG-21 with variable-sweep wings. A baby Tomcat is a good idea, though...
@ThomasRoderick It's not wrong, it's just a bit circular. I upvote your post to say "thanks for posting a quality build"; then you thank me for thanking you; then maybe I could thank you for thanking me for thanking you; and so on.
+1@ThomasRoderick Absolutely, we must only upvote builds that actually deserve it -- anything else is corruption. I don't give out upvotes to "return the favor," or out of pity, or friendship, or anything other than build quality. So if I upvote your build, you can rest assured it's because it's a good build.
+2@ThomasRoderick Don't thank me for my upvote... my upvote is my way of thanking you for uploading a quality build :)
+1@Snowdog I can make you a smaller version with fewer parts if you like.
@Alta2809 I'm sure you do. I just happened to notice this one.
+2It's actually really impressive that you were able to make an unusually-shaped aircraft fly so well. Nice work.
Handles really well. Nicely done.
+1@Belloaka Also, what's simpler: a wing subassembly attached to one rotator, or a complex shape built out of hundreds of independently rotating airbrakes?
+1@Belloaka I'm just doing what I can with airbrakes. It's a tragedy that SP doesn't have a "cosmetic" rotator that simply rotates the parts attached to it without affecting physics.
+1@Belloaka I always aim for maximum freedom: all you need to fly any of my builds is to throttle up, my weapon systems are as simple as possible, and the functionality of my builds let you do pretty much anything it's possible to do in the sandbox. As for creativity, I've released a bunch of flight modules and other subassemblies to enable people to build whatever they want.
+1@Belloaka Yeah, I like the fact that I can perfect a flight module once, then reuse it in multiple builds. So if I'm making a sci-fi or fun build like my X-Wing, I can use my 100,000 lb "fun" flight module; if I build a precision bomber I can use my 500,000 lb "heavy bomber" flight module, and so on.
Another benefit of this is that I and the people who download my builds don't need to "train" on each new build to be able to fly it well. You don't need to rack up those flight hours for each new build; if you've flown a build with the same flight module before, that experience transfers across seamlessly. One of the things that keeps me from enjoying a lot of the builds posted on SP is the very specific instructions: enable AG1, set throttle to 17%, set VTOL to 25% while touching your nose with your left hand, pitch up exactly 38%, etc.
+1@Belloaka Symmetry is optional, the main benefit is build quality -- you get that machine-like precision with every shape instead of the rough approximation that handmade builds can achieve.
Love it. Looks like a mix between a Do-335 and an A-10.
@Physoman What's with you kids these days? This is your first interaction with me, and your opening line is "I DARE YOU." Learn some manners, then talk to me, kid.
@Belloaka I know, right? That's why I wrote software to do the calculations for me. It's such an obvious thing to do.
+1@Snowdog Surely that's a problem with your device, not this build?
@Belloaka All the calculations are done by my own software. Before you ask, no, that's not the reason I don't build accurately-sized replicas.
@grizzlitn Man, that GTA physics is so realistic, I can see why it's so popular...
+1Thanks, @asteroidbook345
@grizzlitn Believe it or not, "swing wing" is the colloquial term for variable-geometry aircraft. And that toy is ridiculous, who came up with that idea? And more importantly, how do you know of it?
@switdog08 Realism, schmealism...
@Aeromotive Indeed :)
@FireFast212 Simple is beautiful, right?
@soundwave And the v-stab, and the elevators...
+2@CRJ900Pilot Fun little plane, isn't it?
+1Thanks, @Belloaka, I'm glad you like it.
+1@Mumpsy And a lot of fun :)
+1@CalebRepublic Nyet problema, comrade.
@TheFinalWitchingHour No offence, but that's a very strange question. If I can think of a better way to do something, I use it. I'm pretty sure most people act the same way.
@TheFinalWitchingHour I'm not sure what you're asking.
@FireFast212 "42" is a reference to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I just wondered if it was intentional.
Nice build. 42 parts... is that a coincidence?
@sancziimrelajos Yeah, I can see the resemblance.
+1@0BL1V10N5_PH03N1X
Thanks! An easy way to find a specific build by a user is to use a search engine like DuckDuckGo or Google, and type in:
site:simpleplanes.com sleddriver valkyrie
Here's the link to my "Valkyrie".
+1@Cerdd No problem. I appreciate your ability to admit fault, good on you.
@Cerdd
If you read the original post, right under the heading Original post, it says:
+1Thanks, @BubbleLukasie
@Nerfaddict That's one thing. To assume that the lag's because of the drag points is another.
+1@Nerfaddict Not true. Not true at all.
@ThomasRoderick And vigilant. Hopeful and vigilant.
+1@ThomasRoderick Tell me about it. Well, stay that way, we'll get through this.
@ThomasRoderick Hey, Tom, how are you?
@Nerfaddict ...and?
Thanks, @FireFast212
Thanks, @DeathStalker627, glad you like it.
Thanks, @Belloaka
+1Thanks, @Treadmill103. Of course, no sandbox run is complete without the Beast being blown up :)
@CRJ900Pilot I agree :)
Thanks, @CRJ900Pilot. The bad guys mothership, or the good guys one?