The stock P-51-B has a bit of a center-of-gravity issue; it's a little too close to the center of lift. Hopefully this gets fixed since it's odd for a stock plane to have an issue like this, but if not it's a really simple thing to correct.
Honestly it's somewhat of a miracle that the AI functions as smoothly as it does, given the huge variations between different player-built aircraft. With regards to the F-22, the AI didn't use the thrust vectoring simply because it didn't know it could. The AI is limited to the basic flight controls plus weapons, and will try to keep itself away from what it thinks is a stall whenever possible. This means that it will never intentionally perform post-stall maneuvers. Similar thing for activation groups and the VTOL and Trim sliders. The AI never uses them because it just doesn't know what they do, and therefore can't know [i]when[/i] to use them.
It is theoretically possible to build a plane that would "trick" the AI into performing some semblance of post-stall maneuvers, but it would undoubtedly be very tricky and I don't think anyone's tried it.
Tl;dr the AI was only designed to fly basic aircraft, and doesn't know how to take full advantage of more advanced designs (and therefore loses control of them somewhat often, leading to unplanned kinetic disassembly).
Regarding the "hit with its guns like a decillion times and I can still fly", that's just a discrepancy between the gun damage and the part health, both of which are set by the players who built the planes. Either the health-to-damage ratio was just off, or you just didn't get hit anywhere vital, neither of which are related to the AI.
Generally they're flying comparatively short distances, so there's no point in climbing higher than necessary. Plus, optimization for good STOL performance generally comes at the cost of high-altitude efficiency.
You might be able to get this by changing the scale of the actual cannon part on one or more axes, but I'm not sure. I don't believe there's an XML parameter for the actual scale of the cannon shell other than the diameter.
Being able to lock into one of the orthographic views would be really really nice when working with blueprints, yeah (I'd imagine particularly so for mobile users).
Uhh... not sure what you're getting at here other than possibly procedural shaped wings?
If I understand you correctly, you can already do this with a bit of cutting and a few extra fuselage blocks.
Yeah, that's not going to happen.
Already possible if you just delete anything you don't want (e.g. internal parts) and then export it as a 3d model. You just have to do it manually.
Improvements to the drag calculations would be fairly nice, but could affect existing builds (and honestly the drag calculations aren't really that bad to begin with either).
Again, more advanced shaped procedural wings. Would be nice to see but I don't know if they're even on the list of possibilities.
There's a mod for that.. But I don't see it ever officially being added for a variety of reasons.
Uh... no thanks. That would almost certainly cause more problems than it would solve, and leveling one part with another is already incredibly easy to do since you can just input position values manually.
If you want it to stop when fuel drops below a certain level (probably the easiest way of doing something like this), you could set the throttle input to something along the lines of Fuel > 0.5 ? Throttle : 0. Change the 0.5 to whatever fuel level you want the engine to stop at (1 = 100%, 0.01 = 1%, etc.)
Drag points for a part are based not only on the part itself, but also the parts around it. The most basic example is connecting a nose cone to a fuselage block: the block's drag points change even if the nose cone is set to have a dragScale of 0.
The main distinction here (I think) is that dragScale = 0 and calculateDrag = false are not the same. dragScale = 0 merely removes all drag points for the particular part, while keeping the part itself as a factor in the drag calculations for other parts. Conversely, calculateDrag = false removes the part from the game's drag calculations entirely.
The ability to change the input values for everything.
I really really want to have custom inputs for wheel brakes and weapon triggering, in particular.
Basically you're describing modded parts. Build a subassembly in-game, export it as a 3d model, and then create a mod part that uses that model. @PlaneFlightX has been doing that for one of their builds, which you can read about here.
Finally decided to pick up Juno after waving back and forth for a few months, and so far I can safely say I'm quite confused. BUT, it's the good "I've never played this before and this is all very complicated" kind of confused. Great work as always, guys!
(Although I'm sure trying to "un-learn" a bunch of SP stuff that is probably literally etched into my brain at this point is going to be fun XD)
Depends on the kind of hover system you're looking for. One way to do it is to just scale wheels so that they're oval-shaped, and then just hide them in the body of the vehicle. They'll still behave the same but they won't be visible. This method is good for stuff like sci-fi landspeeders and general "things that hover a few feet off the ground but don't really 'fly'".
Otherwise your best bet is some combination of jet engines, gyroscopes, and Funky Trees code (if you want more control and/or "real" flying).
Honestly I can't decide whether I want there to be an SP2 or not (at least in the near future). Like, it would be kinda cool but I feel like the current game still has room for so much more first.
name already exists as a valid variable, you just have to add it yourself in Overload since it's only used if you want to change the weapon name from the default. mass and explosionScale also similarly already exist.
Model and Description are already possible if you make a mod with a custom bomb, and most of the rest of these either don't have much of a reason to exist (you can't collide with bomb debris fragments anyway, and they scale based on the explosion size) or require things like pressure simulation that don't and probably will never exist in the game.
I do like the idea of timed (i.e. post-impact) detonation though. That would be neat.
The Convoy Trucks and AA Tanks use a different system for spawning and movement than the escort enemy. They aren't built using in-game parts, and run on their own AI system, so you can't replace them with other builds (same goes for the carriers and destroyers).
Fortunately, there's a "Look At Cockpit" option for cameras (not orbit cameras though) that does pretty much exactly this! With that option enabled, the camera will constantly pan to track the location of the cockpit, no input required.
Try telling her how you're feeling, and how her actions are making you feel. Don't immediately confront her with "what you're doing is wrong", instead try and tell her about how her actions have affected you.
If she's not willing to have that talk... well, then you to end the relationship right there. It sucks, but if she isn't willing to care about and take steps to fix the effects her actions are having on you, then that's not a relationship anymore, and it's time to let go of her regardless of how she might react. Giving her time won't help anything if she isn't willing to listen to you in the first place. It's a hard decision to make (especially if she reacts emotionally to it), but you've got to do it.
Keep in mind that you are not at fault in this situation, so don't let her blame you for anything (as she probably will). You've done nothing wrong here.
Most importantly, don't give up on yourself. Your life is worth more than this. Stay strong, brother.
Bypassing the auto credit system is a direct violation of the site rules.
If you are circumventing the predecessor/successor system, then you will be banned. Never upload a successor as an original design; give credit to the designer of its predecessor.
Regardless of how much time and effort you put into modifying a build, in the end it still started as someone else's build, and you must credit them for that. Additionally, I find the claim that "AUTO CREDIT BRINGS DOWN UPVOTES WHEN YOU SHARE" to be, quite frankly, laughable. People don't choose to upvote something based on whether it is modified from someone else's build or not. People upvote stuff they like, and stuff they think is good.
Technically you can just rip the cockpit from any of the default planes (well, maybe not the Twin Prop) without much difficulty.
Detacher
To tag someone, all you do is type @theirUsername in a comment (max of three tags per comment though). For example, to tag myself I would type @HuskyDynamics
Actually yeah this would be pretty cool
I mean... maybe? There's not a whole lot of multi-role missiles out there to my knowledge though.
You don't need to install Overload separately since version 1.8 or 1.9. Plus, it's not really for beginner users. Some of the options do need to be in the regular menus, though.
What do you mean by "better graphics"?
I will agree, the AI system definitely needs an overhaul.
Being able to sort aircraft would be nice.
Again, kind of vague.
Sure, I guess? Something with a city would be nice.
Well, at the same time they don't want to have AI traffic literally everywhere. I think what they have now is a decent balance.
No.
Actually this could be pretty interesting.
Kinda-sorta-already happens with the existing challenges, just most people choose to use something they downloaded instead.
You'll need to ask the multiplayer mod team about that one.
Eh...
Yes please.
A prefab electronic display would be cool but I'm not sure how it would be set up. I could see this being possible though.
Also kind of already exists with the challenges/races. The current state of the AI probably prevents anything more in-depth.
I'd say add doors if you think it won't have too much of an impact on the part count (like, more than 50-75 parts maybe), but not if it means you'll have to redo the entire side of the car if you like what you've got already. It's totally fine if there's no doors, but working doors are always a bit more "cool".
The reason this happens is because activation groups (and quite a few other possible inputs) don't output a value of 0. When on, they output 1, but when off they output -1. (This is intentional by the way)
@BeastHunter Yep, I remember a few months ago when they claimed they were working on "the new update" and tried to ping like eight people in a single comment.
Given that one of your two aircraft was just removed for being a direct, non-credited copy of someone else's, the fact that your comments history is nothing but lies and harassment, and the fact that your account was created six months ago yet the first aircraft uploaded to the site was posted eight years ago... I rather doubt that.
Well, the USDA defines the "average" banana length as being between 7 and 8 inches.
The website Banana For Scale gives slightly over 7 inches as equivalent to one banana, which means that one banana is (on average) approximately 0.178 meters.
@Brayden1981 Given that they have a total of two posts, and their most recent comment was 4.5 years ago, I would say that there is a very good chance they have left, yes.
The stock P-51-B has a bit of a center-of-gravity issue; it's a little too close to the center of lift. Hopefully this gets fixed since it's odd for a stock plane to have an issue like this, but if not it's a really simple thing to correct.
+3Honestly it's somewhat of a miracle that the AI functions as smoothly as it does, given the huge variations between different player-built aircraft. With regards to the F-22, the AI didn't use the thrust vectoring simply because it didn't know it could. The AI is limited to the basic flight controls plus weapons, and will try to keep itself away from what it thinks is a stall whenever possible. This means that it will never intentionally perform post-stall maneuvers. Similar thing for activation groups and the VTOL and Trim sliders. The AI never uses them because it just doesn't know what they do, and therefore can't know [i]when[/i] to use them.
It is theoretically possible to build a plane that would "trick" the AI into performing some semblance of post-stall maneuvers, but it would undoubtedly be very tricky and I don't think anyone's tried it.
Tl;dr the AI was only designed to fly basic aircraft, and doesn't know how to take full advantage of more advanced designs (and therefore loses control of them somewhat often, leading to unplanned kinetic disassembly).
Regarding the "hit with its guns like a decillion times and I can still fly", that's just a discrepancy between the gun damage and the part health, both of which are set by the players who built the planes. Either the health-to-damage ratio was just off, or you just didn't get hit anywhere vital, neither of which are related to the AI.
+3Generally they're flying comparatively short distances, so there's no point in climbing higher than necessary. Plus, optimization for good STOL performance generally comes at the cost of high-altitude efficiency.
+3It's not in his comment history.
+3You might be able to get this by changing the scale of the actual cannon part on one or more axes, but I'm not sure. I don't believe there's an XML parameter for the actual scale of the cannon shell other than the diameter.
+3- Being able to lock into one of the orthographic views would be really really nice when working with blueprints, yeah (I'd imagine particularly so for mobile users).
- Uhh... not sure what you're getting at here other than possibly procedural shaped wings?
- If I understand you correctly, you can already do this with a bit of cutting and a few extra fuselage blocks.
- Yeah, that's not going to happen.
- Already possible if you just delete anything you don't want (e.g. internal parts) and then export it as a 3d model. You just have to do it manually.
- Improvements to the drag calculations would be fairly nice, but could affect existing builds (and honestly the drag calculations aren't really that bad to begin with either).
- Again, more advanced shaped procedural wings. Would be nice to see but I don't know if they're even on the list of possibilities.
- There's a mod for that.. But I don't see it ever officially being added for a variety of reasons.
- Uh... no thanks. That would almost certainly cause more problems than it would solve, and leveling one part with another is already incredibly easy to do since you can just input position values manually.
- Yeah, that's never gonna happen. Not a chance.
+3If you want it to stop when fuel drops below a certain level (probably the easiest way of doing something like this), you could set the throttle input to something along the lines of
+3Fuel > 0.5 ? Throttle : 0. Change the 0.5 to whatever fuel level you want the engine to stop at (1 = 100%, 0.01 = 1%, etc.)Just hit the report button. It goes to the mods automagically when you do that.
+3Just thought I'd post a comment before this almost inevitably gets either locked or taken down.
+3Drag points for a part are based not only on the part itself, but also the parts around it. The most basic example is connecting a nose cone to a fuselage block: the block's drag points change even if the nose cone is set to have a
dragScaleof 0.The main distinction here (I think) is that
+3dragScale = 0andcalculateDrag = falseare not the same.dragScale = 0merely removes all drag points for the particular part, while keeping the part itself as a factor in the drag calculations for other parts. Conversely,calculateDrag = falseremoves the part from the game's drag calculations entirely.The ability to change the input values for everything.
+3I really really want to have custom inputs for wheel brakes and weapon triggering, in particular.
Basically you're describing modded parts. Build a subassembly in-game, export it as a 3d model, and then create a mod part that uses that model. @PlaneFlightX has been doing that for one of their builds, which you can read about here.
+3Finally decided to pick up Juno after waving back and forth for a few months, and so far I can safely say I'm quite confused. BUT, it's the good "I've never played this before and this is all very complicated" kind of confused. Great work as always, guys!
(Although I'm sure trying to "un-learn" a bunch of SP stuff that is probably literally etched into my brain at this point is going to be fun XD)
+3Depends on the kind of hover system you're looking for. One way to do it is to just scale wheels so that they're oval-shaped, and then just hide them in the body of the vehicle. They'll still behave the same but they won't be visible. This method is good for stuff like sci-fi landspeeders and general "things that hover a few feet off the ground but don't really 'fly'".
Otherwise your best bet is some combination of jet engines, gyroscopes, and Funky Trees code (if you want more control and/or "real" flying).
+3Only if you have his permission to do so.
+3Can confirm, I do this too.
+3They got a plat... something better happen fast.
+3Honestly I can't decide whether I want there to be an SP2 or not (at least in the near future). Like, it would be kinda cool but I feel like the current game still has room for so much more first.
+3namealready exists as a valid variable, you just have to add it yourself in Overload since it's only used if you want to change the weapon name from the default.massandexplosionScalealso similarly already exist.Model and Description are already possible if you make a mod with a custom bomb, and most of the rest of these either don't have much of a reason to exist (you can't collide with bomb debris fragments anyway, and they scale based on the explosion size) or require things like pressure simulation that don't and probably will never exist in the game.
I do like the idea of timed (i.e. post-impact) detonation though. That would be neat.
+3The Convoy Trucks and AA Tanks use a different system for spawning and movement than the escort enemy. They aren't built using in-game parts, and run on their own AI system, so you can't replace them with other builds (same goes for the carriers and destroyers).
+3Ok
+3Kayak Fishing Club
+3- In the settings from the main menu (not the pause menu), you can pick your preferred unit from metric, imperial, or nautical.
- Some of them actually are solid, but I never remember which ones so I avoid all of them anyway.
- Voila
+3Fortunately, there's a "Look At Cockpit" option for cameras (not orbit cameras though) that does pretty much exactly this! With that option enabled, the camera will constantly pan to track the location of the cockpit, no input required.
+3@beenz Aw yeah
+3Try telling her how you're feeling, and how her actions are making you feel. Don't immediately confront her with "what you're doing is wrong", instead try and tell her about how her actions have affected you.
If she's not willing to have that talk... well, then you to end the relationship right there. It sucks, but if she isn't willing to care about and take steps to fix the effects her actions are having on you, then that's not a relationship anymore, and it's time to let go of her regardless of how she might react. Giving her time won't help anything if she isn't willing to listen to you in the first place. It's a hard decision to make (especially if she reacts emotionally to it), but you've got to do it.
Keep in mind that you are not at fault in this situation, so don't let her blame you for anything (as she probably will). You've done nothing wrong here.
Most importantly, don't give up on yourself. Your life is worth more than this. Stay strong, brother.
+3Bypassing the auto credit system is a direct violation of the site rules.
Regardless of how much time and effort you put into modifying a build, in the end it still started as someone else's build, and you must credit them for that. Additionally, I find the claim that "AUTO CREDIT BRINGS DOWN UPVOTES WHEN YOU SHARE" to be, quite frankly, laughable. People don't choose to upvote something based on whether it is modified from someone else's build or not. People upvote stuff they like, and stuff they think is good.
+3
+3Technically you can just rip the cockpit from any of the default planes (well, maybe not the Twin Prop) without much difficulty.
Detacher
To tag someone, all you do is type
@theirUsernamein a comment (max of three tags per comment though). For example, to tag myself I would type @HuskyDynamicsActually yeah this would be pretty cool
I mean... maybe? There's not a whole lot of multi-role missiles out there to my knowledge though.
You don't need to install Overload separately since version 1.8 or 1.9. Plus, it's not really for beginner users. Some of the options do need to be in the regular menus, though.
What do you mean by "better graphics"?
I will agree, the AI system definitely needs an overhaul.
Being able to sort aircraft would be nice.
Again, kind of vague.
Sure, I guess? Something with a city would be nice.
Well, at the same time they don't want to have AI traffic literally everywhere. I think what they have now is a decent balance.
No.
Actually this could be pretty interesting.
Kinda-sorta-already happens with the existing challenges, just most people choose to use something they downloaded instead.
You'll need to ask the multiplayer mod team about that one.
Eh...
Yes please.
A prefab electronic display would be cool but I'm not sure how it would be set up. I could see this being possible though.
Also kind of already exists with the challenges/races. The current state of the AI probably prevents anything more in-depth.
Do you want your Android device to rapidly become an unintentionally improvised explosive device?
+3This is a neat style. I like it!
EDIT: What you see is not what you get. I'm rather disappointed actually.
+3I'd be glad to test it (again!)
+3Awesome!
+3Set the input of the piston to
+3Activate4, and that should work.I'd say add doors if you think it won't have too much of an impact on the part count (like, more than 50-75 parts maybe), but not if it means you'll have to redo the entire side of the car if you like what you've got already. It's totally fine if there's no doors, but working doors are always a bit more "cool".
Definitely tag me on it when you post it though.
+3You people need to stop lol
+3The reason this happens is because activation groups (and quite a few other possible inputs) don't output a value of
+30. When on, they output1, but when off they output-1. (This is intentional by the way)@BeastHunter Yep, I remember a few months ago when they claimed they were working on "the new update" and tried to ping like eight people in a single comment.
+3Given that one of your two aircraft was just removed for being a direct, non-credited copy of someone else's, the fact that your comments history is nothing but lies and harassment, and the fact that your account was created six months ago yet the first aircraft uploaded to the site was posted eight years ago... I rather doubt that.
+3Hmm... I would normally be biased towards the UP, but I'm really liking that demonstrator paint scheme.
+3Well, the USDA defines the "average" banana length as being between 7 and 8 inches.
The website Banana For Scale gives slightly over 7 inches as equivalent to one banana, which means that one banana is (on average) approximately 0.178 meters.
+3the
+3the snoot
he droop
ㅤ
+3This is way funnier than it should be
+3You cannot upvote your own posts.
+3I am 4 Parallel Universes ahead of you
+3The limit (as stated in the rules) exists to avoid people simply flooding the site with tons of creations all at once.
Or something.
+3@Brayden1981 Given that they have a total of two posts, and their most recent comment was 4.5 years ago, I would say that there is a very good chance they have left, yes.
+3Kinda cursed but also really cool for some reason
+3Honestly a tri-oval would be epic.
Actually, a full NASCAR track with the infield and stuff could be a great mod map.
+3@X99STRIKER I am now sad
Thanks very much
+3