This isn't easy to answer, it's very subjective in my opinion.
In my case, I do think a good creation is a mix of several things :
° 1 : A good model, it's a sandbox game, so I enjoy seeing a well made build, with attention to details, relfections, curves. I don't care if the build has 1000 parts or 20 parts, as long as the creator of it build it in a efficient way to make it the better possible looking with the part limitations, I'll be happy.
° 2 : Playability, I do like realistic or semi-realistic builds, I just find way more fun in using them and building them rather than making or playing with a build that can take 30 Gs and have 30 missiles under it's belly, I think a difficult to use build (difficult in a realistic way, not because it's a messy design) is way more fun than a build that gives you no challenge.
° 3 : An overall good build, I just hate when I see a good looking build on the SP.com page, download it and it just handles like shit, a good build is a combination of several things, if it's awesome in looks but not in playability, in my opinion it's not a good build.
But once again all this is very subjective, I do have my own standards and today when I download a build I rarely do enjoy it. I just doesn't feel like today players are looking for the same things as I or we did earlier in this game history.
I kinda feel like that, whatever people will say, most users today build for the community, points and succes rather than the pure sake of building and finding fun in it. Finding new ways to do good looking curves, taking the time to create a good flight model and just enjoy what this game has to offer.
So just to break everything I could have said, I think that a good build is a build that tries to reach SP limits.
@WhaleFall Yes, at high altitudes, it can reach that speed at high altitudes and not under 10 secondes.
It's ok to not know much about planes, most plane's top speeds are calculated at high altitudes. Some planes can reach +mach 2 at high altitudes but can't reach mach at sea level.
@WhaleFall
Acceleration is comedy as much as the top speed is, the plane is flying at +mach even at 50% Throttle. It turns like crazy and even tho I didn't open the debug console to get the numbers I'm sure that it pulls more than 20Gs at almost every turns. It feels like an arcade version of Ace Combat (this game already being arcade)...
You say that you did build this with mobile players in mind but that's not why you didn't put any FT, it's more likely because you don't know anything about it, and that's not a bad thing, I suck at it too, but I do accept criticism and won't pull out stupid excuses when somebody point this out.
Also, a good flight model doesn't always need FT, so that's just an excuse.
On top of that, +850 parts and +3800 perf cost isn't that mobile friendly.
Just accept criticism
Your build is beautiful, it just doesn't fly good.
@Graingy ok, would have done the joke anyway. Lucky for you it isn't a joke.
Send me a message on discord so I can provide some screenshots on how to solve the issue.
So looks over performance ? It's an interesting question, I do think that looks are more important than performance, but is it the case in a low parts build ?
@SC2311 It's already really good, and it's visible from far away tht you're really trying to improve your skills and make interesting builds. SimplePlanes has a weird progression curve, so it's okey to have less skills in like making a flight model than making a fuselage.
For the part count, the look of it is already very good, could be improved of course but it's really good, and funkytrees also something else, I'm a total noob at it, but you can seek help everywhere, all the codes I use are maybe by people that's I reached for some help :)
Anyway, keep it up !
(Sorry for my crappy english)
@SC2311 Thanks ! It's not perfect at all but it was the max I could achieve with my skills, still pretty happy with it even tho I'm remember the last two ~ three months weren't fun at all anymore, just focusing over doing ad detail then another then another
I just LOVE this airplane, it's really cool to see a good one out here.
I really like it, under 1000 parts but still with great details, the overall shape of the plane is here and the body looks really good, the wings could have had a better airfoil but hey at least it's fuselage wings.
I like the fact that the interiors are simple and without much to do but at least everything works and you did it which is great, I also like the dedication to make the two of them even tho it's a one player game, this kind of motivation is nice to see.
The flight model is way way better than most builds out there, it feels like a real plane, doesn't do to many crazy stuff but still is fun enough.
My only point but I'm being picky is that I'm not sure that the Tornado could super-cruise, maybe I'm wrong tho, same for it pulling 18° of AoA, I don't think it could pull this much.
Overall awesome build.
A lot of parts for many details, we like details, details are great.
But sadly details went sto some places and not others, the cockpit is beautiful but the wings shape really is good looking (at least it's fuselage wings).
Some goes for the fligh characteristics, it flys like an RC plane, maybe it was your goal but I find it kinda sad that such an high detailed plane that could be use to simulate air flight got such a crappy fligh model.
I really like the description and the whole manual, really useful.
@TheMouse Active on Discord yes, but I think it's more about being in the SPMC discord server, since it brings you closer to some devs and other moderators, thus making them know you a little bit better.
I'm not sure at all tho, it was only a thing I always tough worked that way.
The Mig 21B actually had "bumps" on the wings where the landing gear retracted, that's why yours couldn't go in all the way. Would have looked more aesthetic and realistic to make these.
@BaconAircraft @MrSilverWolf @Vincent I guess pinging three of you is enough, I should tell you to translate what that chinese guy is saying since it's absolutely disgusting. But the only thing he said in english should actually be enough for him to get banned, anyway thanks in advance for taking care of this.
@RoastHam9146 I do use one too, that also simulate the delay before blacking/reding-out and the delay of recuperation time, maybe you could be interested in seeing it
Hi ! This builds looks cool, didn't have the time to test it yet so I'm gonna do it later, just being curious, where di you grab that blackout / redout effect ? Didn't see many out there, maybe you even made yours.
@PlaneSpike Your answer don't make any sense, I don't understand how any builds could or should go to the front page if upvotes doesn't matter. They don't, don't get me wrong, but the front page as nothing to do with yes or no they're useless.
@TheUltimatePlaneLover I don't, I like mobile friendly builds or PEAs, if they are good of course, and I'm not known for making low part count builds. I'm making a mobile-friendly plane right now, kinda what we used to call PEAs at the time, and it ain't difficult, it's fun, challenging in some ways, but not more difficult or asking more effort than a high-end replica build.
@52REX It does make a lot of sense to me, we kinda share the same opinion on many points.
The only thing I'd like to say is about what a PEA really is, people do think that a efficient build should be a low-part count build, but it ain't the case at all, as I said earlier :
PEA stands for "part efficiency aircraft", just a quick remember that a part efficient plane isn't a "low part aircraft". A plane can be part efficient even if it has 1000 parts, as long as the builder who made it used ingenius ideas to save as much parts as possible but still reaching the quality and details he wanted to reach.
Part efficienty is being economical in the way you choose and use the parts.
Low part count is just a build with a "low" part count.
If your build is sitting at 50 parts, but you used 20 of them to build your landing gears, in ain't efficient, if your build has 1000 parts and you used 50 of them for the landing gears, it's efficient.
I do agree on the fact that people making only PEA won't ever progress, or at least they'll quickly reach a dead-end, but that's not really a bad thing, people build whatever they wanna build. Yeah they are missing an absolutely huge part of what this game has to offer, but ain't it called SimplePlanes after all ?
There's actually only two points that pisses me off a little :
1 : People hating on others because they get more upvotes thanks to putting PEA in the title of their builds, a lot of players are just way jealous and just care way too much about these useless internet points. I mean, if everybody know that the point system is broken for many reasons, why would they even bother think about it ? Just play for fun, it ain't no job.
2 : People saying they build PEAs, but actually just make low part / quality builds and put PEA in the title of their crafts. It's miss-leading people that actually look for real PEAs, and it make people think that this is PEAs. Being a beginner isn't a issue, but don't hide it by saying you make PEAs.
Will there be a cockpit interior ? The build doesn't seem that detailed and complicated it shouldn't be hard to cut a cockpit in it.
@WizNick I hope it was clear enough
@TheUltimatePlaneLover generally, leading-edge slats only go down, I also noticed that yours are inverted, the slats should go down when pitching up.
What's a good creation ?
This isn't easy to answer, it's very subjective in my opinion.
In my case, I do think a good creation is a mix of several things :
°
1 : A good model, it's a sandbox game, so I enjoy seeing a well made build, with attention to details, relfections, curves. I don't care if the build has 1000 parts or 20 parts, as long as the creator of it build it in a efficient way to make it the better possible looking with the part limitations, I'll be happy.
°
2 : Playability, I do like realistic or semi-realistic builds, I just find way more fun in using them and building them rather than making or playing with a build that can take 30 Gs and have 30 missiles under it's belly, I think a difficult to use build (difficult in a realistic way, not because it's a messy design) is way more fun than a build that gives you no challenge.
°
3 : An overall good build, I just hate when I see a good looking build on the SP.com page, download it and it just handles like shit, a good build is a combination of several things, if it's awesome in looks but not in playability, in my opinion it's not a good build.
But once again all this is very subjective, I do have my own standards and today when I download a build I rarely do enjoy it. I just doesn't feel like today players are looking for the same things as I or we did earlier in this game history.
I kinda feel like that, whatever people will say, most users today build for the community, points and succes rather than the pure sake of building and finding fun in it. Finding new ways to do good looking curves, taking the time to create a good flight model and just enjoy what this game has to offer.
So just to break everything I could have said, I think that a good build is a build that tries to reach SP limits.
+4are the slats...going up ???...
@GuardianAerospace it was a joke because the shape isn't that smooth
+1Who cares ?
It ain't a multiplayer game, just have fun by yourself instead of finding joy in others caring about you.
+3It looks like it was made in simpleplanes
+2@WhaleFall Yes, at high altitudes, it can reach that speed at high altitudes and not under 10 secondes.
+2It's ok to not know much about planes, most plane's top speeds are calculated at high altitudes. Some planes can reach +mach 2 at high altitudes but can't reach mach at sea level.
@F8boa by pulling the handles on the side of your sit towards you
+1@WhaleFall
Acceleration is comedy as much as the top speed is, the plane is flying at +mach even at 50% Throttle. It turns like crazy and even tho I didn't open the debug console to get the numbers I'm sure that it pulls more than 20Gs at almost every turns.
It feels like an arcade version of Ace Combat (this game already being arcade)...
You say that you did build this with mobile players in mind but that's not why you didn't put any FT, it's more likely because you don't know anything about it, and that's not a bad thing, I suck at it too, but I do accept criticism and won't pull out stupid excuses when somebody point this out.
Also, a good flight model doesn't always need FT, so that's just an excuse.
On top of that, +850 parts and +3800 perf cost isn't that mobile friendly.
Just accept criticism
Your build is beautiful, it just doesn't fly good.
+1The model is absolutely beautiful, but the flight model is sadly a total mess.
But I can't point out the work done on the build quality, it's pure beauty
+3@MrCOPTY just let them be virgins
+1@Graingy yes sure
+2@Grob0s0VBRa nope, just some reshade settings
@Graingy ok, would have done the joke anyway. Lucky for you it isn't a joke.
Send me a message on discord so I can provide some screenshots on how to solve the issue.
Was the almost naked young lady necessary on the front of the tank ? Also, why hide it on the screenshots ?
+1I do have a fix for this
So looks over performance ? It's an interesting question, I do think that looks are more important than performance, but is it the case in a low parts build ?
+1@MIGFOXHOUND31BSM26 yes you're right
the city in this map has already been used in another SP modded map haha
lovely !
+2@winterro damn didn't got it, can't wait to see it
winterro making a plane O_O
@ollielebanania self tag
The plane is what it is, but almost 4 years of dedication on a build deserves an upvote
+1@ollielebanania what manage you to do in 3.7 years, it's a lot there must be a lot of stuff in it
+23.7 year in the making ?? saying that for the cloud ?
@Jacobdaniel Yes, I used discord to host my images on the website but since it's not possible anymore I have to update the page, sorry.
@SC2311 oh bruh that's a shitty situation haha, well don't hesitate to ping me on a post or any forum if you seek some help :)
+1@SC2311 If you want I can give you my discord so if you need any help I could help you
+1@SC2311 It's already really good, and it's visible from far away tht you're really trying to improve your skills and make interesting builds. SimplePlanes has a weird progression curve, so it's okey to have less skills in like making a flight model than making a fuselage.
+1For the part count, the look of it is already very good, could be improved of course but it's really good, and funkytrees also something else, I'm a total noob at it, but you can seek help everywhere, all the codes I use are maybe by people that's I reached for some help :)
Anyway, keep it up !
(Sorry for my crappy english)
@SC2311 Thanks ! It's not perfect at all but it was the max I could achieve with my skills, still pretty happy with it even tho I'm remember the last two ~ three months weren't fun at all anymore, just focusing over doing ad detail then another then another
+1High quality ? Please tag me on these, I'll be a pleasure to test flight your builds
(If possible, tag on both)
@SyntheticL good old times when my average part count was under 1000 parts
+1Lovely build !
I just LOVE this airplane, it's really cool to see a good one out here.
I really like it, under 1000 parts but still with great details, the overall shape of the plane is here and the body looks really good, the wings could have had a better airfoil but hey at least it's fuselage wings.
I like the fact that the interiors are simple and without much to do but at least everything works and you did it which is great, I also like the dedication to make the two of them even tho it's a one player game, this kind of motivation is nice to see.
The flight model is way way better than most builds out there, it feels like a real plane, doesn't do to many crazy stuff but still is fun enough.
My only point but I'm being picky is that I'm not sure that the Tornado could super-cruise, maybe I'm wrong tho, same for it pulling 18° of AoA, I don't think it could pull this much.
Overall awesome build.
A lot of parts for many details, we like details, details are great.
+6But sadly details went sto some places and not others, the cockpit is beautiful but the wings shape really is good looking (at least it's fuselage wings).
Some goes for the fligh characteristics, it flys like an RC plane, maybe it was your goal but I find it kinda sad that such an high detailed plane that could be use to simulate air flight got such a crappy fligh model.
I really like the description and the whole manual, really useful.
@TheMouse Active on Discord yes, but I think it's more about being in the SPMC discord server, since it brings you closer to some devs and other moderators, thus making them know you a little bit better.
+2I'm not sure at all tho, it was only a thing I always tough worked that way.
the real game begins !
The Mig 21B actually had "bumps" on the wings where the landing gear retracted, that's why yours couldn't go in all the way. Would have looked more aesthetic and realistic to make these.
@MrCOPTY I'd love to
+1Reported him and pinged some moderators, not gonna let a racist slide.
@BaconAircraft @MrSilverWolf @Vincent I guess pinging three of you is enough, I should tell you to translate what that chinese guy is saying since it's absolutely disgusting. But the only thing he said in english should actually be enough for him to get banned, anyway thanks in advance for taking care of this.
@RoastHam9146 I do use one too, that also simulate the delay before blacking/reding-out and the delay of recuperation time, maybe you could be interested in seeing it
+1Hi ! This builds looks cool, didn't have the time to test it yet so I'm gonna do it later, just being curious, where di you grab that blackout / redout effect ? Didn't see many out there, maybe you even made yours.
+1do it
@PlaneSpike Your answer don't make any sense, I don't understand how any builds could or should go to the front page if upvotes doesn't matter. They don't, don't get me wrong, but the front page as nothing to do with yes or no they're useless.
@JustAMiko for real haha, that was the good old time.
@TheUltimatePlaneLover I don't, I like mobile friendly builds or PEAs, if they are good of course, and I'm not known for making low part count builds. I'm making a mobile-friendly plane right now, kinda what we used to call PEAs at the time, and it ain't difficult, it's fun, challenging in some ways, but not more difficult or asking more effort than a high-end replica build.
@52REX It does make a lot of sense to me, we kinda share the same opinion on many points.
The only thing I'd like to say is about what a PEA really is, people do think that a efficient build should be a low-part count build, but it ain't the case at all, as I said earlier :
PEA stands for "part efficiency aircraft", just a quick remember that a part efficient plane isn't a "low part aircraft". A plane can be part efficient even if it has 1000 parts, as long as the builder who made it used ingenius ideas to save as much parts as possible but still reaching the quality and details he wanted to reach.
Part efficienty is being economical in the way you choose and use the parts.
Low part count is just a build with a "low" part count.
If your build is sitting at 50 parts, but you used 20 of them to build your landing gears, in ain't efficient, if your build has 1000 parts and you used 50 of them for the landing gears, it's efficient.
I do agree on the fact that people making only PEA won't ever progress, or at least they'll quickly reach a dead-end, but that's not really a bad thing, people build whatever they wanna build. Yeah they are missing an absolutely huge part of what this game has to offer, but ain't it called SimplePlanes after all ?
There's actually only two points that pisses me off a little :
1 : People hating on others because they get more upvotes thanks to putting PEA in the title of their builds, a lot of players are just way jealous and just care way too much about these useless internet points. I mean, if everybody know that the point system is broken for many reasons, why would they even bother think about it ? Just play for fun, it ain't no job.
2 : People saying they build PEAs, but actually just make low part / quality builds and put PEA in the title of their crafts. It's miss-leading people that actually look for real PEAs, and it make people think that this is PEAs. Being a beginner isn't a issue, but don't hide it by saying you make PEAs.
+3