At first I thought it was a rickroll... For real guys you can trust him, at the moment I post this comment it's not a rickroll but a link to a music video
@MRpingouin accessoirement c'est pas "republic" mais "republican" (républicain). Le parti Républicain est l'un des deux partis politiques majoritaires aux Etats-Unis, l'autre étant le Parti Démocrate.
@PlanariaLab to be honest I didn't get the last part of your answer, sorry ://
I meant I saw a forum teaser from you I believe, presenting different types of Funky Trees walkers like Linu or Suzu, with diverse part counts and level of complexity, and I am particularly interested in the "simplest" one that was only made of rotators connected between them, kinda like the one in the swimming test you published.
Also would it be possible to get those walkers you showed us a while ago, I remember one was only made of spaced rotators like your swimmer experiment and I would need it ASAP...
I personally use Overload for all my FT needs since I mostly use relmatively "short" formulas but I would suggest you to use Notepad++, that's what I always use to directly edit my builds' XML files.
@AndrewGarrison question, does the thickness of the wing affect its physics, like, for example, will a thin wing be more practical for supersonic planes ?
Or is it just a visual effect like the x axis of the "scale" XML property ?
How dare you say that, @KnightOfRen ?
Since you began publishing planes here I tried to give you building advice. Maybe that's called being mean, after all. Who knows...
Maybe pointing out things that can be improved is an insult, but I prefer see that as a way to kindly say "you can do better" as I always do.
But since I'm apparently mean, I'll just stop bothering you.
you put your high standards and try to make it a chore for me
Oh, really ? I thought having high standards was a good thing... And I try to help people think they can always do better and better, up to the point they're fully satisfied of their builds.
Also yeah, everybody know I try to give chores to people.
So, to sum up, you don't want me to comment on your posts, right ? OK, I won't comment anymore, if that's what you want.
I won't block you, that'd be childish and I prefer to dialogue than block. But don't expect me to comment again on my own, since that's your will.
@KnightOfRen
OK. I'll. Stop. It.
I'm just sad I won't see your builds improve and have at least a realistic shape.
I thought you were nice and ready to learn from other more or less experienced builders but it looks like I... well... was wrong.
Oh, and since ED said that, I'll stop commenting and go back putting "hours of blood, sweat, and tears into a single aircraft", because I indeed "build as a chore", everybody know that :)
Also, if you need me someday, I'd be glad to help, but I'm afraid my work would be considered too unfunny...
Bye I guess
Dude... please listen to my advice.
First, you must stop building multiple planes at once, focus on one and only one. You'll surely invest more time and effort in each plane you make, and you'll make better planes.
Then, use blueprints, and stick to them, because you may be already using some but we can't tell by those screenshots. You must also use photos of the real aircraft, for example to avoid doing a canopy with a square section when the real plane has a triangular/round one.
Also, I think you need to put a lot more effort in your landing gears and their housings, for example. Look how you made the upper wing part as a wide cylider going from the leading edge to the trailing edge of the wing, what isn't a thing on the real P-36.
You should also try to make custom control surfaces.
I'm sure your building quality would improve a lot if you follow my advice.
@PointlessWhyshouldi also thx for the spotlight
@PointlessWhyshouldi more like "pshoooooooooooooo- oh shit missed. PshoooooooBOOM"
@GrizzlitnCFSP mdrr
+1Merci, ça fait plaiz ^^
@Typhoon03 thanks for the spotlight !!
+1@Hedero I got mine on the F-86K. A bit hard to use but so satisfying to blow up an Il-28Sh at 2km...
@russianspy I don't know, I just put the pods under the wing pylons of the SBD...
+3@NAD here, for example : https://fr.scribd.com/document/191570148/Douglas-DGP-1-Twin-50-Cal-Gun-Package
@DADDADATHEDAD hehe
+1@ollielebananiaCFSP I can judge some planes for you but I don't know if I can make them all.
Looks like a fat baby plane
+1Ok, I think I'm beginning to feel my brain heating more and more
SODIUM CHLORIDE BUILT THE SLATS HE IS AN AMAZING AUSSIE
Me who made the most realistic AIM-9Bs and still got not credit : 😿👍
+2Those AIM-9Bs look nice
can't be a glider if it has a prop engine
+2At first I thought it was a rickroll...
For real guys you can trust him, at the moment I post this comment it's not a rickroll but a link to a music video
Nice
@PatriARG well, it's not so complicated !
@PatriARG yeah, these probe and drogue were not designed to work with the mod
@GrizzlitnCFSP de rien mon gars
+1@PatriARG what do you mean ? You can't manage to plug in the drogue ?
@EternalDarkness and is it possible to join it ?
Nice to see the Thunders in SP
+1But this mech was probably added when I stopped playing
First
@YoDudeChase think a bit more.... The total height counts the cockpit block underneath it that adds at least like 3 feet to the passenger.
+1@RankStarfish201 but this ford mustang is in fact a mustang horse
-Throttle I guess ?
Do you speak french ?
What did you want to tell me ? Sorry but I couldn't see your comment in time, I am at school :/
@MRpingouin viens ici
@MRpingouin accessoirement c'est pas "republic" mais "republican" (républicain). Le parti Républicain est l'un des deux partis politiques majoritaires aux Etats-Unis, l'autre étant le Parti Démocrate.
@MRpingouin chaque chose en son temps. Ca te dit de rejoindre un serveur Discord francophone ?
@banbantheman regarde la réponse de @Supermarinespitfire13 si tu l'as pas vu, il t'a pas ping
@banbantheman |
...............................V
Don't tell me you made a convoy kidnapping...
@MRpingouin what ?!?
also do you speak french ?
Pretty sure this is not the greatest event of the SP website but OK
+2I think Bogdan and SR beating 300k is a bit more important
@SavageMan the build itself and its mechanism is cool but the cable thing as a bit weird :/
@PlanariaLab remember this and this ?
I would try something by myself if you can't with the "rotators only" walker as a base.
@Typhoon03 no, I can't vote in the US
@SavageMan oh, really ? Then that's bad for u :/
in fact it goes where the cockpit block is. Put in in the nozzle if you want IR seekers to be simulated
@PlanariaLab to be honest I didn't get the last part of your answer, sorry ://
I meant I saw a forum teaser from you I believe, presenting different types of Funky Trees walkers like Linu or Suzu, with diverse part counts and level of complexity, and I am particularly interested in the "simplest" one that was only made of rotators connected between them, kinda like the one in the swimming test you published.
Also would it be possible to get those walkers you showed us a while ago, I remember one was only made of spaced rotators like your swimmer experiment and I would need it ASAP...
I personally use Overload for all my FT needs since I mostly use relmatively "short" formulas but I would suggest you to use Notepad++, that's what I always use to directly edit my builds' XML files.
Hey, do u speak french ?
+1@AndrewGarrison question, does the thickness of the wing affect its physics, like, for example, will a thin wing be more practical for supersonic planes ?
+9Or is it just a visual effect like the x axis of the "scale" XML property ?
How dare you say that, @KnightOfRen ?
Since you began publishing planes here I tried to give you building advice. Maybe that's called being mean, after all. Who knows...
Maybe pointing out things that can be improved is an insult, but I prefer see that as a way to kindly say "you can do better" as I always do.
But since I'm apparently mean, I'll just stop bothering you.
Oh, really ? I thought having high standards was a good thing... And I try to help people think they can always do better and better, up to the point they're fully satisfied of their builds.
Also yeah, everybody know I try to give chores to people.
So, to sum up, you don't want me to comment on your posts, right ? OK, I won't comment anymore, if that's what you want.
I won't block you, that'd be childish and I prefer to dialogue than block. But don't expect me to comment again on my own, since that's your will.
@KnightOfRen
OK. I'll. Stop. It.
I'm just sad I won't see your builds improve and have at least a realistic shape.
I thought you were nice and ready to learn from other more or less experienced builders but it looks like I... well... was wrong.
Oh, and since ED said that, I'll stop commenting and go back putting "hours of blood, sweat, and tears into a single aircraft", because I indeed "build as a chore", everybody know that :)
Also, if you need me someday, I'd be glad to help, but I'm afraid my work would be considered too unfunny...
Bye I guess
Dude... please listen to my advice.
First, you must stop building multiple planes at once, focus on one and only one. You'll surely invest more time and effort in each plane you make, and you'll make better planes.
Then, use blueprints, and stick to them, because you may be already using some but we can't tell by those screenshots. You must also use photos of the real aircraft, for example to avoid doing a canopy with a square section when the real plane has a triangular/round one.
Also, I think you need to put a lot more effort in your landing gears and their housings, for example. Look how you made the upper wing part as a wide cylider going from the leading edge to the trailing edge of the wing, what isn't a thing on the real P-36.
You should also try to make custom control surfaces.
I'm sure your building quality would improve a lot if you follow my advice.
@JKudasai in your neighborhood...
Who you gonna call ?
Ghostbusters !
+4@Rafale