I'm gonna be a little less pessimistic than Aviator here.
SimplePlanes is a bit old. The scripting and processes used are a bit old.
SP was never meant to be hyper-realistic. It started as a simple mobile game that eventually gained traction and a decent-sized fanbase.
However, SimplePlanes still maintains decent physics and has a very broad range of possibilities.
It's kinda like comparing apples to oranges when comparing SP to things like MSFS or X-Plane.
Anyways, I'm ranting here.
Is SimplePlanes realistic? To a degree. It's not as advanced as other things on the market (Juno and FlyOut for example), but it's more advanced than a lot of other stuff I've seen.
Edit: RCP sums it up really well.
They can't do that without facing legal issues, since one of the authors isn't a part of Jundroo.
I believe WNP78 (Jundroo developer and the other author of Underwater Camera) recently said something about the fact that the borders of the islands are visible while underwater (which looks really weird) and would classify as a "bug".
@Blueshift Sure. Here's some code I pulled from a cancelled build: IAS<22.352 ? "LOW" : (TAS>111.76 ? "OVERSPEED" : round(IAS/0.44704)+"mph")
The entire expression is basically a ? b : (a ? b : c).
It checks to see if the speed is too low, and when it returns false then it checks to see if the speed is too high, and when that returns false it displays your IAS in mph.
It was pulled from a text label, which is why it looks a bit different.
You could also do a ? (a ? b : c) : c.
Hopefully this helps :)
@Blueshift I don't believe so.
You can achieve a similar result by putting an IF statement inside of another IF statement. It's a bit more complicated but its worked for me in the past.
@Freerider2142 The plane I flew in the video was made a while before I made an account. Never bothered uploading it. Just decided to take it for a spin :)
I'm not trying to discourage you from posting, but these types of low-effort reposts are not okay.
Have some courtesy for the original author who spent days (if not weeks) making this by actually making it better.
If you're going to make a successor of someone else's work, at least make some significant changes.
Please, try to put in some actual effort instead of trying to milk points off of someone else's work.
And no, removing 6 parts from someone else's build and doing nothing else is not a significant change.
1: No, but this would be a neat feature. I actually made a suggestion post about this a while back.
2: Green is for curators. People with this rank take VR planes and curate them so that they can be used by VR players.
To add on, I fully support removing the rotator joint wobble. In fact, I'd like to see the same for pistons and shocks.
Making custom landing gear for heavy aircraft is somewhat of a pain, especially when half of the aircraft's mass is in the landing gear just to prevent joint wobble.
An XML property to disable it would also work.
That's an amazing opportunity.
I almost got to ride in a WW2 aircraft (forgot what, probably a B-25 or something similar), but it ended up crashing due to pilot error before I could go on a flight.
@Micmekox Well, since Jundroo has already partially implemented radar cross section (you can find this with some command console searching), an adjustment slider for stealth coating on fuselage parts could be possible.
Depends on your point of view.
I personally don't really mess with interior design. I focus more on balancing basic exterior details and aircraft functionality.
If you want to add cockpits, then go ahead. If not, it really shouldn't have an enormous impact.
The amount of attention your builds get is really dependent on the overall quality of the build (excluding meme builds that get hundreds of upvotes, but that's different). You have to find where the balance between looks, functionality, and performance is, and go with it.
And yes, there will be times where you spend two weeks on a build, publish it, and it doesn't become as popular as you might've hoped, and that's alright. Just move on and continue building what you want.
I have finished this short essay. Hopefully this helps at least somewhat.
I admittedly am guilty of doing some of these things in the past (I was still new to the site back then, but still).
This forum has some great points. The forums have been a bit clogged recently, and the spam posts (or just pointless posts in general) need to stop.
@Mrgoofy Again, depends on your build.
I can't really give advice on that since every aircraft is different.
Just mess around with the values and see what works best.
@Mrgoofy Depends on the build.
Symmetric is low lift, low drag.
Semi-Symmetric is medium lift, medium drag.
Flat Bottom is high lift, high drag.
Vertical stabilizers should only use "Symmetric" (unless it's a V-Tail aircraft).
@Mrgoofy It's the box labeled "Symmetric", "Semi-Symmetric", or "Flat Bottom". Clicking this box changes the airfoil. The airfoil type affects both lift and drag.
@Mrgoofy The thickness of the wing panels (assuming you're using the method I use) should be 0%. Airfoil type depends on what aircraft you're building.
If you want to make a custom airfoil with fuselages, you can find a nice tutorial on the website that explains the process.
My personal technique is to first make the fuselage shell, slice out the control surfaces, add the hinge rotators that make them move, and then fit Wing-2 wings into each fuselage section (and edit them to fit precisely using the XML editor).
The much easier and more commonly used method is to just fit a single scaled down wing into the fuselage shell. This is less realistic but more practical (depending on who you ask).
@jamesPLANESii That's also assuming that mobile devices could handle it. I know that some mobile users can run 1000+ parts with little to no problem, but that's not the case for others. MP would likely need to be adjusted to accommodate devices with lower processing power.
I would imagine the reason Jundroo has not yet added MP as a stock feature is that it simply isn't practical (from a statistical/logical standpoint).
Erg leuk!
Ik heb ook plannen om binnenkort mijn eerste elektrische zweefvliegtuig te uploaden.
Ik zal er waarschijnlijk binnenkort een videoteaser van uploaden. (Sorry als ik niet de juiste taalvertaling gebruik.)
My advice: if you want it done then do it yourself.
And I don't mean this in a rude way, but you're better off learning how to do it yourself than waiting for someone else to do it.
I know that's easier said than done, but trust me when I say it's worth it.
I'm gonna be a little less pessimistic than Aviator here.
+2SimplePlanes is a bit old. The scripting and processes used are a bit old.
SP was never meant to be hyper-realistic. It started as a simple mobile game that eventually gained traction and a decent-sized fanbase.
However, SimplePlanes still maintains decent physics and has a very broad range of possibilities.
It's kinda like comparing apples to oranges when comparing SP to things like MSFS or X-Plane.
Anyways, I'm ranting here.
Is SimplePlanes realistic? To a degree. It's not as advanced as other things on the market (Juno and FlyOut for example), but it's more advanced than a lot of other stuff I've seen.
Edit: RCP sums it up really well.
I thank you and the dev team in return for your dedication (and for the new beta branch thing, that'll really come in handy :D).
+2Two problems with that:
- They can't do that without facing legal issues, since one of the authors isn't a part of Jundroo.
- I believe WNP78 (Jundroo developer and the other author of Underwater Camera) recently said something about the fact that the borders of the islands are visible while underwater (which looks really weird) and would classify as a "bug".
+2⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠂⠀⠀⠀⡀⡀⢀⡀⠄⣀⠐⡀⡐⠈⠔⣄⠢⡐⠠⠐⡀⢈⠀⠀⠀
+2⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡔⠰⠲⡄⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠀⠀⠀⢈⠀⠄⢂⠐⢂⡀⡂⡐⠠⢁⠸⡀⠌⢃⠌⡁⠔⠠⢀⠁⠆
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢋⠶⢑⣋⣤⣩⢩⢓⢾⢣⡶⣁⡀⠀⠀⢀⠀⡀⠀⠄⠄⠁⡠⠀⠀⠀⠌⠀⢀⣀⠨⠀⣄⡴⣤⣮⢲⣬⣶⣺⢽⣲⣧⣀⠖⡐⠌⢂⠐⡐⢈⠠⠈⠀⡀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⠛⠢⢯⠵⢯⣧⣙⠒⣎⠱⠒⠂⠄⠂⠀⠀⠀⠒⠀⢢⢔⣠⠀⠀⠈⣜⣿⣮⢗⣫⠴⠿⢏⡋⠙⡮⣛⢟⠽⣳⣾⡖⠬⢑⠨⡀⠀⠄⠠⠠⠀⢀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣄⣴⣤⣤⣴⣦⣿⣶⣇⡋⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠀⢕⡪⡾⣣⡆⣉⠘⡌⠯⠞⠛⠟⠓⠞⠚⢿⢻⠷⠿⢽⣹⠷⣟⡞⣴⠁⣒⡼⠒⡃⡽⠡⢈⠰
⠀⠀⠂⠀⠀⠠⢴⣿⢟⣯⡷⣾⣿⢿⣿⡾⣿⣿⣿⣮⣔⡄⠀⠂⡈⢐⢈⡼⣎⣷⡹⣦⣹⠜⣄⣺⣷⣶⣶⣶⡶⣶⣤⣴⣬⣠⠫⢍⡙⠤⣔⡵⢃⢒⣴⠊⣠⡶⠉⢂
⠀⠀⠀⠤⣤⣴⣿⡿⠿⢧⣀⠻⣆⣾⣿⣽⣿⣽⣿⣧⠘⡄⠀⠌⡐⠡⢆⡲⣹⣿⣿⣿⣿⡾⢿⣿⣿⡿⡿⠛⢛⠛⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣾⣤⡱⢊⢌⠔⡋⣡⠴⠋⠠⠂⠒
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠉⠻⢧⣀⠚⢿⣲⣟⠟⣛⣩⣿⣛⣫⡻⢀⠡⠀⠂⠁⡢⠜⡡⢛⢽⣟⡽⣻⣗⠾⠿⣿⠷⣧⣤⣼⣦⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣎⣼⣶⣷⣋⣴⣲⣆⡠⢄
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢦⣤⡉⠉⠁⠀⠒⠍⢝⣫⢃⡷⡏⠀⠂⠠⠁⠀⢂⡱⢌⡐⡅⢛⣿⢎⡵⡎⠌⢦⡁⠻⡵⠳⣣⢿⠭⣵⣳⣾⠿⢛⢃⣾⠻⣝⠻⡒⠤⣐⠢⣄⠉⠉
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⡉⠓⠭⠭⠭⠭⠴⠾⠊⡁⠜⠑⠂⠈⠁⠀⢈⢂⠒⣌⢣⠜⣨⡚⡵⣚⢼⢆⡐⠈⠺⢕⢳⢤⣶⣵⣦⣴⣦⣽⠾⣿⣭⣿⡤⢥⡎⡑⢤⡡⢀⠉⣄
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⠑⠒⠢⠄⠂⠀⢂⡊⡄⡅⠂⠄⠁⠀⠀⢀⠂⡘⢌⠴⣋⠞⣡⢳⠱⡫⢶⡯⢽⣨⡡⠌⢉⠞⠋⠖⡛⠶⡚⠞⡩⢧⣱⠎⣑⡊⠦⢝⡢⢮⠻⣆⢩
⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠄⠁⡀⠘⠀⠌⢨⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡠⠱⡈⢆⠭⡚⡔⢣⢑⢩⣆⡙⡝⠶⡍⠥⣍⣐⠉⠒⡨⠄⢃⢱⠐⠔⣠⠉⡝⡌⢏⡱⡕⣆⠡⣌⠏
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠀⠠⢀⠂⣀⠀⡈⠄⠀⠀⠀⠂⣅⠳⣈⠖⣘⢤⡩⡦⣝⢻⢽⣷⣯⣵⠘⡰⠜⠂⢉⠂⠀⡌⠰⢀⠓⢌⠰⡐⠤⡘⠪⠼⣜⣌⡧⠹⡽
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢄⠂⣰⢦⣾⡰⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠔⢁⠤⠓⡬⠘⢌⠓⡇⢳⢈⢣⠘⡹⣿⣷⣿⣰⡌⢠⠂⢁⠈⠀⡔⠈⢆⡡⢒⠁⡆⢃⠐⡘⢞⡜⣦⢃⠃
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠈⢌⡰⣍⠾⡉⠀⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠠⠀⠰⢨⡑⢡⠮⠑⠠⢁⡐⠂⠠⣾⡿⢯⠗⡿⣗⣬⡅⠤⠠⡐⢩⠒⠤⢃⠎⠤⢁⠰⣈⢮⡚⣾⢋⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠨⣸⣰⡿⠉⢄⡠⠶⡉⢁⣑⡢⣌⠀⠀⠂⢄⠁⣆⡱⢈⣶⣻⣿⣿⣿⣷⣿⣿⣽⣿⣿⣷⣾⢯⢾⣦⡑⠊⡱⠌⡚⡡⢎⡑⣎⠴⡘⣝⢺⣷⢠⢐
⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠰⣈⠑⣵⢋⣰⡺⡝⣿⣶⡿⣏⡷⣺⠿⣣⢤⣐⣀⣲⣦⣴⣿⣿⡿⣿⡿⣿⣟⣿⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠷⣔⠪⠱⢣⢆⡳⡱⣧⣫⡿⣍⣿⡼⡀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠔⢠⡞⠉⣠⢣⡻⣝⢟⣴⢛⣼⠟⠸⡧⣿⣽⠽⣵⡟⣿⣿⣟⣻⣳⣿⣕⣶⣟⡹⢯⣰⣷⣿⣙⢻⣚⣻⣟⣿⣻⣯⣷⣡⢗⢪⠎⡛⡜⣷⣃⠏⣷⡇⢋
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⢠⠇⢠⠀⡏⣸⣣⣯⣶⠛⢻⣄⢘⢏⠟⠻⠓⡹⣈⣍⣉⣥⣋⣭⣯⣙⣿⣻⣧⢷⣾⣟⣿⣯⣦⣽⣾⡹⢮⣿⣧⢿⣿⡏⢇⡇⢳⡵⡕⣖⣹⡏⡿⡘⠃
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢨⢾⠈⡺⣽⣯⣺⢂⣽⣿⣿⣇⣈⠪⠔⡠⣀⠜⡔⢨⣙⢏⢫⣝⡳⡭⣞⣯⣏⣷⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣛⣷⣾⣛⢹⢡⣿⡅⠾⡁⢋⢏⡮⣻⡏⠯⣿⢇⠈
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⣬⠋⣯⠏⠹⣿⣿⡏⠈⠀⠙⠉⠙⡟⠘⠚⢻⡟⠋⠑⠺⡏⠉⠙⠏⠉⢹⡿⢹⣿⣿⡿⣯⣿⣿⣗⢮⡿⠩⠸⡄⡵⣆⡸⣯⡟⣧⢣⠹⠠⠩
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣤⠿⣐⡛⣀⠀⠙⣿⣇⡀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠁⠀⠀⠈⠁⠀⠀⠀⡁⠀⠀⡄⠀⢈⣧⣸⣿⣟⢣⢻⢿⣿⡽⣼⣳⢶⣄⣷⡅⣟⡗⣿⡗⣹⢪⡒⠢⡄
⠀⠀⡄⢝⢠⡰⢠⣹⠎⡐⣘⠘⠲⠢⠀⠈⠉⡙⣽⠛⠻⠾⣦⣤⣤⣤⣤⣤⣤⣴⣗⡶⡶⢿⣿⣿⠿⡛⡡⠮⡼⣿⣿⣿⣗⠽⠇⣼⣿⣷⣶⣷⣿⣯⡆⣟⡷⣳⢇⡠
⠀⠀⠀⢁⢀⠞⠎⢂⣁⣠⠭⠆⣦⠤⠀⠀⠀⠘⠂⠲⡁⡐⢀⠉⡘⢳⠶⡾⡍⡖⣯⡾⡟⠥⣏⠞⣄⠓⣷⢿⣽⣯⣿⡼⣗⢾⣧⣿⡿⣽⢿⣏⢻⡷⣷⡹⡿⢿⢟⢡
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⠀⢂⠈⠈⠀⠩⢉⡄⠛⢰⢷⠊⣤⡬⢣⣤⢀⣤⣭⣈⢧⣷⣭⡼⡫⡵⢻⡮⣋⣶⣼⣿⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠥⢭⣯⢻⣅⣿⣽⢎⣾⠏⣿⣯⣵⡱⠬⢋
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢐⢂⢀⠀⠀⠐⢐⠰⢾⡵⡝⣅⢵⣫⣺⡽⣼⣾⢫⣿⣽⣟⡿⣯⠷⠻⠿⢿⣿⣿⣾⣿⣿⢟⢯⣽⣻⠝⣾⡜⡯⡿⣯⢟⣿⣧⣾⣟⣟⣼⣧⣵⠈
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⢜⠭⡯⣿⣜⡵⣙⣾⣿⣸⣿⣽⣿⣭⠯⣼⣯⣽⡯⣶⢻⡿⣿⣿⣿⢝⢵⢷⣽⣿⢳⢼⣿⢚⡡⣟⣏⡿⣮⣽⡿⡽⠸⣕⠏⠐
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠎⣵⡝⢟⣲⣯⣼⢫⡞⠿⣪⢽⣉⢽⡿⡛⡿⢻⡭⡶⡿⡷⣻⡾⡹⣿⡷⣞⢇⢻⡾⢿⢿⣳⢿⡏⣾⣣⡯⡧⢣⡗⡽⣂⣰
Now look at this handsome gentleman, he seems polite and well-mannered.
+2@Thunderthud Have you tried switching back to 1.12.128?
+2@Thunderthud Just curious as to what specifically happened that led to your files being deleted.
+2Could you provide more details?
+2@RepublicOfCursedPlanes This.
+2This is what I wish some people could wrap their minds around.
@M4riusTh34ViationFan What heading are you flying and where are you flying from?
+2@ThatRandomCouchPotato Ohh lol.
+2You can get some interesting effects using a couple of pistons and a camera with LookAtCockpit enabled.
+2smoko
+2Never, unless Apple changes their Terms Of Service in a way that makes it possible.
+2James and RCP pretty much summed it up.
+2If I were you I would just make the cockpit last.
@TheCaper Only 3 people can be tagged per-comment.
+2Only the first 3 people in the comment will receive a notification.
Freshie spotted.
+2Get ready for what's to come.
I immediately thought about The Wind Rises upon seeing this.
+2@Blueshift Sure. Here's some code I pulled from a cancelled build:
+2IAS<22.352 ? "LOW" : (TAS>111.76 ? "OVERSPEED" : round(IAS/0.44704)+"mph")
The entire expression is basically
a ? b : (a ? b : c).It checks to see if the speed is too low, and when it returns false then it checks to see if the speed is too high, and when that returns false it displays your IAS in mph.
It was pulled from a text label, which is why it looks a bit different.
You could also do
a ? (a ? b : c) : c.Hopefully this helps :)
@Blueshift I don't believe so.
+2You can achieve a similar result by putting an IF statement inside of another IF statement. It's a bit more complicated but its worked for me in the past.
@Freerider2142 The plane I flew in the video was made a while before I made an account. Never bothered uploading it. Just decided to take it for a spin :)
+2I'm not trying to discourage you from posting, but these types of low-effort reposts are not okay.
+2Have some courtesy for the original author who spent days (if not weeks) making this by actually making it better.
If you're going to make a successor of someone else's work, at least make some significant changes.
+2Please, try to put in some actual effort instead of trying to milk points off of someone else's work.
And no, removing 6 parts from someone else's build and doing nothing else is not a significant change.
+2Engine-Prop-2@Randomplayer You don't actually gain points from comment upvotes.
+21: No, but this would be a neat feature. I actually made a suggestion post about this a while back.
+22: Green is for curators. People with this rank take VR planes and curate them so that they can be used by VR players.
To add on, I fully support removing the rotator joint wobble. In fact, I'd like to see the same for pistons and shocks.
+2Making custom landing gear for heavy aircraft is somewhat of a pain, especially when half of the aircraft's mass is in the landing gear just to prevent joint wobble.
An XML property to disable it would also work.
That's an amazing opportunity.
+2I almost got to ride in a WW2 aircraft (forgot what, probably a B-25 or something similar), but it ended up crashing due to pilot error before I could go on a flight.
Having a tough time deciding what's winning me over on Connies, the beautiful curves or the powerful prop engines.
+2This. This is absolutely stunning.
+2@Micmekox Well, since Jundroo has already partially implemented radar cross section (you can find this with some command console searching), an adjustment slider for stealth coating on fuselage parts could be possible.
+2Would older/current builds even be compatible with such a change though?
+2Depends on your point of view.
+2I personally don't really mess with interior design. I focus more on balancing basic exterior details and aircraft functionality.
If you want to add cockpits, then go ahead. If not, it really shouldn't have an enormous impact.
The amount of attention your builds get is really dependent on the overall quality of the build (excluding meme builds that get hundreds of upvotes, but that's different). You have to find where the balance between looks, functionality, and performance is, and go with it.
And yes, there will be times where you spend two weeks on a build, publish it, and it doesn't become as popular as you might've hoped, and that's alright. Just move on and continue building what you want.
I have finished this short essay. Hopefully this helps at least somewhat.
There have been a few interesting things I've done:
- Caused my plane to turn into a series of rapidly moving 2D polygons.
- Turned the terrain into a what looked like a 2D texture format.
- Removed the water by accident.
- Caused a console error so large that glass stopped rendering and the horizon had a slight color change.
- Caused another error so large that Wright Airport started floating in the air (and clipped slightly through the nearby hill).
+2I admittedly am guilty of doing some of these things in the past (I was still new to the site back then, but still).
+2This forum has some great points. The forums have been a bit clogged recently, and the spam posts (or just pointless posts in general) need to stop.
You can do it without a tail rotor, but the two main rotors need to rotate in opposite directions first.
+2@Mrgoofy Again, depends on your build.
+2I can't really give advice on that since every aircraft is different.
Just mess around with the values and see what works best.
@Mrgoofy Part type.
+2Take the primary wing part, look in the XML editor for the part type value and change it from
Wing-3toWing-2.@Mrgoofy Not sure. If you're using
+2Wing-2wings then I would say just fly higher.If that doesn't help then I'm not sure.
@Mrgoofy Depends on the build.
+2Symmetric is low lift, low drag.
Semi-Symmetric is medium lift, medium drag.
Flat Bottom is high lift, high drag.
Vertical stabilizers should only use "Symmetric" (unless it's a V-Tail aircraft).
@Mrgoofy It's the box labeled "Symmetric", "Semi-Symmetric", or "Flat Bottom". Clicking this box changes the airfoil. The airfoil type affects both lift and drag.
+2@Mrgoofy The thickness of the wing panels (assuming you're using the method I use) should be 0%. Airfoil type depends on what aircraft you're building.
+2If you want to make a custom airfoil with fuselages, you can find a nice tutorial on the website that explains the process.
My personal technique is to first make the fuselage shell, slice out the control surfaces, add the hinge rotators that make them move, and then fit
+2Wing-2wings into each fuselage section (and edit them to fit precisely using the XML editor).The much easier and more commonly used method is to just fit a single scaled down wing into the fuselage shell. This is less realistic but more practical (depending on who you ask).
@jamesPLANESii That's also assuming that mobile devices could handle it. I know that some mobile users can run 1000+ parts with little to no problem, but that's not the case for others. MP would likely need to be adjusted to accommodate devices with lower processing power.
+2I would imagine the reason Jundroo has not yet added MP as a stock feature is that it simply isn't practical (from a statistical/logical standpoint).
Still publishing...
+2I might be a tad bit early.
T
+2Erg leuk!
+2Ik heb ook plannen om binnenkort mijn eerste elektrische zweefvliegtuig te uploaden.
Ik zal er waarschijnlijk binnenkort een videoteaser van uploaden. (Sorry als ik niet de juiste taalvertaling gebruik.)
My advice: if you want it done then do it yourself.
+2And I don't mean this in a rude way, but you're better off learning how to do it yourself than waiting for someone else to do it.
I know that's easier said than done, but trust me when I say it's worth it.
@L3FTxR1GHT I'm fairly certain that's Apple related and not source code related.
+2In other words, Jundroo can't change that.