@Kinggold7564
Assuming you are using 500lb version, I suspect you picked a wrong rack.
If you want just one rack/6 bombs, use "single."
If you want 2, use "dual". But if you want three, you need "single" and "triple".
Same for 4x, you need "dual" and "quad".
.
Let me know if that helps
@SuperSuperTheSylph
You are welcome:)
Yeah, once I had the basic FT and setup created, this became doing the same FT editing 24 times (+ many revisions) and manually attaching tiny detachers to the pylons on the racks, as they didn't want to connect automatically. At least it's half the effort with triple racks.
If anyone has a difficulty connecting bomb or bomb rack to a correct pylon, here's what helps:
1)first, hide the pylon(s) using visibility button. (Eye button)
2)second, reverse visibility (another eye button), so you see only the pylons you just hid.
3)third, get the thing as subassembly like normal, and put it on your pylon. It shouldn't stick to other blocks, since you only have the pylons visible.
-A-6 (with the bombs) coming soon... maybe. (hopefully!)
.
-There will be a triple-bomb-rack version of the 500lb ones at some point.
.
-I can't say when I can publish it, but I'm working on even more mobile friendlier version of these bombs, with just 2x fins each. (That's 4 parts per bomb, and if you mount 4x of the 500lb version (24 bombs), that'll be a reduction of 48 parts.)
@SuperSuperTheSylph
I do already have a triple ejector rack (nearly identical to the 6 bomb version), and do plan to make a pack with these too, though. I can upload the triple rack just by itself if you like, but if you can wait long enough I'll probably do the work and publish it. (Plan on doing it in the same config as this: single, dual, triple and quad)
@SuperSuperTheSylph
Yeah, I tried to come up with ways to prevent it, but I couldn't. Not without making it incredibly complex, which was the opposite of my aim.
And as for triple racks, no, unfortunately you can't just save single bombs and do it. Every one of these bombs (their fins+detacher) have unique FT inside to control release and fin deployment. Basically, when you "fire" these bombs, you are actually firing the cannons (orange/black bars) on each rack, and the change in their ammo count triggers the release/deployment of the bombs. So you'll have to manually pick the right bomb, as well as change the ammo count of the cannon manually. It's not hard, but incredibly time consuming and tedious (I should get a medal for doing it for all 24 (or 42) of these bombs! lol)
@IFVuser
Yeah. IIRC, it seemed that the damage by explosion (of explosive cannons) was either "kill block" or "no damage". Like there's a damage threshold for the block/"aircraft" being hit, and if the damage is below that (scaler below 0.5 or something, may have varied depending on block HP), it just doesn't do any observable damage. And unlike impact damage, this explosion damage didn't seem to accumulate/take away from block's HP pool either, however many times you hit it. This made HE cannon/shell with big explosion somewhat unsuited for realistic 'damage model' type system/builds.
.
As for impact damage or impactDamageScaler, yeah setting it too high makes it way too strong, and gives the shell too much 'push' force. I initially treated IDS like shell weight, mimicking the weight of real life cannon shells, but soon found out this method wasn't very good (maybe ok for ground vehicles, but ships, they just started sliding sideways when hit).
I haven't played around with it, but Monarchii did further refinement of ship damage system (that Chii and I used to discuss), if you are interested.
@LunarEclipseSP
Ahhh. If you are looking for interior, mine has even less than his (mine has a static bomb reticle and pretty much nothing else).
I might add a few more buttons for touch-screen control's sake, but probably nothing more, as interior tends to be least of my priorities. You can add interior if you want to though.
@Rb2h
Hi, sorry for my late reply.
I've checked out your drone version:)
Addition of missiles is cool, though I noticed they shoot each other. If you don't want them to shoot each other, you need to make the game think they are "dead". You can do this by triggering critically damaged state.
Take a detacher hidden somewhere on my plane, and attach it to your drone, then attach a huge wing to it. Losing this wing causes "critically damaged" thing.
@IFVuser @Rb2h
I cannot tell you how the cannon explosion damage works, but as IFVuser says caliber size changes the damage & radius, as well as explosionScaler. But it's not straight forward, and I couldn't tell how exactly it worked even with some testings.
.
I did some,pretty extensive testing on impact damage of cannon shells however, and I think I found the formula: velocity*impactDamageScaler (+random multiplier between 1 to 0.3)
If you like to see it for yourself, here's a testing contraption I used: https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/62Uzfy/Cannon-damage-tester-B-Mk1-block-mass-900000
I hardly understand the math that goes into achieving terrain following (I understand it predicts the height of "third point" based on (the rate of change of?) previous two points?), but do you think this can be adapted as it is, or easily for..
1)faster flight, eg 900km/h (noticed the plane slows down to about 500-600km/h when the terrain following is enabled), and
2)smoother pitch adjustment?
I would love to try and adapt the system (if that's ok) to something like an F-111, if it's possible to fly faster & make the pitch adjustment smoother. Though, I'm guessing these are both hard to achieve with the terrain of the vanilla maps with steep & sudden ups and downs and how altitude AGL works (it only records the point right below the cockpit I'm guessing).
.
PS
Sorry if you've already explained this in the description or elsewhere, I posted this comment before finished reading/fully understanding it.
I just searched for "simpleplanes terrain following" in DuckDuckGo for a possible future project, and this post/plane was the second top in the results. Glad I did that.
Really cool tech demonstrator, if that's the right word here. Honestly it's kinda criminal that there's very little recognition as yet.
@THEOKPILOT
Oh, I was referring mainly to the 'abandoned again' part. I mean, who would steal (or retrieve?) a truck and do body works only to abandon it again. If these really are the same truck that is... Hey I just got an idea, maybe you can hide a GPS tracker on the truck somewhere, in case someone tries to steal it again. I doubt it'll happen (again), but if it does... it might lead us somewhere.
.
As for storm from around 1995... I can't say it rings a bell. I wasn't around Wright Isles at that time. These cases of missing people seem kinda under reported around here, though, come to think of it...
@THEOKPILOT
Oh... oh boy, yeah that wagon's seen better days. I'm surprised it still drives. Haha. And about the truck... I guess those items aren't anything too strange. Unless the fabric was all bloody or something, lol Also, as you say this one looks more weathered, like it's been exposed to the elements for much longer. License plates are different, too. But then again, someone could just swap the license, and 4 years might be enough time to do that... do you suppose the truck's previous owner stole (or 'retrieved') the truck after I found it, turned it into a box van, then abandoned it again? If that was the case, it would be bizarre to say the least.
Woah- I thought this was the Dord I found for a second! Looks like the same color, same level of rust and everything. Although... mine was a regular pick up. It's been a while since that truck went missing though... pretty sure someone stole it.
.
I brought that abandoned truck to the police to see if I can register it as my own (I needed a new vehicle since my green Dord dove into the ocean... forgot to use parking brake that day), but the truck disappeared from the police station before they found any records of the previous owner. They thought it was related to an unsolved case (that famous people-gone-missing incident), but the truck was never found again. Did you see anything.. strange.. in the truck, by any chance?
@Monarchii
They can collide with each other and explode, but it's possible to avoid that.
For example, two cannons with same scale (no less than 1,1,1,), same barrel/base lengths, located at the exact same coords/orientations shouldn't collide with each other, although caliber might also be a factor.
.
Also, I found through testings that, when you fire a cannon, shell appears inside the barrel slightly forward of & away from the edge of the base, so there's a small 'safe space' there. And the point of shell generation moves forward/backward depending on the length of the barrel (not the part scale). And if the base length is set to 0 via Overload, shell is generated inside the base.
So there is some restrictions on the form factor of your custom gun/barrel, depending on how you set up the cannon.
.
Check out this demonstrator & text in the description, I've compiled some findings. Feel free to add or correct things. Hopefully I'll do a proper public post later:
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/6yxz1N/Cannon-mechanic-tester
@Monarchii
Ah, got it.
.
The critical state thing, I'm thinking of it as a way to prevent a dead ship from continually attacked by AI controlled planes/ships.
.
Oh btw, if you want to change reload time depending on the gun arc, (if that's the case) I think you can add another set of barrels with longer reload time, and use target distance to activate/deactivate them (so you automatically switch between fast reload and slow reload)
@Monarchii
Edit:
Oh wait... it's just a reference for (target/intended) damage per caliber. I feel dumb. lol
So one just needs to calculate the required IDS by dividing the target damage (as listed) by gun's velocity.
.
Original text (of shame):
I'm reading back the damage section of the document. With the revised system, are you meant to use explosive round? Or is it still the basic (non explody) type?
.
I'm wondering about this because the cannon impact damage is determined only by velocity x impactDamageScaler (caliber doesn't matter), wheres explosion damage (and the "destruction power" to seemingly bypass block's HP) is affected by caliber & explosionScale in a... mysterious way.
@Monarchii
Oh you did the work! This is very cool, awesome.
I'm still reading it, but your explanation of the system is pretty easy to understand (at least for me).
.
Just got an idea as I was reading it, what if we add a system that forces "critically damaged" state (i.e., ship is dead and no longer targetable) when most of the ship is under the sea level?
I think this can be done by adding a secondary cockpit which we use for altitude reference (if the ship is sunk it'll be negative), and it going below sea level triggers critical damage maybe by detaching a big wing. (Since the conditions for critical damage are 1) 1/3 of parts disconnected/destroyed or 2) losing half the wing area, if I remember right)
This is primarily to prevent ship from (somehow) staying alive while being completely destroyed & underwater, which sometimes happened another physics based ship game I used to play. I dunno, maybe it's unnecessary.
Also, maybe you can just use the primary cockpit as reference (it needs to place it somewhere inside the hull for AI to hit it).
@Monarchii
Nice boat! And yeah, less impact force is certainly better. I wanted to make the hull tougher than regular planes and such (and that's still possible), but ship sliding sideways upon getting hit was pretty silly & annoying.
Perhaps we need a nice and simple system for HP & damage scale that's easy to adopt? And maybe like a starting base for each class of warships (DD, CL/CA, BB... etc.) that one can build the exterior/cosmetic parts on top of.
Oh I see! Sorry for the rather unnecessary tip, haha
.
As for rotator, at least on my iOS version (1.12.203.1), they don't rotate unless something is attached to the shaft/moving bit. This goes for the basic one, joint, and probably mini too.
So you need to either attach a block to the rotator, or attach rotator to a 'base' of sort, and I think there's always gonna be some shake. Looking at your autopilot FT, former method might add too many blocks.
I use a single rotator to store altitude for my own autopilot mechanism (much simpler than yours), and with this 0 mass, 0 drag, 5000 damperMultiplier basic rotator, I experience very little shake for my use (negligible), but I can't say how much it's gonna affect your FT.
.
(Mine stores 0.01 degree (of the total 180 degs) as 1 meter, and a custom variable multiplies it back again by 100, rounds it up, then a gyro (which does the holding) uses this value as target altitude.
.
I'm not sure if the size (scale) of the rotator affects the shake though. Also, I'm not sure what you were referring to by engine power, can you elaborate on that part?
In case you are on iOS like me... I use a free file manager app called Documents (one from Readdle) to add back predecessor ID and edit FTs and such. It lets you import/export text files (including .xml used by SP), and also open and edit them.
I'm not sure if you can add back custom variables via this method, though.
I also use a text editor app called PWEditor (free) as a bulk-replacer, when I want to replace the name of multiple custom variables or the values at once. (There's a newer version but I haven't used it yet)
You just to need to
1)first import the plane file in question to the Documents app,
2)open & copy-paste the entire contents, ie. text, to the PWEditor (or any other app that does the same) and bulk replace,
3)then copy-paste that back to the plane file in Documents,
4)then finally export it back to the SimplePlanes directory in Files app.
You just gotta be careful with how you phrase your search terms when you bulk-replace. And also, always keep a back up of the plane file you are editing.
@ThomasRoderick @griges
If rotators shake too much, I'd also add damperMultiplier parameter to "JointRotator" field and experiment with various numbers (1000, 2000, 5000, and so on). It will slow down the speed of the rotator, but it'll (it should) make it more stable and a tiny bit more precise.
@YarisSedan
I have some improved/updated versions of my past builds. Low-part machine gun AAA, AI fighter (that can be spawned both mid air and on the ground), etc. I have new builds too but I don't know if any of them will be finished.
@MonsNotTheMonster
Nah, thank you for the cool build, man! x)
I really felt & appreciate the effort & attention to detail/accuracy that went into this build, and it was quite a joy to fly this plane.
Man, what a nice, great build!
The combination of simple style & accurate looks, attention to detail, functional yet intuitive features & control, and flight performance is just really great. To me, it's almost exactly the kind of plane/thing I try to build and aim for myself and love to see from other people. Like, I can probably count the times I've seen G limiter (especially for negative G) implemented on SP builds with one hand (I'm sure I've seen them, but honestly I can't recall one at the moment; I could just be forgetting all 100+ builds that had them though, so maybe I should just say "I love this feature!" lol), and airbrake angle getting automatically limited based on AGL just made me smile. Also, small but important features. Like having a cockpit view is great, and the tracer (bulletScale) of the guns made it look quite satisfying to fire the thing.
.
A couple of suggestions I would make is to add a toggle option for the airbrake using AG (so you don't have to pressing down the the throttle button), and maybe to add a hidden engine so the engine flame is visible only when you have the afterburner on. The latter especially is just my preference though. As for airbrake, "or" symbol works. Here's what I have on my build that limits brake power by half when gear down: (Brake | Activate2) * (LandingGear=0 ? 0.5 : 1).
But nonetheless... great build!
@Kinggold7564
Assuming you are using 500lb version, I suspect you picked a wrong rack.
If you want just one rack/6 bombs, use "single."
If you want 2, use "dual". But if you want three, you need "single" and "triple".
Same for 4x, you need "dual" and "quad".
.
Let me know if that helps
@SuperSuperTheSylph
+1You are welcome:)
Yeah, once I had the basic FT and setup created, this became doing the same FT editing 24 times (+ many revisions) and manually attaching tiny detachers to the pylons on the racks, as they didn't want to connect automatically. At least it's half the effort with triple racks.
@SuperSuperTheSylph
+1So you figured it out, cool!
I can probably upload the rack later today. Will ping you in the comments when I do:)
If anyone has a difficulty connecting bomb or bomb rack to a correct pylon, here's what helps:
1)first, hide the pylon(s) using visibility button. (Eye button)
2)second, reverse visibility (another eye button), so you see only the pylons you just hid.
3)third, get the thing as subassembly like normal, and put it on your pylon. It shouldn't stick to other blocks, since you only have the pylons visible.
@Ashdenpaw1
Hey, you can do it :)
It takes like 5 minutes at most. Just need to save, save as subassembly, and put this on your plane. Bam!
@F16xl
Yes, it's just a term used in military aviation. Now, let's have more interesting discussions here, thank you!
-A-6 (with the bombs) coming soon... maybe. (hopefully!)
.
-There will be a triple-bomb-rack version of the 500lb ones at some point.
.
-I can't say when I can publish it, but I'm working on even more mobile friendlier version of these bombs, with just 2x fins each. (That's 4 parts per bomb, and if you mount 4x of the 500lb version (24 bombs), that'll be a reduction of 48 parts.)
@SuperSuperTheSylph
+2I do already have a triple ejector rack (nearly identical to the 6 bomb version), and do plan to make a pack with these too, though. I can upload the triple rack just by itself if you like, but if you can wait long enough I'll probably do the work and publish it. (Plan on doing it in the same config as this: single, dual, triple and quad)
@SuperSuperTheSylph
+2Yeah, I tried to come up with ways to prevent it, but I couldn't. Not without making it incredibly complex, which was the opposite of my aim.
And as for triple racks, no, unfortunately you can't just save single bombs and do it. Every one of these bombs (their fins+detacher) have unique FT inside to control release and fin deployment. Basically, when you "fire" these bombs, you are actually firing the cannons (orange/black bars) on each rack, and the change in their ammo count triggers the release/deployment of the bombs. So you'll have to manually pick the right bomb, as well as change the ammo count of the cannon manually. It's not hard, but incredibly time consuming and tedious (I should get a medal for doing it for all 24 (or 42) of these bombs! lol)
@IFVuser
Yeah. IIRC, it seemed that the damage by explosion (of explosive cannons) was either "kill block" or "no damage". Like there's a damage threshold for the block/"aircraft" being hit, and if the damage is below that (scaler below 0.5 or something, may have varied depending on block HP), it just doesn't do any observable damage. And unlike impact damage, this explosion damage didn't seem to accumulate/take away from block's HP pool either, however many times you hit it. This made HE cannon/shell with big explosion somewhat unsuited for realistic 'damage model' type system/builds.
.
As for impact damage or impactDamageScaler, yeah setting it too high makes it way too strong, and gives the shell too much 'push' force. I initially treated IDS like shell weight, mimicking the weight of real life cannon shells, but soon found out this method wasn't very good (maybe ok for ground vehicles, but ships, they just started sliding sideways when hit).
I haven't played around with it, but Monarchii did further refinement of ship damage system (that Chii and I used to discuss), if you are interested.
+1@SuperSuperTheSylph
+1Hope you like it!
@LunarEclipseSP
+1Ahhh. If you are looking for interior, mine has even less than his (mine has a static bomb reticle and pretty much nothing else).
I might add a few more buttons for touch-screen control's sake, but probably nothing more, as interior tends to be least of my priorities. You can add interior if you want to though.
@C47skytrain @DimitriIqbal91
+1Hey guys
SnakeEye (esque) bomb finished. Finally.
@ShinyGemsBro
Snake's Eyes
@LunarEclipseSP
+2Thanks, hopefully soon (queue "X years later" clip)
@Rb2h
+1Hi, sorry for my late reply.
I've checked out your drone version:)
Addition of missiles is cool, though I noticed they shoot each other. If you don't want them to shoot each other, you need to make the game think they are "dead". You can do this by triggering critically damaged state.
Take a detacher hidden somewhere on my plane, and attach it to your drone, then attach a huge wing to it. Losing this wing causes "critically damaged" thing.
@IFVuser @Rb2h
+1I cannot tell you how the cannon explosion damage works, but as IFVuser says caliber size changes the damage & radius, as well as explosionScaler. But it's not straight forward, and I couldn't tell how exactly it worked even with some testings.
.
I did some,pretty extensive testing on impact damage of cannon shells however, and I think I found the formula:
velocity*impactDamageScaler(+random multiplier between 1 to 0.3)If you like to see it for yourself, here's a testing contraption I used:
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/62Uzfy/Cannon-damage-tester-B-Mk1-block-mass-900000
I hardly understand the math that goes into achieving terrain following (I understand it predicts the height of "third point" based on (the rate of change of?) previous two points?), but do you think this can be adapted as it is, or easily for..
+21)faster flight, eg 900km/h (noticed the plane slows down to about 500-600km/h when the terrain following is enabled), and
2)smoother pitch adjustment?
I would love to try and adapt the system (if that's ok) to something like an F-111, if it's possible to fly faster & make the pitch adjustment smoother. Though, I'm guessing these are both hard to achieve with the terrain of the vanilla maps with steep & sudden ups and downs and how altitude AGL works (it only records the point right below the cockpit I'm guessing).
.
PS
Sorry if you've already explained this in the description or elsewhere, I posted this comment before finished reading/fully understanding it.
I just searched for "simpleplanes terrain following" in DuckDuckGo for a possible future project, and this post/plane was the second top in the results. Glad I did that.
+1Really cool tech demonstrator, if that's the right word here. Honestly it's kinda criminal that there's very little recognition as yet.
@THEOKPILOT
Oh, I was referring mainly to the 'abandoned again' part. I mean, who would steal (or retrieve?) a truck and do body works only to abandon it again. If these really are the same truck that is... Hey I just got an idea, maybe you can hide a GPS tracker on the truck somewhere, in case someone tries to steal it again. I doubt it'll happen (again), but if it does... it might lead us somewhere.
.
As for storm from around 1995... I can't say it rings a bell. I wasn't around Wright Isles at that time. These cases of missing people seem kinda under reported around here, though, come to think of it...
Oh by the way... do you remember what the newspaper was about, or when it came out? Might help us figure out when this truck was abandoned
@THEOKPILOT
Oh... oh boy, yeah that wagon's seen better days. I'm surprised it still drives. Haha. And about the truck... I guess those items aren't anything too strange. Unless the fabric was all bloody or something, lol Also, as you say this one looks more weathered, like it's been exposed to the elements for much longer. License plates are different, too. But then again, someone could just swap the license, and 4 years might be enough time to do that... do you suppose the truck's previous owner stole (or 'retrieved') the truck after I found it, turned it into a box van, then abandoned it again? If that was the case, it would be bizarre to say the least.
Woah- I thought this was the Dord I found for a second! Looks like the same color, same level of rust and everything. Although... mine was a regular pick up. It's been a while since that truck went missing though... pretty sure someone stole it.
.
I brought that abandoned truck to the police to see if I can register it as my own (I needed a new vehicle since my green Dord dove into the ocean... forgot to use parking brake that day), but the truck disappeared from the police station before they found any records of the previous owner. They thought it was related to an unsolved case (that famous people-gone-missing incident), but the truck was never found again. Did you see anything.. strange.. in the truck, by any chance?
@Monarchii
+1They can collide with each other and explode, but it's possible to avoid that.
For example, two cannons with same scale (no less than 1,1,1,), same barrel/base lengths, located at the exact same coords/orientations shouldn't collide with each other, although caliber might also be a factor.
.
Also, I found through testings that, when you fire a cannon, shell appears inside the barrel slightly forward of & away from the edge of the base, so there's a small 'safe space' there. And the point of shell generation moves forward/backward depending on the length of the barrel (not the part scale). And if the base length is set to 0 via Overload, shell is generated inside the base.
So there is some restrictions on the form factor of your custom gun/barrel, depending on how you set up the cannon.
.
Check out this demonstrator & text in the description, I've compiled some findings. Feel free to add or correct things. Hopefully I'll do a proper public post later:
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/6yxz1N/Cannon-mechanic-tester
@Monarchii
Ah, got it.
.
The critical state thing, I'm thinking of it as a way to prevent a dead ship from continually attacked by AI controlled planes/ships.
.
Oh btw, if you want to change reload time depending on the gun arc, (if that's the case) I think you can add another set of barrels with longer reload time, and use target distance to activate/deactivate them (so you automatically switch between fast reload and slow reload)
@Monarchii
+1Edit:
Oh wait... it's just a reference for (target/intended) damage per caliber. I feel dumb. lol
So one just needs to calculate the required IDS by dividing the target damage (as listed) by gun's velocity.
.
Original text (of shame):
I'm reading back the damage section of the document. With the revised system, are you meant to use explosive round? Or is it still the basic (non explody) type?
.
I'm wondering about this because the cannon impact damage is determined only by velocity x impactDamageScaler (caliber doesn't matter), wheres explosion damage (and the "destruction power" to seemingly bypass block's HP) is affected by caliber & explosionScale in a... mysterious way.
@Monarchii
Oh you did the work! This is very cool, awesome.
I'm still reading it, but your explanation of the system is pretty easy to understand (at least for me).
.
Just got an idea as I was reading it, what if we add a system that forces "critically damaged" state (i.e., ship is dead and no longer targetable) when most of the ship is under the sea level?
I think this can be done by adding a secondary cockpit which we use for altitude reference (if the ship is sunk it'll be negative), and it going below sea level triggers critical damage maybe by detaching a big wing. (Since the conditions for critical damage are 1) 1/3 of parts disconnected/destroyed or 2) losing half the wing area, if I remember right)
This is primarily to prevent ship from (somehow) staying alive while being completely destroyed & underwater, which sometimes happened another physics based ship game I used to play. I dunno, maybe it's unnecessary.
Also, maybe you can just use the primary cockpit as reference (it needs to place it somewhere inside the hull for AI to hit it).
@Monarchii
Nice boat! And yeah, less impact force is certainly better. I wanted to make the hull tougher than regular planes and such (and that's still possible), but ship sliding sideways upon getting hit was pretty silly & annoying.
Perhaps we need a nice and simple system for HP & damage scale that's easy to adopt? And maybe like a starting base for each class of warships (DD, CL/CA, BB... etc.) that one can build the exterior/cosmetic parts on top of.
If you are interested, here's some stuff I made which use rotator as number-storing memory.
You can see how much it shakes on the coords recorder.
.
Earlier version of my autopilot
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/GXJVvB/Auto-climb-wing-leveler-gyro-TALT-3-2
Coords charter (records XYZ coordinates of your flight)
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/Wo4LgC/XYZ-coord-recorder-Route-charter-Mk1-record-longitude-altitude-and-latitude-au
@griges
Oh I see! Sorry for the rather unnecessary tip, haha
+1.
As for rotator, at least on my iOS version (1.12.203.1), they don't rotate unless something is attached to the shaft/moving bit. This goes for the basic one, joint, and probably mini too.
So you need to either attach a block to the rotator, or attach rotator to a 'base' of sort, and I think there's always gonna be some shake. Looking at your autopilot FT, former method might add too many blocks.
I use a single rotator to store altitude for my own autopilot mechanism (much simpler than yours), and with this 0 mass, 0 drag, 5000 damperMultiplier basic rotator, I experience very little shake for my use (negligible), but I can't say how much it's gonna affect your FT.
.
(Mine stores 0.01 degree (of the total 180 degs) as 1 meter, and a custom variable multiplies it back again by 100, rounds it up, then a gyro (which does the holding) uses this value as target altitude.
.
I'm not sure if the size (scale) of the rotator affects the shake though. Also, I'm not sure what you were referring to by engine power, can you elaborate on that part?
@Rob119
It took a while for some reason...
In case you are on iOS like me... I use a free file manager app called Documents (one from Readdle) to add back predecessor ID and edit FTs and such. It lets you import/export text files (including .xml used by SP), and also open and edit them.
I'm not sure if you can add back custom variables via this method, though.
I also use a text editor app called PWEditor (free) as a bulk-replacer, when I want to replace the name of multiple custom variables or the values at once. (There's a newer version but I haven't used it yet)
You just to need to
1)first import the plane file in question to the Documents app,
2)open & copy-paste the entire contents, ie. text, to the PWEditor (or any other app that does the same) and bulk replace,
3)then copy-paste that back to the plane file in Documents,
4)then finally export it back to the SimplePlanes directory in Files app.
You just gotta be careful with how you phrase your search terms when you bulk-replace. And also, always keep a back up of the plane file you are editing.
+1@ThomasRoderick @griges
+2If rotators shake too much, I'd also add
damperMultiplierparameter to "JointRotator" field and experiment with various numbers (1000, 2000, 5000, and so on). It will slow down the speed of the rotator, but it'll (it should) make it more stable and a tiny bit more precise.@MastaCheefondaSoda
No, it's all made in vanilla SP
All too relatable.
+2Thanks for sharing it with the rest of us, it looks beautiful.
@THEBIGGAKLIPA
There used to be one, but I can no longer find it. I think it's been deleted.
@SPsidearm
Yeah, it should work. Put secondary cockpit (orange one) on the turret and primary on the hull.
@YarisSedan
Oh... hey, you are RoadTrainGuy. Didn't realize right away haha
@YarisSedan
Nah, not really.
@YarisSedan
I have some improved/updated versions of my past builds. Low-part machine gun AAA, AI fighter (that can be spawned both mid air and on the ground), etc. I have new builds too but I don't know if any of them will be finished.
@YarisSedan
If it comes to iOS, I'll probably get it. But at the moment, I'm not sure if I'll be active in making & uploading things.
Thank you for your work! It's been and continues to be a great resource.
Oh wow. Hinge rotator for the exhaust is pure genius. I love it.
+1Looks great! Gotta play with (against) this later.
+1Looks great and fun to fly & play with. Love the camera aim gun.
+1Nice modification on the original!
Looks nice and handles nice!
@MonsNotTheMonster
+1Thanks!
Hey, one question, would you mind if.. or rather could I publish a custom weapon with this plane? As a successor to this, with proper credit and all.
+1@MonsNotTheMonster
+1Nah, thank you for the cool build, man! x)
I really felt & appreciate the effort & attention to detail/accuracy that went into this build, and it was quite a joy to fly this plane.
Man, what a nice, great build!
+1The combination of simple style & accurate looks, attention to detail, functional yet intuitive features & control, and flight performance is just really great. To me, it's almost exactly the kind of plane/thing I try to build and aim for myself and love to see from other people. Like, I can probably count the times I've seen G limiter (especially for negative G) implemented on SP builds with one hand (I'm sure I've seen them, but honestly I can't recall one at the moment; I could just be forgetting all 100+ builds that had them though, so maybe I should just say "I love this feature!" lol), and airbrake angle getting automatically limited based on AGL just made me smile. Also, small but important features. Like having a cockpit view is great, and the tracer (bulletScale) of the guns made it look quite satisfying to fire the thing.
.
A couple of suggestions I would make is to add a toggle option for the airbrake using AG (so you don't have to pressing down the the throttle button), and maybe to add a hidden engine so the engine flame is visible only when you have the afterburner on. The latter especially is just my preference though. As for airbrake, "or" symbol works. Here's what I have on my build that limits brake power by half when gear down:
(Brake | Activate2) * (LandingGear=0 ? 0.5 : 1).But nonetheless... great build!