@Notnoob1000 That's why I need to give this plane a parallel universe setting.
In the parallel world there is a different set of physics (which is basically SP physics).
" that only need a gyro to function and take 10 minutes to make"
tell that to Qingyuzhou's MJ series.
A good humanoid/robot would more likely take 10 HOURS to make.
F-4E has about 12000 Liter capacity with drop tank.
It has a 680 km combat radius.
So that's about 40 minutes cruise x 2 journeys plus about 30 minutes of combat.
about less than two hours in total.
Anyway it's definitely far more fuel efficient than SP.
@BoganBoganTheMan Close enough.
The BMW 803, being a coupled engine (consists of two BMW 801s), has very poor power-to-weight ratio. Actually nearly the whole fuselage from the round intake and behind is occupied by the engine and transmission.
@asteroidbook345 Yeah it did exist.
For once I doubted about its intake efficiency, but then I thought about Shinden... (Japanese pusher fighter with also small intake)
@asteroidbook345 both are not official.
what you see are models people made from other kits.
The nose intake is similar to the P.0310, and it has a different name (something like "version II" or stuff). It is practically another craft.
the boom intake version uses Me 262 wing set for the part beyond the booms, and is actually far more heavily armed (I count 8 barrels, and it has X-4 missiles) than my data, it all makes it feel far more like fiction.
This is the version I'm making. It is the version that Luft '46 actually has a blueprint-ish picture on.
Were it not for that I'd probably make the boom intake version. Far better firepower and easier shape.
@WarHawk95 Is the community THAT against anime-ish stuff?
I have a project to repaint a M.C. 72 into This (click the aircraft picture on top right).
This is an armed version of the original M.C. 72, with synchronized MG and for some reason two Mk46 torpedoes.
My next aircraft will also more-or-less be anime-ish, featuring IRL design with original markings and background settings.
Hmm... there was an air force hero in my country who passed away recently. Today was his funeral.
He downed two MiG-17s and damaged another two alone in his F-84 during the air combat over Matsu in 21 July 1956.
Just don't let him have the multiplayer mod and don't have a forum account (I think the forum rule requires you to be 13 or 15 to have an account, so your 9 yo child can't have one anyway)
@ThePilotDude I know it's allowed in the rules, but I still feel somewhat weird about using them...
Plus it's just part of the problem. A lot of stuff IRL doesn't really make sense in SP, like... G-meter that max out at 15Gs (SP can easily reach 30, 40, 50 Gs), no oxygen problem, WEP/ MW50 doesn't necessarily work (propeller efficiency problem), far higher lift/drag ratio.....
Those are the primary reasons why I thought about Isekai-ing stuff.
@asteroidbook345 It was my first plane with fuselage number painted on the landing gear door... that's why I chose a gear down picture... perhaps that wasn't wise.
@asteroidbook345 The problem is more likely "clickbaitness" i.e. how much it lures people to even click it.
Detail belongs to AFTER the click, as even the largest details cannot be observed from thumbnail.
Which is why I originally asked about an alternative name for this aircraft because Drawing Number attracts no one.
But it seems that the American/fame bias in the SP community is stronger than my estimation... perhaps I need to make more "known" models, that's why there was this thread.
@Gnome360 You should be able to search airplanes and input "funky trees" (for some reason that also searches forum articles)
I don't want to sound whiny but seriously, there were at least three entirely identical questions in the last week.
@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.
@UnlistedPlanes Yes and you don't have to keep this topic going on, knowing that it is unpleasant.
@UnlistedPlanes Uhh, yeah, that's a rather unpleasant name we had to use in international affairs.
How about from a country that wants to join ASEAN but can't?
I'm from Taiwan, just north of you guys.
@Notnoob1000 That's why I need to give this plane a parallel universe setting.
In the parallel world there is a different set of physics (which is basically SP physics).
" that only need a gyro to function and take 10 minutes to make"
tell that to Qingyuzhou's MJ series.
A good humanoid/robot would more likely take 10 HOURS to make.
I get a feeling that builds with the same quality are getting less upvotes these days...
@Ultra0
@AircraftoftheRedStar
@Starbound
@asteroidbook345
@asteroidbook345 uhhh ok I'll try....
@asteroidbook345 "plug it to the old designersuite"?
I do have the old designer suite mod, but what exactly am I supposed to do?
@Darkhound No I'm talking about using them as the thumbnail of an uploaded plane.
Like This one
F-4E has about 12000 Liter capacity with drop tank.
It has a 680 km combat radius.
So that's about 40 minutes cruise x 2 journeys plus about 30 minutes of combat.
about less than two hours in total.
Anyway it's definitely far more fuel efficient than SP.
@BoganBoganTheMan Close enough.
The BMW 803, being a coupled engine (consists of two BMW 801s), has very poor power-to-weight ratio. Actually nearly the whole fuselage from the round intake and behind is occupied by the engine and transmission.
@jamesPLANESii colors are not final and I may decide to change the base green color to a lighter one later on...
@MRMDAWURM P-51 Mustang (that weighs only 2.7 tons)
and do we have quadcopter?
Also, I think there is one called twin prop or something.
@TheKraken3 Well I tried yellow. It works better as part of a camouflage.
I might try brown next.
@WingworksDesignCo Please refer to the later 1.9.203 version
@Zoowarp Then your laptop probably dictates it's Fn + something = F12. It does exist for laptops as they need to reduce the number of physical keys.
One more note, if it is decided to go with the camo, there will be more camo element added before the release. Especially on the tail.
Interesting, because, the fin flash is ROCAF (Nationalist China Air Force)...
Level 5: Wunderwaffe pilot (put a late war German plane with radical design)
@asteroidbook345 Plus, Shinden is air cooled, BMW 803 is liquid cooled.
Which means Shinden's MK9D will require better air flow than 803.
@asteroidbook345 Yeah it did exist.
For once I doubted about its intake efficiency, but then I thought about Shinden... (Japanese pusher fighter with also small intake)
@asteroidbook345 both are not official.
what you see are models people made from other kits.
The nose intake is similar to the P.0310, and it has a different name (something like "version II" or stuff). It is practically another craft.
the boom intake version uses Me 262 wing set for the part beyond the booms, and is actually far more heavily armed (I count 8 barrels, and it has X-4 missiles) than my data, it all makes it feel far more like fiction.
This is the version I'm making. It is the version that Luft '46 actually has a blueprint-ish picture on.
Were it not for that I'd probably make the boom intake version. Far better firepower and easier shape.
Please create one for stationary structures next.
BTW what anime is this?
@WarHawk95 Is the community THAT against anime-ish stuff?
I have a project to repaint a M.C. 72 into This (click the aircraft picture on top right).
This is an armed version of the original M.C. 72, with synchronized MG and for some reason two Mk46 torpedoes.
My next aircraft will also more-or-less be anime-ish, featuring IRL design with original markings and background settings.
Hmm... there was an air force hero in my country who passed away recently. Today was his funeral.
He downed two MiG-17s and damaged another two alone in his F-84 during the air combat over Matsu in 21 July 1956.
Just don't let him have the multiplayer mod and don't have a forum account (I think the forum rule requires you to be 13 or 15 to have an account, so your 9 yo child can't have one anyway)
Aside from that... yeah you should be fine.
@ArcturusAerospace Oh, if that's the only reason...
My Isekai'd planes won't be anime-ish though.
I just borrowed anime/Japanese design concept.
@ArcturusAerospace Any particular reasons why you're so against the idea?
@ThePilotDude I know it's allowed in the rules, but I still feel somewhat weird about using them...
Plus it's just part of the problem. A lot of stuff IRL doesn't really make sense in SP, like... G-meter that max out at 15Gs (SP can easily reach 30, 40, 50 Gs), no oxygen problem, WEP/ MW50 doesn't necessarily work (propeller efficiency problem), far higher lift/drag ratio.....
Those are the primary reasons why I thought about Isekai-ing stuff.
@VChart lol
Torpedo looks more like Mk13 to me, Mk48 should have more details about the tail
@asteroidbook345 Yeah speaking of which, just how do you upload edited photo (like that B&V plane on the frontpage)?
@asteroidbook345 It was my first plane with fuselage number painted on the landing gear door... that's why I chose a gear down picture... perhaps that wasn't wise.
@asteroidbook345 The problem is more likely "clickbaitness" i.e. how much it lures people to even click it.
Detail belongs to AFTER the click, as even the largest details cannot be observed from thumbnail.
Which is why I originally asked about an alternative name for this aircraft because Drawing Number attracts no one.
But it seems that the American/fame bias in the SP community is stronger than my estimation... perhaps I need to make more "known" models, that's why there was this thread.
@Gnome360 You should be able to search airplanes and input "funky trees" (for some reason that also searches forum articles)
I don't want to sound whiny but seriously, there were at least three entirely identical questions in the last week.
prop Engine "actual" RPM and parts hitpoint values, also boolean of connection between two given parts, please.
@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.