@teddyone02 I accidentally uploaded it in public instead of unlisted, I immediately deleted (took me like 2 minutes) it in panic lol, and hey, thanks for remembering me. I returned back to building very recently!
@LieutenantSOT
@ZeroWithSlashedO
The closest thing you can get in SP is SelectedTarget.
Not exactly a missile lock, but you can make stuff work when you select a target.
@Formula350
If you have read the previous comments, MAHADI did not expect these type of aircrafts,
therefore he did not mention it in the rules.
We did not add wings on purpose, the concept of the aircraft we were basing it off was 'wingless', that's the concept.
If we were so desperate about the challenge, we would have done it already by ourselves.
@MAHADI
Yeah, I have agreed with the fact that you disqualified me.
But haven't you thought about the confusion you would bring with your vague 'rules'?
And if Pointless and I were the 'first' to be confused and disqualified with your rule, are you going to ignore it because you think that nobody will, and ever had been confused with your rules?
How could have we known that our build was not realistic enough by your standards in your head when you never mentioned it in the description?
Seems like the rule changes every second.
@MAHADI
what you have said from all the comments
'I would have' / 'I don't think this looks like'
you don't have specific standard. how are players supposed to build aircrafts that fulfill your 'rules' in your head?
@MAHADI now that I'm disqualified, I just want to ask stuff about what you think, I mean, if you allowed fictional builds, doesn't it mean we have a 'alternate timeline'?
Fictional builds will never come alive.
Anything can happen inside that alternate timeline, I don't really understand why this is such a big deal.
@MAHADI
Stipa-Carponi, for it has wings, it does not mean the fusealge does not produce lift. You're saying as if a monoplane and a biplane works differently. Its a matter of choice to implement a technology if it is possible. In the Stipa-Carponi, they used both lift produced from a conventional wing and from the fusealge.
We have sent the pic of the duck to tell you that you have not told the standards of what a WWI aircraft for your challenge should look like.
@MAHADI
What is your standard of 'Oh it looks like a WWI aircraft'?
You have not mentioned any of those in your challenge description.
Also, speaking of '14' years after WWI, try thinking differently, it flew '40'years before the Dornier Aerodyne, what you call as 'Modern Technology' worked quite well.
@MAHADI
Would you please read my comments again?
To conclude them,
First, physics does not depend on time. Physics in 1910's worked the same as in 1972.
Second, this is no modern technology, a similar aircraft was built in 1932, the Stipa-Caproni.
The Dornier Aerodyne does not have high, modern performances like the 'F-16' you mentioned.
Third, the components are from WWI, the RollsRoyce Areo Eagle/Falcon (Both are very similar engines).
Floats are also based on a aircraft around the 1910's.
Same with the armament, it has two Vickers Machine Gun, standard RFC armament at the time.
@OPwindu @MAHADI
If you have read the description, this build is based on an actual aircraft, no need to question how it works, no alien technology envolved.
Go into SP files, 'aircraft designs', move your sp xml files to another location, reinstall SP, move the xml files back into the new SP files.
Also, try deleting the mywar file from the 'mods' file. Maybe that could help.
Doesn't really sound useful.. Opening SP.com in another tab in your device or having a internet browsing function in SP, there won't be much difference in performance.
Speaking of performance, with the browser function and all implemented into the game, wouldn't the game be more heavier to run?
But good news, if you still want SP.com while playing SP, there's a 'pop-up window' function for both Android and iOS devices.
So there's no reason for the game to be functioning as a browser
@nicholas1106
'In your opinion?'
This game doesn't run on your imagination.
What is your specific idea of 'making it work'?
The whole script has been changed from Mono to IL2CPP since version 1.9, which does not support mods.
Your whining 'opinion' about mobile mod support will not help the situtaion but instead it will annoy other users, a lot. There has been so much complains from mobile users about the mod support.
If you had read the this post, Andrew made this post to receive suggestions that are somewhat possible, not to recieve annoying complains that would help nobody.
In conclusion, complaining about mod support is pointless and annoying.
No, it is not Jundroo's fault that mobile devices cannot support SP anymore.
Google play now requires 64 bit support, which made the devs to change the scripting for Android versions of SP.
That's why mobile devices can't have mods, not because the devs do not care about mobile users.
I've seen so much mobile users whining about this, but at least now you know that the devs cannot do anything about it, stop asking for mobile device mod support.
Requested Tags:
@ToeTips
@DatTrainGuy19
@Randomplayer
Requested Tags:
@Pan
@HanakoSan
@RepublicOfCursedPlanes
@ToeTips
@DatTrainGuy19
@Randomplayer
@Pan
@HanakoSan
@RepublicOfCursedPlanes
@florky Around 1200?
@florky I'll just let you test, I'll tag you in a unlisted build someday
@teddyone02 I accidentally uploaded it in public instead of unlisted, I immediately deleted (took me like 2 minutes) it in panic lol, and hey, thanks for remembering me. I returned back to building very recently!
Blue
@Kiangoat
Forgot about this build for 9 months.
I'm back, working on it.
@CoolPeach
+4Thank you so much! It's no longer stuck on the ground.
Same thing for me, I used to have them not very much before the update, but now it's very frequent in 1.11.
@MisterT
Yes
@ReturnOfJeffChandler
Why not
@ReturnOfJeffChandler
well then, can I ask both?
@ReturnOfJeffChandler
Why did you leave
@ReturnOfJeffChandler
I mean, are you Jeff?
Jeff?
@LieutenantSOT
@ZeroWithSlashedO
The closest thing you can get in SP is
SelectedTarget.Not exactly a missile lock, but you can make stuff work when you select a target.
@Formula350
If you have read the previous comments, MAHADI did not expect these type of aircrafts,
therefore he did not mention it in the rules.
We did not add wings on purpose, the concept of the aircraft we were basing it off was 'wingless', that's the concept.
If we were so desperate about the challenge, we would have done it already by ourselves.
@rexzion lol, new laptop, soon.
@rexzion oh nice, but what I've been talking about here is still quite ridiculous.
@rexzion yeah I've realised how stupid this was
@MAHADI
Yeah, I have agreed with the fact that you disqualified me.
But haven't you thought about the confusion you would bring with your vague 'rules'?
And if Pointless and I were the 'first' to be confused and disqualified with your rule, are you going to ignore it because you think that nobody will, and ever had been confused with your rules?
@MAHADI
your 'rule'
How could have we known that our build was not realistic enough by your standards in your head when you never mentioned it in the description?
Seems like the rule changes every second.
@MAHADI
what you have said from all the comments
'I would have' / 'I don't think this looks like'
you don't have specific standard. how are players supposed to build aircrafts that fulfill your 'rules' in your head?
@MAHADI now that I'm disqualified, I just want to ask stuff about what you think, I mean, if you allowed fictional builds, doesn't it mean we have a 'alternate timeline'?
Fictional builds will never come alive.
Anything can happen inside that alternate timeline, I don't really understand why this is such a big deal.
@Vincent Could you please remove this post from the challenge please? Sorry to ask this twice.
@MAHADI Speaking of wings, the elevator, and the vertical stabilizer are also 'wings'.
Just telling, they do produce lift!!!11!!!!!1
@MAHADI
Stipa-Carponi, for it has wings, it does not mean the fusealge does not produce lift. You're saying as if a monoplane and a biplane works differently. Its a matter of choice to implement a technology if it is possible. In the Stipa-Carponi, they used both lift produced from a conventional wing and from the fusealge.
We have sent the pic of the duck to tell you that you have not told the standards of what a WWI aircraft for your challenge should look like.
@MAHADI
What is your standard of 'Oh it looks like a WWI aircraft'?
You have not mentioned any of those in your challenge description.
Also, speaking of '14' years after WWI, try thinking differently, it flew '40'years before the Dornier Aerodyne, what you call as 'Modern Technology' worked quite well.
@MAHADI
Would you please read my comments again?
To conclude them,
First, physics does not depend on time. Physics in 1910's worked the same as in 1972.
Second, this is no modern technology, a similar aircraft was built in 1932, the Stipa-Caproni.
The Dornier Aerodyne does not have high, modern performances like the 'F-16' you mentioned.
Third, the components are from WWI, the RollsRoyce Areo Eagle/Falcon (Both are very similar engines).
Floats are also based on a aircraft around the 1910's.
Same with the armament, it has two Vickers Machine Gun, standard RFC armament at the time.
@MAHADI For example, the Stipa-Caproni works similarly, and it was designed in 1932.
Time doesn't really matter here.
@MAHADI that doesn't mean physics worked different back in 1910's.
@OPwindu @MAHADI
If you have read the description, this build is based on an actual aircraft, no need to question how it works, no alien technology envolved.
@rexzion
+1rexon, fixed.
can I now get 7/10
Fixed version here
Requested Tags:
@LieutenantSOT
@V
@BeastHunter
@Vincent Could I please have this build a successor to this challenge please?
what, how, why, did you not mention the flankers?
+7@AnIndonesianPanzer Are you sure you went into the correct folders?
Go into SP files, 'aircraft designs', move your sp xml files to another location, reinstall SP, move the xml files back into the new SP files.
Also, try deleting the mywar file from the 'mods' file. Maybe that could help.
Doesn't really sound useful.. Opening SP.com in another tab in your device or having a internet browsing function in SP, there won't be much difference in performance.
Speaking of performance, with the browser function and all implemented into the game, wouldn't the game be more heavier to run?
But good news, if you still want SP.com while playing SP, there's a 'pop-up window' function for both Android and iOS devices.
So there's no reason for the game to be functioning as a browser
+4fliegendesscheißfass
nice looking build but I can't help but realise that SP reflection really sucks lol
+2Could we change the colour of the gauges?
@nicholas1106
'In your opinion?'
This game doesn't run on your imagination.
What is your specific idea of 'making it work'?
The whole script has been changed from Mono to IL2CPP since version 1.9, which does not support mods.
Your whining 'opinion' about mobile mod support will not help the situtaion but instead it will annoy other users, a lot. There has been so much complains from mobile users about the mod support.
If you had read the this post, Andrew made this post to receive suggestions that are somewhat possible, not to recieve annoying complains that would help nobody.
In conclusion, complaining about mod support is pointless and annoying.
+8@nicholas1106
No, it is not Jundroo's fault that mobile devices cannot support SP anymore.
+7Google play now requires 64 bit support, which made the devs to change the scripting for Android versions of SP.
That's why mobile devices can't have mods, not because the devs do not care about mobile users.
I've seen so much mobile users whining about this, but at least now you know that the devs cannot do anything about it, stop asking for mobile device mod support.
@FeatherWing
Ah, thanks for telling. Maybe SP only should have one option of warning, (SP currently has two stages of warning)
I also have found that a MAWS is what detects missile launches, I don't know if it's a common thing for modern fighter aircrafts though.
@DefinitelyNotAnAlt
+2well, can't help it, am very excited for this post, Andrew himself receiving suggestions!
@HidayatulAdzkiya uh.. ok..? Sorry, on which comment did I?