@NovaTopaz In the last stream they said it's going to be posted on Monday. Maybe they are waiting until they can release the next update, so that everyone has the new Lunar Arc circuit, as that's what they wanted to run the next Tournament on. But they could've just replaced it with one of the other courses.
@Tully2001 No problem. :D Actually I was just waiting for someone to think I was using wings instead of structural panels. You can only see the difference in the editor (by the name of the part), when testing and in the XML.
@Tully2001 In the XML you can see it very easily. Structural wings and structural panels are both Wing-2, both have control surfaces disabled, but the structural panels also have wing physics disabled. The normal wings with control surfaces are all Wing-3. SP will calculate the wing area and wing loading no matter which type of those it is.
@Pauciloquent That's what I did on my torpedoes. The most lethal one I've got only has one Bomb 50 and four Bomb 25 in it though. I need one with three or four Bomb 50s. :D
@Pauciloquent I think the blast radius adds up the more Boom 50s you pack into one explosion (atleast that's what I've seen on my IntelliBomb), but I haven't tried killing the whole fleet with one torpedo yet. :D
@Halfstrike It's said clearly in the description that it has to be mounted to a testbase. Either the one I provide or a modified version of it or your own creation. :D
@Halfstrike How am I supposed to fly it to the testrange then? :D It doesn't even work like this, as it has no fuel attached to the cockpit and the detacher flies directly into the propellers after launch.
Lethality: 5 (can take out medium ships with one hit, larger ships require two torpedoes)
Speed: 4 (not the fastest but also not the slowest)
Stability/Accuracy: 8 (stable flight, a bit jumpy on touchdown, makes large right hand turns in the water and jumps up and down slightly, but never get's too unstable to continue the ride)
Compatibility/Size: 2 (the large propeller makes it hard to fit it on normal aircrafts, but it could be worse)
Maximum launch altitude: 9 (can be launched at all tested altitudes up to 1500 feet ASL without any failures)
Minimum launch distance: 5 (drops pretty quickly, so you can even hit the target when launching at very close distance without ramming your aircraft into the target)
Maximum launch distance: 6 (just limited by the large turns it makes, otherwise it could go forever, but this way you would have to fly parallel to the target to hit at 4 nm distance)
Looks: 2 (not an eye-catcher but also not disgusting)
@Pauciloquent @bskngshrk Nice and solid entries. :)
@Halfstrike Can you tell me which of the planes is supposed to be the testbase, so I can put them together?
Edit: bskngshrk, why is your torpedo going in large circles all the time? :D
@ChaMikey Keep your eyes open for some older AMD Radeon GPUs like the HD 7970/R9 280X. They aged very well and gained lots of performance through driver updates over the years. There's nothing better for 100-130€. And you could probably get an i5 2500K + Z/P67 mainboard for 200€ or less (sometimes 150€), also still great hardware, you don't need anything more than that really. The hardware market is pretty much stuck with the games lacking feature support and not demanding much more performance, so there wasn't much improvement in the past few years. This way you might have enough money left to also get a basic lower-end laptop for mobile use. I hope it helps. :)
@ChaMikey A laptop with enough performance would be over 1000€. A PC that fits it would be possible to build with 800€ or maybe less (eventually ~500€ with some used hardware). That's one of the reasons why I'd never recommend powerful laptops over a midrange PC. Also the battery wouldn't last very long, so you'd have to be plugged to the charger most of the time. A friend of me didn't listen, then wasn't satisfied with the performance and the fact that it had to be plugged in during longer gaming sessions and had to pay double in the end (1000€ for the laptop and 900€ for a new gaming-PC). :D
@ChaMikey I don't think it will run well on a laptop. :D It needs much RAM (8-16 GB), a powerful CPU (like the desktop versions of an i5 or atleast an i3) and some input devices like a joystick + keyboard. Better would be a HOTAS (throttle + joystick) with lots of buttons and 4-way HATs. It only requires a midrange GPU with atleast 1.5 GB VRAM for very smooth experience at 1080p and 1440p though. And if you really want to get into it, you should also consider getting a PS3 Eye Camera with the CL Eye driver, an IR-passfilter, a pack of IR-LEDs and resistors to build a headtracker for better situational awareness. It's quite painful looking around with the mouse in a dogfight. :D
@Nickasaurus So the Su-25T then? :D If you also play on servers, I might escort you.
@ChaMikey DCS:World is free to download and contains the Su-25T Frogfoot and the TF-51D, which is the trainer version of the P-51 + some training missions for them. There are plenty of modules to buy with different planes and helicopters and also the Nevada Test and Training Range map as an addition to the free Caucasus map. It has gotten a huge update with a new game engine some months ago and they are still sorting the bugs out right now, so don't expect it to run that great if you're going to try it. I don't think it's available for OSX though. :D You can also find many skilled pilots on the servers.
@ChaMikey WarThunder if I just want to have some fun with WWII planes and DCS:World when I want realistic combat action with jets, bombs and missiles. I thought about the Cessna 206 if I can get a not so expensive used one. It's still some years away though. :D (Okay, I just checked prices again, it's 100000 to half a million € right now, so I'm gonna look for an alternative, maybe a 182)
@ChaMikey Basically you just have to nudge the parts of the throttle to the other side and it's a perfect cockpit as far as it goes with SimplePlanes parts. And
1.no
2.not yet, but I'm planning to get a license in the future
3.yes
@ChaMikey Military jets always have the throttle on the left directly infront of the radio controls. The stick is controlled with the right hand and normally sits in the middle between the knees. The F-16 has the stick on the right side, as they've been experimenting with completely electronic, force-sensitive flightsticks back then. The shape would fit the Dassault Mirage 2000-5 cockpit, but still I'd say it's going to be an F/A-18. :D
F-16 ACE or an F/A-18 I'd say looking at the MFD layout. Though there's not a single military jet on earth with the throttle on the right. And the F-16 doesn't have the stick in the middle. :D
@FatNinja That's something to think about when building a torpedo! :D
You could put a detacher on the top and build something with a fuselage, cockpit and wings on it. It doesn't need take-off and landing capabilities, I'm going to start it in the air anyways.
Main cockpit has to be on the testbase for aiming and because I noticed that user-built weapons greatly change behaviour depending on whether it is placed on the weapon itself or the carrier of it, which would make comparison between different designs impossible. :)
"How to enter:
Download the challenge, remove the sign, create a torpedo design and put it on the belly of the included testbase (with a detacher). Upload it when you are done with testing and optimization. (Designs that are no successors won't enter the challenge) You are allowed to modify the testbase or create your own one (won't add to the rating).
Multiple entries are allowed (please remove old versions if you only add an updated version)."
This one doesn't include a testbase, so there's no way of carrying it to the ships for testing, excluding it from the challenge.
@SimpleName11 You will be dead and he will be dead before anyone can shoot. :D
@TehDuck The model has to be somewhere in the game files. It's just copy and paste then basically. :D
@SimpleName11 The destroyers won't even trigger until the first weapon hit and then the other torpedoes already explode the whole fleet. Also there are ways to get rid of incoming missiles. :D
@SimpleName11 Both would sink I guess. :D But you gave me a nice idea for my airborne multirole carrier. I don't know if it can be implemented, as I want to have a lower and a upper deck and it would be tough creating enough space then.
@Nickasaurus The offer of escorting you in DCS multiplayer or joining you in an A-10C or Su-25T for some ground attacks is still vaild by the way. :D
@NovaTopaz Yep. It's normally always posted on the next day after the Tournament.
@NovaTopaz In the last stream they said it's going to be posted on Monday. Maybe they are waiting until they can release the next update, so that everyone has the new Lunar Arc circuit, as that's what they wanted to run the next Tournament on. But they could've just replaced it with one of the other courses.
@jsaret Normally they post it on Monday. I'm looking for it everyday, but nothing there yet.
@Tully2001 No problem. :D Actually I was just waiting for someone to think I was using wings instead of structural panels. You can only see the difference in the editor (by the name of the part), when testing and in the XML.
@Tully2001 In the XML you can see it very easily. Structural wings and structural panels are both Wing-2, both have control surfaces disabled, but the structural panels also have wing physics disabled. The normal wings with control surfaces are all Wing-3. SP will calculate the wing area and wing loading no matter which type of those it is.
@Tully2001 Nope, those are very thin fuselage pieces. Structural panels/wings are way thicker. :) He's also using the drag I assume.
@Tully2001 I could also use large fuselage pieces instead. I'm only using the drag to slow down the fall and stabilize it.
@Tully2001 Because structural panels are basically wings, just with deactivated wing physics and deactivated control surfaces.
@Tully2001 Those are all structural panels. :)
I'd like to join if that's possible. :D
@bskngshrk It turns to the right. :D
Now all my creations look like cheap jokes compared to this. :D
@Pauciloquent That's what I did on my torpedoes. The most lethal one I've got only has one Bomb 50 and four Bomb 25 in it though. I need one with three or four Bomb 50s. :D
@Pauciloquent I think the blast radius adds up the more Boom 50s you pack into one explosion (atleast that's what I've seen on my IntelliBomb), but I haven't tried killing the whole fleet with one torpedo yet. :D
@Halfstrike It's said clearly in the description that it has to be mounted to a testbase. Either the one I provide or a modified version of it or your own creation. :D
Score:
Lethality: 8 (can destroy even large ships with one hit, but can't destroy a whole fleet)
Speed: 9 (pretty fast)
Stability/Accuracy: 10 (perfect in all points)
Compatibility/Size: 4 (pretty slim, but also long, probably fits on most bombers and even some smaller crafts)
Maximum launch altitude: 9 (I thought about giving it a bonus point, as I have even tested it at 2000 feet ASL with perfect results)
Minimum launch distance: 5 (drops quickly enough even for very close launches)
Maximum launch distance: 10 (can be launched at any range and still hit because of the high stability and steering function)
Looks: 4 (very sleek and realistic, I just want to keep one point free for a design that really flashes me)
Total: 59
@Halfstrike How am I supposed to fly it to the testrange then? :D It doesn't even work like this, as it has no fuel attached to the cockpit and the detacher flies directly into the propellers after launch.
Score:
Lethality: 5 (can take out medium ships with one hit, larger ships require two torpedoes)
Speed: 4 (not the fastest but also not the slowest)
Stability/Accuracy: 8 (stable flight, a bit jumpy on touchdown, makes large right hand turns in the water and jumps up and down slightly, but never get's too unstable to continue the ride)
Compatibility/Size: 2 (the large propeller makes it hard to fit it on normal aircrafts, but it could be worse)
Maximum launch altitude: 9 (can be launched at all tested altitudes up to 1500 feet ASL without any failures)
Minimum launch distance: 5 (drops pretty quickly, so you can even hit the target when launching at very close distance without ramming your aircraft into the target)
Maximum launch distance: 6 (just limited by the large turns it makes, otherwise it could go forever, but this way you would have to fly parallel to the target to hit at 4 nm distance)
Looks: 2 (not an eye-catcher but also not disgusting)
Total: 41
@Pauciloquent @bskngshrk Nice and solid entries. :)
@Halfstrike Can you tell me which of the planes is supposed to be the testbase, so I can put them together?
Edit: bskngshrk, why is your torpedo going in large circles all the time? :D
@ChaMikey Keep your eyes open for some older AMD Radeon GPUs like the HD 7970/R9 280X. They aged very well and gained lots of performance through driver updates over the years. There's nothing better for 100-130€. And you could probably get an i5 2500K + Z/P67 mainboard for 200€ or less (sometimes 150€), also still great hardware, you don't need anything more than that really. The hardware market is pretty much stuck with the games lacking feature support and not demanding much more performance, so there wasn't much improvement in the past few years. This way you might have enough money left to also get a basic lower-end laptop for mobile use. I hope it helps. :)
@ChaMikey A laptop with enough performance would be over 1000€. A PC that fits it would be possible to build with 800€ or maybe less (eventually ~500€ with some used hardware). That's one of the reasons why I'd never recommend powerful laptops over a midrange PC. Also the battery wouldn't last very long, so you'd have to be plugged to the charger most of the time. A friend of me didn't listen, then wasn't satisfied with the performance and the fact that it had to be plugged in during longer gaming sessions and had to pay double in the end (1000€ for the laptop and 900€ for a new gaming-PC). :D
@ChaMikey How the hell did I never recognize your builds? They are gorgeous! :D
@ChaMikey I don't think it will run well on a laptop. :D It needs much RAM (8-16 GB), a powerful CPU (like the desktop versions of an i5 or atleast an i3) and some input devices like a joystick + keyboard. Better would be a HOTAS (throttle + joystick) with lots of buttons and 4-way HATs. It only requires a midrange GPU with atleast 1.5 GB VRAM for very smooth experience at 1080p and 1440p though. And if you really want to get into it, you should also consider getting a PS3 Eye Camera with the CL Eye driver, an IR-passfilter, a pack of IR-LEDs and resistors to build a headtracker for better situational awareness. It's quite painful looking around with the mouse in a dogfight. :D
@Nickasaurus So the Su-25T then? :D If you also play on servers, I might escort you.
@Nickasaurus DCS? Do you fly the F-15C, Su-27 and/or A-10C? :D
@ChaMikey DCS:World is free to download and contains the Su-25T Frogfoot and the TF-51D, which is the trainer version of the P-51 + some training missions for them. There are plenty of modules to buy with different planes and helicopters and also the Nevada Test and Training Range map as an addition to the free Caucasus map. It has gotten a huge update with a new game engine some months ago and they are still sorting the bugs out right now, so don't expect it to run that great if you're going to try it. I don't think it's available for OSX though. :D You can also find many skilled pilots on the servers.
@ChaMikey WarThunder if I just want to have some fun with WWII planes and DCS:World when I want realistic combat action with jets, bombs and missiles. I thought about the Cessna 206 if I can get a not so expensive used one. It's still some years away though. :D (Okay, I just checked prices again, it's 100000 to half a million € right now, so I'm gonna look for an alternative, maybe a 182)
@ChaMikey Basically you just have to nudge the parts of the throttle to the other side and it's a perfect cockpit as far as it goes with SimplePlanes parts. And
1.no
2.not yet, but I'm planning to get a license in the future
3.yes
and I'm into military flight simulators. :D
@ChaMikey Military jets always have the throttle on the left directly infront of the radio controls. The stick is controlled with the right hand and normally sits in the middle between the knees. The F-16 has the stick on the right side, as they've been experimenting with completely electronic, force-sensitive flightsticks back then. The shape would fit the Dassault Mirage 2000-5 cockpit, but still I'd say it's going to be an F/A-18. :D
F-16 ACE or an F/A-18 I'd say looking at the MFD layout. Though there's not a single military jet on earth with the throttle on the right. And the F-16 doesn't have the stick in the middle. :D
@bskngshrk And it needs a testbase. Just a very simple plane that can carry and launch it. :D
Nice idea for a torpedo that works underwater. :D
@FatNinja That's something to think about when building a torpedo! :D
You could put a detacher on the top and build something with a fuselage, cockpit and wings on it. It doesn't need take-off and landing capabilities, I'm going to start it in the air anyways.
Main cockpit has to be on the testbase for aiming and because I noticed that user-built weapons greatly change behaviour depending on whether it is placed on the weapon itself or the carrier of it, which would make comparison between different designs impossible. :)
Very nice design, but it has a problem.
"How to enter:
Download the challenge, remove the sign, create a torpedo design and put it on the belly of the included testbase (with a detacher). Upload it when you are done with testing and optimization. (Designs that are no successors won't enter the challenge)
You are allowed to modify the testbase or create your own one (won't add to the rating).
Multiple entries are allowed (please remove old versions if you only add an updated version)."
This one doesn't include a testbase, so there's no way of carrying it to the ships for testing, excluding it from the challenge.
@Pauciloquent Alright, sounds interesting. :D
@Seeras @SPS13 @TehDuck @Viper28 @ChunderDownUndeR @Noman0rumeral @Pauciloquent @bjac0
"Small" teaser :D Base is almost done
@AndrewGarrison So the "Simple" in "SimplePlanes" stands for "Nobody said it would be easy.", got it! :D
@TheOwlAce But I'm not even planning a career in German politics. :D
@EinsteinEX I guess I was wrong, otherwise you would have ~30 points now. :D So comments don't give any.
@Flightsonic It's not in there yet, but the game is ready to contain it, so it is probably in development. :D
@Sirstupid
@Pauciloquent Alright. I might delay the deadline if there are less than 10 entries until Friday. :)
@Pauciloquent Thanks! :D
@SimpleName11 You will be dead and he will be dead before anyone can shoot. :D
@TehDuck The model has to be somewhere in the game files. It's just copy and paste then basically. :D
@SimpleName11 Only when they have been hit already. And they only have a specific range for missiles and AAA-turrets. :)
@TehDuck That's a way too simple creation for me. :D
@SimpleName11 But they only start to shoot when you are under a specific range. Also they are dead before they can even aim. :D
@SimpleName11 The destroyers won't even trigger until the first weapon hit and then the other torpedoes already explode the whole fleet. Also there are ways to get rid of incoming missiles. :D
@SimpleName11 Both would sink I guess. :D But you gave me a nice idea for my airborne multirole carrier. I don't know if it can be implemented, as I want to have a lower and a upper deck and it would be tough creating enough space then.
@SimpleName11 Nice idea! :D