The "new" Sea Plane is based on the Lake LA-4, but the "old" Sea Plane, from my research, appears to be an original design. (And a rather weird one at that. A low-wing radial-engine plane with pontoon floats?)
Probably because they have more powerful PCs. Performance is dependent on a combination of three main factors: Part count, game settings, and device power. If you have a lower-spec device like a laptop (or just are on a phone or something), you will have lower performance than if you were on, say, a desktop PC with a dedicated graphics card. The part count/performance cost of a specific craft also comes into consideration (bigger numbers = less frames, basically), as do the settings of the game itself (running everything on High will take more processing power than on Medium or Low).
If you want higher performance, I'd suggest either picking a craft with less parts, removing some nonessential parts (detailing, etc.) from the craft you want to use, or to turn down your settings. Buying a better device is technically also an option but you probably aren't going to want to do that.
@TheFlightGuySP I've only seen missiles and bombs work properly so far. Cannons don't (probably for the same reason as guns, since the projectiles aren't already existing "parts" when the plane is loaded, and therefore aren't shared over MP). I have yet to see a definitive verdict on rockets and rocket pods, though, since they could technically be categorized either way.
I think torpedos will show as being dropped, but I'm not sure if they'll actually run on the surface for everyone or not.
I'd go and test them but the server seems to be down again.
The green line and ring you see when a bomb, torpedo, or cannon is selected? That's the predictor. The predictor setting controls whether the predictor is just the ring, the ring and the line, or nothing at all.
Well, you can already read the "Fuel" value, which is why fuel gauges already work. With regards to individual fuel tank blocks, I don't believe that their values are individually calculated once the simulation loads, so it wouldn't be possible to say "okay, as of this point in time, this 20gal tank now has 14gal in it, and this other one has 17gal".
@TheFlightGuySP Mostly correct, but the jet engine does actually have a "Thrust" output variable that could be used as a sort of pseudo-RPM reading, if adjusted properly.
Due to the way wind is simulated, using it to climb in a glider is a bit difficult. Essentially, you need to fly directly into the wind while also maintaining enough forward speed to avoid stalling or getting blown backwards. In practice, this essentially means you'll end up going in a big spiral, and you may have to frequently adjust the wind direction until you get the hang of it.
If you think about it, obliterating digital devices is technically within the realm of intended functions for this. Artillery is supposed to make things go boom, after all.
@Aviator01 Probably not. It's essentially the original Helikillia but with a bunch of fixes after some things got broken with the 1.8 update, as well as a pretty janky (by today's standards) gyro system. The Firebird is essentially a "modernized" version of it, built to take advantage of all of the updates and new features since the original was posted sometime in 2016.
The WW2 Destroyers are rather overpowered for what they're intended to be, but I find this to be somewhat reasonable as it puts them on an equal level with the regular destroyers.
Regarding the not-getting-blown-up bit, if you can get past their flak you should be okay (their close-range guns are the same as the regular Destroyers). Getting past the flak is essentially done best by rapid unpredictable evasive maneuvers. Takes some practice, and a lot of aircraft (including things you might reasonably consider for a WW2-era anti-ship mission, like an SBD-3) may not be agile enough to make it through intact.
Given the pretty basic damage systems in the game (if you get hit by a missile or flak, you go boom), there's not all that much else to do, unless you feel like experimenting with part health values via XML or something.
Feels very light despite weighing over 25,000 pounds. The roll and pitch rates are rather different from each other, so I'd suggest either reducing the roll rate or increasing the pitch rate, depending on how maneuverable you want the plane to be. It can be a bit difficult to fly effectively if the roll rate is too much faster than the pitch rate. Also, it's slightly unstable with regards to yaw (it wobbles back and forth for quite a bit after the rudder is returned to center), but this is most likely due to the positions of the engines on the wingtips, and a tad more area on the vertical stabilizers might help.
I had a bunch but I cleared most of them out while in the 1.11/1.12 betas, so now I'm down to mainly the essentials with the exception of the underwater camera (it was causing a lot of lag in the 1.11 beta, haven't gotten around to adding it back yet).
Planes with high part counts are always more difficult to run without lag. However, finding the exact part count that your device is able to run is pretty much down to trial and error.
@FoxDynamicsWeapons Well, there's a way to do it if you're not airborne yet. For example, if you want to do an intercept mission where you fly from Bandit Airport to shoot down a jet taking off from Avalanche, you could spawn at Avalanche (or somewhere else on Snowstone), spawn in the enemy plane, and then change locations to Bandit, before taking off as normal.
@DeveloperKorzalerke Actually, it can affect performance, but for the creation rather than the device. I recall seeing something a while back that said that the physics runs relative to the framerate, which is also why some creations can suddenly behave unpredictably when switching to fast-forward (or occasionally slow-motion), since the rate at which the physics are calculated is suddenly different relative to the distance the creation has moved.
Well, sort of. You can stick parts on detachers, have parts set to different activation groups (e.g. so you can disable one engine at a time, or something), or just have a gun somewhere that points at the part you want to break.
The "new" Sea Plane is based on the Lake LA-4, but the "old" Sea Plane, from my research, appears to be an original design. (And a rather weird one at that. A low-wing radial-engine plane with pontoon floats?)
+1There's a "Clock" tag. It has a total of 11 things in it.
This is not one of them.
why
+1Probably because they have more powerful PCs. Performance is dependent on a combination of three main factors: Part count, game settings, and device power. If you have a lower-spec device like a laptop (or just are on a phone or something), you will have lower performance than if you were on, say, a desktop PC with a dedicated graphics card. The part count/performance cost of a specific craft also comes into consideration (bigger numbers = less frames, basically), as do the settings of the game itself (running everything on High will take more processing power than on Medium or Low).
If you want higher performance, I'd suggest either picking a craft with less parts, removing some nonessential parts (detailing, etc.) from the craft you want to use, or to turn down your settings. Buying a better device is technically also an option but you probably aren't going to want to do that.
+1@TheFlightGuySP I've only seen missiles and bombs work properly so far. Cannons don't (probably for the same reason as guns, since the projectiles aren't already existing "parts" when the plane is loaded, and therefore aren't shared over MP). I have yet to see a definitive verdict on rockets and rocket pods, though, since they could technically be categorized either way.
I think torpedos will show as being dropped, but I'm not sure if they'll actually run on the surface for everyone or not.
I'd go and test them but the server seems to be down again.
+1Alaska!
+1The green line and ring you see when a bomb, torpedo, or cannon is selected? That's the predictor. The predictor setting controls whether the predictor is just the ring, the ring and the line, or nothing at all.
+1Well, you can already read the "Fuel" value, which is why fuel gauges already work. With regards to individual fuel tank blocks, I don't believe that their values are individually calculated once the simulation loads, so it wouldn't be possible to say "okay, as of this point in time, this 20gal tank now has 14gal in it, and this other one has 17gal".
+1Either shrink the size of the wings or set their part type (via Overload) to
+1Wing-2.@TheFlightGuySP Mostly correct, but the jet engine does actually have a "Thrust" output variable that could be used as a sort of pseudo-RPM reading, if adjusted properly.
+1Isn't it just great when a perfectly symmetrical build decides to develop an auto roll for no reason at all?
Maybe check this out, it might help.
+1Due to the way wind is simulated, using it to climb in a glider is a bit difficult. Essentially, you need to fly directly into the wind while also maintaining enough forward speed to avoid stalling or getting blown backwards. In practice, this essentially means you'll end up going in a big spiral, and you may have to frequently adjust the wind direction until you get the hang of it.
+1Would one of these be useful perhaps?
+1T
+1If you think about it, obliterating digital devices is technically within the realm of intended functions for this. Artillery is supposed to make things go boom, after all.
+1@Brayden1981 You must also successfully rickroll @X99STRIKER as a side quest
+1@HydroMoney22 Sure, go for it!
+1Accurate. The asymmetrical thrust provided by the larger port-side main cabin door results in a semi-uncontrolled constant gradual roll to starboard.
+1Do you actually have any pitch control surfaces (and/or rotators on the canards)?
+1There are ten LC-130Hs currently in service, I believe.
Nice!
+1Ooh definitely T
+1T
+1D
+1Kind of cursed but also weirdly cool. Nice!
+1Yep
+1maybe because there's a second "u" in "Augusta"
+1@Aviator01 Probably not. It's essentially the original Helikillia but with a bunch of fixes after some things got broken with the 1.8 update, as well as a pretty janky (by today's standards) gyro system. The Firebird is essentially a "modernized" version of it, built to take advantage of all of the updates and new features since the original was posted sometime in 2016.
+1All tags were requested.
+1@AlmostADev
@X99STRIKER
@Kthepersonorguy
Okay, the suspension on this is really cool, and the body is amazing as well! Nice work!
+1Forsooth, thy speaketh admirably, and well.
+1The WW2 Destroyers are rather overpowered for what they're intended to be, but I find this to be somewhat reasonable as it puts them on an equal level with the regular destroyers.
Regarding the not-getting-blown-up bit, if you can get past their flak you should be okay (their close-range guns are the same as the regular Destroyers). Getting past the flak is essentially done best by rapid unpredictable evasive maneuvers. Takes some practice, and a lot of aircraft (including things you might reasonably consider for a WW2-era anti-ship mission, like an SBD-3) may not be agile enough to make it through intact.
Given the pretty basic damage systems in the game (if you get hit by a missile or flak, you go boom), there's not all that much else to do, unless you feel like experimenting with part health values via XML or something.
+1T
+1Looks amazing! Definitely T
+1Feels very light despite weighing over 25,000 pounds. The roll and pitch rates are rather different from each other, so I'd suggest either reducing the roll rate or increasing the pitch rate, depending on how maneuverable you want the plane to be. It can be a bit difficult to fly effectively if the roll rate is too much faster than the pitch rate. Also, it's slightly unstable with regards to yaw (it wobbles back and forth for quite a bit after the rudder is returned to center), but this is most likely due to the positions of the engines on the wingtips, and a tad more area on the vertical stabilizers might help.
Overall, flies very well. Nice work so far!
+1There are only 5 music tracks by default (though they do all sound pretty similar), so it was probably a mod.
+1I had a bunch but I cleared most of them out while in the 1.11/1.12 betas, so now I'm down to mainly the essentials with the exception of the underwater camera (it was causing a lot of lag in the 1.11 beta, haven't gotten around to adding it back yet).
+1lancia iTalia
+1Ooh
T
+1Excluding the AI, I've got about 500 saved, and it's like 147MB or something.
+1Planes with high part counts are always more difficult to run without lag. However, finding the exact part count that your device is able to run is pretty much down to trial and error.
+1Ooh hey I can update XMLs now, can't I?
Nice.
+1@X99STRIKER Ah yes, gold.
+1T
+1T
+1Lancia-Italia
+1@FoxDynamicsWeapons Well, there's a way to do it if you're not airborne yet. For example, if you want to do an intercept mission where you fly from Bandit Airport to shoot down a jet taking off from Avalanche, you could spawn at Avalanche (or somewhere else on Snowstone), spawn in the enemy plane, and then change locations to Bandit, before taking off as normal.
+1@DeveloperKorzalerke Actually, it can affect performance, but for the creation rather than the device. I recall seeing something a while back that said that the physics runs relative to the framerate, which is also why some creations can suddenly behave unpredictably when switching to fast-forward (or occasionally slow-motion), since the rate at which the physics are calculated is suddenly different relative to the distance the creation has moved.
+1Looking great!
+1Well, sort of. You can stick parts on detachers, have parts set to different activation groups (e.g. so you can disable one engine at a time, or something), or just have a gun somewhere that points at the part you want to break.
+1Epic!
+1Ooh, it has landing gear now! Nice!
+1