2/2
In conclusion, it seems that a low-power Turbine concept (crude 'jet') is actually inside the timeframe of the era. Therefore, something such as a conventional gas engine that drives a shaft with turbine blades where additional fuel is injected for added thrust, or a primitive sort of turbo-prop configuration, would be plausible and valid methods of propulsion for a Fictional WWI-era vehicle... :D (at least that's my two cents worth)
@MAHADI I'm just going to bring this up here and run it by you.... Even though it technically doesn't help this build while using propellers, I'd be able to submit a 'fix' for it!
I believe I've found legitimate evidence that opens up Internal Combustion Turbine engines for use in WWI-era vehicles... O_O Hans Holzwarth 1905 patent# US783434A for a "Rotary Combustion Engine". (I've only made small grammatical corrections to this digitization's auto-transcription of the original text, where some words were not spaced apart; also a single 'typo'.) My invention relates to internal-combustion engines.
.
The object of my invention is to provide means for the practical application of the direct force
developed by combustion in the operation of a turbine. In an ordinary turbine no means are
provided for compressing combustible gases nor for confining such gases during ignition
even though a preliminary compression were provided for.
.
My invention therefore contemplates the provision of separate expansible combustion
chambers in which a compression may be secured (at least a final compression)
and which will offer sufficient resistance to the initial pressure of the burning gases to
produce a complete ignition and then deliver the gases into the turbine in a manner to
develop the highest efficiency.
.
My invention also contemplates utilizing the force expended in expanding one
combustion-chamber to produce a final compression in another similar chamber, the
arrangement being such that a four-cycle movement is secured by successive ignitions in a
set of four chambers without reference to the movement of the turbine and entirely
independent thereof.
Furthermore, in 1910, a (seemingly different) Holzwarth's design managed 200HP (150kW): 1910: Holzwarth impulse turbine (pulse combustion) achieved 150 kW (200 hp).
.
Almost more notable is that in 1903, another inventor managed to achieve an output that was greater than the input requirement to run the turbine: 1903: A Norwegian, Ægidius Elling, built the first gas turbine that was able to produce more
power than needed to run its own components, which was considered an achievement
in a time when knowledge about aerodynamics was limited. Using rotary compressors
and turbines it produced 11 hp.
Both of these quotes came from: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas
@MAHADI lol All 5 of them are inside the fuselage, in that bottom protrusion spanning from the rear wheels to the front Inlets.
xC.2-DP = Ducted Propellers :}
@MAHADI My second "entry" for the WWI Challenge. It is not jet powered, but, I'll also understand if you feel it is not valid.
I made this purely for the fun and joy of making it, being quite pleased with the end result either way! :)
Yea, it's more difficult to make modifications on mobile, but it's still possible as I mentioned. You just have to find where iOS stores your plane's files and then load it into any Text Editor software.
.
However, that doesn't make it "easy" by any means... LOL
The text you are then looking at, is quite confusing. Furthermore, not all of the things you can change/modify are even in the file by default (to keep file sizes down). That's the most annoying and difficult part in my opinion :(
For wheels though, I think if you change the Size and Width in the Part Settings menu, then they will show up in the file. From there you just have to edit it to a value that's beyond the menu's capability. :)
@Flewey Yes lol That sums it up rather well...
As does the couple pictures of the real one's crash. (I spare linking since all one has to do is plug into Google Images: de Bruyere C1)
Which on that note, for a plane that was not successful and did not make it beyond a first test flight... it's impressive that there are ANY photos of it, over 100 years later! Makes me feel as though it really was cutting edge and forward thinking, or at the very least that it was "unique enough" to people that merited holding onto the photos!
I have plans to "continue development" of this plane, in an Alternate Timeline sort of sense. I already have one variant made, which I absolutely love, It's not quite finished yet, but just about.
It flies a little better, though definitely has a lot of the same (not-ideal) flight characteristics about it... lol
@MAHADI I had thicker ones in place, but was playing around with them and just liked how these looked (visually). They may indeed be a little too "Pizza Cutter" though, and in reality I suspect they would all but require operating on a tarmac runway.
.
I did waffle about the Cockpit Block, to be honest.
My logic was this: The cockpit is, or was at one point, having an impact on drag. As the plane developed and I worked out the early, severe, bad flight behaviors... I had gotten worried that if I messed with it, I'd have to start over.
.
I suppose with it submitted as it is, it can act as a baseline and I can now go back through and fine tune some elements I may have overlooked or been reluctant to tackle. I'll certainly post the Fix when I do, as per you challenge rules.
Thanks for the feedback! ;)
EDIT: Yep, monkeying with that cockpit causes all sorts of new Drag Points...
As I've uploaded it: 1268
Calc Drag False: high 1500s True but Scaled: 1609
*sigh* Well, I'm always up for a challenge, but usually they're enjoyable. Down the rabbit hole I go!!
True to life, as I imagine, 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!
.
This took considerable effort to fine tune its flying, and in the end it is vastly superior to what it was when I first built it. Unfortunately, the realism is slightly lost because so much XML editing of Drag was required, and even then the engine needed more power than it had in real life (which was only 150HP).
.
While my first flight did not end in a crash due to a sudden Roll... it DID crash from a continued Pitch Up (loop) after liftoff. Alas, I managed to nail down a workable CoM point along with dialing down the Drag on a lot of parts at the front. Not ideal, but, necessary. Admittedly, it is NOT what I'd envision a combat plane to have for flight behavior, but it would make for a great Leisure Plane.
@MAHADI Here is my entry for the WWI Challenge. :)
@brians1209 @PoinX25tlessWhyShouldI
If I came across as patronizing or insulting, I apologize, that wasn't my intent!
I was just trying to offer a relatively simple suggestion as a work-around for the whole (very unfortunate) debacle.
I can see tempers are still high, which I can empathize over, and I'm sorry for bringing that up as I didn't mean to stir things up again. :)
My suggestion, withdraw this design as your submission.
1) Add wings to those ""wing roots" near where the tail starts.
2) Encase them to look snazzy and match the rest of the build's aesthetics.
3) XML edit all the parts newly added and: Set Mass to 0, Disable Caclulation of Drag, Disable any wing parts' Lift function (making them just structural parts). Since they are now all weightless, dragless, liftless parts, the flight characteristics should theoretically be unchanged!
4) Re-submit the new build which now incorporates "wings", and define it as the fictional precursor to the later-developed wing-less variant; thus, putting you within the requirements of the rules. ^_^
However, I can also appreciate if the entire situation has caused you guys to have lost interest in the challenge and have no motivation to make those modifications in an effort to validate the design.
Challenge aside, it's a great build and clearly a sentiment shared by everyone! :) (Even Mahadi I'd say, since he upvoted it)
@LieutenantSOT I did better than I thought I would, given the creativity and workmanship of many here, but not as well as I wanted to... not that I expected I'd actually do as well as I wanted! lol I think I was in the top 10 (regardless of the 5 points I was erroneously docked), only a little above where you were actually.
.
Speaking of which, I liked the mid-fuselage Pusher, Delta Wing config you had. Particularly because it had a wing setup much like one I've been wanting to attempt :}
I don't think what I'm wanting to do will pan out, but, I still gotta try it one of these days! A "dynamic" wing, basically. I think the actual, real world variant's name is something like "Variable Geometry Airfoil" or close to that. I think BMW also made a concept car using the same tech, where the car's body shape was variable. In either case, the frame/skeleton of the wing can be moved on multiple axis, which when paired with its stretchable 'skin', produces the ability to change the shape of the wing and its aerodynamic properties.
.
But yea... Lots and lots and looots of control surfaces is my thought on how to bring it to SP! lol Which is why I'm not entirely sure it'll work out how I'm hoping...
Nice job, she's a beauty!
My small critique is just that I think the landing gear could be a tiny bit bigger, but that's purely an aesthetics reason, not a functional one. (But you'd have to modify each gear part's scale value via loading the save file in a text editor [aka XML editing], since mobile unfortunately can't install mods like FineTuner or Overload)
.
Since I've never been able to spotlight anyone when I've wanted to, due to everyone always being ranked higher than me... I'm glad I can finally!
@Clutch I had to do a lot of additional work under the hood in order to get it to fly right... at least, as far as I remember... lol This was made almost 2 months ago, so my memory is a bit fuzzy,
,
I just know that the 1/4 needed tons of work, through added multiple (internal) Air Brakes, just to get it to fly stable. Though, then on this 1/16 version (or 1/32, whatever it is lol), it didn't want to fly at all, only wanting to do flips after takeoff. So I had to adjust weight balance via fuel storage, tune the drag profile (via XML modding), remove/disable some or all of the internal air brakes, tinkered with the wings, and tuned the engine performance. Oh, and I added the external RC Antenna to this one as well!
.
All of this was done just because someone had made a super micro airport replica and I offered to make a tiny flyable aircraft for it. :P
.
In other words, my point is only that you needn't worry, I definitely won't upload (publicly) anything unless I've made considerable or significant changes to it first! Just, one has to keep in mind that not all changes are, or will be, visual in nature and that means two may look identical but be quite different ;)
It doesn't give me enough to rank, so it's no big deal really, I just found it curious that I was docked for that heh
To answer your question about what AG3 does: "War Emergency Power" (WEP) was/is a term designated to aircraft whereby engaging it would provide you with MORE power than the engine was designed to make. Early piston aircraft (some in WWII) had an easy to break cable attached to the throttle lever, and when the pilot pushed harder, the cable would break and allow for >100% engine power by increasing the airflow and fuel delivery.
.
The power gained was above what the engine manufacturer rated the engine for, so if it was a 2500HP engine, it may make 2700HP with WEP engaged. However, due to that fact, the engine operated at above spec stress levels which meant it would run hotter, consume more fuel, and need to be overhauled long before its usual servicing time. (Some other versions of WEP use Water and/or Alcohol injection instead, to increase engine outpout; water being an incompressible fluid would artificially increase combustion chamber's compression ratio which can yield more power, whereas alcohol can burn cleaner and cooler which can help with engine temperature. Jet engines have also been equipped with a version of WEP.) Here's the Wiki page about it, if you'd like to read more on it.
In my implementation of it, it's a Throttle Limiter, using this as Input Code: Activate3? Throttle : Throttle - 0.175
AG3 DISABLED: Full Throttle = 82.5%
AG3 ENABLED: Full Throttle = 100%
.
I mainly did this because I was short on time (was leaving for vacation) and needed an excuse for not wanting to go through hours of further fine tuning to adjust the flight profile by de-rating the engines, because... <see below>
... because at their current horsepower rating they resulted in my plane being able to fly too fast; thus, breaking Addendum Rule #8: "Propeller airplanes flying 1000+ km/h are not welcome." :(
Since that wasn't in the original post, I didn't see that rule until I was almost done with the main mechanics of the plane, and as I mentioned, I didn't have time to address that since everything was built around the engines being that powerful and propellers of that size and number.
So..... I used WEP as a realistic excuse, and all I needed to do was find a throttle value that didn't cause it to fly too fast, BUT, still allowed the plane to be CAPABLE of that speed by the press of a button! Seemed fair, to me, since fuel consumption was considerably more with WEP enabled! :D So it would be in one's best interest to only turn it on occasionally... if you wanted to leave enough fuel to make it back to a runway, that is. lol
TL;DR -
AG3 toggles War Emergency Power, which increases Max Throttle from 82.5%, to 100%.
Engine go VVROOOM! "Exhaust" flames get bigger and brighter.
Plane flies faster.
Plane maneuvers better.
Plane consumes a lot more fuel.
@LieutenantSOT Thanks! :D
And yea, I was gone from July 14th and just got back on Aug 18th :} I had to submit my entry hastily the night before I left, didn't get to do any further work like I'd have wanted to... Alas, I'm still happy with it, so we'll see what Astro thinks. I'm going through them all, in order, but haven't come to mine yet. Hopefully that's a good thing! lol
.
Anyways, thanks again, and for the quick response!
@CDRxavier heh What do you mean SimplePlanes doesn't run on Unity?
Of course it does! :P
If I could upload a screenshot directly to the comments, I'd show you, but since I can't you'll just have to go into your SimplePlanes game directory (assuming you're on a computer and not mobile). On Windows, in the main folder sits a file that is named UnityPlayer.dll. There's plenty of other things I could point out as further evidence, like mod making tools, but I don't think any more proof is really needed, is it? lol
@AcePlayer The Android version of my "Ingenuity" helicopter that I linked to in my comment below?
It's such a low part count vehicle, that I don't see why an android-specific version would be necessary... (or even possible lol)
For shared builds, as far as I know, the vehicles work on any version of Simple Planes -- Mac, Windows, Linux, Android, iOS.
@Clutch I saw that I was at 1030 just today when getting back online (been on vacation at the cabin since mid-July). :D
Either way, thanks!
.
I'll have to think of a Silver Trophy to make, to commemorate it, as that seems to be the thing folks do when achieving new ranks! lol
Tweaking airplanes is okay
- It is okay to download someone else's airplane, make some tweaks, and re-upload a new variation.
- In fact, the original designer may even receive bonus points.
- However, if your variation does not offer any improvements over the existing airplane, then it may be removed.
This version is --at least I think, but I'm really bad a math-- 1/32 scale (pretty sure the 1/16th I put in the description is wrong), of my original 1/4 scale version (linked in my profile but not here), which IS indeed the original Jundroo Kicking Fish. Not entirely sure why it didn't tag my other upload.
Either way, it's different compared to both versions, so not sure how it'd qualify as a repost? :P (Unless... I accidentally uploaded this twice, but that seems unlikely since I'd have had to edit both descriptions to enter the line breaks.)
@LunchBox Go'fer it :P I thought using just bullets from machineguns was a novel idea, and then I was like ! I could use super-slow moving cannon rounds as their own casings! lol
Ooh ho but then... Then brilliance struck, and I'm like HMMM... "These look great but... they're coming out facing the wrong way, the taper should be facing forwards, like the neck of a bullet casing! Would SP, by some small chance, let me, you know... shoot these backwards??? :>"
Sure enough, yes... it WILL let you shoot them backwards! lmao
So yea, don't forget to configure the "ejector" cannon's velocity to a NEGATIVE value, and also rotate the gun backwards, since it will now fire from the breach :}
It'd be interesting to know just WHERE it came up with all those drag points...
I disabled drag on all the tiny aesthetics stuff that otherwise would've added a lot, so I'm not sure where the extra 1000 came from compared to last time I checked >_>
You do you, Simple Planes lol
@AvalonIndustries Not a problem! :P It was such a wild coincidence that it was worth mentioning heh
That, and admittedly, I didn't want anyone to think I shamelessly copied you.... :}
Will it make point-5 passed lightspeed?
Can you bullseye Womp Rats in it, like I used to do in my T-16 back home?
Yea... I didn't think so!
...
Huh?? o_0
What do you mean those things are just 'fantasy'... >_>
Did you not just see what GuyFolk managed to do with simple FunkyTrees coding?!? If he can pull off that, then certainly what I've said isn't fiction!! ;)
Seriously, impressive! Loving that camo as well! :D (Now I need to make a T-16........... Hmpf.)
OK! I managed to refine it down today to make it ALMOST automated (ie we just pull the trigger). This is better than I've experienced so far :)
Problem is, the Cockpit is inside the Flak Turret so it might have screwed up some other stuff... (The AA Machineguns are still just as deadly since they're spraying so much lead)
.
That being said... [important changes to the code are in bold] NEW Fuselage Block @ Coords:0.0000027, 26.43127, -22.29239
-------Rotation: 0, 0, 0
-------Attachment Point: "Bottom" to the "Top" of Part ID 328 (the big fuselage on top of the triple guns) Cockpit Moved to Coords:0.0000027, 26.43127,- 22.29239(yes, same spot)
-------Rotation: 0, 0, 0
-------Attachment Point: "Bottom" to the "Center" of New Fuselage at same coords
-------(NOTE: Be sure to disconnect the cockpit from its original point; it will only be connected to this new fuselage part) UPPER Flak Cannon XML Changes (ID 173):
-------explosionScalar: 3.5
-------fuseInput:
------- CameraVantage -> viewMode: Chase(seems better, for when new targets are acquired) Flak ELEVATION Rotator (ID 168):
-------invert: true(should be this already, but just in case)
-------input:
Flak TRAVERSE Rotator (ID 165): (unfortunately its scale is 0,0,0 so need to edit this in the XML, or do as I did and edit its scale back to 1,1,1 so you can access it in game)
-------invert: true(pretty certain it's already this)
-------input:
(TargetHeading - Heading + rate(TargetHeading)*(((1000 * sin(asin((TargetDistance * 9.81)/(pow(1000, 2)))/2))/9.81) * 2))/180 (this could probably use to have those 1000 set to 1250)
EDIT: Stupid Markdown codebox not using word-wrap... AND this site lacking the ``` code-block ability! Ugh
(boy can I ramble, huh?....) EFFECTIVENESS:
-In my tests --which were all performed at Wright's Spawn point-- I'm now able to, with ONLY the Flak Cannons (no AA machineguns), eliminate moderately-fast moving targets that are NOT performing elaborate acrobatics or have a high rate of climb/descent. Drone, Bomber, a few of my own builds, Astro's AS-15 Dagger, Enemy, were various targets I managed to take out.
-Depending on direction of travel, I had to use a slight bit of main-turret rotation in order to lead or trail the target JUST A TINY AMOUNT so that the shells exploded closer to them; hence, thinking that Traverse "1000" may be fine to change to "1250" (or maybe it needs to go back to 800?).
-RANGE though? In conjunction with my change to Fuse timing, that's now anywhere from <1 mile, to a peak of 3.5mi for slow moving targets (Drone), but an average Max of 2.2mi! :D If the Elevation with VTOL (noted below in Future Plans) were implemented, then this could be increased easily up to 5mi I think.
-Targets coming in to land were the ones that were usually closer before being able to destroy (~1mi, AS-15), but not always, as slower planes landing were destroyed around 2mi.
.
Code Changes:
Elevation - Changed the -10 at the end, to -12.5 (determined after trying -20 and -15)
Rotation - Changed the two 800 entries to 1000
.
Additional notes:
I tried a few things with the Elevation which didn't work out. Such as setting all the asin to sin, changing the 2000 to 1250, changing the few * 2 to various * 1.9x values, and combinations of those. Ultimately, they produced drastic changes and needed to be reversed, with finally testing changes to just -10 and having the results I was after; lower values drop the Point of Aim, so -20 is far too low (the obverse to -10's too-high impacts).
.
Future Plans:
1) At least for use as a turret on a vehicle/plane that isn't already using the VTOL input, I plan to either...
A) use VTOL as the "multiplier" in my Fuse code, so that you can adjust the fuse timing on the fly
or
B) use VTOL somehow, somewhere, in the Elevation code (maybe as a (-12.5 + VTOL)) so that the aim height can be adjusted for targets based on whether they're further or closer away.
2) I need to add a damn camera to the turret body so that I can switch back and be viewing behind the turret, with the camera pointing at the new target! When mouse click is needed to rotate AND is assigned to fire cannon, it's... a waste of ammo to rotate the camera lol
@ThomasRoderick Yea the assumption I had was as you said, the first set of numbers are the velocity, right? Except the coding in this thing totally contradicts that?? :( The only place that it turns up is in the Fuze timing :\
.
Traverse code: (TargetHeading - Heading + rate(TargetHeading)*(((800 * sin(asin((TargetDistance * 9.81)/(pow(800, 2)))/2))/9.81) * 2))/180
... uses 800.
.
Elevation code: clamp((TargetElevation + rate(TargetElevation)*(((2000 * sin(asin((TargetDistance * 9.81)/(pow(2000, 2)))/2))/9.81) * 2)) + (asin(((TargetDistance + rate(TargetDistance)*(((2000 * sin(asin((TargetDistance * 9.81)/(pow(2000, 2)))/2))/9.81) * 2))* 9.81)/(pow(2000, 2)))/2),-10,45)/45
... uses 2000 *throws papers in the air*
So what the Eff, Jeff?! lol
Anyways, since I have a moment, I'll throw some of today's thoughts at the code right now and see what it results in!
@ThomasRoderick Yea I had a system going because I wanted to get through my tests quick, and so I wasn't doing anything unnecessary heh
I'd spawn in, then press R to switch to A2A targeting, and press F twice (usually) to switch to Flak Turret. Then press Tab to select a target provided one wasn't already. (Sometimes I'd go through that sequence so quick nothing would've spawned in yet)
.
I will gladly test again to make sure, as indeed my SP had been running for hours by that point and who knows if there was some other anomaly happening. As there were certainly times when NO aircraft were spawning for me, and I'd have to click on Restart.
.
But yea, what I did first, after you mentioned cockpit's location, was I relocated it to directly in the middle of the Flak turret, between the two barrels Y position.
Then, first, I just pressed R to let it reconnect. On that test, it was 180deg off, so I thought I did something wrong. Manually reconnected and tried again, same scenario. Then it clicked, that I needed to Invert the Rotator for the traverse.
.
Ok so step back for a moment. This is before I'd realized what's happening, but this to me seems like the first clue: If the part you're connecting to, its rotation, were to have no impact on anything... why would I have needed to toggle Invert on that rotator? (Not just an in-hindsight-question, but a legitimate question, in case I'm overlooking or missing something... @Sadboye12 you have extensive knowledge/experience, is there a reason you had inverted that rotator in the first place?)
.
After inverting, it was now pointing the right direction, but...... was still not properly aiming AT the target that was selected. So I went back into the designer and was setting up a new manual selection. NOTE: Since I had my cockpit buried inside a fuselage part, I was therefore selecting that part's Center attachment point, because I didn't want the game thinking that the cockpit was on an edge and that causing for some odd calculation mishap.
It's when the connect-to-part's point selection came up that I noticed the fuselage I was selecting the Center point on, its arrows was not pointing Up like usual. That's when it hit me that "Oh? Is fact the part is rotated also impacting things??"
So I opened Fine Tuner and sure enough, that part was 90, 90, 0. (could've been something slightly different, but X was 90)
.
Searching around the neighboring parts, the only one that was 0, 0, 0 was the back tapere
Unfortunately, the aim was still too high, but the Fuze timing now was much better. *(NOTE: The verdict of the Fuze was that for craft heading AT me, the 1370 [top cannon] code was dead on but the 1250 was detonating early; if traveling horizontally the detonated too late and too early, respectively, where probably 1310 is needed,)
This high-aim was what I would end up being plagued with it seemed. The lead on the aircraft (traverse) was now roughly where it needed to be, but the elevation was off, which I'm not exactly sure what I need to adjust in the Elevation code to address that. Feels like the Gravity is off, yet touching that any makes it WAY off so that's not it. Those 2000 numbers don't seem to do anything when using 2000 or 1000, and the '2' in the pow(2000, 2) seems to have the same massive detrimental impact that adjusting the gravity does (just in a different way).
TL;DR -
What I've found is that moving the cockpit to the center of the Flak turret, between each cannon barrel's Y coord, is indeed best.
That mounting the Cockpit directly to a part that is rotated, impacts how SP references how its spawned in and therefore its calculations. (I did not test with the cockpit rotated in the opposite direction of the part it's connected to, though)
The Fuze timing is pretty good, but maybe could use a Randomizer to select a value between 1250 and 1370. Would lerp or pingpong be possible?
And that at the end of the day, its always shooting too high, by quite a bit, causing a miss. Roughly an amount equal to .... 20-30meters? (I'm an Imperial, so yea, but it's >5 plane height's worth).
.
Lastly, as I quickly glanced at Snowflake's page, the only conclusion I can now come to on what might solve it, is using sin instead of asin? (I'm guessing, I have no math abilities, but plan to try this in a bit, after I get back from doing some stuff!)
Problem is, I see it uses BOTH, and so, maybe removal of the asin? *epic shrug* :\
[/massive wall of text]
@ThomasRoderick Yes you told me, which is what motivated me to do more testing. It was that, which all the below were based on, as I went back and started testing over from scratch (ie, this upload of yours).
.
If the Cockpit is rotated, things are off.
If the part that the cockpit is attached to is rotated, things are off.
.
And I feel like if they didn't insist on re-rotating things, and would keep what we apply for angles, this wouldn't be a problem lol
(which by that I mean, whatever causes, for instance, if I input something akin to 0, 0, 180 and then when I go click back on that part, it's rotation is now suddenly 90, 90. 0 [or of that sorts] *sobs* whatever's behind that, I hate it, but I think might be at fault here too).
OK new findings after moving the cockpit...
1) Screw you Jundroo! :D
2) That SORT of addresses some of the problem; it's STILL shooting high, I'll get back to you on leading or trailing too far; Fuze timing seems pretty good now though.
3) See 1. The part you attach it to, or at least how you attach to that part, seems to impact how everything functions. For example, I tried manually attaching its Rear-Bottom point, to various part's (fuselages) Center point... Result: ANY part that was oriented any way other than X:0. Y:0, Z:0 would cause the auto-aim to be "off" by that amount.
4) Naturally, at least in hindsight, you can't attach it to any part ON the turret because... it moves, and as a result of the cockpit moving, the FT script can't calculate, and it freaks out. It'd always rotate 180 backwards, and then wobble a couple degrees left and right since it was basically stuck in a loop heh
@ThomasRoderick That sounds plausible...
I wonder what is more important (seriously heh): having the Flak being accurate, or having the various side-guns, which also use auto-aim code....
.
Because if that's the problem, then the solution would simply be to move the Cockpit up to the Flak turret. The main triple-guns don't use it (I don't think?). so there doesn't seem to be much point having it centered near them.
I'll have to give that a try, thanks. I didn't think the cockpit's LOCATION also had an impact on stuff *facepalm* Jundroo is really kneecapping us on what all can be done, despite giving us so much power with FunkyTrees coding :(
Here you go! Wonderful little build :)
All the details are included in the description for you; this is an Unlisted upload so be sure to bookmark it. (unless you want me to publish it?) Enjoy!
I'm seriously about ready to give up... In addition to being unable to time the fuze well, there's more!
There seems to be a serious bit of screwiness, like with the Exhaust Scale when using asymm values, where it matters which direction you're facing for whether your jet exhaust looks correctly. or oblong shaped. :|
.
In this case, I'm having it....
- lead craft too much when they're traveling S to N.
- aim too far left when they're traveling W to E
- trail craft too far when they're traveling N to S
I assume, too, that E to W would to the inverse, as well.
Unfortunately, I fear this is either a core SP bug, or a much worse bug that relates to Unity Engine....
.
I at least managed to get the Fuze timing a bit closer to detonating when it's properly near the plane, but it's hard to refine it further when I have these aiming anomalies that require a consistent aircraft spawning system heh
I can hit stuff that's under a mile from me, since the accuracy is trivial at that point, but we already knew that.
@ThomasRoderick I can confirm what Woody was saying, that the Flak AA turret's aiming is still way off and missing almost everything unless it's super close. The one was only 2.5mi (just over 4km) out, flying horizontally in front of me, and every 5 shots exploded high above it (about at the top of its targeting square, visually at that range).
.
After shooting some more and tinkering, I realized there's a bullet cam setup on the Flakk heh Which is showing the round exploding WAY too early actually. So I wager that the visual effect of going "high" is actually because the round has only barely reached its peak height. That's seemingly confirmed by the bullet camera, as for craft flying at ~3000-5000ft alt seem to be below the round still just as it explodes, because it hasn't had time to arc back down towards the target.
.
I'm still tinkering to try and figure this out, but I'm --pardon the pun-- shooting blindly here since not only is the FT coding out of my league, but so is the math (yea I'm that bad at math shush lol). But it's also important to me, since I need to use this code for myself! :}
@LunchBox Don't worry, I will :D I'm just not done with it, and have hit a considerable snag that is below my ability to fix and am throwing my idiocity at it, hoping my ignorant attempts to solve it actually work! lol
I mean I know what's happening --and-- I just now figured out "why", but it uses not only FT, but math, and both are further over my head than the Space Station is right now! :P
And I just had a Eureka moment before submitting this, which has indeed managed to solve 80% of the issue I was having! Goes the right way now, which is important lol That last 20% is rather critical though...
*gasp* I think that shortestAngle is the useful bit 'o code I needed, to make a turret's traverse ring's Rotator not suck arse!
(ie, allow it to go from -1 directly to 1, without having to first go through 0)
<3 @DwiAngkasaAeronautics
@F104Deathtrap True, but I meant in terms of shooting, period. Anything that misses the target at close range, would have an exacerbated down-range area of impact due to this. I suppose my error in worded was by using "inaccurate", since that does seem to imply that you would be aiming and firing at something beyond your gun's effective range.
.
As I ended with last time, I'm sure in reality (at those speeds, and altitudes, other variables), what I'm thinking might've been a concern, likely isn't.
In other words: Internal dialogue that I externalized, and probably didn't need to! LOL
@F104Deathtrap Yea I knew about the X aiming you're referring to. But that configuration wouldn't complicate the gyro-assisted crosshair?
.
It's also rather interesting, to my ignorant mind (although I love WWII period, it's not an obsession; I have factoids but not necessarily 'knowledge'), that they would go for that convergence system instead of firing straight ahead. Or at least, to have them converge at such a close distance (relatively, at 750ft), when the tradeoff is having your rounds beyond that distance be insanely inaccurate. To the point that it makes me wonder how many stray rounds may have dinged friendlies that weren't in technically in LoS/LoF but ended up being due to the inward-aimed gun making bullets at extreme range straying far wider. Alas, I'm sure it didn't, at all, work out as I'm thinking... which is a good thing lol
I see my head is in the right place in terms of going above and beyond what I've ever done before. Had I stopped where I normally would've, I'd have been way outclassed, and that's just based on seeing only yours!
.
It's funny you added those wing-to-tail antennas in that way, as I thought about doing the same thing in that same fashion! Instead I opted for the more cliche/traditional cockpit-to-rudder-base style :P
.
Looks great! (and apparently 18hrs ago, I forgot to click Submit for this comment!)
In case any other new players read that, figure since this is a "help" thread in a sense, I could at least explain the code from below...
First one's breakdown: Activate3? Throttle : Throttle - 0.33
1) Activate3 is in itself a 'question' asked to the game and will return either True or False (behind the scenes), which asks whether "Activation Group 3" (aka AG3) is enabled.
2) The ? now is what starts to turn this into a bit of 'code', as it forms the beginning of an IF statement, which is formatted as x? y : z. This is probably a poor way to look at it BUT, I like to think of it as IF? THEN : ELSE. Because if "X" = True, then it will Input "Y", elsewise (otherwise) it will Input "Y".
3) Throttle is a placeholder that automagically gets substituted with whatever % of Throttle you have applied, but as a decimal. For example: 0% Throttle (engine off) = 0.00, 58% is 0.58, and 100% is 1.00
4) Throttle - 0.33 is a bit of simple math which will apply whatever value Throttle you've set, subtracts 0.33 from it. and inputs that value instead.
.
That all 'translates' to meaning... Is *Action Group 3* enabled?
If it IS, then use *Whatever Amount of Throttle You Have Applied*.
Or else if it is NOT, then instead use "Whatever Amount of Throttle You Have Applied -MINUS- 0.33*.
.
Real world scenario:
Since I am using that code for my Engine's "Input" field...
When AG3 is Disabled, if I apply Full Throttle (100%), it secretly is only really using 66% Throttle.
When AG3 is Enabled, if I apply Full Throttle, it really IS applying 100%.
In other words, I'm using this as cheap "throttle stop" to prevent going faster.
ALTERNATIVELY, you could give your engine EXCESS power, say a Jet Engine with a power value of 2 (instead of 1), and if you used Throttle / 2 in place of Throttle - 0.33, when you activate AG3 it's like applying an Afterburner, :P (Note: If you're smarter than me, you could even code it further so that it needs the AG enabled and Throttle to be 100% before it will engage the "afterburner".)
Quicker summary of the second: Activate3? 0 : 1
That's used on a Beacon light.
Translates to: IF AG3 is enabled, THEN turn Beacon OFF (0 = off/disable/false/no), OTHERWISE turn Beacon ON (1 = on/enable/true/yes)
. [Code obtained from a plane of Astro12's. Everything else was learned from reading Snowflake's handy guide for all this stuff.]
@F104Deathtrap Yep closest I've come is adding a gun sight to my aforementioned plane's turret. That took me far less time to sight-in than I thought it would. 2 tries to get the crosshairs to show up on that camera's view, then 4 more to zero it in :D
.
Otherwise I've indeed not considered that one, though it does sound nice.
Though to be honest, I was under the impression that's what the A-to-A dynamic crosshair affixed to each target basically was; a "Shoot Here to Sufficiently Lead The Target" sort of smart-reticle . However, I have also found that it's noooot exactly where one should aim, either. (In hindsight, that could be due to what my original post was about,... lol)
I imagine that would be ideal for fuselage mounted (centerline) guns, and not ones well into the wings since that'd require twice the gyros and even MORE math that I already wouldn't be able to calculate! lol
.
Hell, today's my first attempt at even doing any sort of "real cockpit" sort of stuff, which amazingly has worked as I wanted it to right from the start (well... after I removed the attachments that mysteriously were created between my 'gauge needle' and the dial's face, preventing the needle from moving... lol). In fairness, though, I didn't do anything complex, and on top of it, yoinked that Input code someone else already made -- simple in its own right anyhow, but was beyond my capability. Activate3? Throttle : Throttle - 0.33
Which I was already using a form of it on my engines (albeit set to only subtract 0.175, so that my plane wouldn't exceed a challenge's max speed. Added it to AG3 so that I could still provide its full power and deem it as "WEP" :D So the 'gauge' I made is just a faux "Engine Temp" gauge, which once ""WEP"" is activated, it sweeps into a red zone. It also has a courtesy blinking Red light to indicate that "WEP" is enabled, and a Green (maybe Blue) to signify normal operation. (Provided I can figure out how to set it up so that when AG3 is on, the "Green" indicator turns off, and when AG3 is off, it turns "Green" back on... Tis gonna need more research, as my trial-and-error attempt hasn't bore fruit yet lol) EDIT: Well that was easier/quicker than I anticipated...
I had the right idea, just the wrong input. That Activate# I figured could perhaps also function as the 'toggle', depending on how it was utilized. Alas, it's only use to read, and based stuff on. So for that Green beacon alls I needed to do was change my kludged attempt of Activate3? Activate9 : Deactivate9 (feel free to laugh, it's appropriate lol), to simply be Activate3? 0 : 1 and presto!
When "WEP" is engaged (AG3), Green turns off, and when disengaged it turns back on ^_^
@Astro12 Bummer, alright.
No I'm not referring to a dive. :(
Sea Level to 1550m alt, it tops out at around 800kph
It gets a little faster until the 3650m air-density change at which point it can basically hit the 1000kph limit.
However, at 6100-6700m, it's able to blow well beyond, achieving 1200kph :(
I mean, TECHNICALLY speaking I could """exempt""" myself from that by writing it off as a real life thing that planes were equipped with and claim that the pilot requires authorization to exceed a certain throttle level, :}
War Emergency Power (WEP) is an American term for a throttle setting on some World War II military aircraft engines. For use in emergency situations, it produced more than 100% of the engine's normal rated power for a limited amount of time, often about five minutes.
*thinking* . . . If I can get an Input script to work, I might be able to make that a real function... And I might know just where to find it... *sheepish grin* lol
@F104Deathtrap Coincidentally, I'm trying to make a plane turret that has its own gyro for rotation and it... could be better LOL It's just an inertia pendulum while flying, spinning around as it pleases since its input isn't active by default (though, TIL as well, that a Gyro's Control Inputs being inactive does not mean that the Gyro is disabled! heh Thankfully on that plane, the minimal effect it's transferring to the plane is actually helpful given how gentle it is.)
.
I'm not sure if the oddity I ALSO experienced, happens to be what you're referring to though... I suspect it isn't, but..
My plane has cannons as well, and so it has its own dedicated pip sight as we know. One of the cannons is facing aft, and occasionally the pip sight will drift around the screen, seemingly towards a target or to indicate... something, I dunno. My gut was telling me it was only doing that because I was traveling in a direction other than the direction that weapon system points. As it seemed like this also happened after spawning in w/o engaging engines, and the recoil from testing the front-facing cannons gave me some reverse momentum, at which time their piper started drifting. (Admittedly, that could've been due to the rear cannons that happen to be in that firing sequence, but are basically just 'dummy' guns that I'm using for a totally different reason mwahaha)
But yes... SP / Unity Engine quirks are a hoot to deal with/discover! :( lol
@Astro12 What altitude will you be conducting the tests at? (So I know how far off from your 1000kph max I am. [edit: lol why do I keep typing 'kmh'?!? forgive me, I'm a dumb imperial user!])
I'm pretty certain I'm going to be well over the limit, but as I have it designed now, I like how it performs too much and lowering the power will impact that too drastically. :\
I could adjust the prop blades' profile, but that kinda kills the aggressive appearance I was going for... and I think that would also impact performance negatively. There's probably a way around this all, I just am too inexperienced to know how to code the Throttle Input to act as an automated speed governor.
2/2
In conclusion, it seems that a low-power Turbine concept (crude 'jet') is actually inside the timeframe of the era. Therefore, something such as a conventional gas engine that drives a shaft with turbine blades where additional fuel is injected for added thrust, or a primitive sort of turbo-prop configuration, would be plausible and valid methods of propulsion for a Fictional WWI-era vehicle... :D
(at least that's my two cents worth)
@MAHADI I'm just going to bring this up here and run it by you.... Even though it technically doesn't help this build while using propellers, I'd be able to submit a 'fix' for it!
I believe I've found legitimate evidence that opens up Internal Combustion Turbine engines for use in WWI-era vehicles... O_O
Hans Holzwarth 1905 patent# US783434A for a "Rotary Combustion Engine".
(I've only made small grammatical corrections to this digitization's auto-transcription of the original text, where some words were not spaced apart; also a single 'typo'.)
My invention relates to internal-combustion engines..
The object of my invention is to provide means for the practical application of the direct force
developed by combustion in the operation of a turbine. In an ordinary turbine no means are
provided for compressing combustible gases nor for confining such gases during ignition
even though a preliminary compression were provided for.
.
My invention therefore contemplates the provision of separate expansible combustion
chambers in which a compression may be secured (at least a final compression)
and which will offer sufficient resistance to the initial pressure of the burning gases to
produce a complete ignition and then deliver the gases into the turbine in a manner to
develop the highest efficiency.
.
My invention also contemplates utilizing the force expended in expanding one
combustion-chamber to produce a final compression in another similar chamber, the
arrangement being such that a four-cycle movement is secured by successive ignitions in a
set of four chambers without reference to the movement of the turbine and entirely
independent thereof.
Furthermore, in 1910, a (seemingly different) Holzwarth's design managed 200HP (150kW):
1910: Holzwarth impulse turbine (pulse combustion) achieved 150 kW (200 hp)..
Almost more notable is that in 1903, another inventor managed to achieve an output that was greater than the input requirement to run the turbine:
1903: A Norwegian, Ægidius Elling, built the first gas turbine that was able to produce morepower than needed to run its own components, which was considered an achievement
in a time when knowledge about aerodynamics was limited. Using rotary compressors
and turbines it produced 11 hp.
Both of these quotes came from: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas
@MAHADI lol All 5 of them are inside the fuselage, in that bottom protrusion spanning from the rear wheels to the front Inlets.
xC.2-DP = Ducted Propellers :}
Aaand now my fingers hurt from all that typing!
@MAHADI My second "entry" for the WWI Challenge. It is
notjet powered, but, I'll also understand if you feel it is not valid.I made this purely for the fun and joy of making it, being quite pleased with the end result either way! :)
Yea, it's more difficult to make modifications on mobile, but it's still possible as I mentioned. You just have to find where iOS stores your plane's files and then load it into any Text Editor software.
.
However, that doesn't make it "easy" by any means... LOL
The text you are then looking at, is quite confusing. Furthermore, not all of the things you can change/modify are even in the file by default (to keep file sizes down). That's the most annoying and difficult part in my opinion :(
For wheels though, I think if you change the
SizeandWidthin the Part Settings menu, then they will show up in the file. From there you just have to edit it to a value that's beyond the menu's capability. :)Updated Mk.II version is now available (with changelog).
@Flewey Yes lol That sums it up rather well...
As does the couple pictures of the real one's crash. (I spare linking since all one has to do is plug into Google Images: de Bruyere C1)
Which on that note, for a plane that was not successful and did not make it beyond a first test flight... it's impressive that there are ANY photos of it, over 100 years later! Makes me feel as though it really was cutting edge and forward thinking, or at the very least that it was "unique enough" to people that merited holding onto the photos!
I have plans to "continue development" of this plane, in an Alternate Timeline sort of sense. I already have one variant made, which I absolutely love, It's not quite finished yet, but just about.
It flies a little better, though definitely has a lot of the same (not-ideal) flight characteristics about it... lol
@MAHADI I had thicker ones in place, but was playing around with them and just liked how these looked (visually). They may indeed be a little too "Pizza Cutter" though, and in reality I suspect they would all but require operating on a tarmac runway.
.
I did waffle about the Cockpit Block, to be honest.
My logic was this: The cockpit is, or was at one point, having an impact on drag. As the plane developed and I worked out the early, severe, bad flight behaviors... I had gotten worried that if I messed with it, I'd have to start over.
.
I suppose with it submitted as it is, it can act as a baseline and I can now go back through and fine tune some elements I may have overlooked or been reluctant to tackle. I'll certainly post the Fix when I do, as per you challenge rules.
Thanks for the feedback! ;)
EDIT: Yep, monkeying with that cockpit causes all sorts of new Drag Points...
As I've uploaded it: 1268
Calc Drag
False: high 1500sTruebut Scaled: 1609*sigh* Well, I'm always up for a challenge, but usually they're enjoyable. Down the rabbit hole I go!!
True to life, as I imagine, 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!
.
This took considerable effort to fine tune its flying, and in the end it is vastly superior to what it was when I first built it. Unfortunately, the realism is slightly lost because so much XML editing of Drag was required, and even then the engine needed more power than it had in real life (which was only 150HP).
.
While my first flight did not end in a crash due to a sudden Roll... it DID crash from a continued Pitch Up (loop) after liftoff. Alas, I managed to nail down a workable CoM point along with dialing down the Drag on a lot of parts at the front. Not ideal, but, necessary. Admittedly, it is NOT what I'd envision a combat plane to have for flight behavior, but it would make for a great Leisure Plane.
@MAHADI Here is my entry for the WWI Challenge. :)
+1@brians1209 @PoinX25tlessWhyShouldI
If I came across as patronizing or insulting, I apologize, that wasn't my intent!
I was just trying to offer a relatively simple suggestion as a work-around for the whole (very unfortunate) debacle.
I can see tempers are still high, which I can empathize over, and I'm sorry for bringing that up as I didn't mean to stir things up again. :)
+1My suggestion, withdraw this design as your submission.
1) Add wings to those ""wing roots" near where the tail starts.
2) Encase them to look snazzy and match the rest of the build's aesthetics.
3) XML edit all the parts newly added and: Set Mass to 0, Disable Caclulation of Drag, Disable any wing parts' Lift function (making them just structural parts). Since they are now all weightless, dragless, liftless parts, the flight characteristics should theoretically be unchanged!
4) Re-submit the new build which now incorporates "wings", and define it as the fictional precursor to the later-developed wing-less variant; thus, putting you within the requirements of the rules. ^_^
However, I can also appreciate if the entire situation has caused you guys to have lost interest in the challenge and have no motivation to make those modifications in an effort to validate the design.
+1Challenge aside, it's a great build and clearly a sentiment shared by everyone! :) (Even Mahadi I'd say, since he upvoted it)
@LieutenantSOT I did better than I thought I would, given the creativity and workmanship of many here, but not as well as I wanted to... not that I expected I'd actually do as well as I wanted! lol I think I was in the top 10 (regardless of the 5 points I was erroneously docked), only a little above where you were actually.
.
Speaking of which, I liked the mid-fuselage Pusher, Delta Wing config you had. Particularly because it had a wing setup much like one I've been wanting to attempt :}
I don't think what I'm wanting to do will pan out, but, I still gotta try it one of these days! A "dynamic" wing, basically. I think the actual, real world variant's name is something like "Variable Geometry Airfoil" or close to that. I think BMW also made a concept car using the same tech, where the car's body shape was variable. In either case, the frame/skeleton of the wing can be moved on multiple axis, which when paired with its stretchable 'skin', produces the ability to change the shape of the wing and its aerodynamic properties.
.
But yea... Lots and lots and looots of control surfaces is my thought on how to bring it to SP! lol Which is why I'm not entirely sure it'll work out how I'm hoping...
Nice job, she's a beauty!
My small critique is just that I think the landing gear could be a tiny bit bigger, but that's purely an aesthetics reason, not a functional one. (But you'd have to modify each gear part's scale value via loading the save file in a text editor [aka XML editing], since mobile unfortunately can't install mods like FineTuner or Overload)
.
Since I've never been able to spotlight anyone when I've wanted to, due to everyone always being ranked higher than me... I'm glad I can finally!
@Clutch I had to do a lot of additional work under the hood in order to get it to fly right... at least, as far as I remember... lol This was made almost 2 months ago, so my memory is a bit fuzzy,
,
I just know that the 1/4 needed tons of work, through added multiple (internal) Air Brakes, just to get it to fly stable. Though, then on this 1/16 version (or 1/32, whatever it is lol), it didn't want to fly at all, only wanting to do flips after takeoff. So I had to adjust weight balance via fuel storage, tune the drag profile (via XML modding), remove/disable some or all of the internal air brakes, tinkered with the wings, and tuned the engine performance. Oh, and I added the external RC Antenna to this one as well!
.
All of this was done just because someone had made a super micro airport replica and I offered to make a tiny flyable aircraft for it. :P
.
In other words, my point is only that you needn't worry, I definitely won't upload (publicly) anything unless I've made considerable or significant changes to it first! Just, one has to keep in mind that not all changes are, or will be, visual in nature and that means two may look identical but be quite different ;)
@Astro12 I dunno why I got -5 points for not being a Successor of your Challenge (Rule 1), when it is indeed a Successor... o_0
This is the same link you included in your post above:
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/ZY1ALD/Three-Five-Zero-Division-TFZ-9UFF-Mk-Va-Unconventional-Fast-Fighter-aka-PUFF?showAllComments=true
First line says:
It doesn't give me enough to rank, so it's no big deal really, I just found it curious that I was docked for that heh
To answer your question about what AG3 does: "War Emergency Power" (WEP) was/is a term designated to aircraft whereby engaging it would provide you with MORE power than the engine was designed to make. Early piston aircraft (some in WWII) had an easy to break cable attached to the throttle lever, and when the pilot pushed harder, the cable would break and allow for >100% engine power by increasing the airflow and fuel delivery.
.
The power gained was above what the engine manufacturer rated the engine for, so if it was a 2500HP engine, it may make 2700HP with WEP engaged. However, due to that fact, the engine operated at above spec stress levels which meant it would run hotter, consume more fuel, and need to be overhauled long before its usual servicing time. (Some other versions of WEP use Water and/or Alcohol injection instead, to increase engine outpout; water being an incompressible fluid would artificially increase combustion chamber's compression ratio which can yield more power, whereas alcohol can burn cleaner and cooler which can help with engine temperature. Jet engines have also been equipped with a version of WEP.)
Here's the Wiki page about it, if you'd like to read more on it.
In my implementation of it, it's a Throttle Limiter, using this as Input Code:
Activate3? Throttle : Throttle - 0.175AG3 DISABLED: Full Throttle = 82.5%
AG3 ENABLED: Full Throttle = 100%
.
I mainly did this because I was short on time (was leaving for vacation) and needed an excuse for not wanting to go through hours of further fine tuning to adjust the flight profile by de-rating the engines, because... <see below>
... because at their current horsepower rating they resulted in my plane being able to fly too fast; thus, breaking Addendum Rule #8: "Propeller airplanes flying 1000+ km/h are not welcome." :(
Since that wasn't in the original post, I didn't see that rule until I was almost done with the main mechanics of the plane, and as I mentioned, I didn't have time to address that since everything was built around the engines being that powerful and propellers of that size and number.
So..... I used WEP as a realistic excuse, and all I needed to do was find a throttle value that didn't cause it to fly too fast, BUT, still allowed the plane to be CAPABLE of that speed by the press of a button! Seemed fair, to me, since fuel consumption was considerably more with WEP enabled! :D So it would be in one's best interest to only turn it on occasionally... if you wanted to leave enough fuel to make it back to a runway, that is. lol
TL;DR -
AG3toggles War Emergency Power, which increases Max Throttle from 82.5%, to 100%.Engine go VVROOOM! "Exhaust" flames get bigger and brighter.
Plane flies faster.
Plane maneuvers better.
Plane consumes a lot more fuel.
@LieutenantSOT Thanks! :D
+1And yea, I was gone from July 14th and just got back on Aug 18th :} I had to submit my entry hastily the night before I left, didn't get to do any further work like I'd have wanted to... Alas, I'm still happy with it, so we'll see what Astro thinks. I'm going through them all, in order, but haven't come to mine yet. Hopefully that's a good thing! lol
.
Anyways, thanks again, and for the quick response!
@CDRxavier heh What do you mean SimplePlanes doesn't run on Unity?
Of course it does! :P
If I could upload a screenshot directly to the comments, I'd show you, but since I can't you'll just have to go into your SimplePlanes game directory (assuming you're on a computer and not mobile). On Windows, in the main folder sits a file that is named
UnityPlayer.dll. There's plenty of other things I could point out as further evidence, like mod making tools, but I don't think any more proof is really needed, is it? lol@AcePlayer The Android version of my "Ingenuity" helicopter that I linked to in my comment below?
+3It's such a low part count vehicle, that I don't see why an android-specific version would be necessary... (or even possible lol)
For shared builds, as far as I know, the vehicles work on any version of Simple Planes -- Mac, Windows, Linux, Android, iOS.
@Clutch I saw that I was at 1030 just today when getting back online (been on vacation at the cabin since mid-July). :D
Either way, thanks!
.
I'll have to think of a Silver Trophy to make, to commemorate it, as that seems to be the thing folks do when achieving new ranks! lol
@Clutch A repost in what way?
This version is --at least I think, but I'm really bad a math-- 1/32 scale (pretty sure the 1/16th I put in the description is wrong), of my original 1/4 scale version (linked in my profile but not here), which IS indeed the original Jundroo Kicking Fish. Not entirely sure why it didn't tag my other upload.
Either way, it's different compared to both versions, so not sure how it'd qualify as a repost? :P (Unless... I accidentally uploaded this twice, but that seems unlikely since I'd have had to edit both descriptions to enter the line breaks.)
I'm back from the cabin...
Was a winner ever selected for this?
@LunchBox Go'fer it :P I thought using just bullets from machineguns was a novel idea, and then I was like ! I could use super-slow moving cannon rounds as their own casings! lol
Ooh ho but then... Then brilliance struck, and I'm like HMMM... "These look great but... they're coming out facing the wrong way, the taper should be facing forwards, like the neck of a bullet casing! Would SP, by some small chance, let me, you know... shoot these backwards??? :>"
Sure enough, yes... it WILL let you shoot them backwards! lmao
So yea, don't forget to configure the "ejector" cannon's velocity to a NEGATIVE value, and also rotate the gun backwards, since it will now fire from the breach :}
It'd be interesting to know just WHERE it came up with all those drag points...
I disabled drag on all the tiny aesthetics stuff that otherwise would've added a lot, so I'm not sure where the extra 1000 came from compared to last time I checked >_>
You do you, Simple Planes lol
@AvalonIndustries Not a problem! :P It was such a wild coincidence that it was worth mentioning heh
+1That, and admittedly, I didn't want anyone to think I shamelessly copied you.... :}
@Astro12 Here's my entry for your challenge.
@LunchBox here's.... well you can read LOL
+1It's the one I mentioned on your plane's page :)
Will it make point-5 passed lightspeed?
Can you bullseye Womp Rats in it, like I used to do in my T-16 back home?
Yea... I didn't think so!
...
Huh?? o_0
What do you mean those things are just 'fantasy'... >_>
Did you not just see what GuyFolk managed to do with simple FunkyTrees coding?!? If he can pull off that, then certainly what I've said isn't fiction!! ;)
Seriously, impressive! Loving that camo as well! :D
(Now I need to make a T-16........... Hmpf.)
1/1
OK! I managed to refine it down today to make it ALMOST automated (ie we just pull the trigger). This is better than I've experienced so far :)
Problem is, the Cockpit is inside the Flak Turret so it might have screwed up some other stuff... (The AA Machineguns are still just as deadly since they're spraying so much lead)
.
That being said... [important changes to the code are in bold]
NEW Fuselage Block @ Coords:
0.0000027, 26.43127, -22.29239-------Rotation:
0, 0, 0-------Attachment Point: "Bottom" to the "Top" of Part ID 328 (the big fuselage on top of the triple guns)
Cockpit Moved to Coords:
0.0000027, 26.43127,- 22.29239(yes, same spot)-------Rotation:
0, 0, 0-------Attachment Point: "Bottom" to the "Center" of New Fuselage at same coords
-------(NOTE: Be sure to disconnect the cockpit from its original point; it will only be connected to this new fuselage part)
UPPER Flak Cannon XML Changes (ID 173):
-------
explosionScalar: 3.5-------
fuseInput:LOWER Flak Cannon XML Changes (ID 172):
-------
explosionScalar: 3.5-------
fuseInput:------- CameraVantage ->
viewMode: Chase(seems better, for when new targets are acquired)Flak ELEVATION Rotator (ID 168):
-------
invert: true(should be this already, but just in case)-------
input:Flak TRAVERSE Rotator (ID 165):
(unfortunately its scale is 0,0,0 so need to edit this in the XML, or do as I did and edit its scale back to 1,1,1 so you can access it in game)
-------
invert: true(pretty certain it's already this)-------
input:EDIT: Stupid Markdown codebox not using word-wrap... AND this site lacking the ``` code-block ability! Ugh
+12/2
(boy can I ramble, huh?....)
+1EFFECTIVENESS:
-In my tests --which were all performed at Wright's Spawn point-- I'm now able to, with ONLY the Flak Cannons (no AA machineguns), eliminate moderately-fast moving targets that are NOT performing elaborate acrobatics or have a high rate of climb/descent. Drone, Bomber, a few of my own builds, Astro's AS-15 Dagger, Enemy, were various targets I managed to take out.
-Depending on direction of travel, I had to use a slight bit of main-turret rotation in order to lead or trail the target JUST A TINY AMOUNT so that the shells exploded closer to them; hence, thinking that Traverse "1000" may be fine to change to "1250" (or maybe it needs to go back to 800?).
-RANGE though? In conjunction with my change to Fuse timing, that's now anywhere from <1 mile, to a peak of 3.5mi for slow moving targets (Drone), but an average Max of 2.2mi! :D If the Elevation with VTOL (noted below in Future Plans) were implemented, then this could be increased easily up to 5mi I think.
-Targets coming in to land were the ones that were usually closer before being able to destroy (~1mi, AS-15), but not always, as slower planes landing were destroyed around 2mi.
.
Code Changes:
Elevation - Changed the
-10at the end, to-12.5(determined after trying -20 and -15)Rotation - Changed the two
800entries to1000.
Additional notes:
I tried a few things with the Elevation which didn't work out. Such as setting all the
asintosin, changing the2000to1250, changing the few* 2to various* 1.9xvalues, and combinations of those. Ultimately, they produced drastic changes and needed to be reversed, with finally testing changes to just -10 and having the results I was after; lower values drop the Point of Aim, so -20 is far too low (the obverse to -10's too-high impacts)..
Future Plans:
1) At least for use as a turret on a vehicle/plane that isn't already using the VTOL input, I plan to either...
A) use VTOL as the "multiplier" in my Fuse code, so that you can adjust the fuse timing on the fly
or
B) use VTOL somehow, somewhere, in the Elevation code (maybe as a
(-12.5 + VTOL)) so that the aim height can be adjusted for targets based on whether they're further or closer away.2) I need to add a damn camera to the turret body so that I can switch back and be viewing behind the turret, with the camera pointing at the new target! When mouse click is needed to rotate AND is assigned to fire cannon, it's... a waste of ammo to rotate the camera lol
@ThomasRoderick Yea the assumption I had was as you said, the first set of numbers are the velocity, right? Except the coding in this thing totally contradicts that?? :( The only place that it turns up is in the Fuze timing :\
+1.
Traverse code:
(TargetHeading - Heading + rate(TargetHeading)*(((800 * sin(asin((TargetDistance * 9.81)/(pow(800, 2)))/2))/9.81) * 2))/180... uses 800.
.
Elevation code:
clamp((TargetElevation + rate(TargetElevation)*(((2000 * sin(asin((TargetDistance * 9.81)/(pow(2000, 2)))/2))/9.81) * 2)) + (asin(((TargetDistance + rate(TargetDistance)*(((2000 * sin(asin((TargetDistance * 9.81)/(pow(2000, 2)))/2))/9.81) * 2))* 9.81)/(pow(2000, 2)))/2),-10,45)/45... uses 2000
*throws papers in the air*
So what the Eff, Jeff?! lol
Anyways, since I have a moment, I'll throw some of today's thoughts at the code right now and see what it results in!
1/2
@ThomasRoderick Yea I had a system going because I wanted to get through my tests quick, and so I wasn't doing anything unnecessary heh
I'd spawn in, then press R to switch to A2A targeting, and press F twice (usually) to switch to Flak Turret. Then press Tab to select a target provided one wasn't already. (Sometimes I'd go through that sequence so quick nothing would've spawned in yet)
.
I will gladly test again to make sure, as indeed my SP had been running for hours by that point and who knows if there was some other anomaly happening. As there were certainly times when NO aircraft were spawning for me, and I'd have to click on Restart.
.
But yea, what I did first, after you mentioned cockpit's location, was I relocated it to directly in the middle of the Flak turret, between the two barrels Y position.
Then, first, I just pressed R to let it reconnect. On that test, it was 180deg off, so I thought I did something wrong. Manually reconnected and tried again, same scenario. Then it clicked, that I needed to Invert the Rotator for the traverse.
.
Ok so step back for a moment. This is before I'd realized what's happening, but this to me seems like the first clue: If the part you're connecting to, its rotation, were to have no impact on anything... why would I have needed to toggle Invert on that rotator? (Not just an in-hindsight-question, but a legitimate question, in case I'm overlooking or missing something... @Sadboye12 you have extensive knowledge/experience, is there a reason you had inverted that rotator in the first place?)
.
After inverting, it was now pointing the right direction, but...... was still not properly aiming AT the target that was selected. So I went back into the designer and was setting up a new manual selection.
NOTE: Since I had my cockpit buried inside a fuselage part, I was therefore selecting that part's Center attachment point, because I didn't want the game thinking that the cockpit was on an edge and that causing for some odd calculation mishap.
It's when the connect-to-part's point selection came up that I noticed the fuselage I was selecting the Center point on, its arrows was not pointing Up like usual. That's when it hit me that "Oh? Is fact the part is rotated also impacting things??"
So I opened Fine Tuner and sure enough, that part was
90, 90, 0. (could've been something slightly different, but X was 90).
Searching around the neighboring parts, the only one that was
0, 0, 0was the back tapere2/2
Unfortunately, the aim was still too high, but the Fuze timing now was much better. *(NOTE: The verdict of the Fuze was that for craft heading AT me, the 1370 [top cannon] code was dead on but the 1250 was detonating early; if traveling horizontally the detonated too late and too early, respectively, where probably 1310 is needed,)
This high-aim was what I would end up being plagued with it seemed. The lead on the aircraft (traverse) was now roughly where it needed to be, but the elevation was off, which I'm not exactly sure what I need to adjust in the Elevation code to address that. Feels like the Gravity is off, yet touching that any makes it WAY off so that's not it. Those 2000 numbers don't seem to do anything when using 2000 or 1000, and the '2' in the
pow(2000, 2)seems to have the same massive detrimental impact that adjusting the gravity does (just in a different way).TL;DR -
What I've found is that moving the cockpit to the center of the Flak turret, between each cannon barrel's Y coord, is indeed best.
That mounting the Cockpit directly to a part that is rotated, impacts how SP references how its spawned in and therefore its calculations. (I did not test with the cockpit rotated in the opposite direction of the part it's connected to, though)
The Fuze timing is pretty good, but maybe could use a Randomizer to select a value between 1250 and 1370. Would
lerporpingpongbe possible?And that at the end of the day, its always shooting too high, by quite a bit, causing a miss. Roughly an amount equal to .... 20-30meters? (I'm an Imperial, so yea, but it's >5 plane height's worth).
.
Lastly, as I quickly glanced at Snowflake's page, the only conclusion I can now come to on what might solve it, is using
sininstead ofasin? (I'm guessing, I have no math abilities, but plan to try this in a bit, after I get back from doing some stuff!)Problem is, I see it uses BOTH, and so, maybe removal of the
asin? *epic shrug* :\[/massive wall of text]
@ThomasRoderick Yes you told me, which is what motivated me to do more testing. It was that, which all the below were based on, as I went back and started testing over from scratch (ie, this upload of yours).
+2.
If the Cockpit is rotated, things are off.
If the part that the cockpit is attached to is rotated, things are off.
.
And I feel like if they didn't insist on re-rotating things, and would keep what we apply for angles, this wouldn't be a problem lol
(which by that I mean, whatever causes, for instance, if I input something akin to
0, 0, 180and then when I go click back on that part, it's rotation is now suddenly90, 90. 0[or of that sorts] *sobs* whatever's behind that, I hate it, but I think might be at fault here too).OK new findings after moving the cockpit...
+11) Screw you Jundroo! :D
2) That SORT of addresses some of the problem; it's STILL shooting high, I'll get back to you on leading or trailing too far; Fuze timing seems pretty good now though.
3) See 1. The part you attach it to, or at least how you attach to that part, seems to impact how everything functions. For example, I tried manually attaching its Rear-Bottom point, to various part's (fuselages) Center point... Result: ANY part that was oriented any way other than X:0. Y:0, Z:0 would cause the auto-aim to be "off" by that amount.
4) Naturally, at least in hindsight, you can't attach it to any part ON the turret because... it moves, and as a result of the cockpit moving, the FT script can't calculate, and it freaks out. It'd always rotate 180 backwards, and then wobble a couple degrees left and right since it was basically stuck in a loop heh
@ThomasRoderick That sounds plausible...
+1I wonder what is more important (seriously heh): having the Flak being accurate, or having the various side-guns, which also use auto-aim code....
.
Because if that's the problem, then the solution would simply be to move the Cockpit up to the Flak turret. The main triple-guns don't use it (I don't think?). so there doesn't seem to be much point having it centered near them.
I'll have to give that a try, thanks. I didn't think the cockpit's LOCATION also had an impact on stuff *facepalm* Jundroo is really kneecapping us on what all can be done, despite giving us so much power with FunkyTrees coding :(
Here you go! Wonderful little build :)
All the details are included in the description for you; this is an Unlisted upload so be sure to bookmark it. (unless you want me to publish it?)
Enjoy!
I'm seriously about ready to give up... In addition to being unable to time the fuze well, there's more!
There seems to be a serious bit of screwiness, like with the Exhaust Scale when using asymm values, where it matters which direction you're facing for whether your jet exhaust looks correctly. or oblong shaped. :|
.
In this case, I'm having it....
- lead craft too much when they're traveling S to N.
- aim too far left when they're traveling W to E
- trail craft too far when they're traveling N to S
I assume, too, that E to W would to the inverse, as well.
Unfortunately, I fear this is either a core SP bug, or a much worse bug that relates to Unity Engine....
+1.
I at least managed to get the Fuze timing a bit closer to detonating when it's properly near the plane, but it's hard to refine it further when I have these aiming anomalies that require a consistent aircraft spawning system heh
I can hit stuff that's under a mile from me, since the accuracy is trivial at that point, but we already knew that.
@ThomasRoderick I can confirm what Woody was saying, that the Flak AA turret's aiming is still way off and missing almost everything unless it's super close. The one was only 2.5mi (just over 4km) out, flying horizontally in front of me, and every 5 shots exploded high above it (about at the top of its targeting square, visually at that range).
+1.
After shooting some more and tinkering, I realized there's a bullet cam setup on the Flakk heh Which is showing the round exploding WAY too early actually. So I wager that the visual effect of going "high" is actually because the round has only barely reached its peak height. That's seemingly confirmed by the bullet camera, as for craft flying at ~3000-5000ft alt seem to be below the round still just as it explodes, because it hasn't had time to arc back down towards the target.
.
I'm still tinkering to try and figure this out, but I'm --pardon the pun-- shooting blindly here since not only is the FT coding out of my league, but so is the math (yea I'm that bad at math shush lol). But it's also important to me, since I need to use this code for myself! :}
@LunchBox Don't worry, I will :D I'm just not done with it, and have hit a considerable snag that is below my ability to fix and am throwing my idiocity at it, hoping my ignorant attempts to solve it actually work! lol
I mean I know what's happening --and-- I just now figured out "why", but it uses not only FT, but math, and both are further over my head than the Space Station is right now! :P
And I just had a Eureka moment before submitting this, which has indeed managed to solve 80% of the issue I was having! Goes the right way now, which is important lol That last 20% is rather critical though...
+1*gasp* I think that
+2shortestAngleis the useful bit 'o code I needed, to make a turret's traverse ring's Rotator not suck arse!(ie, allow it to go from -1 directly to 1, without having to first go through 0)
<3 @DwiAngkasaAeronautics
@F104Deathtrap True, but I meant in terms of shooting, period. Anything that misses the target at close range, would have an exacerbated down-range area of impact due to this. I suppose my error in worded was by using "inaccurate", since that does seem to imply that you would be aiming and firing at something beyond your gun's effective range.
.
As I ended with last time, I'm sure in reality (at those speeds, and altitudes, other variables), what I'm thinking might've been a concern, likely isn't.
In other words: Internal dialogue that I externalized, and probably didn't need to! LOL
It's not Starship, but I did make "Ingenuity", the Mars helicopter 'drone' that was sent along with the "Perseverance" rover, which landed late last year.
+1NASA's Mars ''Ingenuity'' Helicopter [Real-life Scale]
@F104Deathtrap Yea I knew about the X aiming you're referring to. But that configuration wouldn't complicate the gyro-assisted crosshair?
.
It's also rather interesting, to my ignorant mind (although I love WWII period, it's not an obsession; I have factoids but not necessarily 'knowledge'), that they would go for that convergence system instead of firing straight ahead. Or at least, to have them converge at such a close distance (relatively, at 750ft), when the tradeoff is having your rounds beyond that distance be insanely inaccurate. To the point that it makes me wonder how many stray rounds may have dinged friendlies that weren't in technically in LoS/LoF but ended up being due to the inward-aimed gun making bullets at extreme range straying far wider. Alas, I'm sure it didn't, at all, work out as I'm thinking... which is a good thing lol
I see my head is in the right place in terms of going above and beyond what I've ever done before. Had I stopped where I normally would've, I'd have been way outclassed, and that's just based on seeing only yours!
+1.
It's funny you added those wing-to-tail antennas in that way, as I thought about doing the same thing in that same fashion! Instead I opted for the more cliche/traditional cockpit-to-rudder-base style :P
.
Looks great!
(and apparently 18hrs ago, I forgot to click Submit for this comment!)
Nice camo work :D
In case any other new players read that, figure since this is a "help" thread in a sense, I could at least explain the code from below...
First one's breakdown:
Activate3? Throttle : Throttle - 0.331) Activate3 is in itself a 'question' asked to the game and will return either True or False (behind the scenes), which asks whether "Activation Group 3" (aka AG3) is enabled.
2) The ? now is what starts to turn this into a bit of 'code', as it forms the beginning of an IF statement, which is formatted as
x? y : z. This is probably a poor way to look at it BUT, I like to think of it asIF? THEN : ELSE. Because if "X" = True, then it will Input "Y", elsewise (otherwise) it will Input "Y".3) Throttle is a placeholder that automagically gets substituted with whatever % of Throttle you have applied, but as a decimal. For example: 0% Throttle (engine off) = 0.00, 58% is 0.58, and 100% is 1.00
4) Throttle - 0.33 is a bit of simple math which will apply whatever value Throttle you've set, subtracts 0.33 from it. and inputs that value instead.
.
That all 'translates' to meaning...
Is *Action Group 3* enabled?If it IS, then use *Whatever Amount of Throttle You Have Applied*.
Or else if it is NOT, then instead use "Whatever Amount of Throttle You Have Applied -MINUS- 0.33*.
.
Real world scenario:
Since I am using that code for my Engine's "Input" field...
When AG3 is Disabled, if I apply Full Throttle (100%), it secretly is only really using 66% Throttle.
When AG3 is Enabled, if I apply Full Throttle, it really IS applying 100%.
In other words, I'm using this as cheap "throttle stop" to prevent going faster.
ALTERNATIVELY, you could give your engine EXCESS power, say a Jet Engine with a power value of 2 (instead of 1), and if you used
Throttle / 2in place ofThrottle - 0.33, when you activate AG3 it's like applying an Afterburner, :P (Note: If you're smarter than me, you could even code it further so that it needs the AG enabled and Throttle to be 100% before it will engage the "afterburner".)Quicker summary of the second:
Activate3? 0 : 1That's used on a Beacon light.
Translates to: IF AG3 is enabled, THEN turn Beacon OFF (0 = off/disable/false/no), OTHERWISE turn Beacon ON (1 = on/enable/true/yes)
.
[Code obtained from a plane of Astro12's. Everything else was learned from reading Snowflake's handy guide for all this stuff.]
@F104Deathtrap Yep closest I've come is adding a gun sight to my aforementioned plane's turret. That took me far less time to sight-in than I thought it would. 2 tries to get the crosshairs to show up on that camera's view, then 4 more to zero it in :D
.
Otherwise I've indeed not considered that one, though it does sound nice.
Though to be honest, I was under the impression that's what the A-to-A dynamic crosshair affixed to each target basically was; a "Shoot Here to Sufficiently Lead The Target" sort of smart-reticle . However, I have also found that it's noooot exactly where one should aim, either. (In hindsight, that could be due to what my original post was about,... lol)
I imagine that would be ideal for fuselage mounted (centerline) guns, and not ones well into the wings since that'd require twice the gyros and even MORE math that I already wouldn't be able to calculate! lol
.
Hell, today's my first attempt at even doing any sort of "real cockpit" sort of stuff, which amazingly has worked as I wanted it to right from the start (well... after I removed the attachments that mysteriously were created between my 'gauge needle' and the dial's face, preventing the needle from moving... lol). In fairness, though, I didn't do anything complex, and on top of it, yoinked that Input code someone else already made -- simple in its own right anyhow, but was beyond my capability.
Activate3? Throttle : Throttle - 0.33Which I was already using a form of it on my engines (albeit set to only subtract 0.175, so that my plane wouldn't exceed a challenge's max speed. Added it to AG3 so that I could still provide its full power and deem it as "WEP" :D So the 'gauge' I made is just a faux "Engine Temp" gauge, which once ""WEP"" is activated, it sweeps into a red zone. It also has a courtesy blinking Red light to indicate that "WEP" is enabled, and a Green (maybe Blue) to signify normal operation. (Provided I can figure out how to set it up so that when AG3 is on, the "Green" indicator turns off, and when AG3 is off, it turns "Green" back on... Tis gonna need more research, as my trial-and-error attempt hasn't bore fruit yet lol)
EDIT: Well that was easier/quicker than I anticipated...
I had the right idea, just the wrong input. That
Activate#I figured could perhaps also function as the 'toggle', depending on how it was utilized. Alas, it's only use to read, and based stuff on. So for that Green beacon alls I needed to do was change my kludged attempt ofActivate3? Activate9 : Deactivate9(feel free to laugh, it's appropriate lol), to simply beActivate3? 0 : 1and presto!When "WEP" is engaged (AG3), Green turns off, and when disengaged it turns back on ^_^
@Astro12 Bummer, alright.
No I'm not referring to a dive. :(
Sea Level to 1550m alt, it tops out at around 800kph
It gets a little faster until the 3650m air-density change at which point it can basically hit the 1000kph limit.
However, at 6100-6700m, it's able to blow well beyond, achieving 1200kph :(
I mean, TECHNICALLY speaking I could """exempt""" myself from that by writing it off as a real life thing that planes were equipped with and claim that the pilot requires authorization to exceed a certain throttle level, :}
*thinking*. . . If I can get an Input script to work, I might be able to make that a real function... And I might know just where to find it... *sheepish grin* lol@F104Deathtrap Coincidentally, I'm trying to make a plane turret that has its own gyro for rotation and it... could be better LOL It's just an inertia pendulum while flying, spinning around as it pleases since its input isn't active by default (though, TIL as well, that a Gyro's Control Inputs being inactive does not mean that the Gyro is disabled! heh Thankfully on that plane, the minimal effect it's transferring to the plane is actually helpful given how gentle it is.)
.
I'm not sure if the oddity I ALSO experienced, happens to be what you're referring to though... I suspect it isn't, but..
My plane has cannons as well, and so it has its own dedicated pip sight as we know. One of the cannons is facing aft, and occasionally the pip sight will drift around the screen, seemingly towards a target or to indicate... something, I dunno. My gut was telling me it was only doing that because I was traveling in a direction other than the direction that weapon system points. As it seemed like this also happened after spawning in w/o engaging engines, and the recoil from testing the front-facing cannons gave me some reverse momentum, at which time their piper started drifting.
(Admittedly, that could've been due to the rear cannons that happen to be in that firing sequence, but are basically just 'dummy' guns that I'm using for a totally different reason mwahaha)
But yes... SP / Unity Engine quirks are a hoot to deal with/discover! :( lol
@Astro12 What altitude will you be conducting the tests at? (So I know how far off from your 1000kph max I am. [edit: lol why do I keep typing 'kmh'?!? forgive me, I'm a dumb imperial user!])
I'm pretty certain I'm going to be well over the limit, but as I have it designed now, I like how it performs too much and lowering the power will impact that too drastically. :\
I could adjust the prop blades' profile, but that kinda kills the aggressive appearance I was going for... and I think that would also impact performance negatively. There's probably a way around this all, I just am too inexperienced to know how to code the Throttle Input to act as an automated speed governor.