Fly east-ish (maybe a little to the north) from Wright and you'll come across it eventually. Be warned though, it might not want to see you! Hopefully you can keep up.
Checking the edit history on a Wikipedia page is... not difficult, you know.
Also, you are aware that this Turbo Lines, so far as I can tell, was created to provide a basic paint job for background AI aircraft in the Turboprop Flight Simulator game, right? It's... not real.
What'd you use for the missile voice? I've seen several variations of the script that I presume are done with AI but haven't found the actual source yet.
I don't know what image service you're trying to use for this, but inspect element shows whatever you tried to link as a super long string of code, so whatever you used is uh.... not working. Try using an image hosting site (or Discord) to embed it, or just put a direct link to the image.
On the Manage Account page (accessible from your profile), it states: You can change your Gravatar by creating an account at gravatar.com. If you use the same email address I believe it does it automatically, but you might need to sync it somewhere, I don't remember.
@JuanShot2Go Well, recently Juno has been getting more attention simply because it is newer. SimplePlanes is supposed to be getting some attention this year, but we don't know anything more than that.
As far as which one I'd recommend, I'd say SimplePlanes is easier to learn and work with but Juno has more to offer. SimplePlanes is almost exclusively focused on planes, with pretty basic features for other vehicles like cars and boats. Juno is focused primarily on vehicles relating to space exploration, so anything from rockets to rovers. It has fewer features for aircraft currently (no propeller engines, for example), and I'm not sure there's a lot for watercraft. The playable area in Juno, though, is far far larger.
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.
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.
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).
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!
Hmm. Maybe try LMMS? It's not super user-friendly for beginners, but you can sort of do a "put in the instruments you want and then tell them what to do" kind of thing. Plus it's free, which is a better price than a lot of other music programs out there.
@FlirBlitz Yeah, dunno what might be going on. Without a specific date for the image it's hard to say. The USS George H. W. Bush was last reported 5 days ago off Italy, but there's no telling where it might have been before that (at least, not from publicly available data).
The Bush is really the only carrier that it could be though, since there's literally no other operational (cough cough Kuznetzov cough cough) carriers in that part of the world (other than the Turkish TCG Anadolu, which doesn't have the same deck profile).
It seems we have more questions than answers here. Maybe there'll be something in the news in a few weeks, but I doubt it.
I haven't found one single source that states specifically what the Northrop A-17's bomb load consisted of, but three independent sources provided the following information when combined:
* 20x 30lb fragmentation bombs in internal bay (in vertical chutes)
* 4x 100lb bombs on external racks
The sources did conflict with regards to the aircraft's total bomb load but I assume the actual bomb counts are accurate and the discrepancies originated elsewhere, though I can't say for certain.
I can say with a fair amount of certainty that the physics won't be changed much, if at all, to avoid breaking the hundreds of thousands of existing builds (or whatever ludicrous number we're up to now) that were built with what would then be the "old" physics. I could maybe see updates to the map, but the existing terrain - though unrealistic - is a pretty good environment for testing all sorts of different types of builds, so I'd expect a new map to only come with a new game. New terrain textures and maybe some more trees or buildings would be kinda nice though. So would optimization.
I have seen the dev for another game I play use ChatGPT to generate a basic section of code that he then modified (quite a bit) to work with the specific features he wanted to implement. It saves some of the busywork part of coding, but still can't do specific things very well.
Not in the sense that you can adjust it "on the fly", no. You could have multiple cannons with different muzzle velocities to switch between, but you can't have one cannon with multiple muzzle velocities.
@Erc90F4RU It's fully allowed to do swastikas and other symbols like that specifically for historical accuracy (as specified in the site rules). In this case, you'd be entirely fine doing so if you want to.
Looks like you figured it out.
+1YES! Love it!
+1Fly east-ish (maybe a little to the north) from Wright and you'll come across it eventually. Be warned though, it might not want to see you! Hopefully you can keep up.
+1Checking the edit history on a Wikipedia page is... not difficult, you know.
Also, you are aware that this Turbo Lines, so far as I can tell, was created to provide a basic paint job for background AI aircraft in the Turboprop Flight Simulator game, right? It's... not real.
+1...And what would this mysterious fifth force be, exactly?
+1I mean....
+1Up to you.
What'd you use for the missile voice? I've seen several variations of the script that I presume are done with AI but haven't found the actual source yet.
+1Alright who decided it was a good idea to give Wheatley tactical upgrades
In all seriousness, though, this sounds like a neat project!
+1[CLASSIFIED]If you couldn't tell already, I'm American, but that's all I'm going to disclose.
+1...Uhhhhhhhhhhhh
I... don't think that's even remotely a thing that can be done with just a programming language like FT.
It would be very neat though!
+1I don't know what image service you're trying to use for this, but inspect element shows whatever you tried to link as a super long string of code, so whatever you used is uh.... not working. Try using an image hosting site (or Discord) to embed it, or just put a direct link to the image.
+1Ironic.
+1On the Manage Account page (accessible from your profile), it states:
+1You can change your Gravatar by creating an account at gravatar.com. If you use the same email address I believe it does it automatically, but you might need to sync it somewhere, I don't remember.
@Morty I was only able to get to 33755 (probably because planes were deleted or something), here's a link
+1@DeutscheLufthansaAG Oh of course, my mistake. Andrew help!
+1Hmm...
+1I had no idea subscriptions were even a thing. Huh.
+1@LonelyAustrianUhlan ...My only guess is maybe an adbot that... forgot to actually include the link?
+1@JuanShot2Go Well, recently Juno has been getting more attention simply because it is newer. SimplePlanes is supposed to be getting some attention this year, but we don't know anything more than that.
As far as which one I'd recommend, I'd say SimplePlanes is easier to learn and work with but Juno has more to offer. SimplePlanes is almost exclusively focused on planes, with pretty basic features for other vehicles like cars and boats. Juno is focused primarily on vehicles relating to space exploration, so anything from rockets to rovers. It has fewer features for aircraft currently (no propeller engines, for example), and I'm not sure there's a lot for watercraft. The playable area in Juno, though, is far far larger.
+1@LieutenantSOT Nah no worries, that's really cool!
+1@LieutenantSOT Wow. I am in awe, sir. How long have you been working on this?
+1@LieutenantSOT 20 pages?! That's impressive, you've done a lot of worldbuilding!
+1
+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.
+1The mod still overrides the "official" first-person zoom if you restart the level without first exiting back to the designer.
+1You 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.
+1The 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)
+1I 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).
+1Very 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...
+1Depending 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!
+1Ooh, 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@Dogedogebread13 Well, someone made a mod for that if you want to try it out.
+1https://www.simpleplanes.com/Mods/View/1379397/Textured-Fuselage-Block
Ooh this looks neat
+1The WING
+1An UwUAV, if you will
+1Hmm. Maybe try LMMS? It's not super user-friendly for beginners, but you can sort of do a "put in the instruments you want and then tell them what to do" kind of thing. Plus it's free, which is a better price than a lot of other music programs out there.
+1@FlirBlitz Yeah, dunno what might be going on. Without a specific date for the image it's hard to say. The USS George H. W. Bush was last reported 5 days ago off Italy, but there's no telling where it might have been before that (at least, not from publicly available data).
The Bush is really the only carrier that it could be though, since there's literally no other operational (cough cough Kuznetzov cough cough) carriers in that part of the world (other than the Turkish TCG Anadolu, which doesn't have the same deck profile).
It seems we have more questions than answers here. Maybe there'll be something in the news in a few weeks, but I doubt it.
+1If you're good at keeping your aircraft stable, you can also fly under the wing of the tanker and hit a propeller with your vertical stabilizer.
+1I haven't found one single source that states specifically what the Northrop A-17's bomb load consisted of, but three independent sources provided the following information when combined:
* 20x 30lb fragmentation bombs in internal bay (in vertical chutes)
* 4x 100lb bombs on external racks
Sources:
https://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/northrop_a-17.php
https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/198097/northrop-a-17a/
https://www.boeing.com/history/products/a-17-8a-light-attack-bomber.page
The sources did conflict with regards to the aircraft's total bomb load but I assume the actual bomb counts are accurate and the discrepancies originated elsewhere, though I can't say for certain.
+13: Move the CoM and CoL closer together (note that this may also make the plane more unstable when pitching, so adjust with care).
+1YOOOOOO this looks so good!
+1(Plus now I don't have to feel as bad about not finishing the Beaver I started like a year ago haha)
I can say with a fair amount of certainty that the physics won't be changed much, if at all, to avoid breaking the hundreds of thousands of existing builds (or whatever ludicrous number we're up to now) that were built with what would then be the "old" physics. I could maybe see updates to the map, but the existing terrain - though unrealistic - is a pretty good environment for testing all sorts of different types of builds, so I'd expect a new map to only come with a new game. New terrain textures and maybe some more trees or buildings would be kinda nice though. So would optimization.
+1...huh.
+1I have seen the dev for another game I play use ChatGPT to generate a basic section of code that he then modified (quite a bit) to work with the specific features he wanted to implement. It saves some of the busywork part of coding, but still can't do specific things very well.
+1Not in the sense that you can adjust it "on the fly", no. You could have multiple cannons with different muzzle velocities to switch between, but you can't have one cannon with multiple muzzle velocities.
+1@Erc90F4RU It's fully allowed to do swastikas and other symbols like that specifically for historical accuracy (as specified in the site rules). In this case, you'd be entirely fine doing so if you want to.
+1@AWACSgodess Ironically the software you need was linked in the post you linked in your comment. Here it is.
+1Ooh, that looks great!
+1