What will be next ?

[UllyB]

Ok, so this how I thought the matter in the end. Caribou which is a cargo plane, had to go this time. I categorized them into 3 groups:

1.FIGHTERS

2.TRANING/PROTOTYPES/EXPERIMENTAL

3.BOMBER/RECON/MULTIROLE/GROUND ATTACK

 

 

FIGHTERS:

 

 

1.       MIG-19 Farmer-C

2.       Lockheed F-94 Starfire

3.       Convair F2Y Sea Dart

4.       SNCASE Baroudeur

5.       KAI KF-21 Boramae

6.       Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II

7.       Dassault Mirage G8

8.       Mirage 2000D

9.       Grumman F9F Panther

10.   Chengdu J-20

11.   Su-75 Checkmate

 

TRAINING, Prototypes, Experimental

 

1.       SU-15

2.       Hawker Hunter T7/T8

3.       Eurofighter Typhoon

4.       SEPECAT Jaguar

5.       CASA C-101 Aviojet

6.       KAI T-50 Golden Eagle

7.       Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet-E

8.       Helwan HA-300

9.       North American X-15

10.   Northrop YF-17

11.   F-16 XL

 

Bomber, RECON, Multirole, Ground attack

 

1.       Mirage 2000N

2.       AMX A-1M

3.       Lockheed U-2S

4.       Grumman S-2 Tracker

5.       Grumman E-1 Tracker

6.       Canadair CL-215

7.       Textron AirLand Scorpion

8.       North American AJ Savage

9.       AIDC F-CK-1 Ching -Kuo

 

 

Now, you all know that just one plane must win even if they are three categories, but I must EMPHASIZE that for newcomers who, maybe , don't know what this thread is about for sure. SO JUST ONE PLANE WILL BE CHOSEN IN THE END from the whole bunch. Knowing that, my advice to you is to avoid voting in more than one category, but if you do, the same, there's no harm done. :)

Also I decided vote to be open for two whole weeks, I will specify that in the poll title with a specific deadline day.

 

 

Edited February 13, 2023 by UllyB

[UllyB]

The poll is ready, follow please the thread COMMUNITY MOST WANTED

and cast your vote.

Edited February 13, 2023 by UllyB

[alexis99]

Ully understood. And perhaps Ully can tell me what words I should have used, since he wrote: "He just didn't choose the right words to express himself".

If you're looking for rudeness just read the comments made against me for suggesting we might make cockpits for existing aircraft that just have placeholders. Apparently, making suggestions is whining.

I'll choose some different words myself: Good luck with the project. I believe the aircraft we already have are abundant and magnificent, and I personally do not need any more. I would rather effort was put into making cockpits for aircraft like the B-2 Spirit that only has a placeholder cockpit. But saying that is whining. And I was told that making cockpits is difficult and time consuming, which I already knew. 

Now if cockpits are difficult and time consuming to make, then whilst you may come up with working models of new aircraft fairly rapidly, you may have to wait some time for a cockpit to be available for each one. Unless you're going AI only. Or using placeholders.

Just saying

 

[UllyB]

15 minutes ago, alexis99 said:

Ully understood. And perhaps Ully can tell me what words I should have used, since he wrote: "He just didn't choose the right words to express himself".

If you're looking for rudeness just read the comments made against me for suggesting we might make cockpits for existing aircraft that just have placeholders. Apparently, making suggestions is whining.

 

 

I think you missunderstood my message. One of our colleagues, GKABS, thought that YOUR reply was rude. I said, that IN MY OPINION, it was not rudeness, it was , perhaps, just a bad choice of words, long story short. That's all there is. I didn't imply anything else, the rest is just YOUR imagination.  Somehow, I exonerated you of...the presumely accusation made and you are implying that I said something that put you in a wrong spot, young man ? :D I suggest you to..THINK it...again.

Edited February 13, 2023 by UllyB

[alexis99]

19 minutes ago, UllyB said:

I think you missunderstood my message. One of our colleagues, GKABS, thought that YOUR reply was rude. I said, that IN MY OPINION, it was not rudeness, it was , perhaps, just a bad choice of words, long story short. That's all there is. I didn't imply anything else, the rest is just YOUR imagination.  Somehow, I exonerated you of...the presumely accusation made and you are implying that I said something that put you in a wrong spot, young man ? :D I suggest you to..THINK it...again.

How rude

[UllyB]

"Rudeness is a display of actual or perceived disrespect by not complying with the social norms or etiquette of a group or culture."

 

Please pinpoint, where , in my reply, is there such thing according with the definition of the word! I just described what happened, what I think then about what happened and then I asked you a simple question (which you didn't bother to answer it, by the way; Not answering a direct question is perceived as an INSULT in many cultures. Did you know that ?)

 

PS - By the way, GKABS asked you something in that post. Why didn't you answer to him ? Or you didn't do that because he was ..."rude" , too ? :D

Edited February 13, 2023 by UllyB

[+yakarov79]

just a tip...you might not want to waste votes on tandem Jag or Mohawk...just saying...

[jeanba]

Actually, I would like an Iranian and an Ethiopian version of the F5A.

Maybe it is just about skinning ?

[+daddyairplanes]

yes it should be about skinning mostly.

possibly some data ini changes if you want Iranian Tigers past the mid 90s

but there are a few model options in the F-5 portion of the download section

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by daddyairplanes

[UllyB]

23 hours ago, jeanba said:

Maybe it is just about skinning

Yes, it is. Not taking into account that... there are a lot of F-5 models in download section and...asking for a plane made from the scratch, then painting it into your favorite colors, it would be like, building a Ferrari, just because the only thing you like to that model is the horse logo stuck in the car's hood.

Edited February 16, 2023 by UllyB

[jeanba]

Sorry, I had forgotten the real subject of the topic :(

[UllyB]

6 hours ago, jeanba said:

Sorry, I had forgotten the real subject of the topic :(

You forgooooot the real subject ???? Tststststs.... The real (and only) subject here it's... ME! LOL

Just messing with you ;) Have you voted the most wanted one ? You diiiiiiiiiiid !? Then bring your friends, too, buy them an icecream and then send them to vote ;)

[jeanba]

As a sidenote, I think you should "merge" 2000N and 2000D, 

Both are bombers/ GA aircraft and the 2000D is an improvement of the 2000N (like 2000-5 vs 2000C).

 

The 2000 that was shot down in Bosnia in 1995 was a 2000N K2

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by jeanba

[UllyB]

I didn't do that because there was that ramification for...bombers. So...

If the website applet would've had the right lines (34) for the job, I would have kept the tandem. And if that were the case, it would have had a SINGLE vote, not two like today, so it's the same thing. I'm sure you are not implying to cummulate to votes for Mirage D and N, are you ? That would be...cheating.

Edited February 17, 2023 by UllyB

[jeanba]

1 minute ago, UllyB said:

I didn't do that because there was that ramification for...bombers. So...

If the website applet would've had the right lines (34) for the job, I would have kept the tandem. And if that were the case, it would have a SINGLE vote, not two like today, so it's the same thing. I'm sure you are not implying to cummulate to votes for Mirage D and N, are you ? That would be...cheating.

In practice, the N and D were used for exactly the same missions (fortunatly, because if the N had been used for its specific nuclear strike mission :( ).

N over Bosnia and D over Kosovo.

 

I think that this abominous mistake is an offense to the entire world and should only be forgiven if you cumulate the votes and mulitply them by 152655.95

[+Cliff7600]

On 12/02/2023 at 10:24 AM, Cliff7600 said:

So I would make a poll for each category of aircrafts.
Not to decide which aircraft will be created, but to ask people their preference and then take a decision

I'd like to underline that,
because I really think that you should make a second round with only the highest scores.

Otherwise the "most wanted" bird would have been chosen by a quarter of the voting community.

[UllyB]

22 hours ago, Cliff7600 said:

I'd like to underline that,
because I really think that you should make a second round with only the highest scores.

Otherwise the "most wanted" bird would have been chosen by a quarter of the voting community.

So if 1000, let's say, vote and 25% goes to X plane it wouldn't be clear who won ? Is that what you imply ? Of course, in our situation there's no such figure of 1000 (until now at least, there are 10 more days until the poll is closed), they are just 60 so far. But if , let's say if 60 is a representative figure of the actively community core, then why should we make a second round ? If, let's say for the sake of the argument, 60 (or even a little more) is the stable figure why bother futhermore ? Wouldn't be that representative enough ? THAT"S the question I would like to see it answered by you, let alone that ...you can't change the rules during the process once you already established them just because the outcome doesn't look as you hoped for.. It wouldn't be fair as a principle.

Edited February 18, 2023 by UllyB

[+Gepard]

Only an idea for a very interesting plane project Sukhoi T-4MS aka Izdeliye 200 for a supersonic swingwing stealthy heavy bomber.

Something to the background: https://testpilot.ru/russia/sukhoi/t/4/ms/t4ms_e.htm

Edited February 18, 2023 by Gepard

[+strahi]

Gooood morning fellas, I noticed that we all almost forgot about the forgotten star of the Cold War, F-86D. That plane, for example, helped my country, which was in the middle of the Iron Curtain, during the '50s, to a great extent, to prevent an invasion from the East,

along with the F-84G and F-86E. I hope you will consider my proposal.

 

26480_1468439805.webp

[+yakarov79]

Just now, strahi said:

F-86D.

wip

[+strahi]

[+Cliff7600]

On 08/02/2023 at 5:28 PM, UllyB said:

Actually I was wanting to propose exactly that, in the end, Sunday, to VOTE (you, all who made all the propositions) and let the majority decide

The majority is 50% or more.
Take 1000 or 10 people, 25% is not the majority. Unless it's a relative majority.

The difference is to deal with 750 / 7.5 disappointed people, or with 500 / 5, or less, disappointed people.

2 hours ago, UllyB said:

why bother futhermore ?

Then don't bother, it's your choice.

2 hours ago, UllyB said:

you can't change the rules

I don't make the rules.
It's just you retained a part of my suggestion of vote, and not the entire idea.

2 hours ago, UllyB said:

because the outcome doesn't look as you hoped for

The aircrafts I have chosen wouldn't have been in a second round anyway.

[UllyB]

I see your point, you want a real majority to support a winner. What do we do if even that 100% (let's pretend that they all vote) of members choose a winner with just 25% of the vote ? In a way the "majority" spoke, freely, what it wanted, right? If 100% would vote, still you wouldn't support a winner with just 25% ? Of course , here, we don't know if all, who are really interested to vote, voted. But as well, maybe that real "core" is the "100%" gathered by now, interested in voting and that's all there is. If let's say 50 or more percent of the whole members mass are not really  interested in voting, you wouldn't know it either, isn't it ?, because they won't come here just to let us know that, right ? That is why I established a two week vote, hoping that we will gather , at least, a stable "core" of interested voters.  For me, THAT is a realistic majority, the core, the ones really interested in voting. I also would like to hear other opinions as well about this matter ("let's take a second vote after the first" etc). Don't get me wrong, I DON'T want to impose anything here, I want  exactly what I declared in the beginnings, a plane wanted and voted by YOU. So the discussion is open.

Edited February 18, 2023 by UllyB

[+Cliff7600]

3 hours ago, UllyB said:

you want a real majority to support a winner

I don't "want" anything (I had few minutes to write an answer during my lunch break, hence the lack of explanation).
It's just that 27% of votes for the winner make 73% of the voters disappointed. This is due to the number of competitors.

The idea behind the second round would be to make more people voting for the winner.
If you make a vote with 3 contestants, it will increase the percentage of the winner (at least 33.333% if it's a tie, and the first round score would make the difference).
So, yes an higher majority to support the winner. More people behind the elected one.
I have nothing against the leading contestant.
But at the end, winning with a "low" score can leave more disappointed people than happy people.

Then, if the percentage is "low" after a second round, it should be the winner anyway, unless the rules of the vote don't allow it (and that's not the case).
And if the winner of the second round was also the winner of the first round, it will enhance his status as winner for all participants as well.

3 hours ago, UllyB said:

I established a two week vote, hoping that we will gather , at least, a stable "core" of interested voters

I fully agree with you on this point.

And I noticed that you said that the winner will be the aircraft with the most votes.

Edited February 18, 2023 by Cliff7600
maths

[UllyB]

Alright. If a solid majority (from the ones who voted and new people who will vote till the deadline) rally to your idea of a "finale", maybe I will take into consideration the proposed system. But if you are in a "beyond any doubt" minority, obviously...I won't and it will remain the vote as it is. I think this resolution is fair enough.