Awesome. I started playing SP around the time that I learned basic physics/mechanics, and it was really cool to see concepts that I learned in class appear in my hobby!
@ArcturusAerospace Chances are that that comes from the physical characteristics of the aircraft itself. This aircraft, for example, has an unnaturally low mass, which gives it a high acceleration.
When building fictional, try your best to create something stand-out and unique. Give it innovative form/function, and make it beautiful in the process!
Mouse makes things a lot easier, and more processing power allows you to build more complex things without too much lag. Let’s not make any hasty generalizations though! Some of the best builds that I have seen were done on Android. Ephwurd’s older stuff comes to mind...
Odd. I think I have experienced a problem like this before. The mirrored parts (the mirrored duplicates) are probably not attached in a way that the SP designer prefers. Otherwise, I am not sure what is going on.
@ThomasRoderick Intercipias PRIME was used in the into. It does borrow on the Mara style, yes, but that design choice comes from the complete lack of reliability from Intercipias when it is scaled up for AA combat. Plus, Intercipias PRIME combines elements of both designs, I suppose - bullet scaling was used to a small extent in Intercipias PRIME.
@ThomasRoderick Some structures from Orbis were used in this one, which I actually quite like. Good usage of some good parts to make something original!
@ThomasRoderick The angled containers were an old design choice that I made when the ship was much smaller. Made sense for the configuration at the time. As for when they are removed, there is a large beam that connects the front and back sections of the spacecraft.
Well, I build to simply pass the time. I enjoy bringing an idea to life, and find SP to be a relaxing way to do that. Your builds are fine, especially that glider. It looks good! When my profile was two months old, I was uploading builds that looked like this. I think that your style is a bit more refined than mine was at that time. Also, if you haven't already tried it, try building a fictional plane. You might enjoy it!
@ThomasRoderick I predicted that you would ask something along those lines. I modeled the aircraft after a few WWII bombers, so it won't be necessarily up to modern standards.
@SledDriver I wasn't necessarily judging by function, but rather aesthetics. However, I suppose judging aesthetics goes into the realm of subjective opinion, which isn't concrete, so I'll stop. Anyway, I do completely agree with your opinions regarding fictional aircraft (style) over replicas. I'll add that my comment regarding other people's opinions doesn't make sense in the context of this conversation, but made sense in the context of the original forum post, as the topic was related to the opinions of others.
@QXY So, in theory, impulse engines would still be viable after 1.7. However, wierd things happen at high altitude with these, making them explode without any logical reason.
@TTL Thanks! Every once in a while I’ll look back at my old builds too, just to see how they hold up. I haven’t designed anything in production quite yet, but I have coded up some computational design tools that will help an old customer of mine. I’m gonna stay vague though, since my field is pretty tightly knit, and I don’t wanna say anything too personally identifiable. Assembly/maintenance is quite interesting too — it is work that I would be absolutely awful at, so I gotta respect it
About 35, if I remember right. I could strap more on the plane, but that seems a little too extra.
+2The contrasting colors are quite nice.
+2Awesome. I started playing SP around the time that I learned basic physics/mechanics, and it was really cool to see concepts that I learned in class appear in my hobby!
+2@ThomasRoderick The Nexus designer’s island wasn’t included in the map. As for the map, I might, depending on how much time I have.
+2@ArcturusAerospace Chances are that that comes from the physical characteristics of the aircraft itself. This aircraft, for example, has an unnaturally low mass, which gives it a high acceleration.
+2When building fictional, try your best to create something stand-out and unique. Give it innovative form/function, and make it beautiful in the process!
+2Beautiful. This need a little more attention. Perhaps a spotlight will help with that.
+2@Ccdc The easiest way is to downlod the overload mod. It is available in the mods section
+2Mouse makes things a lot easier, and more processing power allows you to build more complex things without too much lag. Let’s not make any hasty generalizations though! Some of the best builds that I have seen were done on Android. Ephwurd’s older stuff comes to mind...
+2Odd. I think I have experienced a problem like this before. The mirrored parts (the mirrored duplicates) are probably not attached in a way that the SP designer prefers. Otherwise, I am not sure what is going on.
+2@DemonSniper8 I might, but first, I really want to explore the possibilities of the magnet and winch part!
+2Excellent work! I do think that the proportions of the nose look awkward at certain angles though.
+2hm. Yeah - I guess it can be annoying to have a hard-to-pronounce username.
+2I personally prefer fictional - like @Treadmill103 said, it allows you to unleash your creativity to produce an original design.
+2@ThomasRoderick Intercipias PRIME was used in the into. It does borrow on the Mara style, yes, but that design choice comes from the complete lack of reliability from Intercipias when it is scaled up for AA combat. Plus, Intercipias PRIME combines elements of both designs, I suppose - bullet scaling was used to a small extent in Intercipias PRIME.
+2Some people prefer replicas, but most of the SP community likes fictional designs, too! I hope that my profile is sufficient evidence for that.
+2This actually looks pretty fun! I'll try it sometime.
+2I'm busy with school, but I still comment on some things
+2@ThomasRoderick That's true. I believe that the Ronin had some Orbis parts on it, which I thought was pretty cool.
+2@ThomasRoderick Some structures from Orbis were used in this one, which I actually quite like. Good usage of some good parts to make something original!
+2Looks great! I like the color scheme.
+2Looks almost like LA to me, but not enough smog.
+2Older ford exploders > newer soccer mom SUVs. Good build though. Nice and part efficient.
+2@DuckMintnewprofile The meshes that I use now only have 10 parts max, so it won't be that bad!
+2Most of my top comments require too much context for this type of thing. Feel free to check anyway though!
+2Very cool design. Interesting hybrid-looking ship.
+2Interesting design. Looks very functional!
+2Welcome back! Good to see that a superb creator has posted again.
+2Great build! Its always easy to admire what you upload.
+2I might enter this one. If I do, my entry will be... dirty.
+2If your COM and COL are correctly placed, and you still have stability issues, try adding more lift.
+2If no one leaves a useful answer, you can do a litttle math to find out yourself. Try setting up some proportions!
+2@ThomasRoderick The angled containers were an old design choice that I made when the ship was much smaller. Made sense for the configuration at the time. As for when they are removed, there is a large beam that connects the front and back sections of the spacecraft.
+2@DemonSniper8 Thank you! I will definitely tag you in future uploads.
+2@BaconRoll @CruzerBlade Thank you! This one was difficult for me, so I am glad that you like it!
+2I like the strike pack functionality. Very clever. As a side note, I think your answer to Baldeagle086's question might have confused them.
+2Well, I build to simply pass the time. I enjoy bringing an idea to life, and find SP to be a relaxing way to do that. Your builds are fine, especially that glider. It looks good! When my profile was two months old, I was uploading builds that looked like this. I think that your style is a bit more refined than mine was at that time. Also, if you haven't already tried it, try building a fictional plane. You might enjoy it!
+2@ThomasRoderick I predicted that you would ask something along those lines. I modeled the aircraft after a few WWII bombers, so it won't be necessarily up to modern standards.
+2@RedstoneAeroAviation The part count is 231, so most devices should be able to handle it.
+2@CenturiVonKikie Yes. Thanks!
+2Fundamentals come before advanced/intermediate techniques. However, a tutorial on fuselage blocks would be nice.
+2Congrats! Its nice seeing a teacher here.
+2This is awesome. Good job on the shape and the flight system!
+2Mechanical creations like this always stun me. The intricacy is better than I can do. Good job!
+2@ThomasRoderick Yep. That's where I got that one from. I think I need to update this beam Cannon though, to make it more effective.
+2@SledDriver I wasn't necessarily judging by function, but rather aesthetics. However, I suppose judging aesthetics goes into the realm of subjective opinion, which isn't concrete, so I'll stop. Anyway, I do completely agree with your opinions regarding fictional aircraft (style) over replicas. I'll add that my comment regarding other people's opinions doesn't make sense in the context of this conversation, but made sense in the context of the original forum post, as the topic was related to the opinions of others.
+2@ProKillaV12 I wouldn't call 9 days fast, but to answer your question, SP is one of the only video games I play.
+2@RandomDude I actually made one! However, parachute armor doesn't work if you have updated SP to 1.7. Thankfully, armor is much easier to make now.
+2@QXY So, in theory, impulse engines would still be viable after 1.7. However, wierd things happen at high altitude with these, making them explode without any logical reason.
+2@TTL Thanks! Every once in a while I’ll look back at my old builds too, just to see how they hold up. I haven’t designed anything in production quite yet, but I have coded up some computational design tools that will help an old customer of mine. I’m gonna stay vague though, since my field is pretty tightly knit, and I don’t wanna say anything too personally identifiable. Assembly/maintenance is quite interesting too — it is work that I would be absolutely awful at, so I gotta respect it
+1