If your bio is just going to be a direct copy/paste of the entire Constitution:
1. I don't think everyone really needs to know about it
2. You should probably cite the actual Constitution somewhere either at the top or the bottom.
Here's the formatting guide. Beyond that, some people have figured out more advanced things (like view counters) that you'd have to ask them directly about.
Well, if you don't want to spend money on Steam, SimplePlanes is also available for purchase from GOG and Humble Bundle!
If you don't want to spend money at all, that's called piracy, and is both immoral and illegal. In short, it is theft from the developers who have spent their own time and money working on this game. You will find no assistance for that here.
I wouldn't say it was embarrassing. It was the first flight of the Starship/booster as a mated pair. Really, anything beyond "it blows up on the pad" is a success, because it means the thing at least partially works.
Tracks2 as an "official" mod? Yes, please!
Underwater camera? Definitely would be nice, though most of the map doesn't actually have a seafloor.
Waves? Would be nice, though a full buoyancy revamp would also probably be needed.
Ballast? Interesting idea, don't think I've heard that one before.
Ship Hulls? Not sure an entirely new part is necessary, but an update where fuselage blocks lose buoyancy as they are damaged (along with maybe more customizable corners) would be great.
Sunken ships? I'd imagine if they added a full sea floor, they'd put a few things on it, yeah. Makes sense and would be neat.
Underwater propellers? I seriously do not understand how these weren't added to the game like four or five years ago. PLEASE!
Explosives not disappearing underwater? Would be nice, yeah. I'm not actually sure whether it's intentional or not.
And some adjustments to the way damage happens (perhaps make collisions more likely to break the part off instead of exploding it, somehow?) would also be appreciated, yeah.
On a serious note, if you haven't taken a look at the rules yet, make sure to do that. Beyond those, basically just have decent behavior and you shouldn't run into much trouble here.
Very interesting, though the National Republicans' goals of expanding the military and removing individual rights are rather contradictory to the "conservatism" ideal. (But maybe that was intentional!)
...This is the same quiz you posted (and then apparently deleted) about a month ago, except you replaced the Alphabet Lore questions with Varig 310 and Turbo Lines, isn't it?
Trying to model every last detail (down to the internals of the engine) is already a hugely daunting prospect, and SimplePlanes would just make everything easily 20 times harder.
@IMFLYINHERE Hmm.......
Uh. If you were to work on it 24/7/365 without any breaks, you could probably get it done in about a year. Maybe. I honestly have no idea how long it would take. The engine alone would at least take a month nonstop, plus however long it takes to make it move properly.
In theory, this is theoretically possible. A fully-modeled, fully-functioning engine is technically possible to do, as are the other parts (at least modeled; the radiator still wouldn't do anything, for example).
I admire your dedication and high ambitions, but this project would quite literally be a million or more parts (since you can't make each piece of a Mustang with just one piece in-game due to fancy shapes and whatnot), and quite frankly I don't believe even NASA would be able to make that work on their supercomputers.
It means it fits all of the criteria to be fully usable and flyable from cockpit view in SimplePlanes VR. Basically, you can fly the plane exclusively using what's in the cockpit, and it runs decently on the VR platform.
To achieve it, basically build a craft that meets those conditions and wait for the curator people to find it, I guess.
incorrect
Air is still something (it is made up of gases, has mass, interacts with the world around it, etc.), so you cannot become air by simply doing nothing. Otherwise, most of us would probably have sublimated by now.
SAMs do funny things, yeah (as I unfortunately discovered yesterday while trying the Missile Evasion challenge again). As for cannons, there's some code you can add to them that makes them airburst once they've traveled a certain distance, but other than that you need to achieve a direct hit on the target. Also note that unlike gun bullets, cannon shells will pass through their target (if it's another build) if the cannon has aircraft collisions disabled.
Here's a few of mine, one with the nice sunset angle (and dust from the convoy) and one showing most of the folks that were involved (missing Venus and jangelelcangry because they had left by then)
The main thing to change with the opening bomber sequence of The Last Jedi is to increase - drastically - the amount of damage that the MG-100s are able to take. I'm talking engines shot out, parts and external bits being blown off, the works. But after the TIES make their initial passes (which in the movie leave only the somewhat-plot-armored bomber flying), the StarFortresses emerge from the fire and smoke, damaged but doggedly flying onwards. Not only would this look absolutely amazing on-screen, it would make the MG-100 make a lot more sense in-canon. In a book I haven't read, Poe Dameron describes the StarFortress as "the best bomber the Resistance ever had", but its performance on-screen not only makes this claim laughable, it brings into question the entire purpose of the ship. Redefining the StarFortress as a tough, durable heavy bomber, instead of the wet piece of paper it is unfortunately depicted to be, would be a huge improvement for both the opening sequence of The Last Jedi and the MG-100 itself as a design.
I actually like the StarFortress aesthetically, and heavy bombers are something that don't get much attention in Star Wars (plus I love ships with turrets), but the way it is shown in the movie is an insult to the ship's entire design and purpose.
It's pretty clear that the ship is based fairly directly on the B-17 bomber, both in design and performance. As shown in the initial bombing run on the dreadnought, the StarFortress' main characteristic is its ability to fly in formation, in a straight line, to deliver a prodigious quantity of ordinance over a relatively large area, again pretty similar to the WWII-era bomber it is based on. However, the main thing that differs from the B-17 (in fact the StarFortress' main weakness) is its incredibly poor survivability.
During the Second World War, one of the most notable properties of the B-17 bomber, other than its sheer quantity and effectiveness, was the aircraft's ability to take massive amounts of damage and keep flying. Fortresses returned to base with destroyed engines, gaping holes shot in the fuselage, occasionally entire stabilizers missing, and, on at least two occasions, after being nearly blown in half. The B-17 was originally dubbed the Flying Fortress because of its large quantity of defensive armament, but lived up to the name through sheer durability.
This is the main thing missing from the StarFortress. As depicted in the unfortunately quite poorly-thought-out opening sequence, the MG-100s are really not capable of taking any damage whatsoever. In fact, given how rapidly they fall victim to TIE fire (which even X-Wings are able to survive, and many other ships are able to shrug off with little to no damage), I wonder whether the deflector shielding on the StarFortress is even military-grade, as it does very little to protect the bomber from damage.
I completely agree, the bombers were a cool idea but the execution was terrible. I actually wrote a short bit on what they should have been like. Lemme find it real quick and I'll paste it here; it addresses several of your points (particularly the durability).
A new island/archipelago would be great, though the only place I could really see them putting it would be somewhere south of Sky Park City (Maywar and the Kraken are to the east of Wright/Krakabloa, Snowstone is to the north, and the Brown Pearl kind of requires open sea to the west). Sky Park is close enough to Wright that I could see them adding another island beyond it without too much trouble.
Maybe, but I don't think it's super likely. It would be a neat thing to add, but the complexity required to do so might be infeasible.
I'd love a new town or two, though I think they'd go best on a new island rather than being added to existing places. Maybe a few smaller structures scattered around, though. That being said, there's a fine line between feeling-empty-because-there-aren't-buildings and feeling-empty-because-there-aren't-people, and I really don't see them adding NPCs at any point in the future.
Some sort of radar/ECM systems for manually guiding missiles would be really cool, yeah.
Yes (except for the fact that there's a noticeable cutoff around each of the islands where the land mesh ends, so it wouldn't be a very "clean" implementation unless they decided to add seafloor to the entire map)
Please yes. Better yet, make a few updates and QoL changes to the existing Tracks 2 mod and package it in the game like Overload and FineTuner so existing builds with tracks still work.
Problem with official online multiplayer is that it requires money to constantly run servers, which means they will eventually shut down at some point in the future. LAN could possibly work though. The other issue is the same one faced by the existing MP mod, which is that some things (i.e. guns, engine animations, etc.) are exclusively client-side, and don't show up for others. Not sure if that's something that could be easily changed.
YES. I want to do more things!
I could see that being a thing, yeah. They already brought image effects (i.e. ouch the sun is really bright) over to mobile several years ago (As an aside, the display resolution quality doesn't have anything to do with whether a device can run it; that's on the graphics processing power)
AI parameters (spawn only prop engine planes, etc.) would be excellent! Also, more generic "simple" planes to spawn as AI, but that take advantage of the newer parts and techniques, would be nice as well.
@CarMakerFry20 If you have more points than the person you're spotlighting (you might also need to be above a certain number of points, I don't remember), an orange button with a magnifying glass icon will appear next to the Download button on an aircraft's page.
Very cool! Neat how games these days can work alongside real-world events like this. And those new solar panel animations are just fantastic! Can't say anything about the map changes since I still haven't cleared Juno orbit though, but someday!
Depending on the input (like, for example, if it's a FT equation you have stored in a variable), it might be easier to use a slightly simplified code: (IAS > X ? input : 0)
X = desired speed (m/s) input = desired input (i.e. brakes, throttle, FT variable, etc.)
Ooh, that'd be neat! I think the VR version of the game only runs on the low physics setting though (might be wrong, you'd have to check) so you'd need to make sure it works properly on that as well. Mechanical systems are always cool though, and I'd imagine they'd be especially so in VR!
If your bio is just going to be a direct copy/paste of the entire Constitution:
1. I don't think everyone really needs to know about it
2. You should probably cite the actual Constitution somewhere either at the top or the bottom.
@DeutscheLufthansaAG Neat
@DeutscheLufthansaAG Yeah. I don't have it with me currently (because college) but I do have one.
(I guess that's the other reason why I can't reply from it.)
That didn't take long.
Here's the formatting guide. Beyond that, some people have figured out more advanced things (like view counters) that you'd have to ask them directly about.
Hans
Get ze panzer
I would try on my Wii but the internet part of it doesn't work
Well, if you don't want to spend money on Steam, SimplePlanes is also available for purchase from GOG and Humble Bundle!
If you don't want to spend money at all, that's called piracy, and is both immoral and illegal. In short, it is theft from the developers who have spent their own time and money working on this game. You will find no assistance for that here.
+2Mods are stored at:
C:\Users\%USERNAME%\AppData\LocalLow\Jundroo\SimplePlanes\Mods. You can delete them from there.I wouldn't say it was embarrassing. It was the first flight of the Starship/booster as a mated pair. Really, anything beyond "it blows up on the pad" is a success, because it means the thing at least partially works.
It was fun to watch though, yeah
+2If you're going to make a forum post, please only make it once. Stop posting something, then deleting it and re-posting it several days later.
+5Tracks2 as an "official" mod? Yes, please!
+3Underwater camera? Definitely would be nice, though most of the map doesn't actually have a seafloor.
Waves? Would be nice, though a full buoyancy revamp would also probably be needed.
Ballast? Interesting idea, don't think I've heard that one before.
Ship Hulls? Not sure an entirely new part is necessary, but an update where fuselage blocks lose buoyancy as they are damaged (along with maybe more customizable corners) would be great.
Sunken ships? I'd imagine if they added a full sea floor, they'd put a few things on it, yeah. Makes sense and would be neat.
Underwater propellers? I seriously do not understand how these weren't added to the game like four or five years ago. PLEASE!
Explosives not disappearing underwater? Would be nice, yeah. I'm not actually sure whether it's intentional or not.
And some adjustments to the way damage happens (perhaps make collisions more likely to break the part off instead of exploding it, somehow?) would also be appreciated, yeah.
@jamesPLANESii You mean the Geneva checklist?
+2THE BRICK
@LieutenantSOT Nah no worries, that's really cool!
+1@isniffarmpits101 Uhhhhhhhhhhh
No.
@LieutenantSOT Wow. I am in awe, sir. How long have you been working on this?
+1How does one do a line break in a comment without just using one of these:
I've been trying to figure that out for ages.
+2Sure, here's one.
On a serious note, if you haven't taken a look at the rules yet, make sure to do that. Beyond those, basically just have decent behavior and you shouldn't run into much trouble here.
And most importantly, welcome!
@LieutenantSOT 20 pages?! That's impressive, you've done a lot of worldbuilding!
+1Very interesting, though the National Republicans' goals of expanding the military and removing individual rights are rather contradictory to the "conservatism" ideal. (But maybe that was intentional!)
+2...This is the same quiz you posted (and then apparently deleted) about a month ago, except you replaced the Alphabet Lore questions with Varig 310 and Turbo Lines, isn't it?
+6Trying to model every last detail (down to the internals of the engine) is already a hugely daunting prospect, and SimplePlanes would just make everything easily 20 times harder.
@IMFLYINHERE Hmm.......
Uh. If you were to work on it 24/7/365 without any breaks, you could probably get it done in about a year. Maybe. I honestly have no idea how long it would take. The engine alone would at least take a month nonstop, plus however long it takes to make it move properly.
Uhhhhh......
In theory, this is theoretically possible. A fully-modeled, fully-functioning engine is technically possible to do, as are the other parts (at least modeled; the radiator still wouldn't do anything, for example).
+2I admire your dedication and high ambitions, but this project would quite literally be a million or more parts (since you can't make each piece of a Mustang with just one piece in-game due to fancy shapes and whatnot), and quite frankly I don't believe even NASA would be able to make that work on their supercomputers.
The... what? There are usually many gray things on an aircraft.
It means it fits all of the criteria to be fully usable and flyable from cockpit view in SimplePlanes VR. Basically, you can fly the plane exclusively using what's in the cockpit, and it runs decently on the VR platform.
To achieve it, basically build a craft that meets those conditions and wait for the curator people to find it, I guess.
+2Andrew
+11Has
Said
That
They
Will
Be
Working
With
SimplePlanes
This
Year
All
You
Need
To
Do
Is
Be
Patient
+1incorrectAir is still something (it is made up of gases, has mass, interacts with the world around it, etc.), so you cannot become air by simply doing nothing. Otherwise, most of us would probably have sublimated by now.
No.
+1P
+3R
I
S
M
The mod still overrides the "official" first-person zoom if you restart the level without first exiting back to the designer.
+1SAMs do funny things, yeah (as I unfortunately discovered yesterday while trying the Missile Evasion challenge again). As for cannons, there's some code you can add to them that makes them airburst once they've traveled a certain distance, but other than that you need to achieve a direct hit on the target. Also note that unlike gun bullets, cannon shells will pass through their target (if it's another build) if the cannon has aircraft collisions disabled.
You need to put an exclamation point in front of it if you want it to show as an image instead of a link, i.e.
+1Alternatively,
+2(TAS>v) ? Throttle : 0. I think they'll both work about the same though, so pick whichever you like.Is this another one of those horror games specifically marketed to children for the sole purpose of selling toys?
Here's a few of mine, one with the nice sunset angle (and dust from the convoy) and one showing most of the folks that were involved (missing Venus and jangelelcangry because they had left by then)
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/998493137649541120/1095886156681466038/Screenshot_407.pnghttps://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/998493137649541120/1095886157184762007/Screenshot_403.pngThe main thing to change with the opening bomber sequence of The Last Jedi is to increase - drastically - the amount of damage that the MG-100s are able to take. I'm talking engines shot out, parts and external bits being blown off, the works. But after the TIES make their initial passes (which in the movie leave only the somewhat-plot-armored bomber flying), the StarFortresses emerge from the fire and smoke, damaged but doggedly flying onwards. Not only would this look absolutely amazing on-screen, it would make the MG-100 make a lot more sense in-canon. In a book I haven't read, Poe Dameron describes the StarFortress as "the best bomber the Resistance ever had", but its performance on-screen not only makes this claim laughable, it brings into question the entire purpose of the ship. Redefining the StarFortress as a tough, durable heavy bomber, instead of the wet piece of paper it is unfortunately depicted to be, would be a huge improvement for both the opening sequence of The Last Jedi and the MG-100 itself as a design.
I actually like the StarFortress aesthetically, and heavy bombers are something that don't get much attention in Star Wars (plus I love ships with turrets), but the way it is shown in the movie is an insult to the ship's entire design and purpose.
(2/2)
+1It's pretty clear that the ship is based fairly directly on the B-17 bomber, both in design and performance. As shown in the initial bombing run on the dreadnought, the StarFortress' main characteristic is its ability to fly in formation, in a straight line, to deliver a prodigious quantity of ordinance over a relatively large area, again pretty similar to the WWII-era bomber it is based on. However, the main thing that differs from the B-17 (in fact the StarFortress' main weakness) is its incredibly poor survivability.
During the Second World War, one of the most notable properties of the B-17 bomber, other than its sheer quantity and effectiveness, was the aircraft's ability to take massive amounts of damage and keep flying. Fortresses returned to base with destroyed engines, gaping holes shot in the fuselage, occasionally entire stabilizers missing, and, on at least two occasions, after being nearly blown in half. The B-17 was originally dubbed the Flying Fortress because of its large quantity of defensive armament, but lived up to the name through sheer durability.
This is the main thing missing from the StarFortress. As depicted in the unfortunately quite poorly-thought-out opening sequence, the MG-100s are really not capable of taking any damage whatsoever. In fact, given how rapidly they fall victim to TIE fire (which even X-Wings are able to survive, and many other ships are able to shrug off with little to no damage), I wonder whether the deflector shielding on the StarFortress is even military-grade, as it does very little to protect the bomber from damage.
(1/2)
I completely agree, the bombers were a cool idea but the execution was terrible. I actually wrote a short bit on what they should have been like. Lemme find it real quick and I'll paste it here; it addresses several of your points (particularly the durability).
+1- A new island/archipelago would be great, though the only place I could really see them putting it would be somewhere south of Sky Park City (Maywar and the Kraken are to the east of Wright/Krakabloa, Snowstone is to the north, and the Brown Pearl kind of requires open sea to the west). Sky Park is close enough to Wright that I could see them adding another island beyond it without too much trouble.
- Maybe, but I don't think it's super likely. It would be a neat thing to add, but the complexity required to do so might be infeasible.
- I'd love a new town or two, though I think they'd go best on a new island rather than being added to existing places. Maybe a few smaller structures scattered around, though. That being said, there's a fine line between feeling-empty-because-there-aren't-buildings and feeling-empty-because-there-aren't-people, and I really don't see them adding NPCs at any point in the future.
- Some sort of radar/ECM systems for manually guiding missiles would be really cool, yeah.
- Yes (except for the fact that there's a noticeable cutoff around each of the islands where the land mesh ends, so it wouldn't be a very "clean" implementation unless they decided to add seafloor to the entire map)
- Please yes. Better yet, make a few updates and QoL changes to the existing Tracks 2 mod and package it in the game like Overload and FineTuner so existing builds with tracks still work.
- Problem with official online multiplayer is that it requires money to constantly run servers, which means they will eventually shut down at some point in the future. LAN could possibly work though. The other issue is the same one faced by the existing MP mod, which is that some things (i.e. guns, engine animations, etc.) are exclusively client-side, and don't show up for others. Not sure if that's something that could be easily changed.
- YES. I want to do more things!
- I could see that being a thing, yeah. They already brought image effects (i.e. ouch the sun is really bright) over to mobile several years ago (As an aside, the display resolution quality doesn't have anything to do with whether a device can run it; that's on the graphics processing power)
- AI parameters (spawn only prop engine planes, etc.) would be excellent! Also, more generic "simple" planes to spawn as AI, but that take advantage of the newer parts and techniques, would be nice as well.
+2@CarMakerFry20 If you have more points than the person you're spotlighting (you might also need to be above a certain number of points, I don't remember), an orange button with a magnifying glass icon will appear next to the Download button on an aircraft's page.
+2Ooooooo, that looks great!
T
Very cool! Neat how games these days can work alongside real-world events like this. And those new solar panel animations are just fantastic! Can't say anything about the map changes since I still haven't cleared Juno orbit though, but someday!
(SimplePlanes news when?)
+1I'm pretty sure there's a ToS violation here somewhere...
+1@YeetDoctor They work for me
Depending on the input (like, for example, if it's a FT equation you have stored in a variable), it might be easier to use a slightly simplified code:
+1(IAS > X ?
input: 0)X = desired speed (m/s)
input= desired input (i.e. brakes, throttle, FT variable, etc.)Happy birthday!
+1Unfortunately not (devs please)
Ooh, that'd be neat! I think the VR version of the game only runs on the low physics setting though (might be wrong, you'd have to check) so you'd need to make sure it works properly on that as well. Mechanical systems are always cool though, and I'd imagine they'd be especially so in VR!
+1