@Metrovhd That's what the tags are for. You access them when you click on "edit tags" next to the picture of the aircraft. But, once you're done and you click on the tag it shows other aircraft made with that tag, in the case I think the tag is "YouTube-Jelly".
@Metrovhd It spams the feed for the planes. If people let it flow through it would turn into an "attention seeking" style website. A similar thing was put in place for JSE fans. The feed was spammed with the same titles over and over again, such as "JSE Check this out", etc. It's the same with Jelly planes.
So while it may seem innocent to do this by ones own self, in the masses it can be a problem as it discourages people from using the website.
Also, as far as I'm aware, there are no restrictions with regards to the paint scheme of the aircraft.
@SteadfastContracting Ah no no. Hitting the target completely defeats the point of a target here at Squirrel Industries. We proud ourself at letting the target hit us.
@Pauciloquent A separate cockpit designer would be good. Like it wouldn't consist of 3D parts but rather pre-set 2D parts with bump mapping (like different types of altimeter, air speed indicator or even LCD screen). You could drag said parts onto a panel (maybe have a grid mode to align and snap parts into place and a freehand mode for non aligned parts). These cockpits could then be downloaded onto an aircraft, so when you switch to cockpit view, the cockpit you designed is visible.
A method like this or similar would improve the novelty and retain the performance, while opening the whole cockpit design for all users.
@Meawk It's a plane building game, not a stylist. And while I agree that that there's nothing wrong with creativity, it's still not fair on those who don't have the time or resources to make something so precise.
And there may be a few clever ways to insert parts in places that are hard to get to. But I don't believe they are perhaps as accurate or less time consuming than nudge controls, which again, some users don't have access to.
So all in all, not introducing something into a game simply because it discourages creativity or its reduces the novelty, is a pretty petty thing to state. Take a look at the missiles and bombs for example. People used to make their own. But they were so bulky, part/time consuming and most people didn't really care for them due to the impracticality of them. It's the same for custom cockpits. They serve no useful purpose other than to satisfy those people who are after the novelty factor or the atheistic appeal of the craft. In reality, they're actually a burden on the aircraft, they increase the weight/wing loading, which decreases flight performance and they also increase the part count, which can deprive some users of a lag free experience.
Do they add any experience to the game? No, they don't. They don't display numbers for things like rate of climb, air speed, altitude or the pitching/rolling angles of the aircraft. Sure you have a few blank dials which have analogue type displays. But again they serve no useful purpose in the game and are simply there to increase the aesthetic/novelty appeal of the aircraft. Obviously, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's still a pretty poor excuse to not give less fortunate users the same or better experience.
@GINGER01 Like I say, provided you're not committing a personal attack on the player, but rather criticising their lack of respect then I fail to see a problem with it. It's not causing any emotional damage to the player since there is no connection to them and the plane.
Mods should only be called in where necessary. For example, if one particular person is persistently copying, people are arguing, discriminative behaviour, bullying, etc.
A copied plane is an inanimate object, I'm pretty sure it won't burst into tears the minute you tell it to die.
@GINGER01 Actually in the grant scheme of things this is one of the most friendly communities out there. Sure we can simply ignore them, report the planes, etc, but not everyone's the same, some people get worked up more than others.
Although, I agree with the hate speech, provided it's not a personal attack, then that's fine. Saying a copy plane should "die", aside from a amusing, it's pretty harmless. It's a copied plane, not a person or a plane they built/modified. They know they'll get hate for it if they uploaded, but still they persist.
@MaleticAirplanes It could be useful for throttle controls (or breaking controls). For example, make shift air breaks (overlap the controls and make one of the inverted). Could also be useful for automatic trimming and different throttle settings.
@Meawk Self made flaps are bulky and for those who specialise in making small aircraft due to device performance restrictions, can't make flaps using the bulky rotors provided. Self made cockpits involve a lot of modding too and some people don't know how to mod or have nudge controls to create something precise.
Sure there's a novelty in making you're own and that a lot of work goes into it, but it's unfair to not provide said things as a default for those who simply don't have the resources. At the end of the day novelty is a sentiment. Saying something shouldn't be introduced because you don't like it for sentimental/novelty reasons is pretty unfair.
@GINGER01 It would seem that the Jelly people are causing a large problem with regards to copying though. Whereas with Weasel Zone fans, it was just a case of them spamming with "Check this out Weasel Zone" or something similar. Although to be fair, there was a storm kicked up with that too.
I have a plane that looks pretty much exactly the same as this in my backlog (Think it's the ES-39). Except the tail is one large circular wing too... Have to say that planes like this look weird to fly!
Or the ability to assign control surfaces to an activator or other method of control that isn't roll yaw or pitch. And as someone suggested, speed dependent control surfaces would be good (controls that operated at high speeds and not low speeds and vice versa).
@BRuthless Sounds like it. Although, like I say, they seem to have fixed this problem on the F-35. There are certainly no reports on the PAK FA T-50 for anything similar, so I wonder if they've adopted a similar method from the F-35.
@BRuthless The problem with the F-22 is that it's very expensive to maintain which is why they cancelled the program. The maintenance hours per hour of flight are pretty long. The F-22 should have some kind of upgrade, a better passive sensor suit would be a nice addition. One thing that does put me off the F-22 is that its stealth coating apparently fails in the rain. The F-35's stealth coating seems to be a bit better for such weather conditions though.
One comparison between American planes and Russian planes which I think stands true is that America tends to build their planes like finely tuned pocket watches, a lot of fancy tech goes into them. On the flip side, Russians build them like tanks, capable of withstanding a war environment for long periods of time. It's interesting to see how this philosophy translates into the aircraft design.
@ShatterFox Having an in game upvote system would mean you can upvote people's aircraft from the actual game/builder, so you don't have to faff about with going from the internet, to the game, and back to the internet again in order to upvote the plane.
On desktop, such a system isn't that tedious, but for devices running android and IOS it can be.
Anyway, having an in game upvote system would mean you're cutting off the last step (going back to the internet to upvote the plane), which could encourage people to upvote more.
In all seriousness though, I've seen what you've seen. But then it's nice to have a variety. Some complex aircraft simply can't be run on low end devices, so those people tend to opt for the smaller and simpler designs... And who doesn't like a bit of humour!
Anyway, to answer your question, in terms of looks (I'm not able to access SP right now), it looks like you're planes are getting better.
I've put this one suggestion forward many times as I presume other people have, but I think an in game upvote system would go a long way in terms of helping to achieve more upvotes.
@scottishjocks Thank you. Personally, I think in terms of design, the B-52 is a bit dated, but it does it's job and more importantly it does it well, much like the A-10. If I had to pick an aircraft that looked timeless, then I'd probably have to pick the YF-23:
@Skua Pretty much hit the nail on the head. I have a bad habit of getting myself into arguments on the internet with ill-informed people about what the best plane in the world is. More often than not it's someone saying (for example) American aircraft are always better than [insert other countries plane here]. Speaking to them, you'd think that everyone copied them and that America was the inventor of modern aviation. The thing is, everybody copies everybody. The F-35's blueprints for the VTOL system for example was bought from Yakovlev and of course the X-32's VTOL system was borrowed from the Harrier.
I could literally write a whole new thread on this, but like I say, I'm leaving it for another time... AKA, when I next get triggered XD
@TheOwlAce Well you won't know unless you try it! In all seriousness though, I suppose if it's speed you're going for then a B-29-style cockpit is the better option. But if speed is what you're going for, might I suggest streamlining the nose a bit more by starting to taper it further back?
Either the PAK FA:
Or YF-23:
"New Thrust Vectoring system" XD
@Metrovhd That's what the tags are for. You access them when you click on "edit tags" next to the picture of the aircraft. But, once you're done and you click on the tag it shows other aircraft made with that tag, in the case I think the tag is "YouTube-Jelly".
@Metrovhd It spams the feed for the planes. If people let it flow through it would turn into an "attention seeking" style website. A similar thing was put in place for JSE fans. The feed was spammed with the same titles over and over again, such as "JSE Check this out", etc. It's the same with Jelly planes.
So while it may seem innocent to do this by ones own self, in the masses it can be a problem as it discourages people from using the website.
Also, as far as I'm aware, there are no restrictions with regards to the paint scheme of the aircraft.
@SteadfastContracting Ah no no. Hitting the target completely defeats the point of a target here at Squirrel Industries. We proud ourself at letting the target hit us.
@SteadfastContracting No problem. It's pretty fast. The only problem is that I found it really difficult to miss my target when I fired at stuff.
@titanplanes101 Will do. And thank you for the upvote!!
@KingDeadshot Thank you!! I'm really glad you like my stuff! :)
@KingDeadshot Thank you and thanks for the upvote!!
@SteadfastContracting Thank you and thank you for the Upvote!!
If you make that, I'll remake this:
@Pauciloquent A separate cockpit designer would be good. Like it wouldn't consist of 3D parts but rather pre-set 2D parts with bump mapping (like different types of altimeter, air speed indicator or even LCD screen). You could drag said parts onto a panel (maybe have a grid mode to align and snap parts into place and a freehand mode for non aligned parts). These cockpits could then be downloaded onto an aircraft, so when you switch to cockpit view, the cockpit you designed is visible.
A method like this or similar would improve the novelty and retain the performance, while opening the whole cockpit design for all users.
@Meawk It's a plane building game, not a stylist. And while I agree that that there's nothing wrong with creativity, it's still not fair on those who don't have the time or resources to make something so precise.
And there may be a few clever ways to insert parts in places that are hard to get to. But I don't believe they are perhaps as accurate or less time consuming than nudge controls, which again, some users don't have access to.
So all in all, not introducing something into a game simply because it discourages creativity or its reduces the novelty, is a pretty petty thing to state. Take a look at the missiles and bombs for example. People used to make their own. But they were so bulky, part/time consuming and most people didn't really care for them due to the impracticality of them. It's the same for custom cockpits. They serve no useful purpose other than to satisfy those people who are after the novelty factor or the atheistic appeal of the craft. In reality, they're actually a burden on the aircraft, they increase the weight/wing loading, which decreases flight performance and they also increase the part count, which can deprive some users of a lag free experience.
Do they add any experience to the game? No, they don't. They don't display numbers for things like rate of climb, air speed, altitude or the pitching/rolling angles of the aircraft. Sure you have a few blank dials which have analogue type displays. But again they serve no useful purpose in the game and are simply there to increase the aesthetic/novelty appeal of the aircraft. Obviously, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's still a pretty poor excuse to not give less fortunate users the same or better experience.
@TheLatentImage
@Puredeath
@Flightsonic I THINK WE SHOULD BUILD A WALL...
I feel like the previous statement is over used... but I couldn't help myself.
@GINGER01 Like I say, provided you're not committing a personal attack on the player, but rather criticising their lack of respect then I fail to see a problem with it. It's not causing any emotional damage to the player since there is no connection to them and the plane.
Mods should only be called in where necessary. For example, if one particular person is persistently copying, people are arguing, discriminative behaviour, bullying, etc.
A copied plane is an inanimate object, I'm pretty sure it won't burst into tears the minute you tell it to die.
Also, thank you for your compliments :)
@GINGER01 Actually in the grant scheme of things this is one of the most friendly communities out there. Sure we can simply ignore them, report the planes, etc, but not everyone's the same, some people get worked up more than others.
Although, I agree with the hate speech, provided it's not a personal attack, then that's fine. Saying a copy plane should "die", aside from a amusing, it's pretty harmless. It's a copied plane, not a person or a plane they built/modified. They know they'll get hate for it if they uploaded, but still they persist.
@MaleticAirplanes It could be useful for throttle controls (or breaking controls). For example, make shift air breaks (overlap the controls and make one of the inverted). Could also be useful for automatic trimming and different throttle settings.
@Meawk Self made flaps are bulky and for those who specialise in making small aircraft due to device performance restrictions, can't make flaps using the bulky rotors provided. Self made cockpits involve a lot of modding too and some people don't know how to mod or have nudge controls to create something precise.
Sure there's a novelty in making you're own and that a lot of work goes into it, but it's unfair to not provide said things as a default for those who simply don't have the resources. At the end of the day novelty is a sentiment. Saying something shouldn't be introduced because you don't like it for sentimental/novelty reasons is pretty unfair.
@GINGER01 It would seem that the Jelly people are causing a large problem with regards to copying though. Whereas with Weasel Zone fans, it was just a case of them spamming with "Check this out Weasel Zone" or something similar. Although to be fair, there was a storm kicked up with that too.
@Nickasaurus Just trying to be a good person! XD
@laSoul Thanks for the upvote!!
This might be of some use
Obviously, credit to @Nickasaurus for the part. (I've lost track of how much I've used this!!)
I have a plane that looks pretty much exactly the same as this in my backlog (Think it's the ES-39). Except the tail is one large circular wing too... Have to say that planes like this look weird to fly!
Or the ability to assign control surfaces to an activator or other method of control that isn't roll yaw or pitch. And as someone suggested, speed dependent control surfaces would be good (controls that operated at high speeds and not low speeds and vice versa).
@kikasshes That would be great for inboard and outboard ailerons!
@Nickasaurus Thank you for the upvote!!
@VernalTie513 Thank you for the upvote!!
@thealban Thank you for the upvote!!
@T0PD0GDEFENSIVECO It's a nice thought, but it isn't my best creation and I've never had anything featured before XD
Thanks for the upvote though!!!
That engine design. Love it.
@SteadfastContracting One of the quickest upvotes in history. I didn't even get round to pasting the description!! Thank you!
@SteadfastContracting No problem!!
@SteadfastContracting Yes, I didn't fancy waiting for it to come back down!
@Sirstupid And so it begins XD
[Throttles up and gets impressed with the height and speed. Then presses 'F10']
@Sirstupid I've replaced it with "angry orange man"
@BRuthless Sounds like it. Although, like I say, they seem to have fixed this problem on the F-35. There are certainly no reports on the PAK FA T-50 for anything similar, so I wonder if they've adopted a similar method from the F-35.
@thefish53 Thank you!
@SUPERSAMROCK Thank you for the upvote!!
@BRuthless The problem with the F-22 is that it's very expensive to maintain which is why they cancelled the program. The maintenance hours per hour of flight are pretty long. The F-22 should have some kind of upgrade, a better passive sensor suit would be a nice addition. One thing that does put me off the F-22 is that its stealth coating apparently fails in the rain. The F-35's stealth coating seems to be a bit better for such weather conditions though.
One comparison between American planes and Russian planes which I think stands true is that America tends to build their planes like finely tuned pocket watches, a lot of fancy tech goes into them. On the flip side, Russians build them like tanks, capable of withstanding a war environment for long periods of time. It's interesting to see how this philosophy translates into the aircraft design.
@ShatterFox Having an in game upvote system would mean you can upvote people's aircraft from the actual game/builder, so you don't have to faff about with going from the internet, to the game, and back to the internet again in order to upvote the plane.
On desktop, such a system isn't that tedious, but for devices running android and IOS it can be.
Anyway, having an in game upvote system would mean you're cutting off the last step (going back to the internet to upvote the plane), which could encourage people to upvote more.
You insulting my worlds best aircraft m9?
In all seriousness though, I've seen what you've seen. But then it's nice to have a variety. Some complex aircraft simply can't be run on low end devices, so those people tend to opt for the smaller and simpler designs... And who doesn't like a bit of humour!
Anyway, to answer your question, in terms of looks (I'm not able to access SP right now), it looks like you're planes are getting better.
I've put this one suggestion forward many times as I presume other people have, but I think an in game upvote system would go a long way in terms of helping to achieve more upvotes.
@scottishjocks Thank you. Personally, I think in terms of design, the B-52 is a bit dated, but it does it's job and more importantly it does it well, much like the A-10. If I had to pick an aircraft that looked timeless, then I'd probably have to pick the YF-23:
@ShatterFox Nationalism makes us all as bad as each other.
Make a tribute to the X-32!
@Skua Pretty much hit the nail on the head. I have a bad habit of getting myself into arguments on the internet with ill-informed people about what the best plane in the world is. More often than not it's someone saying (for example) American aircraft are always better than [insert other countries plane here]. Speaking to them, you'd think that everyone copied them and that America was the inventor of modern aviation. The thing is, everybody copies everybody. The F-35's blueprints for the VTOL system for example was bought from Yakovlev and of course the X-32's VTOL system was borrowed from the Harrier.
I could literally write a whole new thread on this, but like I say, I'm leaving it for another time... AKA, when I next get triggered XD
@RedHawk No problem, I see you have a sports version too. I'll have to try that later on when I'm next on SP.
@TheOwlAce Well you won't know unless you try it! In all seriousness though, I suppose if it's speed you're going for then a B-29-style cockpit is the better option. But if speed is what you're going for, might I suggest streamlining the nose a bit more by starting to taper it further back?
This... this is the first proper car I've driven on SP... And it's fantastic!
@RedHawk Thank you!!
@RedHawk Thanks again for the upvote!
@RedHawk Oh yes. Only the finest deserve an upvote XD