@winterro You do have a point.... haha
Or a Go-Go-Gadget Helicopter... :}
@Thunderhawk Yes, that's true. However, I don't really qualify skydiving, as "flying". Which is how I feel that a Kakapo would be like in this scenario... That is, as it is naturally.
With a jetpack, well that's indeed flying lol ((At least sci-fi type jetpacks, ala Iron Man; the real ones are closer to exaggerated thrust-vectored short-duration "leaps".)*
@KGcheater Thanks for the advice. I've indeed encountered the speed-wobble. I believe, in that instance, I was able to resolve it by actually making Attachment Points between each wing's tips. I guess you'd call it a "virtual attachment" since the two parts were not physically touching.
@PaperPlaneHasDream Thanks a bunch for the tip about Wings-2! Not only do they indeed seem to be much more rigid, as you said, but even better is they allow for much more refined control surface sizes :)
This will make my life significantly easier!
(Now all we need is for Jundroo to address the auto-roll [sometimes yaw as well] that will all-of-a-sudden manifest in a build. Wasn't present in the latest thing I'm working on, and then suddenly is. Super-awesome-fun-times!)
@surajshy Yes, Sled's work is very impressive for sure!
Alas, they are better suited for minimal/no-atmosphere and zero-gravity environments... lol Great for making something that shouldn't fly, be able to fly, but that itself sort of detracts from certain builds. In a planet's atmosphere, you're defying physics. I'm sure his systems can be toned down to feel realistic though, but I anticipate that's more work than I have experience in tinkering with currently.
I'll certainly utilize such a propulsion system some day, but I've not yet exhausted my enjoyment of vehicles that abide by physics! lol
@ThomasRoderick @woodypan666
I don't know if this at all pertains to the aiming being off that was being discussed, but I just personally discovered that the Primary cockpit's orientation determines where the on-screen crosshairs point at.
.
I had my primary set at X +5deg (355 in Fine Tuner), which in turn caused my Machineguns to shoot "low", since they were at 0deg. Rotating that cockpit back to 0 solved that.
I was using Cockpit-4 aka "Cockpit Block", the angled one that is 4th down in the list. Just in case it happens to be at all specific to only that cockpit variant, as I've yet to test whether it's also the case on any of the other types...
Oh hell.... Winterro's already seen this.... lmao
.... Welp .......
Maybe if I make it super silly and derpy, that'll overshadow how bad mine operates? :}
Aww :( Guess that rules out my boy the Kakapo T_T heh
The kakapo, also called owl parrot, is a species of large, flightless, nocturnal, ground-dwelling parrot of the super-family Strigopoidea, endemic to New Zealand.
[I apologize if this should be a forum post, I'll happily delete it and move it, if so...]
@ThomasRoderick Is there a way to set up cannons so that they can be "paired" together and fire at the same time? I've tried setting the time between shots, but currently it's acting more like three guns instead of 4, where the two that are set to minimal time (0.01) fire at the same time, but the other two guns fire separately --correctly-- at their 1.0s intervals.
.
I even tried making it so the Part IDs were in sequence, hoping maybe that had something to do with it.
Although using far more than the 4 cannons in my example above, my own "Cerberus" upload (it was a complete coincidence, despite the shocking similarities) can be looked at for what I'm talking about.
Each railgun has 7 cannons: 1 that fires an actual projectile, and 6 that just are being used for their Barrel Flash visual.
They don't always fire the same 6 that are tied to that actual railgun, where 5 might with 1 from a different one also goes off, ruining the visual effect. :(
THANKS!
NOTE: I'm a complete noob to FunkyTrees and a non-coder on top of that (though not a complete idiot, thankfully lol), so IF there is a solution to this, ideally the completed code will offer me the most help since I learn better by reverse-engineering than having to try and create it myself.
How do you get rockets to work --ie launch/detatch-- when there are other things attached to them?
I scaled down a Boom25 (I think it was 0.5,0.5,0.25) and attached it to the front of an Interceptor. I had the Interceptor already attached to a Pylon, then used the Attachment Editor to connect the Boom25 to the Interceptor.
.
Problem is, when I locked on to a target and launched the missile, it just stayed attached to the Pylon.
Hmm... Is that where the actual Detatcher part comes in and is what I should've used??
*beep-berp-berp* "9-1-1, what's your emergency?"
I'd like to report a noise complaint. "Ok, where's the noise coming from, sir?"
From your damn helicopter that's hovering 4 miles away!! It's been 10 minutes and they haven't even moved. Tell them to Land, or RTB. It's 2AM!
*rage-taps theEnd Call button*
I DO like the simple, but visually perfect, cockpit/nose.
Smart :P
@LieutenantSOT You know... I just now realized the issue with the NASA tool... Not that it is an "issue" just... yea.
The differences between its Imperial and Metric is that it does MPH, but Meters/second! So when I plugged in "1000" it was just "slightly" off... lol (See, NASA, this was why your lander plowed into the Martian surface a few decades back! [I only kid; that was a programming oopsie from using imperial instead of metric heh])
I genuinely thought those MPH figures seemed way off, but it's late and I didn't even question it hahah Yep. I'm going to bed :P
EDIT:
Also, I believe I meant to put kph, not kmh XD
Monkey-see, Monkey-do, I suspect? As I had previously put "kmh" *facepalm* haha
Either way we clearly knew what each other meant, and that's all that's important!
For the record, I was using this NASA tool... which the accuracy for airplanes may be questionable since the category it's under is "Rockets" heh
.
If 1000kmh (~2290mph) is the max speed, suddenly my 720ish mph top speed seems... slow T_T lol
But yea I smell lots of loopholes one could exploit, due to the rules being a slight bit vague.
Such as whether Propfans qualify (ultra-high bypass fans), who are external propellers, but also seem to still produce some amount of thrust from their turbine. So with no definition of "nothing turbine powered", a person could easily say it's a propfan engine but edit the turbine ""powering"" it, to have enough thrust to easily achieve 1000kmh.
.
Or, whether using VTOL RCS/Thruster for insane maneuverability is within the scope of the rules, since it's not for thrust, but you now totally change the stall speeds of any given aircraft.
.
Astro you're going to be swamped with testing work to judge everything if stuff like that is allowed :P
To add on, it is a Propfan aircraft, which is TECHNICALLY a turboprop.
Propfans were originally designed to be able to go up to Mach 0.86
On the one hand, he makes a good point, @Astro12 :P
....However...
MPH or KMH vs Mach are like comparing Fahrenheit to Celsius. Depending on the temperature, Fahrenheit has the higher number, but, once you get down to around -40C they are the exact same temp and after that Fahrenheit begins to have the LOWER number!
.
My point, is that 1000mph or kmh is a hard number compared to Mach, because the speed of sound differs depending on air density (altitude and temperature), so Mach 0.86 at sea level and at +40K ft (12.2Km) altitude are totally different air speeds :}
Even then... HOLY CRAP...
1000kmh at 40K/ft is Mach 3.338! lol
Granted that's higher than "fighting" altitude (depending on the era, but if we're talking WWII it is 2x higher), so if we go with a more reasonable 15000/ft, then 1000kmh is.... Well, it's still Mach 3.01! lmao
O_O Holy amazing coincidence...
We both created a:
- triple gun system
- of the same style
- posted it on the same day
- and gave it the same nameof Cerberus!
Had I posted mine earlier in the day like I planned, we even would've posted them at the same time... (yours went up 6hrs earlier).
.
I had to do a double-take, thinking it was a successor of mine (got excited for a moment heh), but it was not, we just were on the exact same wavelength lol
Though, yours no doubt took more than the day that mine took me to make, and it shows since yours has way more going on in every way :P
.
I also see that you've similarly used "Hydra", which was going to be my next iteration of my railgun. Soooo I'll have to think of a new name! hahah
Looks sweet, nice job! :) (though I'm obviously a little biased lol)
I tried making him function more quadruped, instead of a.... uh... quadrupogo? I... like... guess that's accurate?
Anyways, tried being the key word. It didn't do anything like what I wanted, as everything somehow STILL managed to operate in sync with each other, despite being configured the complete opposite.
,
What? Noo...!
My user modifications are NOT why he exploded, and I still want my money back!!
Granted, that's fair!
Though, to completely avoid any chance of confusion or mix-up, wouldn't it be better to make the change in the original text, as well as doing as you have been by including it in a pinned comment as a "Change-Log" and to highlight the change. [/Forms 2 Cents]
@Astro12 You know you can edit your post's text? Click the ▼ next to the number of downloads.
Then you don't have to pin your comments, and can add those changes directly to the main info ;) (EDIT: You might have to view the page as "Desktop Site", since you're on Android... I'm not sure.)
Hot damn that's a sexy bird! Well done!
Granted, I'm biased due to my love of the HO-229, but... I think the 41 other upvotes --at least for the moment-- confirm my sentiments! lol
Good news, they've added Hollow Fuselage parts, so you can finally replaced all your ring segments with a single, large, Hollow Fuselage part!
Not that I think you're still around, but just sayin' :P
Nice!
I had an 89 Dodge Conquest (widebody, like you modeled) that I got from a towed vehicle auction back in like... 2002-ish. It had a blown turbo. Sadly, even after I fixed that I never got to drive it :\
I had pulled the Passenger side seat out before myself giving it away, and turned it into a computer chair.... Which I happen to be sitting on. lol
@PaperPlaneHasDream I was mixing up the wing types then, my bad.
I was thinking you were referring to the Structural Wing, and to convert it into that after having adding control surfaces. All the Wings (be it rudder, primary wing, or tail fins) suffer from the flex, though. It's just harder to notice on tails due to their smaller size and the fact that we don't usually have tails made from multiple wing parts, nor are they usually large enough.
.
A good one to witness the flex, no matter what wing is used, would be on this ""Airbus"".
The primary wings obviously exhibit flex here which is actually welcomed being that's realistic. Though the livery on the rudder shows how much sway it also has, and you can just see the flexing in the tail fins.
In that example, it's honestly not a bad thing. It's on smaller builds, with multi-part wings where most do not have control surfaces, but then the ones that DO are pretty much acting as though they have little-to-no attachments elsewhere. They don't just flex at the wing tips, but 'twist' at the root. It'd be fine is Wings were like Fuselage parts and had connection points at the sides, of like the Wedge (sloped) block or Cockpits, which have 2 connection points on a single surface.
.
The wings only have Root, Body, and Tip attachment points, and that doesn't really lend itself to rigidity :(
Granted, this isSimple Planes, and that is indeed the most basic number to accomplish what they're after... lol They definitely need to add an "Advanced" mode, since lots of us eventually outgrow that basic system in the game and need a stepping-stone before XML editing. (even Overdrive lacks the full accessibility, as it doesn't provide changing the connection points or what make up a "body") [/rant] lol EDIT: It's 13:00 here in East Coast US for me. Good night! Sleep well.
Looks cool, but what is it?
Is this some sort of Auxilliary Power Unit that is basically a "wind powered generator" which gets deployed in flight?
Or is it a small "Helper" propeller-equipped electric motor for use on shorter runways? Sort of like a JATO... except... PATO?? lol
.....*gasps* :O
Looks like a suitable Mk.II of what @JaphetSkie's made which gets towed behind a P-51 lol
These are rather inventive, I think. Crude, sure, but effective! (in SP at least heh)
#InB4TheLock
I mean, what...? >_>
Obviously it's a minimalist dinner of various types of beans with a strip of mayonnaise, and a little pile of salt. *nods* 👍
My condolences on having lost your other chopstick.
@PaperPlaneHasDream Like, after setting up control surfaces, to convert it to a non-physics wing?
(If that's the case, I could just set wingPhysics=false since AFAIK that's the only difference, but, I could certainly try both and see if it matters to SP.)
Thanks.
@surajsahu I've tried that T_T lol
And actually, on my QueSST plane, after having attachments out the wazoo, I went and did Auto Attachments on all the wing segments, and the flex was considerably less than it was with lots of attachments.
I found that highly annoying, given the amount of time I spent adding all those attachments in the first place! lol
Reality:If you approach problems logically, more often than not your solution will work out as you intended. Simple Planes:Ppfpfhahahahahah. Logic. I only deal in Fuzzy Logic! Simple Planes:You give me a zero, I give you 0.001284. Simple Planes:You want more attachment points on your wings to stiffen it up? I'll give you noodle-wings!
:P
I grabbed Simple Rockets 2 due to this. :) As I had indeed been wanting it but couldn't convince myself to pull the trigger. HOWEVER... I only did so, in the hopes that it means addition time can afforded to be put towards SimplePlanes... As there's lots of QoL bugs in here that need addressing (and QoL adjustments/features), @AndrewGarrison.
.
I've neglected to file a proper bug report due to assuming it wouldn't do much good, feeling that SP is fairly back-burnered/low-priority status. Things like using Undo and it reverting wwwwwway more than just the last 'change', are one of many. (example: using Attachment Editor on a bunch of parts, maybe the built-in Fine Adjustments, then Mouse Grab a part to move it and it takes other parts you didn't intend. So you Undo, and suddenly all your Attachments you made were also reverted, or the Fine position adjustments undone. Not game-breaking, but there's been times I've closed SP out of frustration over losing so much work!)
@Sadboye12 Out of curiosity, what's the meaning or significance of the 3 "characters/letters" on the right air intake?
You seem to have your bases covered in every other aspect, so I figure those aren't there "just because"... ;) (unless, they are lol)
Sadboye commenting on something I posted; a heavy modification of someone elses share
"anyways what a nice build! you dont see this everyday"
...Then he proceeds to upload this piece of awesomeness moments later, literally on the same day... lmao
Looks great though! Even the 2019 version, for that matter :D
@Thunderhawk Thanks :)
Though credit still to LunchBox for the majority of its body, and of course the fact that had he not made it in the first place I wouldn't have ever thought to do any of this! (Also to @Sadboye12 for the glowing glass trick. I promise I'll stop mentioning you some day, but I love the effect too much and appreciate you sharing how it's accomplished! I even used it on the landing legs of my Mars "Ingenuity" helicopter drone as a bit of a reference-indicator for night landing... lol)
@KGcheater How do you overcome wing flex? That's been my bane, my reoccurring nemesis. Though I have noticed that if a wing doesn't have any control surface(s), that it in turn doesn't flex when maneuvering.
So is that the solution... to only use hinge-powered control surfaces, thereby letting them 'absorb' all the torque/force that otherwise would've been applied directly to the wing; thus, prevents flexing?
@Dathcha Oh I see what you meant ahha
No no, I was referring to making it more centipede-like in terms of it having 80 or so segments! :P
I made a 1/32nd scale Kickingfish (and a 1/4 scale, which works way better) so I'm all for scaling stuff otherwise! heh
@JaphetSkie If you listen closely, you can hear him go BRRRrr-BRRRRrrt every time he jumps :D
For once, the noisy servos work to our advantage! heh
@LunchBox glad you like it!
Yes! We have Glass Fuselage, and Floating Fuselage, I think that... albeit silly as hell... a Gelatin Fuselage (or resizable square) would make for interesting comedic wonders. The physics wouldn't be very "simple" and it might murder mobile, but it'd be fun to play with for certain lol
@LeSkunk Actually.......
There is! LOL
It's the /\ to the right of where this +1 on yours now is ;) (since you pinned mine, it's now where the 'Pinned' shows up, and can't be upvoted)
I always liked the Le Pew cartoons when I was a kid :)
I went absolutely all-out on making it a real frog... lol I love it, I can't stop playing with it. Will be uploading it in a minute. EDIT: Heee's hhheeeerrreeeeeee!. I love that orange idiot, he's so fun. Those stupid floppy arms are brilliant (and the tongue), so I kept them! *(I say 'stupid' in a good way, don't worry lol)
hah AND a trailer!
That's impressive, looks great!
Though, wouldn't Hinge Rotators centerline, would better? (or is it because they can't Cycle for why you didn't use them?)
@Dathcha Granted, but, I was mostly talking about the fact it'd be a few thousand parts heh Which would make mobile systems rather unhappy :} (and being mechano, probably PC systems as well!)
Hmm, wonder why it didn't auto-credit Sadboye's Goliath...
Either way, it's indeed crazy haha Shame SP is limited or it'd be nifty to see it be real centipede length! (but as we know, that'd make SP implode)
.
@Lunchbox
Discovery Channel's "Shark Week" IS coming up here sometime in July... ;)
And you could knock out two birds with one stone by *cough* making a Dog Shark :} (also, lawl at my snake suggestion kicking your butt! haha)
Oooh PHOOEY...
I had to do a last second "Undo" due to a mis-click, which seems to have also undone the Attachment action of the 'Wright Flyer wing' part. :( EDIT: Also removed me having set the bottom rotor to AG1, which is literally no concern, I'll remove that from the Controls entry.
You strive for perfection, and the simplest of game bugs bites you in the butt. At least it's nothing severe.
. EDIT #2: Yep, it bothered me that much... lmao Here's a fixed version for anyone that doesn't feel like zooming in and attaching it. (just in case attaching it another way causes the rotors to go haywire like the LiDAR lenses did...) NASA's Mars ''Ingenuity'' Helicopter [Wright Flyer Fix]
Thanks @uptightjumbo, @tucan, @Cereal, @DDVC, @Clutch, @scratch, @Suqingqing, and @V !! (heh I hope each edit doesn't re-ping everyone else listed... let me know if it does plz!)
@Thunderhawk It may help it, yea. I may indeed revisit it at some point. I've considered a global scaling up of it to see if that'd also help.
I built something new last night --albeit completely unrelated to this-- that developed a strange anomaly, for lack of a better way to describe it, that I have to figure out first before I even want to THINK of going back to this nightmare! haha This Skorpion just hates me, so I'm willing to give it the space it needs :P
I'll try that, thanks :)
+1@winterro You do have a point.... haha
Or a Go-Go-Gadget Helicopter... :}
@Thunderhawk Yes, that's true. However, I don't really qualify skydiving, as "flying". Which is how I feel that a Kakapo would be like in this scenario... That is, as it is naturally.
+1With a jetpack, well that's indeed flying lol ((At least sci-fi type jetpacks, ala Iron Man; the real ones are closer to exaggerated thrust-vectored short-duration "leaps".)*
@KGcheater Thanks for the advice. I've indeed encountered the speed-wobble. I believe, in that instance, I was able to resolve it by actually making Attachment Points between each wing's tips. I guess you'd call it a "virtual attachment" since the two parts were not physically touching.
@PaperPlaneHasDream Thanks a bunch for the tip about Wings-2! Not only do they indeed seem to be much more rigid, as you said, but even better is they allow for much more refined control surface sizes :)
This will make my life significantly easier!
(Now all we need is for Jundroo to address the auto-roll [sometimes yaw as well] that will all-of-a-sudden manifest in a build. Wasn't present in the latest thing I'm working on, and then suddenly is. Super-awesome-fun-times!)
@surajshy Yes, Sled's work is very impressive for sure!
+1Alas, they are better suited for minimal/no-atmosphere and zero-gravity environments... lol Great for making something that shouldn't fly, be able to fly, but that itself sort of detracts from certain builds. In a planet's atmosphere, you're defying physics. I'm sure his systems can be toned down to feel realistic though, but I anticipate that's more work than I have experience in tinkering with currently.
I'll certainly utilize such a propulsion system some day, but I've not yet exhausted my enjoyment of vehicles that abide by physics! lol
@ThomasRoderick @woodypan666
I don't know if this at all pertains to the aiming being off that was being discussed, but I just personally discovered that the Primary cockpit's orientation determines where the on-screen crosshairs point at.
.
I had my primary set at X +5deg (355 in Fine Tuner), which in turn caused my Machineguns to shoot "low", since they were at 0deg. Rotating that cockpit back to 0 solved that.
I was using
Cockpit-4aka "Cockpit Block", the angled one that is 4th down in the list. Just in case it happens to be at all specific to only that cockpit variant, as I've yet to test whether it's also the case on any of the other types...Oh hell.... Winterro's already seen this.... lmao
.... Welp .......
Maybe if I make it super silly and derpy, that'll overshadow how bad mine operates? :}
Aww :( Guess that rules out my boy the Kakapo T_T heh
+1[I apologize if this should be a forum post, I'll happily delete it and move it, if so...]
@ThomasRoderick Is there a way to set up cannons so that they can be "paired" together and fire at the same time? I've tried setting the time between shots, but currently it's acting more like three guns instead of 4, where the two that are set to minimal time (0.01) fire at the same time, but the other two guns fire separately --correctly-- at their 1.0s intervals.
.
I even tried making it so the Part IDs were in sequence, hoping maybe that had something to do with it.
Although using far more than the 4 cannons in my example above, my own "Cerberus" upload (it was a complete coincidence, despite the shocking similarities) can be looked at for what I'm talking about.
Each railgun has 7 cannons: 1 that fires an actual projectile, and 6 that just are being used for their Barrel Flash visual.
They don't always fire the same 6 that are tied to that actual railgun, where 5 might with 1 from a different one also goes off, ruining the visual effect. :(
THANKS!
NOTE: I'm a complete noob to FunkyTrees and a non-coder on top of that (though not a complete idiot, thankfully lol), so IF there is a solution to this, ideally the completed code will offer me the most help since I learn better by reverse-engineering than having to try and create it myself.
How do you get rockets to work --ie launch/detatch-- when there are other things attached to them?
+1I scaled down a Boom25 (I think it was 0.5,0.5,0.25) and attached it to the front of an Interceptor. I had the Interceptor already attached to a Pylon, then used the Attachment Editor to connect the Boom25 to the Interceptor.
.
Problem is, when I locked on to a target and launched the missile, it just stayed attached to the Pylon.
Hmm... Is that where the actual Detatcher part comes in and is what I should've used??
*beep-berp-berp*
"9-1-1, what's your emergency?"
I'd like to report a noise complaint.
"Ok, where's the noise coming from, sir?"
From your damn helicopter that's hovering 4 miles away!! It's been 10 minutes and they haven't even moved. Tell them to Land, or RTB. It's 2AM!
*rage-taps the
End Callbutton*I DO like the simple, but visually perfect, cockpit/nose.
Smart :P
@LieutenantSOT You know... I just now realized the issue with the NASA tool... Not that it is an "issue" just... yea.
The differences between its Imperial and Metric is that it does MPH, but Meters/second! So when I plugged in "1000" it was just "slightly" off... lol (See, NASA, this was why your lander plowed into the Martian surface a few decades back! [I only kid; that was a programming oopsie from using imperial instead of metric heh])
I genuinely thought those MPH figures seemed way off, but it's late and I didn't even question it hahah Yep. I'm going to bed :P
EDIT:
Monkey-see, Monkey-do, I suspect? As I had previously put "kmh" *facepalm* haha
+1Either way we clearly knew what each other meant, and that's all that's important!
For the record, I was using this NASA tool... which the accuracy for airplanes may be questionable since the category it's under is "Rockets" heh
.
If 1000kmh (~2290mph) is the max speed, suddenly my 720ish mph top speed seems... slow T_T lol
But yea I smell lots of loopholes one could exploit, due to the rules being a slight bit vague.
Such as whether Propfans qualify (ultra-high bypass fans), who are external propellers, but also seem to still produce some amount of thrust from their turbine. So with no definition of "nothing turbine powered", a person could easily say it's a propfan engine but edit the turbine ""powering"" it, to have enough thrust to easily achieve 1000kmh.
.
Or, whether using VTOL RCS/Thruster for insane maneuverability is within the scope of the rules, since it's not for thrust, but you now totally change the stall speeds of any given aircraft.
.
Astro you're going to be swamped with testing work to judge everything if stuff like that is allowed :P
@LieutenantSOT
On the one hand, he makes a good point, @Astro12 :P
....However...
MPH or KMH vs Mach are like comparing Fahrenheit to Celsius. Depending on the temperature, Fahrenheit has the higher number, but, once you get down to around -40C they are the exact same temp and after that Fahrenheit begins to have the LOWER number!
.
My point, is that 1000mph or kmh is a hard number compared to Mach, because the speed of sound differs depending on air density (altitude and temperature), so Mach 0.86 at sea level and at +40K ft (12.2Km) altitude are totally different air speeds :}
Even then... HOLY CRAP...
1000kmh at 40K/ft is Mach 3.338! lol
Granted that's higher than "fighting" altitude (depending on the era, but if we're talking WWII it is 2x higher), so if we go with a more reasonable 15000/ft, then 1000kmh is.... Well, it's still Mach 3.01! lmao
O_O Holy amazing coincidence...
+3We both created a:
- triple gun system
- of the same style
- posted it on the same day
- and gave it the same name of Cerberus!
Had I posted mine earlier in the day like I planned, we even would've posted them at the same time... (yours went up 6hrs earlier).
.
I had to do a double-take, thinking it was a successor of mine (got excited for a moment heh), but it was not, we just were on the exact same wavelength lol
Though, yours no doubt took more than the day that mine took me to make, and it shows since yours has way more going on in every way :P
.
I also see that you've similarly used "Hydra", which was going to be my next iteration of my railgun. Soooo I'll have to think of a new name! hahah
Looks sweet, nice job! :) (though I'm obviously a little biased lol)
NNOOOooo-ho-ho-ooooo!!
He-e-e bleewww uu-uppp!!!!!! T_T
I tried making him function more quadruped, instead of a.... uh... quadrupogo? I... like... guess that's accurate?
Anyways, tried being the key word. It didn't do anything like what I wanted, as everything somehow STILL managed to operate in sync with each other, despite being configured the complete opposite.
,
What?
Noo...!
My user modifications are NOT why he exploded, and I still want my money back!!
WHO'S a good boooyyy?!
+4*bork!*
*bork-bork!*
*cough*
BRRRTy McBRRRTface?
:P
Granted, that's fair!
Though, to completely avoid any chance of confusion or mix-up, wouldn't it be better to make the change in the original text, as well as doing as you have been by including it in a pinned comment as a "Change-Log" and to highlight the change.
[/Forms 2 Cents]@Astro12 You know you can edit your post's text? Click the ▼ next to the number of downloads.
Then you don't have to pin your comments, and can add those changes directly to the main info ;)
(EDIT: You might have to view the page as "Desktop Site", since you're on Android... I'm not sure.)
Hot damn that's a sexy bird! Well done!
+1Granted, I'm biased due to my love of the HO-229, but... I think the 41 other upvotes --at least for the moment-- confirm my sentiments! lol
@210100 OOOOOooooklllllaaaaaHOMA-OKLAHOMA-OKLAHOMA-OKLAHOMA-OKLAHOMA!!
lol Sorry. NO idea why it reminded me of that :}
Good news, they've added Hollow Fuselage parts, so you can finally replaced all your ring segments with a single, large, Hollow Fuselage part!
Not that I think you're still around, but just sayin' :P
Nice!
+1I had an 89 Dodge Conquest (widebody, like you modeled) that I got from a towed vehicle auction back in like... 2002-ish. It had a blown turbo. Sadly, even after I fixed that I never got to drive it :\
I had pulled the Passenger side seat out before myself giving it away, and turned it into a computer chair.... Which I happen to be sitting on. lol
@PaperPlaneHasDream I was mixing up the wing types then, my bad.
I was thinking you were referring to the Structural Wing, and to convert it into that after having adding control surfaces.
All the Wings (be it rudder, primary wing, or tail fins) suffer from the flex, though. It's just harder to notice on tails due to their smaller size and the fact that we don't usually have tails made from multiple wing parts, nor are they usually large enough.
.
A good one to witness the flex, no matter what wing is used, would be on this ""Airbus"".
The primary wings obviously exhibit flex here which is actually welcomed being that's realistic. Though the livery on the rudder shows how much sway it also has, and you can just see the flexing in the tail fins.
In that example, it's honestly not a bad thing. It's on smaller builds, with multi-part wings where most do not have control surfaces, but then the ones that DO are pretty much acting as though they have little-to-no attachments elsewhere. They don't just flex at the wing tips, but 'twist' at the root. It'd be fine is Wings were like Fuselage parts and had connection points at the sides, of like the Wedge (sloped) block or Cockpits, which have 2 connection points on a single surface.
+1.
The wings only have
Root,Body, andTipattachment points, and that doesn't really lend itself to rigidity :(Granted, this is Simple Planes, and that is indeed the most basic number to accomplish what they're after... lol They definitely need to add an "Advanced" mode, since lots of us eventually outgrow that basic system in the game and need a stepping-stone before XML editing. (even Overdrive lacks the full accessibility, as it doesn't provide changing the connection points or what make up a "body")
[/rant]lolEDIT: It's 13:00 here in East Coast US for me. Good night! Sleep well.
Looks cool, but what is it?
Is this some sort of Auxilliary Power Unit that is basically a "wind powered generator" which gets deployed in flight?
Or is it a small "Helper" propeller-equipped electric motor for use on shorter runways? Sort of like a JATO... except... PATO?? lol
.....*gasps* :O
POTATO!!
Propeller
+2Outrigger
That
Assists
Taking
Off
Looks like a suitable
Mk.IIof what @JaphetSkie's made which gets towed behind a P-51 lolThese are rather inventive, I think. Crude, sure, but effective! (in SP at least heh)
SNEK BOI lol
#InB4TheLock
I mean, what...? >_>
Obviously it's a minimalist dinner of various types of beans with a strip of mayonnaise, and a little pile of salt. *nods* 👍
My condolences on having lost your other chopstick.
@PaperPlaneHasDream Like, after setting up control surfaces, to convert it to a non-physics wing?
(If that's the case, I could just set
wingPhysics=falsesince AFAIK that's the only difference, but, I could certainly try both and see if it matters to SP.)Thanks.
@surajsahu I've tried that T_T lol
And actually, on my QueSST plane, after having attachments out the wazoo, I went and did Auto Attachments on all the wing segments, and the flex was considerably less than it was with lots of attachments.
I found that highly annoying, given the amount of time I spent adding all those attachments in the first place! lol
Reality: If you approach problems logically, more often than not your solution will work out as you intended.
Simple Planes: Ppfpfhahahahahah. Logic. I only deal in Fuzzy Logic!
Simple Planes: You give me a zero, I give you 0.001284.
Simple Planes: You want more attachment points on your wings to stiffen it up? I'll give you noodle-wings!
:P
I grabbed Simple Rockets 2 due to this. :) As I had indeed been wanting it but couldn't convince myself to pull the trigger.
+6HOWEVER... I only did so, in the hopes that it means addition time can afforded to be put towards SimplePlanes... As there's lots of QoL bugs in here that need addressing (and QoL adjustments/features), @AndrewGarrison.
.
I've neglected to file a proper bug report due to assuming it wouldn't do much good, feeling that SP is fairly back-burnered/low-priority status. Things like using
Undoand it reverting wwwwwway more than just the last 'change', are one of many.(example: using
Attachment Editoron a bunch of parts, maybe the built-inFine Adjustments, thenMouse Graba part to move it and it takes other parts you didn't intend. So youUndo, and suddenly all your Attachments you made were also reverted, or the Fine position adjustments undone. Not game-breaking, but there's been times I've closed SP out of frustration over losing so much work!)@Sadboye12 Out of curiosity, what's the meaning or significance of the 3 "characters/letters" on the right air intake?
+1You seem to have your bases covered in every other aspect, so I figure those aren't there "just because"... ;) (unless, they are lol)
Sadboye commenting on something I posted; a heavy modification of someone elses share...Then he proceeds to upload this piece of awesomeness moments later, literally on the same day... lmao
+1Looks great though! Even the 2019 version, for that matter :D
@Thunderhawk Thanks :)
+2Though credit still to LunchBox for the majority of its body, and of course the fact that had he not made it in the first place I wouldn't have ever thought to do any of this!
(Also to @Sadboye12 for the glowing glass trick. I promise I'll stop mentioning you some day, but I love the effect too much and appreciate you sharing how it's accomplished! I even used it on the landing legs of my Mars "Ingenuity" helicopter drone as a bit of a reference-indicator for night landing... lol)
@KGcheater How do you overcome wing flex? That's been my bane, my reoccurring nemesis. Though I have noticed that if a wing doesn't have any control surface(s), that it in turn doesn't flex when maneuvering.
So is that the solution... to only use hinge-powered control surfaces, thereby letting them 'absorb' all the torque/force that otherwise would've been applied directly to the wing; thus, prevents flexing?
@Dathcha Oh I see what you meant ahha
+1No no, I was referring to making it more centipede-like in terms of it having 80 or so segments! :P
I made a 1/32nd scale Kickingfish (and a 1/4 scale, which works way better) so I'm all for scaling stuff otherwise! heh
I did the best I could :\ It's not great but it can now be flown at least. :}
If you leave the Gyro in it, launch it almost level or it'll catch itself on the Detatcher heh
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/c68THs/Kinda-Flyable-Ballistic-Missile-KFBM
@JaphetSkie If you listen closely, you can hear him go BRRRrr-BRRRRrrt every time he jumps :D
For once, the noisy servos work to our advantage! heh
@LunchBox glad you like it!
+1Yes! We have Glass Fuselage, and Floating Fuselage, I think that... albeit silly as hell... a Gelatin Fuselage (or resizable square) would make for interesting comedic wonders. The physics wouldn't be very "simple" and it might murder mobile, but it'd be fun to play with for certain lol
@LeSkunk Actually.......
There is! LOL
It's the /\ to the right of where this +1 on yours now is ;)
(since you pinned mine, it's now where the 'Pinned' shows up, and can't be upvoted)
I always liked the Le Pew cartoons when I was a kid :)
+1Monster Trucks + Pepe le Pew??
What's not to love?! :D
I went absolutely all-out on making it a real frog... lol I love it, I can't stop playing with it. Will be uploading it in a minute.
EDIT: Heee's hhheeeerrreeeeeee!. I love that orange idiot, he's so fun. Those stupid floppy arms are brilliant (and the tongue), so I kept them! *(I say 'stupid' in a good way, don't worry lol)
hah AND a trailer!
+1That's impressive, looks great!
Though, wouldn't Hinge Rotators centerline, would better? (or is it because they can't Cycle for why you didn't use them?)
@Dathcha Granted, but, I was mostly talking about the fact it'd be a few thousand parts heh Which would make mobile systems rather unhappy :} (and being mechano, probably PC systems as well!)
+1I approve of your username... ;)
The Datsun is cute, too haha
@Neenyboy My sentiments exactly!
Hmm, wonder why it didn't auto-credit Sadboye's Goliath...
+1Either way, it's indeed crazy haha Shame SP is limited or it'd be nifty to see it be real centipede length! (but as we know, that'd make SP implode)
.
@Lunchbox
Discovery Channel's "Shark Week" IS coming up here sometime in July... ;)
And you could knock out two birds with one stone by *cough* making a Dog Shark :}
(also, lawl at my snake suggestion kicking your butt! haha)
@LunchBox ROFL I just noticed the "Multirole" tag. Well played!
+1EDIT: Also, is the Easteregg his... uh... "third leg"? lol
Oooh PHOOEY...
I had to do a last second "Undo" due to a mis-click, which seems to have also undone the Attachment action of the 'Wright Flyer wing' part. :(
EDIT: Also removed me having set the bottom rotor to AG1, which is literally no concern, I'll remove that from the Controls entry.
You strive for perfection, and the simplest of game bugs bites you in the butt. At least it's nothing severe.
.
EDIT #2: Yep, it bothered me that much... lmao Here's a fixed version for anyone that doesn't feel like zooming in and attaching it. (just in case attaching it another way causes the rotors to go haywire like the LiDAR lenses did...)
NASA's Mars ''Ingenuity'' Helicopter [Wright Flyer Fix]
Thanks @uptightjumbo, @tucan, @Cereal, @DDVC, @Clutch, @scratch, @Suqingqing, and @V !!
(heh I hope each edit doesn't re-ping everyone else listed... let me know if it does plz!)
@Thunderhawk It may help it, yea. I may indeed revisit it at some point. I've considered a global scaling up of it to see if that'd also help.
+1I built something new last night --albeit completely unrelated to this-- that developed a strange anomaly, for lack of a better way to describe it, that I have to figure out first before I even want to THINK of going back to this nightmare! haha This Skorpion just hates me, so I'm willing to give it the space it needs :P
That's a BIG bird!
I suppose, there IS still plenty of strategy involved in carpet bombing lol
That subliminal messaging doe......... lmao
+1