It would be nearly impossible to aim as the target is moving and you have to shoot ahead to actually hit it.
I would disagree. That's just called leading your target and it's a necessary part of dogfighting. Though for aerial combat with guns the weapons have to be projectile based, rather than hitscan. I don't know a lot about Unity, but I have a feeling that projectile-based weapons may be one of the more difficult things to add.
Each part can only be one color, except for parts with trim pieces. Large, multicolored wings like this one are made up of separate wings, each being a different color.
To make your wings multicolored, you have to build them in sections. If you wanted to make a red, white and blue striped vertical stabilizer, it needs to be made of 3 individual pieces.
Thanks for this. The number of posts complaining about a lack of upvotes and attention is beginning to get annoying.
Gold is not an exclusive club. We are not the gatekeepers of popularity. If you look at the gold and platinum Users you can see that the length of time they've been playing varies from 2 months to 10 months. Most of the people who quickly shoot up through the ranks are the ones who engage with others, offer advice, ask good questions (i.e. not "devs when r u adding multiplayer") and work together with other users.
Also, to expand on your third point, your planes don't have to be super detailed to get popular, but they have to at very least look good or be innovative. When you have 793 variations of the P-51 Mustang on this site, you have to do something to set yours apart if you want more than a couple upvotes. Why is your interpretation of the aircraft unique? What makes it yours? What makes it special? Why should somebody download your version instead of somebody else's detailed replica?
The surest sign that somebody hasn't spent a lot of time on an aircraft is the lack of a paint job. If you're uploading things in the default colors, don't expect upvotes. Also, nothing kills a decent plane like terrible handling. Yes, it may go 1000mph, but if I have to constantly pull the nose up to keep from John Denver-ing into the terrain, it's kind of a mood killer.
The chaos of multiplayer is exactly what interests me about multiplayer. With only improvised weapons and (I'm assuming) no way to keep people from using XML-modified parts, I'm predicting a kind of arms race to find the most effective weaponry and the fastest, most maneuverable planes.
Sure, you can drop bombs on the carriers or hit them pretty accurately with missiles, but another plane being actively flown by another person is a completely different story. Honestly for the foreseeable future the most effective weapon will probably be ramming. I don't know about you guys, but the idea of everybody flying around in super-fast jets trying to smash into each other sounds like a whole lot of fun to me.
To combat the amount of inevitable ramming and to appease those users who don't want to be blown up or harassed, two servers could be set up: One with plane-to-plane collision, and one without. With no collision between planes you would be safe from other pilots and their weapons, free to fly around the islands peacefully with others.
The server with collision would basically be a free-for-all demolition derby. There would be alliances and rivalries and dogfights and sometimes peace, but mostly just chaos.
On Mobile: Take a fuselage block and make it .5 tall at the front and back. Rotate it 90 degrees to the left or right, and attach a wing to the end of the block, making sure not to attach the wing to the little connection point at the center of the fuselage block.
In the 'Edit Fuselage Shape' dialog you should then be able to select the face of the fuselage block that the wing is attached to and hit "add section" and it will add a new section of fuselage that is clipped into the wing. The wing will be hidden inside the fuselage but still create lift as normal.
On WIN/OSX: Basically the same process, but it becomes much easier with the ability to nudge. Nudge nudge nudge.
I was going to complain about gold users' planes being featured, but then I realized that you weren't gold yet, which is a real tragedy. You consistently post some of the best and most innovative stuff in the game!
Your CoL is so far back because your primary wings are rotated 90 degrees, and the game engine only calculates lift if the wing is travelling perpendicular to the attach points. Mind if I take a swing at fixing it?
@XVIindustries Thanks for the advice! I was actually planning on remaking this one tonight. I pulled apart @Authros Apache yesterday and figured out how to replicate the rotor controls. I tried them out in my Huey but it actually turned out less stable than my RCN-controlled version, so I'm planning to try them in this thing tonight. Or maybe I'll try another gyrocopter.
@TheLatentImage In the XML, you can manually set the RCN inputs, but it only accepts "Roll", "Pitch" and "Yaw", all other inputs I tried ("Throttle", "VTOL", "Null", and "1") threw errors when the plane was loaded. You also have to change the "autoAssignType" value to "False" otherwise the RCN nozzle inputs will be assigned upon loading into the world, based on the CoM.
Chord scale is the width of the blades. To change the diameter of the propeller, increase the Diameter value. For example, on my Huey, the diameter of the main rotor is 12.5
I don't have SP installed at work, but I can post a better example once I have the XML in front of me.
@Sirstupid I love the enthusiasm, but @TheLatentImage is right... I had planned to start the game in a separate thread. I just pulled off a landing on top of the volcano, I'll put the thread up right now!
@FlOu It really is tricky to fly, and nearly impossible on mobile. I've also experienced some weird, seemingly random stalls and spins out of nowhere. I think the propeller physics get a little wonky with such a highly modified part.
And as I found out last night, it also gets a bit unruly below 50% fuel, because of the massive weight change. It's perfectly balanced front-to-back with both a completely full and completely empty tank, but since most of the fuel is kept in the lower parts of the fuselage, the CoM tends to move upwards as the fuel level decreases.
Paradise may be a little easy. I liked Oceanview, I think it's a pretty good test of handling.
Really though I would say it depends on what kind of rules you've got planned for the challenges. If you're going to allow big jet engines I'd say that Paradise is probably good, I can see it being challenging at very high speeds. If you're doing single prop engines (or small jets) I'd do Oceanview again. If you're feeling masochistic I'd say Trench Run, but I sure wouldn't want to test 40-something planes on that course.
Woo! I'll take it! Thanks @A5mod3us for the wonderful challenge and all the work you put into judging it. And congrats to @Shmexysmpilot @karlosdarkness and @Cedy117 !
What ever happened to that guy anyways? I just checked his channel to see if he had ever made any SP videos, and it looks like he has actually gone insane.
Your elevators are inverted (pitching down will pitch you up and vice versa) even if they move in a regular way. Your wing must be delta with a really long chord. The force produced by elevators is applied at 25% of the chord of the wing (front), so if you have a delta wing it's likely that this point is in front of your COM, this is why it's inverted. Try to move your elevators on the tip of the wing where the chord is usually shorter.
My current earworm is the new Ratatat album. It's pretty awesome.
Also in my heavy rotation is Leon Bridges, Marian Hill, Alpine, Lupe Fiasco, Madeon, Run the Jewels, Holychild, Sticky Fingers, and The Avener.
Currently playing on my sound system is the new Emancipator album.
But if anyone's got Google Play, here is one of my best playlists. ~5 hours of chill songs.
@XVIindustries So? It's not like I'm running a real company. AG is my initials, and my logo is actually my personal logo, which I use for graphic design work, including my personal resume and portfolio.
• PBY Coronado - Flying mock-up, pre-detailing phase. Probably going to be cancelled, because I just built a Catalina instead.
• Convair Sea Dart - 90% complete, needs some XML black magic to get it to fly decently.
• Lockheed Starfighter - 80% complete. Been sitting on this one for a while, not happy with its performance.
• Tiny-scale P40 for the Tiny Plane Challenge - Wrestling with the idea of adding landing gear, but it would mean shaving off significant weight and sacrificing detail.
• Spartan Executive - Have a flying fuselage, waiting to find the motivation to fix the cockpit and add detail.
• Unnamed VTOL project - Unreleased, still in the testing phase. Once I can land it on the top of the tower at Murphy Airport, it'll be done.
Planned:
• Full-size P40 Warhawk. I want to try some nose art!
• Beech Staggerwing
• Wright Flyer, but I don't know that it'll ever happen.
@A5mod3us Thanks! I do wish it was more maneuverable, but without cyclic pitch control I don't think there's much to be done.
I also suspect that propellers don't generate lift, only thrust and drag. A real autogyro (and most helicopters) would be capable of 'gliding' with proper autorotation. If the devs are planning on implementing true helicopter parts, that'll need to be sorted out.
@A5mod3us I hope you have a contingency for not being able to complete the course. I checked out a few of the entries and there are a couple that are literally unflyable.
I'm hoping for helicopter parts. Maybe a rotor/swashplate combo with built-in actuation so we don't have to mess around with rotators. Some kind of gyro for added stability in VTOL planes and helis would be nice too.
Whenever I modify an engine, I always just add a little disclaimer to the description to let people know that it's not stock. I figure it's just nice to let people know.
Also, if you want shinier planes, the value "r" for each color in the xml can be increased for more reflectivity! It makes polished metal planes look much better.
It would definitely be nice to see a more detailed color picker and reflectivity options implemented in-game though.
I used to play a sandbox game called Space Engineers. It put you in a big, open section of space with just a couple asteroids. To keep things interesting during single player, there was an option to have AI spaceships pass by every once in a while. You couldn't really interact with them aside from blowing them up, and they just kinda moseyed on through your map.
I'd kinda like to see something similar in SP. It would be pretty neat to have an 'Air Traffic' option. Just a couple planes (maybe the stock planes) flying over the islands every once in a while. Not often enough to cause real traffic, but just something to add a little bit of life to the world. Also, they'd make good target practice.
Maybe I'm just callous, but I always expect the official word on updates to be "We'll release it when it's ready." By normal developer standards the amount of community engagement we have with the devs is outstanding. And there have definitely been hints about what's going to be in the next update, you just have to look for them.
I would disagree. That's just called leading your target and it's a necessary part of dogfighting. Though for aerial combat with guns the weapons have to be projectile based, rather than hitscan. I don't know a lot about Unity, but I have a feeling that projectile-based weapons may be one of the more difficult things to add.
Very good suggestions, though!
@Meawk There may be some outliers in the top users, but I don't want to name names.
Each part can only be one color, except for parts with trim pieces. Large, multicolored wings like this one are made up of separate wings, each being a different color.
To make your wings multicolored, you have to build them in sections. If you wanted to make a red, white and blue striped vertical stabilizer, it needs to be made of 3 individual pieces.
It's like a big angry cactus!
@JovianPat Haha no problem buddy, I saw you sitting there at 1,999 and just had to help. :)
Thanks for this. The number of posts complaining about a lack of upvotes and attention is beginning to get annoying.
Gold is not an exclusive club. We are not the gatekeepers of popularity. If you look at the gold and platinum Users you can see that the length of time they've been playing varies from 2 months to 10 months. Most of the people who quickly shoot up through the ranks are the ones who engage with others, offer advice, ask good questions (i.e. not "devs when r u adding multiplayer") and work together with other users.
Also, to expand on your third point, your planes don't have to be super detailed to get popular, but they have to at very least look good or be innovative. When you have 793 variations of the P-51 Mustang on this site, you have to do something to set yours apart if you want more than a couple upvotes. Why is your interpretation of the aircraft unique? What makes it yours? What makes it special? Why should somebody download your version instead of somebody else's detailed replica?
The surest sign that somebody hasn't spent a lot of time on an aircraft is the lack of a paint job. If you're uploading things in the default colors, don't expect upvotes. Also, nothing kills a decent plane like terrible handling. Yes, it may go 1000mph, but if I have to constantly pull the nose up to keep from John Denver-ing into the terrain, it's kind of a mood killer.
Identical to my original in every aspect. Not even repainted. Why?
The chaos of multiplayer is exactly what interests me about multiplayer. With only improvised weapons and (I'm assuming) no way to keep people from using XML-modified parts, I'm predicting a kind of arms race to find the most effective weaponry and the fastest, most maneuverable planes.
Sure, you can drop bombs on the carriers or hit them pretty accurately with missiles, but another plane being actively flown by another person is a completely different story. Honestly for the foreseeable future the most effective weapon will probably be ramming. I don't know about you guys, but the idea of everybody flying around in super-fast jets trying to smash into each other sounds like a whole lot of fun to me.
To combat the amount of inevitable ramming and to appease those users who don't want to be blown up or harassed, two servers could be set up: One with plane-to-plane collision, and one without. With no collision between planes you would be safe from other pilots and their weapons, free to fly around the islands peacefully with others.
The server with collision would basically be a free-for-all demolition derby. There would be alliances and rivalries and dogfights and sometimes peace, but mostly just chaos.
On Mobile: Take a fuselage block and make it .5 tall at the front and back. Rotate it 90 degrees to the left or right, and attach a wing to the end of the block, making sure not to attach the wing to the little connection point at the center of the fuselage block.
In the 'Edit Fuselage Shape' dialog you should then be able to select the face of the fuselage block that the wing is attached to and hit "add section" and it will add a new section of fuselage that is clipped into the wing. The wing will be hidden inside the fuselage but still create lift as normal.
On WIN/OSX: Basically the same process, but it becomes much easier with the ability to nudge. Nudge nudge nudge.
Thanks y'all! This was really fun to build.
@WalrusAircraft @Lolivier @LordHarryHillbark @FlOu @Delphinus @A5mod3us @JacobHardy64 @jheffernan
I was going to complain about gold users' planes being featured, but then I realized that you weren't gold yet, which is a real tragedy. You consistently post some of the best and most innovative stuff in the game!
Your CoL is so far back because your primary wings are rotated 90 degrees, and the game engine only calculates lift if the wing is travelling perpendicular to the attach points. Mind if I take a swing at fixing it?
Mostly just to test and troubleshoot handling in VTOL planes.
I died. It was awesome!
Teeny tiny diameter landing skids! Genius.
@XVIindustries Thanks for the advice! I was actually planning on remaking this one tonight. I pulled apart @Authros Apache yesterday and figured out how to replicate the rotor controls. I tried them out in my Huey but it actually turned out less stable than my RCN-controlled version, so I'm planning to try them in this thing tonight. Or maybe I'll try another gyrocopter.
@TheLatentImage In the XML, you can manually set the RCN inputs, but it only accepts "Roll", "Pitch" and "Yaw", all other inputs I tried ("Throttle", "VTOL", "Null", and "1") threw errors when the plane was loaded. You also have to change the "autoAssignType" value to "False" otherwise the RCN nozzle inputs will be assigned upon loading into the world, based on the CoM.
Chord scale is the width of the blades. To change the diameter of the propeller, increase the Diameter value. For example, on my Huey, the diameter of the main rotor is 12.5
I don't have SP installed at work, but I can post a better example once I have the XML in front of me.
Jesus, this is hands down the best helicopter. Absolutely amazing.
@Delphinus Good enough for me! Your move.
@Sirstupid I love the enthusiasm, but @TheLatentImage is right... I had planned to start the game in a separate thread. I just pulled off a landing on top of the volcano, I'll put the thread up right now!
@FlOu It really is tricky to fly, and nearly impossible on mobile. I've also experienced some weird, seemingly random stalls and spins out of nowhere. I think the propeller physics get a little wonky with such a highly modified part.
And as I found out last night, it also gets a bit unruly below 50% fuel, because of the massive weight change. It's perfectly balanced front-to-back with both a completely full and completely empty tank, but since most of the fuel is kept in the lower parts of the fuselage, the CoM tends to move upwards as the fuel level decreases.
+1It's just a jump to the left...
@AirplaneExpert624 XML editing.
For maximum effect, listen to this while you fly her.
(Posting this in the comments because markup doesn't work in the plane description. Is that intentional?)
Paradise may be a little easy. I liked Oceanview, I think it's a pretty good test of handling.
Really though I would say it depends on what kind of rules you've got planned for the challenges. If you're going to allow big jet engines I'd say that Paradise is probably good, I can see it being challenging at very high speeds. If you're doing single prop engines (or small jets) I'd do Oceanview again. If you're feeling masochistic I'd say Trench Run, but I sure wouldn't want to test 40-something planes on that course.
@tominator I am now! Thanks, buddy. :D
Woo! I'll take it! Thanks @A5mod3us for the wonderful challenge and all the work you put into judging it. And congrats to @Shmexysmpilot @karlosdarkness and @Cedy117 !
Can't wait for the next one!
Thank you all so much!
@KevinMurphy @Meawk @Allstar @JMicah4 @realluochen9999 @Cjredwards @mattmck
What ever happened to that guy anyways? I just checked his channel to see if he had ever made any SP videos, and it looks like he has actually gone insane.
Check out the troubleshooting section of the Wiki over on the reddit site.
Specifically:
Oh man, I could talk forever about music.
My current earworm is the new Ratatat album. It's pretty awesome.
Also in my heavy rotation is Leon Bridges, Marian Hill, Alpine, Lupe Fiasco, Madeon, Run the Jewels, Holychild, Sticky Fingers, and The Avener.
Currently playing on my sound system is the new Emancipator album.
But if anyone's got Google Play, here is one of my best playlists. ~5 hours of chill songs.
@V7Aerospace Thanks! I like your logo too.
@XVIindustries So? It's not like I'm running a real company. AG is my initials, and my logo is actually my personal logo, which I use for graphic design work, including my personal resume and portfolio.
Currently unfinished:
• PBY Coronado - Flying mock-up, pre-detailing phase. Probably going to be cancelled, because I just built a Catalina instead.
• Convair Sea Dart - 90% complete, needs some XML black magic to get it to fly decently.
• Lockheed Starfighter - 80% complete. Been sitting on this one for a while, not happy with its performance.
• Tiny-scale P40 for the Tiny Plane Challenge - Wrestling with the idea of adding landing gear, but it would mean shaving off significant weight and sacrificing detail.
• Spartan Executive - Have a flying fuselage, waiting to find the motivation to fix the cockpit and add detail.
• Unnamed VTOL project - Unreleased, still in the testing phase. Once I can land it on the top of the tower at Murphy Airport, it'll be done.
Planned:
• Full-size P40 Warhawk. I want to try some nose art!
• Beech Staggerwing
• Wright Flyer, but I don't know that it'll ever happen.
@SpiritusRaptor @JacobHardy64 @A5mod3us @CapitalTechnologies @Jimmyrocket
Thanks, dudes!
@Lolivier @VikDesigns @Wahoo12 @Meepsimon @ElijtheGeat @Cjredwards
Thanks y'all! I'm glad you like it.
@TheLatentImage I agree 100%.
@A5mod3us Thanks! I do wish it was more maneuverable, but without cyclic pitch control I don't think there's much to be done.
I also suspect that propellers don't generate lift, only thrust and drag. A real autogyro (and most helicopters) would be capable of 'gliding' with proper autorotation. If the devs are planning on implementing true helicopter parts, that'll need to be sorted out.
Could maybe use tiny kerning adjustments, but I'm picky.
@A5mod3us I hope you have a contingency for not being able to complete the course. I checked out a few of the entries and there are a couple that are literally unflyable.
I'm hoping for helicopter parts. Maybe a rotor/swashplate combo with built-in actuation so we don't have to mess around with rotators. Some kind of gyro for added stability in VTOL planes and helis would be nice too.
@XVIindustries Good catch. Thanks.
Whenever I modify an engine, I always just add a little disclaimer to the description to let people know that it's not stock. I figure it's just nice to let people know.
Usually don't do contests, but I think I'll throw my hat in for this one! I needed something to build tonight anyways.
Hex color values for your materials are saved in the XML files, and can be changed manually by editing said values.
To find the hex color you want, try this website.
Also, if you want shinier planes, the value "r" for each color in the xml can be increased for more reflectivity! It makes polished metal planes look much better.
It would definitely be nice to see a more detailed color picker and reflectivity options implemented in-game though.
This should help fix a lot of things. Congrats, y'all.
I used to play a sandbox game called Space Engineers. It put you in a big, open section of space with just a couple asteroids. To keep things interesting during single player, there was an option to have AI spaceships pass by every once in a while. You couldn't really interact with them aside from blowing them up, and they just kinda moseyed on through your map.
I'd kinda like to see something similar in SP. It would be pretty neat to have an 'Air Traffic' option. Just a couple planes (maybe the stock planes) flying over the islands every once in a while. Not often enough to cause real traffic, but just something to add a little bit of life to the world. Also, they'd make good target practice.
Maybe I'm just callous, but I always expect the official word on updates to be "We'll release it when it's ready." By normal developer standards the amount of community engagement we have with the devs is outstanding. And there have definitely been hints about what's going to be in the next update, you just have to look for them.
I'd say it's a fair bet that is the first Chinese bullet train on SP.