Two things worth noting here...
If you are removing drag with the dragScale method, which the number is a Percentage (0=0%, 1=100%, 0.50=50%, etc), your part still has its Drag calculated for it. This is important when you're needing to lower/remove the Drag on a specific part a NOT impact the amount of Drag of the parts connected to it.
.
Whereas, the calculateDrag setting is only true (default) or false, and that just just that: toggles whether there's even any calculation performed. Setting it to false is disabling it, and in doing so that can increase your game performance a little (by lowering the amount of processing the CPU has to do) but the side effect is that the game's drag system doesn't even "see" the part anymore. As such, parts behind it will now experience drag that weren't before.
.
So the trick is to determine which one applies best to the situation.
I used to just use the outright disabling of Drag on parts, until I realized that doing so had a high chance of making my build's drag EVEN WORSE. Now I am more sparing in my use of that, and instead opt to change the dragScale instead, setting it to something really low like 0.01 (aka 1%).
,
However, if it's a part that's inside the plane and isn't exposed externally, but still shows up (via Overload's menu) as having Drag, I'll disable it on those sort of parts (but usually with the "Show Drag" overlay turned on, to monitor the changes).
@Duckw0rthplanes do it by placing the [INSERT PART] on the [INSERT LOCATION] and nudging [SAID PART] to wherever you want it to be
"This is the way..." Creed of Clan Death Watch; a long time ago in a galaxy far-far away.
lol But yea, that really IS the "way" with Simple Planes, and honestly my only 'grief' with that fact is that it technically contradicts the game's name and that it's not "Simple" at that point.
NOW... don't get me wrong! I have no qualms with manually doing all that sort of stuff, but if you have to jump through too many hoops in order to get there, it just becomes another eye-roll aspect for long time players heh For new players who lack that know, of how to make stuff work like you need it, then it's frustrating.
.
In other words...
Games like this with lots of capability need to, first and foremost, have parts that Just Work. and don't need futzing with or leave you fumbling around to get it to do what's needed (see: what's expected); things must be intuitive for base level/new players.
.
The v1.11 update IS awesome, and while it may seem like I'm doing lots of "complaining", that's only because there's no contrasting statements from me that praise it. Such is the case with most stuff, sadly. We oft do not share the "good", because we're too busy enjoying doing it to want to take time to come and leave that feedback. Alas, when there is a hiccup -- aka the "bad" -- then we almost feel obligated to share that, not just in the hopes it can be fixed/changed, but also to let others know so they can know what to expect. :P
So I do sincerely apologize to the Devs, and also the community (since you have to deal with my posts too lol) for what may seem like "constant complaining" from me.
@Amirabadi I don't specifically know the limits here, but I can at least get you started on the right track.
.
First you need to know where your builds are Saved to. If you're on a Windows computer, that's easy for me to direct you. Copy the line below (do not change any of the text), then open up the Start Menu and press CTRL+V to paste it, then press Enter. That will open up the folder with all the save builds you have:
Either scroll through the list to find the plane, or use CTRL+F and then type the name of it.
.
Once you've found it, open it with Notepad (I can't promise something like WordPad will save it correctly)
Either scroll to the bottom or press CTRL+END or search for "<Theme name="Custom">`, but it's at the end of the document so you can't miss it.
.
Now the tricky part :D ... :\ lol You'll see a bunch of lines that start by saying <Material color= and each line is one of the colors you can use to paint your build.
To ADD more, you just copy and paste full line under the last one (INCLUDING the spaces at the front).
For example here's an entire line you can paste in multiple times, to add a Flat Black:
Now, how to change that color is where the real "fun" happens. You'll need to use either a website that has a Color Picker and outs "Hex Code" (Google has one built in to its website) OR you can use a drawing or photo editing program (like GIMP or Photoshop).
For this, we'll assume you're using the Google one I linked ;)
.
All "Hex Codes" start with # and contain 6 alphanumeric entries of 0-9 A-F. #000000 is solid black, and #FFFFFF is solid white, or #7E03AB which is a rich purple.
But for what we're doing, you won't be needing the #, I just mention that so you know what to look for, although most everything else DOES need the # so if you try to convert from the game into that Google tool (or most other sites/programs) you'll need to add it for them to understand. (Ignore all the "RGB", "CMYK", "HSV", "HSL" stuff, as Simple Planes doesn't use that.) <PART 1 - CONTINUES IN NEXT COMMENT>
Now to decipher the rest... The last 3 I know for sure are decimal values that get translated into Percentages: r="#" - This is the only one I'm not totally sure about. I think it refers to the "profile" it's using, and that it stands for "reflectivity". The values seem to only be 0, 0.15, or 0.3. Which I think translates to 0=Flat, 0.15=Semi-Gloss and 0.30=Glossy, but this honestly might be automatically set by the game based on what you set s= to, below. m="#" - This is how "Metallic" the paint is, and you replace # with any decimal (or either of these two whole numbers) from 0 (no metalicity), to 1 (fully metallic), where 0.50 is 50% s="#" - This is how "Smooth" it looks, and 0 = 0% and is "Flat", with 1 being 100% and "Mirror-Like", or a decimal of say 0.33 which is 33% and "Dull" e="#" - This is new, and is for "Emissive" aka "Glow in the Dark", or in other words the amount of "Light" it appears to emit -- but it's only a visual effect in SP, it doesn't really project light onto surfaces. 0 is "normal paint" so no glowing. 1 is "very luminous", and anything in between is a range of that. NOTE: this is dependent on the color you're using, so if it's Black or some other very dark shade of color, it will not glow!
.
So setting it up like this:
We'll have a Purple, which is fairly metallic, with a mirror-like finish in the daytime light, and at night will appear to glow bright-purple.
All that's left for you to do is save your file. Open SP, load the plane (or if SP is still open, Load that plane so the changes are there in game). Open the Paint menu and the new color choice(s) will be present :D (This was actually a learning experience for me as well, I didn't know what would happen after adding a color, or how you accessed it lol)
@BobDaBilder123 Hmpf. :\
Here I thought it was implying that the gear itself lacked the wheel covering, hence being labeled as "Bare". As in we would need to design a 'custom covering' (as it mentions in its Info Text) to shroud it.
.
Still, a bit weird that it DOES snap to the Horizontal Stabilizer on it's Root and Tip. heh (regardless of whether said stabilizer wing is connected to anything)
.
Either way, thanks for that insight! I had gotten into such a "Must. Try. All. New. Parts!" mode that I hadn't caught on that is was intended to be used on wings we've skinned. Guess I'll have to add a new suggestion to my mega-post, too add a means of allowing us to override the "Approve Part Connections" lists. (Dunno how to handle it on Mobile, but on Windows the CTRL+Drag Part would work since holding control currently causes it to release the part we're moving for whatever reason.)
@Amirabadi Sorry for not replying, I don't pop in here often and so I didn't see your question. :(
.
Yea the guide above is lacking that, even though it actually ALMOST provides the info... lol
It's the same as for adding images, except no use of !.
[text to become a link](https://link.goeshere.com)
Turns into: text to convert to link
.
You can also take it FURTHER, by making it so Images can be clickable Links -- which I find handy, since this site will shrink pictures you post (pics do not work inside Comments though).
For that, you have to "nest" the image code inside the Link. So instead of the Text inside [] you place the entire Image code. Using the above provided image, that would look like this: [](https://www.simpleplanes.com/Content/img/logo.png)
That would display the Simple Planes logo pic, and let you click it to view it on its own. The ITALICS text is the Image code which is nested inside the BOLD text which is the Link code. (I know, kinda hard to follow, but is honestly a fringe case anyhow)
@WNP78 Maybe you can edit to add that into, or at least the Link part, the original post?
If so, I'd recommend adding that in order to use some characters, it needs to be Escaped with a \ first in order to override the Markdown.
Also that it seems that the < part is no longer an issue (as I'm editing this because I had included it as an example): <test> (For anyone else reading this part, that's how I went about typing the above link examples without them actually turning into links; and to make that \ I had to type \\ to escape the first slash heh) EDIT: Oh, and of course include that using code text is... NOT friendly at all to actual code as I've mentioned below. Mainly that common characters in code get converted to HTML Encoding? (Or something) EXAMPLE: <text> [text] (text) {text} !Exclamation "Quote 'Apostrophe ,Comma \Backslash /Forwardslash _Underscore +Plus =Equals &Ampersand etc etc
(Oooh that's where the <+text fails, in the code blocks haha)
I'll slap an Orbit camera on something to see if I can repro it.
.
Though, I have a sneaky suspicion that the Unity update may have included some changes to the "Garbage Collection" system, and it's triggering too often. (But I think it'd have to be something different to the "Unloaded x Files/Assets" thing that gets logged in the PlayerLog file, as if that was triggering more often, they'd probably have noticed that due to the log file becoming much larger)
Yes, but what I've experience isn't anything severe (yet), and it only happens during specific things.
I chalked it up to the fact my game had been running for over 36hrs (minimizing it and sleeping computer).
.
For me it happened when playing with Sliders for changing Dead Weight on a Fuselage part. As I'd slide that setting around, the game would have a curious micro-stutter. and that build only has 483 parts, and my computer has more than enough horsepower for SP.
@AWESOMENESS360 Wasn't it the "Physics" calculations WNP disabled in Designer? (since the Drag system still has to function in thye designer in order for parts to have their Drag Points updated, though I suppose they could make it 'Conditional' to save even more CPU cycles, by having it only calc it when the Drag visual is enabled...)
I know v1.11 is out of beta, but is using the Google Form WNP had provided in the Beta blog post, preferred by the devs for us to submit bugs to?
Or is this Bugs subforum (well, tagging) system acceptable?
.
I'd use "User Voice" if the system there wasn't so flawed that it then becomes impractical for the purpose it was designed for. Namely, the "Points" system imposed, to vote on submissions, and undoubtedly to prevent spam. Alas, if we only have X-amount of points to use, and have spent them on upvoting issues/suggestions, we're unable to create anything new it seems. (Unless this has been rectified since I was there last a month or two ago...?)
[Full disclosure: In case it isn't clear or my responses come off more defensive sounding that intended... I'm not trying to be argumentative in nature here, only civilly debating! I cherish all replies and views, to further my own knowledge and understanding here, so I appreciate the responses! I'm definitely not hard-set in my view/opinion on any of this, so my mind can indeed be changed. (I'm even going to add this to my post, as I don't want the devs, or other users, to feel like I'm trying to be an ass or trolling!)]
@FeatherWing The only one I googled prior to my post was the F22's, to see if maybe they had evolved into something really big like that system. But the F22's was a much smaller one, which was where my request for the "middle-sized" seat stemmed from.
.
I've seen lots of documentary vids which included ejection seat footage, though admittedly that is not only lower quality but also filmed at a distance, so I certainly won't pretend like that serves as solid size reference data. :P
.
I also admit that I really don't know how they intend for us to put these together, and after saying that I should probably check out the few updated planes to see if they illustrate that. As it stands, it just felt like the camera's placement indicated where the head would be, and with an offset: 0.00 as the default, it appeared like it'd be hard to see over the instrument panel and that didn't seem like it'd lend to be very conducive for high-speed flight.
.
Then again, maybe it doesn't need to be, with the fact that there hasn't been any need for dog-fighting for at least 30yrs, maybe even 40yrs. Though that does provide me with another good* suggestion for them: an ability to not set a transparency value on the gauges, so they can be used like a HUD; perhaps also one could pin them to the camera's movement, to act like a helmet display. :)
@KyaRL People who make LUA scripts ("recipes" in the game) for the science game Fold.it use this to calculate a "Random" number ("seed").
.
Granted, it doesn't translate over to SP, it seems easily able to be SOMEWHAT replicated from what I see available (and I suck at FT and "recipe" coding!).
seed=os.time()
seed=1/seed
while seed<10000000 do seed=seed*10 end
seed=seed-seed%1
math.randomseed(seed)
math.random(100)
.
Perhaps something that does like... pingpong(Latitude, Longitude) * Time / log(Altitude, Fuel)
Again, I am not a coder, or good at math, so I don't know if that will resolve into a number -- or how to even get the number, for that matter -- but it feels like it should be able to produce a fairly random as hell number... provided you aren't immediately checking for it at the time whatever you built spawns in.
.
Though, while I feel the key there is using pingpong, I get the impression that using Longitude and/or Latitude might not work directly, without some further nested math, to ensure it is always a positive value. Just seems like pingpong will always be a fairly random result on its own, and then when factored with everything else, ensures that you end up with a random value. But again, getting that equation to not error AND THEN getting the value it spits out, is where you're on your own... :}
@SnoWFLakE0s
Gotcha. Admittedly, I still am not sure what exactly I can do with those Variables menu(s), nevermind how I use them. haha But that's no surprise considering the issues I have with FT... :}
Though maybe I'll finally be able to set it up with Variables, so that I can make a Cannon fire when the user presses Machinegun, as well as not needing to be in Air or Ground modes.
@MrShenanigans @FeatherWing
I originally had considered it to be a headrest, but then I looked at it closer and felt that to be highly unlikely, for a number of reasons, so I had discounted that as a possibility. :\ (I'm bored, so forgive me here, as I'm going to ramble to explain my logic lol)
My first reason was that it was far, far too tall. If the seat is meant to sit flush with the Cockpit Frame part, and then the Cockpit Canopy meant to sit flush with the top of the Frame's sides, that made it seem unlikely due to the fact the ""headrest"" part clipped halfway outside of the Canopy. (Using the "Block Canopy", even at its highest point in the glass bubble, that part of the seat still clips outside the glass)
.
My next observation was that there were two "straps", which while I admittedly am not an aviation expert I can generally still determine somethings function through studying it. In this instance, I couldn't figure out any such function for those straps given you wouldn't be strapping your head in since you'd be unable to look around. Even then, there's two of them, and the only system I have a vague recollection of there being was a single attachment that connected to the center of the helmet and upon ejection would tighten up to restrain the pilots head to avoid injury (particularly if they were unconscious). Also, they're WAY too high for shoulder harnesses. Then the fact that the backrest of the seat is positioned far too behind the ""headrest"", and would be painfully uncomfortable I thought (by forcing the head too far infront of the shoulders). Lastly, was the camera placement, which I could have erroneously assumed would've been placed at "eye level" since that's the intuitive location (and I thought WNP had said this update no longer places the camera at a distance of 1.0 above the actual camera part?).
.
However, after going back in and adding a cockpit, seat, and canopy (Modern, Modern, and Block Canopy), I notice that the seat is NOT flush with the Frame's floor, and if I move it down so that it is, it now fits underneath the Canopy glass at the highest point -- albeit barely lol
.
Now then, as I look further at things, with the above setup, it further calls into question that it's a headrest, just due to the actual measurements.
I'm 6FT tall, which is above average height for a male. In a seated position, my butt to head is roughly 3FT. My skull, measuring from the base of my skull to the top, is roughly 7IN high.
<con't below>
<continued from above message>
The Modern Seat, inside Modern Frame, with Block Canopy comes in at a total of 3.8FT according to SP, which is 3FT 9.6IN. Putting that "headrest" at roughly an entire head's height above where mine is! (Which again, I'm above average height, and yet it's still too tall to fit me.)
Re: Glass Nose part...
Alas, there are enough that do, which I think merits its inclusion just for that reason. Nevermind all the other uses a person would have for a single part they can add to make a nicely tapered glass window. Bomber noses, Gun Pods (ie Glass Hemisphere), spaceship's gondola viewports (like the ISS has or the Crew Dragon used for Inspiration recently), or the infinite other uses lol
.
That "basically no bomber has [one]" is fine as far as facts go (even though some did; B-17 shows to be an example [pic 1, pic 2, pic 3], or the He-111 [pic 1, pic 2], this specific Me-262A2-a [pic 1, pic 2; a model].)
Just sayin' heh
@IceCraftGaming For me, all three behave the same. In my screenshot above, the itty-bitty line to the left of the one under "Front View" is the CoL.
.
If your CoL/CoM/CoT aren't centered (X=0.000) then it means something in your build is further to one side than the rest. For CoT that's not too bad, you just have to check your engines, as I presume you have 2 of them?
HOWEVER.... It just occurred to me that what you're describing MIGHT be something I also experienced a couple days ago...
.
Did you by chance use the Mirror tool on some parts?
Because I did, and my CoM was favoring one side (even though both sides were identical), which this is what had been causing my plane to taxi and fly towards the Right.
.
Turned out that for whatever reason, the parts I mirrored came from the LEFT side, meaning that some of them on the right weren't registering their weight properly. I determined that when I started changing the "Dead Weight" I had applied to the parts. When I adjusted the Left side, the parts made CoM moved very little (due to having XML modified their mass scale). When I adjusted the SAME parts on the Right side, the CoM moved a ton and everything returned to normal.
.
I had figured it was just because I hadn't shut down Simple Planes for a couple days -- yes, days, as I would minimize the game and put the computer to sleep. But, if you also noticed the odd shift after mirroring parts, it might be a legitimate (and different?) bug we've stumbled on. :)
I'm not sure if this is the same question that @XYeetusdeletusx was asking or not...
So just in case, I'm pinging you. since your thread divulged into a meme on account of your choice of words. :P
I'm almost certain that they weren't always this way, not in v1.10.106 (the last ver I'd been using). Could I be mistaken? For certain, but I would definitely stake a sum of money on it heh
(Now I regret not making a backup of SP before I.... Wait, I might, on my laptop... I'll try and check that later on,)
To clarify how I perceived it (based on lots of time spent zoomed in on CoM, placing beacons scaled to 0.1,3,0.1): They WERE still flat, yes. But there were 2 flat 'lines' which overlapped, to allow you to rotate the camera and still be presented with roughly the same visual.
.
When you viewed @ 90deg facing it, you'd be provided the flat side of one (like on the left), but the other one would be too thin to see and would leave the appearance of only one line.
When you viewed @ 45deg, you'd see part of both, but both visually combined to make it look the same as 90deg. It'd look like 1 line until you zoomed in on the Co_ sphere WWWWWWWAY close. It's at that point I could start making out the overlap.
I put forth this question: To those who thought they were this way previous to v1.11, are you by some small chance one who had been using this since its Beta became available had gotten used to this view?
.
My take was that this occurred due to the upgrade build of Unity they used, as the actual colors of the lines are also not as vibrant (but is of no concern, overall).
.
Another possible fix (IMO) would be that if it always has been one line visible, to have said line always face the camera - rotating only around the axis it's meant to portray.
I have way too many of my own suggestions I'm compiling (after 15 minutes of having the update installed....) to have you try and shoehorn into your post! lol That, and I need line-breaks and more than the 4000char limit that comments afford me :}
.
Ka-nobs
For "Knobs" I use a Magnet, scaled way down (via XML of course). A size of 0.05,0.2,0.05 is about perfect, using the "Simple Throttle" as a reference.
.
Now comes the probably tricky part, since I have yet to really dive in to stuff, as I've mentioned: Getting it to do what you need a knob-interface to do, using the limitations of SP...
.
Depending on what that new "Joystick Base" dohicky can do and how we can interact with it... My first thought is to slap the Knob on one of those (scaled way down to match), and use it's output to base other stuff's capabilities on.
IF that wouldn't work, my next suggestion would be to use a simple Rotator, tying those same "stuff" to the Rotator's position. So if it's currently rotated to 5deg of its 90deg max, then whatever its Input value fort that would trigger one function (although, probably best to set it as a range so it doesn't need to be precisely at 5deg). Then next, 10deg, same thing, triggers next function. Rinse, repeat.
Now, if none of that would work, then we'd have to go FULL KLUDGE and is probably similar to what you already did, but is sort of combining everything together.... :}
What comes to mind for me is to have:
-Either the "Joystick Base" or a "Rotator"... probably will need both, though?
-That Magnet Knob connected to that
-A button (scaled to be a thin line), at a 45deg angle maybe, positioned on the right-most side, colored bright
-Another button (similarly scaled) rotated opposite, positioned on the right-most side, colored a contrasting color (or the same *shrug)
-2 "Text" parts, each with a *V (letter vee), rotated around and positioned next to the bottom end of the button, to make an "Arrow"; one pointing one way, the other the opposite way
.
When you interact with one button it turns the "knob" one direction via stepping the Rotator X-amount each press, hopefully creating an input (or output I guess?) with that Joystick Base, which in turn triggers whatever you need it to based on the specific output value. <con't...>
Even if only having it so you can color the face, that'd work, too.
Granted, in most professional (ie a governing body oversee with standards), I'm sure black face with white text is mandatory for gauges....
However, more private/civilian stuff, and even things like non-transportation related gauges, there are different colors. Mostly white, but with aftermarket vehicle gauges for older cars, you can get all manner of colors for the faces.
.
So I'd suggest a case of having a preset list of color ranges that if the Face gets colored to it, the Text is forced to be something else. Bright Red face = Bright White text. White face = Black text. Navy Blue face = Bright Gray text, etc etc.
Or, simpler and lest labor intensive (to determine which colors get which text): Just make the text color become the literal inversed color of the face! SP already is capable of this with Glass, when you set the transparency to -100. Black glass becomes white, Red becomes Blue, and so on. ($10 says I've reached the post character limit... lmao) (EDIT: Yep! Reposting to solve that...)
*grumbles* Dangit SP!
@Vincent can you please rectify the issue of the game failing to apply Auto-Credit to this build?
Thanks! (I'd uploaded this originally with an error so I had to remove that share, but SP seemingly purged the auto-credit from that save file for some reason, so this upload lacked it....)
@VChart :sob: heh
Comically, thanks again to physics (aerodynamics) she assumes a similar posture while falling back to earth after the rockets burn out -- provided the Gyro remains enabled, otherwise free-fall is a little more chaotic with it disabled.
I'm getting ready to upload her older, more successful sister. (Who I hope displays a bit more decorum for people; thankfully she seems to.)
For that matter, pretending for a moment that I was referring to paying Jundroo to have it be added... Honestly? I'd like that just the same. Plenty of games I'd like to be able to pay to have helpful changes made. After all, I'm not asking for them to make it so jet engine's exhaust visual be replaced by something absurd like the poo emoji. But even if I were, the entire point is that they would in no way be obligated to accept. :P
@CC1010 No. A million times no! lol
That is called purchasing. It is, in no way, at all similar to bribery!
.
A firm stance has to be made on the definition of things, otherwise society falls apart. No, grocery shopping is a willful and fair exchange of one thing for another, as they don't let you just walk out because then it'd be called theft.
Your saying we can pay jundroo to add stuff
Semantics aside, and perhaps part of the issue, is you've also misunderstood my main goal. I even had put in full caps:
"BUT AT NO TIME WOULD THIS BE ASSOCIATED WITH JUNDROO"
On the contrary, I am suggesting that we'd be allowed to offer payment to (see: hire) mod authors.
.
Yes, in this instance, said mod author now also tends to be working for Jundroo. However, though I admit this is an assumption, I don't imagine WNP signed over the code of his mod to them upon his employment. He might've but, it's still an external asset and available for download, so it would appear as though that's not the case.
.
Thus, the offer in my case would be solely to WNP, as incentive for him to use his free time. However, this could be something that could be offered to someone else. For instance Kennneth. Perhaps I had an idea for something to get added to one of his maps, something I would personally very much like be included and lack the capability to do myself. However, perhaps he doesn't feel like it because it's more work than he's wanting to devote to an old project.... But what if I was willing to give him $25 to do that, perhaps he'd deem it worth his time and effort then.
.
THAT is what I'm saying :P
@MiGEater lol That's quite an endeavor to undertake!
Here's a suggestion for one though, which may be cheap enough a concept: Strap a high end DSLR (though a newer mirrorless one would be more compact) and strap it to decently powerful off-the-shell telescope, along with a Hall-effect engine (ion thruster), for your very own mini-Hubble :}
I'm all for criticism heh So I have no issue with hearing thoughts different to my own, despite being quite surprised by this reaction though.
.
@asteroidbook345 and @Sparky6004 Can you explain why you think of it as a bribe?
Definition:
"persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement."
If there is indeed something wrong or worse, illegal, about what I've suggested, then I agree, it shouldn't be allowed!
.
@CC1010 (since you expressed it as more than just "no" heh) and @Kennneth, as well as Asteroid and Sparky:
I guess I was coming from the standpoint of thinking that -- using my example I provided in my first comment at the bottom -- in the case of Overload the mod wouldn't see anything new added to it on the basis of it not being "worth the author's time", because they were likely busy enough working on the game itself. So I figured that perhaps in exchange, I could buy some of that person's free time.
.
The entire premise of this was effectively hiring them to do work, not coercing them to go against their morals or do something shady. A suggestion to a mod author may be something they even agree with would be nice, but still may feel it's worth their time to work on, but that doesn't mean they can't still like the concept.
.
As such, I would've defined it as a "Commission", like commissioning an artist to create a fantasy-themed avatar in your likeness.
Or in other words, the reverse of how sites like Fiverr operate. Except in this case, instead of something being made from scratch, ONLY for you... it's adding to something they've already made freely available.
Please don't missunderstand though, I did not type all that in any sort of arguing tone. I'm just wanting to understand where everyone's coming from and what part exactly it was that gave you that impression that this isn't good? Also to try and better explain where I'm coming from.
Thanks :)
To touch on what specifically I'd like to ask about, is actually something that I find would be of a huge help for everyone, and also that WNP78 is in a unique position to be able to tackle...
.
That the Overload mod be updated to provide, basically, all the info that the "Simple Cheats" page has.
Fields that would be mouse-hovered, would in turn provide a Tooltip explaining that matching string.
Value fields in turn would explain through a Tooltip what the function is.
And where the "Dev access" comes in to play, is that those Value fields could then be converted to (where its appropriate) being drop-down menus which offer all the valid choices that SP accepts.
.
For example, just a couple days ago I had learned, through total happenstance while modifying someone's build, that you can set partCollisionResponse to None instead of Default! Which is quite handy for the times where you --at least if I understand it correctly-- want a part to still be allowed to contact with other parts (ie not having to set disablePartCollisions) but also not potentially cause an explosion or the part to become damaged through gently slamming together (like with a floppy hinge joint).
.
Which I assume one would need an inside view of SP in order to know all the available inputs a field supports, as well as exactly what it is they do.
Another small example: Cannon's configuration...
I'm not sure if most people know what volume does (isn't listed on the Simple Cheats doc), which actually is a literal sound-volume decimal value, so that you can make a smaller gun quiet, or even turned off entirely. :)
Mobile? I unno. :\
Computer (PC at least)? Bind the input to the same key :(
.
I, too, wish that there were far more options (see: input customization) for parts and weapon payloads, so that we could treat the Cannons like a Machinegun.
.
Heck, even if it was some sort of conditional, hard-coded thing, that would get triggered based on the Caliber the Cannon is configured to.
Mind you, that'd also require that they allow the Cannon to be set to below 50mm, down to say... 20mm? [Emphasis is my own]
"The 20 mm caliber is a common firearm bore diameter, typically used to distinguish smaller-caliber weapons, commonly called "guns", from larger-caliber "cannons"."
At which point, those so-configured cannons automatically get re-assigned to being fired by the conventional Machinegun action. (from FireWeapons, to FireGuns)
But honestly, that'd be more work than just providing us with the choice, either through the Parts Setting interface, or a secret XML option. My 2 cents worth...
Toshiba Satellite? Planetary Satellite [natural]? Temporary Satellite [also natural]? Artificial Satellite [manmade]?
.
I ask cuz, considering I've already got a launch platform, and previously made the helicopter-that-thought-it-was-a-baby-kangaroo (kept in a 'pouch' on the rover's belly lol)... I suppose I could be compelled to make you an Artificial Satellite :P
You'd have to tell me what you had in mind though?
.
....Unless you're asking about interest in whether any of us want to LITERALLY make a cubesat in real life?
In which case I'll have to pass; however. I can at least direct you over to a silly but very real cubesat that someone is working on. :) (which is pretty cool, when you think about it)
mmmmmmmm Massive ProTip-comment was massive. I'm just going to make a forum post about this instead, and will ping you, Juan.
That way it doesn't clutter this page, AND more people can see it...
Can't beat this with a stick!
No, literally, it's 2D, and beating it with a stick means you're hitting the plane, and that's destruction of property! :}
.
But srsly, I once considered using micro-hemispheres, but concluded Eff that noise! That'd take the better part of a week and at least 3-quarters of my remaining 15% of sanity... (No... be quiet Jimmy! I'm not telling them that... Why? Because man, that hippo isn't even real! Yes, I know you aren't either, but I'm failing to see your point?! Oohhh, because i'm typing this... Yea alright, that's fair.)
@TheSeventh I don't use Notepad++ either, I just had used it out of frustration to confirm (or try to), that I had modified every part to 0 mass.
TL;DR- I had somehow missed checking around 6 parts while manually going through all 175+ of them using Overload, which one of them alone made up 92lbs of the 101lbs.
In the end I managed to get it to 0lbs as expected, so by the time you had commented I had already solved my "issue". lol
@PapaKernels Cllllose............................ :}
mwwAAHAHahahah
.
EDIT: Wwweeeeeeeeeee!!!!(image)
He's so majestic...
I had to make some tweaks, in addition to his rocketpack. Namely, give him buttcheecks, and add some weight to his appendages so he flails around properly (the game does not like having everything's massScale set to 0 [or nearly everything]). And a gyro with very light settings, just so I didn't have to monkey for hours with the CoM lol
Though most of the time was spent getting the seatbelt straps fitting properly.
.
I can upload it if anyone wants it.
EDIT2: Opted to make it a Female variant before uploading, with the same rocketpack, but added some personal refinements to the joint-system (like adding another hinge to the shoulder).
I've affectionately named her JATO Betsy (I'm not fishing for upvotes and I'll be happy to remove this edit if Suubk, or even should anyone else, feels that me linking to mine on here is poor etiquette! Please @ me if so.)
Also there's the argument that having high-detail (compared to my example) wings would, in the end, be a net gain for performance in a lot of case since it'd result in far fewer parts. As we currently end up using additional fuselage parts in order to skin the wings so that they DO look nice.
.
So in that sense, this is along the same lines of making modeled cockpit parts for us, to cut back on the extra hundred or more parts some cockpits ate up.
.
At the moment, the "simple" way to make a wing look somewhat nice is to have a small (roughly 0.2x0.2) diameter fuselage that is the same length as the wing, to act as the leading-edge. Then a flat Nose Cone (0.2 height) to act as the end of the wing. But that only gets you so far as a contoured leading edge.
If you want a full wing, now you need a large fuselage to encompass the wing, plus at least another 1 or 2 that act as control surfaces, along with each one's accompanying Hinge Rotator. On the higher-end, another small wing per control surface!
Upon reflection, though... It may just be a limitation of the color system in game.
IF that's the case, I would suggest that the specific color of 446677 be changed in the Custom Theme preset colors, to a color that can be modified.
@FeatherWing You know the Beta is v1.11 and not v1.10, right? :}
Joking aside, I didn't want to misuse that form, as I don't have the Beta. (I live in a ""rural"" area with only access to crappy LTE-based internet, with 24GB/mo bandwidth, shared with 2 people and our cellphones)
.
I also can't use the intended User Voice site since they don't go through it enough and once we've used our "Points", we can't do anything else until what we've used them on on is marked Closed by the devs. (Granted, we can retract what we've voted for, but that defeats the purpose.)
note: I know the v1.11 Beta form is a 'Google Form', which is unrelated to User Voice.
(that feeling when you have a reply typed out but wanted to check the rest of the message in case someone else already said it.... but "load more messages" refreshes the stupid page and clears everything you typed... :thumbs_up:)
You can use Bluetooth mouse, too. Works nice if you don't have the USB-A -> USB-C adapter (either lost, or your phone/tablet didnt' come with one).
I've hooked my Razer up to my Galaxy S8 before, just for kicks.
.
Similarly, the Wii Nunchucks pair effortlessly with Android, or at least they did with my Galaxy S1 back in the day... (Playstation and Xbox need more effort, though)
@BaconEggs check out my comment here. I don't know whether it's functional like I'm hoping, but someone with more FT knowledge may be able to figure that out. :}
.
However, I agree, it'd be quite nice to be able to either effortlessly bind (through perhaps special [new] ""Input"" Attachment Points on parts) the switches/dials/lights/whizbangs to parts to control them.
Admittedly, something would indeed need to be worked out to make it easy for the mobile userbase... but we the SP community are aptly suited to tackle such a creative task! My initial thought would have it where the AG panel would have arrorws to change "pages". Granted, that's a little cumbersome, but it'd at least do the job and not leave them out. (since expecting them to physically interact with switches/etc in Cockpit view, on such a tiny screen, would be mean)
@tsampoy Thank you!
Might not win any builder awards for quality, but I had a lot of fun building it either way :D (Even though there were some hair-pulling moments, getting everything to work simultaneously and cooperatively lol)
@DDVC That feels like the definition of "The Time Period While You're Silver/Bronze Ranked" lol
For me, I'm still doing "derpy" stuff, learning what unconventional/unintended things I can do with parts. Like commandeering the USS Tiny by parasitically latching myself onto it and using my own thrust to move it... haha
Not a 'new' thing to the SP community by any means, but certainly new to me, which is exactly my point! Because as you said: "you don't know what you doing but still have fun somehow"
^_^
Two things worth noting here...
If you are removing drag with the
dragScalemethod, which the number is a Percentage (0=0%, 1=100%, 0.50=50%, etc), your part still has its Drag calculated for it. This is important when you're needing to lower/remove the Drag on a specific part a NOT impact the amount of Drag of the parts connected to it..
Whereas, the
calculateDragsetting is onlytrue(default) orfalse, and that just just that: toggles whether there's even any calculation performed. Setting it tofalseis disabling it, and in doing so that can increase your game performance a little (by lowering the amount of processing the CPU has to do) but the side effect is that the game's drag system doesn't even "see" the part anymore. As such, parts behind it will now experience drag that weren't before..
So the trick is to determine which one applies best to the situation.
I used to just use the outright disabling of Drag on parts, until I realized that doing so had a high chance of making my build's drag EVEN WORSE. Now I am more sparing in my use of that, and instead opt to change the
dragScaleinstead, setting it to something really low like 0.01 (aka 1%).,
However, if it's a part that's inside the plane and isn't exposed externally, but still shows up (via Overload's menu) as having Drag, I'll disable it on those sort of parts (but usually with the "Show Drag" overlay turned on, to monitor the changes).
"This is the way..." Creed of Clan Death Watch; a long time ago in a galaxy far-far away.
lol But yea, that really IS the "way" with Simple Planes, and honestly my only 'grief' with that fact is that it technically contradicts the game's name and that it's not "Simple" at that point.
+1NOW... don't get me wrong! I have no qualms with manually doing all that sort of stuff, but if you have to jump through too many hoops in order to get there, it just becomes another eye-roll aspect for long time players heh For new players who lack that know, of how to make stuff work like you need it, then it's frustrating.
.
In other words...
Games like this with lots of capability need to, first and foremost, have parts that
Just Work.and don't need futzing with or leave you fumbling around to get it to do what's needed (see: what's expected); things must be intuitive for base level/new players..
The v1.11 update IS awesome, and while it may seem like I'm doing lots of "complaining", that's only because there's no contrasting statements from me that praise it. Such is the case with most stuff, sadly. We oft do not share the "good", because we're too busy enjoying doing it to want to take time to come and leave that feedback. Alas, when there is a hiccup -- aka the "bad" -- then we almost feel obligated to share that, not just in the hopes it can be fixed/changed, but also to let others know so they can know what to expect. :P
So I do sincerely apologize to the Devs, and also the community (since you have to deal with my posts too lol) for what may seem like "constant complaining" from me.
@Amirabadi I don't specifically know the limits here, but I can at least get you started on the right track.
.
First you need to know where your builds are Saved to. If you're on a Windows computer, that's easy for me to direct you. Copy the line below (do not change any of the text), then open up the Start Menu and press CTRL+V to paste it, then press Enter. That will open up the folder with all the save builds you have:
Either scroll through the list to find the plane, or use CTRL+F and then type the name of it.
.
Once you've found it, open it with Notepad (I can't promise something like WordPad will save it correctly)
Either scroll to the bottom or press CTRL+END or search for "<Theme name="Custom">`, but it's at the end of the document so you can't miss it.
.
Now the tricky part :D ... :\ lol You'll see a bunch of lines that start by saying <Material color= and each line is one of the colors you can use to paint your build.
To ADD more, you just copy and paste full line under the last one (INCLUDING the spaces at the front).
For example here's an entire line you can paste in multiple times, to add a Flat Black:
Now, how to change that color is where the real "fun" happens. You'll need to use either a website that has a Color Picker and outs "Hex Code" (Google has one built in to its website) OR you can use a drawing or photo editing program (like GIMP or Photoshop).
For this, we'll assume you're using the Google one I linked ;)
.
All "Hex Codes" start with # and contain 6 alphanumeric entries of 0-9 A-F.
#000000is solid black, and#FFFFFFis solid white, or#7E03ABwhich is a rich purple.But for what we're doing, you won't be needing the #, I just mention that so you know what to look for, although most everything else DOES need the # so if you try to convert from the game into that Google tool (or most other sites/programs) you'll need to add it for them to understand. (Ignore all the "RGB", "CMYK", "HSV", "HSL" stuff, as Simple Planes doesn't use that.)
<PART 1 - CONTINUES IN NEXT COMMENT>
<PART 2>
Lets use that Purple: 7E03AB
The new line you'd add would be:
Now to decipher the rest... The last 3 I know for sure are decimal values that get translated into Percentages:
r="#" - This is the only one I'm not totally sure about. I think it refers to the "profile" it's using, and that it stands for "reflectivity". The values seem to only be 0, 0.15, or 0.3. Which I think translates to 0=Flat, 0.15=Semi-Gloss and 0.30=Glossy, but this honestly might be automatically set by the game based on what you set
s=to, below.m="#" - This is how "Metallic" the paint is, and you replace # with any decimal (or either of these two whole numbers) from 0 (no metalicity), to 1 (fully metallic), where 0.50 is 50%
s="#" - This is how "Smooth" it looks, and 0 = 0% and is "Flat", with 1 being 100% and "Mirror-Like", or a decimal of say 0.33 which is 33% and "Dull"
e="#" - This is new, and is for "Emissive" aka "Glow in the Dark", or in other words the amount of "Light" it appears to emit -- but it's only a visual effect in SP, it doesn't really project light onto surfaces. 0 is "normal paint" so no glowing. 1 is "very luminous", and anything in between is a range of that. NOTE: this is dependent on the color you're using, so if it's Black or some other very dark shade of color, it will not glow!
.
So setting it up like this:
We'll have a Purple, which is fairly metallic, with a mirror-like finish in the daytime light, and at night will appear to glow bright-purple.
All that's left for you to do is save your file. Open SP, load the plane (or if SP is still open, Load that plane so the changes are there in game). Open the Paint menu and the new color choice(s) will be present :D
(This was actually a learning experience for me as well, I didn't know what would happen after adding a color, or how you accessed it lol)
@BobDaBilder123 Hmpf. :\
Here I thought it was implying that the gear itself lacked the wheel covering, hence being labeled as "Bare". As in we would need to design a 'custom covering' (as it mentions in its Info Text) to shroud it.
.
Still, a bit weird that it DOES snap to the
Horizontal Stabilizeron it's Root and Tip. heh (regardless of whether said stabilizer wing is connected to anything).
Either way, thanks for that insight! I had gotten into such a "Must. Try. All. New. Parts!" mode that I hadn't caught on that is was intended to be used on wings we've skinned. Guess I'll have to add a new suggestion to my mega-post, too add a means of allowing us to override the "Approve Part Connections" lists. (Dunno how to handle it on Mobile, but on Windows the CTRL+Drag Part would work since holding control currently causes it to release the part we're moving for whatever reason.)
@Amirabadi Sorry for not replying, I don't pop in here often and so I didn't see your question. :(
.
Yea the guide above is lacking that, even though it actually ALMOST provides the info... lol
It's the same as for adding images, except no use of !.
[text to become a link](https://link.goeshere.com)
Turns into:
text to convert to link
.
You can also take it FURTHER, by making it so Images can be clickable Links -- which I find handy, since this site will shrink pictures you post (pics do not work inside Comments though).
For that, you have to "nest" the image code inside the Link. So instead of the Text inside [] you place the entire Image code. Using the above provided image, that would look like this:
[](https://www.simpleplanes.com/Content/img/logo.png)
That would display the Simple Planes logo pic, and let you click it to view it on its own. The ITALICS text is the Image code which is nested inside the BOLD text which is the Link code. (I know, kinda hard to follow, but is honestly a fringe case anyhow)
@WNP78 Maybe you can edit to add that into, or at least the Link part, the original post?
+2If so, I'd recommend adding that in order to use some characters, it needs to be Escaped with a \ first in order to override the Markdown.
Also that it seems that the < part is no longer an issue (as I'm editing this because I had included it as an example): <test>
(For anyone else reading this part, that's how I went about typing the above link examples without them actually turning into links; and to make that \ I had to type \\ to escape the first slash heh)
EDIT: Oh, and of course include that using
code textis... NOT friendly at all to actual code as I've mentioned below. Mainly that common characters in code get converted to HTML Encoding? (Or something)EXAMPLE: <text> [text] (text) {text} !Exclamation "Quote'Apostrophe ,Comma \Backslash /Forwardslash _Underscore+Plus =Equals &Ampersand etc etc(Oooh that's where the <+text fails, in the code blocks haha)
I'll slap an Orbit camera on something to see if I can repro it.
.
Though, I have a sneaky suspicion that the Unity update may have included some changes to the "Garbage Collection" system, and it's triggering too often. (But I think it'd have to be something different to the "Unloaded x Files/Assets" thing that gets logged in the PlayerLog file, as if that was triggering more often, they'd probably have noticed that due to the log file becoming much larger)
Yes, but what I've experience isn't anything severe (yet), and it only happens during specific things.
I chalked it up to the fact my game had been running for over 36hrs (minimizing it and sleeping computer).
.
For me it happened when playing with Sliders for changing Dead Weight on a Fuselage part. As I'd slide that setting around, the game would have a curious micro-stutter. and that build only has 483 parts, and my computer has more than enough horsepower for SP.
@AWESOMENESS360 Wasn't it the "Physics" calculations WNP disabled in Designer?
+1(since the Drag system still has to function in thye designer in order for parts to have their Drag Points updated, though I suppose they could make it 'Conditional' to save even more CPU cycles, by having it only calc it when the Drag visual is enabled...)
I know v1.11 is out of beta, but is using the Google Form WNP had provided in the Beta blog post, preferred by the devs for us to submit bugs to?
Or is this Bugs subforum (well, tagging) system acceptable?
.
I'd use "User Voice" if the system there wasn't so flawed that it then becomes impractical for the purpose it was designed for. Namely, the "Points" system imposed, to vote on submissions, and undoubtedly to prevent spam. Alas, if we only have X-amount of points to use, and have spent them on upvoting issues/suggestions, we're unable to create anything new it seems. (Unless this has been rectified since I was there last a month or two ago...?)
[Full disclosure: In case it isn't clear or my responses come off more defensive sounding that intended... I'm not trying to be argumentative in nature here, only civilly debating! I cherish all replies and views, to further my own knowledge and understanding here, so I appreciate the responses! I'm definitely not hard-set in my view/opinion on any of this, so my mind can indeed be changed. (I'm even going to add this to my post, as I don't want the devs, or other users, to feel like I'm trying to be an ass or trolling!)]
@FeatherWing The only one I googled prior to my post was the F22's, to see if maybe they had evolved into something really big like that system. But the F22's was a much smaller one, which was where my request for the "middle-sized" seat stemmed from.
.
I've seen lots of documentary vids which included ejection seat footage, though admittedly that is not only lower quality but also filmed at a distance, so I certainly won't pretend like that serves as solid size reference data. :P
.
I also admit that I really don't know how they intend for us to put these together, and after saying that I should probably check out the few updated planes to see if they illustrate that. As it stands, it just felt like the camera's placement indicated where the head would be, and with an
offset: 0.00as the default, it appeared like it'd be hard to see over the instrument panel and that didn't seem like it'd lend to be very conducive for high-speed flight..
Then again, maybe it doesn't need to be, with the fact that there hasn't been any need for dog-fighting for at least 30yrs, maybe even 40yrs. Though that does provide me with another good* suggestion for them: an ability to not set a transparency value on the gauges, so they can be used like a HUD; perhaps also one could pin them to the camera's movement, to act like a helmet display. :)
@KyaRL People who make LUA scripts ("recipes" in the game) for the science game Fold.it use this to calculate a "Random" number ("seed").
+2.
Granted, it doesn't translate over to SP, it seems easily able to be SOMEWHAT replicated from what I see available (and I suck at FT and "recipe" coding!).
seed=os.time()
seed=1/seed
while seed<10000000 do seed=seed*10 end
seed=seed-seed%1
math.randomseed(seed)
math.random(100)
.
Perhaps something that does like...
pingpong(Latitude, Longitude) * Time / log(Altitude, Fuel)Again, I am not a coder, or good at math, so I don't know if that will resolve into a number -- or how to even get the number, for that matter -- but it feels like it should be able to produce a fairly random as hell number... provided you aren't immediately checking for it at the time whatever you built spawns in.
.
Though, while I feel the key there is using
pingpong, I get the impression that usingLongitudeand/orLatitudemight not work directly, without some further nested math, to ensure it is always a positive value. Just seems likepingpongwill always be a fairly random result on its own, and then when factored with everything else, ensures that you end up with a random value. But again, getting that equation to not error AND THEN getting the value it spits out, is where you're on your own... :}@SnoWFLakE0s
Gotcha. Admittedly, I still am not sure what exactly I can do with those Variables menu(s), nevermind how I use them. haha But that's no surprise considering the issues I have with FT... :}
Though maybe I'll finally be able to set it up with Variables, so that I can make a Cannon fire when the user presses Machinegun, as well as not needing to be in Air or Ground modes.
@MrShenanigans @FeatherWing
I originally had considered it to be a headrest, but then I looked at it closer and felt that to be highly unlikely, for a number of reasons, so I had discounted that as a possibility. :\
(I'm bored, so forgive me here, as I'm going to ramble to explain my logic lol)
My first reason was that it was far, far too tall. If the seat is meant to sit flush with the Cockpit Frame part, and then the Cockpit Canopy meant to sit flush with the top of the Frame's sides, that made it seem unlikely due to the fact the ""headrest"" part clipped halfway outside of the Canopy. (Using the "Block Canopy", even at its highest point in the glass bubble, that part of the seat still clips outside the glass)
.
My next observation was that there were two "straps", which while I admittedly am not an aviation expert I can generally still determine somethings function through studying it. In this instance, I couldn't figure out any such function for those straps given you wouldn't be strapping your head in since you'd be unable to look around. Even then, there's two of them, and the only system I have a vague recollection of there being was a single attachment that connected to the center of the helmet and upon ejection would tighten up to restrain the pilots head to avoid injury (particularly if they were unconscious). Also, they're WAY too high for shoulder harnesses. Then the fact that the backrest of the seat is positioned far too behind the ""headrest"", and would be painfully uncomfortable I thought (by forcing the head too far infront of the shoulders). Lastly, was the camera placement, which I could have erroneously assumed would've been placed at "eye level" since that's the intuitive location (and I thought WNP had said this update no longer places the camera at a distance of 1.0 above the actual camera part?).
.
However, after going back in and adding a cockpit, seat, and canopy (Modern, Modern, and Block Canopy), I notice that the seat is NOT flush with the Frame's floor, and if I move it down so that it is, it now fits underneath the Canopy glass at the highest point -- albeit barely lol
.
Now then, as I look further at things, with the above setup, it further calls into question that it's a headrest, just due to the actual measurements.
I'm 6FT tall, which is above average height for a male. In a seated position, my butt to head is roughly 3FT. My skull, measuring from the base of my skull to the top, is roughly 7IN high.
<con't below>
<continued from above message>
The Modern Seat, inside Modern Frame, with Block Canopy comes in at a total of
3.8FTaccording to SP, which is 3FT 9.6IN. Putting that "headrest" at roughly an entire head's height above where mine is! (Which again, I'm above average height, and yet it's still too tall to fit me.)Re: Glass Nose part...
Alas, there are enough that do, which I think merits its inclusion just for that reason. Nevermind all the other uses a person would have for a single part they can add to make a nicely tapered glass window. Bomber noses, Gun Pods (ie Glass Hemisphere), spaceship's gondola viewports (like the ISS has or the Crew Dragon used for Inspiration recently), or the infinite other uses lol
.
That "basically no bomber has [one]" is fine as far as facts go (even though some did; B-17 shows to be an example [pic 1, pic 2, pic 3], or the He-111 [pic 1, pic 2], this specific Me-262A2-a [pic 1, pic 2; a model].)
Just sayin' heh
@IceCraftGaming For me, all three behave the same. In my screenshot above, the itty-bitty line to the left of the one under "Front View" is the CoL.
.
If your CoL/CoM/CoT aren't centered (X=0.000) then it means something in your build is further to one side than the rest. For CoT that's not too bad, you just have to check your engines, as I presume you have 2 of them?
HOWEVER.... It just occurred to me that what you're describing MIGHT be something I also experienced a couple days ago...
+1.
Did you by chance use the Mirror tool on some parts?
Because I did, and my CoM was favoring one side (even though both sides were identical), which this is what had been causing my plane to taxi and fly towards the Right.
.
Turned out that for whatever reason, the parts I mirrored came from the LEFT side, meaning that some of them on the right weren't registering their weight properly. I determined that when I started changing the "Dead Weight" I had applied to the parts. When I adjusted the Left side, the parts made CoM moved very little (due to having XML modified their mass scale). When I adjusted the SAME parts on the Right side, the CoM moved a ton and everything returned to normal.
.
I had figured it was just because I hadn't shut down Simple Planes for a couple days -- yes, days, as I would minimize the game and put the computer to sleep. But, if you also noticed the odd shift after mirroring parts, it might be a legitimate (and different?) bug we've stumbled on. :)
I'm not sure if this is the same question that @XYeetusdeletusx was asking or not...
+2So just in case, I'm pinging you. since your thread divulged into a meme on account of your choice of words. :P
I'm almost certain that they weren't always this way, not in v1.10.106 (the last ver I'd been using). Could I be mistaken? For certain, but I would definitely stake a sum of money on it heh
(Now I regret not making a backup of SP before I.... Wait, I might, on my laptop... I'll try and check that later on,)
To clarify how I perceived it (based on lots of time spent zoomed in on CoM, placing beacons scaled to 0.1,3,0.1): They WERE still flat, yes. But there were 2 flat 'lines' which overlapped, to allow you to rotate the camera and still be presented with roughly the same visual.
.
When you viewed @ 90deg facing it, you'd be provided the flat side of one (like on the left), but the other one would be too thin to see and would leave the appearance of only one line.
When you viewed @ 45deg, you'd see part of both, but both visually combined to make it look the same as 90deg. It'd look like 1 line until you zoomed in on the Co_ sphere WWWWWWWAY close. It's at that point I could start making out the overlap.
I put forth this question: To those who thought they were this way previous to v1.11, are you by some small chance one who had been using this since its Beta became available had gotten used to this view?
.
My take was that this occurred due to the upgrade build of Unity they used, as the actual colors of the lines are also not as vibrant (but is of no concern, overall).
.
Another possible fix (IMO) would be that if it always has been one line visible, to have said line always face the camera - rotating only around the axis it's meant to portray.
lawl GG me with that typo in the first pic... Should've been "like every OTHER" :P
I have way too many of my own suggestions I'm compiling (after 15 minutes of having the update installed....) to have you try and shoehorn into your post! lol That, and I need line-breaks and more than the 4000char limit that comments afford me :}
.
Ka-nobs
For "Knobs" I use a Magnet, scaled way down (via XML of course). A size of
0.05,0.2,0.05is about perfect, using the "Simple Throttle" as a reference..
Now comes the probably tricky part, since I have yet to really dive in to stuff, as I've mentioned: Getting it to do what you need a knob-interface to do, using the limitations of SP...
.
Depending on what that new "Joystick Base" dohicky can do and how we can interact with it... My first thought is to slap the Knob on one of those (scaled way down to match), and use it's output to base other stuff's capabilities on.
IF that wouldn't work, my next suggestion would be to use a simple Rotator, tying those same "stuff" to the Rotator's position. So if it's currently rotated to 5deg of its 90deg max, then whatever its
Inputvalue fort that would trigger one function (although, probably best to set it as a range so it doesn't need to be precisely at 5deg). Then next, 10deg, same thing, triggers next function. Rinse, repeat.Now, if none of that would work, then we'd have to go FULL KLUDGE and is probably similar to what you already did, but is sort of combining everything together.... :}
What comes to mind for me is to have:
-Either the "Joystick Base" or a "Rotator"... probably will need both, though?
-That Magnet Knob connected to that
-A button (scaled to be a thin line), at a 45deg angle maybe, positioned on the right-most side, colored bright
-Another button (similarly scaled) rotated opposite, positioned on the right-most side, colored a contrasting color (or the same *shrug)
-2 "Text" parts, each with a *V (letter vee), rotated around and positioned next to the bottom end of the button, to make an "Arrow"; one pointing one way, the other the opposite way
.
When you interact with one button it turns the "knob" one direction via stepping the Rotator X-amount each press, hopefully creating an input (or output I guess?) with that Joystick Base, which in turn triggers whatever you need it to based on the specific output value.
<con't...>
Gauge Faces
Even if only having it so you can color the face, that'd work, too.
+1Granted, in most professional (ie a governing body oversee with standards), I'm sure black face with white text is mandatory for gauges....
However, more private/civilian stuff, and even things like non-transportation related gauges, there are different colors. Mostly white, but with aftermarket vehicle gauges for older cars, you can get all manner of colors for the faces.
.
So I'd suggest a case of having a preset list of color ranges that if the Face gets colored to it, the Text is forced to be something else. Bright Red face = Bright White text. White face = Black text. Navy Blue face = Bright Gray text, etc etc.
Or, simpler and lest labor intensive (to determine which colors get which text): Just make the text color become the literal inversed color of the face! SP already is capable of this with Glass, when you set the transparency to -100. Black glass becomes white, Red becomes Blue, and so on.
($10 says I've reached the post character limit... lmao)
(EDIT: Yep! Reposting to solve that...)
*grumbles* Dangit SP!
@Vincent can you please rectify the issue of the game failing to apply Auto-Credit to this build?
Thanks!
(I'd uploaded this originally with an error so I had to remove that share, but SP seemingly purged the auto-credit from that save file for some reason, so this upload lacked it....)
@VChart :sob: heh
Comically, thanks again to physics (aerodynamics) she assumes a similar posture while falling back to earth after the rockets burn out -- provided the Gyro remains enabled, otherwise free-fall is a little more chaotic with it disabled.
I'm getting ready to upload her older, more successful sister. (Who I hope displays a bit more decorum for people; thankfully she seems to.)
@CC1010 I understand, it's all good, and certainly no hard feelings. :)
For that matter, pretending for a moment that I was referring to paying Jundroo to have it be added... Honestly? I'd like that just the same. Plenty of games I'd like to be able to pay to have helpful changes made. After all, I'm not asking for them to make it so jet engine's exhaust visual be replaced by something absurd like the poo emoji. But even if I were, the entire point is that they would in no way be obligated to accept. :P
@CC1010 No. A million times no! lol
That is called purchasing. It is, in no way, at all similar to bribery!
.
A firm stance has to be made on the definition of things, otherwise society falls apart. No, grocery shopping is a willful and fair exchange of one thing for another, as they don't let you just walk out because then it'd be called theft.
Semantics aside, and perhaps part of the issue, is you've also misunderstood my main goal. I even had put in full caps:
On the contrary, I am suggesting that we'd be allowed to offer payment to (see: hire) mod authors.
.
Yes, in this instance, said mod author now also tends to be working for Jundroo. However, though I admit this is an assumption, I don't imagine WNP signed over the code of his mod to them upon his employment. He might've but, it's still an external asset and available for download, so it would appear as though that's not the case.
.
Thus, the offer in my case would be solely to WNP, as incentive for him to use his free time. However, this could be something that could be offered to someone else. For instance Kennneth. Perhaps I had an idea for something to get added to one of his maps, something I would personally very much like be included and lack the capability to do myself. However, perhaps he doesn't feel like it because it's more work than he's wanting to devote to an old project.... But what if I was willing to give him $25 to do that, perhaps he'd deem it worth his time and effort then.
.
THAT is what I'm saying :P
@MiGEater lol That's quite an endeavor to undertake!
Here's a suggestion for one though, which may be cheap enough a concept: Strap a high end DSLR (though a newer mirrorless one would be more compact) and strap it to decently powerful off-the-shell telescope, along with a Hall-effect engine (ion thruster), for your very own mini-Hubble :}
I'm all for criticism heh So I have no issue with hearing thoughts different to my own, despite being quite surprised by this reaction though.
.
@asteroidbook345 and @Sparky6004 Can you explain why you think of it as a bribe?
Definition:
If there is indeed something wrong or worse, illegal, about what I've suggested, then I agree, it shouldn't be allowed!
.
@CC1010 (since you expressed it as more than just "no" heh) and @Kennneth, as well as Asteroid and Sparky:
I guess I was coming from the standpoint of thinking that -- using my example I provided in my first comment at the bottom -- in the case of Overload the mod wouldn't see anything new added to it on the basis of it not being "worth the author's time", because they were likely busy enough working on the game itself. So I figured that perhaps in exchange, I could buy some of that person's free time.
.
The entire premise of this was effectively hiring them to do work, not coercing them to go against their morals or do something shady. A suggestion to a mod author may be something they even agree with would be nice, but still may feel it's worth their time to work on, but that doesn't mean they can't still like the concept.
.
As such, I would've defined it as a "Commission", like commissioning an artist to create a fantasy-themed avatar in your likeness.
Or in other words, the reverse of how sites like Fiverr operate. Except in this case, instead of something being made from scratch, ONLY for you... it's adding to something they've already made freely available.
Please don't missunderstand though, I did not type all that in any sort of arguing tone. I'm just wanting to understand where everyone's coming from and what part exactly it was that gave you that impression that this isn't good? Also to try and better explain where I'm coming from.
Thanks :)
To touch on what specifically I'd like to ask about, is actually something that I find would be of a huge help for everyone, and also that WNP78 is in a unique position to be able to tackle...
.
That the Overload mod be updated to provide, basically, all the info that the "Simple Cheats" page has.
Fields that would be mouse-hovered, would in turn provide a Tooltip explaining that matching string.
Value fields in turn would explain through a Tooltip what the function is.
And where the "Dev access" comes in to play, is that those Value fields could then be converted to (where its appropriate) being drop-down menus which offer all the valid choices that SP accepts.
.
For example, just a couple days ago I had learned, through total happenstance while modifying someone's build, that you can set
partCollisionResponsetoNoneinstead ofDefault! Which is quite handy for the times where you --at least if I understand it correctly-- want a part to still be allowed to contact with other parts (ie not having to setdisablePartCollisions) but also not potentially cause an explosion or the part to become damaged through gently slamming together (like with a floppy hinge joint)..
Which I assume one would need an inside view of SP in order to know all the available inputs a field supports, as well as exactly what it is they do.
Another small example: Cannon's configuration...
I'm not sure if most people know what
volumedoes (isn't listed on the Simple Cheats doc), which actually is a literal sound-volume decimal value, so that you can make a smaller gun quiet, or even turned off entirely. :)Mobile? I unno. :\
Computer (PC at least)? Bind the input to the same key :(
.
I, too, wish that there were far more options (see: input customization) for parts and weapon payloads, so that we could treat the Cannons like a Machinegun.
.
Heck, even if it was some sort of conditional, hard-coded thing, that would get triggered based on the Caliber the Cannon is configured to.
Mind you, that'd also require that they allow the Cannon to be set to below 50mm, down to say... 20mm?
[Emphasis is my own]
At which point, those so-configured cannons automatically get re-assigned to being fired by the conventional Machinegun action. (from
FireWeapons, toFireGuns)But honestly, that'd be more work than just providing us with the choice, either through the Parts Setting interface, or a secret XML option.
My 2 cents worth...
Toshiba Satellite?
Planetary Satellite [natural]?
Temporary Satellite [also natural]?
Artificial Satellite [manmade]?
.
I ask cuz, considering I've already got a launch platform, and previously made the helicopter-that-thought-it-was-a-baby-kangaroo (kept in a 'pouch' on the rover's belly lol)... I suppose I could be compelled to make you an Artificial Satellite :P
You'd have to tell me what you had in mind though?
.
....Unless you're asking about interest in whether any of us want to LITERALLY make a cubesat in real life?
In which case I'll have to pass; however. I can at least direct you over to a silly but very real cubesat that someone is working on. :) (which is pretty cool, when you think about it)
I keep forgetting it doesn't tag in-post... :\
+1@JuanNotAnAlt
@JuanNotAnAlt Oh crap I forgot that doing @ in the actual forum posts doesn't Tag people LOL Will do that now *facepalm*
+2"Don't worry about the world ending today. It's already tomorrow in Australia." - Charles Schulz (paraphrased, from one of his "Peanuts" comics)
+4@Gadyyyy Yea... *sigh* Not a proud dad moment :( lmao
.
.
.
But seriously.... mistreat her and I'll hunt you down! :P
mmmmmmmm Massive ProTip-comment was massive. I'm just going to make a forum post about this instead, and will ping you, Juan.
That way it doesn't clutter this page, AND more people can see it...
Can't beat this with a stick!
+2No, literally, it's 2D, and beating it with a stick means you're hitting the plane, and that's destruction of property! :}
.
But srsly, I once considered using micro-hemispheres, but concluded Eff that noise! That'd take the better part of a week and at least 3-quarters of my remaining 15% of sanity...
(No... be quiet Jimmy! I'm not telling them that... Why? Because man, that hippo isn't even real! Yes, I know you aren't either, but I'm failing to see your point?! Oohhh, because i'm typing this... Yea alright, that's fair.)
@TheSeventh I don't use Notepad++ either, I just had used it out of frustration to confirm (or try to), that I had modified every part to 0 mass.
TL;DR- I had somehow missed checking around 6 parts while manually going through all 175+ of them using Overload, which one of them alone made up 92lbs of the 101lbs.
+1In the end I managed to get it to 0lbs as expected, so by the time you had commented I had already solved my "issue". lol
@ChillyFlashbang
Uploaded, as requested. However, a Female version instead, as to not just upload an otherwise-carboncopy of the original.
@TheSeventh See top line and last 2 "EDIT" entries lol
+1Leaving this here for archival purposes.
@PapaKernels Cllllose............................ :}
mwwAAHAHahahah
.
EDIT: Wwweeeeeeeeeee!!!! (image)
He's so majestic...
I had to make some tweaks, in addition to his rocketpack. Namely, give him buttcheecks, and add some weight to his appendages so he flails around properly (the game does not like having everything's
massScaleset to 0 [or nearly everything]). And a gyro with very light settings, just so I didn't have to monkey for hours with the CoM lolThough most of the time was spent getting the seatbelt straps fitting properly.
.
I can upload it if anyone wants it.
EDIT2: Opted to make it a Female variant before uploading, with the same rocketpack, but added some personal refinements to the joint-system (like adding another hinge to the shoulder).
+5I've affectionately named her JATO Betsy
(I'm not fishing for upvotes and I'll be happy to remove this edit if Suubk, or even should anyone else, feels that me linking to mine on here is poor etiquette! Please @ me if so.)
Also, are we SURE this is Japanese?
+1It honestly looks strikingly like something German WWII by 'Junkers'...
Plane.exe has crashed due to a fatal error.
[_ OK _]
+7Also there's the argument that having high-detail (compared to my example) wings would, in the end, be a net gain for performance in a lot of case since it'd result in far fewer parts. As we currently end up using additional fuselage parts in order to skin the wings so that they DO look nice.
.
So in that sense, this is along the same lines of making modeled cockpit parts for us, to cut back on the extra hundred or more parts some cockpits ate up.
.
At the moment, the "simple" way to make a wing look somewhat nice is to have a small (roughly 0.2x0.2) diameter fuselage that is the same length as the wing, to act as the leading-edge. Then a flat Nose Cone (0.2 height) to act as the end of the wing. But that only gets you so far as a contoured leading edge.
If you want a full wing, now you need a large fuselage to encompass the wing, plus at least another 1 or 2 that act as control surfaces, along with each one's accompanying Hinge Rotator. On the higher-end, another small wing per control surface!
Upon reflection, though... It may just be a limitation of the color system in game.
IF that's the case, I would suggest that the specific color of 446677 be changed in the Custom Theme preset colors, to a color that can be modified.
@FeatherWing You know the Beta is v1.11 and not v1.10, right? :}
Joking aside, I didn't want to misuse that form, as I don't have the Beta. (I live in a ""rural"" area with only access to crappy LTE-based internet, with 24GB/mo bandwidth, shared with 2 people and our cellphones)
.
I also can't use the intended User Voice site since they don't go through it enough and once we've used our "Points", we can't do anything else until what we've used them on on is marked Closed by the devs. (Granted, we can retract what we've voted for, but that defeats the purpose.)
note: I know the v1.11 Beta form is a 'Google Form', which is unrelated to User Voice.
(that feeling when you have a reply typed out but wanted to check the rest of the message in case someone else already said it.... but "load more messages" refreshes the stupid page and clears everything you typed... :thumbs_up:)
You can use Bluetooth mouse, too. Works nice if you don't have the USB-A -> USB-C adapter (either lost, or your phone/tablet didnt' come with one).
I've hooked my Razer up to my Galaxy S8 before, just for kicks.
.
Similarly, the Wii Nunchucks pair effortlessly with Android, or at least they did with my Galaxy S1 back in the day... (Playstation and Xbox need more effort, though)
@BaconEggs check out my comment here. I don't know whether it's functional like I'm hoping, but someone with more FT knowledge may be able to figure that out. :}
+1.
However, I agree, it'd be quite nice to be able to either effortlessly bind (through perhaps special [new] ""Input"" Attachment Points on parts) the switches/dials/lights/whizbangs to parts to control them.
Admittedly, something would indeed need to be worked out to make it easy for the mobile userbase... but we the SP community are aptly suited to tackle such a creative task! My initial thought would have it where the AG panel would have arrorws to change "pages". Granted, that's a little cumbersome, but it'd at least do the job and not leave them out. (since expecting them to physically interact with switches/etc in Cockpit view, on such a tiny screen, would be mean)
@STDeath Thank you :D Glad you like it!
@tsampoy Thank you!
Might not win any builder awards for quality, but I had a lot of fun building it either way :D (Even though there were some hair-pulling moments, getting everything to work simultaneously and cooperatively lol)
@DDVC That feels like the definition of "The Time Period While You're Silver/Bronze Ranked" lol
+3For me, I'm still doing "derpy" stuff, learning what unconventional/unintended things I can do with parts. Like commandeering the USS Tiny by parasitically latching myself onto it and using my own thrust to move it... haha
Not a 'new' thing to the SP community by any means, but certainly new to me, which is exactly my point! Because as you said: "you don't know what you doing but still have fun somehow"
^_^