Columbia

Long post in 3.. 2... 1... (Sorry about the profile pic. I'm trying to look for a decent one..) I set some time off to work on the airliners. Way, way, way better than working on WW2 planes. And besides, 747s are nice. The main reason I built the B747-100 was to serve as a framework for the SCA which I have perfected (not really) over the past few weeks. But it also served as an excuse to release a "747 family" thread.. which I haven't done. Great! The Shuttle was a little longer and larger than the "normal" design for an orbiter you usually see, and so it's a *little* disproportionate. But it separates from the 747 flawlessly and flies really well. So far, the B747 family's close to completion, but the B747-8 is something i just.. don't have the morale to do. Look at that thing. It's no longer economical in this time and age, where the B777 and A330 thrive in long-range. My friends and I agree that the Intercontinental version might fail in sales. Why still build it? Moving on! I started work on the Aerospatiale-BAC Concorde. My tests had infinite fuel and electricity on, though, so it wasn't a true test. It needed 340 m/s to break the sound barrier... I got it to 320. And perhaps the most importantly, I'm at work on a cinematic right now -- A trailer for my airliners. (If you're observant, you can see that the fuselages aren't full length. I wanted to make it look like the scene had airliners parked near each other, yet didn't want my computer running at snail pace, and filmed at night so that the shadows wouldn't appear. This one's a setup for an engine under maintenance. Still far from completion though. Give me.. two weeks? I guess?

Was that from the Martian? I remember a line which was along the lines of this when Watney was discussing how he'd ration his food portions.

ye

Wait, it's Thanksgiving? I didn't know..

Where did you get this information?

Oh, I read "Mk4" as 4m. Sorry about that.

It's alright, misconceptions happen. I personally just think it's a matter of the 2.5m parts looking... horrifying. 4m parts seem nice though.

Cross section of an Airbus A320-200, a modern-day passenger airliner: Cross section of a B-29 Superfortress, a WWII era bomber. And here is a thread discussing as to why airliners have circular cross sections: http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/21523/why-is-the-fuselage-on-an-airliner-circular-shaped More: So, uhm, yeah. Numerous other airliners have them as well. Just saying. Rather than adding 2.5m airplane parts, I'd rather they overhaul the current 2.5m parts. They look sub-par. I'd be happy with a simple white tube, IMO. Better than the oil-drum aesthetic we have now. It would look better on both planes and rockets.

Let me get this straight: I need a bomber/heavy fighter that has enough guns to cover the entire area around it, enough bombs to bomb out much of KSC, and needs the maneuverability of a fighter, as well as being able to defend itself from a fast-flying fighter, and i need to comply with the requirements in the OP in order to gain points? Seems like a pretty nasty challenge, but I'm somewhat up for it. I'm a bit worried about the tight requirements though.

Post something you think others will like, in the meantime. The closest thing I've gotten to a private message in the new forums so far is people telling me in my airliners thread that my links are broken. I'm probably just lonely. Also, someone liked my screencap of notifications from August 18, 2015. I know the forum change wasn't that long ago, but.. the nostalgia. I always loved it when that little tab lit up.

This, please. Control from Here desperately lacks another way of activating itself.

There are so many underrated creations in the Spacecraft Exchange that just sink and disappear.. but hopefully not this one. That's so majestic.

I can get by with the engines. Its really the fuel tanks that are bothering me. Those borders.. It looks as if he just smoothed the tanks out a little.

I'll quote what I said from previous posts in the thread: "Unfortunately, it's broken because of Mediafire's ban (if you read a few pages back)..." "..The B777, MD-11, B737, B707, A380 and B757 are downloadable right now." I've been on work with the B747 family, it's just the 747-8 that needs completion (I'm trying to get the wings to flex more). This answer's also for Denzelpunk's question; I'll attribute the technique to @sgt_flyer, who used it for open-end nozzles. Here was his tutorial on it; http://imgur.com/a/WoHrF Thanks!

Could you elaborate further on this? Thanks, I'm not the best at following devnotes and changelogs.

And we PC players have been expecting a fix for six months. Do you see any of us complaining about rushing? On the contrary, I'm pretty disappointed with how the parts look - The borders still exist on the fuel tanks, which are really deterring in the model. I don't know about the engines -- They look good, but seem to have lost a bit of their old essence.

I added more depth to the answers in the FAQ. Any news on the albums?

I can't blame you for that, most parts added were for aircraft. It is annnoying to me though when users discriminate aircraft builders because of this.

Basic fins, proper probe telemetry, antennas, solar panels, the planned rocket overhaul.. All airplane parts.. Might as well be Kerbal Flight Program..

A free-moving hinge and a motorized hinge would be adequate for me. I think if they could somehow be added smoothly, they would open up a lot of possibilities; Custom landing legs, propellers (?), rover doors, retractable aerodynamic shields, compact bases, ramps for transport.. Well, assuming they can get it to work. The mere idea's exciting in itself.

Built a B747-100.

Beautiful. It burns near the sun like it burns my PC just looking at it. Maybe some close-up shots?

That.. that is cool. Wish I had the kind of computer that could take those graphics.

You hold a good point, but maybe you can.. ..let him have his own opinion? It doesn't really matter. Agree to disagree, instead of trying to change his outlook, maybe?

Got to admit, it almost seems aburd that the console versions don't have the file-sharing benefits of the PC version.