Off-topic posts are too vague to classify. They are allowed and as the rules state, there is a threshold for how 'off-topic' a post can be.
For convenience, I will classify forums similar as build posts.
Off-topic posts often happen in the forums section as uploading something to the website still counts as playing the game and thus a contribution to the airplane section of the site unless it's way too bland or had no effort put into it at all (e.g. a label part that has words in it and nothing else). Although I should say this mostly count as 'spam' rather than off-topic posts, but they can be.
As for the forums, oh do I have a lot of basis for you. Forum posts in recent times have become a nest for wanna-be social media influencers. There's a handful of users treating and 'abusing' this vague rule where they post forums not really on-topic to SimplePlanes (e.g. random forum about this/that or a forum about questions no one really cares about). Of course, things like these are allowed but if that's the majority of your account's posts section, then it's safe to assume that a report is valid for such posts as they could count as off-topic spamming (stated by the rules: "-However, we do reserve the right to remove posts if they are too far off-topic.")
TLDR, Post whatever you like as off-topic posts are allowed, but be mindful to not stray too much away from plane-related topics (or any buildable vehicles) . Make sure that these posts also follow the written rules as well as rules a sane human being would think as proper.
And most importantly, The forums is NOT a social media platform. It is not Twitter/X, it is not Facebook, it is a forum section of a plane-focused sandbox game. If you were to make an off-topic post, make sure that it's sparse when seen in your account.
None, the heart of the seas is deep within me.
Jokes aside, Wright (and the seas around it) for convenience purposes. This is due to the amount of saved positions I have in it.
Although, I fancy Snowstone and Maywar because of terrain colour and scenery.
Adding mass to the wheels usually work (if less doesn't work, try adding more but not to an absurd amount) but since you've tried that method, you should work next to the wheels' traction, and if suspension is enabled, try to fiddle with that too and see if what fixes it. Vague answer but it might give you insights on what to do.
It's usually dependent on multiple things but majorly about the drag. Engine HP would not really matter if you have too much drag on your build. To solve this, you could either reduce the drag by setting the drag of a part to zero or by making the drag calculation of that part to 'false' in Overload. Another thing is to use fixed-angle blades by setting it manually in the part settings.
I can testify to the effort given to this build is way more than what you think. For the part count, it is efficient and the details are unique and varied especially the hull number. New systems are put in place to simulate shooting with the use of buttons only and is highly accurate to a certain range. A lot of historical memoirs were used to create a perfect model alongside some existing game-engine renders. Even the difference of the ship to her sisters are put in for historical accuracy and that's only to name a few.
If you can run it without bricking your device, I suggest you do so.
Awesome job, BM:)
@Monarchii.
If you're asking for any inclusion of airbrakes for the spine, I'd say none. Though I will say that if you add always-active airbrakes which doesn't stop the ship when it's powered, it would be a neat feature if, let's say, you want to stop the ship without using other source of thrust. It mimics fluid drag per se.
@Monarchii
Chordscale plays a major role and so is the size of the propellers. You should also consider capping the maxRpm to below 500 to make it look realistic as well as taking in consideration how deep the propellers should be on your ship since if you put it way too deep, they won't work.
@Monarchii
The amount of hinges and buoyant blocks depends on you but the 'least' amount you should at least use is around six each (hinges and blocks, two on front, two on the middle, two on the stern. One on each side). They do not need gyros. CoM is fine wherever as long as the CoM is not too high or the spine is not wide enough to accommodate the high CoM. Additionally, If you plan on making a damage model, you could use the same spine and have the buoyant blocks have low-to-none HP so whenever they get hit by torpedoes, they get destroyed which produce listing on one side.
About the propellers, I am currently using a rotator-powered propeller on my WIP, which was made by another user. I have to ask the specific user if I could lend it to you. It would be better if you tag me on an unlisted (or dm me on Discord) to discuss it.
Although, if you're saving parts and if your ship is big enough (let's say, cruiser size and up), I could tell you some tips on how to make the vanilla propellers work on ships (they produce the actual thrust so if these propellers gets destroyed, they won't produce any). I have this installed on at least two of my battleships. They mostly don't work on smaller vessels sadly, and cannot reverse.
@Monarchii
Surely, you asked the right person for that lol. It would be difficult (and most likely boring) to just read instructions but I'll do it anyway.
The materials you need would be hinge rotators with disabled inputs (range and speed can be ignored) as well as the buoyant fuselage on the end.
The wave dampers that I designed works similarly to a leaf spring. When the weight of the ship pushes down on the hinges, the hinges' flex will decrease the bounce force (or whatever it's called) thus making the ship less bouncy. Again, it is a leaf spring that run across a ship.
What I would suggest is to create a 'spine-like' separate sub-assembly for the damping system where all the hinges are attached on a single part and the hinges are spread on most points (front, middle, and back areas of the ship). The most basic spine I could think of comprises of six hinges and buoyant blocks (Two in the bow, midship, and stern. One on each side).
Another tip is that the distance of the buoyant blocks and the hinges affect the 'sensitivity' of the dampers. The closer the buoyant block is to the hinges, the less effective it is since the hinges will flex less (or flex more resulting in you actually bouncing more). This means that the larger the ship, the easier to make it more stable (on Ocean Mod as well, as it was designed to be used on).
You should always remember that the amount of buoyancy of the blocks will heavily affect the performance of the damper, this is crucial too. Too much and it will be too stiff, less and it will sink more often/deeper than it should do.
If ya need more help, just ask me. I love seeing notifications when opening the site lol.
@Mahoots. There is a neat feature for the camera part, you can set cameras to focus on the cockpit so most angles had a camera + cockpit + piston combo. You can also use multiple pistons (or just rotators) to do some weird panning. I don't know if I have to mention this but yes, I did move the cockpit part all around the aircraft to get 'focus' shots.
@ZeroWithSlashedO
I am using a new image hosting site. It actually is there on my end but if you could suggest a better image hosting site, I'll try it out.
It took time to get those skins as well as their variations which affected the upload schedule. Skins that are not clickable as of the moment are still being processed. Video Trailer
Tags were requested.
Pre-Release trailer for the ADFX Morgan from Ace Combat Zero : The Belkan War.
BGM used- Magic Spear I (self edit)
Scenes Inspired from this
The video used sound effects from Ace Combat 7.
Better with headphones!
Released ADFX01 ADFX02
I am opposed to mediocre builds with high recognition, but not because I'm jealous of the points or 'angry' that they have surpassed my upvote count. That’s not always the issue. What concerns me is that if users think creating something mediocre can still give them fame, then there’s no reason for them to improve. If nothing challenges you, why bother?
Additionally, mediocre builds with high recognition often mislead people (not to say there have been no genuine ones). The mob mentality on this site is like moths to a flame as users flock to builds made by new or 'new' players since they can easily upvote/spotlight them (builds which are often decent at best). However, because they are made by new player (accounts), the bar is set way lower. I do not want to sound like an elitist on this site but if everyone gets the same 'overfriendly' treatment from everyone, they just might end up being some, if not a decent chunk of the community nowadays. You know what I mean.
@MIGFOXHOUND31BSM26
Isn't SimplePlanes complicated in a way? In my opinion, it probably is more complicated than FO if you know what youre doing because you can't really be more flexible with what you can do with the fuselage in SP, just to give an example. I mean I know you won't really figure that out but I guess that's obvious.
Not a trend but the people who acts like celebrities, spamming forums and creating a 'network' of followers that boosts them to Platinum. Platinum used to define some sort of experience (or mastery) of the game but now, you can easily reach it by being overly friendly with everyone, creating a cult of followers tailing them around to anything they post, and mass-tagging them by basically masking them as 'requested' or blatantly just tagging for the upvotes. Another is the fact that the forums section becomes a social-media section of this site. The mentality of people of 'I saw someone do it, then that means it's allowed' is becoming a trend or probably already is one. To top it all off is the recent trend about the build style of players. People thought that pumping out low-part, low-quality, low-effort builds would be equal to the principle of a 'PEA'. The phrase 'oh you're surprised because someone published a low-part plane in 'SimplePlanes and it became successful?' is not an argument, it shows that you lack the understanding of subject. This has been discussed a couple of times so I won't really continue way too deep about this but a low part count does not mean it's efficient.
No problem. What I could tell you though is that you should try to mimic what other users do with their airliner cockpits. That way, you could get an idea on how you should start or at least continue on your progress.
Off-topic posts are too vague to classify. They are allowed and as the rules state, there is a threshold for how 'off-topic' a post can be.
+1For convenience, I will classify forums similar as build posts.
Off-topic posts often happen in the forums section as uploading something to the website still counts as playing the game and thus a contribution to the airplane section of the site unless it's way too bland or had no effort put into it at all (e.g. a label part that has words in it and nothing else). Although I should say this mostly count as 'spam' rather than off-topic posts, but they can be.
As for the forums, oh do I have a lot of basis for you. Forum posts in recent times have become a nest for wanna-be social media influencers. There's a handful of users treating and 'abusing' this vague rule where they post forums not really on-topic to SimplePlanes (e.g. random forum about this/that or a forum about questions no one really cares about). Of course, things like these are allowed but if that's the majority of your account's posts section, then it's safe to assume that a report is valid for such posts as they could count as off-topic spamming (stated by the rules: "-However, we do reserve the right to remove posts if they are too far off-topic.")
TLDR, Post whatever you like as off-topic posts are allowed, but be mindful to not stray too much away from plane-related topics (or any buildable vehicles) . Make sure that these posts also follow the written rules as well as rules a sane human being would think as proper.
And most importantly, The forums is NOT a social media platform. It is not Twitter/X, it is not Facebook, it is a forum section of a plane-focused sandbox game. If you were to make an off-topic post, make sure that it's sparse when seen in your account.
Which era? That's too vague of a request.
You definitely should have added more pictures of the deck I gave ya.
None, the heart of the seas is deep within me.
Jokes aside, Wright (and the seas around it) for convenience purposes. This is due to the amount of saved positions I have in it.
Although, I fancy Snowstone and Maywar because of terrain colour and scenery.
@ComradeComissar, Sure. Goodluck on your build.
+1Adding mass to the wheels usually work (if less doesn't work, try adding more but not to an absurd amount) but since you've tried that method, you should work next to the wheels' traction, and if suspension is enabled, try to fiddle with that too and see if what fixes it. Vague answer but it might give you insights on what to do.
Good stuff, I forgot I ever did the testing due to how long it's been.
+1@Monarchii Surely.
+1@Monarchii, Filling in a niche, someone's gotta do it lol.
+1Very fun boat. Although difficult to steer (due to SP physics), the details of the boat is great and also within a certain low part count.
+1I would love to hear your opinions about the aircraft to improve my future ones.
It's usually dependent on multiple things but majorly about the drag. Engine HP would not really matter if you have too much drag on your build. To solve this, you could either reduce the drag by setting the drag of a part to zero or by making the drag calculation of that part to 'false' in Overload. Another thing is to use fixed-angle blades by setting it manually in the part settings.
People have lives to live. 3 months is not a lot of time to be on hiatus.
+8@Makrelek331
Man overboard, man overboard.
I can testify to the effort given to this build is way more than what you think. For the part count, it is efficient and the details are unique and varied especially the hull number. New systems are put in place to simulate shooting with the use of buttons only and is highly accurate to a certain range. A lot of historical memoirs were used to create a perfect model alongside some existing game-engine renders. Even the difference of the ship to her sisters are put in for historical accuracy and that's only to name a few.
If you can run it without bricking your device, I suggest you do so.
+1Awesome job, BM:)
@Monarchii, As far as I know, waving flags don't really need any FT help as you can just give it floppy hinge rotators separating the fuselage.
+1@Monarchii.
+1If you're asking for any inclusion of airbrakes for the spine, I'd say none. Though I will say that if you add always-active airbrakes which doesn't stop the ship when it's powered, it would be a neat feature if, let's say, you want to stop the ship without using other source of thrust. It mimics fluid drag per se.
@Monarchii
Chordscale plays a major role and so is the size of the propellers. You should also consider capping the maxRpm to below 500 to make it look realistic as well as taking in consideration how deep the propellers should be on your ship since if you put it way too deep, they won't work.
@Monarchii, I haven't tried, personally but it might work if the propeller blades turn.
@Monarchii.
Reverse can be compensated by using jet engines. but i guess you're also going with the aesthetics.
@Monarchii
The amount of hinges and buoyant blocks depends on you but the 'least' amount you should at least use is around six each (hinges and blocks, two on front, two on the middle, two on the stern. One on each side). They do not need gyros. CoM is fine wherever as long as the CoM is not too high or the spine is not wide enough to accommodate the high CoM. Additionally, If you plan on making a damage model, you could use the same spine and have the buoyant blocks have low-to-none HP so whenever they get hit by torpedoes, they get destroyed which produce listing on one side.
About the propellers, I am currently using a rotator-powered propeller on my WIP, which was made by another user. I have to ask the specific user if I could lend it to you. It would be better if you tag me on an unlisted (or dm me on Discord) to discuss it.
Although, if you're saving parts and if your ship is big enough (let's say, cruiser size and up), I could tell you some tips on how to make the vanilla propellers work on ships (they produce the actual thrust so if these propellers gets destroyed, they won't produce any). I have this installed on at least two of my battleships. They mostly don't work on smaller vessels sadly, and cannot reverse.
@Monarchii
Surely, you asked the right person for that lol. It would be difficult (and most likely boring) to just read instructions but I'll do it anyway.
The materials you need would be hinge rotators with disabled inputs (range and speed can be ignored) as well as the buoyant fuselage on the end.
The wave dampers that I designed works similarly to a leaf spring. When the weight of the ship pushes down on the hinges, the hinges' flex will decrease the bounce force (or whatever it's called) thus making the ship less bouncy. Again, it is a leaf spring that run across a ship.
What I would suggest is to create a 'spine-like' separate sub-assembly for the damping system where all the hinges are attached on a single part and the hinges are spread on most points (front, middle, and back areas of the ship). The most basic spine I could think of comprises of six hinges and buoyant blocks (Two in the bow, midship, and stern. One on each side).
Another tip is that the distance of the buoyant blocks and the hinges affect the 'sensitivity' of the dampers. The closer the buoyant block is to the hinges, the less effective it is since the hinges will flex less (or flex more resulting in you actually bouncing more). This means that the larger the ship, the easier to make it more stable (on Ocean Mod as well, as it was designed to be used on).
You should always remember that the amount of buoyancy of the blocks will heavily affect the performance of the damper, this is crucial too. Too much and it will be too stiff, less and it will sink more often/deeper than it should do.
If ya need more help, just ask me. I love seeing notifications when opening the site lol.
Really fun vehicle to use especially mixed with the part efficiency, Good stuff, Chiichii :))
+1(interesting variable names too, lol)
What’s keeping you from retaining the successor system in the thing to credit the original builder?
+2It would be an insult to not tag me. Beautiful boat.
+1Everyone who treats the forums like a social media platform, asking stupid questions.
+5@SomeSPGuyWhoLikesLore @overlord5453
I'm not sure, either.
@Mahoots. There is a neat feature for the camera part, you can set cameras to focus on the cockpit so most angles had a camera + cockpit + piston combo. You can also use multiple pistons (or just rotators) to do some weird panning. I don't know if I have to mention this but yes, I did move the cockpit part all around the aircraft to get 'focus' shots.
@ZeroWithSlashedO, I initially used imgbb but switched to a new one, I could try it again.
@ZeroWithSlashedO
I am using a new image hosting site. It actually is there on my end but if you could suggest a better image hosting site, I'll try it out.
Sorry, I probably missed the request lol.
@IDK0
@MAPA
@KudaOni
@TemporaryReplacement
+1@LUPIN
@TheMouse
@CaptainNoble
@126
@LoganAviation
@MitsubishiTritonMyBeloved
@S1lly
@DISHWASHER2005
@IDK0
@MAPA
@KudaOni
@TemporaryReplacement
+1@LUPIN
@TheMouse
@CaptainNoble
+1@126
@LoganAviation
@MitsubishiTritonMyBeloved
+1@S1lly
@DISHWASHER2005
It took time to get those skins as well as their variations which affected the upload schedule. Skins that are not clickable as of the moment are still being processed.
Video Trailer
Tags were requested.
Historia mutat valde
Razgriz revelat ipsum:
Primum daemon scelestus est.
Video Trailer
Tags were requested.
@BRNavyPilot, correct.
+1Pre-Release trailer for the ADFX Morgan from Ace Combat Zero : The Belkan War.
BGM used- Magic Spear I (self edit)
Scenes Inspired from this
The video used sound effects from Ace Combat 7.
Better with headphones!
Released
ADFX01
ADFX02
I am opposed to mediocre builds with high recognition, but not because I'm jealous of the points or 'angry' that they have surpassed my upvote count. That’s not always the issue. What concerns me is that if users think creating something mediocre can still give them fame, then there’s no reason for them to improve. If nothing challenges you, why bother?
Additionally, mediocre builds with high recognition often mislead people (not to say there have been no genuine ones). The mob mentality on this site is like moths to a flame as users flock to builds made by new or 'new' players since they can easily upvote/spotlight them (builds which are often decent at best). However, because they are made by new player (accounts), the bar is set way lower. I do not want to sound like an elitist on this site but if everyone gets the same 'overfriendly' treatment from everyone, they just might end up being some, if not a decent chunk of the community nowadays. You know what I mean.
+5Camouflage working so well, water doesn't reflect it properly. Awesome stuff.
+1@MIGFOXHOUND31BSM26
+1Isn't SimplePlanes complicated in a way? In my opinion, it probably is more complicated than FO if you know what youre doing because you can't really be more flexible with what you can do with the fuselage in SP, just to give an example. I mean I know you won't really figure that out but I guess that's obvious.
@MIGFOXHOUND31BSM26.
Thanks for the opinion. Would you try to make it plausible?
Not a trend but the people who acts like celebrities, spamming forums and creating a 'network' of followers that boosts them to Platinum. Platinum used to define some sort of experience (or mastery) of the game but now, you can easily reach it by being overly friendly with everyone, creating a cult of followers tailing them around to anything they post, and mass-tagging them by basically masking them as 'requested' or blatantly just tagging for the upvotes. Another is the fact that the forums section becomes a social-media section of this site. The mentality of people of 'I saw someone do it, then that means it's allowed' is becoming a trend or probably already is one. To top it all off is the recent trend about the build style of players. People thought that pumping out low-part, low-quality, low-effort builds would be equal to the principle of a 'PEA'. The phrase 'oh you're surprised because someone published a low-part plane in 'SimplePlanes and it became successful?' is not an argument, it shows that you lack the understanding of subject. This has been discussed a couple of times so I won't really continue way too deep about this but a low part count does not mean it's efficient.
+9You did not wait for me :(
No problem. What I could tell you though is that you should try to mimic what other users do with their airliner cockpits. That way, you could get an idea on how you should start or at least continue on your progress.