@BRuthless Still, it's something the devs should consider, at least for the next edit: major(just because I know that might take a bit for them to change the AI's logic) update to the game if anything else.
@avandrei47 That's the current pathfinding, which is basically "take shortest path to next ring". What I'm talking about is it pathfinding the next 2 rings, the target and the next ring after that.
@BRuthless Oh, I already know what's going wrong. The AI tries to take the shortest route, and always tries to remain upright when it goes through the ring. And when it doesn't... Well, it's ground and water avoidance is nill. In fact, the AI still considers the water to be 'air'(technically, it's still the consistancy of air for an aircraft). And it's ground avoidance is non-existant(AKA pillars). Also, the mentioned going the shortest route. The AI only plans for the first ring it has to go through... It doesn't plan ahead, basically. It's currently what causes all the loop de loops the AI's do, and also shows why they screw up if they go into a ring the wrong way, mostly on turns. If the AI actually planned for at least 1 ring in advance of what it's target is, it would be a lot smarter in races, IMAO. It would prevent the many crashes in the last challenge at OWV(many would still crash, but good designs wouldn't crash into the ground because of the way it entered the ring), and in this case, crashing into the water, or really, anything. And probably the most important thing to some people for this challenge: it would actually cut the time the AI takes to finish the course, mostly because the AI will remain with primary wing vertical(or mostly so) to take the turns, and not losing speed from excessively using the ailerons or the elevators.
@BRuthless mine can actually do it quite a bit... it did it about 4 times in 4 courses in about 3 and a half to 4 minutes. It why I'm worried about it. But any slow competitors will be kicked out of the race early because of the sheer speed and able to complete it rather quickly, provided it doesn't screw up(EG touching the water, ram into one of the pillars)... I may modify my aircraft, though
@BRuthless My aircraft for the challenge does 1:34 on a good day. I should be good for much of the compitition. It's a mediocere design for a prop plane, but I don't specialize in prop planes. It is pretty meaty, though, and basically is designed to run in the way the challenge is designed, so it doesn't have much fuel. AI can be silly, though, and really screws with the aircraft.
@AaronSonAirCrafts Technically, the T3000 is a turbo-prop, which is a jet engine geared up to a propeller, so techenically, from an IRL standpoint, this is a jet and a prop. Just wanted to make that clear, that for the challenge, it doesn't actually have what the game considers a jet.
Actually, I plan on applying something like that into a mod(though at first it will be just for rotation), and have text fields which can accept... quite a few values. Though, it will be a few weeks from now(~2 weekends) when I start on that, once I get my dad's computer(which I'll get once his new computer is built and shipped to him.)
@MysticJhn If you don't understand the physics, there really is no changing that other than to learn and understand the physics of flying. Just my two cents. Also, flying an aircraft and building an aircraft are two different things. Also, your aircraft you showed was decent, it just needed a bit more tweaking. Sorry I haven't really responded, been doing other things, and also, if you really want some help, you can ask the devs, go to the reddit forums, ask more questions on the forums in the comments or make another forum post, etc. There is many, many, many options to get help on this. You just have to reach out for it. This thread is basically dormant now.
The comments have issues actually submitting, as well as edits to comments?
Newest aircraft page right now rarely, if ever, works consistently after the tournaments were added. Was fixed last night and it went right back to misbehaving today. It thinks about loading for about 30 seconds and then gives the website error screen most of the time(~≥90%).
Upvotes are finicky, basically same properties as the comments.
Most other parts of the website load quickly on my computer.(there is hickops every so often which slow it down(namely the main page and a few others), but otherwise it loads fast, though I suggest you fix the occasional slowness as well if at all possible)
Hope it won't be delayed too long. Not that I got a plane submitted to it, but I really want to see what others have created. I do have a left over jet from my creation process for the challenge, though...
Sorry you had to go. And don't worry, you will be remembered. Also, I never really looked at much of your stuff, but you seem to do a nice job with most of it. And given you build on mobile, that makes them even better in terms of skill required. I respect that.
I'm definately going to participate. And for fun, I'll be making a new aircraft for the contest using some of the existing tools and parts I have on hand.
Looks nice, though you based it on the original. Not to say that's a bad thing, but I updated it about a month ago with all the parts 1.3 gave, plus upgrades.
@ian1547 I haven't really played the game too long, so mine is only level 2-3. Can't remember exactly, but I know the toughness off the top of my head is ~65,000 , and the shield is stock(think it got upgraded recently to 41k, IDK though), and it generally helps me to survive what would normally have taken a good chunk off my health, such as those who use the shotguns, which I find as a big threat to a lot of my robots, though many of my others either have mobility or are supposed to stay at range. I really want to get better weapons, though, especially upgrading my current weapons and getting a better sniping weapon. My GI Patton has 4 AT spirals so it can kinda 'derp' opponents, my cossack is mobile and can jump, and the sniper light robot I can't remember off the top of my head has a shotgun until I can get a better sniper weapon purchased.
Funny, I just got the game about a week ago, and love my Vityaz. Moderately fast, has a shield(Ecu) and good toughness, the shotgun heavy weapon, and whatever the little rockets are(not AT spirals or CRV, the one before the CRV's). Great for close quarters combat, and has a massive DPM output due to the shotgun(can't remember the name, don't have ipad on hand). It's just generally a good medium robot, overall.
@ACEflightINDUSTRIES Sure, but this challenge was ended like yesterday if you read one of my things on the forums... So you post won't count to the challenge. And I prefer if you made your own aircraft if it's for the challenge, but it's ended, as said before, so I don't really care at this point.
@AeroEngineering Yes, well, it had to do with the velocity, IK. But back at the time I did it, I couldn't edit the guns myself, so I had to rely on other people. So yeah.
@ShakzDar Uhh, my modded aircraft contest to your claim. Seriously, for my YF-23, it took me a good 10 hours, at LEAST, to figure out how to get the full moving V-tail to work with rotators. And on the contrary, you can't directly mod the CoM/CoL/CoT. You can place parts into the aircraft to change them, but that's no different than nudge controls, and doesn't provide any real advantage. The real advantage is being able to do impossible angles and blocks longer and bigger than they can be, or some value in between the usual .5 block for fuselage blocks. This is what I usually use XML for. Though, on my iPad, it basically makes up for the lack of nudge and other things. Before the Steam beta, my JB'ed iPad was the only way to get parts inside an aircraft, among other things. Those builds can take just as long, if not longer. Basically, XML is only used for achieving what would normally be impossible. I personally wouldn't go back, but I would like to make a mod which allows that without ever touching the XML by modifying the interface of the designer. But that's going to be a later project, once I actually get a PC which can use mono-develop(currently using a mac with a broken mono-develop, but working Unity editor)
also, just to be fair, I used to be bronze, for the longest time. Only a few months ago did I become silver. I know how it feels to be just a tad bit ignored. I just don't have the time to fly and test planes, though. And given I want to get my CFA-44 done soon, I really only check the forums, and the occasional aircraft every now and then
@MysticJhn Well, I have a very old design which could help you. Multiple, actually, but many of them have part clipping, which could be a bit much for a 'simple' plane, though I will show one which has it.
Now, for some explanations(though most of these should have been figured out with the build guide). The CoM must always be ahead of the CoL for an aircraft to fly properly. The further ahead the CoM is in relation to the CoL, the more stable it is, though the less maneuverable it is as a result. Usually, if you want to make your aircraft more maneuverable, you either put your control surfaces further away from the CoL(which is the pivot point for the control surfaces), or move the CoM closer to the CoL, but only to a point. if you put them nearly on top of each other, or very close to it, it will be uncontrollable and won't even fly straight, much less take off. As for control surfaces, it's basically the same as everyone else has said. Too big, and the plane can become wobbly when pitch is used. I should note, though, that this only truly applies to normal control surfaces, for the most part. Structural wings used on rotators for fully moving horizontal and vertical stabilizers usually behave differently than ones with normal ones with the control surfaces the game gives you when you edit them. Landing gear should be placed so that the rear landing gear act as a pivot point for the Com, always behind it, or otherwise it will make the aircraft tilt back off the front landing gear, and in general, will make the aircraft unstable on the runway, depending on placement(tricycle doesn't really care, tail draggers in general suffer the most when this happens).
Now, for your flying problem... You should first try the P-51. One of the most user friendly aircraft, unless you really screw up with the controls, it's hard to unintentually crash it. That will give you some flying experience. My P-80 is also fairly user friendly, other than it's rather unresponsive turning at most speeds. I've had to deal with keyboard controls, and personally like them more than the mouse controls, for the moment, anyway. Then again, I use a school macbook air with a trackpad, it's always going to hamper me. But if the controls are too responsive, lightly tapping the controls will usually help a bit with overcorrecting.
Well, to be honest, I may not have been like you, but I've been in the same situation. Of course, it was not with flying, but building. And look at me now. I build some of the best airplanes on the website, and definately the best when it comes to Ace Combat. At one time, I struggled at building anything not a simple prop plane built in 5 minutes. I simply couldn't do jets at that time, and none of them could maneavear well. Everything is now second nature to me. I've been good at flying aircraft from the start, though I've tried to improve over the months. Just keep practicing and experimenting, you'll get there someday.
@Sirstupid Not an ion engine. Those have such a low P/W that they only work in space. Well, not because of the P/W, they have an okish power to wieght ratio(ok, it's terrible, but what do you expect? It's shooting out protons and electrons.), but they don't work that well in the atmosphere because they use ions for the propulsion. The atmosphere messes with the ions, and therefore can't be used for any atmospheric flight, or anything, for that matter. Electric motors would be more approite for a game like this. They actually work in the atmosphere, have a pretty decent power to wieght ratio(depends on motor type, etc), and there are things IRL which use them extensively, including planes.
Just noticed this. Nice :). Unfortunately, I'm running a school mac, so I don't really have any sort of way to make any good 'mod', per say. I'll try making a map and uploading it later in the afternoon, though. Steam website doesn't work in school wifi :/
@Nickasaurus I don't think number of props makes a difference...
@Supercraft888 Magic :) (actually modifying it until I got it just right, among other things.)
@Supercraft888 Actually, I made a modified version for the challenge. I uploaded it afterwards
@BRuthless Still, it's something the devs should consider, at least for the next edit: major(just because I know that might take a bit for them to change the AI's logic) update to the game if anything else.
@UnstableOrbit That's WSC, but yeah, I think you are right on it being one of them in the group.
@avandrei47 That's the current pathfinding, which is basically "take shortest path to next ring". What I'm talking about is it pathfinding the next 2 rings, the target and the next ring after that.
@BRuthless Oh, I already know what's going wrong. The AI tries to take the shortest route, and always tries to remain upright when it goes through the ring. And when it doesn't... Well, it's ground and water avoidance is nill. In fact, the AI still considers the water to be 'air'(technically, it's still the consistancy of air for an aircraft). And it's ground avoidance is non-existant(AKA pillars). Also, the mentioned going the shortest route. The AI only plans for the first ring it has to go through... It doesn't plan ahead, basically. It's currently what causes all the loop de loops the AI's do, and also shows why they screw up if they go into a ring the wrong way, mostly on turns. If the AI actually planned for at least 1 ring in advance of what it's target is, it would be a lot smarter in races, IMAO. It would prevent the many crashes in the last challenge at OWV(many would still crash, but good designs wouldn't crash into the ground because of the way it entered the ring), and in this case, crashing into the water, or really, anything. And probably the most important thing to some people for this challenge: it would actually cut the time the AI takes to finish the course, mostly because the AI will remain with primary wing vertical(or mostly so) to take the turns, and not losing speed from excessively using the ailerons or the elevators.
@BRuthless mine can actually do it quite a bit... it did it about 4 times in 4 courses in about 3 and a half to 4 minutes. It why I'm worried about it. But any slow competitors will be kicked out of the race early because of the sheer speed and able to complete it rather quickly, provided it doesn't screw up(EG touching the water, ram into one of the pillars)... I may modify my aircraft, though
@BRuthless My aircraft for the challenge does 1:34 on a good day. I should be good for much of the compitition. It's a mediocere design for a prop plane, but I don't specialize in prop planes. It is pretty meaty, though, and basically is designed to run in the way the challenge is designed, so it doesn't have much fuel. AI can be silly, though, and really screws with the aircraft.
Yes, this would definitely be a cool idea.
@AndrewGarrison Actually, currently, the system still doesn't let you use successors of your own planes.
@AaronSonAirCrafts Technically, the T3000 is a turbo-prop, which is a jet engine geared up to a propeller, so techenically, from an IRL standpoint, this is a jet and a prop. Just wanted to make that clear, that for the challenge, it doesn't actually have what the game considers a jet.
I have my aircraft submitted. Hope it does well in the upcoming contest!
FYI, jet tag is just there because this is a turbo-prop. This doesn't actually have true 'jet' engines.
I'm getting my prop ready
@Nickasaurus- Thanks! I made this for the shark tooth challenge, though I'm making a... specialized version, for the challenge.
Looks nice. Will probably fly it right now
Actually, I plan on applying something like that into a mod(though at first it will be just for rotation), and have text fields which can accept... quite a few values. Though, it will be a few weeks from now(~2 weekends) when I start on that, once I get my dad's computer(which I'll get once his new computer is built and shipped to him.)
... There is an arrow on the side of the aircraft page with a drop down menu. It should have the delete button
@MysticJhn If you don't understand the physics, there really is no changing that other than to learn and understand the physics of flying. Just my two cents. Also, flying an aircraft and building an aircraft are two different things. Also, your aircraft you showed was decent, it just needed a bit more tweaking. Sorry I haven't really responded, been doing other things, and also, if you really want some help, you can ask the devs, go to the reddit forums, ask more questions on the forums in the comments or make another forum post, etc. There is many, many, many options to get help on this. You just have to reach out for it. This thread is basically dormant now.
Well, just tried it... Not the best, but it flies. A few issues
To fix the pitch slightly, you should move the control surfaces back a bit
the thrust produced by the engines can be a bit... well, they hamper turning in one direction because they torque on the aircraft itself.
@Delphinus @SUPERSAMROCK @DeezDucks Thanks. Wasn't expecting this many upvotes.
@tuco @Nickasaurus Thanks
Current issues:
As said before by someone else:
The comments have issues actually submitting, as well as edits to comments?
Newest aircraft page right now rarely, if ever, works consistently after the tournaments were added. Was fixed last night and it went right back to misbehaving today. It thinks about loading for about 30 seconds and then gives the website error screen most of the time(~≥90%).
Upvotes are finicky, basically same properties as the comments.
Most other parts of the website load quickly on my computer.(there is hickops every so often which slow it down(namely the main page and a few others), but otherwise it loads fast, though I suggest you fix the occasional slowness as well if at all possible)
@CodyS Most likely Twitch.
Hope it won't be delayed too long. Not that I got a plane submitted to it, but I really want to see what others have created. I do have a left over jet from my creation process for the challenge, though...
Sorry you had to go. And don't worry, you will be remembered. Also, I never really looked at much of your stuff, but you seem to do a nice job with most of it. And given you build on mobile, that makes them even better in terms of skill required. I respect that.
Nice! I will try flying it tomorrow.
@AndrewGarrison Nvm, it's a predeccesor to the original P-51, so that's why.
@AndrewGarrison Umm... It won't let me submit my new P-51 I made for the challenge.
@Ahtzee You have like almost 3 days, you'll be fine
I'm definately going to participate. And for fun, I'll be making a new aircraft for the contest using some of the existing tools and parts I have on hand.
Looks nice, though you based it on the original. Not to say that's a bad thing, but I updated it about a month ago with all the parts 1.3 gave, plus upgrades.
@ian1547 I haven't really played the game too long, so mine is only level 2-3. Can't remember exactly, but I know the toughness off the top of my head is ~65,000 , and the shield is stock(think it got upgraded recently to 41k, IDK though), and it generally helps me to survive what would normally have taken a good chunk off my health, such as those who use the shotguns, which I find as a big threat to a lot of my robots, though many of my others either have mobility or are supposed to stay at range. I really want to get better weapons, though, especially upgrading my current weapons and getting a better sniping weapon. My GI Patton has 4 AT spirals so it can kinda 'derp' opponents, my cossack is mobile and can jump, and the sniper light robot I can't remember off the top of my head has a shotgun until I can get a better sniper weapon purchased.
Funny, I just got the game about a week ago, and love my Vityaz. Moderately fast, has a shield(Ecu) and good toughness, the shotgun heavy weapon, and whatever the little rockets are(not AT spirals or CRV, the one before the CRV's). Great for close quarters combat, and has a massive DPM output due to the shotgun(can't remember the name, don't have ipad on hand). It's just generally a good medium robot, overall.
@ACEflightINDUSTRIES Sure, but this challenge was ended like yesterday if you read one of my things on the forums... So you post won't count to the challenge. And I prefer if you made your own aircraft if it's for the challenge, but it's ended, as said before, so I don't really care at this point.
@AeroEngineering Yes, well, it had to do with the velocity, IK. But back at the time I did it, I couldn't edit the guns myself, so I had to rely on other people. So yeah.
@ShakzDar Uhh, my modded aircraft contest to your claim. Seriously, for my YF-23, it took me a good 10 hours, at LEAST, to figure out how to get the full moving V-tail to work with rotators. And on the contrary, you can't directly mod the CoM/CoL/CoT. You can place parts into the aircraft to change them, but that's no different than nudge controls, and doesn't provide any real advantage. The real advantage is being able to do impossible angles and blocks longer and bigger than they can be, or some value in between the usual .5 block for fuselage blocks. This is what I usually use XML for. Though, on my iPad, it basically makes up for the lack of nudge and other things. Before the Steam beta, my JB'ed iPad was the only way to get parts inside an aircraft, among other things. Those builds can take just as long, if not longer. Basically, XML is only used for achieving what would normally be impossible. I personally wouldn't go back, but I would like to make a mod which allows that without ever touching the XML by modifying the interface of the designer. But that's going to be a later project, once I actually get a PC which can use mono-develop(currently using a mac with a broken mono-develop, but working Unity editor)
@MediocrePlanes I will try. But yeah, I'm hoping to get the CFA-44 done this month. I'll announce the winners and such in the description of it
also, just to be fair, I used to be bronze, for the longest time. Only a few months ago did I become silver. I know how it feels to be just a tad bit ignored. I just don't have the time to fly and test planes, though. And given I want to get my CFA-44 done soon, I really only check the forums, and the occasional aircraft every now and then
Wow, LOTS OF COMMENTS(sorry for caps, it just seems appropriate)
... knew it. Yeah, more to follow. There is a text limit, and I just went over it.
@MysticJhn Well, I have a very old design which could help you. Multiple, actually, but many of them have part clipping, which could be a bit much for a 'simple' plane, though I will show one which has it.
Really old plane
Old P-80 Shooting Star
Now, for some explanations(though most of these should have been figured out with the build guide). The CoM must always be ahead of the CoL for an aircraft to fly properly. The further ahead the CoM is in relation to the CoL, the more stable it is, though the less maneuverable it is as a result. Usually, if you want to make your aircraft more maneuverable, you either put your control surfaces further away from the CoL(which is the pivot point for the control surfaces), or move the CoM closer to the CoL, but only to a point. if you put them nearly on top of each other, or very close to it, it will be uncontrollable and won't even fly straight, much less take off. As for control surfaces, it's basically the same as everyone else has said. Too big, and the plane can become wobbly when pitch is used. I should note, though, that this only truly applies to normal control surfaces, for the most part. Structural wings used on rotators for fully moving horizontal and vertical stabilizers usually behave differently than ones with normal ones with the control surfaces the game gives you when you edit them. Landing gear should be placed so that the rear landing gear act as a pivot point for the Com, always behind it, or otherwise it will make the aircraft tilt back off the front landing gear, and in general, will make the aircraft unstable on the runway, depending on placement(tricycle doesn't really care, tail draggers in general suffer the most when this happens).
Now, for your flying problem... You should first try the P-51. One of the most user friendly aircraft, unless you really screw up with the controls, it's hard to unintentually crash it. That will give you some flying experience. My P-80 is also fairly user friendly, other than it's rather unresponsive turning at most speeds. I've had to deal with keyboard controls, and personally like them more than the mouse controls, for the moment, anyway. Then again, I use a school macbook air with a trackpad, it's always going to hamper me. But if the controls are too responsive, lightly tapping the controls will usually help a bit with overcorrecting.
M
Well, to be honest, I may not have been like you, but I've been in the same situation. Of course, it was not with flying, but building. And look at me now. I build some of the best airplanes on the website, and definately the best when it comes to Ace Combat. At one time, I struggled at building anything not a simple prop plane built in 5 minutes. I simply couldn't do jets at that time, and none of them could maneavear well. Everything is now second nature to me. I've been good at flying aircraft from the start, though I've tried to improve over the months. Just keep practicing and experimenting, you'll get there someday.
@Sirstupid Mod... Simple Warships?
@Sirstupid Well, I doubt there would be solar panels. Batteries or maybe a generator would likely be more practical.
@Sirstupid Not an ion engine. Those have such a low P/W that they only work in space. Well, not because of the P/W, they have an okish power to wieght ratio(ok, it's terrible, but what do you expect? It's shooting out protons and electrons.), but they don't work that well in the atmosphere because they use ions for the propulsion. The atmosphere messes with the ions, and therefore can't be used for any atmospheric flight, or anything, for that matter. Electric motors would be more approite for a game like this. They actually work in the atmosphere, have a pretty decent power to wieght ratio(depends on motor type, etc), and there are things IRL which use them extensively, including planes.
@Skua I saw. It looks nice. I'll see what I can do with it later.
@goboygo1 Nope.
Just noticed this. Nice :). Unfortunately, I'm running a school mac, so I don't really have any sort of way to make any good 'mod', per say. I'll try making a map and uploading it later in the afternoon, though. Steam website doesn't work in school wifi :/