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.
@Chancey21 @BaconRoll It's not possible to build shapes with a diamond-shaped cross-section, so I wouldn't get my hopes up. I could build something F-22-ish, perhaps.
Excellent performance, it's really great at climbing steep slopes -- I was able to take it all the way to the top of the hills by the Wright runway. The tyres look a little too small for the frame. The appearance could be improved, but the performance in terms of terrain-holding ability is probably the best I've seen so far.
@grizzlitn I think it's much better than Top Gun, there's a lot more footage of fighters than of singing in bars, and some of the shots are just stunning.
@tsampoy Well then, maybe it's a language problem, because when you say "you post too much," most people would take that to mean "you shouldn't post so often."
As to how I build things so fast, I just developed a better method of building.
@WDRoosevelt Not to discourage you or anything, I appreciate the effort and detail and all, but what's the point if almost no one can download it and test it out? Wouldn't it be better to have a sub-800-part build so that at least a couple of hundred people could download it?
@Chancey21 Thanks, but I know how to host images :) I believe imgur is only broken on mobiles, I can see the images on desktop just fine. I'll find an alternate solution soon.
Thanks, @atgxtg. The speed boost at takeoff (and afterburner) is because of an engine configuration I use to get super-high thrust at startup, that rapidly winds down to a more normal level. I did this because I wanted to have near-instant acceleration and deceleration. I call it the "Sled Drive" :)
The way it works is this: let's say your desired cruise speed is 1,000 mph, and that your aircraft needs 50,000 lbs of thrust to maintain that speed. But with that amount of thrust, it takes forever to reach its cruise speed. So you place one engine pointing backwards with a very high thrust, say 500,000 lbs, and a very low spin-up time, say 0.01 seconds. You place another engine in the same position but pointing forward, so that it cancels the first engine's thrust. For the second engine, you set the effective thrust to 450,000 lbs, and the spin-up time to, say, 0.5 seconds. Now when you switch on this two-engine configuration, the first engine provides you 500,000 lbs of thrust instantaneously, while the other engine spins up over half a second and in that time brings the total effective thrust down to 50,000 lbs, your "cruise" level.
The beauty of this system is that you can add more engines in this paired configuration to get more cruise speed levels. And it only takes half a second to switch between speeds. With my aircraft, the default cruise speed is around 1,000 mph, and if you enable AG1, it takes you very quickly to around 3,800 mph. Disabling AG1 takes you back to 1,000 mph just as quickly.
@Chancey21 Almost all my airplanes, and certainly all my recent ones, are highly maneuverable. You need to enable AG2 for high-maneuverability mode, though. Or are you talking about the unrealistic kind of maneuverability, where the aircraft can turn 360 degrees in 3 seconds?
Thanks, @Treadmill103, I was surprised by how well they turned out. I especially like the bit when you cut the rocket engines, and the flame dies out gradually. I wish SP let us create our own effects, that would be fun.
@EternalDarkness It would be great if instead of pre-made missiles, we had missile components like engines, warheads, guidance systems, etc., so we could make our own missiles. If the guidance systems were programmable, that would be even better. You could make cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, air-to-air, air-to-ground, ground-to-ground...
@Treadmill103 I had to do that, because if this thing hits the target with anything but the exposed fuze in its nose, it doesn't explode. Took a lot of tries, I can tell you. But when you finally score a hit, it's so worth it.
@JetCarRacer Maybe that's why you're not getting the upvotes you deserve, people are thinking you're me... This thing (and your other builds) deserve a lot more upvotes than they've received.
@jamesPLANESii I would never use that shade of pastel yellow...
The length is just under the minimum, but I'll let that pass. I did four test runs with this aircraft, two of them with the wings extended, and two with the wings swept back. With the wings extended, this aircraft climbs to 15,000 feet when it's only 7 miles out from the destroyer, meaning it would never hit Krakabloa. With wings swept back, it goes into the water when it's about 2.5 miles out from the destroyer. Also, it needs to fly between 1500 and 2000 mph near sea level (around 200-300 feet). And a minor thing, yaw controls are reversed, but that's not a disqualifying defect.
If you can fix those problems, feel free to re-submit an entry. (Multiple entries are fine, but I'll only use one, chosen by the participant, in the judging).
@chancey21 It's a bit difficult to imagine what to include in such a set, because the number of combinations is so large. (Corner types, curve depth, length, width, height...). What would you like to see in such a set?
The shape itself is pretty good, but I think airplanes shouldn't use gyros -- the flight handling just never seems right with those. Use regular control surfaces, and maybe increase the engine power a bit. Also I'd recommend making your builds a little larger -- it makes it easier to hide wings, engines, etc. inside them.
@Jim1the1Squid The 'Long Gun' Howitzer can't take out Snowstone as it doesn't have the right trajectory. You need the Long Range Mortar for that.
Other artillery you might like are the Phalanx and Phalanx II.
+2@AWESOMENESS360 Well, some of us aim higher than Cessnas... :)
+2@XjayIndustrys You 3D printed one of my builds? Photos, please.
+2Flies 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@Carbonfox1 Just play with the numbers, you'll get the hang of it.
+2@Chancey21 @BaconRoll It's not possible to build shapes with a diamond-shaped cross-section, so I wouldn't get my hopes up. I could build something F-22-ish, perhaps.
+2@BaconRoll The Eagle has landed?
+2@Chancey21
+2Excellent performance, it's really great at climbing steep slopes -- I was able to take it all the way to the top of the hills by the Wright runway. The tyres look a little too small for the frame. The appearance could be improved, but the performance in terms of terrain-holding ability is probably the best I've seen so far.
+2@grizzlitn I think it's much better than Top Gun, there's a lot more footage of fighters than of singing in bars, and some of the shots are just stunning.
+2@BaconRoll You could always repurpose the missile pods for meatball storage...
+2@tsampoy Well then, maybe it's a language problem, because when you say "you post too much," most people would take that to mean "you shouldn't post so often."
As to how I build things so fast, I just developed a better method of building.
+2@WDRoosevelt Not to discourage you or anything, I appreciate the effort and detail and all, but what's the point if almost no one can download it and test it out? Wouldn't it be better to have a sub-800-part build so that at least a couple of hundred people could download it?
+2@EternalDarkness congratulations on making mod, I know you'll be a good one.
+2@Luckcity23 By thinking outside the box :)
+2@Chancey21 Thanks, but I know how to host images :) I believe imgur is only broken on mobiles, I can see the images on desktop just fine. I'll find an alternate solution soon.
+2Thanks, @Roswell. Sorry to hear that. I tried to keep the part count as low as possible.
+2@Jetliner101 I suppose the person who named them had an unnatural liking for butter.
+2@Cynister I think you need butterfly-repellent Bat-spray.
+2Thanks, @atgxtg. The speed boost at takeoff (and afterburner) is because of an engine configuration I use to get super-high thrust at startup, that rapidly winds down to a more normal level. I did this because I wanted to have near-instant acceleration and deceleration. I call it the "Sled Drive" :)
The way it works is this: let's say your desired cruise speed is 1,000 mph, and that your aircraft needs 50,000 lbs of thrust to maintain that speed. But with that amount of thrust, it takes forever to reach its cruise speed. So you place one engine pointing backwards with a very high thrust, say 500,000 lbs, and a very low spin-up time, say 0.01 seconds. You place another engine in the same position but pointing forward, so that it cancels the first engine's thrust. For the second engine, you set the effective thrust to 450,000 lbs, and the spin-up time to, say, 0.5 seconds. Now when you switch on this two-engine configuration, the first engine provides you 500,000 lbs of thrust instantaneously, while the other engine spins up over half a second and in that time brings the total effective thrust down to 50,000 lbs, your "cruise" level.
The beauty of this system is that you can add more engines in this paired configuration to get more cruise speed levels. And it only takes half a second to switch between speeds. With my aircraft, the default cruise speed is around 1,000 mph, and if you enable AG1, it takes you very quickly to around 3,800 mph. Disabling AG1 takes you back to 1,000 mph just as quickly.
+2@Ian1231100 Yeah. To me, the SR-71 is the most beautiful airplane that ever existed.
+2@Battybatbat7 Thanks. You're right, edge-of-space views would be fantastic. Perhaps in SR2...
+2@BaconRoll g i a n t b a l l s p a c k e d w i t h f i r e p o w e r
+2@Chancey21 Almost all my airplanes, and certainly all my recent ones, are highly maneuverable. You need to enable AG2 for high-maneuverability mode, though. Or are you talking about the unrealistic kind of maneuverability, where the aircraft can turn 360 degrees in 3 seconds?
+2Thanks, @Treadmill103, I was surprised by how well they turned out. I especially like the bit when you cut the rocket engines, and the flame dies out gradually. I wish SP let us create our own effects, that would be fun.
+2Here you go, I made it fly.
+2@Kerbango Hmm, I might make something based on it. Don't expect an exact replica, though.
+2@TimeTraveler I didn't say anything about getting mad...
+2@Tessemi Yes, doesn't it...
+2@EternalDarkness It would be great if instead of pre-made missiles, we had missile components like engines, warheads, guidance systems, etc., so we could make our own missiles. If the guidance systems were programmable, that would be even better. You could make cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, air-to-air, air-to-ground, ground-to-ground...
+2@Strikefighter04 yeah, it's got that big, clunky Soviet aesthetic. I didn't plan it that way, it just turned out like that.
+2@Chancey21 I've gone up to one million mph, I'll increase the power on that thing and see what happens.
+2I like your paint schemes.
+2@Treadmill103 I had to do that, because if this thing hits the target with anything but the exposed fuze in its nose, it doesn't explode. Took a lot of tries, I can tell you. But when you finally score a hit, it's so worth it.
+2Great build and flies very well, but when do we get to see some big, bad, grown-up warplanes from you?
+2@RailfanEthan Hypno-beans.
+2@JetCarRacer Maybe that's why you're not getting the upvotes you deserve, people are thinking you're me... This thing (and your other builds) deserve a lot more upvotes than they've received.
@jamesPLANESii I would never use that shade of pastel yellow...
+2@Mustang51 True, I didn't notice.
+2@RandomDude Be glad I didn't use miniguns. This many miniguns would probably blow out your speakers.
+2@chancey21 Because a lot of people on this website very deliberately refuse to upvote my builds. (And that's fine by me.)
+2Pretty cool. Just so you know, to format text, use this syntax:
#heading1
heading1
##heading2
heading2
###heading3
heading3
####heading4
heading4
#####heading5
heading5
######heading6
heading6
Links are made like this (make sure to remove the space between ']' and '(' ):
[link text here] (https://www.website.com/path)
You can embed images in the description using this (remove all spaces):
! [] (https://website.com/image.jpg)
*italic text*
italic text
**bold text**
bold text
***bold italic text***
+2bold italic text
The length is just under the minimum, but I'll let that pass. I did four test runs with this aircraft, two of them with the wings extended, and two with the wings swept back. With the wings extended, this aircraft climbs to 15,000 feet when it's only 7 miles out from the destroyer, meaning it would never hit Krakabloa. With wings swept back, it goes into the water when it's about 2.5 miles out from the destroyer. Also, it needs to fly between 1500 and 2000 mph near sea level (around 200-300 feet). And a minor thing, yaw controls are reversed, but that's not a disqualifying defect.
If you can fix those problems, feel free to re-submit an entry. (Multiple entries are fine, but I'll only use one, chosen by the participant, in the judging).
+2@chancey21 It's a bit difficult to imagine what to include in such a set, because the number of combinations is so large. (Corner types, curve depth, length, width, height...). What would you like to see in such a set?
+2The shape itself is pretty good, but I think airplanes shouldn't use gyros -- the flight handling just never seems right with those. Use regular control surfaces, and maybe increase the engine power a bit. Also I'd recommend making your builds a little larger -- it makes it easier to hide wings, engines, etc. inside them.
+2If someone asks politely, why not? I've done it before @KSPFSXandSP
+2Yes, isn't she, @Victor039? Thanks.
+2@phanps With guns like these, who needs missiles, right?
+2@hopotumon Well, I didn't know that. "Serratus" is from the Latin for "jagged" or "saw-toothed." It's also a muscle in the chest.
+2@TheBlueRobotProduct Real modern art, you mean. Yeah, because no one really wants it, but is afraid to seem gauche, so they applaud it.
+2@spefyjerbf Sure, whenever.
+2