@scratch I can (unfortunately) confirm everything you just said is still the case, as I just experienced that last week :( Built a new plane with fuselage set to 45deg and rounded on the bottom...
Only to have it spawn in, floating, unsupported by its landing gear :frumpyface:
I worked around it, but... still annoying.
.
Even then, circling back, it's easy for even brand new players to already be aware that the darned Hollow is only thus visually. Hide anything inside one in the editor and you have to zoom in beyond the Hollow fuselage in order to re-select it... TT (I have a QoL buglist a mile long that I could post, if I felt any of it might _actually get addressed! lol)_
Ok so it's not being used in the best situation in this build (to show it off), but I was shoehorning this into another build, while being up against having two fuselage walls clipping into the camera's view which dictated where the Cockpit Part could be, and the actual mini-cockpit clipping through the outside of the plane which dictated how much spacing I could give it all...
.
Either way, for anyone interested in looking at it in-game, you can check it out here. (location is just inside the fuselage, in front of the front two windscreen windows)
lawl Put it on a part-count-diet, only to have it come in at 26 parts HIGHER... GG, me.
Still, it was a good trade, IMO! Though my "derpy cockpit" ate up 30 just by itself. Slats system accounted for another ~50ish total, and then another 5 for the ConTrail system.
Oh hell, I just now realized my rather embarrassing mistake... having erroneously thinking FineTuner and Overload were both made by WNP78...
Come to realize, in a huge facepalm-moment, that FineTuner was made by HellFire lol
.
... And none of you pointed it out to me! I thought you were my friends!!! haha
Anyways, yea, @HellFireKoder, pinging you now since the majority of the requests are specific to FineTuner (the external mod).
The TL;DR- of it is that while I know there's a built-in and simplified Fine Tuner menu, I'm not requesting that be what these get added to. Instead, at least initially, I'm hoping that these requests are beneficial enough to merit their inclusion into the original and more-powerful external mod. That way, it won't impact SP directly since these wouldn't be added to the built-in menu (due to lacking MultiSelect functionality).
Personally I feel these FineTuner-specific things like Create a SubAssem from MutliSelected parts, or buttons to manipulate MultiSelected parts to Flip Up/Down and Mirror-in-Place etc (mentioned in the 2nd post from the bottom) would be highly beneficial to have!
.
Thanks for your time, and especially for the original FineTuner!
I suck at math but...
2021 - 1999 = 22
2021 - 1990 = 31
Not everyone playing SP was even born in the 90s; ergo, some of these perplexed commenters may not have come across such a peculiar beast. :)
Just like not everyone has heard of the Caspian Sea Monster, which was both a ship that doesn't sail as well as a plane that doesn't fly! lol (Unfortunately, these days we as a people seem much less willing to think and create things on the same absurd levels as we once were, which is why I personally don't find it too surprising that people today are so blown away by some older things from a bygone era.)
Beautifully made :)
On a side note, I opened the console and got a kick out of this... Large aircraft detected (56401.21 cubic meters). Reducing precision of drag calculations
So it's official... even SP says "Oooh she thicc!!" lol
@AWESOMENESS360 I don't know how much help this'll be since I'm a total ignoramous when it comes to FT... Nevertheless, can't hurt to type it!
What I found out recently when trying to get just a NON-AI auto-aim turret to work, was that everything is based off the Cockpit always facing one direction (ie: statically oriented, not dynamic). Otherwise, as it tries to re-calculate, the turret has turned the cockpit, and basically ends up having no idea where it is or how much it needs to move; thus, spazzing out.
.
That also was true for having it set to being inclined at all (rotated), as if I recall from my tests a few months ago, it caused issues if I had my main cockpit (not attached to the turret) angled at even X: -2 simply for aesthetical reasons -- this would also cause the Cockpit Camera's crosshairs to be off, too.
.
More importantly, I believe EVERY turret code I had stumbled across, ended up being configured for a TOP mount... but I was wanting it to be a BELOW mounted bubble, on my plane. As such, up became down, left became right... but it also felt like there was even more than just that, since I would try to do the obvious of setting those Rotators to be "Inverted", except it didn't fix it.
Ultimately, I ended up having to invert it through the FT's "control output" part of the code, since it was still technically needing to TRACK with everything oriented as up-is-up/left-is-left. So it seemed that inverting just the rotator was also impacting that part, making it think the target was moving in the opposite direction.
[msg 1 of 2]
[addendum rambling]
And yes, I hate, and am ashamed of the way the skids behave. I put in so, so many hours with the damn things, trying to find some sort of combo or work-around.
I really do apologize to everyone for not being able to figure something out T_T
@STDeath Glad you like it :)
It's flight characteristics were honestly not as good as I hoped, but I spent a lot of time fine tuning the Center of Mass (CoM/Red dot). Too far towards the back and it starts getting really really unstable, typically only during Nose-Down pitching where it'll suddenly start to Roll, but definitely during Nose-Down combined WITH a Roll... Then it would stall and flat-spin.
Too far forward though, prohibits its ability to pull tight loops... Making it less-capable as a dog fighter (and why I relegated it to not be classified as a full-on assault fighter).
.
I think that I had to use so many wing sections that needed to be set to "Symmetrical" was part of issue. If I changed the other segments to "Semi-Symm" or "Flat Bottom", then the rear would create too much lift, inducing undesireable nose pitching... meaning changing CoM... meaning even worse flight characteristics lol
.
I can't take full credit for the engines, having myself seen someone make long ones (albeit 10x larger) on a space type craft, using rows of the VTOL Thrusters.
@Sadboye12 showed me the trick with the Glass, setting its Transparency to -100 (XML edit) and then painting it the INVERSE color you want. Doing so then makes it "glow" (day or night; beautiful at night though) and so I used that for the engine-idle appearance.
.
Feel free to use any parts or ideas from it! :)
[/end rambling]
@WNP78 Presumably "too late" is in reference to the impending update coming out?
If so, I wholeheartedly agree. Don't worry, I know better than to ask for things to be squeezed in last minute (particularly with software).
.
However, if you meant in terms of addressing QoL requests by adding them into SP, then that's a bit disheartening to hear...
Unless *thinks*... it infers there's "no point", because of something heretofore unannounced that's on the horizon, and the development of which is near completion... o_0
.
heh Because that, along with you mentioning both are integrated into the stock game, has me otherwise perplexed. As currently, other than "Fine Tuner" menu (which is less powerful due to lacking 'MultiSelect'), I wasn't aware that Overload was built into the game...
My game needs your Overload.spmod in my Mods directory in order for me to gain in-game XML editing. Hence why I was making these requests for the standalone mods. Primarily because, as I mentioned, the built in Fine Tuner isn't as capable as the original standalone variant -- not just in the context of lacking MultiSelect and the Scale abilities, but because the original's menu is far-more user friendly since all the sliders/input boxes are accessible w/o having to scroll. (That's 25% of the reason why I don't use the built-in Fine Tuner, the remaining 75% is lack of MultiSelect; I could make due Scaling via editing it in Overload.)
At any rate, I hope your response isn't as Doom and Gloom as I've taken it to be, as having those kind of things addressed (be it added to the game directly, or just the external mods) would make things much easier. (Heck, I'd ask if I could add them to the mods myself,... if I knew how to code. Or even if I had the bandwidth to download all the crap I'd need in order to compile stuff [SDKs and Unity Engine etc], and try to learn. Curse you, rural life!)
Either way, thanks for replying!
@V heh Well, every once in awhile, my ramblings manage to sum up everything that's needed! (although according to my Notifications last night, James did leave one, but must've felt it wasn't needed [which is absolutely fine])
I did recall another Suggestion that I had originally thought of, but forgotten about while making the above list... So I'll just add it here, as comment fodder for everyone to determine where it should fall in that list:
[FineTuner] Buttons to Flip, Mirror, Rotate [45/90/180] or Rotate by [value relative to] a part or selected-parts, but in-situ. [Situational: When a single part is selected, provide a Checkbox to toggle Global/Local Rotation, to ignore its local axis angles.] REASON: Some of us are creative as hell... but absolutely crap at math. (Hi, that's me!) Sometimes you have a part rotated at rather obscure angles, and paired with the fact that SP likes to SCREW WITH OUR MINDS by swapping around the angles (ie a Y and Z orientation gets re-translated to an X and Z) after you've entered them and clicked away... It makes a task not so easy for some of us, even more complicated... T_T
Hopefully that "Situational" part makes sense.. Basically if I have a part rotated and I change its Y to spin it, but its X is also non-Zero, then it does it around that titled orientation instead of the global (flat) angle that the build is. So to get around that I often will place a dummy part and Multi-Select both, in order to gain that 'Global' rotation ability; rather cumbersome. USE CASE:(not the greatest example with the new feature coming up, but I've also encountered this with VTOL Thrusters)
When trying to move Fuselage Text/Art from one side of the plane to the other. Using the in-built Mirroring system doesn't work because it wasn't meant to be used with language. As such, the mirrored parts end up backwards, but not only that, their relative offsets sadly don't permit for rotating the individual pieces in place just to address the issue. (Or at least, my smol-brain-syndrome makes it more complicated than it really is... lol Alas, that's kinda my point, not everyone is that capable!)
@jamesPLANESii I don't know if others feel the same way, but personally I'm not sure how confident I am in their UserVoice system. :(
.
We only get a few points to distribute.
We can't (as I understand it) submit a Bug/Suggestion until you've reached a certain "rank", which I believe requires you using x-number of said points.
But worst of all is the shear number of submissions already, which makes me feel like anything I could offer would be lost in the noise. There's almost 1600 currently.
.
Primarily, with that last part, it's the lack of seeing any official comments on things there. Even if it were that it gets flagged as "Read by the Developer" it'd instill some confidence that what was submitted has at least been seen, despite not being acknowledged.
.
Oh, and this:
To help improve the overall quality of ideas, users are given a limited number of votes. Once ideas you vote for are closed, your votes will be returned to you.
Since they don't acknowledge and close suggestions, we don't get our points back. Since we can't get our points back, we have to remove them from what we've previously applied them to should we find something that we like more, regardless of whether we still feel the other voted-for ticket has significant merit.
.
Don't get me wrong though, I did my civic duty and spent all my points months ago, and commented on some issues as well. Of those I've commented on, I like these two (I'm the user C S): Overhaul the drag model Torque settings for car engines
@Vincent Could you please remove this submission as a Successor to CaptainSkylark's WWI Challenge?
It was an oversight on my part, and didn't mean for it to be.
Thanks! :)
Ah ok... Well ugh lol
Shame it's not as user-friendly as I'd had hoped :(
Thanks for the explanation @CenturyAerospace!
Also for the clarification there @jamesPLANESii
.
I'll give that a look as well @FeatherWing, thank you :)
@CaptainSkylark Yea I apologize Mahadi, that was my fail....
I used the plane that was my entry as the starting point, having completely forgotten that it would've also been tied to your challenge. That was not my intention, sorry for the confusion.
Do you, or anyone know, if SP Moderators are able to modify that sort of thing w/o me having to delete and re-upload this??
@WNP78 (and CoolPeach) Thanks for chiming in with that. I will admit that I had a preconceived notion that SP was deciphering the values from the NACA code, using that to define the shape of the Airfoil, and letting the physics engine handle how it actually performed.
.
As a result, admittedly, I didn't consider that there was lots of precompiled data the game was running off of. Definitely a failure on my part (for assuming it was done in some sort of real-time way). :} I suppose I was basing all of this on thinking that the wing physics were done in a same/similar way to the Drag Points (which are dynamic).
.
That being said, if adding one or two more airfoils happens to not be a monumental task... I do think having one of the NACA/NASA Laminar Flow models, and an early 1900s model, would be a nice addition and give folk a bit more choice.
There are a bunch of Laminar airfoils and their performance data (a number of which are not NACA/NASA, if that matters) that can be found in this huge "Parametric Airfoil Catalog - Part II" PDF. (There's also Part I, but I haven't looked at it.)
Not sure if the data provided in there is at all what's needed, regarding what WNP78 said?
Bonus Question (open to anyone that knows): Does changing the Root and Tip thickness have any physics impact, or is it solely for aesthetics?
@CoolPeach Yea there's just those three NACA codes that work (plus the NACAPROP), which coincide with the actual 3 options we can select in the menu. I tried to include that in my EDIT2, but reached the 4000 char limit on posts... :}
I'm actually a bit surprised that they didn't implement that 4 & 5 code ability, given it's a straight forward equation to decipher them. ("straight forward" for a computer to work out, but even someone like me who can barely add numbers together can still make sense of it to some degree lol)
.
Wouldn't even need to be tied to anything in the menu, to preserve the "Simple" nature of the game, only there as a hidden feature for those adventurous enough to dive into the more advanced stuff.
Personally it's all over my head, as I mentioned, but I'd still like the ability to try out different stuff! Specifically due to more recently having made some WWI era stuff and wishing I could be more accurate by using those very deep airfoils some of those planes had. (I've considered using very thin strips of Wing-3 back to back, angling each one a bit in order to recreate how some look, but I don't know if it'd yield the same results heh)
,
I also think it'd be great if the wing mesh would mimic the airfoil we have selected, given the game technically has that ability with what Fuselage parts can do: Rise, Run, and Custom corners. So like a Flat-Bottom for corners would use 0,0,0,3, or Semi-Symm as 0,0,1,3.
...Though... I won't hold my breath on either feature coming anytime soon (or ever). :P
I'm a total idiot here in terms of the math/science, but for what it's worth, here's a couple things I found these last 2 days, as well as in general.
1) "Flat Bottom" flies the best. It results in better handling, the plane flies faster, and seems to be better (easier) for taking off.
--Example: This "Coanda 1910" I just built, with a legitimately modeled Turbine (though I have a feeling the "20inch" measurement I read about is a radius [a turbine blade's length], not the turbine's diameter, but I digress) with the main Propeller set at 50HP.
WING SET TO 'FLAT BOTTOM': Plane will automatically, and gently, take off on its own at 73MPH, and level out on its own with a flat (maybe 1deg) AoA, cruising at 72MPH.
WING SET TO 'SEMI-SYMMETRIC': Plane will reach 67MPH and never takes off. That's its max top speed. Note: In both cases, the plane's tail (the X fins are Symm, the wide fixed tail 'wing' is Flat-Bott) rises up around 30MPH and the plane is sitting at 0deg as it travels down the runway,
,
2) Using the Hover Car, during ascent at a low speed (if you switch the BFE300 Input from VTOL to Throttle, at roughly 10%), transitioning the nacelles at various steps on the TRIM slider, produces a very sudden shift between the way the wings produce lift. Seems to be around the time they're at... hmm... 25-30deg (above horizon; not from their vertical orientation). At that point the whole thing pitches as though the game's calculations have switched gears,
,
3) SEE EDIT2 The note on the SimpleCheats document about the Wing Airfoils, is a lie T_T
You cannot input the NACA values and apply them. At least not using the Overload mod's menu. It claims invalid input and "restores" a backup. I was wanting to try naca63415, and I attempted using it with lowercase, uppercase, inside quotes, just the numbers, and even the provided "NACA23015" that it claims the game uses. Note: I could easily have misunderstood the document's note about that specific entry, and in fact it was -not- implying that we could input ANY valid NACA airfoil value...
airfoilstring A name relating to the different aerofoil types. If you’re really into aerodynamics, here are the technical names for the choices:
“Flat Bottom” :“ NACA23016”
“Semi-Symmetric” :” NACA23015”
“Symmetric” : ”NACA0009”
These are all 4 or 5 digit NACA codes which you can read up on here.
EDIT: I think the NACAPROP's superpower is.... for use as a Canard airfoil...
I tested that on my Coanda 1910, and it's top speed rocketed to 83MPH; however, it was unable to achieve takeoff at all, due to creating exceptional downforce. I attempted to counter it by changing the inverted setting (via Overload), but same results.
Then I tried it on my de Bruyere xC.2 (albeit with a Jet engine), which has fully moving canards (no rear ailerons or horizontal fins).
They both auto-takeoff at roughly 180MPH, but with the canard wings set to NACAPROP it gets there faster it seems. ----While set to Symmetrical, the nose will continue to pitch up until the entire plane is 99% stalled at 90deg) and then the nose finally crests and makes the loop. It attains roughly 360mph during its nose dive before crashing into the ocean at roughly 60deg still (it cannot self-recover). ----While set to NACAPROP, the nose continues to pitch up, but is arrested around 60deg. Which then, despite the plane not being stalled out, the nose starts to drop a little. Then once sufficient forward speed is attained, the cycle repeats, but no full loop occurs (or anywhere close).
. EDIT2: Ok it seems it DOES support the 3 NACA codes. I must've typoed earlier when trying.
Woah, Richard Dean Anderson plays SimplePlanes?? lol
.
If so, I can't wait to see the USS General Hammond, or an F-102!
Jokes aside (unless you really are -that- RDA...)
I'll have to download this just to see just how fast that thing is with four massive BFE300s... :D EDIT: Yep, it was fast lol Though it has its quirks, too... Or perhaps more accurately, a bit of a learning curve for flying it. I had to switch it over to Throttle instead of VTOL input (as a computer user) and that helped. As then I was able to associate a % value to a level of thrust needed.
@STDeath Glad you like it! ^_^
I agree, it's a different feel than a normal Biplane, and handles a lot differently from anything I've built to date. It's slow, and it isn't super capable or agile, but it'd sure make for a great real-life personal plane to just go up to enjoy a cruise. :P
.
The next one I'm working on, which does have a "jet" engine, will probably invoke an even more steampunk feel for you. :D
I don't think it'll use a different plane design/layout, but I can't say yet since I haven't gotten into that one. I only had the plan in my head for what's next. The less I have to change, the faster I'll be able to get that completed though, for certain. Which does seem to keep with the old-days of flight: Innovate new stuff around a single testbed once you have something that is known to fly. (Or I guess modern days, again, thanks to SpaceX! As they're doing that with Starship.)
It does look great with the jet's flame, doesn't it?? :D
.
Pretty close in terms of what I was going for: This one that I uploaded, the -DP stands for "Ducted Propellers", and had no actual compressor or inclusion of additionally burned fuel.
HOWEVER, you're not far off because originally that's exactly what I had, was an engine down there instead of the 5 small propellers. My jet's nozzle was extending just out of the rear Inlet, and its exhaustScale was set to 2.5,2.5,1
I just wish that in SP, setting the power to 0, also meant it didn't consume any additional fuel :( I wanted to add a VTOL engine so I could use a thruster in each of the V8's exhaust pipes, but it was a massive drain on the limited fuel it had (and I didn't want to include an infinite fuel supply for immersion sake lol).
,
(TIP: Your jet still has its massScale set to 1, so that throws off the CoM which upsets its flying behavior.)
@Flewey Naw, it's definitely something that I can admit has become a labor of love... :}
I just feel like there is/was potential in that absurd C1 design, but just as well after finishing that bird, I saw all these various ways I wanted to transform it into something more modernized.
.
I have no clue how they will eventually turn out, if they'll be good planes or equally plagued with issues needing ironing out -- cursed, as you put it lol.
But thankfully I have the ability to pull on the strings that govern the physics in the universe of SimplePlanes, so if there's a will -- and clearly I have one -- then there's definitely a way to get such a best like this to be functional! :D
.
Truth be told, I'm almost certain that some of the issue with how it performs, at least in SP, is the lack of any real details on the C1 [CoM for example], but also the horribly underpowered propulsion system. At one point on the C1 I gave its prop way more power, and it took out a lot of the cursed issues with it. Similarly, once i gave this design a jet (in that under-slung pod), it was phenomenal... Alas, such a powerful jet was outside the scope of the challenge, so I had to drastically detune it.
... It's the builds I have in mind that are beyond this WWI Challenge that are going to be of interest for me, and what I'm really looking forward to playing with! ^_^
@MAHADI ...pulls hands away from keyboard...
Yessir :} lol
@STDeath Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed both!
And I agree, the hindsight we are afforded thanks to human history being documented, plus our natural creativity, opens so many doors to curious and interesting new things... even if it IS purely fiction :D
@Flewey ROFL
I take great pride in that response, thank you! :D
.
Alhough, I'm not 100% sure what it's exactly in response to...
Whether it's to this build, or my claim to allow "crude jets" in WWI planes, or specifically my example about a "conventional engine that drives a shaft with turbine blades".... :P
If by chance it's that last one, I couldn't remember what it was called in the moment but it's a "Motorjet" lol
Which actually is even MORE fuel to my claim, since it indicates dates of 1908 and 1917... and, even more perfect: France! (It was that 1930 Caproni Campini N.1 that was where I first learned of such an engine combo)
2/2
In conclusion, it seems that a low-power Turbine concept (crude 'jet') is actually inside the timeframe of the era. Therefore, something such as a conventional gas engine that drives a shaft with turbine blades where additional fuel is injected for added thrust, or a primitive sort of turbo-prop configuration, would be plausible and valid methods of propulsion for a Fictional WWI-era vehicle... :D (at least that's my two cents worth)
@MAHADI I'm just going to bring this up here and run it by you.... Even though it technically doesn't help this build while using propellers, I'd be able to submit a 'fix' for it!
I believe I've found legitimate evidence that opens up Internal Combustion Turbine engines for use in WWI-era vehicles... O_O Hans Holzwarth 1905 patent# US783434A for a "Rotary Combustion Engine". (I've only made small grammatical corrections to this digitization's auto-transcription of the original text, where some words were not spaced apart; also a single 'typo'.) My invention relates to internal-combustion engines.
.
The object of my invention is to provide means for the practical application of the direct force
developed by combustion in the operation of a turbine. In an ordinary turbine no means are
provided for compressing combustible gases nor for confining such gases during ignition
even though a preliminary compression were provided for.
.
My invention therefore contemplates the provision of separate expansible combustion
chambers in which a compression may be secured (at least a final compression)
and which will offer sufficient resistance to the initial pressure of the burning gases to
produce a complete ignition and then deliver the gases into the turbine in a manner to
develop the highest efficiency.
.
My invention also contemplates utilizing the force expended in expanding one
combustion-chamber to produce a final compression in another similar chamber, the
arrangement being such that a four-cycle movement is secured by successive ignitions in a
set of four chambers without reference to the movement of the turbine and entirely
independent thereof.
Furthermore, in 1910, a (seemingly different) Holzwarth's design managed 200HP (150kW): 1910: Holzwarth impulse turbine (pulse combustion) achieved 150 kW (200 hp).
.
Almost more notable is that in 1903, another inventor managed to achieve an output that was greater than the input requirement to run the turbine: 1903: A Norwegian, Ægidius Elling, built the first gas turbine that was able to produce more
power than needed to run its own components, which was considered an achievement
in a time when knowledge about aerodynamics was limited. Using rotary compressors
and turbines it produced 11 hp.
Both of these quotes came from: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas
@MAHADI lol All 5 of them are inside the fuselage, in that bottom protrusion spanning from the rear wheels to the front Inlets.
xC.2-DP = Ducted Propellers :}
@MAHADI My second "entry" for the WWI Challenge. It is not jet powered, but, I'll also understand if you feel it is not valid.
I made this purely for the fun and joy of making it, being quite pleased with the end result either way! :)
Yea, it's more difficult to make modifications on mobile, but it's still possible as I mentioned. You just have to find where iOS stores your plane's files and then load it into any Text Editor software.
.
However, that doesn't make it "easy" by any means... LOL
The text you are then looking at, is quite confusing. Furthermore, not all of the things you can change/modify are even in the file by default (to keep file sizes down). That's the most annoying and difficult part in my opinion :(
For wheels though, I think if you change the Size and Width in the Part Settings menu, then they will show up in the file. From there you just have to edit it to a value that's beyond the menu's capability. :)
@Flewey Yes lol That sums it up rather well...
As does the couple pictures of the real one's crash. (I spare linking since all one has to do is plug into Google Images: de Bruyere C1)
Which on that note, for a plane that was not successful and did not make it beyond a first test flight... it's impressive that there are ANY photos of it, over 100 years later! Makes me feel as though it really was cutting edge and forward thinking, or at the very least that it was "unique enough" to people that merited holding onto the photos!
I have plans to "continue development" of this plane, in an Alternate Timeline sort of sense. I already have one variant made, which I absolutely love, It's not quite finished yet, but just about.
It flies a little better, though definitely has a lot of the same (not-ideal) flight characteristics about it... lol
@MAHADI I had thicker ones in place, but was playing around with them and just liked how these looked (visually). They may indeed be a little too "Pizza Cutter" though, and in reality I suspect they would all but require operating on a tarmac runway.
.
I did waffle about the Cockpit Block, to be honest.
My logic was this: The cockpit is, or was at one point, having an impact on drag. As the plane developed and I worked out the early, severe, bad flight behaviors... I had gotten worried that if I messed with it, I'd have to start over.
.
I suppose with it submitted as it is, it can act as a baseline and I can now go back through and fine tune some elements I may have overlooked or been reluctant to tackle. I'll certainly post the Fix when I do, as per you challenge rules.
Thanks for the feedback! ;)
EDIT: Yep, monkeying with that cockpit causes all sorts of new Drag Points...
As I've uploaded it: 1268
Calc Drag False: high 1500s True but Scaled: 1609
*sigh* Well, I'm always up for a challenge, but usually they're enjoyable. Down the rabbit hole I go!!
@LieutenantSOT I did better than I thought I would, given the creativity and workmanship of many here, but not as well as I wanted to... not that I expected I'd actually do as well as I wanted! lol I think I was in the top 10 (regardless of the 5 points I was erroneously docked), only a little above where you were actually.
.
Speaking of which, I liked the mid-fuselage Pusher, Delta Wing config you had. Particularly because it had a wing setup much like one I've been wanting to attempt :}
I don't think what I'm wanting to do will pan out, but, I still gotta try it one of these days! A "dynamic" wing, basically. I think the actual, real world variant's name is something like "Variable Geometry Airfoil" or close to that. I think BMW also made a concept car using the same tech, where the car's body shape was variable. In either case, the frame/skeleton of the wing can be moved on multiple axis, which when paired with its stretchable 'skin', produces the ability to change the shape of the wing and its aerodynamic properties.
.
But yea... Lots and lots and looots of control surfaces is my thought on how to bring it to SP! lol Which is why I'm not entirely sure it'll work out how I'm hoping...
Nice job, she's a beauty!
My small critique is just that I think the landing gear could be a tiny bit bigger, but that's purely an aesthetics reason, not a functional one. (But you'd have to modify each gear part's scale value via loading the save file in a text editor [aka XML editing], since mobile unfortunately can't install mods like FineTuner or Overload)
.
Since I've never been able to spotlight anyone when I've wanted to, due to everyone always being ranked higher than me... I'm glad I can finally!
@Clutch I had to do a lot of additional work under the hood in order to get it to fly right... at least, as far as I remember... lol This was made almost 2 months ago, so my memory is a bit fuzzy,
,
I just know that the 1/4 needed tons of work, through added multiple (internal) Air Brakes, just to get it to fly stable. Though, then on this 1/16 version (or 1/32, whatever it is lol), it didn't want to fly at all, only wanting to do flips after takeoff. So I had to adjust weight balance via fuel storage, tune the drag profile (via XML modding), remove/disable some or all of the internal air brakes, tinkered with the wings, and tuned the engine performance. Oh, and I added the external RC Antenna to this one as well!
.
All of this was done just because someone had made a super micro airport replica and I offered to make a tiny flyable aircraft for it. :P
.
In other words, my point is only that you needn't worry, I definitely won't upload (publicly) anything unless I've made considerable or significant changes to it first! Just, one has to keep in mind that not all changes are, or will be, visual in nature and that means two may look identical but be quite different ;)
It doesn't give me enough to rank, so it's no big deal really, I just found it curious that I was docked for that heh
To answer your question about what AG3 does: "War Emergency Power" (WEP) was/is a term designated to aircraft whereby engaging it would provide you with MORE power than the engine was designed to make. Early piston aircraft (some in WWII) had an easy to break cable attached to the throttle lever, and when the pilot pushed harder, the cable would break and allow for >100% engine power by increasing the airflow and fuel delivery.
.
The power gained was above what the engine manufacturer rated the engine for, so if it was a 2500HP engine, it may make 2700HP with WEP engaged. However, due to that fact, the engine operated at above spec stress levels which meant it would run hotter, consume more fuel, and need to be overhauled long before its usual servicing time. (Some other versions of WEP use Water and/or Alcohol injection instead, to increase engine outpout; water being an incompressible fluid would artificially increase combustion chamber's compression ratio which can yield more power, whereas alcohol can burn cleaner and cooler which can help with engine temperature. Jet engines have also been equipped with a version of WEP.) Here's the Wiki page about it, if you'd like to read more on it.
In my implementation of it, it's a Throttle Limiter, using this as Input Code: Activate3? Throttle : Throttle - 0.175
AG3 DISABLED: Full Throttle = 82.5%
AG3 ENABLED: Full Throttle = 100%
.
I mainly did this because I was short on time (was leaving for vacation) and needed an excuse for not wanting to go through hours of further fine tuning to adjust the flight profile by de-rating the engines, because... <see below>
... because at their current horsepower rating they resulted in my plane being able to fly too fast; thus, breaking Addendum Rule #8: "Propeller airplanes flying 1000+ km/h are not welcome." :(
Since that wasn't in the original post, I didn't see that rule until I was almost done with the main mechanics of the plane, and as I mentioned, I didn't have time to address that since everything was built around the engines being that powerful and propellers of that size and number.
So..... I used WEP as a realistic excuse, and all I needed to do was find a throttle value that didn't cause it to fly too fast, BUT, still allowed the plane to be CAPABLE of that speed by the press of a button! Seemed fair, to me, since fuel consumption was considerably more with WEP enabled! :D So it would be in one's best interest to only turn it on occasionally... if you wanted to leave enough fuel to make it back to a runway, that is. lol
TL;DR -
AG3 toggles War Emergency Power, which increases Max Throttle from 82.5%, to 100%.
Engine go VVROOOM! "Exhaust" flames get bigger and brighter.
Plane flies faster.
Plane maneuvers better.
Plane consumes a lot more fuel.
@CDRxavier heh What do you mean SimplePlanes doesn't run on Unity?
Of course it does! :P
If I could upload a screenshot directly to the comments, I'd show you, but since I can't you'll just have to go into your SimplePlanes game directory (assuming you're on a computer and not mobile). On Windows, in the main folder sits a file that is named UnityPlayer.dll. There's plenty of other things I could point out as further evidence, like mod making tools, but I don't think any more proof is really needed, is it? lol
@Clutch I saw that I was at 1030 just today when getting back online (been on vacation at the cabin since mid-July). :D
Either way, thanks!
.
I'll have to think of a Silver Trophy to make, to commemorate it, as that seems to be the thing folks do when achieving new ranks! lol
Tweaking airplanes is okay
- It is okay to download someone else's airplane, make some tweaks, and re-upload a new variation.
- In fact, the original designer may even receive bonus points.
- However, if your variation does not offer any improvements over the existing airplane, then it may be removed.
This version is --at least I think, but I'm really bad a math-- 1/32 scale (pretty sure the 1/16th I put in the description is wrong), of my original 1/4 scale version (linked in my profile but not here), which IS indeed the original Jundroo Kicking Fish. Not entirely sure why it didn't tag my other upload.
Either way, it's different compared to both versions, so not sure how it'd qualify as a repost? :P (Unless... I accidentally uploaded this twice, but that seems unlikely since I'd have had to edit both descriptions to enter the line breaks.)
@LunchBox Go'fer it :P I thought using just bullets from machineguns was a novel idea, and then I was like ! I could use super-slow moving cannon rounds as their own casings! lol
Ooh ho but then... Then brilliance struck, and I'm like HMMM... "These look great but... they're coming out facing the wrong way, the taper should be facing forwards, like the neck of a bullet casing! Would SP, by some small chance, let me, you know... shoot these backwards??? :>"
Sure enough, yes... it WILL let you shoot them backwards! lmao
So yea, don't forget to configure the "ejector" cannon's velocity to a NEGATIVE value, and also rotate the gun backwards, since it will now fire from the breach :}
It'd be interesting to know just WHERE it came up with all those drag points...
I disabled drag on all the tiny aesthetics stuff that otherwise would've added a lot, so I'm not sure where the extra 1000 came from compared to last time I checked >_>
You do you, Simple Planes lol
Will it make point-5 passed lightspeed?
Can you bullseye Womp Rats in it, like I used to do in my T-16 back home?
Yea... I didn't think so!
...
Huh?? o_0
What do you mean those things are just 'fantasy'... >_>
Did you not just see what GuyFolk managed to do with simple FunkyTrees coding?!? If he can pull off that, then certainly what I've said isn't fiction!! ;)
Seriously, impressive! Loving that camo as well! :D (Now I need to make a T-16........... Hmpf.)
@ThomasRoderick Yea I had a system going because I wanted to get through my tests quick, and so I wasn't doing anything unnecessary heh
I'd spawn in, then press R to switch to A2A targeting, and press F twice (usually) to switch to Flak Turret. Then press Tab to select a target provided one wasn't already. (Sometimes I'd go through that sequence so quick nothing would've spawned in yet)
.
I will gladly test again to make sure, as indeed my SP had been running for hours by that point and who knows if there was some other anomaly happening. As there were certainly times when NO aircraft were spawning for me, and I'd have to click on Restart.
.
But yea, what I did first, after you mentioned cockpit's location, was I relocated it to directly in the middle of the Flak turret, between the two barrels Y position.
Then, first, I just pressed R to let it reconnect. On that test, it was 180deg off, so I thought I did something wrong. Manually reconnected and tried again, same scenario. Then it clicked, that I needed to Invert the Rotator for the traverse.
.
Ok so step back for a moment. This is before I'd realized what's happening, but this to me seems like the first clue: If the part you're connecting to, its rotation, were to have no impact on anything... why would I have needed to toggle Invert on that rotator? (Not just an in-hindsight-question, but a legitimate question, in case I'm overlooking or missing something... @Sadboye12 you have extensive knowledge/experience, is there a reason you had inverted that rotator in the first place?)
.
After inverting, it was now pointing the right direction, but...... was still not properly aiming AT the target that was selected. So I went back into the designer and was setting up a new manual selection. NOTE: Since I had my cockpit buried inside a fuselage part, I was therefore selecting that part's Center attachment point, because I didn't want the game thinking that the cockpit was on an edge and that causing for some odd calculation mishap.
It's when the connect-to-part's point selection came up that I noticed the fuselage I was selecting the Center point on, its arrows was not pointing Up like usual. That's when it hit me that "Oh? Is fact the part is rotated also impacting things??"
So I opened Fine Tuner and sure enough, that part was 90, 90, 0. (could've been something slightly different, but X was 90)
.
Searching around the neighboring parts, the only one that was 0, 0, 0 was the back tapere
Unfortunately, the aim was still too high, but the Fuze timing now was much better. *(NOTE: The verdict of the Fuze was that for craft heading AT me, the 1370 [top cannon] code was dead on but the 1250 was detonating early; if traveling horizontally the detonated too late and too early, respectively, where probably 1310 is needed,)
This high-aim was what I would end up being plagued with it seemed. The lead on the aircraft (traverse) was now roughly where it needed to be, but the elevation was off, which I'm not exactly sure what I need to adjust in the Elevation code to address that. Feels like the Gravity is off, yet touching that any makes it WAY off so that's not it. Those 2000 numbers don't seem to do anything when using 2000 or 1000, and the '2' in the pow(2000, 2) seems to have the same massive detrimental impact that adjusting the gravity does (just in a different way).
TL;DR -
What I've found is that moving the cockpit to the center of the Flak turret, between each cannon barrel's Y coord, is indeed best.
That mounting the Cockpit directly to a part that is rotated, impacts how SP references how its spawned in and therefore its calculations. (I did not test with the cockpit rotated in the opposite direction of the part it's connected to, though)
The Fuze timing is pretty good, but maybe could use a Randomizer to select a value between 1250 and 1370. Would lerp or pingpong be possible?
And that at the end of the day, its always shooting too high, by quite a bit, causing a miss. Roughly an amount equal to .... 20-30meters? (I'm an Imperial, so yea, but it's >5 plane height's worth).
.
Lastly, as I quickly glanced at Snowflake's page, the only conclusion I can now come to on what might solve it, is using sin instead of asin? (I'm guessing, I have no math abilities, but plan to try this in a bit, after I get back from doing some stuff!)
Problem is, I see it uses BOTH, and so, maybe removal of the asin? *epic shrug* :\
[/massive wall of text]
@scratch I can (unfortunately) confirm everything you just said is still the case, as I just experienced that last week :( Built a new plane with fuselage set to 45deg and rounded on the bottom...
Only to have it spawn in, floating, unsupported by its landing gear :frumpyface:
I worked around it, but... still annoying.
.
Even then, circling back, it's easy for even brand new players to already be aware that the darned Hollow is only thus visually. Hide anything inside one in the editor and you have to zoom in beyond the Hollow fuselage in order to re-select it... TT
(I have a QoL buglist a mile long that I could post, if I felt any of it might _actually get addressed! lol)_
Ok so it's not being used in the best situation in this build (to show it off), but I was shoehorning this into another build, while being up against having two fuselage walls clipping into the camera's view which dictated where the Cockpit Part could be, and the actual mini-cockpit clipping through the outside of the plane which dictated how much spacing I could give it all...
.
Either way, for anyone interested in looking at it in-game, you can check it out here.
(location is just inside the fuselage, in front of the front two windscreen windows)
lawl Put it on a part-count-diet, only to have it come in at 26 parts HIGHER... GG, me.
Still, it was a good trade, IMO! Though my "derpy cockpit" ate up 30 just by itself. Slats system accounted for another ~50ish total, and then another 5 for the ConTrail system.
@winterro I think you mean 53 lol
(at least, that's what it is now, 10hrs after your pinned post stating only 35 haha)
Oh hell, I just now realized my rather embarrassing mistake... having erroneously thinking FineTuner and Overload were both made by WNP78...
Come to realize, in a huge facepalm-moment, that FineTuner was made by HellFire lol
.
... And none of you pointed it out to me! I thought you were my friends!!! haha
Anyways, yea, @HellFireKoder, pinging you now since the majority of the requests are specific to FineTuner (the external mod).
The TL;DR- of it is that while I know there's a built-in and simplified Fine Tuner menu, I'm not requesting that be what these get added to. Instead, at least initially, I'm hoping that these requests are beneficial enough to merit their inclusion into the original and more-powerful external mod. That way, it won't impact SP directly since these wouldn't be added to the built-in menu (due to lacking MultiSelect functionality).
Personally I feel these FineTuner-specific things like
Create a SubAssem from MutliSelectedparts, or buttons to manipulate MultiSelected parts toFlip Up/DownandMirror-in-Placeetc (mentioned in the 2nd post from the bottom) would be highly beneficial to have!.
Thanks for your time, and especially for the original FineTuner!
I suck at math but...
2021 - 1999 = 22
2021 - 1990 = 31
Not everyone playing SP was even born in the 90s; ergo, some of these perplexed commenters may not have come across such a peculiar beast. :)
Just like not everyone has heard of the Caspian Sea Monster, which was both a ship that doesn't sail as well as a plane that doesn't fly! lol
(Unfortunately, these days we as a people seem much less willing to think and create things on the same absurd levels as we once were, which is why I personally don't find it too surprising that people today are so blown away by some older things from a bygone era.)
Beautifully made :)
On a side note, I opened the console and got a kick out of this...
Large aircraft detected (56401.21 cubic meters). Reducing precision of drag calculationsSo it's official... even SP says "Oooh she thicc!!" lol
@AWESOMENESS360 I don't know how much help this'll be since I'm a total ignoramous when it comes to FT... Nevertheless, can't hurt to type it!
What I found out recently when trying to get just a NON-AI auto-aim turret to work, was that everything is based off the Cockpit always facing one direction (ie: statically oriented, not dynamic). Otherwise, as it tries to re-calculate, the turret has turned the cockpit, and basically ends up having no idea where it is or how much it needs to move; thus, spazzing out.
.
That also was true for having it set to being inclined at all (rotated), as if I recall from my tests a few months ago, it caused issues if I had my main cockpit (not attached to the turret) angled at even
X: -2simply for aesthetical reasons -- this would also cause the Cockpit Camera's crosshairs to be off, too..
More importantly, I believe EVERY turret code I had stumbled across, ended up being configured for a TOP mount... but I was wanting it to be a BELOW mounted bubble, on my plane. As such, up became down, left became right... but it also felt like there was even more than just that, since I would try to do the obvious of setting those Rotators to be "Inverted", except it didn't fix it.
Ultimately, I ended up having to invert it through the FT's "control output" part of the code, since it was still technically needing to TRACK with everything oriented as up-is-up/left-is-left. So it seemed that inverting just the rotator was also impacting that part, making it think the target was moving in the opposite direction.
[msg 1 of 2]
[addendum rambling]
And yes, I hate, and am ashamed of the way the skids behave. I put in so, so many hours with the damn things, trying to find some sort of combo or work-around.
I really do apologize to everyone for not being able to figure something out T_T
@STDeath Glad you like it :)
It's flight characteristics were honestly not as good as I hoped, but I spent a lot of time fine tuning the Center of Mass (CoM/Red dot). Too far towards the back and it starts getting really really unstable, typically only during Nose-Down pitching where it'll suddenly start to Roll, but definitely during Nose-Down combined WITH a Roll... Then it would stall and flat-spin.
Too far forward though, prohibits its ability to pull tight loops... Making it less-capable as a dog fighter (and why I relegated it to not be classified as a full-on assault fighter).
.
I think that I had to use so many wing sections that needed to be set to "Symmetrical" was part of issue. If I changed the other segments to "Semi-Symm" or "Flat Bottom", then the rear would create too much lift, inducing undesireable nose pitching... meaning changing CoM... meaning even worse flight characteristics lol
.
I can't take full credit for the engines, having myself seen someone make long ones (albeit 10x larger) on a space type craft, using rows of the VTOL Thrusters.
@Sadboye12 showed me the trick with the Glass, setting its Transparency to -100 (XML edit) and then painting it the INVERSE color you want. Doing so then makes it "glow" (day or night; beautiful at night though) and so I used that for the engine-idle appearance.
.
Feel free to use any parts or ideas from it! :)
[/end rambling]
@WNP78 Presumably "too late" is in reference to the impending update coming out?
If so, I wholeheartedly agree. Don't worry, I know better than to ask for things to be squeezed in last minute (particularly with software).
.
However, if you meant in terms of addressing QoL requests by adding them into SP, then that's a bit disheartening to hear...
Unless *thinks*... it infers there's "no point", because of something heretofore unannounced that's on the horizon, and the development of which is near completion... o_0
.
heh Because that, along with you mentioning both are integrated into the stock game, has me otherwise perplexed. As currently, other than "Fine Tuner" menu (which is less powerful due to lacking 'MultiSelect'), I wasn't aware that Overload was built into the game...
My game needs your Overload.spmod in my Mods directory in order for me to gain in-game XML editing. Hence why I was making these requests for the standalone mods. Primarily because, as I mentioned, the built in Fine Tuner isn't as capable as the original standalone variant -- not just in the context of lacking MultiSelect and the Scale abilities, but because the original's menu is far-more user friendly since all the sliders/input boxes are accessible w/o having to scroll. (That's 25% of the reason why I don't use the built-in Fine Tuner, the remaining 75% is lack of MultiSelect; I could make due Scaling via editing it in Overload.)
At any rate, I hope your response isn't as Doom and Gloom as I've taken it to be, as having those kind of things addressed (be it added to the game directly, or just the external mods) would make things much easier. (Heck, I'd ask if I could add them to the mods myself,... if I knew how to code. Or even if I had the bandwidth to download all the crap I'd need in order to compile stuff [SDKs and Unity Engine etc], and try to learn. Curse you, rural life!)
Either way, thanks for replying!
@WNP78 Just noticed that in my main post above, it didn't ping you, so that's what this is.
@V heh Well, every once in awhile, my ramblings manage to sum up everything that's needed!
(although according to my Notifications last night, James did leave one, but must've felt it wasn't needed [which is absolutely fine])
I did recall another Suggestion that I had originally thought of, but forgotten about while making the above list... So I'll just add it here, as comment fodder for everyone to determine where it should fall in that list:
<3
@jamesPLANESii I don't know if others feel the same way, but personally I'm not sure how confident I am in their UserVoice system. :(
.
We only get a few points to distribute.
We can't (as I understand it) submit a Bug/Suggestion until you've reached a certain "rank", which I believe requires you using x-number of said points.
But worst of all is the shear number of submissions already, which makes me feel like anything I could offer would be lost in the noise. There's almost 1600 currently.
.
Primarily, with that last part, it's the lack of seeing any official comments on things there. Even if it were that it gets flagged as "Read by the Developer" it'd instill some confidence that what was submitted has at least been seen, despite not being acknowledged.
.
Oh, and this:
Since they don't acknowledge and close suggestions, we don't get our points back. Since we can't get our points back, we have to remove them from what we've previously applied them to should we find something that we like more, regardless of whether we still feel the other voted-for ticket has significant merit.
.
Don't get me wrong though, I did my civic duty and spent all my points months ago, and commented on some issues as well. Of those I've commented on, I like these two (I'm the user C S):
Overhaul the drag model
Torque settings for car engines
@Vincent Could you please remove this submission as a Successor to CaptainSkylark's WWI Challenge?
It was an oversight on my part, and didn't mean for it to be.
Thanks! :)
Yep this did the trick and functions just as I envisioned!
Activate1 * (0.9 * Throttle + 0.1)Ah ok... Well ugh lol
Shame it's not as user-friendly as I'd had hoped :(
Thanks for the explanation @CenturyAerospace!
Also for the clarification there @jamesPLANESii
.
I'll give that a look as well @FeatherWing, thank you :)
@CaptainSkylark Yea I apologize Mahadi, that was my fail....
I used the plane that was my entry as the starting point, having completely forgotten that it would've also been tied to your challenge. That was not my intention, sorry for the confusion.
Do you, or anyone know, if SP Moderators are able to modify that sort of thing w/o me having to delete and re-upload this??
ahah DERP! Serves me right for loading my WWI Challenge submission and building it from that... :P
@WNP78 (and CoolPeach) Thanks for chiming in with that. I will admit that I had a preconceived notion that SP was deciphering the values from the NACA code, using that to define the shape of the Airfoil, and letting the physics engine handle how it actually performed.
.
As a result, admittedly, I didn't consider that there was lots of precompiled data the game was running off of. Definitely a failure on my part (for assuming it was done in some sort of real-time way). :} I suppose I was basing all of this on thinking that the wing physics were done in a same/similar way to the Drag Points (which are dynamic).
.
That being said, if adding one or two more airfoils happens to not be a monumental task... I do think having one of the NACA/NASA Laminar Flow models, and an early 1900s model, would be a nice addition and give folk a bit more choice.
There are a bunch of Laminar airfoils and their performance data (a number of which are not NACA/NASA, if that matters) that can be found in this huge "Parametric Airfoil Catalog - Part II" PDF. (There's also Part I, but I haven't looked at it.)
Not sure if the data provided in there is at all what's needed, regarding what WNP78 said?
Bonus Question (open to anyone that knows): Does changing the
RootandTipthickness have any physics impact, or is it solely for aesthetics?@CoolPeach Yea there's just those three NACA codes that work (plus the
NACAPROP), which coincide with the actual 3 options we can select in the menu. I tried to include that in my EDIT2, but reached the 4000 char limit on posts... :}I'm actually a bit surprised that they didn't implement that 4 & 5 code ability, given it's a straight forward equation to decipher them. ("straight forward" for a computer to work out, but even someone like me who can barely add numbers together can still make sense of it to some degree lol)
.
Wouldn't even need to be tied to anything in the menu, to preserve the "Simple" nature of the game, only there as a hidden feature for those adventurous enough to dive into the more advanced stuff.
Personally it's all over my head, as I mentioned, but I'd still like the ability to try out different stuff! Specifically due to more recently having made some WWI era stuff and wishing I could be more accurate by using those very deep airfoils some of those planes had. (I've considered using very thin strips of Wing-3 back to back, angling each one a bit in order to recreate how some look, but I don't know if it'd yield the same results heh)
,
I also think it'd be great if the wing mesh would mimic the airfoil we have selected, given the game technically has that ability with what Fuselage parts can do: Rise, Run, and Custom corners. So like a Flat-Bottom for corners would use
0,0,0,3, or Semi-Symm as0,0,1,3....Though... I won't hold my breath on either feature coming anytime soon (or ever). :P
I'm a total idiot here in terms of the math/science, but for what it's worth, here's a couple things I found these last 2 days, as well as in general.
1) "Flat Bottom" flies the best. It results in better handling, the plane flies faster, and seems to be better (easier) for taking off.
--Example: This "Coanda 1910" I just built, with a legitimately modeled Turbine (though I have a feeling the "20inch" measurement I read about is a radius [a turbine blade's length], not the turbine's diameter, but I digress) with the main Propeller set at 50HP.
WING SET TO 'FLAT BOTTOM': Plane will automatically, and gently, take off on its own at 73MPH, and level out on its own with a flat (maybe 1deg) AoA, cruising at 72MPH.
WING SET TO 'SEMI-SYMMETRIC': Plane will reach 67MPH and never takes off. That's its max top speed. Note: In both cases, the plane's tail (the X fins are Symm, the wide fixed tail 'wing' is Flat-Bott) rises up around 30MPH and the plane is sitting at 0deg as it travels down the runway,
,
2) Using the Hover Car, during ascent at a low speed (if you switch the BFE300 Input from
VTOLtoThrottle, at roughly 10%), transitioning the nacelles at various steps on the TRIM slider, produces a very sudden shift between the way the wings produce lift. Seems to be around the time they're at... hmm... 25-30deg (above horizon; not from their vertical orientation). At that point the whole thing pitches as though the game's calculations have switched gears,,
3) SEE EDIT2 The note on the SimpleCheats document about the Wing Airfoils, is a lie T_T
You cannot input the NACA values and apply them. At least not using the Overload mod's menu. It claims invalid input and "restores" a backup. I was wanting to try
naca63415, and I attempted using it with lowercase, uppercase, inside quotes, just the numbers, and even the provided "NACA23015" that it claims the game uses.Note: I could easily have misunderstood the document's note about that specific entry, and in fact it was -not- implying that we could input ANY valid NACA airfoil value...
EDIT: I think the NACAPROP's superpower is.... for use as a Canard airfoil...
I tested that on my Coanda 1910, and it's top speed rocketed to 83MPH; however, it was unable to achieve takeoff at all, due to creating exceptional downforce. I attempted to counter it by changing the
invertedsetting (via Overload), but same results.Then I tried it on my de Bruyere xC.2 (albeit with a Jet engine), which has fully moving canards (no rear ailerons or horizontal fins).
They both auto-takeoff at roughly 180MPH, but with the canard wings set to NACAPROP it gets there faster it seems.
----While set to Symmetrical, the nose will continue to pitch up until the entire plane is 99% stalled at 90deg) and then the nose finally crests and makes the loop. It attains roughly 360mph during its nose dive before crashing into the ocean at roughly 60deg still (it cannot self-recover).----While set to NACAPROP, the nose continues to pitch up, but is arrested around 60deg. Which then, despite the plane not being stalled out, the nose starts to drop a little. Then once sufficient forward speed is attained, the cycle repeats, but no full loop occurs (or anywhere close)..
EDIT2: Ok it seems it DOES support the 3 NACA codes. I must've typoed earlier when trying.
Woah, Richard Dean Anderson plays SimplePlanes?? lol
.
If so, I can't wait to see the USS General Hammond, or an F-102!
Jokes aside (unless you really are -that- RDA...)
I'll have to download this just to see just how fast that thing is with four massive BFE300s... :D
EDIT: Yep, it was fast lol Though it has its quirks, too... Or perhaps more accurately, a bit of a learning curve for flying it. I had to switch it over to Throttle instead of VTOL input (as a computer user) and that helped. As then I was able to associate a % value to a level of thrust needed.
@STDeath Glad you like it! ^_^
I agree, it's a different feel than a normal Biplane, and handles a lot differently from anything I've built to date. It's slow, and it isn't super capable or agile, but it'd sure make for a great real-life personal plane to just go up to enjoy a cruise. :P
.
The next one I'm working on, which does have a "jet" engine, will probably invoke an even more steampunk feel for you. :D
I don't think it'll use a different plane design/layout, but I can't say yet since I haven't gotten into that one. I only had the plan in my head for what's next. The less I have to change, the faster I'll be able to get that completed though, for certain. Which does seem to keep with the old-days of flight: Innovate new stuff around a single testbed once you have something that is known to fly. (Or I guess modern days, again, thanks to SpaceX! As they're doing that with Starship.)
It does look great with the jet's flame, doesn't it?? :D
.
Pretty close in terms of what I was going for: This one that I uploaded, the -DP stands for "Ducted Propellers", and had no actual compressor or inclusion of additionally burned fuel.
HOWEVER, you're not far off because originally that's exactly what I had, was an engine down there instead of the 5 small propellers. My jet's nozzle was extending just out of the rear Inlet, and its
exhaustScalewas set to2.5,2.5,1I just wish that in SP, setting the power to 0, also meant it didn't consume any additional fuel :( I wanted to add a VTOL engine so I could use a thruster in each of the V8's exhaust pipes, but it was a massive drain on the limited fuel it had (and I didn't want to include an infinite fuel supply for immersion sake lol).
,
(TIP: Your jet still has its
massScaleset to1, so that throws off the CoM which upsets its flying behavior.)@Flewey Naw, it's definitely something that I can admit has become a labor of love... :}
I just feel like there is/was potential in that absurd C1 design, but just as well after finishing that bird, I saw all these various ways I wanted to transform it into something more modernized.
.
I have no clue how they will eventually turn out, if they'll be good planes or equally plagued with issues needing ironing out -- cursed, as you put it lol.
But thankfully I have the ability to pull on the strings that govern the physics in the universe of SimplePlanes, so if there's a will -- and clearly I have one -- then there's definitely a way to get such a best like this to be functional! :D
.
Truth be told, I'm almost certain that some of the issue with how it performs, at least in SP, is the lack of any real details on the C1 [CoM for example], but also the horribly underpowered propulsion system. At one point on the C1 I gave its prop way more power, and it took out a lot of the cursed issues with it. Similarly, once i gave this design a jet (in that under-slung pod), it was phenomenal... Alas, such a powerful jet was outside the scope of the challenge, so I had to drastically detune it.
... It's the builds I have in mind that are beyond this WWI Challenge that are going to be of interest for me, and what I'm really looking forward to playing with! ^_^
@MAHADI
...pulls hands away from keyboard...Yessir :} lol
@STDeath Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed both!
And I agree, the hindsight we are afforded thanks to human history being documented, plus our natural creativity, opens so many doors to curious and interesting new things... even if it IS purely fiction :D
@Flewey ROFL
I take great pride in that response, thank you! :D
.
Alhough, I'm not 100% sure what it's exactly in response to...
Whether it's to this build, or my claim to allow "crude jets" in WWI planes, or specifically my example about a "conventional engine that drives a shaft with turbine blades".... :P
If by chance it's that last one, I couldn't remember what it was called in the moment but it's a "Motorjet" lol
Which actually is even MORE fuel to my claim, since it indicates dates of 1908 and 1917... and, even more perfect: France! (It was that 1930 Caproni Campini N.1 that was where I first learned of such an engine combo)
2/2
In conclusion, it seems that a low-power Turbine concept (crude 'jet') is actually inside the timeframe of the era. Therefore, something such as a conventional gas engine that drives a shaft with turbine blades where additional fuel is injected for added thrust, or a primitive sort of turbo-prop configuration, would be plausible and valid methods of propulsion for a Fictional WWI-era vehicle... :D
(at least that's my two cents worth)
@MAHADI I'm just going to bring this up here and run it by you.... Even though it technically doesn't help this build while using propellers, I'd be able to submit a 'fix' for it!
I believe I've found legitimate evidence that opens up Internal Combustion Turbine engines for use in WWI-era vehicles... O_O
Hans Holzwarth 1905 patent# US783434A for a "Rotary Combustion Engine".
(I've only made small grammatical corrections to this digitization's auto-transcription of the original text, where some words were not spaced apart; also a single 'typo'.)
My invention relates to internal-combustion engines..
The object of my invention is to provide means for the practical application of the direct force
developed by combustion in the operation of a turbine. In an ordinary turbine no means are
provided for compressing combustible gases nor for confining such gases during ignition
even though a preliminary compression were provided for.
.
My invention therefore contemplates the provision of separate expansible combustion
chambers in which a compression may be secured (at least a final compression)
and which will offer sufficient resistance to the initial pressure of the burning gases to
produce a complete ignition and then deliver the gases into the turbine in a manner to
develop the highest efficiency.
.
My invention also contemplates utilizing the force expended in expanding one
combustion-chamber to produce a final compression in another similar chamber, the
arrangement being such that a four-cycle movement is secured by successive ignitions in a
set of four chambers without reference to the movement of the turbine and entirely
independent thereof.
Furthermore, in 1910, a (seemingly different) Holzwarth's design managed 200HP (150kW):
1910: Holzwarth impulse turbine (pulse combustion) achieved 150 kW (200 hp)..
Almost more notable is that in 1903, another inventor managed to achieve an output that was greater than the input requirement to run the turbine:
1903: A Norwegian, Ægidius Elling, built the first gas turbine that was able to produce morepower than needed to run its own components, which was considered an achievement
in a time when knowledge about aerodynamics was limited. Using rotary compressors
and turbines it produced 11 hp.
Both of these quotes came from: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas
@MAHADI lol All 5 of them are inside the fuselage, in that bottom protrusion spanning from the rear wheels to the front Inlets.
xC.2-DP = Ducted Propellers :}
Aaand now my fingers hurt from all that typing!
@MAHADI My second "entry" for the WWI Challenge. It is
notjet powered, but, I'll also understand if you feel it is not valid.I made this purely for the fun and joy of making it, being quite pleased with the end result either way! :)
Yea, it's more difficult to make modifications on mobile, but it's still possible as I mentioned. You just have to find where iOS stores your plane's files and then load it into any Text Editor software.
.
However, that doesn't make it "easy" by any means... LOL
The text you are then looking at, is quite confusing. Furthermore, not all of the things you can change/modify are even in the file by default (to keep file sizes down). That's the most annoying and difficult part in my opinion :(
For wheels though, I think if you change the
SizeandWidthin the Part Settings menu, then they will show up in the file. From there you just have to edit it to a value that's beyond the menu's capability. :)Updated Mk.II version is now available (with changelog).
@Flewey Yes lol That sums it up rather well...
As does the couple pictures of the real one's crash. (I spare linking since all one has to do is plug into Google Images: de Bruyere C1)
Which on that note, for a plane that was not successful and did not make it beyond a first test flight... it's impressive that there are ANY photos of it, over 100 years later! Makes me feel as though it really was cutting edge and forward thinking, or at the very least that it was "unique enough" to people that merited holding onto the photos!
I have plans to "continue development" of this plane, in an Alternate Timeline sort of sense. I already have one variant made, which I absolutely love, It's not quite finished yet, but just about.
It flies a little better, though definitely has a lot of the same (not-ideal) flight characteristics about it... lol
@MAHADI I had thicker ones in place, but was playing around with them and just liked how these looked (visually). They may indeed be a little too "Pizza Cutter" though, and in reality I suspect they would all but require operating on a tarmac runway.
.
I did waffle about the Cockpit Block, to be honest.
My logic was this: The cockpit is, or was at one point, having an impact on drag. As the plane developed and I worked out the early, severe, bad flight behaviors... I had gotten worried that if I messed with it, I'd have to start over.
.
I suppose with it submitted as it is, it can act as a baseline and I can now go back through and fine tune some elements I may have overlooked or been reluctant to tackle. I'll certainly post the Fix when I do, as per you challenge rules.
Thanks for the feedback! ;)
EDIT: Yep, monkeying with that cockpit causes all sorts of new Drag Points...
As I've uploaded it: 1268
Calc Drag
False: high 1500sTruebut Scaled: 1609*sigh* Well, I'm always up for a challenge, but usually they're enjoyable. Down the rabbit hole I go!!
@LieutenantSOT I did better than I thought I would, given the creativity and workmanship of many here, but not as well as I wanted to... not that I expected I'd actually do as well as I wanted! lol I think I was in the top 10 (regardless of the 5 points I was erroneously docked), only a little above where you were actually.
.
Speaking of which, I liked the mid-fuselage Pusher, Delta Wing config you had. Particularly because it had a wing setup much like one I've been wanting to attempt :}
I don't think what I'm wanting to do will pan out, but, I still gotta try it one of these days! A "dynamic" wing, basically. I think the actual, real world variant's name is something like "Variable Geometry Airfoil" or close to that. I think BMW also made a concept car using the same tech, where the car's body shape was variable. In either case, the frame/skeleton of the wing can be moved on multiple axis, which when paired with its stretchable 'skin', produces the ability to change the shape of the wing and its aerodynamic properties.
.
But yea... Lots and lots and looots of control surfaces is my thought on how to bring it to SP! lol Which is why I'm not entirely sure it'll work out how I'm hoping...
Nice job, she's a beauty!
My small critique is just that I think the landing gear could be a tiny bit bigger, but that's purely an aesthetics reason, not a functional one. (But you'd have to modify each gear part's scale value via loading the save file in a text editor [aka XML editing], since mobile unfortunately can't install mods like FineTuner or Overload)
.
Since I've never been able to spotlight anyone when I've wanted to, due to everyone always being ranked higher than me... I'm glad I can finally!
@Clutch I had to do a lot of additional work under the hood in order to get it to fly right... at least, as far as I remember... lol This was made almost 2 months ago, so my memory is a bit fuzzy,
,
I just know that the 1/4 needed tons of work, through added multiple (internal) Air Brakes, just to get it to fly stable. Though, then on this 1/16 version (or 1/32, whatever it is lol), it didn't want to fly at all, only wanting to do flips after takeoff. So I had to adjust weight balance via fuel storage, tune the drag profile (via XML modding), remove/disable some or all of the internal air brakes, tinkered with the wings, and tuned the engine performance. Oh, and I added the external RC Antenna to this one as well!
.
All of this was done just because someone had made a super micro airport replica and I offered to make a tiny flyable aircraft for it. :P
.
In other words, my point is only that you needn't worry, I definitely won't upload (publicly) anything unless I've made considerable or significant changes to it first! Just, one has to keep in mind that not all changes are, or will be, visual in nature and that means two may look identical but be quite different ;)
@Astro12 I dunno why I got -5 points for not being a Successor of your Challenge (Rule 1), when it is indeed a Successor... o_0
This is the same link you included in your post above:
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/ZY1ALD/Three-Five-Zero-Division-TFZ-9UFF-Mk-Va-Unconventional-Fast-Fighter-aka-PUFF?showAllComments=true
First line says:
It doesn't give me enough to rank, so it's no big deal really, I just found it curious that I was docked for that heh
To answer your question about what AG3 does: "War Emergency Power" (WEP) was/is a term designated to aircraft whereby engaging it would provide you with MORE power than the engine was designed to make. Early piston aircraft (some in WWII) had an easy to break cable attached to the throttle lever, and when the pilot pushed harder, the cable would break and allow for >100% engine power by increasing the airflow and fuel delivery.
.
The power gained was above what the engine manufacturer rated the engine for, so if it was a 2500HP engine, it may make 2700HP with WEP engaged. However, due to that fact, the engine operated at above spec stress levels which meant it would run hotter, consume more fuel, and need to be overhauled long before its usual servicing time. (Some other versions of WEP use Water and/or Alcohol injection instead, to increase engine outpout; water being an incompressible fluid would artificially increase combustion chamber's compression ratio which can yield more power, whereas alcohol can burn cleaner and cooler which can help with engine temperature. Jet engines have also been equipped with a version of WEP.)
Here's the Wiki page about it, if you'd like to read more on it.
In my implementation of it, it's a Throttle Limiter, using this as Input Code:
Activate3? Throttle : Throttle - 0.175AG3 DISABLED: Full Throttle = 82.5%
AG3 ENABLED: Full Throttle = 100%
.
I mainly did this because I was short on time (was leaving for vacation) and needed an excuse for not wanting to go through hours of further fine tuning to adjust the flight profile by de-rating the engines, because... <see below>
... because at their current horsepower rating they resulted in my plane being able to fly too fast; thus, breaking Addendum Rule #8: "Propeller airplanes flying 1000+ km/h are not welcome." :(
Since that wasn't in the original post, I didn't see that rule until I was almost done with the main mechanics of the plane, and as I mentioned, I didn't have time to address that since everything was built around the engines being that powerful and propellers of that size and number.
So..... I used WEP as a realistic excuse, and all I needed to do was find a throttle value that didn't cause it to fly too fast, BUT, still allowed the plane to be CAPABLE of that speed by the press of a button! Seemed fair, to me, since fuel consumption was considerably more with WEP enabled! :D So it would be in one's best interest to only turn it on occasionally... if you wanted to leave enough fuel to make it back to a runway, that is. lol
TL;DR -
AG3toggles War Emergency Power, which increases Max Throttle from 82.5%, to 100%.Engine go VVROOOM! "Exhaust" flames get bigger and brighter.
Plane flies faster.
Plane maneuvers better.
Plane consumes a lot more fuel.
@CDRxavier heh What do you mean SimplePlanes doesn't run on Unity?
Of course it does! :P
If I could upload a screenshot directly to the comments, I'd show you, but since I can't you'll just have to go into your SimplePlanes game directory (assuming you're on a computer and not mobile). On Windows, in the main folder sits a file that is named
UnityPlayer.dll. There's plenty of other things I could point out as further evidence, like mod making tools, but I don't think any more proof is really needed, is it? lol@Clutch I saw that I was at 1030 just today when getting back online (been on vacation at the cabin since mid-July). :D
Either way, thanks!
.
I'll have to think of a Silver Trophy to make, to commemorate it, as that seems to be the thing folks do when achieving new ranks! lol
@Clutch A repost in what way?
This version is --at least I think, but I'm really bad a math-- 1/32 scale (pretty sure the 1/16th I put in the description is wrong), of my original 1/4 scale version (linked in my profile but not here), which IS indeed the original Jundroo Kicking Fish. Not entirely sure why it didn't tag my other upload.
Either way, it's different compared to both versions, so not sure how it'd qualify as a repost? :P (Unless... I accidentally uploaded this twice, but that seems unlikely since I'd have had to edit both descriptions to enter the line breaks.)
I'm back from the cabin...
Was a winner ever selected for this?
@LunchBox Go'fer it :P I thought using just bullets from machineguns was a novel idea, and then I was like ! I could use super-slow moving cannon rounds as their own casings! lol
Ooh ho but then... Then brilliance struck, and I'm like HMMM... "These look great but... they're coming out facing the wrong way, the taper should be facing forwards, like the neck of a bullet casing! Would SP, by some small chance, let me, you know... shoot these backwards??? :>"
Sure enough, yes... it WILL let you shoot them backwards! lmao
So yea, don't forget to configure the "ejector" cannon's velocity to a NEGATIVE value, and also rotate the gun backwards, since it will now fire from the breach :}
It'd be interesting to know just WHERE it came up with all those drag points...
I disabled drag on all the tiny aesthetics stuff that otherwise would've added a lot, so I'm not sure where the extra 1000 came from compared to last time I checked >_>
You do you, Simple Planes lol
Will it make point-5 passed lightspeed?
Can you bullseye Womp Rats in it, like I used to do in my T-16 back home?
Yea... I didn't think so!
...
Huh?? o_0
What do you mean those things are just 'fantasy'... >_>
Did you not just see what GuyFolk managed to do with simple FunkyTrees coding?!? If he can pull off that, then certainly what I've said isn't fiction!! ;)
Seriously, impressive! Loving that camo as well! :D
(Now I need to make a T-16........... Hmpf.)
1/2
@ThomasRoderick Yea I had a system going because I wanted to get through my tests quick, and so I wasn't doing anything unnecessary heh
I'd spawn in, then press R to switch to A2A targeting, and press F twice (usually) to switch to Flak Turret. Then press Tab to select a target provided one wasn't already. (Sometimes I'd go through that sequence so quick nothing would've spawned in yet)
.
I will gladly test again to make sure, as indeed my SP had been running for hours by that point and who knows if there was some other anomaly happening. As there were certainly times when NO aircraft were spawning for me, and I'd have to click on Restart.
.
But yea, what I did first, after you mentioned cockpit's location, was I relocated it to directly in the middle of the Flak turret, between the two barrels Y position.
Then, first, I just pressed R to let it reconnect. On that test, it was 180deg off, so I thought I did something wrong. Manually reconnected and tried again, same scenario. Then it clicked, that I needed to Invert the Rotator for the traverse.
.
Ok so step back for a moment. This is before I'd realized what's happening, but this to me seems like the first clue: If the part you're connecting to, its rotation, were to have no impact on anything... why would I have needed to toggle Invert on that rotator? (Not just an in-hindsight-question, but a legitimate question, in case I'm overlooking or missing something... @Sadboye12 you have extensive knowledge/experience, is there a reason you had inverted that rotator in the first place?)
.
After inverting, it was now pointing the right direction, but...... was still not properly aiming AT the target that was selected. So I went back into the designer and was setting up a new manual selection.
NOTE: Since I had my cockpit buried inside a fuselage part, I was therefore selecting that part's Center attachment point, because I didn't want the game thinking that the cockpit was on an edge and that causing for some odd calculation mishap.
It's when the connect-to-part's point selection came up that I noticed the fuselage I was selecting the Center point on, its arrows was not pointing Up like usual. That's when it hit me that "Oh? Is fact the part is rotated also impacting things??"
So I opened Fine Tuner and sure enough, that part was
90, 90, 0. (could've been something slightly different, but X was 90).
Searching around the neighboring parts, the only one that was
0, 0, 0was the back tapere2/2
Unfortunately, the aim was still too high, but the Fuze timing now was much better. *(NOTE: The verdict of the Fuze was that for craft heading AT me, the 1370 [top cannon] code was dead on but the 1250 was detonating early; if traveling horizontally the detonated too late and too early, respectively, where probably 1310 is needed,)
This high-aim was what I would end up being plagued with it seemed. The lead on the aircraft (traverse) was now roughly where it needed to be, but the elevation was off, which I'm not exactly sure what I need to adjust in the Elevation code to address that. Feels like the Gravity is off, yet touching that any makes it WAY off so that's not it. Those 2000 numbers don't seem to do anything when using 2000 or 1000, and the '2' in the
pow(2000, 2)seems to have the same massive detrimental impact that adjusting the gravity does (just in a different way).TL;DR -
What I've found is that moving the cockpit to the center of the Flak turret, between each cannon barrel's Y coord, is indeed best.
That mounting the Cockpit directly to a part that is rotated, impacts how SP references how its spawned in and therefore its calculations. (I did not test with the cockpit rotated in the opposite direction of the part it's connected to, though)
The Fuze timing is pretty good, but maybe could use a Randomizer to select a value between 1250 and 1370. Would
lerporpingpongbe possible?And that at the end of the day, its always shooting too high, by quite a bit, causing a miss. Roughly an amount equal to .... 20-30meters? (I'm an Imperial, so yea, but it's >5 plane height's worth).
.
Lastly, as I quickly glanced at Snowflake's page, the only conclusion I can now come to on what might solve it, is using
sininstead ofasin? (I'm guessing, I have no math abilities, but plan to try this in a bit, after I get back from doing some stuff!)Problem is, I see it uses BOTH, and so, maybe removal of the
asin? *epic shrug* :\[/massive wall of text]