@grizzlitn You definitely got me thinking about cannons :) The first thing I did when the 1.9 update came out was make a three-part build just to destroy Snowstone. But when I saw your extremely well-made cannon my hands started itching to make a proper artillery piece, with recoil and elevation and traversal mechanisms.
@Gameboi14 Well, you shouldn't give up as soon as you come across something that's not easy. You just need to get your head around it once, then everything becomes simple.
@Trijets Uhh, my portfolio is teeming with supersonic jets. This is my latest one. Just look through my posts, there are plenty. XB-70, MiG-25, F-15, F-4, F-104... I've done most of the interesting ones.
@Texasfam04 Thanks, Tex. This is a by-product of me building a manual elevation/traverse wheel for an artillery piece, without using rotators. I thought, hey, what if I... and this is the result :)
@Diloph Wait... let me get this straight. You saw this build... that has a bunch of hollow fuselages highly visible... and you thought I used a custom ring because I didn't know about or hadn't considered using hollow fuselage blocks?
I don't do this often, but allow me to say: bahahahaha.
Did you also think I used airbrakes because I'm not aware or, or don't know how to use rotators?
I don't know what scares me more, the fact that you thought it, or that your comment has 3 upvotes :)
@AWESOMENESS360 Yeah, I think we can agree that no one can reasonably expect the developers to cover that scenario. Plus, the outcome is pretty cool, so it's a feature, not a bug.
@AWESOMENESS360 It wasn't intentional... I think it's because when the airbrakes are open, their hitbox changes, and the developers simply didn't handle the case of an airplane made entirely out of airbrakes.
@FCparis Well, if you're building on mobile, it's fair for a new player. Problems I see at a glance include reversed lettering on the stabilizers, wing flutter at ~800 mph, a frame outside the control surfaces, flat wings, oversized insignia, surfaces that flicker over and under each other, and an odd color scheme. Also, changing trim causes it to roll.
@ThomasRoderick Well, I believe in incremental progression. Every time you iterate over the same thing, it gets a little better. If you compare my first Blackbird to my last, I think you'll agree that it works. Anyway, only about 2.6% of my builds are Blackbirds.
@Diloph Well, if you fly this build, you'll notice how the speed goes up and down as the build contracts and expands its "wings." That's one side-effect of not being able to disable drag. Another problem is with things like my digital gauge, which can't really be used in aircraft for the same reason (wildly varying drag as the digits change). Then there's the limited range of rotation and fixed shape, which limits what you can build with them. If there was a fuselage block that could move any way you please, a lot more things would be possible.
@Panzer828 Well, the idea behind variable wings is good in theory, but in practice it has at least three drawbacks: one, the additional mass required for the wing structure and the actuating mechanism; two, the increased drag because the mechanism makes the wing root thicker; and three, the loss of fuel capacity.
Then the aerodynamicists developed long chord, short span wing shapes (delta, trapezoidal) that can perform well in both low- and high-speed regimes. This wouldn't have been feasible earlier, because delta wings have high drag at low speeds, but these days engines are so powerful that it doesn't matter.
It's like the transonic area rule (Whitcomb area rule) that you can see in the wasp-waist design of early jet fighters. We don't see that any more because engines are so powerful that they can push through the transonic zone effortlessly.
@Panzer828 OK, I take it you mean well. It's just that when people keep bombarding me with the same nonsense over and over, it tends to wear on one's patience. Don't take anything I wrote as directed at you, but at "those people" in general. I'm happy to build a SledDriver-style prop plane (push or pull) for you.
The simple fact is that I don't do challenges, because I'm not here to compete with anyone, especially a bunch of kids. But I'm willing to create an airplane using your engine and wing limitations, just to shut up the geniuses who look at my work and are still unable to deduce that I mastered the basic (and intermediate, and advanced) skills of SP a long time ago. Here are the rules I will play by:
These attributes cannot be modded: engine power, wing scale, fuel tank mass.
The aircraft must have realistic mass and drag points (as implemented in SP). This means that I will create a simple airframe with dimensions close to that of an actual single-prop airplane. I will note down the mass and drag number. Then I will build the final aircraft using my methods (zero-mass fuselage blocks for wings, etc.), and finally I will adjust the mass and drag number to match the values I noted previously.
The aircraft must have high build quality. This means: no veering to the sides during takeoff runs; no auto-roll; good flight stability; good handling overall. The build should be smooth with no awkwardly-joined fuselage blocks.
If that is fine by you, I will build and post the aircraft either today or tomorrow (it's 20:30 here and I have work tomorrow), to shut up those people who claim that achieving a given set of flight characteristics takes hours and hours of "hard work". Maybe they take that long, but I can build a flight module to any specs within at most 20 minutes.
I will not make the aircraft a successor, because I think collecting other people's points for the "hard work" of posting a challenge is rather lame. I will post it as a regular build of mine. I don't care what you or anyone else thinks of it, but I would like to stop hearing "I DARE you to mek a normull plain!"
@Subnerdica Well, that's just another joke in bad taste. What's funny about telling someone to get on their knees? You haven't upvoted this post, so I don't know if you have any goodwill towards me or my builds; then you make jokes about atrocities and getting on knees. It's just that I keep hoping for some intelligent discussion, but what little there is keeps getting drowned out by stuff like "FIRST!" and "Ooooo 666 parts" and "Lookit the drag points" and "Call the police" and so on, ad infinitum.
Thanks, @BuiltBionixInd10. It's alien tech, so don't worry about aerodynamics. I could've easily made the "wings" flat, but I chose to make them thick to make the shape more interesting.
@ChisP Well, the screenshots are still not very good. The last two have too much clutter in the background, and the first one is completely washed out. It doesn't show off the shape of the aircraft, the lighting is at the wong angle, and the foreground has too little contrast against the background. Here are a bunch of screenshots that I think look a lot better.
@ThomasRoderick No lore for this one. I was just playing around with exhaust effects using beaconLights, and it occurred to me that glowing intakes would look really cool. Shapes are exactly what it's about for me, and I like to interpret the basic design differently each time.
Thanks, @grizzlitn
+1@benjiboyy06 The word you're looking for is 'impossible'...
+1@Tang0five Isn't it :)
+1@grizzlitn You definitely got me thinking about cannons :) The first thing I did when the 1.9 update came out was make a three-part build just to destroy Snowstone. But when I saw your extremely well-made cannon my hands started itching to make a proper artillery piece, with recoil and elevation and traversal mechanisms.
+1Merci beaucoup, @grizzlitn. You can get your hands on it tomorrow :)
+1@Gameboi14 Well, you shouldn't give up as soon as you come across something that's not easy. You just need to get your head around it once, then everything becomes simple.
+1@Trijets Uhh, my portfolio is teeming with supersonic jets. This is my latest one. Just look through my posts, there are plenty. XB-70, MiG-25, F-15, F-4, F-104... I've done most of the interesting ones.
+1@Texasfam04 Thanks, Tex. This is a by-product of me building a manual elevation/traverse wheel for an artillery piece, without using rotators. I thought, hey, what if I... and this is the result :)
+1@Diloph Wait... let me get this straight. You saw this build... that has a bunch of hollow fuselages highly visible... and you thought I used a custom ring because I didn't know about or hadn't considered using hollow fuselage blocks?
I don't do this often, but allow me to say: bahahahaha.
Did you also think I used airbrakes because I'm not aware or, or don't know how to use rotators?
I don't know what scares me more, the fact that you thought it, or that your comment has 3 upvotes :)
+1@AWESOMENESS360 Yeah, I think we can agree that no one can reasonably expect the developers to cover that scenario. Plus, the outcome is pretty cool, so it's a feature, not a bug.
+1@Diloph I'm aware of circular hollow blocks... not sure what you mean by "the looks of effort."
+1@AWESOMENESS360 It wasn't intentional... I think it's because when the airbrakes are open, their hitbox changes, and the developers simply didn't handle the case of an airplane made entirely out of airbrakes.
+1@FCparis Well, if you're building on mobile, it's fair for a new player. Problems I see at a glance include reversed lettering on the stabilizers, wing flutter at ~800 mph, a frame outside the control surfaces, flat wings, oversized insignia, surfaces that flicker over and under each other, and an odd color scheme. Also, changing trim causes it to roll.
+1@ThomasRoderick Well, I believe in incremental progression. Every time you iterate over the same thing, it gets a little better. If you compare my first Blackbird to my last, I think you'll agree that it works. Anyway, only about 2.6% of my builds are Blackbirds.
+1@SovietBun Well thanks.
+1@ThomasRoderick Not quite sure what you're trying to say there..
+1@Treadmill103 There are so many other gradients that are also interesting. Wish there was a way to program them in to change over time.
+1Glad you like it, @randomusername
+1@ThomasRoderick Holy psychedelic insects?
+1Thanks, @JohnnyBoythePilot @asteroidbook345 @Vidal99977
+1@Diloph Well, if you fly this build, you'll notice how the speed goes up and down as the build contracts and expands its "wings." That's one side-effect of not being able to disable drag. Another problem is with things like my digital gauge, which can't really be used in aircraft for the same reason (wildly varying drag as the digits change). Then there's the limited range of rotation and fixed shape, which limits what you can build with them. If there was a fuselage block that could move any way you please, a lot more things would be possible.
+1Thanks, @AWESOMENESS360. It's inspired by butterflies/moths in general; I wasn't aware of that particular species.
+1@Panzer828 Well, the idea behind variable wings is good in theory, but in practice it has at least three drawbacks: one, the additional mass required for the wing structure and the actuating mechanism; two, the increased drag because the mechanism makes the wing root thicker; and three, the loss of fuel capacity.
Then the aerodynamicists developed long chord, short span wing shapes (delta, trapezoidal) that can perform well in both low- and high-speed regimes. This wouldn't have been feasible earlier, because delta wings have high drag at low speeds, but these days engines are so powerful that it doesn't matter.
It's like the transonic area rule (Whitcomb area rule) that you can see in the wasp-waist design of early jet fighters. We don't see that any more because engines are so powerful that they can push through the transonic zone effortlessly.
+1@Panzer828 OK, I take it you mean well. It's just that when people keep bombarding me with the same nonsense over and over, it tends to wear on one's patience. Don't take anything I wrote as directed at you, but at "those people" in general. I'm happy to build a SledDriver-style prop plane (push or pull) for you.
+1Part 2 of 2
The simple fact is that I don't do challenges, because I'm not here to compete with anyone, especially a bunch of kids. But I'm willing to create an airplane using your engine and wing limitations, just to shut up the geniuses who look at my work and are still unable to deduce that I mastered the basic (and intermediate, and advanced) skills of SP a long time ago. Here are the rules I will play by:
If that is fine by you, I will build and post the aircraft either today or tomorrow (it's 20:30 here and I have work tomorrow), to shut up those people who claim that achieving a given set of flight characteristics takes hours and hours of "hard work". Maybe they take that long, but I can build a flight module to any specs within at most 20 minutes.
I will not make the aircraft a successor, because I think collecting other people's points for the "hard work" of posting a challenge is rather lame. I will post it as a regular build of mine. I don't care what you or anyone else thinks of it, but I would like to stop hearing "I DARE you to mek a normull plain!"
Deal?
+1Merci beaucoup, @grizzlitn
+1@Subnerdica Well, that's just another joke in bad taste. What's funny about telling someone to get on their knees? You haven't upvoted this post, so I don't know if you have any goodwill towards me or my builds; then you make jokes about atrocities and getting on knees. It's just that I keep hoping for some intelligent discussion, but what little there is keeps getting drowned out by stuff like "FIRST!" and "Ooooo 666 parts" and "Lookit the drag points" and "Call the police" and so on, ad infinitum.
+1@ALIEX Do you speak English at all? Because I don't want to have to run everything through Google Translate.
+1@ALIEX 程式设计
+1@yoshicraze Mission: accomplished.
+1Very cool.
+1@Gameboi14 An illusion is something that tricks the mind into seeing something that isn't there; this build doesn't do that.
+1@BRINE Sure thing, it's a good build. You should add a description. Also, yaw is inverted on the airplanes.
+1@LeonardoEngineering Lepidopterans, coleopterans and dipterans: mostly a nasty bunch.
+1Glad you enjoyed it, @Shadowed
+1Thanks, @BuiltBionixInd10. It's alien tech, so don't worry about aerodynamics. I could've easily made the "wings" flat, but I chose to make them thick to make the shape more interesting.
+1Thanks, @Alta2809 @Halodude117
+1@Stormfur @GeneralPatrick2 Do carry on, I can't wait to read more obscure advertising-related comments on everything except the build itself.
+1@BaconRoll Aliens can be very trippy.
+1@ChisP Well, the screenshots are still not very good. The last two have too much clutter in the background, and the first one is completely washed out. It doesn't show off the shape of the aircraft, the lighting is at the wong angle, and the foreground has too little contrast against the background. Here are a bunch of screenshots that I think look a lot better.
+1@grizzlitn Well, the result is very impressive :)
+1@grizzlitn This build deserves more. Best artillery I've seen in a long time. Now you've inspired me to build an artillery piece. :)
+1De rien, @grizzlitn
+1Thanks, @Mustang51.
+1@JohnnyBoythePilot Yeah, that's a big factor for me.
+1@ThomasRoderick No lore for this one. I was just playing around with exhaust effects using beaconLights, and it occurred to me that glowing intakes would look really cool. Shapes are exactly what it's about for me, and I like to interpret the basic design differently each time.
+1@ChickenMcNuggets007 Yes, of course. How's them nuggets?
+1@Diloph OK, well, maybe I was wrong about you.
+1@ThomasRoderick Lateral thinking :)
+1@Mustang51 Just another day at SledDriver Industries :)
+1