But ARE there only 8? ;)
I lack the FT skills to test this, but I've been speculating that isn't necessarily true.
I have been setting the AG on certain things recently, to being numbers beyond the 0-8 (technically 1-8), and they apply w/o error. Granted, the menu system on the Parts Setting claims it's no good by the button literally saying ERROR, but the build spawns in fine and everything behaves as intended.
.
I've had success using values of 9 and even -1 and -2, just to make it so the parts I've added weren't able to be accidentally triggered (for instance, when I used finless Rockets in an ammo-belt for a machinegun). They still show up in the Weapon System menu, but it seems as though even clicking on them doesn't allow them to be triggered, since their AG isn't activated :)
.
Ok so what's my point and where does FT come in...?
I speculate that if you were to set up a FT script that was to look for, say, a combination of events, that you could use that to actuate more lights and switches!
For instance, if you set a Hinge Rotator's AG to be set to 15 and then have an Input of something like this, but coded correctly (I don't know if & is what I'd use to separate additional 'commands'? But that's what it is signifying here) : (Activate9 = 1) & (Throttle > .90) ? Activate15 : -Activate15 ; Activate15 ? 1 : 0
So translation for what I'm hoping for: IF AG9 is ON and Throttle greater-than 90%, THEN Enable AG15, ELSE Disable AG15 ALSOIF AG15 is ON, THEN set its Input to 1, ELSE set its Input to 0.
.
Therefore, a Switch -- which I guess would now be its own part, not a Hinge Rotator -- could be actuated conditionally, where it relies further on an AG that's outside our selectable range to also be on. So basically it'd require some other switch to be on before it too gets activated.... Maybe... :}
Granted, I could be overthinking this and in the end all a person would need would be to look for certain conditions, making the "Extended-Range" Action Group assignment portion completely unnecessary.
Alas, that's why I prefaced it with me not being a FT coder lol
So here's an interesting finding...
You don't have to TOTALLY destroy the ship in order to "commandeer" it, and take it to the skies!
All you have to do is get it to start the Sinking animation. :D
.
Why is this at all interesting? Well, because you can take control of it AND still have it show up on Radar! heh
Unfortunately, I think that in all cases of severe enough damage to cause it to begin sinking, that also entails giant flames and billowing smoke.
While in certain cases this isn't totally a bad thing, such as ascending fast enough, or no doubt having enough forward momentum... But if you plan to attempt hovering, then you're going to have some visual issues. :\ https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/892893423378497558/894028650851205120/unknown.png
EDIT: Honestly, the most difficult part about this whole endeavor is finding the EXACT CENTER of the ship when destroying it. If your final shot isn't right at CoM, you're flying cockeyed...
Too far forward, and the nose sinks, making you fly nose-down.
Too far back, and the tail sinks, making you fly nose-up.
Too far right, it lists to the right.
Too far left, it lists to the left.
.
I've had to come up with a jig that lowers an arm down into the water, which has a cannon attached to the end. But the cannon is facing straight up. Furthermore, the cannon isn't attached directly to the end of the arm, but offset at a specific distance, so that when it's lowered down, the cannon is firing on the ship's centerline.
Why underneath? Simply because hitting it on the hull under the water-line means no fire/smoke ;)
I've damn near got it, after lots of trial and error lol
@RC1138Boss Ooh! ahah
I meant on the description of the plane :)
The end section I had titled as: -= TEST PILOT FEEDBACK =-
It was just my own personal experiences when flying this, to prepare anyone else who downloads it.
.
That's what I meant by adding you. If you were to determine if the Hook still functioned, I'd add to that section whatever details you provide with it working (or even if it doesn't work), as well as credit you for it :)
Thanks James and Awesome.
Can confirm, after outfitting a max caliber stubby cannon to the front of my "parasite", and destroying the Tiny, it almost immediately took to the skies. :P
And after a few minutes up there, it hadn't despawned, which was good.
.
The wings already are a no-go, at least as I had designed them... so I think that if I were to re-design my "mounting" frame, I might be able to make it so the entire flight deck can be cleared and have this function as a literal flying aircraft carrier. Which, paired with the upcoming feature update, with Refueling... >:} mwahahaha
@jamesPLANESii Damn, that figures lol Good to know.
Do they not de-spawn after destroying them?
.
I always figured they did after a set amount of time after being flagged "destroyed"... but if it's set to only do it after a certain depth (altitude below sea level), then I would be motivated enough to give that a go! lol
@RC1138Boss That's a good question, I don't actually know lol
I've locked its orientation (0deg) and it has no actiongroup assigned, so that it can't move either way.
The fact it's facing the wrong way, though, I wondered myself if it'd work still.
.
I suppose you could go in (via XML) and edit to have like -1deg (to 'drop' forward, since it's backwards), then assign it to AG2 and try it out...
Or take the more laborious route, and rotate it so it faces the correct way, then try it out.
.
I'll happily credit you as a fellow Test Pilot, with testing and providing your findings :)
@LieutenantSOT Man I apologize! I apparently glossed over the notification for your message...
I actually try not to look for other builds of a plane I make (be it real or even a fictional design by a third part), as to ensure that anything I do while building it, is 100% my own idea. That way I'm totally innocent to any design choices that I may claim as my own, but which someone else may have similarly come up with.
.
That being said, while I was researching some element later on when this was almost complete, a friend did link me to someone's SP build of this...
Which after checking yours, I can confirm it was indeed that one! :P The yellow makes it unmistakable as being it. Yours is actually the one I reference in my first post, when I said " this thing is not the BEST flying aircraft... A fact that appears to be inherent to the design, considering another C1 in SP also seemed to be a pain in the butt to fly!"
I hadn't flown yours -- as I mentioned, to not influence my work -- so I based that presumption on the description and comments on your build. :P It just seemed to mirror my experiences while building mine! haha
UPDATE: So I was actually serious about making a sky-crane to hoist El Tortuginator skywards...
I have designed the craft, in its Mk.I form. Mainly it's testing the concept I had for how to definably make it "Stealth", and, a Claw mechanism.
No idea if the claw part will actually be able to pick up something as intended, nor whether my craft currently has enough lifting capability to tackle the beast (though I gave it a dummy weight of 27,000 lbs and it's doing MORE than fine).
.
HOWEVER, my testing has involved using USS Tiny, and what I think I have managed to determine, is that I do have enough power to manipulate its speed!
I first was tugging it forward and it went up to 24MPH.
Wondering if perhaps that was just part of its script (as usually the boats seem to travel at 18MPH), I decided to pitch backwards and tug on it to slow it down... I've left it go in the background as I type this, and as of right now I've gotten USS Tiny down to 3MPH... correction, 2MPH!
.
Hopefully this isn't part of a scripted scenario it plays out lol
(it's down to 1MPH now...)
@scratch I can (unfortunately) confirm everything you just said is still the case, as I just experienced that last week :( Built a new plane with fuselage set to 45deg and rounded on the bottom...
Only to have it spawn in, floating, unsupported by its landing gear :frumpyface:
I worked around it, but... still annoying.
.
Even then, circling back, it's easy for even brand new players to already be aware that the darned Hollow is only thus visually. Hide anything inside one in the editor and you have to zoom in beyond the Hollow fuselage in order to re-select it... TT (I have a QoL buglist a mile long that I could post, if I felt any of it might _actually get addressed! lol)_
Ok so it's not being used in the best situation in this build (to show it off), but I was shoehorning this into another build, while being up against having two fuselage walls clipping into the camera's view which dictated where the Cockpit Part could be, and the actual mini-cockpit clipping through the outside of the plane which dictated how much spacing I could give it all...
.
Either way, for anyone interested in looking at it in-game, you can check it out here. (location is just inside the fuselage, in front of the front two windscreen windows)
lawl Put it on a part-count-diet, only to have it come in at 26 parts HIGHER... GG, me.
Still, it was a good trade, IMO! Though my "derpy cockpit" ate up 30 just by itself. Slats system accounted for another ~50ish total, and then another 5 for the ConTrail system.
*thinks out loud*
... Hmm ok... If Animal Planet has taught me anything it's that the way to defeat a snapper, is to grab it by the edge of the shell...
... Doing that means it can't reach you with its sharp beak and tree-snapping jaw strength, nor scratch you with its long and sharp claws...
... So then... *looks at General Characteristics*
... Yes. That might work...
... I'm going to need to develop a Skycrane helicopter and a giant "hand" it can lower down, to grab ahold of it...
... But, this is a "Terminator" Snapper, so it undoubtedly has defensive armaments...
... So I need to make sure this is also a Stealth Skycrane...
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!
... This is totally not going to work, and I'm totally going to crash, becoming this things lunch...
. "Winterro... if I die... Please clear my browser history??"
@PSsyalperdna
Lets see if I understand it... test text line 1 test text line 1 test text line 1 test text line 1 test text line 1 test text line 1 test text line 1 test text line 1 test text line 1 test text line 1 test text line 1 test text line 1
test text line 2 test text line 2 test text line 2 test text line 2 test text line 2 test text line 2
test text line 3
test text line 4
EDIT: Ok, so it still sucks since it doesn't do word-wraping but here's how to do it...
[] = hitting spacebar ONCE
```
[][][][]type your first line here, just remember that if it's too long, it will be cut off!
[][][][]type your next line here, and same limit of text, so it can't be too long.
[][][][]line 3
[][][][]line 4 etc
```
.
That will, after replacing [][][][] with 4-spaces, result in this:
type your first line here, just remember that if it's too long, it will be cut off!
type your next line here, and same limit of text, so it can't be too long.
line 3
line 4 etc
@Amirabadi You cannot enter "line breaks" (making a new line) from in game while sharing, unfortunately. :(
That leaves you with basically two choices... A) Take your pictures, add a title, and then at the bottom change it from Public to Unlisted, and Share.
Then, once it's uploaded and it opens your browser to that page, Log-In to your account on the website (if it isn't already; mine generally is) and go back to that page.
At the top right, BELOW where the big blue Download button is, you'll see where it says "0 downloads [ v ]".
Click on the [ v ] to expand a new menu. Inside that will be an option to "Edit".
NOW you can go in and add line-breaks, add formatting (like bold and italics, etc), and make it look nicer.
After you've typed everything you want, save it.
Once again, click on the [ v ], but this time select "Publish", and that will make it so everyone can see it since it will show up in the Airplanes list.
. B) Type up the info you want in-game before sharing, like you have been. Maybe leave some obvious placeholder where you intended there to be line-breaks, so it makes it quicker for you once you've uploaded (I usually just hit the spacebar 5 times to do this).
Now, same as above, when you've shared it and it opens your browser, you'll click on [ v ] and select "Edit", then go in to replace your placeholders with line-breaks.
I usually go with option B, because I've found that uploading Unlisted ones still counts towards your daily upload limit (I think of 3?), and then Publishing it seems to ALSO count towards the limit... Or at least that's what happened when I tried to publish one an hour after uploading it, but I digress...
What I do is just, in game, type in the bulk of the info I can (until it's too small for me to read anymore), adding a note at the bottom like [MORE DETAILS TO BE ADDED IN A MOMENT].
.
Then during the short time it's unlisted while it's "Publishing...", I'll edit the description on the website, periodically Saving the description to update it in semi-real time for anyone checking it out. Usually I'm adding in the description about controls or takeoff procedure, so once I've finished the controls I'll save, then go back and start with takeoff procedure, save again, come back for landing procedure, etc etc etc.
,
Not ideal, admittedly. But neither is having to deal with the limited shares in a 24hr period :P
Oh hell, I just now realized my rather embarrassing mistake... having erroneously thinking FineTuner and Overload were both made by WNP78...
Come to realize, in a huge facepalm-moment, that FineTuner was made by HellFire lol
.
... And none of you pointed it out to me! I thought you were my friends!!! haha
Anyways, yea, @HellFireKoder, pinging you now since the majority of the requests are specific to FineTuner (the external mod).
The TL;DR- of it is that while I know there's a built-in and simplified Fine Tuner menu, I'm not requesting that be what these get added to. Instead, at least initially, I'm hoping that these requests are beneficial enough to merit their inclusion into the original and more-powerful external mod. That way, it won't impact SP directly since these wouldn't be added to the built-in menu (due to lacking MultiSelect functionality).
Personally I feel these FineTuner-specific things like Create a SubAssem from MutliSelected parts, or buttons to manipulate MultiSelected parts to Flip Up/Down and Mirror-in-Place etc (mentioned in the 2nd post from the bottom) would be highly beneficial to have!
.
Thanks for your time, and especially for the original FineTuner!
I suck at math but...
2021 - 1999 = 22
2021 - 1990 = 31
Not everyone playing SP was even born in the 90s; ergo, some of these perplexed commenters may not have come across such a peculiar beast. :)
Just like not everyone has heard of the Caspian Sea Monster, which was both a ship that doesn't sail as well as a plane that doesn't fly! lol (Unfortunately, these days we as a people seem much less willing to think and create things on the same absurd levels as we once were, which is why I personally don't find it too surprising that people today are so blown away by some older things from a bygone era.)
Beautifully made :)
On a side note, I opened the console and got a kick out of this... Large aircraft detected (56401.21 cubic meters). Reducing precision of drag calculations
So it's official... even SP says "Oooh she thicc!!" lol
@AWESOMENESS360 I don't know how much help this'll be since I'm a total ignoramous when it comes to FT... Nevertheless, can't hurt to type it!
What I found out recently when trying to get just a NON-AI auto-aim turret to work, was that everything is based off the Cockpit always facing one direction (ie: statically oriented, not dynamic). Otherwise, as it tries to re-calculate, the turret has turned the cockpit, and basically ends up having no idea where it is or how much it needs to move; thus, spazzing out.
.
That also was true for having it set to being inclined at all (rotated), as if I recall from my tests a few months ago, it caused issues if I had my main cockpit (not attached to the turret) angled at even X: -2 simply for aesthetical reasons -- this would also cause the Cockpit Camera's crosshairs to be off, too.
.
More importantly, I believe EVERY turret code I had stumbled across, ended up being configured for a TOP mount... but I was wanting it to be a BELOW mounted bubble, on my plane. As such, up became down, left became right... but it also felt like there was even more than just that, since I would try to do the obvious of setting those Rotators to be "Inverted", except it didn't fix it.
Ultimately, I ended up having to invert it through the FT's "control output" part of the code, since it was still technically needing to TRACK with everything oriented as up-is-up/left-is-left. So it seemed that inverting just the rotator was also impacting that part, making it think the target was moving in the opposite direction.
[msg 1 of 2]
So for what it's worth, this is what I ended up with which finally worked -- again, this was on a NON-AI build, and is for an INVERSE-MOUNTED turret (under-body): AG 1 = Turn Off/On Auto-Aim (locks turret to default forward-facing, guns-leveled positions); even when On, requires a Target selected to actually orient it. AG 1 Enabled = Auto-Aim Off; therefore, is On by default when you spawn. Machinegun:rotation: 0,0,0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . Gun:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .muzzleVelocity: 1200 JointRotator-1:rotation: 0,0,180
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ControllerInput:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .activationGroup: -Activate1 & TargetSelected = 1& = & (because our comment system here sucks)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .invert: true
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .min: -1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .max: 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .input: ((TargetHeading - Heading + rate(TargetHeading)*(((1200 * sin(asin((TargetDistance * 9.81)/(pow(1200, 2)))/2))/9.81) * 2))/180) * -1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . JointRotator:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .range: 180
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .speed: 0.5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .damperMultiplier: 0 HingeRotator-1:rotation: 0,0,90
. . . . . . . . . . . . . InputController:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .activationGroup: -Activate1 & TargetSelected = 1& = &
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .invert: false
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .min: -0.15 - - - - (depressing/elevation, prevents clipping into fuselage)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .max: 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .input: clamp(((TargetElevation + rate(TargetElevation)*(((1000 * sin(asin(TargetDistance / (pow(1000, 2)))/2))) * 2)) * -1) + (asin((((TargetDistance + rate(TargetDistance)*(((1000 * sin(asin(TargetDistance / (pow(1000, 2)))/2))) * 2)))/(pow(1000, 2)))/2) * -1),-10,45)/45
. . . . . . . . . . . . . JointRotator:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .range: 65 - - - - (your gun's max elevation)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .speed: 0.4 [NOTE: The "input" code goes off screen because there's no word-wrap, and I haven't figure out how to do Code-Blocks with our system's Markdown... If you copy my whole post into notepad that should work. Otherwise, it's just the code pulled from this build:Three-Five-Zero Division's TFZ-9UFF Twin-Prop Fighter]
Also, while looking at my notes in my txt doc, it seems that even the auto-aiming device's _location_ in respect to the Cockpit, may impact the aiming code... As my note ends by saying that the "aiming is too low", which I presume implies that even if there was no ballistic trajectory to calculate, it'd have been off... but that's only a presumption. At least when using Cannons, since my understanding is they have bullet dro
[addendum rambling]
And yes, I hate, and am ashamed of the way the skids behave. I put in so, so many hours with the damn things, trying to find some sort of combo or work-around.
I really do apologize to everyone for not being able to figure something out T_T
@STDeath Glad you like it :)
It's flight characteristics were honestly not as good as I hoped, but I spent a lot of time fine tuning the Center of Mass (CoM/Red dot). Too far towards the back and it starts getting really really unstable, typically only during Nose-Down pitching where it'll suddenly start to Roll, but definitely during Nose-Down combined WITH a Roll... Then it would stall and flat-spin.
Too far forward though, prohibits its ability to pull tight loops... Making it less-capable as a dog fighter (and why I relegated it to not be classified as a full-on assault fighter).
.
I think that I had to use so many wing sections that needed to be set to "Symmetrical" was part of issue. If I changed the other segments to "Semi-Symm" or "Flat Bottom", then the rear would create too much lift, inducing undesireable nose pitching... meaning changing CoM... meaning even worse flight characteristics lol
.
I can't take full credit for the engines, having myself seen someone make long ones (albeit 10x larger) on a space type craft, using rows of the VTOL Thrusters.
@Sadboye12 showed me the trick with the Glass, setting its Transparency to -100 (XML edit) and then painting it the INVERSE color you want. Doing so then makes it "glow" (day or night; beautiful at night though) and so I used that for the engine-idle appearance.
.
Feel free to use any parts or ideas from it! :)
[/end rambling]
Gained +20mph (1074mph -> 1094mph) just by making sure the red propeller blades airfoil (via XML) were not set to inverted: true, and that all the blue propeller blades airfoil were not set to inverted: false
.
Better yet, went up a further +26mph (1094mph -> 1120mph) by setting all the propeller blades to Flat Bottom
.
Granted, speed can be attained easily just by increasing the 4 big Rotator's speed %, but I was trying to locate areas of inefficiencies is all. (I know this was so long ago now, but the info might prove useful to someone like me who came here out of curiosity!)
@WNP78 Presumably "too late" is in reference to the impending update coming out?
If so, I wholeheartedly agree. Don't worry, I know better than to ask for things to be squeezed in last minute (particularly with software).
.
However, if you meant in terms of addressing QoL requests by adding them into SP, then that's a bit disheartening to hear...
Unless *thinks*... it infers there's "no point", because of something heretofore unannounced that's on the horizon, and the development of which is near completion... o_0
.
heh Because that, along with you mentioning both are integrated into the stock game, has me otherwise perplexed. As currently, other than "Fine Tuner" menu (which is less powerful due to lacking 'MultiSelect'), I wasn't aware that Overload was built into the game...
My game needs your Overload.spmod in my Mods directory in order for me to gain in-game XML editing. Hence why I was making these requests for the standalone mods. Primarily because, as I mentioned, the built in Fine Tuner isn't as capable as the original standalone variant -- not just in the context of lacking MultiSelect and the Scale abilities, but because the original's menu is far-more user friendly since all the sliders/input boxes are accessible w/o having to scroll. (That's 25% of the reason why I don't use the built-in Fine Tuner, the remaining 75% is lack of MultiSelect; I could make due Scaling via editing it in Overload.)
At any rate, I hope your response isn't as Doom and Gloom as I've taken it to be, as having those kind of things addressed (be it added to the game directly, or just the external mods) would make things much easier. (Heck, I'd ask if I could add them to the mods myself,... if I knew how to code. Or even if I had the bandwidth to download all the crap I'd need in order to compile stuff [SDKs and Unity Engine etc], and try to learn. Curse you, rural life!)
Either way, thanks for replying!
@V heh Well, every once in awhile, my ramblings manage to sum up everything that's needed! (although according to my Notifications last night, James did leave one, but must've felt it wasn't needed [which is absolutely fine])
I did recall another Suggestion that I had originally thought of, but forgotten about while making the above list... So I'll just add it here, as comment fodder for everyone to determine where it should fall in that list:
[FineTuner] Buttons to Flip, Mirror, Rotate [45/90/180] or Rotate by [value relative to] a part or selected-parts, but in-situ. [Situational: When a single part is selected, provide a Checkbox to toggle Global/Local Rotation, to ignore its local axis angles.] REASON: Some of us are creative as hell... but absolutely crap at math. (Hi, that's me!) Sometimes you have a part rotated at rather obscure angles, and paired with the fact that SP likes to SCREW WITH OUR MINDS by swapping around the angles (ie a Y and Z orientation gets re-translated to an X and Z) after you've entered them and clicked away... It makes a task not so easy for some of us, even more complicated... T_T
Hopefully that "Situational" part makes sense.. Basically if I have a part rotated and I change its Y to spin it, but its X is also non-Zero, then it does it around that titled orientation instead of the global (flat) angle that the build is. So to get around that I often will place a dummy part and Multi-Select both, in order to gain that 'Global' rotation ability; rather cumbersome. USE CASE:(not the greatest example with the new feature coming up, but I've also encountered this with VTOL Thrusters)
When trying to move Fuselage Text/Art from one side of the plane to the other. Using the in-built Mirroring system doesn't work because it wasn't meant to be used with language. As such, the mirrored parts end up backwards, but not only that, their relative offsets sadly don't permit for rotating the individual pieces in place just to address the issue. (Or at least, my smol-brain-syndrome makes it more complicated than it really is... lol Alas, that's kinda my point, not everyone is that capable!)
@AWESOMENESS360 Better late than never...
I was, myself, wondering if one could simply replace them with Pistons on a Cycle instead of Gear, entirely...?
.
Though, with FT, maybe one could take it a step further by limiting the Piston's "Speed", depending on which AG is toggled. And if it still needed more speed granularity, for anyone REALLY good at it (ie, not me lol), one could make it where multiple AG's turned on could act as higher settings.
IOW: 1-8 for the first 8 speed settings, then 1+2-8 for speeds 9-16, then 1+2+3-8 for speeds 17-26, etc etc. (Although, by that point I'm sure the SP physics engine would decide to pack it in, blowing everything up lol)
@jamesPLANESii I don't know if others feel the same way, but personally I'm not sure how confident I am in their UserVoice system. :(
.
We only get a few points to distribute.
We can't (as I understand it) submit a Bug/Suggestion until you've reached a certain "rank", which I believe requires you using x-number of said points.
But worst of all is the shear number of submissions already, which makes me feel like anything I could offer would be lost in the noise. There's almost 1600 currently.
.
Primarily, with that last part, it's the lack of seeing any official comments on things there. Even if it were that it gets flagged as "Read by the Developer" it'd instill some confidence that what was submitted has at least been seen, despite not being acknowledged.
.
Oh, and this:
To help improve the overall quality of ideas, users are given a limited number of votes. Once ideas you vote for are closed, your votes will be returned to you.
Since they don't acknowledge and close suggestions, we don't get our points back. Since we can't get our points back, we have to remove them from what we've previously applied them to should we find something that we like more, regardless of whether we still feel the other voted-for ticket has significant merit.
.
Don't get me wrong though, I did my civic duty and spent all my points months ago, and commented on some issues as well. Of those I've commented on, I like these two (I'm the user C S): Overhaul the drag model Torque settings for car engines
WHITE/PREDOMINANTLY WHITE: 104
RED: 39
ORANGE: 7
YELLOW/MUSTARD: 20
BLUE: 20
"SOME DARKISH COLOR": 12
"OTHER" COLOR: 11
Presumed Accuracy: 93.194%
lol
.
Too low of res for me to do any better :(
.... And I think I might've counted some that were buildings, and others that were docks. _(However, I stopped counting things I thought might be docks after realizing that probability, so there'd only be 2 or 3 mixed in with the 'white' count)
@Vincent Could you please remove this submission as a Successor to CaptainSkylark's WWI Challenge?
It was an oversight on my part, and didn't mean for it to be.
Thanks! :)
Ah ok... Well ugh lol
Shame it's not as user-friendly as I'd had hoped :(
Thanks for the explanation @CenturyAerospace!
Also for the clarification there @jamesPLANESii
.
I'll give that a look as well @FeatherWing, thank you :)
Yea, I think what Dann810 is trying to convey is that due to the width of the plane and passenger cabin, the people seated along the outter rows will experience a LOT more movement when the plane banks/rolls, due to their position being further away from the center axis.
.
I had seen... somewhere... it pitched to have there be seating only in the center of the plane like current airliners use, and then equip screens instead of windows. (I feel like this was a discussion that took place in the comments of someone's plane here, actually)
That would require multiple decks in order to keep everyone seated along the centerline, however, now that no one would be outboard, all that room is free for cargo/luggage, so it offsets itself and capacity isn't really lost.
.
Of course, now you contend with the huge expense of electronics going bad with the inclusion of a large screen for every row of seats, plus multiple decks which multiplies the number of rows. Just as well, the various number of cameras needed, to provide those views for people. (Thankfully you'd only need a dozen, and everyone would get the same view, but could change between which camera their screen taps into [likely want to keep L and R sides to their respective sides, so that the plane doesn't loook like it's traveling the wrong way lol])
And, of course, there's still the problem of emergency evacuation routes... :\
.
Still, I'd say just make the planes smaller. Less people, less room to fit more than 2 decks, means easy access to top and bottom of the plane for emergency exits. PLUS, with all that room on the wings, you'd then have lots of cargo space. If these are extremely more efficient, it could replace Over The Road long haul deliveries by having those passenger flights have ample room to carry lots of bulk cargo. ;)
Well done!
Now all it needs is a VTOL engine, with some scaled down Thrusters mated to each 'cylinder' to act as a firey exhaust :D
.
I hope you'll share it at some point, because I'm rather curious what all is happening in the center lol Looks very was and chaotic, whatever it is that's going on there... (took my crappy internet awhile to download those clips, but now they're playing fluidly and now I'm even more curious what's going on! lol)
I hope it isn't a hard-quit, but just the realization that he should perhaps spend some of the time doing other things.
.
Playing a game is not about whether there is tangible reward to be obtained or achieved, it's about doing something you like and find fun. Too little in life provides us with that kinda of unrelenting joy, so removing it from your life entirely doesn't sound like the best idea... (in my unprofessional opinion)
.
On the flip side, if you are spending too much time doing what you enjoy, to the point it is in fact preventing you from doing more productive things (by consuming all your time), be them things you really should be doing but aren't -or- just things you feel would be better suited for you to spend your time on... Then certainly, realizing that you need to do that is not bad.
.
So the take away here I suppose is whether you -- people in general, but Sadboye as well -- are spending a lot of your free time playing SP because you are genuinely having fun, or whether you're spending the time you should be working/studying/etc and are perhaps legitimately "addicted" to the game?
The former would simply merit some self control and cutting back on how much time you put in. Even if that means setting simple alarms on your phone as a reminder, there's nothing wrong with that and would simply be you acting responsibly.
The latter would probably be a case where quitting entirely is perhaps the best choice, at least for the time being. Once you can get into a routine that rewards you (dopamine release), then perhaps SP won't be able to have that some all-consuming grip on your life.
@Sadboye12 Thanks for your help, tips, and for sharing with us so many of your insanely incredible/amazing/beautiful/elegant/creative builds!! ❤️
Take care, and hope you'll indeed be able to come back soon. See ya around! :)
@CaptainSkylark Yea I apologize Mahadi, that was my fail....
I used the plane that was my entry as the starting point, having completely forgotten that it would've also been tied to your challenge. That was not my intention, sorry for the confusion.
Do you, or anyone know, if SP Moderators are able to modify that sort of thing w/o me having to delete and re-upload this??
I agree, that's a nice boat. :)
The anti-aliasing on the long cone underneath initially made me think it was a "Lily Impeller" lol
(Which I only know about that, due to this video by Integza I'd watched recently.)
@WNP78 (and CoolPeach) Thanks for chiming in with that. I will admit that I had a preconceived notion that SP was deciphering the values from the NACA code, using that to define the shape of the Airfoil, and letting the physics engine handle how it actually performed.
.
As a result, admittedly, I didn't consider that there was lots of precompiled data the game was running off of. Definitely a failure on my part (for assuming it was done in some sort of real-time way). :} I suppose I was basing all of this on thinking that the wing physics were done in a same/similar way to the Drag Points (which are dynamic).
.
That being said, if adding one or two more airfoils happens to not be a monumental task... I do think having one of the NACA/NASA Laminar Flow models, and an early 1900s model, would be a nice addition and give folk a bit more choice.
There are a bunch of Laminar airfoils and their performance data (a number of which are not NACA/NASA, if that matters) that can be found in this huge "Parametric Airfoil Catalog - Part II" PDF. (There's also Part I, but I haven't looked at it.)
Not sure if the data provided in there is at all what's needed, regarding what WNP78 said?
Bonus Question (open to anyone that knows): Does changing the Root and Tip thickness have any physics impact, or is it solely for aesthetics?
@CoolPeach Yea there's just those three NACA codes that work (plus the NACAPROP), which coincide with the actual 3 options we can select in the menu. I tried to include that in my EDIT2, but reached the 4000 char limit on posts... :}
I'm actually a bit surprised that they didn't implement that 4 & 5 code ability, given it's a straight forward equation to decipher them. ("straight forward" for a computer to work out, but even someone like me who can barely add numbers together can still make sense of it to some degree lol)
.
Wouldn't even need to be tied to anything in the menu, to preserve the "Simple" nature of the game, only there as a hidden feature for those adventurous enough to dive into the more advanced stuff.
Personally it's all over my head, as I mentioned, but I'd still like the ability to try out different stuff! Specifically due to more recently having made some WWI era stuff and wishing I could be more accurate by using those very deep airfoils some of those planes had. (I've considered using very thin strips of Wing-3 back to back, angling each one a bit in order to recreate how some look, but I don't know if it'd yield the same results heh)
,
I also think it'd be great if the wing mesh would mimic the airfoil we have selected, given the game technically has that ability with what Fuselage parts can do: Rise, Run, and Custom corners. So like a Flat-Bottom for corners would use 0,0,0,3, or Semi-Symm as 0,0,1,3.
...Though... I won't hold my breath on either feature coming anytime soon (or ever). :P
@Robertguerra2 It's best not to ask for Technical Support in a blog post (use the Forums for that). I'll still try to help quick, but I won't follow up here afterwards :P
My guess is perhaps while playing, you accidentally clicked "Respawn Here" when you had crashed in the ocean.
The best solution is to load in a plane, and then open the menu.
Upper-left you'll see a Map Marker looking icon (upside down tear-drop shape); click that to open a menu where you can select where you spawn from
Find "Wright Airport" in the list and click on that, then click "Okay".
You now will be back at the airport runway and will continue to spawn there from now on (or until you change your spawn location again.)
I'm a total idiot here in terms of the math/science, but for what it's worth, here's a couple things I found these last 2 days, as well as in general.
1) "Flat Bottom" flies the best. It results in better handling, the plane flies faster, and seems to be better (easier) for taking off.
--Example: This "Coanda 1910" I just built, with a legitimately modeled Turbine (though I have a feeling the "20inch" measurement I read about is a radius [a turbine blade's length], not the turbine's diameter, but I digress) with the main Propeller set at 50HP.
WING SET TO 'FLAT BOTTOM': Plane will automatically, and gently, take off on its own at 73MPH, and level out on its own with a flat (maybe 1deg) AoA, cruising at 72MPH.
WING SET TO 'SEMI-SYMMETRIC': Plane will reach 67MPH and never takes off. That's its max top speed. Note: In both cases, the plane's tail (the X fins are Symm, the wide fixed tail 'wing' is Flat-Bott) rises up around 30MPH and the plane is sitting at 0deg as it travels down the runway,
,
2) Using the Hover Car, during ascent at a low speed (if you switch the BFE300 Input from VTOL to Throttle, at roughly 10%), transitioning the nacelles at various steps on the TRIM slider, produces a very sudden shift between the way the wings produce lift. Seems to be around the time they're at... hmm... 25-30deg (above horizon; not from their vertical orientation). At that point the whole thing pitches as though the game's calculations have switched gears,
,
3) SEE EDIT2 The note on the SimpleCheats document about the Wing Airfoils, is a lie T_T
You cannot input the NACA values and apply them. At least not using the Overload mod's menu. It claims invalid input and "restores" a backup. I was wanting to try naca63415, and I attempted using it with lowercase, uppercase, inside quotes, just the numbers, and even the provided "NACA23015" that it claims the game uses. Note: I could easily have misunderstood the document's note about that specific entry, and in fact it was -not- implying that we could input ANY valid NACA airfoil value...
airfoilstring A name relating to the different aerofoil types. If you’re really into aerodynamics, here are the technical names for the choices:
“Flat Bottom” :“ NACA23016”
“Semi-Symmetric” :” NACA23015”
“Symmetric” : ”NACA0009”
These are all 4 or 5 digit NACA codes which you can read up on here.
EDIT: I think the NACAPROP's superpower is.... for use as a Canard airfoil...
I tested that on my Coanda 1910, and it's top speed rocketed to 83MPH; however, it was unable to achieve takeoff at all, due to creating exceptional downforce. I attempted to counter it by changing the inverted setting (via Overload), but same results.
Then I tried it on my de Bruyere xC.2 (albeit with a Jet engine), which has fully moving canards (no rear ailerons or horizontal fins).
They both auto-takeoff at roughly 180MPH, but with the canard wings set to NACAPROP it gets there faster it seems. ----While set to Symmetrical, the nose will continue to pitch up until the entire plane is 99% stalled at 90deg) and then the nose finally crests and makes the loop. It attains roughly 360mph during its nose dive before crashing into the ocean at roughly 60deg still (it cannot self-recover). ----While set to NACAPROP, the nose continues to pitch up, but is arrested around 60deg. Which then, despite the plane not being stalled out, the nose starts to drop a little. Then once sufficient forward speed is attained, the cycle repeats, but no full loop occurs (or anywhere close).
. EDIT2: Ok it seems it DOES support the 3 NACA codes. I must've typoed earlier when trying.
Woah, Richard Dean Anderson plays SimplePlanes?? lol
.
If so, I can't wait to see the USS General Hammond, or an F-102!
Jokes aside (unless you really are -that- RDA...)
I'll have to download this just to see just how fast that thing is with four massive BFE300s... :D EDIT: Yep, it was fast lol Though it has its quirks, too... Or perhaps more accurately, a bit of a learning curve for flying it. I had to switch it over to Throttle instead of VTOL input (as a computer user) and that helped. As then I was able to associate a % value to a level of thrust needed.
@STDeath Glad you like it! ^_^
I agree, it's a different feel than a normal Biplane, and handles a lot differently from anything I've built to date. It's slow, and it isn't super capable or agile, but it'd sure make for a great real-life personal plane to just go up to enjoy a cruise. :P
.
The next one I'm working on, which does have a "jet" engine, will probably invoke an even more steampunk feel for you. :D
I don't think it'll use a different plane design/layout, but I can't say yet since I haven't gotten into that one. I only had the plan in my head for what's next. The less I have to change, the faster I'll be able to get that completed though, for certain. Which does seem to keep with the old-days of flight: Innovate new stuff around a single testbed once you have something that is known to fly. (Or I guess modern days, again, thanks to SpaceX! As they're doing that with Starship.)
It does look great with the jet's flame, doesn't it?? :D
.
Pretty close in terms of what I was going for: This one that I uploaded, the -DP stands for "Ducted Propellers", and had no actual compressor or inclusion of additionally burned fuel.
HOWEVER, you're not far off because originally that's exactly what I had, was an engine down there instead of the 5 small propellers. My jet's nozzle was extending just out of the rear Inlet, and its exhaustScale was set to 2.5,2.5,1
I just wish that in SP, setting the power to 0, also meant it didn't consume any additional fuel :( I wanted to add a VTOL engine so I could use a thruster in each of the V8's exhaust pipes, but it was a massive drain on the limited fuel it had (and I didn't want to include an infinite fuel supply for immersion sake lol).
,
(TIP: Your jet still has its massScale set to 1, so that throws off the CoM which upsets its flying behavior.)
@Flewey Naw, it's definitely something that I can admit has become a labor of love... :}
I just feel like there is/was potential in that absurd C1 design, but just as well after finishing that bird, I saw all these various ways I wanted to transform it into something more modernized.
.
I have no clue how they will eventually turn out, if they'll be good planes or equally plagued with issues needing ironing out -- cursed, as you put it lol.
But thankfully I have the ability to pull on the strings that govern the physics in the universe of SimplePlanes, so if there's a will -- and clearly I have one -- then there's definitely a way to get such a best like this to be functional! :D
.
Truth be told, I'm almost certain that some of the issue with how it performs, at least in SP, is the lack of any real details on the C1 [CoM for example], but also the horribly underpowered propulsion system. At one point on the C1 I gave its prop way more power, and it took out a lot of the cursed issues with it. Similarly, once i gave this design a jet (in that under-slung pod), it was phenomenal... Alas, such a powerful jet was outside the scope of the challenge, so I had to drastically detune it.
... It's the builds I have in mind that are beyond this WWI Challenge that are going to be of interest for me, and what I'm really looking forward to playing with! ^_^
@MAHADI ...pulls hands away from keyboard...
Yessir :} lol
@STDeath Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed both!
And I agree, the hindsight we are afforded thanks to human history being documented, plus our natural creativity, opens so many doors to curious and interesting new things... even if it IS purely fiction :D
@Flewey ROFL
I take great pride in that response, thank you! :D
.
Alhough, I'm not 100% sure what it's exactly in response to...
Whether it's to this build, or my claim to allow "crude jets" in WWI planes, or specifically my example about a "conventional engine that drives a shaft with turbine blades".... :P
If by chance it's that last one, I couldn't remember what it was called in the moment but it's a "Motorjet" lol
Which actually is even MORE fuel to my claim, since it indicates dates of 1908 and 1917... and, even more perfect: France! (It was that 1930 Caproni Campini N.1 that was where I first learned of such an engine combo)
@Kennneth
But ARE there only 8? ;)
I lack the FT skills to test this, but I've been speculating that isn't necessarily true.
I have been setting the AG on certain things recently, to being numbers beyond the 0-8 (technically 1-8), and they apply w/o error. Granted, the menu system on the Parts Setting claims it's no good by the button literally saying
ERROR, but the build spawns in fine and everything behaves as intended..
I've had success using values of
9and even-1and-2, just to make it so the parts I've added weren't able to be accidentally triggered (for instance, when I used finless Rockets in an ammo-belt for a machinegun). They still show up in the Weapon System menu, but it seems as though even clicking on them doesn't allow them to be triggered, since their AG isn't activated :).
Ok so what's my point and where does FT come in...?
I speculate that if you were to set up a FT script that was to look for, say, a combination of events, that you could use that to actuate more lights and switches!
For instance, if you set a Hinge Rotator's AG to be set to
15and then have an Input of something like this, but coded correctly (I don't know if & is what I'd use to separate additional 'commands'? But that's what it is signifying here) :(Activate9 = 1) & (Throttle > .90) ? Activate15 : -Activate15 ; Activate15 ? 1 : 0So translation for what I'm hoping for:
IF AG9 is ON and Throttle greater-than 90%, THEN Enable AG15, ELSE Disable AG15 ALSO IF AG15 is ON, THEN set its Input to 1, ELSE set its Input to 0.
.
Therefore, a Switch -- which I guess would now be its own part, not a Hinge Rotator -- could be actuated conditionally, where it relies further on an AG that's outside our selectable range to also be on. So basically it'd require some other switch to be on before it too gets activated.... Maybe... :}
Granted, I could be overthinking this and in the end all a person would need would be to look for certain conditions, making the "Extended-Range" Action Group assignment portion completely unnecessary.
+5Alas, that's why I prefaced it with me not being a FT coder lol
So here's an interesting finding...
You don't have to TOTALLY destroy the ship in order to "commandeer" it, and take it to the skies!
All you have to do is get it to start the Sinking animation. :D
.
Why is this at all interesting? Well, because you can take control of it AND still have it show up on Radar! heh
Unfortunately, I think that in all cases of severe enough damage to cause it to begin sinking, that also entails giant flames and billowing smoke.
While in certain cases this isn't totally a bad thing, such as ascending fast enough, or no doubt having enough forward momentum... But if you plan to attempt hovering, then you're going to have some visual issues. :\
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/892893423378497558/894028650851205120/unknown.png
EDIT: Honestly, the most difficult part about this whole endeavor is finding the EXACT CENTER of the ship when destroying it. If your final shot isn't right at CoM, you're flying cockeyed...
Too far forward, and the nose sinks, making you fly nose-down.
Too far back, and the tail sinks, making you fly nose-up.
Too far right, it lists to the right.
Too far left, it lists to the left.
.
I've had to come up with a jig that lowers an arm down into the water, which has a cannon attached to the end. But the cannon is facing straight up. Furthermore, the cannon isn't attached directly to the end of the arm, but offset at a specific distance, so that when it's lowered down, the cannon is firing on the ship's centerline.
Why underneath? Simply because hitting it on the hull under the water-line means no fire/smoke ;)
I've damn near got it, after lots of trial and error lol
@RC1138Boss Ooh! ahah
I meant on the description of the plane :)
The end section I had titled as: -= TEST PILOT FEEDBACK =-
It was just my own personal experiences when flying this, to prepare anyone else who downloads it.
.
That's what I meant by adding you. If you were to determine if the Hook still functioned, I'd add to that section whatever details you provide with it working (or even if it doesn't work), as well as credit you for it :)
Thanks James and Awesome.
Can confirm, after outfitting a max caliber stubby cannon to the front of my "parasite", and destroying the Tiny, it almost immediately took to the skies. :P
And after a few minutes up there, it hadn't despawned, which was good.
.
The wings already are a no-go, at least as I had designed them... so I think that if I were to re-design my "mounting" frame, I might be able to make it so the entire flight deck can be cleared and have this function as a literal flying aircraft carrier. Which, paired with the upcoming feature update, with Refueling... >:} mwahahaha
@jamesPLANESii Damn, that figures lol Good to know.
Do they not de-spawn after destroying them?
.
I always figured they did after a set amount of time after being flagged "destroyed"... but if it's set to only do it after a certain depth (altitude below sea level), then I would be motivated enough to give that a go! lol
@RC1138Boss Sorry, I'm not quite following... What do you mean by "go on [my] profile"?
@RC1138Boss That's a good question, I don't actually know lol
I've locked its orientation (0deg) and it has no actiongroup assigned, so that it can't move either way.
The fact it's facing the wrong way, though, I wondered myself if it'd work still.
.
I suppose you could go in (via XML) and edit to have like -1deg (to 'drop' forward, since it's backwards), then assign it to
AG2and try it out...Or take the more laborious route, and rotate it so it faces the correct way, then try it out.
.
I'll happily credit you as a fellow Test Pilot, with testing and providing your findings :)
@LieutenantSOT Man I apologize! I apparently glossed over the notification for your message...
I actually try not to look for other builds of a plane I make (be it real or even a fictional design by a third part), as to ensure that anything I do while building it, is 100% my own idea. That way I'm totally innocent to any design choices that I may claim as my own, but which someone else may have similarly come up with.
.
That being said, while I was researching some element later on when this was almost complete, a friend did link me to someone's SP build of this...
Which after checking yours, I can confirm it was indeed that one! :P The yellow makes it unmistakable as being it. Yours is actually the one I reference in my first post, when I said " this thing is not the BEST flying aircraft... A fact that appears to be inherent to the design, considering another C1 in SP also seemed to be a pain in the butt to fly!"
I hadn't flown yours -- as I mentioned, to not influence my work -- so I based that presumption on the description and comments on your build. :P It just seemed to mirror my experiences while building mine! haha
UPDATE: So I was actually serious about making a sky-crane to hoist El Tortuginator skywards...
I have designed the craft, in its Mk.I form. Mainly it's testing the concept I had for how to definably make it "Stealth", and, a Claw mechanism.
No idea if the claw part will actually be able to pick up something as intended, nor whether my craft currently has enough lifting capability to tackle the beast (though I gave it a dummy weight of 27,000 lbs and it's doing MORE than fine).
.
HOWEVER, my testing has involved using USS Tiny, and what I think I have managed to determine, is that I do have enough power to manipulate its speed!
I first was tugging it forward and it went up to 24MPH.
Wondering if perhaps that was just part of its script (as usually the boats seem to travel at 18MPH), I decided to pitch backwards and tug on it to slow it down... I've left it go in the background as I type this, and as of right now I've gotten USS Tiny down to 3MPH... correction, 2MPH!
.
Hopefully this isn't part of a scripted scenario it plays out lol
(it's down to 1MPH now...)
EDIT:
Capability of lifting the Turtle into the air: QUESTIONABLE
Capability of ruining a Naval Captain's day: ABSOLUTELY UNDENIABLE
Internet Rule #32: Pics, or it didn't happen.
I think it's time I introduce the Turtle to my Skill Crane on Steroids. :}
+1@scratch I can (unfortunately) confirm everything you just said is still the case, as I just experienced that last week :( Built a new plane with fuselage set to 45deg and rounded on the bottom...
Only to have it spawn in, floating, unsupported by its landing gear :frumpyface:
I worked around it, but... still annoying.
.
Even then, circling back, it's easy for even brand new players to already be aware that the darned Hollow is only thus visually. Hide anything inside one in the editor and you have to zoom in beyond the Hollow fuselage in order to re-select it... TT
(I have a QoL buglist a mile long that I could post, if I felt any of it might _actually get addressed! lol)_
Ok so it's not being used in the best situation in this build (to show it off), but I was shoehorning this into another build, while being up against having two fuselage walls clipping into the camera's view which dictated where the Cockpit Part could be, and the actual mini-cockpit clipping through the outside of the plane which dictated how much spacing I could give it all...
.
Either way, for anyone interested in looking at it in-game, you can check it out here.
(location is just inside the fuselage, in front of the front two windscreen windows)
lawl Put it on a part-count-diet, only to have it come in at 26 parts HIGHER... GG, me.
Still, it was a good trade, IMO! Though my "derpy cockpit" ate up 30 just by itself. Slats system accounted for another ~50ish total, and then another 5 for the ConTrail system.
@winterro I think you mean 53 lol
(at least, that's what it is now, 10hrs after your pinned post stating only 35 haha)
*thinks out loud*
... Hmm ok... If Animal Planet has taught me anything it's that the way to defeat a snapper, is to grab it by the edge of the shell...
... Doing that means it can't reach you with its sharp beak and tree-snapping jaw strength, nor scratch you with its long and sharp claws...
... So then...
*looks at General Characteristics*
... Yes. That might work...
... I'm going to need to develop a Skycrane helicopter and a giant "hand" it can lower down, to grab ahold of it...
... But, this is a "Terminator" Snapper, so it undoubtedly has defensive armaments...
... So I need to make sure this is also a Stealth Skycrane...
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!
... This is totally not going to work, and I'm totally going to crash, becoming this things lunch...
+9.
"Winterro... if I die... Please clear my browser history??"
@PSsyalperdna
Lets see if I understand it...
test text line 1 test text line 1 test text line 1 test text line 1 test text line 1 test text line 1 test text line 1 test text line 1 test text line 1 test text line 1 test text line 1 test text line 1
test text line 2 test text line 2 test text line 2 test text line 2 test text line 2 test text line 2
test text line 3
test text line 4
EDIT: Ok, so it still sucks since it doesn't do word-wraping but here's how to do it...
+2[] = hitting spacebar ONCE
```
[][][][]type your first line here, just remember that if it's too long, it will be cut off!
[][][][]type your next line here, and same limit of text, so it can't be too long.
[][][][]line 3
[][][][]line 4 etc
```
.
That will, after replacing [][][][] with 4-spaces, result in this:
type your first line here, just remember that if it's too long, it will be cut off!
type your next line here, and same limit of text, so it can't be too long.
line 3
line 4 etc
@Amirabadi You cannot enter "line breaks" (making a new line) from in game while sharing, unfortunately. :(
That leaves you with basically two choices...
A) Take your pictures, add a title, and then at the bottom change it from
PublictoUnlisted, and Share.Then, once it's uploaded and it opens your browser to that page, Log-In to your account on the website (if it isn't already; mine generally is) and go back to that page.
At the top right, BELOW where the big blue Download button is, you'll see where it says "0 downloads [ v ]".
Click on the [ v ] to expand a new menu. Inside that will be an option to "Edit".
NOW you can go in and add line-breaks, add formatting (like bold and italics, etc), and make it look nicer.
After you've typed everything you want, save it.
Once again, click on the [ v ], but this time select "Publish", and that will make it so everyone can see it since it will show up in the Airplanes list.
.
B) Type up the info you want in-game before sharing, like you have been. Maybe leave some obvious placeholder where you intended there to be line-breaks, so it makes it quicker for you once you've uploaded (I usually just hit the spacebar 5 times to do this).
Now, same as above, when you've shared it and it opens your browser, you'll click on [ v ] and select "Edit", then go in to replace your placeholders with line-breaks.
I usually go with option B, because I've found that uploading Unlisted ones still counts towards your daily upload limit (I think of 3?), and then Publishing it seems to ALSO count towards the limit... Or at least that's what happened when I tried to publish one an hour after uploading it, but I digress...
+2What I do is just, in game, type in the bulk of the info I can (until it's too small for me to read anymore), adding a note at the bottom like [MORE DETAILS TO BE ADDED IN A MOMENT].
.
Then during the short time it's unlisted while it's "Publishing...", I'll edit the description on the website, periodically Saving the description to update it in semi-real time for anyone checking it out. Usually I'm adding in the description about controls or takeoff procedure, so once I've finished the controls I'll save, then go back and start with takeoff procedure, save again, come back for landing procedure, etc etc etc.
,
Not ideal, admittedly. But neither is having to deal with the limited shares in a 24hr period :P
Oh hell, I just now realized my rather embarrassing mistake... having erroneously thinking FineTuner and Overload were both made by WNP78...
Come to realize, in a huge facepalm-moment, that FineTuner was made by HellFire lol
.
... And none of you pointed it out to me! I thought you were my friends!!! haha
Anyways, yea, @HellFireKoder, pinging you now since the majority of the requests are specific to FineTuner (the external mod).
The TL;DR- of it is that while I know there's a built-in and simplified Fine Tuner menu, I'm not requesting that be what these get added to. Instead, at least initially, I'm hoping that these requests are beneficial enough to merit their inclusion into the original and more-powerful external mod. That way, it won't impact SP directly since these wouldn't be added to the built-in menu (due to lacking MultiSelect functionality).
Personally I feel these FineTuner-specific things like
Create a SubAssem from MutliSelectedparts, or buttons to manipulate MultiSelected parts toFlip Up/DownandMirror-in-Placeetc (mentioned in the 2nd post from the bottom) would be highly beneficial to have!.
Thanks for your time, and especially for the original FineTuner!
I suck at math but...
2021 - 1999 = 22
2021 - 1990 = 31
Not everyone playing SP was even born in the 90s; ergo, some of these perplexed commenters may not have come across such a peculiar beast. :)
Just like not everyone has heard of the Caspian Sea Monster, which was both a ship that doesn't sail as well as a plane that doesn't fly! lol
(Unfortunately, these days we as a people seem much less willing to think and create things on the same absurd levels as we once were, which is why I personally don't find it too surprising that people today are so blown away by some older things from a bygone era.)
Beautifully made :)
On a side note, I opened the console and got a kick out of this...
Large aircraft detected (56401.21 cubic meters). Reducing precision of drag calculationsSo it's official... even SP says "Oooh she thicc!!" lol
@AWESOMENESS360 I don't know how much help this'll be since I'm a total ignoramous when it comes to FT... Nevertheless, can't hurt to type it!
What I found out recently when trying to get just a NON-AI auto-aim turret to work, was that everything is based off the Cockpit always facing one direction (ie: statically oriented, not dynamic). Otherwise, as it tries to re-calculate, the turret has turned the cockpit, and basically ends up having no idea where it is or how much it needs to move; thus, spazzing out.
.
That also was true for having it set to being inclined at all (rotated), as if I recall from my tests a few months ago, it caused issues if I had my main cockpit (not attached to the turret) angled at even
X: -2simply for aesthetical reasons -- this would also cause the Cockpit Camera's crosshairs to be off, too..
More importantly, I believe EVERY turret code I had stumbled across, ended up being configured for a TOP mount... but I was wanting it to be a BELOW mounted bubble, on my plane. As such, up became down, left became right... but it also felt like there was even more than just that, since I would try to do the obvious of setting those Rotators to be "Inverted", except it didn't fix it.
Ultimately, I ended up having to invert it through the FT's "control output" part of the code, since it was still technically needing to TRACK with everything oriented as up-is-up/left-is-left. So it seemed that inverting just the rotator was also impacting that part, making it think the target was moving in the opposite direction.
[msg 1 of 2]
[msg 2 of 2]
So for what it's worth, this is what I ended up with which finally worked -- again, this was on a NON-AI build, and is for an INVERSE-MOUNTED turret (under-body):
AG 1= Turn Off/On Auto-Aim (locks turret to default forward-facing, guns-leveled positions); even when On, requires a Target selected to actually orient it. AG 1 Enabled = Auto-Aim Off; therefore, is On by default when you spawn.Machinegun:
rotation: 0,0,0. . . . . . . . . . . . . Gun:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
muzzleVelocity: 1200JointRotator-1:
rotation: 0,0,180. . . . . . . . . . . . . ControllerInput:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
activationGroup: -Activate1 & TargetSelected = 1& = & (because our comment system here sucks). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
invert: true. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
min: -1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
max: 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
input: ((TargetHeading - Heading + rate(TargetHeading)*(((1200 * sin(asin((TargetDistance * 9.81)/(pow(1200, 2)))/2))/9.81) * 2))/180) * -1. . . . . . . . . . . . . JointRotator:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
range: 180. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
speed: 0.5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
damperMultiplier: 0HingeRotator-1:
rotation: 0,0,90. . . . . . . . . . . . . InputController:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
activationGroup: -Activate1 & TargetSelected = 1& = &. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
invert: false. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
min: -0.15- - - - (depressing/elevation, prevents clipping into fuselage). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
max: 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
input: clamp(((TargetElevation + rate(TargetElevation)*(((1000 * sin(asin(TargetDistance / (pow(1000, 2)))/2))) * 2)) * -1) + (asin((((TargetDistance + rate(TargetDistance)*(((1000 * sin(asin(TargetDistance / (pow(1000, 2)))/2))) * 2)))/(pow(1000, 2)))/2) * -1),-10,45)/45. . . . . . . . . . . . . JointRotator:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
range: 65- - - - (your gun's max elevation). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
speed: 0.4[NOTE: The "input" code goes off screen because there's no word-wrap, and I haven't figure out how to do Code-Blocks with our system's Markdown... If you copy my whole post into notepad that should work. Otherwise, it's just the code pulled from this build: Three-Five-Zero Division's TFZ-9UFF Twin-Prop Fighter]
Also, while looking at my notes in my txt doc, it seems that even the auto-aiming device's _location_ in respect to the Cockpit, may impact the aiming code... As my note ends by saying that the "aiming is too low", which I presume implies that even if there was no ballistic trajectory to calculate, it'd have been off... but that's only a presumption. At least when using Cannons, since my understanding is they have bullet dro
+1[addendum rambling]
And yes, I hate, and am ashamed of the way the skids behave. I put in so, so many hours with the damn things, trying to find some sort of combo or work-around.
I really do apologize to everyone for not being able to figure something out T_T
@STDeath Glad you like it :)
It's flight characteristics were honestly not as good as I hoped, but I spent a lot of time fine tuning the Center of Mass (CoM/Red dot). Too far towards the back and it starts getting really really unstable, typically only during Nose-Down pitching where it'll suddenly start to Roll, but definitely during Nose-Down combined WITH a Roll... Then it would stall and flat-spin.
Too far forward though, prohibits its ability to pull tight loops... Making it less-capable as a dog fighter (and why I relegated it to not be classified as a full-on assault fighter).
.
I think that I had to use so many wing sections that needed to be set to "Symmetrical" was part of issue. If I changed the other segments to "Semi-Symm" or "Flat Bottom", then the rear would create too much lift, inducing undesireable nose pitching... meaning changing CoM... meaning even worse flight characteristics lol
.
I can't take full credit for the engines, having myself seen someone make long ones (albeit 10x larger) on a space type craft, using rows of the VTOL Thrusters.
@Sadboye12 showed me the trick with the Glass, setting its Transparency to -100 (XML edit) and then painting it the INVERSE color you want. Doing so then makes it "glow" (day or night; beautiful at night though) and so I used that for the engine-idle appearance.
.
Feel free to use any parts or ideas from it! :)
[/end rambling]
Seeing that GIF really made my day lmao
+4Updooted for that fact alone!
(I've obviously never played Team Fortress 2... heh)
Gained +20mph (1074mph -> 1094mph) just by making sure the red propeller blades airfoil (via XML) were not set to
+6inverted: true, and that all the blue propeller blades airfoil were not set toinverted: false.
Better yet, went up a further +26mph (1094mph -> 1120mph) by setting all the propeller blades to
Flat Bottom.
Granted, speed can be attained easily just by increasing the 4 big Rotator's speed %, but I was trying to locate areas of inefficiencies is all.
(I know this was so long ago now, but the info might prove useful to someone like me who came here out of curiosity!)
@WNP78 Presumably "too late" is in reference to the impending update coming out?
If so, I wholeheartedly agree. Don't worry, I know better than to ask for things to be squeezed in last minute (particularly with software).
.
However, if you meant in terms of addressing QoL requests by adding them into SP, then that's a bit disheartening to hear...
Unless *thinks*... it infers there's "no point", because of something heretofore unannounced that's on the horizon, and the development of which is near completion... o_0
.
heh Because that, along with you mentioning both are integrated into the stock game, has me otherwise perplexed. As currently, other than "Fine Tuner" menu (which is less powerful due to lacking 'MultiSelect'), I wasn't aware that Overload was built into the game...
My game needs your Overload.spmod in my Mods directory in order for me to gain in-game XML editing. Hence why I was making these requests for the standalone mods. Primarily because, as I mentioned, the built in Fine Tuner isn't as capable as the original standalone variant -- not just in the context of lacking MultiSelect and the Scale abilities, but because the original's menu is far-more user friendly since all the sliders/input boxes are accessible w/o having to scroll. (That's 25% of the reason why I don't use the built-in Fine Tuner, the remaining 75% is lack of MultiSelect; I could make due Scaling via editing it in Overload.)
At any rate, I hope your response isn't as Doom and Gloom as I've taken it to be, as having those kind of things addressed (be it added to the game directly, or just the external mods) would make things much easier. (Heck, I'd ask if I could add them to the mods myself,... if I knew how to code. Or even if I had the bandwidth to download all the crap I'd need in order to compile stuff [SDKs and Unity Engine etc], and try to learn. Curse you, rural life!)
Either way, thanks for replying!
@WNP78 Just noticed that in my main post above, it didn't ping you, so that's what this is.
@V heh Well, every once in awhile, my ramblings manage to sum up everything that's needed!
(although according to my Notifications last night, James did leave one, but must've felt it wasn't needed [which is absolutely fine])
I did recall another Suggestion that I had originally thought of, but forgotten about while making the above list... So I'll just add it here, as comment fodder for everyone to determine where it should fall in that list:
<3
That feeling when...
You have a good computer, particularly by SP standards, but:
SimplePlanes.exe has stopped working.
T_T
+1Don't get me wrong, I totally expected that to happen, but it's still a shame lol
@AWESOMENESS360 Better late than never...
+1I was, myself, wondering if one could simply replace them with Pistons on a Cycle instead of Gear, entirely...?
.
Though, with FT, maybe one could take it a step further by limiting the Piston's "Speed", depending on which AG is toggled. And if it still needed more speed granularity, for anyone REALLY good at it (ie, not me lol), one could make it where multiple AG's turned on could act as higher settings.
IOW: 1-8 for the first 8 speed settings, then 1+2-8 for speeds 9-16, then 1+2+3-8 for speeds 17-26, etc etc.
(Although, by that point I'm sure the SP physics engine would decide to pack it in, blowing everything up lol)
@jamesPLANESii I don't know if others feel the same way, but personally I'm not sure how confident I am in their UserVoice system. :(
.
We only get a few points to distribute.
We can't (as I understand it) submit a Bug/Suggestion until you've reached a certain "rank", which I believe requires you using x-number of said points.
But worst of all is the shear number of submissions already, which makes me feel like anything I could offer would be lost in the noise. There's almost 1600 currently.
.
Primarily, with that last part, it's the lack of seeing any official comments on things there. Even if it were that it gets flagged as "Read by the Developer" it'd instill some confidence that what was submitted has at least been seen, despite not being acknowledged.
.
Oh, and this:
Since they don't acknowledge and close suggestions, we don't get our points back. Since we can't get our points back, we have to remove them from what we've previously applied them to should we find something that we like more, regardless of whether we still feel the other voted-for ticket has significant merit.
.
Don't get me wrong though, I did my civic duty and spent all my points months ago, and commented on some issues as well. Of those I've commented on, I like these two (I'm the user C S):
Overhaul the drag model
Torque settings for car engines
WHITE/PREDOMINANTLY WHITE: 104
+2RED: 39
ORANGE: 7
YELLOW/MUSTARD: 20
BLUE: 20
"SOME DARKISH COLOR": 12
"OTHER" COLOR: 11
Presumed Accuracy: 93.194%
lol
.
Too low of res for me to do any better :(
.... And I think I might've counted some that were buildings, and others that were docks. _(However, I stopped counting things I thought might be docks after realizing that probability, so there'd only be 2 or 3 mixed in with the 'white' count)
@Vincent Could you please remove this submission as a Successor to CaptainSkylark's WWI Challenge?
It was an oversight on my part, and didn't mean for it to be.
Thanks! :)
Yep this did the trick and functions just as I envisioned!
Activate1 * (0.9 * Throttle + 0.1)Ah ok... Well ugh lol
Shame it's not as user-friendly as I'd had hoped :(
Thanks for the explanation @CenturyAerospace!
Also for the clarification there @jamesPLANESii
.
I'll give that a look as well @FeatherWing, thank you :)
Yea, I think what Dann810 is trying to convey is that due to the width of the plane and passenger cabin, the people seated along the outter rows will experience a LOT more movement when the plane banks/rolls, due to their position being further away from the center axis.
+1.
I had seen... somewhere... it pitched to have there be seating only in the center of the plane like current airliners use, and then equip screens instead of windows. (I feel like this was a discussion that took place in the comments of someone's plane here, actually)
That would require multiple decks in order to keep everyone seated along the centerline, however, now that no one would be outboard, all that room is free for cargo/luggage, so it offsets itself and capacity isn't really lost.
.
Of course, now you contend with the huge expense of electronics going bad with the inclusion of a large screen for every row of seats, plus multiple decks which multiplies the number of rows. Just as well, the various number of cameras needed, to provide those views for people. (Thankfully you'd only need a dozen, and everyone would get the same view, but could change between which camera their screen taps into [likely want to keep L and R sides to their respective sides, so that the plane doesn't loook like it's traveling the wrong way lol])
And, of course, there's still the problem of emergency evacuation routes... :\
.
Still, I'd say just make the planes smaller. Less people, less room to fit more than 2 decks, means easy access to top and bottom of the plane for emergency exits. PLUS, with all that room on the wings, you'd then have lots of cargo space. If these are extremely more efficient, it could replace Over The Road long haul deliveries by having those passenger flights have ample room to carry lots of bulk cargo. ;)
Well done!
+4Now all it needs is a VTOL engine, with some scaled down Thrusters mated to each 'cylinder' to act as a firey exhaust :D
.
I hope you'll share it at some point, because I'm rather curious what all is happening in the center lol Looks very was and chaotic, whatever it is that's going on there... (took my crappy internet awhile to download those clips, but now they're playing fluidly and now I'm even more curious what's going on! lol)
I hope it isn't a hard-quit, but just the realization that he should perhaps spend some of the time doing other things.
.
Playing a game is not about whether there is tangible reward to be obtained or achieved, it's about doing something you like and find fun. Too little in life provides us with that kinda of unrelenting joy, so removing it from your life entirely doesn't sound like the best idea... (in my unprofessional opinion)
.
On the flip side, if you are spending too much time doing what you enjoy, to the point it is in fact preventing you from doing more productive things (by consuming all your time), be them things you really should be doing but aren't -or- just things you feel would be better suited for you to spend your time on... Then certainly, realizing that you need to do that is not bad.
.
So the take away here I suppose is whether you -- people in general, but Sadboye as well -- are spending a lot of your free time playing SP because you are genuinely having fun, or whether you're spending the time you should be working/studying/etc and are perhaps legitimately "addicted" to the game?
The former would simply merit some self control and cutting back on how much time you put in. Even if that means setting simple alarms on your phone as a reminder, there's nothing wrong with that and would simply be you acting responsibly.
The latter would probably be a case where quitting entirely is perhaps the best choice, at least for the time being. Once you can get into a routine that rewards you (dopamine release), then perhaps SP won't be able to have that some all-consuming grip on your life.
@Sadboye12 Thanks for your help, tips, and for sharing with us so many of your insanely incredible/amazing/beautiful/elegant/creative builds!! ❤️
+5Take care, and hope you'll indeed be able to come back soon. See ya around! :)
@CaptainSkylark Yea I apologize Mahadi, that was my fail....
I used the plane that was my entry as the starting point, having completely forgotten that it would've also been tied to your challenge. That was not my intention, sorry for the confusion.
Do you, or anyone know, if SP Moderators are able to modify that sort of thing w/o me having to delete and re-upload this??
I agree, that's a nice boat. :)
+1The anti-aliasing on the long cone underneath initially made me think it was a "Lily Impeller" lol
(Which I only know about that, due to this video by Integza I'd watched recently.)
ahah DERP! Serves me right for loading my WWI Challenge submission and building it from that... :P
@WNP78 (and CoolPeach) Thanks for chiming in with that. I will admit that I had a preconceived notion that SP was deciphering the values from the NACA code, using that to define the shape of the Airfoil, and letting the physics engine handle how it actually performed.
.
As a result, admittedly, I didn't consider that there was lots of precompiled data the game was running off of. Definitely a failure on my part (for assuming it was done in some sort of real-time way). :} I suppose I was basing all of this on thinking that the wing physics were done in a same/similar way to the Drag Points (which are dynamic).
.
That being said, if adding one or two more airfoils happens to not be a monumental task... I do think having one of the NACA/NASA Laminar Flow models, and an early 1900s model, would be a nice addition and give folk a bit more choice.
There are a bunch of Laminar airfoils and their performance data (a number of which are not NACA/NASA, if that matters) that can be found in this huge "Parametric Airfoil Catalog - Part II" PDF. (There's also Part I, but I haven't looked at it.)
Not sure if the data provided in there is at all what's needed, regarding what WNP78 said?
Bonus Question (open to anyone that knows): Does changing the
RootandTipthickness have any physics impact, or is it solely for aesthetics?@CoolPeach Yea there's just those three NACA codes that work (plus the
NACAPROP), which coincide with the actual 3 options we can select in the menu. I tried to include that in my EDIT2, but reached the 4000 char limit on posts... :}I'm actually a bit surprised that they didn't implement that 4 & 5 code ability, given it's a straight forward equation to decipher them. ("straight forward" for a computer to work out, but even someone like me who can barely add numbers together can still make sense of it to some degree lol)
.
Wouldn't even need to be tied to anything in the menu, to preserve the "Simple" nature of the game, only there as a hidden feature for those adventurous enough to dive into the more advanced stuff.
Personally it's all over my head, as I mentioned, but I'd still like the ability to try out different stuff! Specifically due to more recently having made some WWI era stuff and wishing I could be more accurate by using those very deep airfoils some of those planes had. (I've considered using very thin strips of Wing-3 back to back, angling each one a bit in order to recreate how some look, but I don't know if it'd yield the same results heh)
,
I also think it'd be great if the wing mesh would mimic the airfoil we have selected, given the game technically has that ability with what Fuselage parts can do: Rise, Run, and Custom corners. So like a Flat-Bottom for corners would use
0,0,0,3, or Semi-Symm as0,0,1,3....Though... I won't hold my breath on either feature coming anytime soon (or ever). :P
@Robertguerra2 It's best not to ask for Technical Support in a blog post (use the Forums for that). I'll still try to help quick, but I won't follow up here afterwards :P
+1My guess is perhaps while playing, you accidentally clicked "Respawn Here" when you had crashed in the ocean.
The best solution is to load in a plane, and then open the menu.
Upper-left you'll see a Map Marker looking icon (upside down tear-drop shape); click that to open a menu where you can select where you spawn from
Find "Wright Airport" in the list and click on that, then click "Okay".
You now will be back at the airport runway and will continue to spawn there from now on (or until you change your spawn location again.)
I'm a total idiot here in terms of the math/science, but for what it's worth, here's a couple things I found these last 2 days, as well as in general.
1) "Flat Bottom" flies the best. It results in better handling, the plane flies faster, and seems to be better (easier) for taking off.
--Example: This "Coanda 1910" I just built, with a legitimately modeled Turbine (though I have a feeling the "20inch" measurement I read about is a radius [a turbine blade's length], not the turbine's diameter, but I digress) with the main Propeller set at 50HP.
WING SET TO 'FLAT BOTTOM': Plane will automatically, and gently, take off on its own at 73MPH, and level out on its own with a flat (maybe 1deg) AoA, cruising at 72MPH.
WING SET TO 'SEMI-SYMMETRIC': Plane will reach 67MPH and never takes off. That's its max top speed. Note: In both cases, the plane's tail (the X fins are Symm, the wide fixed tail 'wing' is Flat-Bott) rises up around 30MPH and the plane is sitting at 0deg as it travels down the runway,
,
2) Using the Hover Car, during ascent at a low speed (if you switch the BFE300 Input from
VTOLtoThrottle, at roughly 10%), transitioning the nacelles at various steps on the TRIM slider, produces a very sudden shift between the way the wings produce lift. Seems to be around the time they're at... hmm... 25-30deg (above horizon; not from their vertical orientation). At that point the whole thing pitches as though the game's calculations have switched gears,,
3) SEE EDIT2 The note on the SimpleCheats document about the Wing Airfoils, is a lie T_T
You cannot input the NACA values and apply them. At least not using the Overload mod's menu. It claims invalid input and "restores" a backup. I was wanting to try
naca63415, and I attempted using it with lowercase, uppercase, inside quotes, just the numbers, and even the provided "NACA23015" that it claims the game uses.Note: I could easily have misunderstood the document's note about that specific entry, and in fact it was -not- implying that we could input ANY valid NACA airfoil value...
EDIT: I think the NACAPROP's superpower is.... for use as a Canard airfoil...
I tested that on my Coanda 1910, and it's top speed rocketed to 83MPH; however, it was unable to achieve takeoff at all, due to creating exceptional downforce. I attempted to counter it by changing the
invertedsetting (via Overload), but same results.Then I tried it on my de Bruyere xC.2 (albeit with a Jet engine), which has fully moving canards (no rear ailerons or horizontal fins).
They both auto-takeoff at roughly 180MPH, but with the canard wings set to NACAPROP it gets there faster it seems.
----While set to Symmetrical, the nose will continue to pitch up until the entire plane is 99% stalled at 90deg) and then the nose finally crests and makes the loop. It attains roughly 360mph during its nose dive before crashing into the ocean at roughly 60deg still (it cannot self-recover).----While set to NACAPROP, the nose continues to pitch up, but is arrested around 60deg. Which then, despite the plane not being stalled out, the nose starts to drop a little. Then once sufficient forward speed is attained, the cycle repeats, but no full loop occurs (or anywhere close)..
EDIT2: Ok it seems it DOES support the 3 NACA codes. I must've typoed earlier when trying.
Woah, Richard Dean Anderson plays SimplePlanes?? lol
.
If so, I can't wait to see the USS General Hammond, or an F-102!
Jokes aside (unless you really are -that- RDA...)
I'll have to download this just to see just how fast that thing is with four massive BFE300s... :D
EDIT: Yep, it was fast lol Though it has its quirks, too... Or perhaps more accurately, a bit of a learning curve for flying it. I had to switch it over to Throttle instead of VTOL input (as a computer user) and that helped. As then I was able to associate a % value to a level of thrust needed.
@STDeath Glad you like it! ^_^
I agree, it's a different feel than a normal Biplane, and handles a lot differently from anything I've built to date. It's slow, and it isn't super capable or agile, but it'd sure make for a great real-life personal plane to just go up to enjoy a cruise. :P
.
The next one I'm working on, which does have a "jet" engine, will probably invoke an even more steampunk feel for you. :D
I don't think it'll use a different plane design/layout, but I can't say yet since I haven't gotten into that one. I only had the plan in my head for what's next. The less I have to change, the faster I'll be able to get that completed though, for certain. Which does seem to keep with the old-days of flight: Innovate new stuff around a single testbed once you have something that is known to fly. (Or I guess modern days, again, thanks to SpaceX! As they're doing that with Starship.)
It does look great with the jet's flame, doesn't it?? :D
.
Pretty close in terms of what I was going for: This one that I uploaded, the -DP stands for "Ducted Propellers", and had no actual compressor or inclusion of additionally burned fuel.
HOWEVER, you're not far off because originally that's exactly what I had, was an engine down there instead of the 5 small propellers. My jet's nozzle was extending just out of the rear Inlet, and its
exhaustScalewas set to2.5,2.5,1I just wish that in SP, setting the power to 0, also meant it didn't consume any additional fuel :( I wanted to add a VTOL engine so I could use a thruster in each of the V8's exhaust pipes, but it was a massive drain on the limited fuel it had (and I didn't want to include an infinite fuel supply for immersion sake lol).
,
(TIP: Your jet still has its
massScaleset to1, so that throws off the CoM which upsets its flying behavior.)@Flewey Naw, it's definitely something that I can admit has become a labor of love... :}
I just feel like there is/was potential in that absurd C1 design, but just as well after finishing that bird, I saw all these various ways I wanted to transform it into something more modernized.
.
I have no clue how they will eventually turn out, if they'll be good planes or equally plagued with issues needing ironing out -- cursed, as you put it lol.
But thankfully I have the ability to pull on the strings that govern the physics in the universe of SimplePlanes, so if there's a will -- and clearly I have one -- then there's definitely a way to get such a best like this to be functional! :D
.
Truth be told, I'm almost certain that some of the issue with how it performs, at least in SP, is the lack of any real details on the C1 [CoM for example], but also the horribly underpowered propulsion system. At one point on the C1 I gave its prop way more power, and it took out a lot of the cursed issues with it. Similarly, once i gave this design a jet (in that under-slung pod), it was phenomenal... Alas, such a powerful jet was outside the scope of the challenge, so I had to drastically detune it.
... It's the builds I have in mind that are beyond this WWI Challenge that are going to be of interest for me, and what I'm really looking forward to playing with! ^_^
@MAHADI
...pulls hands away from keyboard...Yessir :} lol
@STDeath Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed both!
And I agree, the hindsight we are afforded thanks to human history being documented, plus our natural creativity, opens so many doors to curious and interesting new things... even if it IS purely fiction :D
@Flewey ROFL
I take great pride in that response, thank you! :D
.
Alhough, I'm not 100% sure what it's exactly in response to...
Whether it's to this build, or my claim to allow "crude jets" in WWI planes, or specifically my example about a "conventional engine that drives a shaft with turbine blades".... :P
If by chance it's that last one, I couldn't remember what it was called in the moment but it's a "Motorjet" lol
Which actually is even MORE fuel to my claim, since it indicates dates of 1908 and 1917... and, even more perfect: France! (It was that 1930 Caproni Campini N.1 that was where I first learned of such an engine combo)