@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.
@SaturnBuildsStuff Cool, thanks! I don't think I'll be able to make that deadline but that's all right (I've got a ton of other stuff going on right now and really don't have time to build things anyway). I'm excited to see what people come up with for this!
Not just gauges, but also fully working flight controls (stick/yoke, levers, etc). Basically, the plane needs to be 100% flyable from the cockpit view without any keyboard inputs (except maybe for yaw).
@CL215 @Planebuilder2123 The way the bundle discount works is that it puts an extra 15% discount on the current price of the items. To use Juno specifically as an example, it's not an extra 15% off of Juno's original price of $19.99, but an extra 15% off of Juno's sale price of $14.99. See Andrew's formula for how it breaks down mathematically.
That would be iOS/Apple, when they decided to not allow "unverified code" to run on their devices (or something like that. I'm not certain what the specific terms are, but Apple would be the one responsible, so take it up with them). Jundroo had zero control over it.
The two default gun parts in the game (Wing Gun and Minigun) are only loosely based on any particular model of weapon. The Wing Gun in particular can be pretty easily incorporated into a custom-built gun, and many people have in fact done just that.
@PlaneFlightX Again, that depends on how you measure "biggest". The 747-400 LCF is larger in terms of cargo capacity, fuselage diameter , and airframe height (by about seven feet); but the -8 is longer, has a greater wingspan, and is over two and a half times heavier when empty.
Emirates was founded on 25 March 1985, and began operations exactly seven months later (25 October)
I have no idea what "Alphabet Lore" is.
1989
SimplePlanes was first released in 2014, and was released on Steam in late 2015.
Likely either airframe age or some maintenance or regulation issue, or (more likely) because the aircraft could no longer be operated economically and newer models could take their place.
Again, I have no idea.
That depends on how you define "biggest". In terms of physical dimensions, the 747-8 (the largest 747 model) first flew in 2010.
American Airlines purchased TWA after the latter declared bankruptcy in 2000, but ended up slashing most of its routes (and jobs) following 9/11 due to financial troubles.
PLAY is a low-cost Icelandic airline.
Is this "Turbo Lines" a fictional airline of some sort? I have never heard of it.
@Airheaddivision If it's only crashing with higher part counts (e.g. not with any of the default planes), then that would likely be the cause of the issue. You'll have to do some trial-and-error testing to figure out what the maximum part count your device can run since it varies from one device to another.
Most builds aren't affected noticeably by the difference between low and high physics, since the options are fairly similar. It's usually more complex things (either Funky Trees or mechanical builds) that need high physics because they need the physics to be smoother in order to work properly.
@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).
+1I 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!
+1Does-
+1Does the s-
Does the-
Does the snoot-
Does the snoot d-
Buoyancy can only be between 0 (0% buoyancy) and 1 (100% buoyancy), mainly because something like 200% buoyancy just doesn't make any sense.
+1@SaturnBuildsStuff Cool, thanks! I don't think I'll be able to make that deadline but that's all right (I've got a ton of other stuff going on right now and really don't have time to build things anyway). I'm excited to see what people come up with for this!
+1Is there a deadline? Also, would "no altering the box" prohibit adding an extension over the top of the cab (like this)?
+1Not just gauges, but also fully working flight controls (stick/yoke, levers, etc). Basically, the plane needs to be 100% flyable from the cockpit view without any keyboard inputs (except maybe for yaw).
+1@CL215 @Planebuilder2123 The way the bundle discount works is that it puts an extra 15% discount on the current price of the items. To use Juno specifically as an example, it's not an extra 15% off of Juno's original price of $19.99, but an extra 15% off of Juno's sale price of $14.99. See Andrew's formula for how it breaks down mathematically.
+1- That would be iOS/Apple, when they decided to not allow "unverified code" to run on their devices (or something like that. I'm not certain what the specific terms are, but Apple would be the one responsible, so take it up with them). Jundroo had zero control over it.
- People are temporarily or permanently banned for violations of the clearly stated rules that are publicly available on the site.
- The two default gun parts in the game (Wing Gun and Minigun) are only loosely based on any particular model of weapon. The Wing Gun in particular can be pretty easily incorporated into a custom-built gun, and many people have in fact done just that.
- Nice.
- Ok.
+1This is unbelievable!
+1Not a bug. The game probably just crashed.
+1Bye
+1No, because there is (currently) no way for a part to output its health or damage level for a piece of FT logic to read.
+1This is something the Soviets would probably have legitimately built.
+1@PlaneFlightX Again, that depends on how you measure "biggest". The 747-400 LCF is larger in terms of cargo capacity, fuselage diameter , and airframe height (by about seven feet); but the -8 is longer, has a greater wingspan, and is over two and a half times heavier when empty.
+1
+1Emirates was founded on 25 March 1985, and began operations exactly seven months later (25 October)
I have no idea what "Alphabet Lore" is.
1989
SimplePlanes was first released in 2014, and was released on Steam in late 2015.
Likely either airframe age or some maintenance or regulation issue, or (more likely) because the aircraft could no longer be operated economically and newer models could take their place.
Again, I have no idea.
That depends on how you define "biggest". In terms of physical dimensions, the 747-8 (the largest 747 model) first flew in 2010.
American Airlines purchased TWA after the latter declared bankruptcy in 2000, but ended up slashing most of its routes (and jobs) following 9/11 due to financial troubles.
PLAY is a low-cost Icelandic airline.
Is this "Turbo Lines" a fictional airline of some sort? I have never heard of it.
@Airheaddivision If it's only crashing with higher part counts (e.g. not with any of the default planes), then that would likely be the cause of the issue. You'll have to do some trial-and-error testing to figure out what the maximum part count your device can run since it varies from one device to another.
+1Most builds aren't affected noticeably by the difference between low and high physics, since the options are fairly similar. It's usually more complex things (either Funky Trees or mechanical builds) that need high physics because they need the physics to be smoother in order to work properly.
+1There unfortunately isn't a way to change the input for guns (or other weaponry, or wheel brakes, or... or...), no. That does look really neat though!
+1Goodbye.
+1