These toolbar's buttons present only small part from all possible and usually needed functions in Rhinoceros. I remember only basic hotkeys and I created these toolbars as fast way how to work in these soft. I saw next soft Hexagon in action and really it was as playing on piano but I'm working with 6-7 softwares and no chance (for me) to remember all hotkeys.
Thanks for a nice source. I'm really glad my hyphotetical solution is similar to solution from that material. Or as was said 2000 years ago "All ways ended in Roma" (my poor translation but I hope you know it)
I just wanted to ask Joseph to reconsider the weapons bay size for the following reasons:
1. Comparing it to YF-23 design, it makes sense to have one big bay (8 JASSM) at the center and one smaller forward bay for the AMRAAMs. It just feels like TOO much weight in front of the CG with that payload. I am not sure the aircraft can rotate on take off
2. Comparing it to the Vendetta student design, it is understandable that Northrop will come up with a better aircraft for the same requirements. I think that extra expertise is in the form of lower RCS, longer range, higher speed (Mach 2+) and an extra smaller weapons bay.
3. Comparing it to the latest FB-22 proposal, the F/B-23 is a faster reponce version with better LO and longer range, but not twice the payload in my opinion.
4. Right now the payload is similar to the B-1B typical internal payload (the 3rd rear bay usually carring fuel). Yet the F/B-23 should not be that far behind in range. At almost 1/2 the Bone size, I don't see that as realistic.
I used lantinian's drawings (thanks) and original pictures of model as source for my 3D model. My computed size is 31.7 m (F-111 22.4 m). AGM-158 JASSM and AIM-120 AMRAAM are created in scale coresponding to that size