@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.
@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.
@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.
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.
@asteroidbook345 I tried to fly near a huge plane with like 50 meter wingspan, it still didn't reflect. But it does reflect smoke and explosion effects...
@asteroidbook345 I checked again and it was in "static high".
and yes it's now reflecting runways (although very blur), I'm gonna try if it reflects entites...
Actually you need to find the right category.
For cannon it's the "cannon" tab, for gun it's "gun", for droppable ordnance it's something like rocket, missile or bomb.
" you're taking the horizontal stabilizer out of the airstream."
more specifically, you take the "stablization" effect off the yaw axis.
IRL the stablization is neutralized by wheel grip, but we all know that SP doesn't have the best wheel grip mechanism...
@Ja380 That video looks almost identical to my design though (no way anyone would open the front door and retract at the same time.
It seems that the only thing different is that the rear door closes at the same time with gear retract.
So try this, just copy the landing gear actuator input to the rear door, and try again.
@Ja380 can you draw a timetable for your desired landing gear operation?
For example:
T=0 means the instant when gear up is commanded.
T=0 to 0.5 door open
T= 0.5 to 1.5 landing gear retract
T= 1.5 to 2 door close
I think this is more or less how this one works, what is your desired timetable?
God, I swear there were another identical question just a few days ago...
Funky Trees is a programming language. It allows you to create complicated inputs for rotaters, beacon lights, pistons and other stuff.
just search "funky trees" in airplane search and you should find a lot of instructions.
@Ja380 if you want to lengthen the whole process change the number in the smooth function.
smooth(LandingGear, 0.25) <<<<<change that 0.25 into something smaller to reduce speed.
@asteroidbook345 There is, Helicopter.
For example, Kamov Ka-27 "Helix", Mil Mi-28 "Havoc", and so on.
Also, for fighters and bombers, jets have two syllables and prop (including turboprop) have one syllable.
For example, Tu-160 "Blackjack" (jet, two syllables), Tu-95 "Bear" (prop, one syllable).
@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.
@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.
@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.
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.
@asteroidbook345
@TheSolarFlare
@USSR
@Uberdashie
@Evenstsrike333
@AircraftoftheRedStar
pretty sure the 410 does NOT have an internal bomb bay...
450 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.
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.
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.
@asteroidbook345 I tried to fly near a huge plane with like 50 meter wingspan, it still didn't reflect. But it does reflect smoke and explosion effects...
@asteroidbook345 I checked again and it was in "static high".
and yes it's now reflecting runways (although very blur), I'm gonna try if it reflects entites...
@asteroidbook345 I think I'm using that. But it still works for terrain, not artificial buildings and definitely not entities.
One interesting information:
Wikipedia
The KG200 (200th bomber wing) refers to captured B-17s and B-24s as "Dornier Do 200".
oh, the one with 5 APUs lol.
Actually you need to find the right category.
For cannon it's the "cannon" tab, for gun it's "gun", for droppable ordnance it's something like rocket, missile or bomb.
" you're taking the horizontal stabilizer out of the airstream."
more specifically, you take the "stablization" effect off the yaw axis.
IRL the stablization is neutralized by wheel grip, but we all know that SP doesn't have the best wheel grip mechanism...
@Ja380 That video looks almost identical to my design though (no way anyone would open the front door and retract at the same time.
It seems that the only thing different is that the rear door closes at the same time with gear retract.
So try this, just copy the landing gear actuator input to the rear door, and try again.
@Ja380 can you draw a timetable for your desired landing gear operation?
For example:
T=0 means the instant when gear up is commanded.
T=0 to 0.5 door open
T= 0.5 to 1.5 landing gear retract
T= 1.5 to 2 door close
I think this is more or less how this one works, what is your desired timetable?
@Ja380 That's what he said, so put any further questions on my landing gear demonstrator page.
God, I swear there were another identical question just a few days ago...
Funky Trees is a programming language. It allows you to create complicated inputs for rotaters, beacon lights, pistons and other stuff.
just search "funky trees" in airplane search and you should find a lot of instructions.
@Ja380 if you want to lengthen the whole process change the number in the smooth function.
smooth(LandingGear, 0.25) <<<<<change that 0.25 into something smaller to reduce speed.
But I thought you said you're taking suggestions?
Well you can do them later. It's gonna be cool.
XP-54
XP-52/59
@Ja380 Check my landing gear demonstrators. the left side landing gear fits your need.
Here is a list for NATO reporting names for Soviet fighters:
click me
@asteroidbook345 There is, Helicopter.
For example, Kamov Ka-27 "Helix", Mil Mi-28 "Havoc", and so on.
Also, for fighters and bombers, jets have two syllables and prop (including turboprop) have one syllable.
For example, Tu-160 "Blackjack" (jet, two syllables), Tu-95 "Bear" (prop, one syllable).
@TrislandianAlliance Lutzow is the later name of Deutchland (Deutchland class Panzerschiffe, first ship)
hmm, should've classified by country...
and it's Isokaze not Isekaze. Especially when you put it beside Hamakaze.
plus, Haifuri is not usable. This term is copyrighted.
(It's a Japanese anime)