i will see about making the landing gear a bit bigger but they are not quite as small as they look. sorry about rejecting some of the advice, will change thread title.
i can see the importance of designing the gear to withstand not just the weight of the ship but also the impact forces on landing although it should descend quite slowly on the ion columns rather than hit the ground at as fast a vertical velocity as current aircraft do. the reason that there are so many switches for landing gear is that some of them turn on the ion columns and others allow primitive steering whilst hovering, oi thought that as these systems would be used on take off and landing then the area around the landing gear switch would be the best place to put them. if possible( as in there is enough space ) i will thicken the landing gear struts. i suppose i should have said on the title "advice wanted on areas i have yet to model but i am slightly(very) stubborn about those areas i have already completed". sorry.
"i will see about making the landing gear a bit bigger but they are not quite as small as they look. sorry about rejecting some of the advice, will change thread title."
spacefighter,
That's a copout. Take the suggestions and info seriously. It is not meant to hurt you but to help you design better "stuff". We all want to become better modelers at the end of the day. We build things the way we do for a reason. Real life physics and materials capability dictate how to do things right. Don't just blow it off in a huff. Research for yourself, visit sites from the major manufacturers and their suppliers.
i do want to design better stuff but i also want the stuff to have a similar"feel" and "style" to it as other models of mine. i also lke to make sure that wherever there is a part on my model that moves(like landing gear) through a few movements of various parts(rotations,translations) it can shift position so i have to make everything such that it will fit in the up position yet also work in the down position, this can be quite difficult with sketchup but it is the most logical 3d program i have found for modelling so i continue to use it. should i build up some bulges around the position of the current rear landing gear so that i can make it larger, this would have some affect on aerodynamics during atmospheric flight but if it is the only way to make the gear better i can do it. but to tell the truth i quite like my cockpit as it is and a ship like this will need acceleration dampers anyway if the crew are not to be killed every time it accelerates to max velocity, i might as well say that the cockpit layout can be designed for pilots with minimal forces affecting them although i may try sliding the controls closer to the seat for when the pilot is in it. all this may take a while especially as i am currently in the middle of rendering a quick animation( using my almost pre-cambrian computer) to place on another thread that i intend to finish off today. sorry if i have been stubborn i will try the things i have mentioned here.
In terms of the landing gear I suggest the following little paint up I did in about 5 minutes.
Move all your weapons bays inline, or possibly relocate one or two to the forward fuselage.
You then have plenty of room for a proper undercarriage. Tear out the current mains, but I say leave the tip wheels. Then put in a standard pair of MLGs outboard of your weapons bays. It won't give the loaders and maintainers a lot of room to work on the negine and weapons bays, or swap them so the mains are in closer and the weapons bays outboard.
The thing you have to consider is this, what if your ion columns fail? You are now setting down hard in damaged bird on tiny little landing gears. If you have some nice beefy mains, that won't be an issue.
Spacefighter, sometimes what's required is a complete paradigm shift in thinking when you realize something needs to be fixed. Such as it is, the advice that's been given should give you pause regarding the designs of your other craft. Perhaps a retooling of your universe's technology and, therefore, models may be in order. Sometimes a clean slate is a good thing. Keep cracking at this and you'll get an awesome product when all's said and done as long as you keep an open mind and look at all the possibilities being presented.
Knight26, I love you. No one ever thinks about the weapons loaders and other maintainers that get the shaft working under these things. Look no further than the F-22 and F-35.
I know what you mean Juvat, I restored an old plane as part of my senior Aero Engr project so I really hate designs that can't be maintained properly. I also keep things like the loaders in mind with my own designs, though I do admit that when I went away from the missile jackets I made loading a bit harder. Probably not F-22 level though, at least I hope not. As for F-35, a friend of mine actually helped design the loader for that beast, she hated eveyr minute of it.
Hard for a weapons tech but some other things can make your day full of awesome.
I was on crash crew when one of our pilots decided to take off without releasing the wheel brakes. So when he landed he blew both tires into long strings of black spaghetti and ground the main landing gear wheels down to just below the axles.
He had two bigass external fuel tanks on and we coudn't remove them because they were inches off the ground. Too low for the loader to get in. It also meant that we couldn't put in the piece of AMSE we usually used which would surround the wheel and then jack it up (like in a vice with angles sides) so we could tow the aircraft.
So it was bottle jack time with a side of slegde hammer . The jack was about 45 degrees out of straight and we had to start jacking the gear off the ground with it by hand while a bunch of guys pushed the aircraft backwards onto the jack. That was the only way we could put new wheels on it so we could tow it back to the hangar.
Took out the hydraulics and damaged the flaps among other things. Closed the runway down while we go the sweeper out to pick up all the debris.
As for modeler limitations, I use AUTOCAD, and if I even think of hte word rigging, the computer shocks me. What you need to do is figure out the rotating bits , then model them in in different layers, open, closed, up, down, etc... then just turn off the layers when not in use. That is how I do it with ACAD, not sure if sketchup will do that.
getting back to work on it today, i tried the suggestion of moving the weapons bays inward and having large landing gear where the bays were BUT i then found that to have gear fitted there required it to be extremely(and quite unrealistically) long. i have decided to leave the bays and gear where they were but i will be modifying the rear gear around the lower engine pod by setting it up as one wheel on each side(larger than the current two on each side) with a bigger framework around it. i will make it large enough(if neccessary that the covers for the gear may bulge out to the sides of the pod a bit.
UPDATE:here is an unfinished potential redesign for the rear landing gear. Attachment not found.
NOTE: although it looks tiny the diameter of the original rear wheels was 25cm, the new wheel has a diameter of 50 cm and therefore 4 times the area.
That's almost big enough. For the nose landing gear. Of an F-16.
How tall would your main landing gear need to be to reach the actual fuselage of this thing? Putting it on an engine pod is a bad design choice from both a structural and engineering standpoint.
the gear would need to be almost 2 metres long to reach the ground from the area where the weapons bays currently are. that might be reasonable on a large passenger aircraft or heavy bomber but you will not find landing gear of that size on a fighter aircraft(atleast not on all the ones i have seen). where i have put the rear gear around the engine pod there is space as the engine is narrower in cross section than the pod at the point where the gear is mounted. it would increase stresses on the short and stubby vertical support between the pod and fuselage but this can be reinforced and i can thicken it if neccessary. so is using this a as the rear landing gear a good idea. one problem is that the wheels on opposite sides are quite close together and even closer than when i used the old undercarriage with the smaller wheels. thanks. currently working on and have almost finished the weapons and scanners controls for the co pilot. then i either decide to keep the old gear or i design the covering for the new gear and use that.
type Y Attachment not found.
in your replies tell me which you prefer.
(and you say i don't listen to suggestions(sorry))
i think once the landing gear is complete then this craft will be finished(i may add some small maneuvering thrusters fed by a pipe from the engine system), it might be missing something if anyone can suggest what i would like to know what you think. if i think the craft would be improved by adding whatever you suggest i will do so.
You clearly haven't done your research. Look no further than the F-14 for tall landing gear if you want an example of a fighter with it. Or if that's not current enough look at the F-35. Using that pod to stow the gear, as I stated in my previous post, is a bad idea. No one in their right mind would design a setup like that.
No one in their right mind would design a setup like that.
the U2 spy plane has very similar landing gear to my craft. main landing gear under a narrow fuselage(in my case a narrow pod below the fuselage) with small wheels attached at the wing tips which are discarded upon take off. my fighter does not discard the wheels instead it has bays at the wing tips for the outer wheels to fold up into, which allows it to be landed far more easily than the U2.. aircraft i have drawn inspiration from for this include the F111 aardvark(short landing gear close to the middle of the fuselage) and the f 104 starfighter(again short landing gear near the center, but also very stubby wings). anyway what do you think of those designs i am working on at the moment, also if you wish to say that this arrangement is insane please clarify why, other than being unstable which is solved by the wheels at the wing tips.
It's insane from an engineering standpoint because you have to add entirely too much mass in the form of support for that lower engine pod to be worthwhile as supportive base for landing gear...main landing gear as a matter of fact on your model. The U-2 most certainly does not keep the main landing gear in a pod under the fuselage. It's integrated into the aircraft at structural support points directly into the aircraft's framing...exactly like any sensible aerospace craft design.
I think my comments speak for themselves on my opinion of your design. It can't work. Yet, you keep using excuse after excuse citing invalid information. You've been corrected every single time on your wrong use of references and you don't really change much of anything; at least to a believable level.
You're like a teenager that's always gotta be right, but you never are. C'est la vie. No more input from me since it's falling on deaf ears.
The U-2 most certainly does not keep the main landing gear in a pod under the fuselage.
i did not say it did, this was an argument for why the gear is so close together. also the pod is for the engines not just the landing gear so any mass due to supports would be there anyway as the supports needed to hold the pod in place during sharp turns would be greater than the forces on the pod due to the impact of landing and the weight of the craft(you may argue that forces acting on the pod would cause tension rather than compression of the support but the forces would cause compression when the fighter turns sharply"downward".). perhaps some of the elements of my design are unrealistic but whereas in the real world this craft would have design flaws some of the craft from sci fi would not work at all(such as all the star trek ships many of which use reactionless drives hence violating the conservation of momentum)(or the space battleship yamato)(or romulan warbirds with wings despite the fact they never enter an atmosphere(as far as i know)).anyway, i will fit the larger wheels and am now working on some maneuvering thrusters.
i am thinking i am finished now, here are some pictures of the model. Attachment not found. Attachment not found. Attachment not found. Attachment not found. Attachment not found.
unless you want to complain about the landing gear please post and say what you think, i am interested in suggestions of things that should be on there but are not. i do not really want to hear "this/that which is on that model should be like that" . hope you like it. next time i might do an alien ship.
having the landing gear in an engine is dumb it would screw with the air flow and the heat from the engine would destroy the wheels and no ones gunna give you ideas to put on your model beacuze you dont take the suggestions to make ur model function properly and logically imo i think its jsut cuz your lazy and dont wanna remodel stuff youve already worked on
they are not right in it, there is a fair bit of stuff between them and the engines. they are level with the area just in front of the engine reactors where the gas has yet to be heated and the reactors are fairly well shielded anyway. this is the engine i am using http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=ba15b498935e03abb2e41fb3151b9813, the landing gear bays are level with the narrow part in the middle where the tubes and box like bits are.
ok, this is a model i have just finished but all i am receiving in its thread in the wips forum is criticism after i did not take some of the advice i was given about it's design. does anyone actually like it? if you want to criticise post on the wips forum thread about my heavy fighter, this is just here to see if anyone appreciates the design. also i would like to know what rating out of 10 you would give it(10 being it is the best model ever, 0 being it is a useless model and i copied it from you so it is not mine anyway), decimal ratings are of course allowed. Attachment not found. Attachment not found. Attachment not found. Attachment not found. Attachment not found.
From David Akin. They’ve been around a good long while, most have probably seen them… but they are worth being reminded of from time to time. The canonical list is HERE.
1. Engineering is done with numbers. Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.
2. To design a spacecraft right takes an infinite amount of effort. This is why it’s a good idea to design them to operate when some things are wrong .
3. Design is an iterative process. The necessary number of iterations is one more than the number you have currently done. This is true at any point in time.
4. Your best design efforts will inevitably wind up being useless in the final design. Learn to live with the disappointment.
5. (Miller’s Law) Three points determine a curve.
6. (Mar’s Law) Everything is linear if plotted log-log with a fat magic marker.
7. At the start of any design effort, the person who most wants to be team leader is least likely to be capable of it.
8. In nature, the optimum is almost always in the middle somewhere. Distrust assertions that the optimum is at an extreme point.
9. Not having all the information you need is never a satisfactory excuse for not starting the analysis.
10. When in doubt, estimate. In an emergency, guess. But be sure to go back and clean up the mess when the real numbers come along.
11. Sometimes, the fastest way to get to the end is to throw everything out and start over.
12. There is never a single right solution. There are always multiple wrong ones, though.
13. Design is based on requirements. There’s no justification for designing something one bit “better” than the requirements dictate.
14. (Edison’s Law) “Better” is the enemy of “good”.
15. (Shea’s Law) The ability to improve a design occurs primarily at the interfaces. This is also the prime location for screwing it up.
16. The previous people who did a similar analysis did not have a direct pipeline to the wisdom of the ages. There is therefore no reason to believe their analysis over yours. There is especially no reason to present their analysis as yours.
17. The fact that an analysis appears in print has no relationship to the likelihood of its being correct.
18. Past experience is excellent for providing a reality check. Too much reality can doom an otherwise worthwhile design, though.
19. The odds are greatly against you being immensely smarter than everyone else in the field. If your analysis says your terminal velocity is twice the speed of light, you may have invented warp drive, but the chances are a lot better that you’ve screwed up.
20. A bad design with a good presentation is doomed eventually. A good design with a bad presentation is doomed immediately.
21. (Larrabee’s Law) Half of everything you hear in a classroom is crap. Education is figuring out which half is which.
22. When in doubt, document. (Documentation requirements will reach a maximum shortly after the termination of a program.)
23. The schedule you develop will seem like a complete work of fiction up until the time your customer fires you for not meeting it.
24. It’s called a “Work Breakdown Structure” because the Work remaining will grow until you have a Breakdown, unless you enforce some Structure on it.
25. (Bowden’s Law) Following a testing failure, it’s always possible to refine the analysis to show that you really had negative margins all along.
26. (Montemerlo’s Law) Don’t do nuthin’ dumb.
27. (Varsi’s Law) Schedules only move in one direction.
28. (Ranger’s Law) There ain’t no such thing as a free launch.
29. (von Tiesenhausen’s Law of Program Management) To get an accurate estimate of final program requirements, multiply the initial time estimates by pi, and slide the decimal point on the cost estimates one place to the right.
30. (von Tiesenhausen’s Law of Engineering Design) If you want to have a maximum effect on the design of a new engineering system, learn to draw. Engineers always wind up designing the vehicle to look like the initial artist’s concept.
31. (Mo’s Law of Evolutionary Development) You can’t get to the moon by climbing successively taller trees.
32. (Atkin’s Law of Demonstrations) When the hardware is working perfectly, the really important visitors don’t show up.
33. (Patton’s Law of Program Planning) A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week.
34. (Roosevelt’s Law of Task Planning) Do what you can, where you are, with what you have.
35. (de Saint-Exupery’s Law of Design) A designer knows that he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
36. Any run-of-the-mill engineer can design something which is elegant. A good engineer designs systems to be efficient. A great engineer designs them to be effective.
37. (Henshaw’s Law) One key to success in a mission is establishing clear lines of blame.
38. Capabilities drive requirements, regardless of what the systems engineering textbooks say.
39. The three keys to keeping a new manned space program affordable and on schedule:
1) No new launch vehicles.
2) No new launch vehicles.
3) Whatever you do, don’t decide to develop any new launch vehicles.
40. Space is a completely unforgiving environment. If you screw up the engineering, somebody dies (and there’s no partial credit because most of the analysis was right…)
Now, while I do agree that the landing gear is a bit wonky ... so what?
This thing obeys The Rule of Cool.
It's aggressive looking, over-engineered in that "I'm a bad-ass" sort of way. Coming out of the sun, with just a hint of lens flare and the right martial march as a soundtrack this thing would look damned cool (esp. with a darker, more ominous paint scheme).
I'm not sure I'd call it a heavy fighter. All those engines and the forward swept wings which imply speed to the eye just scream "interceptor!!" to me. It's got that I Go Fast ... In a Straight Line sort of look. Reminds me of an F-14 in that. It's not remotely similar in ACTUAL shape or design to the Tomcat, but it's got that same feeling of barely chained speed.
Don't fret the criticism much. Most criticism is kindly meant, but not everyone is good at expressing it. Constructive criticism is an art form as much as model-making is ... with the added difficulty of adapting what would normally be done in speech to a text format. And tone of voice just doesn't come across with the written word unless you REALLY practice it. And, in the end, she's your beast--if YOU like it, does it really matter what we think?
That said. Change everything. The cockpit glass is too glass-like. The engines are too engine-y. And wheels? Really? A space-fighter with wheels. What's next? Missiles? :P (yes, that's sarcasm for humorous effect!!)
It's cool. It's different. And, unlike anything else I've tried ... it's COMPLETE. So, good job.
Posts
Thanks
spacefighter,
That's a copout. Take the suggestions and info seriously. It is not meant to hurt you but to help you design better "stuff". We all want to become better modelers at the end of the day. We build things the way we do for a reason. Real life physics and materials capability dictate how to do things right. Don't just blow it off in a huff. Research for yourself, visit sites from the major manufacturers and their suppliers.
Move all your weapons bays inline, or possibly relocate one or two to the forward fuselage.
You then have plenty of room for a proper undercarriage. Tear out the current mains, but I say leave the tip wheels. Then put in a standard pair of MLGs outboard of your weapons bays. It won't give the loaders and maintainers a lot of room to work on the negine and weapons bays, or swap them so the mains are in closer and the weapons bays outboard.
The thing you have to consider is this, what if your ion columns fail? You are now setting down hard in damaged bird on tiny little landing gears. If you have some nice beefy mains, that won't be an issue.
Knight26, I love you. No one ever thinks about the weapons loaders and other maintainers that get the shaft working under these things. Look no further than the F-22 and F-35.
I was on crash crew when one of our pilots decided to take off without releasing the wheel brakes. So when he landed he blew both tires into long strings of black spaghetti and ground the main landing gear wheels down to just below the axles.
He had two bigass external fuel tanks on and we coudn't remove them because they were inches off the ground. Too low for the loader to get in. It also meant that we couldn't put in the piece of AMSE we usually used which would surround the wheel and then jack it up (like in a vice with angles sides) so we could tow the aircraft.
So it was bottle jack time with a side of slegde hammer
Took out the hydraulics and damaged the flaps among other things. Closed the runway down while we go the sweeper out to pick up all the debris.
Like I said...full of awesome
UPDATE:here is an unfinished potential redesign for the rear landing gear.
Attachment not found.
NOTE: although it looks tiny the diameter of the original rear wheels was 25cm, the new wheel has a diameter of 50 cm and therefore 4 times the area.
How tall would your main landing gear need to be to reach the actual fuselage of this thing? Putting it on an engine pod is a bad design choice from both a structural and engineering standpoint.
type X
Attachment not found.
or
type Y
Attachment not found.
in your replies tell me which you prefer.
(and you say i don't listen to suggestions(sorry))
i think once the landing gear is complete then this craft will be finished(i may add some small maneuvering thrusters fed by a pipe from the engine system), it might be missing something if anyone can suggest what i would like to know what you think. if i think the craft would be improved by adding whatever you suggest i will do so.
I think my comments speak for themselves on my opinion of your design. It can't work. Yet, you keep using excuse after excuse citing invalid information. You've been corrected every single time on your wrong use of references and you don't really change much of anything; at least to a believable level.
You're like a teenager that's always gotta be right, but you never are. C'est la vie. No more input from me since it's falling on deaf ears.
Attachment not found.
Attachment not found.
Attachment not found.
Attachment not found.
Attachment not found.
unless you want to complain about the landing gear please post and say what you think, i am interested in suggestions of things that should be on there but are not. i do not really want to hear "this/that which is on that model should be like that" . hope you like it. next time i might do an alien ship.
more pictures
Attachment not found.
Attachment not found.
Attachment not found.
Attachment not found.
Attachment not found.
Attachment not found.
From David Akin. They’ve been around a good long while, most have probably seen them… but they are worth being reminded of from time to time. The canonical list is HERE.
1. Engineering is done with numbers. Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.
2. To design a spacecraft right takes an infinite amount of effort. This is why it’s a good idea to design them to operate when some things are wrong .
3. Design is an iterative process. The necessary number of iterations is one more than the number you have currently done. This is true at any point in time.
4. Your best design efforts will inevitably wind up being useless in the final design. Learn to live with the disappointment.
5. (Miller’s Law) Three points determine a curve.
6. (Mar’s Law) Everything is linear if plotted log-log with a fat magic marker.
7. At the start of any design effort, the person who most wants to be team leader is least likely to be capable of it.
8. In nature, the optimum is almost always in the middle somewhere. Distrust assertions that the optimum is at an extreme point.
9. Not having all the information you need is never a satisfactory excuse for not starting the analysis.
10. When in doubt, estimate. In an emergency, guess. But be sure to go back and clean up the mess when the real numbers come along.
11. Sometimes, the fastest way to get to the end is to throw everything out and start over.
12. There is never a single right solution. There are always multiple wrong ones, though.
13. Design is based on requirements. There’s no justification for designing something one bit “better” than the requirements dictate.
14. (Edison’s Law) “Better” is the enemy of “good”.
15. (Shea’s Law) The ability to improve a design occurs primarily at the interfaces. This is also the prime location for screwing it up.
16. The previous people who did a similar analysis did not have a direct pipeline to the wisdom of the ages. There is therefore no reason to believe their analysis over yours. There is especially no reason to present their analysis as yours.
17. The fact that an analysis appears in print has no relationship to the likelihood of its being correct.
18. Past experience is excellent for providing a reality check. Too much reality can doom an otherwise worthwhile design, though.
19. The odds are greatly against you being immensely smarter than everyone else in the field. If your analysis says your terminal velocity is twice the speed of light, you may have invented warp drive, but the chances are a lot better that you’ve screwed up.
20. A bad design with a good presentation is doomed eventually. A good design with a bad presentation is doomed immediately.
21. (Larrabee’s Law) Half of everything you hear in a classroom is crap. Education is figuring out which half is which.
22. When in doubt, document. (Documentation requirements will reach a maximum shortly after the termination of a program.)
23. The schedule you develop will seem like a complete work of fiction up until the time your customer fires you for not meeting it.
24. It’s called a “Work Breakdown Structure” because the Work remaining will grow until you have a Breakdown, unless you enforce some Structure on it.
25. (Bowden’s Law) Following a testing failure, it’s always possible to refine the analysis to show that you really had negative margins all along.
26. (Montemerlo’s Law) Don’t do nuthin’ dumb.
27. (Varsi’s Law) Schedules only move in one direction.
28. (Ranger’s Law) There ain’t no such thing as a free launch.
29. (von Tiesenhausen’s Law of Program Management) To get an accurate estimate of final program requirements, multiply the initial time estimates by pi, and slide the decimal point on the cost estimates one place to the right.
30. (von Tiesenhausen’s Law of Engineering Design) If you want to have a maximum effect on the design of a new engineering system, learn to draw. Engineers always wind up designing the vehicle to look like the initial artist’s concept.
31. (Mo’s Law of Evolutionary Development) You can’t get to the moon by climbing successively taller trees.
32. (Atkin’s Law of Demonstrations) When the hardware is working perfectly, the really important visitors don’t show up.
33. (Patton’s Law of Program Planning) A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week.
34. (Roosevelt’s Law of Task Planning) Do what you can, where you are, with what you have.
35. (de Saint-Exupery’s Law of Design) A designer knows that he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
36. Any run-of-the-mill engineer can design something which is elegant. A good engineer designs systems to be efficient. A great engineer designs them to be effective.
37. (Henshaw’s Law) One key to success in a mission is establishing clear lines of blame.
38. Capabilities drive requirements, regardless of what the systems engineering textbooks say.
39. The three keys to keeping a new manned space program affordable and on schedule:
1) No new launch vehicles.
2) No new launch vehicles.
3) Whatever you do, don’t decide to develop any new launch vehicles.
40. Space is a completely unforgiving environment. If you screw up the engineering, somebody dies (and there’s no partial credit because most of the analysis was right…)
This thing obeys The Rule of Cool.
It's aggressive looking, over-engineered in that "I'm a bad-ass" sort of way. Coming out of the sun, with just a hint of lens flare and the right martial march as a soundtrack this thing would look damned cool (esp. with a darker, more ominous paint scheme).
I'm not sure I'd call it a heavy fighter. All those engines and the forward swept wings which imply speed to the eye just scream "interceptor!!" to me. It's got that I Go Fast ... In a Straight Line sort of look. Reminds me of an F-14 in that. It's not remotely similar in ACTUAL shape or design to the Tomcat, but it's got that same feeling of barely chained speed.
Don't fret the criticism much. Most criticism is kindly meant, but not everyone is good at expressing it. Constructive criticism is an art form as much as model-making is ... with the added difficulty of adapting what would normally be done in speech to a text format. And tone of voice just doesn't come across with the written word unless you REALLY practice it. And, in the end, she's your beast--if YOU like it, does it really matter what we think?
That said. Change everything. The cockpit glass is too glass-like. The engines are too engine-y. And wheels? Really? A space-fighter with wheels. What's next? Missiles? :P (yes, that's sarcasm for humorous effect!!)
It's cool. It's different. And, unlike anything else I've tried ... it's COMPLETE. So, good job.