@MrSilverWolf Yes I know that, so I said in an earlier reply "everyone needs to be reminded once in a while that they build for themselves, not anyone else" (or something like that).
Thanks for your reply anyway.
@SodiumChloride Sincerely speaking I think all I did wrong in Krokodilwachter is that I chose a wrong plane to work on. It's not just about popularity, the original design also makes it prone to "look" simple.
And still by observing other peoples builds I do think American planes have an edge on attracting eyeballs.
And I do have a good list of US planes to make. I'm just too lazy to make US version of gauges (because the zero on top instead of on bottom & uses imperial units rather than metric, which means I have to re-make /adjust all my instruments)
I intend on improving the following:
1. more details (false wing/fuselage segregation like that P1099B on frontpage), landing gear rods etc.
2. better advertisement. Perhaps I can have a release forum post instead of repeated teaser posts.
3. More simple, straight-to-the-point titles.
4. Improved livery (bigger area of paint jobs, continue to improve camouflage, etc)
5. Choose something more "sensational". I'm planning on making an anime plane with very "unique" livery next.
@SodiumChloride Read my last comment, and allow me to get this topic back to where it belongs:
TL:DR version:
Although I used that P-38 as a reference, what actually annoys me is that my Fw got same number of upvotes as some of my earliest builds.
At the time of this thread was created, that FW plane in question had the same upvote as this piece of crap, which was made by me when I only had one month experience.
That Reference P-38 has no interior, no paint job, but it does have better curves because of sandwich wings and calculus fuselage.
But there has to be other reason and that's where aircraft choice comes up. There seems to be a golden sweet spot between overly popular models and overly niche models, I just don't know where.
And actually, I went back to see my Ju 288G-2. The fuselage has only 6 sections compared to 5 of this Focke Wulf.
It seems that it boils down to not how many parts you used for fuselage, but what cross section it is designed with. If the design is entirely cylindrical it will look easier to make. Not to mention the unique intake design eliminated the possibility to make a smooth, cone-shaped nose.
And finally, let me remind each of you:
I wasn't even comparing that build with those part-inflated builds. I was comparing them with my own builds. The very same builds with the 2-section wings you said would cause me to be continuously ignored. They did not.
Let me remind you that at the time of this OP, this plane had the same upvote number from the Old P 1102Z I made one month or so into this game, which only featured 110 parts. THAT's what I was complaining about.
I don't mind not getting attention against those sandwich wings, I mind getting less attention than my old builds who doen't even have any custom wings whatsoever.
@SodiumChloride I consider my self discussing with you on equal terms. If you think you are a teacher, a superior, then this conversation cannot continue.
@SodiumChloride "Calculus building" = use many small parts to approximate a pretty curve.
For example that wingtip, it uses 9 fuselage parts. There are also other people making cross sections by cross sections for the fuselage and use tiny bits of fuselage parts to "fill the gap" between each cross sections. This will inflate fuselage part count by tens if not hundreds.
@SodiumChloride Well... fine. At least I probably will try "sandwich wings" one more time... I actually used that Wing Tutorial once and it didn't quite get the effect I want easily...
@CoolPeach Well then we will not reach conclusion. I actually think 2 section wings look better than 3 section wings except for the wingtip part (and that part has to be solved with calculus building which I haven't mastered). It approximates the wing curve better and use less parts. And mind you, it does not require less labor.
The only problem for 2 section wings are that the control surfaces will be too thick, which is sorta solved in this build (though it instead becomes too thin). Next time I'll try the wedge-shaped trailing edge from 3-section wings and see how it works.
@SodiumChloride Yeah... "calculus building".... that's probably the next big leap I have to make.
Right now my wingtips and cockpits are limited to the fact that I don't have the time and patience to "plank" the whole cockpit section into what would've been done by a subtracted part, and then make a no-glass canopy with only the frames. (I also dislike the no-glass cockpit exterior)
I just can't make that many small parts to approximate a curve ("calculus")...
For example, one of Thecatbaron's wingtips have 9 approximated parts.
I understand that this is the difference between me and those Platinum builders but I just can't master that yet...
And that means I need to make my cockpit camera submerged into everything I don't want to be seen from the inside (that's why the canopy glass has to be a single part, or the pilot's vision will be blocked by the front section, which means I can't make hard-silhouette cockpits like Fw 190 or Me 262)
@CoolPeach 2-section wings usually takes:
1 wing base
2-3 trailing edge
2 actuator for control surfaces
1 wingtip
3-section wings usually takes 20- 50 visible parts...
I've downloaded a Me P-1102 once and oh my god that wing was like a sandwich. It has at least 3 layers of fuselage parts for each section, each edge.
Not to mention that P-51D. you can't destroy its wings without cannon part + explosive rounds because each part was like 5cmx5cm...
As for landing gears I'll figure out a way.
In my earlier builds I learned not to have too many parts from fuselage to wheel because the physics will start to act strange (wheel will bounce on the ground).
I also learned not to use resizable wheel for turning wheel because it will turn poorly on the ground (side slip, 100% sideway traction doesn't help, and too high traction will also screw up the physics)
I will, however, make the LGs more detailed next time, at least by adding a few more cosmetic parts. I know a landing gear rod that goes all the way looks dumb.
@SodiumChloride I just don't want to feel like I'm "bribing" by upvoting others with an expectation that they will do the same to me. Especially after reading that in the official rules.
But, ok ,fine, I'll upvote more, and try to not think of it that way.
@SodiumChloride One known issue about my flight model is that some of my builds (especially my earlier SU1946 series) are actually too good in terms of performance. They are so good that its almost beyond human ability to properly control them.
This includes the fact that nearly all my earlier planes are not mobile friendly. I've been complained twice about not adding trims, and I plan to improve that in future builds ( that Ju288 can't have trim because trim input is occupied by the turret, this Focke-Wulf can't have trim because its horizontal stablizer is limited by the rods that goes all the way into the main wing, but I will handle that in my next build.
@CoolPeach "Proper cockpit" you mean the exterior or interior? The actual blueprint didn't have any other canopy frames; and if you want cockpit interior better then mine, you're looking at something like that 3500-part Fw 190 or that A6M8 SodiumCloride is making (I heard it has 4000 parts with just half the cockpit complete?)
@CoolPeach In the very beginning of the build I tried to make the intake section thicker but it looked even more stupid... I know the blueprint looks a bit like the cowling from air-cooled engines but It's hard to make one in SP's system.
As for the wingtip, that's the price I have to pay for 2-section wing building. I don't like the traditional 3 section wing building, it's inflating part counts and the upper surface is flat.
@SodiumChloride I do upvote others once in a while.
And I thought "if you upvote me I upvote you", either explicitly or implicitly, is prohibited by official rules.
@CoolPeach The actual design was not smooth (check the original drawing), and the cockpit is "noobish" because I need to make an interior without inflating part counts.
@SodiumChloride I know the wing tutorial. I chose to use 2 section custom wings instead of the normal 3 section for a reason, I mentioned that earlier.
I'm still hesitating about using cannon part as standard equipment (right now only 30mm and above are represented with cannons). And adjusting gun damage won't work, I'm talking about balancing with WWII challenge i.e. vanilla planes.
My previous plane, the Ju-288G-2, can already survive some direct hits from WWII Destroyer flak ("multiple parts damaged" but not instantly killed), more structural parts will really make it indestructable.
If people really love invincible planes my SU1946 series (the later builds with more details) should be more popular.
And Propeller breaks at overspeeding is because it's MANUAL PITCH. (Use VTOL to control propeller pitch). I actually got praised for retaining manual pitch in my most popular build (the H11K Soku), being said it looks like rushed really confuses me.
I am still struggling with a REAL constant-speed propeller (Ju-288 uses in-game engine governer but it got feedback that full power is at 70% is counter-intuitive), but without a really good FT input for automated propeller pitch (engine RPM has FOUR variables, altitude, speed, throttle and pitch), right now I can only represent all constant-speed propellers as variable pitch (i.e. manual pitch) propellers.
And why don't I use automatic pitch? because all my propeller planes since 1.9 all features engine idling. And if you use automatic pitch it will have too much thrust and too low propeller RPM when you're on the ground.
With these discussion with you I think I see the problem.
I emphasize more an mechanical realism than cosmetic realism, and that takes its tolls on first impressions.
Perhaps I need to choose between a planemaking philosophy that I don't like and being unpopular...
@DuckMint Well, yes.... at the end of the day everyone needs to be reminded that people create planes for themselves, not for points....
But it still frustrates me to see the builds you worked so hard on were not even seen by people, let alone appreciated.
@SodiumChloride Yes I knew long titles are going to be a problem, but this particular plane is a bit..... can't do.
It has to contain two complete names (because I don't think putting a Drawing Number as a name is a good idea, and the feedback I got from other players is that it has to include the original name). I'll try making a plane with an actual name next time.
@SodiumChloride Last time I made a series of teasers, and I tag people from the last teaser in the new one, and then I was asked this question:
"Why are you tagging people in teasers?"
I feel like he was questioning me about over-using teasers to farm forum post upvotes. That's why I reduced numbers of teasers this time.
I don't understand how that thumbnail highlights my plane's problem. I tried to put the most features on it: ordnance, livery, landing gear paint job (that red 8 on LG cover)...
and I tried the "3-section wing" before ,not gonna try it again. It's just boosting part counts, the wing surfaces are flat. I'd rather sacrifice the detail and make it actually look like a wing.
I know my fuselage only have 5 sections structurally, but that's as far as I can go. I'm not going to make a 10 or even 20-section fuselage and cause it to be invincible. I make planes that can be played, can be fought and can be defeated. There was a very detailed P-51D on this site and it becomes virtually invincible to in-game guns because there are hundreds of parts in one wing and you need to destroy a lot of them to actually shoot down the plane.
Though in my future builds I'll start making cross-sections (i.e. rings in different color that symbolizes the boarder of each section, like that Me P.1099B), it should make it look better without affecting the damage model.
@BeryllCorp Use clamp.
clamp01(sum(Pitch)) etc.... Unfortunately if you constantly input in one direction you will need a while to get it back into the 0 to 1 range.
@SodiumChloride What else, other than non-mobile friendly (will do in later builds), not being thousand-plus parts and not being popular models?
Don't tell me unrealistic flight model.
If I make a WWII plane I make sure it can at least finish one of the two WWII challenges, and unfortunately the WWII dogfight pits you against two "P-51 Mustang"s that weighs about half the real deal and turn around at 15-20 Gs... My planes have to cope with that.
@SodiumChloride You're making, what, 3K to 4K parts planes, and.... you get 100-150 upvotes at most, yeah I can see this is also not very cost-effective...
@Type2volkswagen I usually keep manual pitch control for faster power response AND to enable idle propeller turning.
As for trim... I tried in the making, but the cosmetic control surface input will have to be adjusted, or the actual control surface will protrude.
For later aircrafts I will use the whole tailplane to trim, but this aircraft in particular cannot do this, because its horizontal stablizer is fixed to the main wing with those two "rods".
Uh perhaps you should try to have a longer period next time you try to host a challenge... Good planes take time to build, one month is usually more appropriate than five days.
Still, it was three bloody thousand characters of programming... I probably spent longer in programming that AFN2 than some of those popular builds spend in the whole plane's building progress.
@Minecraftpoweer Yeah perhaps I should've uploaded it this morning ( which will be Saturday night in US timezone) instead of last night (which I think was oh dark 30 in US)
Check my latest build. It has German counterpart of WEP : MW 50.
Although it works a bit differently from WEP: Instead of powering up at the cost of temperature/ engine life, it consumes MW50 stored in a different tank.
Planes are very versatile, perhaps different campaigns for different planes would be a good idea. We can have a SAR campaign, combat campaign, transport campaign... etc.
Ah this is officially (?) called the "Fw Fighter w/ BMW 802"
The picture you posted (with contra-rotating propellers) is a variant with BMW 8011 engine.
I was going to make this myself....
Yeah when the cannon part was first introduced it is VERY easy to blow yourself up, so in the end they made it that way.
Also, it is possible to make your cannon shell impact another plane without blowing yourself up. Just turn off collision model for every OTHER part at and in front of the cannon.
you need a connection editor, try "overload" mod (it should now be built-in with version 1.9)
and actually you can't really reuse an actual missile. You basically have to make a small aircraft with its own engine (or use rocket with very long burn timer) and then connect it to your plane with a detacher.
@MrSilverWolf Yes I know that, so I said in an earlier reply "everyone needs to be reminded once in a while that they build for themselves, not anyone else" (or something like that).
+2Thanks for your reply anyway.
@SodiumChloride Sincerely speaking I think all I did wrong in Krokodilwachter is that I chose a wrong plane to work on. It's not just about popularity, the original design also makes it prone to "look" simple.
And still by observing other peoples builds I do think American planes have an edge on attracting eyeballs.
And I do have a good list of US planes to make. I'm just too lazy to make US version of gauges (because the zero on top instead of on bottom & uses imperial units rather than metric, which means I have to re-make /adjust all my instruments)
I intend on improving the following:
1. more details (false wing/fuselage segregation like that P1099B on frontpage), landing gear rods etc.
2. better advertisement. Perhaps I can have a release forum post instead of repeated teaser posts.
3. More simple, straight-to-the-point titles.
4. Improved livery (bigger area of paint jobs, continue to improve camouflage, etc)
5. Choose something more "sensational". I'm planning on making an anime plane with very "unique" livery next.
@SodiumChloride Read my last comment, and allow me to get this topic back to where it belongs:
TL:DR version:
Although I used that P-38 as a reference, what actually annoys me is that my Fw got same number of upvotes as some of my earliest builds.
At the time of this thread was created, that FW plane in question had the same upvote as this piece of crap, which was made by me when I only had one month experience.
That Reference P-38 has no interior, no paint job, but it does have better curves because of sandwich wings and calculus fuselage.
But there has to be other reason and that's where aircraft choice comes up. There seems to be a golden sweet spot between overly popular models and overly niche models, I just don't know where.
And actually, I went back to see my Ju 288G-2. The fuselage has only 6 sections compared to 5 of this Focke Wulf.
It seems that it boils down to not how many parts you used for fuselage, but what cross section it is designed with. If the design is entirely cylindrical it will look easier to make. Not to mention the unique intake design eliminated the possibility to make a smooth, cone-shaped nose.
And finally, let me remind each of you:
I wasn't even comparing that build with those part-inflated builds. I was comparing them with my own builds. The very same builds with the 2-section wings you said would cause me to be continuously ignored. They did not.
Let me remind you that at the time of this OP, this plane had the same upvote number from the Old P 1102Z I made one month or so into this game, which only featured 110 parts. THAT's what I was complaining about.
I don't mind not getting attention against those sandwich wings, I mind getting less attention than my old builds who doen't even have any custom wings whatsoever.
@SodiumChloride I consider my self discussing with you on equal terms. If you think you are a teacher, a superior, then this conversation cannot continue.
@SodiumChloride "Calculus building" = use many small parts to approximate a pretty curve.
For example that wingtip, it uses 9 fuselage parts. There are also other people making cross sections by cross sections for the fuselage and use tiny bits of fuselage parts to "fill the gap" between each cross sections. This will inflate fuselage part count by tens if not hundreds.
@SodiumChloride Well... fine. At least I probably will try "sandwich wings" one more time... I actually used that Wing Tutorial once and it didn't quite get the effect I want easily...
@CoolPeach Well then we will not reach conclusion. I actually think 2 section wings look better than 3 section wings except for the wingtip part (and that part has to be solved with calculus building which I haven't mastered). It approximates the wing curve better and use less parts. And mind you, it does not require less labor.
The only problem for 2 section wings are that the control surfaces will be too thick, which is sorta solved in this build (though it instead becomes too thin). Next time I'll try the wedge-shaped trailing edge from 3-section wings and see how it works.
@SodiumChloride Yeah... "calculus building".... that's probably the next big leap I have to make.
Right now my wingtips and cockpits are limited to the fact that I don't have the time and patience to "plank" the whole cockpit section into what would've been done by a subtracted part, and then make a no-glass canopy with only the frames. (I also dislike the no-glass cockpit exterior)
I just can't make that many small parts to approximate a curve ("calculus")...
For example, one of Thecatbaron's wingtips have 9 approximated parts.
I understand that this is the difference between me and those Platinum builders but I just can't master that yet...
And that means I need to make my cockpit camera submerged into everything I don't want to be seen from the inside (that's why the canopy glass has to be a single part, or the pilot's vision will be blocked by the front section, which means I can't make hard-silhouette cockpits like Fw 190 or Me 262)
@CoolPeach 2-section wings usually takes:
1 wing base
2-3 trailing edge
2 actuator for control surfaces
1 wingtip
3-section wings usually takes 20- 50 visible parts...
I've downloaded a Me P-1102 once and oh my god that wing was like a sandwich. It has at least 3 layers of fuselage parts for each section, each edge.
Not to mention that P-51D. you can't destroy its wings without cannon part + explosive rounds because each part was like 5cmx5cm...
As for landing gears I'll figure out a way.
In my earlier builds I learned not to have too many parts from fuselage to wheel because the physics will start to act strange (wheel will bounce on the ground).
I also learned not to use resizable wheel for turning wheel because it will turn poorly on the ground (side slip, 100% sideway traction doesn't help, and too high traction will also screw up the physics)
I will, however, make the LGs more detailed next time, at least by adding a few more cosmetic parts. I know a landing gear rod that goes all the way looks dumb.
@SodiumChloride I just don't want to feel like I'm "bribing" by upvoting others with an expectation that they will do the same to me. Especially after reading that in the official rules.
But, ok ,fine, I'll upvote more, and try to not think of it that way.
@SodiumChloride One known issue about my flight model is that some of my builds (especially my earlier SU1946 series) are actually too good in terms of performance. They are so good that its almost beyond human ability to properly control them.
This includes the fact that nearly all my earlier planes are not mobile friendly. I've been complained twice about not adding trims, and I plan to improve that in future builds ( that Ju288 can't have trim because trim input is occupied by the turret, this Focke-Wulf can't have trim because its horizontal stablizer is limited by the rods that goes all the way into the main wing, but I will handle that in my next build.
@CoolPeach "Proper cockpit" you mean the exterior or interior? The actual blueprint didn't have any other canopy frames; and if you want cockpit interior better then mine, you're looking at something like that 3500-part Fw 190 or that A6M8 SodiumCloride is making (I heard it has 4000 parts with just half the cockpit complete?)
@CoolPeach In the very beginning of the build I tried to make the intake section thicker but it looked even more stupid... I know the blueprint looks a bit like the cowling from air-cooled engines but It's hard to make one in SP's system.
As for the wingtip, that's the price I have to pay for 2-section wing building. I don't like the traditional 3 section wing building, it's inflating part counts and the upper surface is flat.
@SodiumChloride I do upvote others once in a while.
And I thought "if you upvote me I upvote you", either explicitly or implicitly, is prohibited by official rules.
@CoolPeach The actual design was not smooth (check the original drawing), and the cockpit is "noobish" because I need to make an interior without inflating part counts.
@SodiumChloride I know the wing tutorial. I chose to use 2 section custom wings instead of the normal 3 section for a reason, I mentioned that earlier.
I'm still hesitating about using cannon part as standard equipment (right now only 30mm and above are represented with cannons). And adjusting gun damage won't work, I'm talking about balancing with WWII challenge i.e. vanilla planes.
My previous plane, the Ju-288G-2, can already survive some direct hits from WWII Destroyer flak ("multiple parts damaged" but not instantly killed), more structural parts will really make it indestructable.
If people really love invincible planes my SU1946 series (the later builds with more details) should be more popular.
And Propeller breaks at overspeeding is because it's MANUAL PITCH. (Use VTOL to control propeller pitch). I actually got praised for retaining manual pitch in my most popular build (the H11K Soku), being said it looks like rushed really confuses me.
I am still struggling with a REAL constant-speed propeller (Ju-288 uses in-game engine governer but it got feedback that full power is at 70% is counter-intuitive), but without a really good FT input for automated propeller pitch (engine RPM has FOUR variables, altitude, speed, throttle and pitch), right now I can only represent all constant-speed propellers as variable pitch (i.e. manual pitch) propellers.
And why don't I use automatic pitch? because all my propeller planes since 1.9 all features engine idling. And if you use automatic pitch it will have too much thrust and too low propeller RPM when you're on the ground.
With these discussion with you I think I see the problem.
I emphasize more an mechanical realism than cosmetic realism, and that takes its tolls on first impressions.
Perhaps I need to choose between a planemaking philosophy that I don't like and being unpopular...
@DuckMint Well, yes.... at the end of the day everyone needs to be reminded that people create planes for themselves, not for points....
But it still frustrates me to see the builds you worked so hard on were not even seen by people, let alone appreciated.
@SodiumChloride Yeah, I'll make it shorter next time. Perhaps the real name can be inside the description
@ThePilotDude I don't get it... a poor simple build with that two-tone livery, JV44 markings and all?
@SodiumChloride Yes I knew long titles are going to be a problem, but this particular plane is a bit..... can't do.
It has to contain two complete names (because I don't think putting a Drawing Number as a name is a good idea, and the feedback I got from other players is that it has to include the original name). I'll try making a plane with an actual name next time.
@SodiumChloride Last time I made a series of teasers, and I tag people from the last teaser in the new one, and then I was asked this question:
"Why are you tagging people in teasers?"
I feel like he was questioning me about over-using teasers to farm forum post upvotes. That's why I reduced numbers of teasers this time.
I don't understand how that thumbnail highlights my plane's problem. I tried to put the most features on it: ordnance, livery, landing gear paint job (that red 8 on LG cover)...
and I tried the "3-section wing" before ,not gonna try it again. It's just boosting part counts, the wing surfaces are flat. I'd rather sacrifice the detail and make it actually look like a wing.
I know my fuselage only have 5 sections structurally, but that's as far as I can go. I'm not going to make a 10 or even 20-section fuselage and cause it to be invincible. I make planes that can be played, can be fought and can be defeated. There was a very detailed P-51D on this site and it becomes virtually invincible to in-game guns because there are hundreds of parts in one wing and you need to destroy a lot of them to actually shoot down the plane.
Though in my future builds I'll start making cross-sections (i.e. rings in different color that symbolizes the boarder of each section, like that Me P.1099B), it should make it look better without affecting the damage model.
@BeryllCorp Use clamp.
+3clamp01(sum(Pitch)) etc.... Unfortunately if you constantly input in one direction you will need a while to get it back into the 0 to 1 range.
@SodiumChloride What else, other than non-mobile friendly (will do in later builds), not being thousand-plus parts and not being popular models?
Don't tell me unrealistic flight model.
If I make a WWII plane I make sure it can at least finish one of the two WWII challenges, and unfortunately the WWII dogfight pits you against two "P-51 Mustang"s that weighs about half the real deal and turn around at 15-20 Gs... My planes have to cope with that.
@SodiumChloride You're making, what, 3K to 4K parts planes, and.... you get 100-150 upvotes at most, yeah I can see this is also not very cost-effective...
@Type2volkswagen I usually keep manual pitch control for faster power response AND to enable idle propeller turning.
As for trim... I tried in the making, but the cosmetic control surface input will have to be adjusted, or the actual control surface will protrude.
For later aircrafts I will use the whole tailplane to trim, but this aircraft in particular cannot do this, because its horizontal stablizer is fixed to the main wing with those two "rods".
@jamesPLANESii I checked your thumbnails and I think we simply have different aesthetics.
@Jerrrrrrrrry Well at least it's a good fax machine.
@Jerrrrrrrrry Yeah back in my SU1946 days, I made a EBL (basically jeep) that I finished in one day, and it got more ups then other weeklong builds.
@jamesPLANESii I read that and I definitely did NOT use ortho view....
The thing is somehow no-one even see my thumbnail (probably due to timezone)
@Randomdoggo Yeah I live in nearby timezones from you (I'm UTC+8), so sometimes I have to upload at early morning....
Uh perhaps you should try to have a longer period next time you try to host a challenge... Good planes take time to build, one month is usually more appropriate than five days.
Still, it was three bloody thousand characters of programming... I probably spent longer in programming that AFN2 than some of those popular builds spend in the whole plane's building progress.
+1@Minecraftpoweer Yeah perhaps I should've uploaded it this morning ( which will be Saturday night in US timezone) instead of last night (which I think was oh dark 30 in US)
@XxMegamonsterxX Yeah that happened when I was posting my earliest planes.
Plus, most of your planes are <100 parts.
This is like the 5th time someone asked this.... you can literally just type "funky trees" in the aircraft search and find plenty of answers.
+1Check my latest build. It has German counterpart of WEP : MW 50.
Although it works a bit differently from WEP: Instead of powering up at the cost of temperature/ engine life, it consumes MW50 stored in a different tank.
@asteroidbook345
@TheSolarFlare
@USSR
@Uberdashie
@Evenstsrike333
@AircraftoftheRedStar
pretty sure the 410 does NOT have an internal bomb bay...
Planes are very versatile, perhaps different campaigns for different planes would be a good idea. We can have a SAR campaign, combat campaign, transport campaign... etc.
+4@SovietBun Nah it's fine, I still have plenty of Luft '46 stuff to make.
+1450 hp really isn't much for a V-12.... WWII V-12 aircraft engines are usually 1000-2000 hp
Of course, that's because they have about 30 liters of displacement. But you also need to take technology into account.
Ah this is officially (?) called the "Fw Fighter w/ BMW 802"
+1The picture you posted (with contra-rotating propellers) is a variant with BMW 8011 engine.
I was going to make this myself....
Does that include self-successors? (i.e. successor plane and predecessor plane from the same person)
+2Yeah when the cannon part was first introduced it is VERY easy to blow yourself up, so in the end they made it that way.
Also, it is possible to make your cannon shell impact another plane without blowing yourself up. Just turn off collision model for every OTHER part at and in front of the cannon.
It's actually easier than the original gun.
Holy hell that cockpit....
@rexzion He means he can't make the engine nozzle (which open/close with engine input) to change with the engine input itself.
For example, if you changed the engine input to VTOL, supposedly the nozzle should change according to VTOL, but it still changes with throttle.
you need a connection editor, try "overload" mod (it should now be built-in with version 1.9)
and actually you can't really reuse an actual missile. You basically have to make a small aircraft with its own engine (or use rocket with very long burn timer) and then connect it to your plane with a detacher.
@Zoomzoom999 I think he means he couldn't re-download or something.
Like, being erased from Steam/google/apple account or the like.