A fusion of Viridian technology with Terran design, this is a truly fine airship. It can go at any speed between 0 mph and 2000+ mph, and is supremely maneuverable, capable of perfectly stable hovering in position, and changing altitude and orientation even at a dead stop. It's perfectly possible (and quite easy) to speed out to the fleet, brake until you match speeds with it, and land this airship on a ship.
It also comes armed with a bomb cannon, for when you want to take potshots at ships or missile bases while drifting leisurely by.
CONTROLS
AG1 main engine
AG2 starboard thruster (turn left)
AG3 port thruster (turn right)
AG4 bottom thruster (increase altitude)
AG5 top thruster (decrease altitude)
AG6 turbo engine
AG7 lights
AG8 gyroscope
OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS
This airship is built to be flown partly like a spaceship and partly like an airplane.
First, to achieve neutral buoyancy, set VTOL to max.
Then, to enable the thrusters, increase throttle to 100%.
To increase altitude, briefly enable AG4. When you have reached your desired altitude, disable AG4.
To decrease altitude, enable AG5.
To start moving forward, enable AG1. Control speed using throttle.
To brake, hit the brake button. Note that this airship has active braking, i.e. reverse thrust. This will cause it to reduce speed very rapidly, and if you keep the brakes on, the airship will move backwards.
This airship can turn in-place, i.e., without any forward velocity at all. To turn left, make sure your throttle is not zero, then enable AG2. To turn right, enable AG3.
To engage turbo mode, press AG6. This will make the airship go 2000+ mph near sea level.
When you have enough forward velocity, you can yaw the airship using the yaw controls, like any airplane. To counteract the yaw-induced roll, use the roll input. Note that when moving fast enough, you can also turn this airship like a fighter plane, using roll and pitch -- but using yaw works just fine.
ARMAMENT
One BigSlowBombCannon with 20 shells. To arm, select air-to-ground mode. To fire, press the 'launch weapon' key.
Specifications
General Characteristics
- Created On Windows
- Wingspan 92.5ft (28.2m)
- Length 151.9ft (46.3m)
- Height 63.6ft (19.4m)
- Empty Weight 84,148lbs (38,169kg)
- Loaded Weight 261,056lbs (118,413kg)
Performance
- Power/Weight Ratio 1.033
- Wing Loading 48.9lbs/ft2 (238.7kg/m2)
- Wing Area 5,338.9ft2 (496.0m2)
- Drag Points 121084
Parts
- Number of Parts 312
- Control Surfaces 5
- Performance Cost 1,680
Np
Thanks, @TimeTraveler
Nice airship tho
Sounds like ME when I got into an argument lol.. I’m glad that’s resolved
Np :) @SledDriver
Thanks, @BusterShortWolf
Umm nice build
@EternalDarkness I was happy to end this conversation quite a few comments ago, but then @Tully2001 somehow decided to invite himself to the conversation and stoke the flames. If I never see another comment from him it'll be too soon.
@SledDriver @Tully2001 @spefyjerbf rules of the site state "Please, just be courteous.". Currently, all three of you are breaking that rule. Move this conversation to Discord or some other platform. You are all respected members of this community and it would be stupid if I had to issue you strikes.
@Tully2001
Oh, I'll call you condescending again, and am happy to state as many times as you like that I don't have time for the likes of you. After I posted that comment, I decided to reply to your points anyway, so I deleted the first one. Trust me, I never say anything I'm not willing to fully back up, so screenshot away to your heart's content.
Honest people would disagree. This is the entire basis of intellectual property.
Wrong. I have always said, many times over, that all builds on SP are open source, and anyone is free to use any part of my builds. So where did you pull that assertion out of?
Earlier when, before you called my system a 2D VTOL system? How do you expect me to do that?
By objective standards like stability, controllability, precision, flight handling....
Oh, boy. Time to take some screenshots of my own -- Tully2001 thinks that facts are decided democratically! By that thinking, Galileo was wrong when he determined that the Earth moves around the sun, just because most people didn't agree.
@Tully2001
I combined several concepts together to create what is so far the only hover-flight system that has by far the best performance in SimplePlanes. This is not "interpretation," it's innovation.
@Tully2001
Can you stop calling my system a "2D VTOL system", if only to stop embarrassing yourself? Look up what 2D and 3D mean. Both my hover-flight system and the so-called "2D VTOL system" move in three dimensions, there's nothing 2D about them.
@Tully2001
This is called a straw man argument.
@Tully2001
No, and there's certainly nothing new about the idea of axial thrusters. However, I was the first to execute it perfectly. Which means something.
@Tully2001
OK, fair point. I was not aware of your build.
@SledDriver I wanted to clearly demonstrate my logic. Obviously that was ineffective, and this conversation will only result in petty mudslinging. I have said my stance too. Refer to my conclusion for more information. Take care.
.
Oh, and it looks like my preface got cut off. Here's the rest of the text:
... in the inclusion of two extra AGs. Also, please refer to your replies to Eternal for more information about how your system is different.
@spefyjerbf You've done nothing but spout garbage, using words you don't understand, putting them together in flowery, meaningless ways. Your extreme verbosity belies your claim that your time is valuable.
I've said what I had to say, and am not interested in anything further you have to say, unless you start being honest and using language properly.
Conclusion:
It seems like this conversation has screeched to a halt by a neutral party, EternalDarkness. You do not own a simple concept, and neither do I. If you have any other (small) concerns, I am happy to entertain them, but I have more than adequately defended myself, and my time is more valuable than this. My work was my own, and so was yours. There is more than enough evidence to support this, and all replies after this will be much, much more brief.
Addressing your core argument...
Let’s start with the important part, the 2D-Flight concept. It relies on upward force provided by a static thruster, while other static thrusters control translational motion. Gyros provide stability. Your response verifies these characteristics:
”You stole the whole idea. Prior to this build (Cyclops), every single VTOL system on SimplePlanes was based on rotating VTOL thrusters. To claim that you came up with the same idea as mine, right after I posted Cyclops, is disingenuous in the extreme.”
There are a few things to unpack here. First – the first sentence. Once again, your method of analysis begins with a conclusion, and ends with evidence. I should not need to tell you why this is logically incoherent.
Once again, I am mentioning evidence, so, lets Segway into my evidence. The 2D-VTOL concept is older than you think it is. Specifically, a flight system that automatically balanced the aircraft, and used fixed thrusters for movement had been done before, by me – just in a different game. I have mentioned it a few times before, but I did make flying vehicles in Garry’s Mod before I found SimplePlanes. Interestingly enough, I remember creating a flight system that is conceptually identical to 2D-VTOL flight years ago in GMOD.
The aircraft is here.
It is, functionally speaking, a 2D-VTOL, with its conceptual framework almost perfectly aligning with my perception of what a 2D-VTOL is. It uses thrusters for translational motion, as well as an upward thruster for altitude control. It even has a mechanism that keeps it upright – it uses an invisible counterbalance to counter any random torques on the aircraft. Nifty, right? When SP 1.6 came out, I replicated the flight system that I made years ago in that other game, Garry’s mod. As Eternal said, the idea is older than BOTH of our accounts.
Since I came up with the same concept (2D-VTOL) in another game years ago, it would be foolish to assume that I am not capable of creating the same concept in a game that gives me better tools to implement the concept in question. Therefore, I can confidently state that my flight system’s concept was the result of my own work.
@SledDriver
A preface with some clarifications
First, your tone and responses indicate a mindset that pre-determines me as guilty, regardless of my rebuttals and evidence. I will ignore this for now, but I kindly request that you take my responses seriously, as I am with yours.
Your quote here, for example, demonstrates your current attitude:
”It was flawed because at that point I hadn't explained my system.”
Let’s be honest here. I had about 1.5 years of SP experience before I uploaded my system. If I had a template to follow, would I be foolish enough to fail in implementing it seamlessly? I sincerely hope that my profile at least demonstrates that I am not that incompetent.
.
Second, and most importantly, your response(s) completely ignored the core to my defense of my position. If I am acting like the guilty one, then why did you fail to address the section of my response, titled “Now, lets get into the meat.”? I have only seen you address the weak parts of my argument – you have only peripherally addressed my position. Once again, I kindly request that you take my responses seriously. As a refresher, here is a list of the critical elements of my stance that you have failed to respond to:
- The flight systems are not identical in concept and implementation (You most likely disagree with this one, understandably, so I elaborated on this in the “Addressing your core argument” section.)
- Your statement of me having no concept of 2D-VTOL flight before you uploaded your flight system is demonstrably false.
- The timing of the flight systems can be explained by plagiarism, yes, but it is more feasible that the nature of the 1.6 update was responsible for the unfortunate timing.
.
Third, I must address the following quote:
”The core idea is not the inputs. Claiming that yours is original because you use the VTOL input to change altitude while I use pitch, for instance, is just laughably disingenuous.”
Tone aside, your comment is false by the description of your aircraft. Based on my understanding of your flight system (which is, I admit, is not perfect, as I have never downloaded any of your builds), it provides an upward force to match the weight of the aircraft, then uses top-mounted and bottom-mounted thrusters to control altitude. My system uses one thruster to control altitude in a much more… conventional fashion. In my opinion, that is a significant functional difference between the two systems, that is reflected in the inclusion of two e
@EternalDarkness
No.
No.
@SledDriver you perfected it, yes. And so has Spefy. But the idea is, if my memory is correct, older than your account.
@EternalDarkness Excuse me, I did invent it. The perfection of my hover-flight module has not yet been equalled. If you can find a prior build that implements the idea of using axial thrusters on a symmetrical chassis with a zero-mass "shell," I will retract my claim.
The technique was used on a low part count blimp back when only gyro available was Gyro Cockpits mod. Neither one of you invented it. I can't remember whose blimp it was, but I do remember experimenting with that technique myself later, before figuring out I have nothing to use it on.
@spefyjerbf
It differs in "aspects such as installation" because I use a unique method to create my builds. It differs in altitude control methods, etc., because that would make it very clear that it's my system. The core idea is not the inputs. Claiming that yours is original because you use the VTOL input to change altitude while I use pitch, for instance, is just laughably disingenuous.
You stole the whole idea. Prior to this build (Cyclops), every single VTOL system on SimplePlanes was based on rotating VTOL thrusters. To claim that you came up with the same idea as mine, right after I posted Cyclops, is disingenuous in the extreme.
Coincidences like that just don't happen.