Also I love the design and how you made it work (and genuinely look good while doing so) but running a set of traction motors off of a generator on a turbojet engine has to be one of the most inefficient ways possible to power a locomotive lol
It's not just a SP thing, actually. Honda is super picky about who gets to use their brand and trademarks (which include all of their products), and they don't like it when people do it without their permission. FlightGear ran into this back in 2014, and they ended up just removing the HondaJet entirely if I recall correctly.
Best to either stay away from modeling the brand entirely or to not specifically model a Honda product (not suggesting anything, but I think I've seen a few "JondaHet" builds before).
Discord finally rolled out the thing they've been planning for a while now where image embeds only work for a limited time (a day or so, if I recall correctly). It sounds like just an anti-user update at first but it means they no longer have to be hosting hundreds of thousands of images for free on other sites, so it's a big improvement for their servers and backend stuff.
@WinsWings Yeah I'm with 32 and Graingy on this, having to pay for certain builds would just instantly make me ditch both games. The whole point of the websites is that anyone can share what they make for anyone else to play with, and locking user-created content behind a paywall is just an abhorrent business practice. I've got enough of a problem with official content being paywall-restricted. DLC for extra parts and whatnot I'd probably support, but outright having to pay to download user creations is a big no-no. This doesn't need to turn into War Thunder with all sorts of premium paywalled builds, when this is supposed to be a fun sandbox game where you can build anything you want.
I do agree with you that some "preset" parts would be neat though, like more landing gears, better wings, tank tracks, and whatnot.
@AshdenpawTG22 "Ghosting"? You mean, ramping down updates as they shift focus to a new project?
Remember, Jundroo is literally seven people. They can't really work on two projects on the scale of Juno/SP simultaneously effectively, and Juno - as the newer and significantly more advanced and in-depth project - obviously would receive priority.
It is unrealistic to assume that development on both could continue simultaneously, or that updates for SimplePlanes would just keep coming indefinitely.
I still haven't made up my mind on the free edition of Juno though. On the one hand it's great to get more attention to the game and probably will in fact help with profits ("cash grab" in the videogame sense is not an appropriate term for this though; that would be more like if they had hyped up Juno as a KSP-beater - which they didn't - and then abandoned it two weeks after launch once a bunch of people had bought it), but on the other hand their presentation of it is somewhat misleading in terms of what you'd actually be getting for free.
The reason that mods are no longer supported on iOS/Android is because Apple and Google have both decided to prevent "third-party" (read: player-created) code from running on their devices. Jundroo had no control over this decision, and is not responsible for the inability to support mods on iOS/Android devices. This has been the case for several years now, and is quite unlikely to change.
(Actually, I don't think iOS even ever supported modding in the first place.)
Juno now has ads and is going to be ftp, which is of course featuring bundles to remove ads and add gameplay features.
wait WHAT
edit: okay it's not that bad, there's gonna be a separate free, limited version with ads in mobile
Also seriously what the heck is going on with Andrew all of a sudden
The limit is every 24 hours, not every calendar day (i.e. it doesn't reset at midnight). Working as intended, as a quick glance at your profile shows 3 builds posted within the last 24 hours or so.
Sounds like an ambitious project! You might have better luck looking for assistance on an engineering or CNC forum rather than an indie sandbox videogame, though ;)
@TheFlightGuySP I haven't posted anything in literally over a year and I don't think anyone's noticed lol (maybe I should do another challenge?)
But yeah definitely focus on quality over quantity; plus it's more satisfying to post one build that you spent weeks on rather than three or four builds that you hammered out in a day or two.
@Graingy Well, sort of. The real OG planes, from pre-1.2 (fuselage blocks), were limited to the Twin Prop, Vertigo, P-51 Mustang, Sea Plane, and Biplane, from what I can recall. The first four all got remastered into what today are their "Simple" variants (though the Twin Prop existed for a while with the engines at the front of the wings rather than the rear, and the re-engined Mustang was "P-51 Mustang 2.0" up until 1.11), while the Biplane was removed presumably to make way for the new stock planes that were most of the hype at the time. That being said, the community was a lot smaller then too, and I wasn't much of a part of it having only had the game for a few months at that point.
But yeah the Kicking Fish is pretty much the same lol
Other than the gauge faces (and technically the text labels, though that's not exactly what you're referring to), all of the parts use basic single-color materials (up to four of them per part: Primary plus Trim 1, 2, and 3), which allows them to be painted easily from a code standpoint (and also helps with performance since the game doesn't have to load an image texture for every single part, just a color code with parameters for gloss, etc.).
Good analysis, but not quite right. The Brown Pearl does exist on both iOS and Android, but Maywar and the Kraken don't for performance reasons. (As a side note, the small unnamed islands that provide general direction markers between islands also don't exist on mobile.)
Modding was never supported on iOS to begin with to my knowledge, and was largely removed from Android due to Google TOS changes preventing scripted mods (read: anything except a basic map mod) from working.
I am curious about this "one island afar Snowstone" though. Unless that's one of the little unnamed ones, I've never heard of it before. What heading should one fly to reach this island?
Mostly using the markdown formatting guide in the Useful Links pinned comment. Some people use embedded images in place of headers if they want fancy fonts or something.
Just realized I never commented on this. This is not only the best S-64, but quite possibly the best helicopter in general that I have ever flown in this game. It looks fantastic and flies beautifully. Outstanding!
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.
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.
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.
I believe rocket pods have their capacity set at 7 (given that there's 7 rockets in the actual pod and they are visibly launched from said pod, leaving an empty space). What some people do is put multiple rocket pods in the same spot, so more than 7 rockets can come from that location (and if they're really fancy, they rotate them a little so the rockets don't clip into each other).
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)
Also I love the design and how you made it work (and genuinely look good while doing so) but running a set of traction motors off of a generator on a turbojet engine has to be one of the most inefficient ways possible to power a locomotive lol
+3It's not just a SP thing, actually. Honda is super picky about who gets to use their brand and trademarks (which include all of their products), and they don't like it when people do it without their permission. FlightGear ran into this back in 2014, and they ended up just removing the HondaJet entirely if I recall correctly.
Best to either stay away from modeling the brand entirely or to not specifically model a Honda product (not suggesting anything, but I think I've seen a few "JondaHet" builds before).
+3Discord finally rolled out the thing they've been planning for a while now where image embeds only work for a limited time (a day or so, if I recall correctly). It sounds like just an anti-user update at first but it means they no longer have to be hosting hundreds of thousands of images for free on other sites, so it's a big improvement for their servers and backend stuff.
+3Try
+3clamp01(VTOL)and then invert the input if necessary.@WinsWings Yeah I'm with 32 and Graingy on this, having to pay for certain builds would just instantly make me ditch both games. The whole point of the websites is that anyone can share what they make for anyone else to play with, and locking user-created content behind a paywall is just an abhorrent business practice. I've got enough of a problem with official content being paywall-restricted. DLC for extra parts and whatnot I'd probably support, but outright having to pay to download user creations is a big no-no. This doesn't need to turn into War Thunder with all sorts of premium paywalled builds, when this is supposed to be a fun sandbox game where you can build anything you want.
I do agree with you that some "preset" parts would be neat though, like more landing gears, better wings, tank tracks, and whatnot.
+3@AshdenpawTG22 "Ghosting"? You mean, ramping down updates as they shift focus to a new project?
Remember, Jundroo is literally seven people. They can't really work on two projects on the scale of Juno/SP simultaneously effectively, and Juno - as the newer and significantly more advanced and in-depth project - obviously would receive priority.
It is unrealistic to assume that development on both could continue simultaneously, or that updates for SimplePlanes would just keep coming indefinitely.
I still haven't made up my mind on the free edition of Juno though. On the one hand it's great to get more attention to the game and probably will in fact help with profits ("cash grab" in the videogame sense is not an appropriate term for this though; that would be more like if they had hyped up Juno as a KSP-beater - which they didn't - and then abandoned it two weeks after launch once a bunch of people had bought it), but on the other hand their presentation of it is somewhat misleading in terms of what you'd actually be getting for free.
+3The reason that mods are no longer supported on iOS/Android is because Apple and Google have both decided to prevent "third-party" (read: player-created) code from running on their devices. Jundroo had no control over this decision, and is not responsible for the inability to support mods on iOS/Android devices. This has been the case for several years now, and is quite unlikely to change.
(Actually, I don't think iOS even ever supported modding in the first place.)
+3is this a jundroo fanfic
+3we have reached new levels
Juno now has ads and is going to be ftp, which is of course featuring bundles to remove ads and add gameplay features.
wait WHAT
+3edit: okay it's not that bad, there's gonna be a separate free, limited version with ads in mobile
Also seriously what the heck is going on with Andrew all of a sudden
Speed limit enforced by aircraft
+3The limit is every 24 hours, not every calendar day (i.e. it doesn't reset at midnight). Working as intended, as a quick glance at your profile shows 3 builds posted within the last 24 hours or so.
+3so that's where my tuition goes
+3Today I learned there is a 4,000 character limit on comments.
+3Sounds like an ambitious project! You might have better luck looking for assistance on an engineering or CNC forum rather than an indie sandbox videogame, though ;)
+3Shut off the water and call a plumber.
+3@TheFlightGuySP I haven't posted anything in literally over a year and I don't think anyone's noticed lol (maybe I should do another challenge?)
+3But yeah definitely focus on quality over quantity; plus it's more satisfying to post one build that you spent weeks on rather than three or four builds that you hammered out in a day or two.
Just like to let yall know that if you see accounts in formats like [name0###]or [name####), might wana report them as they are obviously bots
...well, this is awkward
+3You may actually be insane
+3@Graingy Well, sort of. The real OG planes, from pre-1.2 (fuselage blocks), were limited to the Twin Prop, Vertigo, P-51 Mustang, Sea Plane, and Biplane, from what I can recall. The first four all got remastered into what today are their "Simple" variants (though the Twin Prop existed for a while with the engines at the front of the wings rather than the rear, and the re-engined Mustang was "P-51 Mustang 2.0" up until 1.11), while the Biplane was removed presumably to make way for the new stock planes that were most of the hype at the time. That being said, the community was a lot smaller then too, and I wasn't much of a part of it having only had the game for a few months at that point.
But yeah the Kicking Fish is pretty much the same lol
+3Other than the gauge faces (and technically the text labels, though that's not exactly what you're referring to), all of the parts use basic single-color materials (up to four of them per part: Primary plus Trim 1, 2, and 3), which allows them to be painted easily from a code standpoint (and also helps with performance since the game doesn't have to load an image texture for every single part, just a color code with parameters for gloss, etc.).
+3Flipping back and forth between WOO an update :D and NOO the last update D: (these new lever and switch variants are awesome though guys!)
Related, is there any hope of a fix for the water visual #bug that I reported to @PhilipTarpley in October 2021 (occurs when the view is moved close to the water, and I suspect it to be related to AMD hardware)? Last I heard it still hadn't been tracked down.
+3Good analysis, but not quite right. The Brown Pearl does exist on both iOS and Android, but Maywar and the Kraken don't for performance reasons. (As a side note, the small unnamed islands that provide general direction markers between islands also don't exist on mobile.)
Modding was never supported on iOS to begin with to my knowledge, and was largely removed from Android due to Google TOS changes preventing scripted mods (read: anything except a basic map mod) from working.
I am curious about this "one island afar Snowstone" though. Unless that's one of the little unnamed ones, I've never heard of it before. What heading should one fly to reach this island?
+3Imagine caring about points
+3Just wait until you get to calculus.
+3Neat! Russian license-built planes aren't too common builds here.
+3Also, is the picture supposed to be a confusing jumble of red and black, or is there something weird on my end?
+3Yikes! Don't worry about us, take as much time as you need to get things back together and settled down again. I'll be praying for you.
+3Here's a tip: If you need to ask if your username is acceptable, it probably isn't.
+3...what
+3I've seen this enough in multiplayer to know that making it public is a huge mistake
+3Mostly using the markdown formatting guide in the Useful Links pinned comment. Some people use embedded images in place of headers if they want fancy fonts or something.
+3Just realized I never commented on this. This is not only the best S-64, but quite possibly the best helicopter in general that I have ever flown in this game. It looks fantastic and flies beautifully. Outstanding!
+3...Would this girl appreciate you referring to her like that?
+3Tracks2 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.
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.
+3P
+3R
I
S
M
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.
+3I believe rocket pods have their capacity set at 7 (given that there's 7 rockets in the actual pod and they are visibly launched from said pod, leaving an empty space). What some people do is put multiple rocket pods in the same spot, so more than 7 rockets can come from that location (and if they're really fancy, they rotate them a little so the rockets don't clip into each other).
+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)
+3