Well, best conservative way to change something to better, is to vote based on how things work. Or be more liberal, leave it as is and be happy with model spampost-mania in the site
Voting should be based on in-game poll feature which asks you about model characteristics like visuals, maneuverability, speed, weaponry and reliability (for example not self-exploding) after tested on special course. 50%+ positive means +1 vote for the model (author) ... And for example you cannot skip that per-model test-then-vote because you won't be able to use the model on sandbox or another mode ... but we don't have this special course, you know :)
Personally I don't care about bonus points or stealing. This is a part of the human nature. That's why I even don't get the idea of 'url=somecrazyauthorhashedmodellink"' placed in the XML, where everyone can edit it to 'url="myhashedmodellink"' or 'url=""'
I prefer a search based on characteristics - power/weight ratio. wing area, wing loading, weight (empty/full), length, height, with/without weapons, etc.
The ideal situation is when CoT. CoM and CoL are in one place. It's hard to do it in this software (view the game as specialized aeronautical software), but is achievable. You then need an ideal wing area/wing loading numbers, also a very responsive aircraft controls placed on almost IDEAL points in the design. Personally, I'm working on similar thing, and to be honest it is nearly impossible to make it stable. My time is wasted by trial and error with XML-ing. If you are not happy with your design, download one of my delta models and improve it - not needed to be a successor, just make url option to be url="" (means empty). I made them on proffesional software and then copied here.
I bet all contestants will have smooth handling ...
Just put some limits - loaded weight max 20-30% bigger than empty, no negative stats, wingspan, length, height?
I wanna ask about another strange situation - in one of the matches an aircraft lost his right side when started on the left but lost nothing and looked with so GOOD characteristics when started on the right ???
I confirm that too. Mirrored part sometimes has uneven drag which causes aircraft to roll. This happens often and on tires - right or left has more drag. Opening the XML shows the parts are symmetrical
Too unreliable on Daredevil like mine (VTOL based also). Fast but unreliable - like most of designs it crashes in the last bridge or somewhere at the middle rings. Just ofr estetics change the fuel size to be a normal value - 20 galons for this race are enough. You can always compensate some weight with massScale attribute.
Ok, need some help?
1. Engine mechanics enters your aircraft/vehicle in vibration state after Mach 0.8-0.85 - you need to have proper balance in two planes, roll and yaw. More in front, better with correct massScale values by trial and error method
2. AI is rly bad (I like AIs, I'm using them 10+ years, I use diy AI for the creations made here) - angles for moving through all 3 planes should be relaxed
3. Documentation is scarce - use disableAircraftCollisions="true" (rules allow no collisions during official tournament), use massScale="0.NN", edit min=-N max=N for VTOLS/etc..., edit range="90" speed="1" of small rotator, edit maxDeflectionDegree="35" of wings (which should be used as Structural Wing with allowed control surfaces --> edit allowControlSurfaces to "true"), use powerMultiplier="1.NN-20" but 20 is The FUNNY number
4. Pray a lot and wash your teeth
This is the worst racetrack. None of all top 3-to-5 finalists can handle the course - missing rings, missing turns and exploding ... I know because already tested them.
I think only disabled collisions are allowed here
Someone below 2:00? xD
Oh boy, oh boy, OH BOY! A new tournament :O
Well, best conservative way to change something to better, is to vote based on how things work. Or be more liberal, leave it as is and be happy with model spampost-mania in the site
Voting should be based on in-game poll feature which asks you about model characteristics like visuals, maneuverability, speed, weaponry and reliability (for example not self-exploding) after tested on special course. 50%+ positive means +1 vote for the model (author) ... And for example you cannot skip that per-model test-then-vote because you won't be able to use the model on sandbox or another mode ... but we don't have this special course, you know :)
Personally I don't care about bonus points or stealing. This is a part of the human nature. That's why I even don't get the idea of 'url=somecrazyauthorhashedmodellink"' placed in the XML, where everyone can edit it to 'url="myhashedmodellink"' or 'url=""'
My rough estimates show that only mod semi-unlimited* class worths the struggle and time wasted
*Some limits for powermultiplier/throttle/weight will be good
@AndrewGarrison
@AndrewGarrison
How it's behaving against standard Interceptor missile? '2-5 single' hit means nothing to me ...
+1Spreading rumors about you which are not true? Talk to your lawyer ... Learn early one of the real things - there are no friends, only interests
I prefer a search based on characteristics - power/weight ratio. wing area, wing loading, weight (empty/full), length, height, with/without weapons, etc.
Don't like to do it using Google ...
The ideal situation is when CoT. CoM and CoL are in one place. It's hard to do it in this software (view the game as specialized aeronautical software), but is achievable. You then need an ideal wing area/wing loading numbers, also a very responsive aircraft controls placed on almost IDEAL points in the design. Personally, I'm working on similar thing, and to be honest it is nearly impossible to make it stable. My time is wasted by trial and error with XML-ing. If you are not happy with your design, download one of my delta models and improve it - not needed to be a successor, just make url option to be url="" (means empty). I made them on proffesional software and then copied here.
@AndrewGarrison Yes, if you provide enough documentation how and an API for that
Artificial horizont for those who build detailed cockpits
I bet all contestants will have smooth handling ...
Just put some limits - loaded weight max 20-30% bigger than empty, no negative stats, wingspan, length, height?
I wanna ask about another strange situation - in one of the matches an aircraft lost his right side when started on the left but lost nothing and looked with so GOOD characteristics when started on the right ???
@KSPFSXandSP Required Mods - Rocket Motors by Gestour
Yes, this is 'strange'. Submissions that need a mod are maybe allowed but apparently not working :D :D :D
What happens when two very fast and agile aircrafts are put against each other? Well, the answer is simple - the AI smashes one of them randomly ...
I confirm that too. Mirrored part sometimes has uneven drag which causes aircraft to roll. This happens often and on tires - right or left has more drag. Opening the XML shows the parts are symmetrical
Please, validate my submission. Ktnx
@AudioDud3 xD Mine reaches 1800+mph and yeah some rings are not valid even that the plane is in the middle of them
More speed = More downforce + More power + More maneuverability
0:51 and reliable at Motor Mirage with some improvements
Too unreliable on Daredevil like mine (VTOL based also). Fast but unreliable - like most of designs it crashes in the last bridge or somewhere at the middle rings. Just ofr estetics change the fuel size to be a normal value - 20 galons for this race are enough. You can always compensate some weight with massScale attribute.
Ok
Ok, need some help?
1. Engine mechanics enters your aircraft/vehicle in vibration state after Mach 0.8-0.85 - you need to have proper balance in two planes, roll and yaw. More in front, better with correct massScale values by trial and error method
2. AI is rly bad (I like AIs, I'm using them 10+ years, I use diy AI for the creations made here) - angles for moving through all 3 planes should be relaxed
3. Documentation is scarce - use disableAircraftCollisions="true" (rules allow no collisions during official tournament), use massScale="0.NN", edit min=-N max=N for VTOLS/etc..., edit range="90" speed="1" of small rotator, edit maxDeflectionDegree="35" of wings (which should be used as Structural Wing with allowed control surfaces --> edit allowControlSurfaces to "true"), use powerMultiplier="1.NN-20" but 20 is The FUNNY number
4. Pray a lot and wash your teeth
There's a bug with the last ring - doing a perfect run the game marks it as missed
Picture
@AndrewGarrison Thought it will be good to detach the landing gears
1:02, but misses rings at 1500mph ... Or hitting a bridge
Lel, rly?
@AndrewGarrison A general question - which activation groups are USED by the AI?
This is the worst racetrack. None of all top 3-to-5 finalists can handle the course - missing rings, missing turns and exploding ... I know because already tested them.
GOOOOOOOD LUUUUUUUCK!!!
A man is born and dies. And another is born ...
@destroyerP Human nature, that's why
@rhuetherjr Real physics? Should be nudge physics :D
The rule:
"If a plane crashes, the other plane will win as soon as it passes the crash location" ...
So, if for this tourney is allowed to disable collisions then why in some of the matches it was marked as valid the crash between two of them?
As I said in the twitch chat is it allowed the opponents car to move THROUGH mine? No crash indicated
idk, my submission was tested over 400 times and never missed the 4th ring or crashed ... today it missed it and at 2nd run it crashed :D
I can't pick which one is worse - the stream or the AI
5+ hours ... wtf
This tourney should be rerun. A lot of people complain about the AI - so much unstable
I told ya - the fastest car on the tourney is the stream loading circle :D
One suggestion - add a rule that wheels must be connected to the body, not nudged 34283423423 meters away from the engine
I think devs forgot about the tourney
I cannot calm down because I drank a lot of coffee. I NEED ANSWERS!!!11!!
Imagine for a second how devs forgot about the tournament ...
Now what?
I think it's time the submissions to be validated
!Well ... yeah