"Updated List: Now with ONE Bug!!" :P
It's related to what I already had in there, so instead of making a new post for such an innocuous issue, even though it IS truly a bug now, I opted to merge it here instead.
They also updated the game's entire "engine" it runs on, which in addition to all the stuff like graphics and user interface, it also handles physics related things.
Since your Celeron is from 2008, it is only a Single Core CPU (lacking even basic HyperThreading). So my guess is that the issue is actually your CPU being TOO overloaded.
.
You might have better luck trying to turn settings down instead of up. :(
.
But to directly answer your question:
Is it my specs or the game????????
I think it's a bit of both. Your computer was never meant to play games, even when brand new. Only as something for typing documents or light internet usage.
L: Roll - Roll=0 ? clamp01(Yaw)*0.055 : 0
R: Roll + Roll=0 ? clamp01(-Yaw)*0.055 : 0
Now it ends up canceling out Roll from working, period lol
... And also makes the Aileron move in the opposite direction :}
.
Though, I can't even figure out how that manages to even react with Yaw with that code, given from what I can tell the "IF" part is looking solely for Roll related Input, and the "THEN" is the performing of Yaw-based stuff. EDIT: Nevermind, makes sense now. "IF there is no Roll input" "Then, do this if Yaw is present" EDIT 2: The Aileron being just a lack of Negative in front of the decimal value.
.
The "ELSE" being zero explains the lack of any Roll input getting applied, and I presume that it should be : Roll instead of : 0? EDIT 3: Nope, I'm a derp! That wouldn't work since the "IF" part means it never will make to the "ELSE" part lol
@rexzion lol Yea me too :sob: I know enough to kludge together code and get it working (usually...), but I don't actually know the more-advanced stuff that would let me properly get it done.
@edensk Yep I never would've came up with that result.
However, while using yours DOES yield functional results, it actually doesn't produce identical results as mine. (as determined through using DebugExpressions)
.
Situation A:
YOUR CODE:
YAW Left = 0.055
ROLL Left = -1
YAW Left + ROLL Left = -0.945
.
MY CODE:
YAW Left = 0.055
ROLL Left = -1 YAW Left + ROLL Left = -1
Situation B:
YOUR CODE:
YAW Left = 0.055
ROLL Right = 1
YAW Left + ROLL Left = 1.055
,
MY CODE:
YAW Left = 0.055
ROLL Right = 1 YAW Left + ROLL Right = 1
I only mention that because I was intending to also apply this to the Tail Elevators and they would require significantly more compensation applied than just 0.055, to adjust for the amount of Nose-Down that occurs. Which would actually lead to a situation where if I were applying Yaw+Pitch, my Elevator's input would either be far less-than its max, or far over its max. (depending on whether I'm pitching up or down)
.
It's the latter situation that would be of concern, since it could result in those Elevator flaps stalling-out.
BUT! All examples of functional code like you provided is actually really helpful for me, since I learn better through examples than I do being giving explanations for how to use stuff and trying to get it working. :D
You read my mind... Or, well given this has clearly been something you've been working on, I guess I read YOUR mind. lol
.
I was (lightly) considering making a Challenge that was basically "If Star Wars vehicles were built using WWII tech."
Which, naturally you have done exactly that! :D
If you can remember to @ me when you finish and have uploaded it, that'd be great! :)
A way you can perhaps get a rough-estimate on how the cone would look, would be to actually start off by using a Standard Fuselage part instead...
This way you have access to change its Front and Back Fill values through the Menu!
.
Once you have it where you think it will be needed, open up Overdrive.
Instead of changing anything in the Fuselage menu, now you will actually modify the partType in the main window!
You'll currently see: Fuselage-Body-1, and what you'll want to change it to is Fuselage-Cone-1
.
Save it, and you'll get a text warning on the screen about it changing and removing all its Attachment Points. A small price to pay, really. :) (Alternatively, you can save your build, and then open its actual file in a text editor, then modify its entry that way, save the file, and load it again in SP. That makes the changes AND retrains all the Attachment Points. Though it's not something very good to use in practice, since a Cone has only 2 attachment locations (Back and Center) compared to a Fuselage's 7 (Front, Back, Left, Right, Up, Down, Center), which could cause problems.)
lawl Ran into the character limit again, but thankfully it was just this that got cut off:
If that doesn't solve it, feel free to Upload your plane, but set to "Unlisted". After it uploads, place a Comment with @Formula350 in it, to summon me there, and I can download it to see if I can figure something out to help.
@AdmiralCrab Re: Wing Scaling
I don't know if this will work out, but it'd be something to try... (this is assuming use on PC, as that's the only platform I have SP on)
1) After you've got them scaled how you want, select it and open up Overdrive, select everything in the location field and CTRL+C to copy it to clipboard. (then close the window, that's all we needed)
2) Now on that selected wing, Right-Click-and-Drag with the mouse, to make a Copy of it. Preferably somewhere that it isn't connected to anything, although it's fine if it is.
3) The "Copy" of it will automatically (or should be) selected, so once again open up Overdrive.
4) Highlight the contents of the Copied wing's location field, and CTRL+V to Paste the coordinates of the original wing.
.
So now we've made it so there are two wings in the exact same location.
.
5) Open up the "Wing Properties" menu, and change the Root and Tip thickness to slightly less-than whatever it is. This is just to 'fix' the issue of the one visually showing up partially through the other (in texture/gaming, this is called "Z-Fighting", as both try to be rendered).
6) If while Copying the wing, you allowed it to attach somewhere, open up the Attachment Editor and remove all of them, then click Auto-Reconnect.
7) Now press Tab on your keyboard, to mirror that part over to the other side. [Note: I personally prefer to do the mirroring before the connecting, but it takes a couple more steps to make it easy on yourself, and not zoom inside the other part to select it. Either way I prefer it only because I often run into situations where WAY MORE parts than I wanted, also get mirrored, resulting in more work in the end.]
.
Now both sides should have 2 wings, which hopefully will translate into 2x the lift. I don't know if the "violent shake" you experienced is due to lack of lift, or the Center-of-Lift changing drastically when scaling the wings down, or something else. My hope is that it's just lack of lift, and this improves that, but if it doesn't make any difference it could be due to the CoL being in the wrong spot.
.
OR it's just that you're going way too fast for the wing physics. Even full-scale wings can experience this, and while you may not have had the issue before, changing their scale could very well have changed how their Physics are calculated. (Basically, I could see it as if you scaled them down 50%, that they may experience this speed-wobble at a 50% lower speed than before.)
I think using the Text is the way, here.
However, the Text part currently is quite limited and not super user-friendly with a couple bugs it has, which those two things combined really hamper our true potential with that new part.
.
If we were given a far far larger "Character Support" than it currently has, we could use "Special Characters", of which there are some amazing things available through that.
For example: If you're on Windows, go to Start Menu, type in charmap and hit enter; in that window, up top select "MS Gothic" (a font your system should have by default). Scroll through all the stuff that font has, to get an idea what I mean. 98% of what's there does not work in SP :( We're basically limited to the various "Latin" characters, which the best of them I think is the letter "Delta" in terms of a shape (a triangle). There's also the Arrows in 4 directions, but I'm not sure what all this Forum supports, as I've tried to paste stuff before and it doesn't show up.
I made this, for a "warning" label on a Contra-rotating Twin prop setup I made (if both arrows work, copy everything and paste it into the Text Editor window to ACTUALLY see how it looks; replace every # with a press of the Spacebar. as the forums only let us place 1 space at a time):
That being said, some of the characters that DO work, can only be seen when the Editor window is open and on the actual Text part. The "input" field in Part Settings doesn't show some of them.
.
Worse than that, though, is that these special characters also BREAK the "Curvature" function, as they're not supported :( Thankfully, that won't matter too much for Wing Art, but for anything on a curved Fuselage, it limits our possibilities of using text as art.
Those who know HTML/CSS will have a lot of fun, since the Text parts support a number of that coding.
UNFORTUNATELY, their implementation of it is odd, and it's not a case of 100% support, nor 1:1 support. For example, anything in HTML/CSS that uses a colon will need to be replaced with an equals. line-height: 10% is how HTML does it line-height= 10% is how SP wants it. (I think this part may have something to do with the XML format our builds are saved in)
Also that the code originally is stuff like:
<p style="line-height: 10%"> YOUR TEXT HERE </p>
So for me as a n00b to HTML or CSS, that made figuring things out even more complicated lol
When you say "scaled down", do you mean the actual XML entry which by default is 1,1,1?
OR
Are you referring to using the Edit button in the Wing menu and then dragging around the Arrows?
Afterburners...
A couple ways I've seen it done: A) through adding more Engines and then having them turn on when a new Action Group (AG) is toggled, to provide the extra thrust, both visually AND physically.
I'd configure that like this...
The Primary (non "Afterburner") engines would get whatever settings and AG to operate them. If you have 4 Engines (as it sounds like), each one gets turned on by its own AG and are controlled via Throttle
The Afterburner engines would then have their AG all set to the same, say 5, because this is only needing to toggle them when you want "Afterburners" enabled. The trick then is in their input code where you include the AG of the Primary engine it is providing the Afterburner for (so replace X with that number):
ActivateX=1 AND Throttle=1 ? 1 : 0
This is a dual purpose "IF" statement that needs to have two things satisfied to work: The AG has to be enabled (that's the =1), and also the Throttle has to be 100% (also =1). The ? then is what to do if both are true, and in this case it's "make this Engine's input value 1" (which is it's throttle level, aka 100%). The Colon is what to set if they both are NOT true, which is 0 (throttle = 0%).
. B) The other way, which I kind of think is better as it uses less parts (but may not offer the same function you're after), is to NOT use additional "Afterburner" engines, and let the Primary engine do its own Afterburner! Basically here we use the same code from Method A. First we tweak it so that your engine normally works as it would, but in Afterburner mode it increases its own power. Second, and more importantly, we put it in a totally different spot; max instead of input!
This method, itself, has multiple ways to tackle it, but the simplest way is to add this to each Primary engine's max field:
ActivateX=1 AND Activate5=1 AND Throttle=1 ? 1 : 0.5
<CONTINUED IN NEXT POST... I hate these forum's character count limits!>
<CONTINUED FROM ABOVE>
Now it's "If these are both True" it lets the Max Throttle be 100%, but if they are not, it's Max is only 50%. It's only the Engine's throttle though, your red-bar while playing will still show as it always has. This may seem confusing, but keep reading...
Then you go over into the Engine XML category and change powerMultiplier to also be 2, as well as set the exhaustScale to something like 3,3,3 (ideal to make the scale be all the same number). Combined, this is what gives them "Afterburners", because now the engine's internal throttle is only 50%, giving it the same power it normally would have at 100%. HOWEVER, when you toggle AG5, it has twice the power, and its exhaust gets much larger to match! :) NOTE: Your "Throttle" while playing, you'll still set to 100%, as everything here is happening behind the scenes.
.
After you set all 4 engines this way (Method B) you will be able to toggle each one On/Off with AG1-4, and then any that are turned on, when you press AG5 they will enter Afterburner mode, just as you desired.
Two things worth noting here...
If you are removing drag with the dragScale method, which the number is a Percentage (0=0%, 1=100%, 0.50=50%, etc), your part still has its Drag calculated for it. This is important when you're needing to lower/remove the Drag on a specific part a NOT impact the amount of Drag of the parts connected to it.
.
Whereas, the calculateDrag setting is only true (default) or false, and that just just that: toggles whether there's even any calculation performed. Setting it to false is disabling it, and in doing so that can increase your game performance a little (by lowering the amount of processing the CPU has to do) but the side effect is that the game's drag system doesn't even "see" the part anymore. As such, parts behind it will now experience drag that weren't before.
.
So the trick is to determine which one applies best to the situation.
I used to just use the outright disabling of Drag on parts, until I realized that doing so had a high chance of making my build's drag EVEN WORSE. Now I am more sparing in my use of that, and instead opt to change the dragScale instead, setting it to something really low like 0.01 (aka 1%).
,
However, if it's a part that's inside the plane and isn't exposed externally, but still shows up (via Overload's menu) as having Drag, I'll disable it on those sort of parts (but usually with the "Show Drag" overlay turned on, to monitor the changes).
@Amirabadi I don't specifically know the limits here, but I can at least get you started on the right track.
.
First you need to know where your builds are Saved to. If you're on a Windows computer, that's easy for me to direct you. Copy the line below (do not change any of the text), then open up the Start Menu and press CTRL+V to paste it, then press Enter. That will open up the folder with all the save builds you have:
Either scroll through the list to find the plane, or use CTRL+F and then type the name of it.
.
Once you've found it, open it with Notepad (I can't promise something like WordPad will save it correctly)
Either scroll to the bottom or press CTRL+END or search for "<Theme name="Custom">`, but it's at the end of the document so you can't miss it.
.
Now the tricky part :D ... :\ lol You'll see a bunch of lines that start by saying <Material color= and each line is one of the colors you can use to paint your build.
To ADD more, you just copy and paste full line under the last one (INCLUDING the spaces at the front).
For example here's an entire line you can paste in multiple times, to add a Flat Black:
Now, how to change that color is where the real "fun" happens. You'll need to use either a website that has a Color Picker and outs "Hex Code" (Google has one built in to its website) OR you can use a drawing or photo editing program (like GIMP or Photoshop).
For this, we'll assume you're using the Google one I linked ;)
.
All "Hex Codes" start with # and contain 6 alphanumeric entries of 0-9 A-F. #000000 is solid black, and #FFFFFF is solid white, or #7E03AB which is a rich purple.
But for what we're doing, you won't be needing the #, I just mention that so you know what to look for, although most everything else DOES need the # so if you try to convert from the game into that Google tool (or most other sites/programs) you'll need to add it for them to understand. (Ignore all the "RGB", "CMYK", "HSV", "HSL" stuff, as Simple Planes doesn't use that.) <PART 1 - CONTINUES IN NEXT COMMENT>
Now to decipher the rest... The last 3 I know for sure are decimal values that get translated into Percentages: r="#" - This is the only one I'm not totally sure about. I think it refers to the "profile" it's using, and that it stands for "reflectivity". The values seem to only be 0, 0.15, or 0.3. Which I think translates to 0=Flat, 0.15=Semi-Gloss and 0.30=Glossy, but this honestly might be automatically set by the game based on what you set s= to, below. m="#" - This is how "Metallic" the paint is, and you replace # with any decimal (or either of these two whole numbers) from 0 (no metalicity), to 1 (fully metallic), where 0.50 is 50% s="#" - This is how "Smooth" it looks, and 0 = 0% and is "Flat", with 1 being 100% and "Mirror-Like", or a decimal of say 0.33 which is 33% and "Dull" e="#" - This is new, and is for "Emissive" aka "Glow in the Dark", or in other words the amount of "Light" it appears to emit -- but it's only a visual effect in SP, it doesn't really project light onto surfaces. 0 is "normal paint" so no glowing. 1 is "very luminous", and anything in between is a range of that. NOTE: this is dependent on the color you're using, so if it's Black or some other very dark shade of color, it will not glow!
.
So setting it up like this:
We'll have a Purple, which is fairly metallic, with a mirror-like finish in the daytime light, and at night will appear to glow bright-purple.
All that's left for you to do is save your file. Open SP, load the plane (or if SP is still open, Load that plane so the changes are there in game). Open the Paint menu and the new color choice(s) will be present :D (This was actually a learning experience for me as well, I didn't know what would happen after adding a color, or how you accessed it lol)
@BobDaBilder123 Hmpf. :\
Here I thought it was implying that the gear itself lacked the wheel covering, hence being labeled as "Bare". As in we would need to design a 'custom covering' (as it mentions in its Info Text) to shroud it.
.
Still, a bit weird that it DOES snap to the Horizontal Stabilizer on it's Root and Tip. heh (regardless of whether said stabilizer wing is connected to anything)
.
Either way, thanks for that insight! I had gotten into such a "Must. Try. All. New. Parts!" mode that I hadn't caught on that is was intended to be used on wings we've skinned. Guess I'll have to add a new suggestion to my mega-post, too add a means of allowing us to override the "Approve Part Connections" lists. (Dunno how to handle it on Mobile, but on Windows the CTRL+Drag Part would work since holding control currently causes it to release the part we're moving for whatever reason.)
I'll slap an Orbit camera on something to see if I can repro it.
.
Though, I have a sneaky suspicion that the Unity update may have included some changes to the "Garbage Collection" system, and it's triggering too often. (But I think it'd have to be something different to the "Unloaded x Files/Assets" thing that gets logged in the PlayerLog file, as if that was triggering more often, they'd probably have noticed that due to the log file becoming much larger)
I know v1.11 is out of beta, but is using the Google Form WNP had provided in the Beta blog post, preferred by the devs for us to submit bugs to?
Or is this Bugs subforum (well, tagging) system acceptable?
.
I'd use "User Voice" if the system there wasn't so flawed that it then becomes impractical for the purpose it was designed for. Namely, the "Points" system imposed, to vote on submissions, and undoubtedly to prevent spam. Alas, if we only have X-amount of points to use, and have spent them on upvoting issues/suggestions, we're unable to create anything new it seems. (Unless this has been rectified since I was there last a month or two ago...?)
[Full disclosure: In case it isn't clear or my responses come off more defensive sounding that intended... I'm not trying to be argumentative in nature here, only civilly debating! I cherish all replies and views, to further my own knowledge and understanding here, so I appreciate the responses! I'm definitely not hard-set in my view/opinion on any of this, so my mind can indeed be changed. (I'm even going to add this to my post, as I don't want the devs, or other users, to feel like I'm trying to be an ass or trolling!)]
@FeatherWing The only one I googled prior to my post was the F22's, to see if maybe they had evolved into something really big like that system. But the F22's was a much smaller one, which was where my request for the "middle-sized" seat stemmed from.
.
I've seen lots of documentary vids which included ejection seat footage, though admittedly that is not only lower quality but also filmed at a distance, so I certainly won't pretend like that serves as solid size reference data. :P
.
I also admit that I really don't know how they intend for us to put these together, and after saying that I should probably check out the few updated planes to see if they illustrate that. As it stands, it just felt like the camera's placement indicated where the head would be, and with an offset: 0.00 as the default, it appeared like it'd be hard to see over the instrument panel and that didn't seem like it'd lend to be very conducive for high-speed flight.
.
Then again, maybe it doesn't need to be, with the fact that there hasn't been any need for dog-fighting for at least 30yrs, maybe even 40yrs. Though that does provide me with another good* suggestion for them: an ability to not set a transparency value on the gauges, so they can be used like a HUD; perhaps also one could pin them to the camera's movement, to act like a helmet display. :)
@SnoWFLakE0s
Gotcha. Admittedly, I still am not sure what exactly I can do with those Variables menu(s), nevermind how I use them. haha But that's no surprise considering the issues I have with FT... :}
Though maybe I'll finally be able to set it up with Variables, so that I can make a Cannon fire when the user presses Machinegun, as well as not needing to be in Air or Ground modes.
@MrShenanigans @FeatherWing
I originally had considered it to be a headrest, but then I looked at it closer and felt that to be highly unlikely, for a number of reasons, so I had discounted that as a possibility. :\ (I'm bored, so forgive me here, as I'm going to ramble to explain my logic lol)
My first reason was that it was far, far too tall. If the seat is meant to sit flush with the Cockpit Frame part, and then the Cockpit Canopy meant to sit flush with the top of the Frame's sides, that made it seem unlikely due to the fact the ""headrest"" part clipped halfway outside of the Canopy. (Using the "Block Canopy", even at its highest point in the glass bubble, that part of the seat still clips outside the glass)
.
My next observation was that there were two "straps", which while I admittedly am not an aviation expert I can generally still determine somethings function through studying it. In this instance, I couldn't figure out any such function for those straps given you wouldn't be strapping your head in since you'd be unable to look around. Even then, there's two of them, and the only system I have a vague recollection of there being was a single attachment that connected to the center of the helmet and upon ejection would tighten up to restrain the pilots head to avoid injury (particularly if they were unconscious). Also, they're WAY too high for shoulder harnesses. Then the fact that the backrest of the seat is positioned far too behind the ""headrest"", and would be painfully uncomfortable I thought (by forcing the head too far infront of the shoulders). Lastly, was the camera placement, which I could have erroneously assumed would've been placed at "eye level" since that's the intuitive location (and I thought WNP had said this update no longer places the camera at a distance of 1.0 above the actual camera part?).
.
However, after going back in and adding a cockpit, seat, and canopy (Modern, Modern, and Block Canopy), I notice that the seat is NOT flush with the Frame's floor, and if I move it down so that it is, it now fits underneath the Canopy glass at the highest point -- albeit barely lol
.
Now then, as I look further at things, with the above setup, it further calls into question that it's a headrest, just due to the actual measurements.
I'm 6FT tall, which is above average height for a male. In a seated position, my butt to head is roughly 3FT. My skull, measuring from the base of my skull to the top, is roughly 7IN high.
<con't below>
<continued from above message>
The Modern Seat, inside Modern Frame, with Block Canopy comes in at a total of 3.8FT according to SP, which is 3FT 9.6IN. Putting that "headrest" at roughly an entire head's height above where mine is! (Which again, I'm above average height, and yet it's still too tall to fit me.)
Re: Glass Nose part...
Alas, there are enough that do, which I think merits its inclusion just for that reason. Nevermind all the other uses a person would have for a single part they can add to make a nicely tapered glass window. Bomber noses, Gun Pods (ie Glass Hemisphere), spaceship's gondola viewports (like the ISS has or the Crew Dragon used for Inspiration recently), or the infinite other uses lol
.
That "basically no bomber has [one]" is fine as far as facts go (even though some did; B-17 shows to be an example [pic 1, pic 2, pic 3], or the He-111 [pic 1, pic 2], this specific Me-262A2-a [pic 1, pic 2; a model].)
Just sayin' heh
I'm almost certain that they weren't always this way, not in v1.10.106 (the last ver I'd been using). Could I be mistaken? For certain, but I would definitely stake a sum of money on it heh
(Now I regret not making a backup of SP before I.... Wait, I might, on my laptop... I'll try and check that later on,)
To clarify how I perceived it (based on lots of time spent zoomed in on CoM, placing beacons scaled to 0.1,3,0.1): They WERE still flat, yes. But there were 2 flat 'lines' which overlapped, to allow you to rotate the camera and still be presented with roughly the same visual.
.
When you viewed @ 90deg facing it, you'd be provided the flat side of one (like on the left), but the other one would be too thin to see and would leave the appearance of only one line.
When you viewed @ 45deg, you'd see part of both, but both visually combined to make it look the same as 90deg. It'd look like 1 line until you zoomed in on the Co_ sphere WWWWWWWAY close. It's at that point I could start making out the overlap.
I put forth this question: To those who thought they were this way previous to v1.11, are you by some small chance one who had been using this since its Beta became available had gotten used to this view?
.
My take was that this occurred due to the upgrade build of Unity they used, as the actual colors of the lines are also not as vibrant (but is of no concern, overall).
.
Another possible fix (IMO) would be that if it always has been one line visible, to have said line always face the camera - rotating only around the axis it's meant to portray.
I have way too many of my own suggestions I'm compiling (after 15 minutes of having the update installed....) to have you try and shoehorn into your post! lol That, and I need line-breaks and more than the 4000char limit that comments afford me :}
.
Ka-nobs
For "Knobs" I use a Magnet, scaled way down (via XML of course). A size of 0.05,0.2,0.05 is about perfect, using the "Simple Throttle" as a reference.
.
Now comes the probably tricky part, since I have yet to really dive in to stuff, as I've mentioned: Getting it to do what you need a knob-interface to do, using the limitations of SP...
.
Depending on what that new "Joystick Base" dohicky can do and how we can interact with it... My first thought is to slap the Knob on one of those (scaled way down to match), and use it's output to base other stuff's capabilities on.
IF that wouldn't work, my next suggestion would be to use a simple Rotator, tying those same "stuff" to the Rotator's position. So if it's currently rotated to 5deg of its 90deg max, then whatever its Input value fort that would trigger one function (although, probably best to set it as a range so it doesn't need to be precisely at 5deg). Then next, 10deg, same thing, triggers next function. Rinse, repeat.
Now, if none of that would work, then we'd have to go FULL KLUDGE and is probably similar to what you already did, but is sort of combining everything together.... :}
What comes to mind for me is to have:
-Either the "Joystick Base" or a "Rotator"... probably will need both, though?
-That Magnet Knob connected to that
-A button (scaled to be a thin line), at a 45deg angle maybe, positioned on the right-most side, colored bright
-Another button (similarly scaled) rotated opposite, positioned on the right-most side, colored a contrasting color (or the same *shrug)
-2 "Text" parts, each with a *V (letter vee), rotated around and positioned next to the bottom end of the button, to make an "Arrow"; one pointing one way, the other the opposite way
.
When you interact with one button it turns the "knob" one direction via stepping the Rotator X-amount each press, hopefully creating an input (or output I guess?) with that Joystick Base, which in turn triggers whatever you need it to based on the specific output value. <con't...>
*grumbles* Dangit SP!
@Vincent can you please rectify the issue of the game failing to apply Auto-Credit to this build?
Thanks! (I'd uploaded this originally with an error so I had to remove that share, but SP seemingly purged the auto-credit from that save file for some reason, so this upload lacked it....)
@VChart :sob: heh
Comically, thanks again to physics (aerodynamics) she assumes a similar posture while falling back to earth after the rockets burn out -- provided the Gyro remains enabled, otherwise free-fall is a little more chaotic with it disabled.
I'm getting ready to upload her older, more successful sister. (Who I hope displays a bit more decorum for people; thankfully she seems to.)
For that matter, pretending for a moment that I was referring to paying Jundroo to have it be added... Honestly? I'd like that just the same. Plenty of games I'd like to be able to pay to have helpful changes made. After all, I'm not asking for them to make it so jet engine's exhaust visual be replaced by something absurd like the poo emoji. But even if I were, the entire point is that they would in no way be obligated to accept. :P
@CC1010 No. A million times no! lol
That is called purchasing. It is, in no way, at all similar to bribery!
.
A firm stance has to be made on the definition of things, otherwise society falls apart. No, grocery shopping is a willful and fair exchange of one thing for another, as they don't let you just walk out because then it'd be called theft.
Your saying we can pay jundroo to add stuff
Semantics aside, and perhaps part of the issue, is you've also misunderstood my main goal. I even had put in full caps:
"BUT AT NO TIME WOULD THIS BE ASSOCIATED WITH JUNDROO"
On the contrary, I am suggesting that we'd be allowed to offer payment to (see: hire) mod authors.
.
Yes, in this instance, said mod author now also tends to be working for Jundroo. However, though I admit this is an assumption, I don't imagine WNP signed over the code of his mod to them upon his employment. He might've but, it's still an external asset and available for download, so it would appear as though that's not the case.
.
Thus, the offer in my case would be solely to WNP, as incentive for him to use his free time. However, this could be something that could be offered to someone else. For instance Kennneth. Perhaps I had an idea for something to get added to one of his maps, something I would personally very much like be included and lack the capability to do myself. However, perhaps he doesn't feel like it because it's more work than he's wanting to devote to an old project.... But what if I was willing to give him $25 to do that, perhaps he'd deem it worth his time and effort then.
.
THAT is what I'm saying :P
@MiGEater lol That's quite an endeavor to undertake!
Here's a suggestion for one though, which may be cheap enough a concept: Strap a high end DSLR (though a newer mirrorless one would be more compact) and strap it to decently powerful off-the-shell telescope, along with a Hall-effect engine (ion thruster), for your very own mini-Hubble :}
I'm all for criticism heh So I have no issue with hearing thoughts different to my own, despite being quite surprised by this reaction though.
.
@asteroidbook345 and @Sparky6004 Can you explain why you think of it as a bribe?
Definition:
"persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement."
If there is indeed something wrong or worse, illegal, about what I've suggested, then I agree, it shouldn't be allowed!
.
@CC1010 (since you expressed it as more than just "no" heh) and @Kennneth, as well as Asteroid and Sparky:
I guess I was coming from the standpoint of thinking that -- using my example I provided in my first comment at the bottom -- in the case of Overload the mod wouldn't see anything new added to it on the basis of it not being "worth the author's time", because they were likely busy enough working on the game itself. So I figured that perhaps in exchange, I could buy some of that person's free time.
.
The entire premise of this was effectively hiring them to do work, not coercing them to go against their morals or do something shady. A suggestion to a mod author may be something they even agree with would be nice, but still may feel it's worth their time to work on, but that doesn't mean they can't still like the concept.
.
As such, I would've defined it as a "Commission", like commissioning an artist to create a fantasy-themed avatar in your likeness.
Or in other words, the reverse of how sites like Fiverr operate. Except in this case, instead of something being made from scratch, ONLY for you... it's adding to something they've already made freely available.
Please don't missunderstand though, I did not type all that in any sort of arguing tone. I'm just wanting to understand where everyone's coming from and what part exactly it was that gave you that impression that this isn't good? Also to try and better explain where I'm coming from.
Thanks :)
To touch on what specifically I'd like to ask about, is actually something that I find would be of a huge help for everyone, and also that WNP78 is in a unique position to be able to tackle...
.
That the Overload mod be updated to provide, basically, all the info that the "Simple Cheats" page has.
Fields that would be mouse-hovered, would in turn provide a Tooltip explaining that matching string.
Value fields in turn would explain through a Tooltip what the function is.
And where the "Dev access" comes in to play, is that those Value fields could then be converted to (where its appropriate) being drop-down menus which offer all the valid choices that SP accepts.
.
For example, just a couple days ago I had learned, through total happenstance while modifying someone's build, that you can set partCollisionResponse to None instead of Default! Which is quite handy for the times where you --at least if I understand it correctly-- want a part to still be allowed to contact with other parts (ie not having to set disablePartCollisions) but also not potentially cause an explosion or the part to become damaged through gently slamming together (like with a floppy hinge joint).
.
Which I assume one would need an inside view of SP in order to know all the available inputs a field supports, as well as exactly what it is they do.
Another small example: Cannon's configuration...
I'm not sure if most people know what volume does (isn't listed on the Simple Cheats doc), which actually is a literal sound-volume decimal value, so that you can make a smaller gun quiet, or even turned off entirely. :)
Mobile? I unno. :\
Computer (PC at least)? Bind the input to the same key :(
.
I, too, wish that there were far more options (see: input customization) for parts and weapon payloads, so that we could treat the Cannons like a Machinegun.
.
Heck, even if it was some sort of conditional, hard-coded thing, that would get triggered based on the Caliber the Cannon is configured to.
Mind you, that'd also require that they allow the Cannon to be set to below 50mm, down to say... 20mm? [Emphasis is my own]
"The 20 mm caliber is a common firearm bore diameter, typically used to distinguish smaller-caliber weapons, commonly called "guns", from larger-caliber "cannons"."
At which point, those so-configured cannons automatically get re-assigned to being fired by the conventional Machinegun action. (from FireWeapons, to FireGuns)
But honestly, that'd be more work than just providing us with the choice, either through the Parts Setting interface, or a secret XML option. My 2 cents worth...
Toshiba Satellite? Planetary Satellite [natural]? Temporary Satellite [also natural]? Artificial Satellite [manmade]?
.
I ask cuz, considering I've already got a launch platform, and previously made the helicopter-that-thought-it-was-a-baby-kangaroo (kept in a 'pouch' on the rover's belly lol)... I suppose I could be compelled to make you an Artificial Satellite :P
You'd have to tell me what you had in mind though?
.
....Unless you're asking about interest in whether any of us want to LITERALLY make a cubesat in real life?
In which case I'll have to pass; however. I can at least direct you over to a silly but very real cubesat that someone is working on. :) (which is pretty cool, when you think about it)
mmmmmmmm Massive ProTip-comment was massive. I'm just going to make a forum post about this instead, and will ping you, Juan.
That way it doesn't clutter this page, AND more people can see it...
Also there's the argument that having high-detail (compared to my example) wings would, in the end, be a net gain for performance in a lot of case since it'd result in far fewer parts. As we currently end up using additional fuselage parts in order to skin the wings so that they DO look nice.
.
So in that sense, this is along the same lines of making modeled cockpit parts for us, to cut back on the extra hundred or more parts some cockpits ate up.
.
At the moment, the "simple" way to make a wing look somewhat nice is to have a small (roughly 0.2x0.2) diameter fuselage that is the same length as the wing, to act as the leading-edge. Then a flat Nose Cone (0.2 height) to act as the end of the wing. But that only gets you so far as a contoured leading edge.
If you want a full wing, now you need a large fuselage to encompass the wing, plus at least another 1 or 2 that act as control surfaces, along with each one's accompanying Hinge Rotator. On the higher-end, another small wing per control surface!
Upon reflection, though... It may just be a limitation of the color system in game.
IF that's the case, I would suggest that the specific color of 446677 be changed in the Custom Theme preset colors, to a color that can be modified.
@FeatherWing You know the Beta is v1.11 and not v1.10, right? :}
Joking aside, I didn't want to misuse that form, as I don't have the Beta. (I live in a ""rural"" area with only access to crappy LTE-based internet, with 24GB/mo bandwidth, shared with 2 people and our cellphones)
.
I also can't use the intended User Voice site since they don't go through it enough and once we've used our "Points", we can't do anything else until what we've used them on on is marked Closed by the devs. (Granted, we can retract what we've voted for, but that defeats the purpose.)
note: I know the v1.11 Beta form is a 'Google Form', which is unrelated to User Voice.
@tsampoy Thank you!
Might not win any builder awards for quality, but I had a lot of fun building it either way :D (Even though there were some hair-pulling moments, getting everything to work simultaneously and cooperatively lol)
So here's an interesting finding...
You don't have to TOTALLY destroy the ship in order to "commandeer" it, and take it to the skies!
All you have to do is get it to start the Sinking animation. :D
.
Why is this at all interesting? Well, because you can take control of it AND still have it show up on Radar! heh
Unfortunately, I think that in all cases of severe enough damage to cause it to begin sinking, that also entails giant flames and billowing smoke.
While in certain cases this isn't totally a bad thing, such as ascending fast enough, or no doubt having enough forward momentum... But if you plan to attempt hovering, then you're going to have some visual issues. :\ https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/892893423378497558/894028650851205120/unknown.png
EDIT: Honestly, the most difficult part about this whole endeavor is finding the EXACT CENTER of the ship when destroying it. If your final shot isn't right at CoM, you're flying cockeyed...
Too far forward, and the nose sinks, making you fly nose-down.
Too far back, and the tail sinks, making you fly nose-up.
Too far right, it lists to the right.
Too far left, it lists to the left.
.
I've had to come up with a jig that lowers an arm down into the water, which has a cannon attached to the end. But the cannon is facing straight up. Furthermore, the cannon isn't attached directly to the end of the arm, but offset at a specific distance, so that when it's lowered down, the cannon is firing on the ship's centerline.
Why underneath? Simply because hitting it on the hull under the water-line means no fire/smoke ;)
I've damn near got it, after lots of trial and error lol
@RC1138Boss Ooh! ahah
I meant on the description of the plane :)
The end section I had titled as: -= TEST PILOT FEEDBACK =-
It was just my own personal experiences when flying this, to prepare anyone else who downloads it.
.
That's what I meant by adding you. If you were to determine if the Hook still functioned, I'd add to that section whatever details you provide with it working (or even if it doesn't work), as well as credit you for it :)
Thanks James and Awesome.
Can confirm, after outfitting a max caliber stubby cannon to the front of my "parasite", and destroying the Tiny, it almost immediately took to the skies. :P
And after a few minutes up there, it hadn't despawned, which was good.
.
The wings already are a no-go, at least as I had designed them... so I think that if I were to re-design my "mounting" frame, I might be able to make it so the entire flight deck can be cleared and have this function as a literal flying aircraft carrier. Which, paired with the upcoming feature update, with Refueling... >:} mwahahaha
@jamesPLANESii Damn, that figures lol Good to know.
Do they not de-spawn after destroying them?
.
I always figured they did after a set amount of time after being flagged "destroyed"... but if it's set to only do it after a certain depth (altitude below sea level), then I would be motivated enough to give that a go! lol
@RC1138Boss That's a good question, I don't actually know lol
I've locked its orientation (0deg) and it has no actiongroup assigned, so that it can't move either way.
The fact it's facing the wrong way, though, I wondered myself if it'd work still.
.
I suppose you could go in (via XML) and edit to have like -1deg (to 'drop' forward, since it's backwards), then assign it to AG2 and try it out...
Or take the more laborious route, and rotate it so it faces the correct way, then try it out.
.
I'll happily credit you as a fellow Test Pilot, with testing and providing your findings :)
@LieutenantSOT Man I apologize! I apparently glossed over the notification for your message...
I actually try not to look for other builds of a plane I make (be it real or even a fictional design by a third part), as to ensure that anything I do while building it, is 100% my own idea. That way I'm totally innocent to any design choices that I may claim as my own, but which someone else may have similarly come up with.
.
That being said, while I was researching some element later on when this was almost complete, a friend did link me to someone's SP build of this...
Which after checking yours, I can confirm it was indeed that one! :P The yellow makes it unmistakable as being it. Yours is actually the one I reference in my first post, when I said " this thing is not the BEST flying aircraft... A fact that appears to be inherent to the design, considering another C1 in SP also seemed to be a pain in the butt to fly!"
I hadn't flown yours -- as I mentioned, to not influence my work -- so I based that presumption on the description and comments on your build. :P It just seemed to mirror my experiences while building mine! haha
"Updated List: Now with ONE Bug!!" :P
It's related to what I already had in there, so instead of making a new post for such an innocuous issue, even though it IS truly a bug now, I opted to merge it here instead.
They also updated the game's entire "engine" it runs on, which in addition to all the stuff like graphics and user interface, it also handles physics related things.
Since your Celeron is from 2008, it is only a Single Core CPU (lacking even basic HyperThreading). So my guess is that the issue is actually your CPU being TOO overloaded.
.
You might have better luck trying to turn settings down instead of up. :(
.
But to directly answer your question:
I think it's a bit of both. Your computer was never meant to play games, even when brand new. Only as something for typing documents or light internet usage.
@edensk
Now it ends up canceling out Roll from working, period lol
... And also makes the Aileron move in the opposite direction :}
.
Though, I can't even figure out how that manages to even react with Yaw with that code, given from what I can tell the "IF" part is looking solely for Roll related Input, and the "THEN" is the performing of Yaw-based stuff. EDIT: Nevermind, makes sense now. "IF there is no Roll input" "Then, do this if Yaw is present"
EDIT 2: The Aileron being just a lack of Negative in front of the decimal value.
.
The "ELSE" being zero explains the lack of any Roll input getting applied, and I presume that it should be
: Rollinstead of: 0?EDIT 3: Nope, I'm a derp! That wouldn't work since the "IF" part means it never will make to the "ELSE" part lol
@rexzion lol Yea me too :sob: I know enough to kludge together code and get it working (usually...), but I don't actually know the more-advanced stuff that would let me properly get it done.
@edensk Yep I never would've came up with that result.
However, while using yours DOES yield functional results, it actually doesn't produce identical results as mine. (as determined through using DebugExpressions)
.
Situation A:
Situation B:
I only mention that because I was intending to also apply this to the Tail Elevators and they would require significantly more compensation applied than just 0.055, to adjust for the amount of Nose-Down that occurs. Which would actually lead to a situation where if I were applying Yaw+Pitch, my Elevator's input would either be far less-than its max, or far over its max. (depending on whether I'm pitching up or down)
.
It's the latter situation that would be of concern, since it could result in those Elevator flaps stalling-out.
BUT! All examples of functional code like you provided is actually really helpful for me, since I learn better through examples than I do being giving explanations for how to use stuff and trying to get it working. :D
You read my mind... Or, well given this has clearly been something you've been working on, I guess I read YOUR mind. lol
.
I was (lightly) considering making a Challenge that was basically "If Star Wars vehicles were built using WWII tech."
Which, naturally you have done exactly that! :D
If you can remember to @ me when you finish and have uploaded it, that'd be great! :)
QUICK-CHEAT:
A way you can perhaps get a rough-estimate on how the cone would look, would be to actually start off by using a Standard Fuselage part instead...
This way you have access to change its Front and Back Fill values through the Menu!
.
Once you have it where you think it will be needed, open up Overdrive.
Instead of changing anything in the Fuselage menu, now you will actually modify the
partTypein the main window!You'll currently see:
Fuselage-Body-1, and what you'll want to change it to isFuselage-Cone-1.
Save it, and you'll get a text warning on the screen about it changing and removing all its Attachment Points. A small price to pay, really. :)
(Alternatively, you can save your build, and then open its actual file in a text editor, then modify its entry that way, save the file, and load it again in SP. That makes the changes AND retrains all the Attachment Points. Though it's not something very good to use in practice, since a Cone has only 2 attachment locations (Back and Center) compared to a Fuselage's 7 (Front, Back, Left, Right, Up, Down, Center), which could cause problems.)
Huzzah!
Again, happy to help :D
lawl Ran into the character limit again, but thankfully it was just this that got cut off:
If that doesn't solve it, feel free to Upload your plane, but set to "Unlisted". After it uploads, place a Comment with @Formula350 in it, to summon me there, and I can download it to see if I can figure something out to help.
@AdmiralCrab Re: Wing Scaling
I don't know if this will work out, but it'd be something to try... (this is assuming use on PC, as that's the only platform I have SP on)
1) After you've got them scaled how you want, select it and open up Overdrive, select everything in the
locationfield and CTRL+C to copy it to clipboard. (then close the window, that's all we needed)2) Now on that selected wing, Right-Click-and-Drag with the mouse, to make a Copy of it. Preferably somewhere that it isn't connected to anything, although it's fine if it is.
3) The "Copy" of it will automatically (or should be) selected, so once again open up Overdrive.
4) Highlight the contents of the Copied wing's
locationfield, and CTRL+V to Paste the coordinates of the original wing..
So now we've made it so there are two wings in the exact same location.
.
5) Open up the "Wing Properties" menu, and change the
RootandTipthickness to slightly less-than whatever it is. This is just to 'fix' the issue of the one visually showing up partially through the other (in texture/gaming, this is called "Z-Fighting", as both try to be rendered).6) If while Copying the wing, you allowed it to attach somewhere, open up the Attachment Editor and remove all of them, then click
Auto-Reconnect.7) Now press
Tabon your keyboard, to mirror that part over to the other side.[Note: I personally prefer to do the mirroring before the connecting, but it takes a couple more steps to make it easy on yourself, and not zoom inside the other part to select it. Either way I prefer it only because I often run into situations where WAY MORE parts than I wanted, also get mirrored, resulting in more work in the end.]
.
Now both sides should have 2 wings, which hopefully will translate into 2x the lift. I don't know if the "violent shake" you experienced is due to lack of lift, or the Center-of-Lift changing drastically when scaling the wings down, or something else. My hope is that it's just lack of lift, and this improves that, but if it doesn't make any difference it could be due to the CoL being in the wrong spot.
.
OR it's just that you're going way too fast for the wing physics. Even full-scale wings can experience this, and while you may not have had the issue before, changing their scale could very well have changed how their Physics are calculated. (Basically, I could see it as if you scaled them down 50%, that they may experience this speed-wobble at a 50% lower speed than before.)
I think using the Text is the way, here.
However, the Text part currently is quite limited and not super user-friendly with a couple bugs it has, which those two things combined really hamper our true potential with that new part.
.
If we were given a far far larger "Character Support" than it currently has, we could use "Special Characters", of which there are some amazing things available through that.
For example: If you're on Windows, go to Start Menu, type in
charmapand hit enter; in that window, up top select "MS Gothic" (a font your system should have by default). Scroll through all the stuff that font has, to get an idea what I mean. 98% of what's there does not work in SP :( We're basically limited to the various "Latin" characters, which the best of them I think is the letter "Delta" in terms of a shape (a triangle). There's also the Arrows in 4 directions, but I'm not sure what all this Forum supports, as I've tried to paste stuff before and it doesn't show up.I made this, for a "warning" label on a Contra-rotating Twin prop setup I made (if both arrows work, copy everything and paste it into the Text Editor window to ACTUALLY see how it looks; replace every # with a press of the Spacebar. as the forums only let us place 1 space at a time):
That being said, some of the characters that DO work, can only be seen when the Editor window is open and on the actual Text part. The "input" field in Part Settings doesn't show some of them.
.
Worse than that, though, is that these special characters also BREAK the "Curvature" function, as they're not supported :( Thankfully, that won't matter too much for Wing Art, but for anything on a curved Fuselage, it limits our possibilities of using text as art.
Those who know HTML/CSS will have a lot of fun, since the Text parts support a number of that coding.
UNFORTUNATELY, their implementation of it is odd, and it's not a case of 100% support, nor 1:1 support. For example, anything in HTML/CSS that uses a colon will need to be replaced with an equals.
line-height: 10%is how HTML does itline-height= 10%is how SP wants it. (I think this part may have something to do with the XML format our builds are saved in)Also that the code originally is stuff like:
So for me as a n00b to HTML or CSS, that made figuring things out even more complicated lol
When you say "scaled down", do you mean the actual XML entry which by default is
1,1,1?OR
Are you referring to using the
Editbutton in the Wing menu and then dragging around the Arrows?Afterburners...
A couple ways I've seen it done:
A) through adding more Engines and then having them turn on when a new Action Group (AG) is toggled, to provide the extra thrust, both visually AND physically.
I'd configure that like this...
The Primary (non "Afterburner") engines would get whatever settings and AG to operate them. If you have 4 Engines (as it sounds like), each one gets turned on by its own AG and are controlled via
ThrottleThe Afterburner engines would then have their AG all set to the same, say 5, because this is only needing to toggle them when you want "Afterburners" enabled. The trick then is in their
inputcode where you include the AG of the Primary engine it is providing the Afterburner for (so replace X with that number):This is a dual purpose "IF" statement that needs to have two things satisfied to work: The AG has to be enabled (that's the =1), and also the Throttle has to be 100% (also =1). The ? then is what to do if both are true, and in this case it's "make this Engine's input value 1" (which is it's throttle level, aka 100%). The Colon is what to set if they both are NOT true, which is 0 (throttle = 0%).
.
B) The other way, which I kind of think is better as it uses less parts (but may not offer the same function you're after), is to NOT use additional "Afterburner" engines, and let the Primary engine do its own Afterburner! Basically here we use the same code from Method A. First we tweak it so that your engine normally works as it would, but in Afterburner mode it increases its own power. Second, and more importantly, we put it in a totally different spot;
maxinstead ofinput!This method, itself, has multiple ways to tackle it, but the simplest way is to add this to each Primary engine's
maxfield:<CONTINUED IN NEXT POST... I hate these forum's character count limits!>
<CONTINUED FROM ABOVE>
Now it's "If these are both True" it lets the Max Throttle be 100%, but if they are not, it's Max is only 50%. It's only the Engine's throttle though, your red-bar while playing will still show as it always has. This may seem confusing, but keep reading...
Then you go over into the
EngineXML category and changepowerMultiplierto also be2, as well as set theexhaustScaleto something like3,3,3(ideal to make the scale be all the same number). Combined, this is what gives them "Afterburners", because now the engine's internal throttle is only 50%, giving it the same power it normally would have at 100%. HOWEVER, when you toggle AG5, it has twice the power, and its exhaust gets much larger to match! :)NOTE: Your "Throttle" while playing, you'll still set to 100%, as everything here is happening behind the scenes.
.
After you set all 4 engines this way (Method B) you will be able to toggle each one On/Off with AG1-4, and then any that are turned on, when you press AG5 they will enter Afterburner mode, just as you desired.
@LarryTad since you seem interested too.
Two things worth noting here...
If you are removing drag with the
dragScalemethod, which the number is a Percentage (0=0%, 1=100%, 0.50=50%, etc), your part still has its Drag calculated for it. This is important when you're needing to lower/remove the Drag on a specific part a NOT impact the amount of Drag of the parts connected to it..
Whereas, the
calculateDragsetting is onlytrue(default) orfalse, and that just just that: toggles whether there's even any calculation performed. Setting it tofalseis disabling it, and in doing so that can increase your game performance a little (by lowering the amount of processing the CPU has to do) but the side effect is that the game's drag system doesn't even "see" the part anymore. As such, parts behind it will now experience drag that weren't before..
So the trick is to determine which one applies best to the situation.
I used to just use the outright disabling of Drag on parts, until I realized that doing so had a high chance of making my build's drag EVEN WORSE. Now I am more sparing in my use of that, and instead opt to change the
dragScaleinstead, setting it to something really low like 0.01 (aka 1%).,
However, if it's a part that's inside the plane and isn't exposed externally, but still shows up (via Overload's menu) as having Drag, I'll disable it on those sort of parts (but usually with the "Show Drag" overlay turned on, to monitor the changes).
@Amirabadi I don't specifically know the limits here, but I can at least get you started on the right track.
.
First you need to know where your builds are Saved to. If you're on a Windows computer, that's easy for me to direct you. Copy the line below (do not change any of the text), then open up the Start Menu and press CTRL+V to paste it, then press Enter. That will open up the folder with all the save builds you have:
Either scroll through the list to find the plane, or use CTRL+F and then type the name of it.
.
Once you've found it, open it with Notepad (I can't promise something like WordPad will save it correctly)
Either scroll to the bottom or press CTRL+END or search for "<Theme name="Custom">`, but it's at the end of the document so you can't miss it.
.
Now the tricky part :D ... :\ lol You'll see a bunch of lines that start by saying <Material color= and each line is one of the colors you can use to paint your build.
To ADD more, you just copy and paste full line under the last one (INCLUDING the spaces at the front).
For example here's an entire line you can paste in multiple times, to add a Flat Black:
Now, how to change that color is where the real "fun" happens. You'll need to use either a website that has a Color Picker and outs "Hex Code" (Google has one built in to its website) OR you can use a drawing or photo editing program (like GIMP or Photoshop).
For this, we'll assume you're using the Google one I linked ;)
.
All "Hex Codes" start with # and contain 6 alphanumeric entries of 0-9 A-F.
#000000is solid black, and#FFFFFFis solid white, or#7E03ABwhich is a rich purple.But for what we're doing, you won't be needing the #, I just mention that so you know what to look for, although most everything else DOES need the # so if you try to convert from the game into that Google tool (or most other sites/programs) you'll need to add it for them to understand. (Ignore all the "RGB", "CMYK", "HSV", "HSL" stuff, as Simple Planes doesn't use that.)
<PART 1 - CONTINUES IN NEXT COMMENT>
<PART 2>
Lets use that Purple: 7E03AB
The new line you'd add would be:
Now to decipher the rest... The last 3 I know for sure are decimal values that get translated into Percentages:
r="#" - This is the only one I'm not totally sure about. I think it refers to the "profile" it's using, and that it stands for "reflectivity". The values seem to only be 0, 0.15, or 0.3. Which I think translates to 0=Flat, 0.15=Semi-Gloss and 0.30=Glossy, but this honestly might be automatically set by the game based on what you set
s=to, below.m="#" - This is how "Metallic" the paint is, and you replace # with any decimal (or either of these two whole numbers) from 0 (no metalicity), to 1 (fully metallic), where 0.50 is 50%
s="#" - This is how "Smooth" it looks, and 0 = 0% and is "Flat", with 1 being 100% and "Mirror-Like", or a decimal of say 0.33 which is 33% and "Dull"
e="#" - This is new, and is for "Emissive" aka "Glow in the Dark", or in other words the amount of "Light" it appears to emit -- but it's only a visual effect in SP, it doesn't really project light onto surfaces. 0 is "normal paint" so no glowing. 1 is "very luminous", and anything in between is a range of that. NOTE: this is dependent on the color you're using, so if it's Black or some other very dark shade of color, it will not glow!
.
So setting it up like this:
We'll have a Purple, which is fairly metallic, with a mirror-like finish in the daytime light, and at night will appear to glow bright-purple.
All that's left for you to do is save your file. Open SP, load the plane (or if SP is still open, Load that plane so the changes are there in game). Open the Paint menu and the new color choice(s) will be present :D
(This was actually a learning experience for me as well, I didn't know what would happen after adding a color, or how you accessed it lol)
@BobDaBilder123 Hmpf. :\
Here I thought it was implying that the gear itself lacked the wheel covering, hence being labeled as "Bare". As in we would need to design a 'custom covering' (as it mentions in its Info Text) to shroud it.
.
Still, a bit weird that it DOES snap to the
Horizontal Stabilizeron it's Root and Tip. heh (regardless of whether said stabilizer wing is connected to anything).
Either way, thanks for that insight! I had gotten into such a "Must. Try. All. New. Parts!" mode that I hadn't caught on that is was intended to be used on wings we've skinned. Guess I'll have to add a new suggestion to my mega-post, too add a means of allowing us to override the "Approve Part Connections" lists. (Dunno how to handle it on Mobile, but on Windows the CTRL+Drag Part would work since holding control currently causes it to release the part we're moving for whatever reason.)
I'll slap an Orbit camera on something to see if I can repro it.
.
Though, I have a sneaky suspicion that the Unity update may have included some changes to the "Garbage Collection" system, and it's triggering too often. (But I think it'd have to be something different to the "Unloaded x Files/Assets" thing that gets logged in the PlayerLog file, as if that was triggering more often, they'd probably have noticed that due to the log file becoming much larger)
I know v1.11 is out of beta, but is using the Google Form WNP had provided in the Beta blog post, preferred by the devs for us to submit bugs to?
Or is this Bugs subforum (well, tagging) system acceptable?
.
I'd use "User Voice" if the system there wasn't so flawed that it then becomes impractical for the purpose it was designed for. Namely, the "Points" system imposed, to vote on submissions, and undoubtedly to prevent spam. Alas, if we only have X-amount of points to use, and have spent them on upvoting issues/suggestions, we're unable to create anything new it seems. (Unless this has been rectified since I was there last a month or two ago...?)
[Full disclosure: In case it isn't clear or my responses come off more defensive sounding that intended... I'm not trying to be argumentative in nature here, only civilly debating! I cherish all replies and views, to further my own knowledge and understanding here, so I appreciate the responses! I'm definitely not hard-set in my view/opinion on any of this, so my mind can indeed be changed. (I'm even going to add this to my post, as I don't want the devs, or other users, to feel like I'm trying to be an ass or trolling!)]
@FeatherWing The only one I googled prior to my post was the F22's, to see if maybe they had evolved into something really big like that system. But the F22's was a much smaller one, which was where my request for the "middle-sized" seat stemmed from.
.
I've seen lots of documentary vids which included ejection seat footage, though admittedly that is not only lower quality but also filmed at a distance, so I certainly won't pretend like that serves as solid size reference data. :P
.
I also admit that I really don't know how they intend for us to put these together, and after saying that I should probably check out the few updated planes to see if they illustrate that. As it stands, it just felt like the camera's placement indicated where the head would be, and with an
offset: 0.00as the default, it appeared like it'd be hard to see over the instrument panel and that didn't seem like it'd lend to be very conducive for high-speed flight..
Then again, maybe it doesn't need to be, with the fact that there hasn't been any need for dog-fighting for at least 30yrs, maybe even 40yrs. Though that does provide me with another good* suggestion for them: an ability to not set a transparency value on the gauges, so they can be used like a HUD; perhaps also one could pin them to the camera's movement, to act like a helmet display. :)
@SnoWFLakE0s
Gotcha. Admittedly, I still am not sure what exactly I can do with those Variables menu(s), nevermind how I use them. haha But that's no surprise considering the issues I have with FT... :}
Though maybe I'll finally be able to set it up with Variables, so that I can make a Cannon fire when the user presses Machinegun, as well as not needing to be in Air or Ground modes.
@MrShenanigans @FeatherWing
I originally had considered it to be a headrest, but then I looked at it closer and felt that to be highly unlikely, for a number of reasons, so I had discounted that as a possibility. :\
(I'm bored, so forgive me here, as I'm going to ramble to explain my logic lol)
My first reason was that it was far, far too tall. If the seat is meant to sit flush with the Cockpit Frame part, and then the Cockpit Canopy meant to sit flush with the top of the Frame's sides, that made it seem unlikely due to the fact the ""headrest"" part clipped halfway outside of the Canopy. (Using the "Block Canopy", even at its highest point in the glass bubble, that part of the seat still clips outside the glass)
.
My next observation was that there were two "straps", which while I admittedly am not an aviation expert I can generally still determine somethings function through studying it. In this instance, I couldn't figure out any such function for those straps given you wouldn't be strapping your head in since you'd be unable to look around. Even then, there's two of them, and the only system I have a vague recollection of there being was a single attachment that connected to the center of the helmet and upon ejection would tighten up to restrain the pilots head to avoid injury (particularly if they were unconscious). Also, they're WAY too high for shoulder harnesses. Then the fact that the backrest of the seat is positioned far too behind the ""headrest"", and would be painfully uncomfortable I thought (by forcing the head too far infront of the shoulders). Lastly, was the camera placement, which I could have erroneously assumed would've been placed at "eye level" since that's the intuitive location (and I thought WNP had said this update no longer places the camera at a distance of 1.0 above the actual camera part?).
.
However, after going back in and adding a cockpit, seat, and canopy (Modern, Modern, and Block Canopy), I notice that the seat is NOT flush with the Frame's floor, and if I move it down so that it is, it now fits underneath the Canopy glass at the highest point -- albeit barely lol
.
Now then, as I look further at things, with the above setup, it further calls into question that it's a headrest, just due to the actual measurements.
I'm 6FT tall, which is above average height for a male. In a seated position, my butt to head is roughly 3FT. My skull, measuring from the base of my skull to the top, is roughly 7IN high.
<con't below>
<continued from above message>
The Modern Seat, inside Modern Frame, with Block Canopy comes in at a total of
3.8FTaccording to SP, which is 3FT 9.6IN. Putting that "headrest" at roughly an entire head's height above where mine is! (Which again, I'm above average height, and yet it's still too tall to fit me.)Re: Glass Nose part...
Alas, there are enough that do, which I think merits its inclusion just for that reason. Nevermind all the other uses a person would have for a single part they can add to make a nicely tapered glass window. Bomber noses, Gun Pods (ie Glass Hemisphere), spaceship's gondola viewports (like the ISS has or the Crew Dragon used for Inspiration recently), or the infinite other uses lol
.
That "basically no bomber has [one]" is fine as far as facts go (even though some did; B-17 shows to be an example [pic 1, pic 2, pic 3], or the He-111 [pic 1, pic 2], this specific Me-262A2-a [pic 1, pic 2; a model].)
Just sayin' heh
I'm almost certain that they weren't always this way, not in v1.10.106 (the last ver I'd been using). Could I be mistaken? For certain, but I would definitely stake a sum of money on it heh
(Now I regret not making a backup of SP before I.... Wait, I might, on my laptop... I'll try and check that later on,)
To clarify how I perceived it (based on lots of time spent zoomed in on CoM, placing beacons scaled to 0.1,3,0.1): They WERE still flat, yes. But there were 2 flat 'lines' which overlapped, to allow you to rotate the camera and still be presented with roughly the same visual.
.
When you viewed @ 90deg facing it, you'd be provided the flat side of one (like on the left), but the other one would be too thin to see and would leave the appearance of only one line.
When you viewed @ 45deg, you'd see part of both, but both visually combined to make it look the same as 90deg. It'd look like 1 line until you zoomed in on the Co_ sphere WWWWWWWAY close. It's at that point I could start making out the overlap.
I put forth this question: To those who thought they were this way previous to v1.11, are you by some small chance one who had been using this since its Beta became available had gotten used to this view?
.
My take was that this occurred due to the upgrade build of Unity they used, as the actual colors of the lines are also not as vibrant (but is of no concern, overall).
.
Another possible fix (IMO) would be that if it always has been one line visible, to have said line always face the camera - rotating only around the axis it's meant to portray.
lawl GG me with that typo in the first pic... Should've been "like every OTHER" :P
I have way too many of my own suggestions I'm compiling (after 15 minutes of having the update installed....) to have you try and shoehorn into your post! lol That, and I need line-breaks and more than the 4000char limit that comments afford me :}
.
Ka-nobs
For "Knobs" I use a Magnet, scaled way down (via XML of course). A size of
0.05,0.2,0.05is about perfect, using the "Simple Throttle" as a reference..
Now comes the probably tricky part, since I have yet to really dive in to stuff, as I've mentioned: Getting it to do what you need a knob-interface to do, using the limitations of SP...
.
Depending on what that new "Joystick Base" dohicky can do and how we can interact with it... My first thought is to slap the Knob on one of those (scaled way down to match), and use it's output to base other stuff's capabilities on.
IF that wouldn't work, my next suggestion would be to use a simple Rotator, tying those same "stuff" to the Rotator's position. So if it's currently rotated to 5deg of its 90deg max, then whatever its
Inputvalue fort that would trigger one function (although, probably best to set it as a range so it doesn't need to be precisely at 5deg). Then next, 10deg, same thing, triggers next function. Rinse, repeat.Now, if none of that would work, then we'd have to go FULL KLUDGE and is probably similar to what you already did, but is sort of combining everything together.... :}
What comes to mind for me is to have:
-Either the "Joystick Base" or a "Rotator"... probably will need both, though?
-That Magnet Knob connected to that
-A button (scaled to be a thin line), at a 45deg angle maybe, positioned on the right-most side, colored bright
-Another button (similarly scaled) rotated opposite, positioned on the right-most side, colored a contrasting color (or the same *shrug)
-2 "Text" parts, each with a *V (letter vee), rotated around and positioned next to the bottom end of the button, to make an "Arrow"; one pointing one way, the other the opposite way
.
When you interact with one button it turns the "knob" one direction via stepping the Rotator X-amount each press, hopefully creating an input (or output I guess?) with that Joystick Base, which in turn triggers whatever you need it to based on the specific output value.
<con't...>
*grumbles* Dangit SP!
@Vincent can you please rectify the issue of the game failing to apply Auto-Credit to this build?
Thanks!
(I'd uploaded this originally with an error so I had to remove that share, but SP seemingly purged the auto-credit from that save file for some reason, so this upload lacked it....)
@VChart :sob: heh
Comically, thanks again to physics (aerodynamics) she assumes a similar posture while falling back to earth after the rockets burn out -- provided the Gyro remains enabled, otherwise free-fall is a little more chaotic with it disabled.
I'm getting ready to upload her older, more successful sister. (Who I hope displays a bit more decorum for people; thankfully she seems to.)
@CC1010 I understand, it's all good, and certainly no hard feelings. :)
For that matter, pretending for a moment that I was referring to paying Jundroo to have it be added... Honestly? I'd like that just the same. Plenty of games I'd like to be able to pay to have helpful changes made. After all, I'm not asking for them to make it so jet engine's exhaust visual be replaced by something absurd like the poo emoji. But even if I were, the entire point is that they would in no way be obligated to accept. :P
@CC1010 No. A million times no! lol
That is called purchasing. It is, in no way, at all similar to bribery!
.
A firm stance has to be made on the definition of things, otherwise society falls apart. No, grocery shopping is a willful and fair exchange of one thing for another, as they don't let you just walk out because then it'd be called theft.
Semantics aside, and perhaps part of the issue, is you've also misunderstood my main goal. I even had put in full caps:
On the contrary, I am suggesting that we'd be allowed to offer payment to (see: hire) mod authors.
.
Yes, in this instance, said mod author now also tends to be working for Jundroo. However, though I admit this is an assumption, I don't imagine WNP signed over the code of his mod to them upon his employment. He might've but, it's still an external asset and available for download, so it would appear as though that's not the case.
.
Thus, the offer in my case would be solely to WNP, as incentive for him to use his free time. However, this could be something that could be offered to someone else. For instance Kennneth. Perhaps I had an idea for something to get added to one of his maps, something I would personally very much like be included and lack the capability to do myself. However, perhaps he doesn't feel like it because it's more work than he's wanting to devote to an old project.... But what if I was willing to give him $25 to do that, perhaps he'd deem it worth his time and effort then.
.
THAT is what I'm saying :P
@MiGEater lol That's quite an endeavor to undertake!
Here's a suggestion for one though, which may be cheap enough a concept: Strap a high end DSLR (though a newer mirrorless one would be more compact) and strap it to decently powerful off-the-shell telescope, along with a Hall-effect engine (ion thruster), for your very own mini-Hubble :}
I'm all for criticism heh So I have no issue with hearing thoughts different to my own, despite being quite surprised by this reaction though.
.
@asteroidbook345 and @Sparky6004 Can you explain why you think of it as a bribe?
Definition:
If there is indeed something wrong or worse, illegal, about what I've suggested, then I agree, it shouldn't be allowed!
.
@CC1010 (since you expressed it as more than just "no" heh) and @Kennneth, as well as Asteroid and Sparky:
I guess I was coming from the standpoint of thinking that -- using my example I provided in my first comment at the bottom -- in the case of Overload the mod wouldn't see anything new added to it on the basis of it not being "worth the author's time", because they were likely busy enough working on the game itself. So I figured that perhaps in exchange, I could buy some of that person's free time.
.
The entire premise of this was effectively hiring them to do work, not coercing them to go against their morals or do something shady. A suggestion to a mod author may be something they even agree with would be nice, but still may feel it's worth their time to work on, but that doesn't mean they can't still like the concept.
.
As such, I would've defined it as a "Commission", like commissioning an artist to create a fantasy-themed avatar in your likeness.
Or in other words, the reverse of how sites like Fiverr operate. Except in this case, instead of something being made from scratch, ONLY for you... it's adding to something they've already made freely available.
Please don't missunderstand though, I did not type all that in any sort of arguing tone. I'm just wanting to understand where everyone's coming from and what part exactly it was that gave you that impression that this isn't good? Also to try and better explain where I'm coming from.
Thanks :)
To touch on what specifically I'd like to ask about, is actually something that I find would be of a huge help for everyone, and also that WNP78 is in a unique position to be able to tackle...
.
That the Overload mod be updated to provide, basically, all the info that the "Simple Cheats" page has.
Fields that would be mouse-hovered, would in turn provide a Tooltip explaining that matching string.
Value fields in turn would explain through a Tooltip what the function is.
And where the "Dev access" comes in to play, is that those Value fields could then be converted to (where its appropriate) being drop-down menus which offer all the valid choices that SP accepts.
.
For example, just a couple days ago I had learned, through total happenstance while modifying someone's build, that you can set
partCollisionResponsetoNoneinstead ofDefault! Which is quite handy for the times where you --at least if I understand it correctly-- want a part to still be allowed to contact with other parts (ie not having to setdisablePartCollisions) but also not potentially cause an explosion or the part to become damaged through gently slamming together (like with a floppy hinge joint)..
Which I assume one would need an inside view of SP in order to know all the available inputs a field supports, as well as exactly what it is they do.
Another small example: Cannon's configuration...
I'm not sure if most people know what
volumedoes (isn't listed on the Simple Cheats doc), which actually is a literal sound-volume decimal value, so that you can make a smaller gun quiet, or even turned off entirely. :)Mobile? I unno. :\
Computer (PC at least)? Bind the input to the same key :(
.
I, too, wish that there were far more options (see: input customization) for parts and weapon payloads, so that we could treat the Cannons like a Machinegun.
.
Heck, even if it was some sort of conditional, hard-coded thing, that would get triggered based on the Caliber the Cannon is configured to.
Mind you, that'd also require that they allow the Cannon to be set to below 50mm, down to say... 20mm?
[Emphasis is my own]
At which point, those so-configured cannons automatically get re-assigned to being fired by the conventional Machinegun action. (from
FireWeapons, toFireGuns)But honestly, that'd be more work than just providing us with the choice, either through the Parts Setting interface, or a secret XML option.
My 2 cents worth...
Toshiba Satellite?
Planetary Satellite [natural]?
Temporary Satellite [also natural]?
Artificial Satellite [manmade]?
.
I ask cuz, considering I've already got a launch platform, and previously made the helicopter-that-thought-it-was-a-baby-kangaroo (kept in a 'pouch' on the rover's belly lol)... I suppose I could be compelled to make you an Artificial Satellite :P
You'd have to tell me what you had in mind though?
.
....Unless you're asking about interest in whether any of us want to LITERALLY make a cubesat in real life?
In which case I'll have to pass; however. I can at least direct you over to a silly but very real cubesat that someone is working on. :) (which is pretty cool, when you think about it)
@Gadyyyy Yea... *sigh* Not a proud dad moment :( lmao
.
.
.
But seriously.... mistreat her and I'll hunt you down! :P
mmmmmmmm Massive ProTip-comment was massive. I'm just going to make a forum post about this instead, and will ping you, Juan.
That way it doesn't clutter this page, AND more people can see it...
@ChillyFlashbang
Uploaded, as requested. However, a Female version instead, as to not just upload an otherwise-carboncopy of the original.
Leaving this here for archival purposes.
Also there's the argument that having high-detail (compared to my example) wings would, in the end, be a net gain for performance in a lot of case since it'd result in far fewer parts. As we currently end up using additional fuselage parts in order to skin the wings so that they DO look nice.
.
So in that sense, this is along the same lines of making modeled cockpit parts for us, to cut back on the extra hundred or more parts some cockpits ate up.
.
At the moment, the "simple" way to make a wing look somewhat nice is to have a small (roughly 0.2x0.2) diameter fuselage that is the same length as the wing, to act as the leading-edge. Then a flat Nose Cone (0.2 height) to act as the end of the wing. But that only gets you so far as a contoured leading edge.
If you want a full wing, now you need a large fuselage to encompass the wing, plus at least another 1 or 2 that act as control surfaces, along with each one's accompanying Hinge Rotator. On the higher-end, another small wing per control surface!
Upon reflection, though... It may just be a limitation of the color system in game.
IF that's the case, I would suggest that the specific color of 446677 be changed in the Custom Theme preset colors, to a color that can be modified.
@FeatherWing You know the Beta is v1.11 and not v1.10, right? :}
Joking aside, I didn't want to misuse that form, as I don't have the Beta. (I live in a ""rural"" area with only access to crappy LTE-based internet, with 24GB/mo bandwidth, shared with 2 people and our cellphones)
.
I also can't use the intended User Voice site since they don't go through it enough and once we've used our "Points", we can't do anything else until what we've used them on on is marked Closed by the devs. (Granted, we can retract what we've voted for, but that defeats the purpose.)
note: I know the v1.11 Beta form is a 'Google Form', which is unrelated to User Voice.
@STDeath Thank you :D Glad you like it!
@tsampoy Thank you!
Might not win any builder awards for quality, but I had a lot of fun building it either way :D (Even though there were some hair-pulling moments, getting everything to work simultaneously and cooperatively lol)
So here's an interesting finding...
You don't have to TOTALLY destroy the ship in order to "commandeer" it, and take it to the skies!
All you have to do is get it to start the Sinking animation. :D
.
Why is this at all interesting? Well, because you can take control of it AND still have it show up on Radar! heh
Unfortunately, I think that in all cases of severe enough damage to cause it to begin sinking, that also entails giant flames and billowing smoke.
While in certain cases this isn't totally a bad thing, such as ascending fast enough, or no doubt having enough forward momentum... But if you plan to attempt hovering, then you're going to have some visual issues. :\
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/892893423378497558/894028650851205120/unknown.png
EDIT: Honestly, the most difficult part about this whole endeavor is finding the EXACT CENTER of the ship when destroying it. If your final shot isn't right at CoM, you're flying cockeyed...
Too far forward, and the nose sinks, making you fly nose-down.
Too far back, and the tail sinks, making you fly nose-up.
Too far right, it lists to the right.
Too far left, it lists to the left.
.
I've had to come up with a jig that lowers an arm down into the water, which has a cannon attached to the end. But the cannon is facing straight up. Furthermore, the cannon isn't attached directly to the end of the arm, but offset at a specific distance, so that when it's lowered down, the cannon is firing on the ship's centerline.
Why underneath? Simply because hitting it on the hull under the water-line means no fire/smoke ;)
I've damn near got it, after lots of trial and error lol
@RC1138Boss Ooh! ahah
I meant on the description of the plane :)
The end section I had titled as: -= TEST PILOT FEEDBACK =-
It was just my own personal experiences when flying this, to prepare anyone else who downloads it.
.
That's what I meant by adding you. If you were to determine if the Hook still functioned, I'd add to that section whatever details you provide with it working (or even if it doesn't work), as well as credit you for it :)
Thanks James and Awesome.
Can confirm, after outfitting a max caliber stubby cannon to the front of my "parasite", and destroying the Tiny, it almost immediately took to the skies. :P
And after a few minutes up there, it hadn't despawned, which was good.
.
The wings already are a no-go, at least as I had designed them... so I think that if I were to re-design my "mounting" frame, I might be able to make it so the entire flight deck can be cleared and have this function as a literal flying aircraft carrier. Which, paired with the upcoming feature update, with Refueling... >:} mwahahaha
@jamesPLANESii Damn, that figures lol Good to know.
Do they not de-spawn after destroying them?
.
I always figured they did after a set amount of time after being flagged "destroyed"... but if it's set to only do it after a certain depth (altitude below sea level), then I would be motivated enough to give that a go! lol
@RC1138Boss Sorry, I'm not quite following... What do you mean by "go on [my] profile"?
@RC1138Boss That's a good question, I don't actually know lol
I've locked its orientation (0deg) and it has no actiongroup assigned, so that it can't move either way.
The fact it's facing the wrong way, though, I wondered myself if it'd work still.
.
I suppose you could go in (via XML) and edit to have like -1deg (to 'drop' forward, since it's backwards), then assign it to
AG2and try it out...Or take the more laborious route, and rotate it so it faces the correct way, then try it out.
.
I'll happily credit you as a fellow Test Pilot, with testing and providing your findings :)
@LieutenantSOT Man I apologize! I apparently glossed over the notification for your message...
I actually try not to look for other builds of a plane I make (be it real or even a fictional design by a third part), as to ensure that anything I do while building it, is 100% my own idea. That way I'm totally innocent to any design choices that I may claim as my own, but which someone else may have similarly come up with.
.
That being said, while I was researching some element later on when this was almost complete, a friend did link me to someone's SP build of this...
Which after checking yours, I can confirm it was indeed that one! :P The yellow makes it unmistakable as being it. Yours is actually the one I reference in my first post, when I said " this thing is not the BEST flying aircraft... A fact that appears to be inherent to the design, considering another C1 in SP also seemed to be a pain in the butt to fly!"
I hadn't flown yours -- as I mentioned, to not influence my work -- so I based that presumption on the description and comments on your build. :P It just seemed to mirror my experiences while building mine! haha