Creative Robot

Phoenix Prototype

Plasma Bomber added 3 months ago

So much for making ugly hovers.

I first decided that I wasn't going to make this bot until foils were fixed, or buffed, or whatever it was the FJ planned to do sometime soon.

Then, I got impatient.

So this was the result.

This Y shaped plane is actually an idea that I came up with about 4 months ago when I was just looking over my old Aquilae series bombers. But at the time, that design was working perfectly fine, so I looked on and thought, "maybe another time."

Then air drag was introduced, more and more anti-air weapons were introduced, and my old trustworthy bomber was sent crashing into the depths of the non-meta.

So, a week ago, I decided to visit the aircraft rating thread on the forums, and have those guys tear my plane apart to come up with some advise. They did, and this product is the culmination of their advice with my styling to produce a slightly more functional bomber than before (but mostly my styling.)

I have very little combat experience with my design, thus the name, but with the limited encounters I've had, I must say that this design has quite a few improvements, and a few drawbacks as well.
For one, this design is certainly resilient. 2.2 million HP and some updated internals have led to the core of this design being very durable, and allowing it to crawl back to base after taking far too many flak shots.
Additionally, this design isn't too slow, clocking in at about 230 MPH, which for my bombers is quite fast (and more than fast enough for me), but some Mach plane builders may say this isn't enough.
The pitching on this plane is greatly improved from all of my previous bombers, due to the addition of foils instead of rudders on the tail of the plane.
And the firepower is enough to pump out quality damage, although I am thinking about a switch to lighter plasma as an experiment. Power does run low however.
Rolling in this is near impossible, as the plane does turn over, but it also turns 30 degrees doing so, so unless you are pitching while doing this to make crazy tight turns, it can throw you for a spin.
The plasmas have solid firing angles but the two connected to the wings are going to need a new mounting point, as they seem to fall off too quickly.
And last but not least, the design is massive, meaning that it is a flak haven, and its size doesn't help it in maneuvering low enough to deactivate flak.

Hope you guys enjoy, and feel free to throw me any suggestions, concerns, or general advice!

Favorites 2
Robot Statistics
Views
255
Comments
6
Ratings
5
Practical Rating
7.3
Creative Rating
9.4
Last Updated
Never
View Ratings

Robot Ratings

Creative rating by Zalera10.0
Function rating by McNugg27106.5
Creative rating by McNugg27109.0
Creative rating by Momal949.5
Function rating by Zalera8.0
Share this Robot
Direct link to this robot
Embed robot info on your website
Comments and Ratings
Zalera
2 months ago
Dammit I forgot to write a comment :'( but I rated this :(
Just need to add a functional rating...

Also, seems like it is kinda agile with that many wings, and... probably that you can still fly with one less of your "wing" on the front, the only cons would be plasma only ^^'

Ratings 10.0 creative and 8.0 practical0
LePrimeMehster
2 months ago
I saw your rating the first time and just cocked my head and wondered at the singular rating and wondered. Then I just saw this and laughed. As for this design, I should honestly update the pictures. I've reworked the design to add one more plasma and four disintegrator lasers on the top with better firing angles, and I'll throw on a few pics for proof in a bit. The funny thing about this design is that it is so agile (at least in pitching) that I honestly don't know how to fly it at times, as it turns so much faster than what I'm used to in a flyer, due to the addition of foils in the rear and not rudders.

As for staying airborne, well, I've had time to try this out more, and I have to say that this thing takes a major beating and still keeps flying. It loses stability quick if one of the front sections of wings is completely ripped off, but it seems to hold onto its rear wings really well, which helps to escape sticky situations. Thanks for stopping by and rating!
McNugg2710
3 months ago
Oops sorry, it does look nice, damn tho if only u had premium colours

Ratings 6.5 practical and 9.0 creative0
Momal94
3 months ago
True dat !

Ratings 9.5 creative0
McNugg2710
3 months ago
Sorry but you are missing a lot of the key things planes in this day and age must possess. Only use albatross wings, they have the best CPU to HP ratio. You need some from of anti-air of which there is none. You only have 5 plasmas so your redundancy is pretty poor considering they are your only weapons. CPU is very high for plasma, and as you mentioned it will be very hard for flak to miss this bot.

And on bots this big use props not thrusters, it just works better. But the build itself ain't too bad but I don't feel it is at all practical. Feel free to drop into the UG discord to ask me and Rafy how to make a comp. plane, I personally only use my plane these days :).

Ratings 6.5 practical and 9.0 creative1
LePrimeMehster
3 months ago
I know it isn't perfect, I already had tips about the albatross wings. But this design wasn't entirely about function, it was more of an aesthetic experiment as well. In terms of the function rating, it stings, but what you say is true. This design did initially have 4 laser disintegrators on the top of the design, and I temporarily stripped them as a CPU test. I was going to throw them back on but decided against it as the design looked better and moved better (more thrusters) than before. I will go a few more trials with smgs and more plasmas to see if there is a difference in function, but I am worried about the CPU being stretched too thin.
I appriciate the critical rating, but why no creative rating? You rated the ugly mass that was my hover trying to look bad, but you wouldn't rate this? It just seems weird to me lol.

Constructive Points

Constructive points are what you get when other users mark your reviews (comment+ratings) as constructive.

When should you mark a review as constructive though?

If you answer yes to at least three of these questions you should definitely mark it as constructive; is the review..

  1. friendly?
  2. helpful?
  3. encouraging?
  4. well structured?
  5. fair relative to the CPU used?

Why do I want these points?

After receiving X amount of points you will get a chance of being promoted to "trusted reviewer". This promotion is done by a moderator if (s)he thinks your comment and rating behaviour is reasonable.

Trusted reviewer?

As a trusted reviewer you no longer need to write a comment when rating a robot. If you add a comment you will receive extra points. Trusted reviewer is not necessarily permanent, continous bad behaviour or lack of comments might get you demoted.

Constructive Voting

Hey, seems like you're about to place your first constructive vote. That's awesome! I just wanted to inform you a bit about it before you jump into voting though. You can vote on any comment accompanied with a rating as a "Constructive Review". This will give the reviewer a "Constructive Point".

When should I vote a comment as constructive though?

If you answer yes to at least three of these questions you should definitely vote it as constructive; is the review..

  1. friendly?
  2. helpful?
  3. encouraging?
  4. well structured?
  5. fair relative to the CPU used?

Why do one want these points?

After receiving about 100 total amount of votes the user will get a chance of being promoted to "Approved Reviewer". This promotion is done by a moderator if (s)he thinks your comment and rating behaviour is reasonable.

Approved Reviewer?

As an approved reviewer you no longer need to write a comment when rating a robot. If you add a comment you will receive extra points. Approved reviewer is not necessarily permanent, continous bad behaviour or lack of comments might get you demoted.

Ok, got it! I want to place my vote now.
  • 3 items
1 page