@Oicraftian
Although there are a lot of parts meant for aethetics here, a lot of it is functional, which, in addition to the fact that it's actually quite difficult to build, means that all I can do is remove the aethetic parts. I should be able to get it to around 200, but I can't make any promises. It should be up in a few days.
@LordofLego @SpiritusRaptor @KrisM @TheFlyingPlane21 @DefendMyCereal
Thanks everyone for your feedback! I really appreciate it!
I just wanted to let you know that I've just posted the improved version (steerable this time), if you want to look at that!
Worked excellently, and was much more durable than I expected! When it did finally explode (I has been trying for a few minutes to get it to do so), it did so spectacularly!
I downloaded this and it worked on the first try (I set the game quality to low), and it's exactly like a much more reliable way to do something else I found: drop a VTOL engine with a cockpit and a bunch of air brakes into the ocean, wait a while, and deploy the air brakes. It gets it up to the maximum height the game measures
Good god, my truck has spread far further than anything else I've built; this upload has three predecessors before it gets to me, point being that you did not create this truck. I did. It is considerably different than when I posted it, but it is clearly the same vehicle.
Just so people know, I am the original creator of the truck. I did not originally mean for the truck to fly; it just sort of... happened. I like your edits, but give credit where it is due.
No problem! Anyways, there's been a problem with my SimplePlanes app, and it invariably crashes every time I open it, so I've deleted it and I'm going to try to re-download it. As such, it's probably going to be a while before I can get back to you on fixing the CoM issue
That's a bit harsh, is it not? Did you fail to read the description at all? He clearly stated that the center of mass was way in the back because of the twin engines, explaining the instability problem with ease. In addition, isn't putting a couple landing gear on a plane an easy task that you should be able to accomplish? He also asked for help, and your painfully ignorant comment does nothing of the sort. If in fact you are incapable of reading such a simple description, here is a link that should help with that: http://readingeggs.com. That aside, the plane looks great, and if I have time, I can try to fix the problem and upload the result on my page, and I'll post a link in another comment (or you might see it under successors)
Oops^^
Anyways, this is excellent! I love the jet, and I appreciate how much time you've put into making this! I've also been trying to perfect on-board missiles for a long time now, and this has been immensely helpful!
Not sure why the last one didn't explode; it should work. Did you try it more than once? Sometimes the setup is different on different level startups, and even though the differences are usually negligible, sometimes they can have that effect. The solution to this would just be to try again. Another possibility is lag; if there's too much lag when the detacher button is pressed, the detonator can clip straight through the other side of the bomb in between renderings, yielding no explosion. The solution to this is the same as the last solution: try again. If the problem persists through multiple tries, reduce the power level of the detacher by 10%. It should lower the detonator's acceleration, which would increase the time allowed for the computer to realize that the detonator has in fact smashed into the other side of the bomb instead of thinking that they never collided. If none of these solutions work, see if the velocity of the entire bomb makes a difference. I've noticed that different power levels in the detacher work best at different velocities, which, in my exploding plane (which works the exact same way as the bomb), means that the bomb will have different effects when it's sitting on the runway as to when it's falling at 300mph. If nothing works, curse quietly and fiddle about with it a bit more. Hope this helps!
It makes total sense; I did a little bit more research into the plane and discovered that the design was to make it more maneuverable through aerodynamic instability, which, when regulated by on-board computers, making tiny adjustments hundreds of times every second just to keep it in a straight line, would provide a huge advantage in an aerial dogfight. However, in simple planes, with decently accurate physics engine and no equivalent for the on-board computers needed to regulate the flight, I felt that historical accuracy (which your upload keeps to wonderfully) could not maintain the stability needed to keep a plane flying when bereft of the computers necessary to accomplish the task, especially when it was designed to be unstable in the first place. As such, I was relieved that the only result that came of not having on-board computers was a bit of a sinking problem (instead of perhaps ripping itself apart through a series of 90° turns, rolls, and severe pitch changes as it came out of a 600 mph run), so overall, the problem I fixed was relatively benign. That being said, I had actually wanted to preserve as much historical accuracy as possible, but with the original Grumman X-29 being such an unstable design in the first place, in trying to fix the problem, I actually created several more problems (some of which modeled the aforementioned expectations of inherent instability quite well), so one thing led to another, and before I knew it, I had created a monstrosity (a stable monstrosity, but a monstrosity at that). Because it was so difficult to even get it there, I just kept it like that and posted it. (sorry for the essay it took to get to this point)
Overall, great design, great plane (I have a model X-29 on my desk), and I appreciate your feedback on my adaptation as well!
I fixed the sinking bit... and in the process ruined the entire aesthetic appeal of this plane:) You'll find that the demographics of people who like the look of this version and my version are entirely different, so yeah... lots of small changes that led to one... er, big change. I can post a link in another comment (or you might see it under successors).
Original creator here (I have an account now!): thanks! I agree, a working design would be so cool, and as such, I am trying as best as I can to accomplish the goal! However, because of the many difficulties with aerodynamics and weight distribution (and fuel and thrust and pretty much everything else:), it might be a while before I get that working. If/when it happens, I can have a look at your account and leave a comment on one of your planes with a link to the functional design when I post it!
If you're going to download this plane, download it from me; I am the original creator, while this author seems to do nothing but directly copy the work of others and post it as his own.
I've kept the bodywork and changed the wings, so now they work quite well (the whole thing is posted under my account). If whoever posted this now has a username, could you post it here so I can give you credit in my description?
If that happened, then it's probably because the wheels were overturned at too high a speed. Doing that is exactly like riding a bicycle and turning the front wheel such that it is perpendicular to the bike; disaster ensues. It does have some resistance to turning at higher speeds, but if turned carefully, it will turn. Turning at slower speeds works much quicker and much better.
Apologies for not understanding, but is this challenge still open? I have a flying apartment building I might want to submit
Do we have to drop off the cargo at Murphy (or south), or do we just have to land safely? Also, how many entries can we make?
It's a lovely little LAV...
@Oicraftian Although there are a lot of parts meant for aethetics here, a lot of it is functional, which, in addition to the fact that it's actually quite difficult to build, means that all I can do is remove the aethetic parts. I should be able to get it to around 200, but I can't make any promises. It should be up in a few days.
@LordofLego @SpiritusRaptor @KrisM @TheFlyingPlane21 @DefendMyCereal Thanks everyone for your feedback! I really appreciate it! I just wanted to let you know that I've just posted the improved version (steerable this time), if you want to look at that!
@LordofLego This version can't be turned (due to design difficulties), but I'm currently making a version that can.
@JMicah4 I'm just about to upload a tank (with treads) of my own, if you want to look at that.
@TheLazyFlyer Hey, look at the "hottest airplanes" page towards the bottom! You might be happy about what you see
And good luck with your future uploads!
I swear to god this is the cutest bomb I've ever seen
Thanks
@Quintasoarus It does that sometimes; it's funny when the bombs inadvertently become projectiles and break things
Also, for those interested, I have just posted a jet-engined variant of the target gliders, so feel free to take a look at that!
@BritishNarwhal Have you tried pressing 4, 5, or 6? Watch the other gliders
@BritishNarwhal I haven't actually seen that happen yet!
How about Cantor LC-4? Or Meredith. That would work too.
What altitude are we going to be starting at?
Worked excellently, and was much more durable than I expected! When it did finally explode (I has been trying for a few minutes to get it to do so), it did so spectacularly!
I downloaded this and it worked on the first try (I set the game quality to low), and it's exactly like a much more reliable way to do something else I found: drop a VTOL engine with a cockpit and a bunch of air brakes into the ocean, wait a while, and deploy the air brakes. It gets it up to the maximum height the game measures
@eric314 yep! Pretty soon I'll be uploading a whole bunch of new things I've been working on!
If you click on predecessors until you can't anymore, you'll see that the plane which started the entire lineage was my USS Enterprise... weird.
Good god, my truck has spread far further than anything else I've built; this upload has three predecessors before it gets to me, point being that you did not create this truck. I did. It is considerably different than when I posted it, but it is clearly the same vehicle.
Just so people know, I am the original creator of the truck. I did not originally mean for the truck to fly; it just sort of... happened. I like your edits, but give credit where it is due.
@thomasjaf No problem! Thanks for using it!
No problem! Anyways, there's been a problem with my SimplePlanes app, and it invariably crashes every time I open it, so I've deleted it and I'm going to try to re-download it. As such, it's probably going to be a while before I can get back to you on fixing the CoM issue
That's a bit harsh, is it not? Did you fail to read the description at all? He clearly stated that the center of mass was way in the back because of the twin engines, explaining the instability problem with ease. In addition, isn't putting a couple landing gear on a plane an easy task that you should be able to accomplish? He also asked for help, and your painfully ignorant comment does nothing of the sort. If in fact you are incapable of reading such a simple description, here is a link that should help with that: http://readingeggs.com. That aside, the plane looks great, and if I have time, I can try to fix the problem and upload the result on my page, and I'll post a link in another comment (or you might see it under successors)
Oops^^ Anyways, this is excellent! I love the jet, and I appreciate how much time you've put into making this! I've also been trying to perfect on-board missiles for a long time now, and this has been immensely helpful!
Not sure why the last one didn't explode; it should work. Did you try it more than once? Sometimes the setup is different on different level startups, and even though the differences are usually negligible, sometimes they can have that effect. The solution to this would just be to try again. Another possibility is lag; if there's too much lag when the detacher button is pressed, the detonator can clip straight through the other side of the bomb in between renderings, yielding no explosion. The solution to this is the same as the last solution: try again. If the problem persists through multiple tries, reduce the power level of the detacher by 10%. It should lower the detonator's acceleration, which would increase the time allowed for the computer to realize that the detonator has in fact smashed into the other side of the bomb instead of thinking that they never collided. If none of these solutions work, see if the velocity of the entire bomb makes a difference. I've noticed that different power levels in the detacher work best at different velocities, which, in my exploding plane (which works the exact same way as the bomb), means that the bomb will have different effects when it's sitting on the runway as to when it's falling at 300mph. If nothing works, curse quietly and fiddle about with it a bit more. Hope this helps!
It makes total sense; I did a little bit more research into the plane and discovered that the design was to make it more maneuverable through aerodynamic instability, which, when regulated by on-board computers, making tiny adjustments hundreds of times every second just to keep it in a straight line, would provide a huge advantage in an aerial dogfight. However, in simple planes, with decently accurate physics engine and no equivalent for the on-board computers needed to regulate the flight, I felt that historical accuracy (which your upload keeps to wonderfully) could not maintain the stability needed to keep a plane flying when bereft of the computers necessary to accomplish the task, especially when it was designed to be unstable in the first place. As such, I was relieved that the only result that came of not having on-board computers was a bit of a sinking problem (instead of perhaps ripping itself apart through a series of 90° turns, rolls, and severe pitch changes as it came out of a 600 mph run), so overall, the problem I fixed was relatively benign. That being said, I had actually wanted to preserve as much historical accuracy as possible, but with the original Grumman X-29 being such an unstable design in the first place, in trying to fix the problem, I actually created several more problems (some of which modeled the aforementioned expectations of inherent instability quite well), so one thing led to another, and before I knew it, I had created a monstrosity (a stable monstrosity, but a monstrosity at that). Because it was so difficult to even get it there, I just kept it like that and posted it. (sorry for the essay it took to get to this point) Overall, great design, great plane (I have a model X-29 on my desk), and I appreciate your feedback on my adaptation as well!
I fixed the sinking bit... and in the process ruined the entire aesthetic appeal of this plane:) You'll find that the demographics of people who like the look of this version and my version are entirely different, so yeah... lots of small changes that led to one... er, big change. I can post a link in another comment (or you might see it under successors).
Original creator here (I have an account now!): thanks! I agree, a working design would be so cool, and as such, I am trying as best as I can to accomplish the goal! However, because of the many difficulties with aerodynamics and weight distribution (and fuel and thrust and pretty much everything else:), it might be a while before I get that working. If/when it happens, I can have a look at your account and leave a comment on one of your planes with a link to the functional design when I post it!
However, there is a slight aspect of flattery to this, so I have nothing more to say.
If you're going to download this plane, download it from me; I am the original creator, while this author seems to do nothing but directly copy the work of others and post it as his own.
I've kept the bodywork and changed the wings, so now they work quite well (the whole thing is posted under my account). If whoever posted this now has a username, could you post it here so I can give you credit in my description?
Is it intentional that it's spelled as "physies"?
I actually wish there were text blocks so I could write "Oceanic" on the side, but the island makes for a good crash site :)
If that happened, then it's probably because the wheels were overturned at too high a speed. Doing that is exactly like riding a bicycle and turning the front wheel such that it is perpendicular to the bike; disaster ensues. It does have some resistance to turning at higher speeds, but if turned carefully, it will turn. Turning at slower speeds works much quicker and much better.