@Gameboi14 First of all, this build doesn't really use funky trees inputs. Second, that's a terrible attitude. If you give up when things get difficult, how are you going to get through life? Your profile says you're 15, so there's no reason you should feel bad about not understanding how it works. If anything, it's the game developers' fault for not providing examples and tutorials.
If you want to learn, feel free to ask me for help.
@TheKraken3 I did calculate the acceleration for one of my builds once, and it came out around 64 Gs. The highest G-forces ever survived (in a test, at least) were about 46 Gs. 64 Gs would probably liquify a person. But luckily we don't need to worry about that in SimplePlanes.
The reason for the flutter is that its mass is way too low. I don't have time to do a complete fix, but simply by replacing massScale="0.1" with massScale="3" the wing flutter went away. As a general rule, keep your physical parameters somewhat realistic.
@robloxweponco Any build that's posted on SP is open source by design, which means that when someone uploads something they're explicitly giving their consent for people to do with it what they please. So yes, feel free to use any concept you learn from reverse engineering my builds, or to modify them in any way you like. Gentlemen will give credit where credit is due.
@sheepsblood Yeah, the Blackbird wasn't built for turning, just burning. Its airframe could only handle about 2 Gs, and the turn radius at Mach 3 was 100 miles.
For me, the beauty of the SR-71 comes from the fact that it was designed for one purpose. Most aircraft have to accommodate a variety of requirements, so the design is a combination of compromises. But the Blackbird... it had one thing to do, and with that purity of purpose comes a purity of design that's just beautiful. There's a reason it's still the most striking-looking aircraft ever made...
@sheepsblood No, it's what SR-71 pilots used to call themselves. The airplane was the "sled," because of its handling characteristics; the pilots were sled drivers.
@Panzer828 It's probably become attached to another part which is stationary. Check the connections and make sure it's only connected to the axle of the rotator. And in future, when working with complex builds, never, ever attach two subassemblies by dragging them closer together.
@Panzer828 Sure. If you reduce the max of an engine, it will use proportionately less fuel. I.e., if you set max to 0.25, it'll only use 25% of its normal fuel usage at a given throttle setting. This will also reduce the power output, though, so you'll probably want to increase the powerMultiplier to compensate.
Another side benefit of reducing max is that the engines become quieter.
@TheBruh007 Well, the file timestamp shows me that the first version of this was created on Feb 29. But I work on multiple things at the same time, so I couldn't tell you even roughly how much time I spent on this.
@TheBruh007 On SP, you can use wings decoratively, or functionally. The same goes for most parts. If you want a build to fly like an airplane, however, you do need functional wings.
@Panzer828 Do you want a cargo bay, with the fuselage being a hollow shell, or a weapon bay? Hollow fuselages are pretty much impossible to do well on SP. If you just want a weapon bay, that can be done relatively well. See this build for an example.
@Panzer828 Pretty much. An anvil can fly if you give it enough thrust. As long as you have something countering the force of gravity, anything can fly.
@Panzer828 Of course it has wings, otherwise how would it fly? They're just hidden. The canards and vertical stabilizers are purely for show, they have wingPhysicsEnabled set to false.
@TheBruh007 Yes, because it adds nothing to the conversation. Don't take it personally. If I don't clean that stuff up, before you know it the entire comment section is full of "FIRST!" "SECOND!" and so on.
@Panzer828 No, airbrakes don't generate lift, they increase drag as they open. You can see the effect on this and similar builds: the speed goes up and down by a couple of hundred mph as they "flap" their "wings."
On this build (and the last two), I'm augmenting the drag with engines, so that when the wing sweeps back or extends, the acceleration and deceleration are more dramatic, and the range of speeds much greater (450 mph to 2500 mph near sea level). End result: eye-popping performance.
@Panzer828 Each wing is made out of 90 airbrakes, with inputs and positions configured to create the wing shape. You could do the same thing with a bunch of wings, but wings can't handle the new input system.
Thanks, @Treadmill103. I tried a few color schemes before settling on this one. The colors used for the stripes are 13, 12, and 11, so if you want, you can try other combinations :)
@unCANNY When the cannon is this large and heavy, it does.
@Notaleopard Hi. Yes, it's possible, but what do you mean by a "double AG rotator"?
@GeneralPatrick2 I could've easily made this a proper flak cannon, but I wanted to keep the recoil system. I'll post a proper flak cannon soon.
+1@GeneralPatrick2 Well, I started out to make a Flak cannon, but it later turned out it couldn't be aimable, so I changed it to a howitzer.
+1@Gameboi14 First of all, this build doesn't really use funky trees inputs. Second, that's a terrible attitude. If you give up when things get difficult, how are you going to get through life? Your profile says you're 15, so there's no reason you should feel bad about not understanding how it works. If anything, it's the game developers' fault for not providing examples and tutorials.
If you want to learn, feel free to ask me for help.
@Gameboi14 Why?
@ChisP I haven't tried it, because it requires a mod. I don't want to install mods just to try out a build.
+1@TheKraken3 I did calculate the acceleration for one of my builds once, and it came out around 64 Gs. The highest G-forces ever survived (in a test, at least) were about 46 Gs. 64 Gs would probably liquify a person. But luckily we don't need to worry about that in SimplePlanes.
+1If you want the "wings" to taper in width towards the tips, reduce the X-scale.
The reason for the flutter is that its mass is way too low. I don't have time to do a complete fix, but simply by replacing massScale="0.1" with massScale="3" the wing flutter went away. As a general rule, keep your physical parameters somewhat realistic.
Again, no idea how the control surfaces are moving in the opposite direction to the one they should, but it flies well.
The pitch control surfaces work in the opposite way I'd expect, but it flies really well and is an interesting design. Nice work.
@robloxweponco Any build that's posted on SP is open source by design, which means that when someone uploads something they're explicitly giving their consent for people to do with it what they please. So yes, feel free to use any concept you learn from reverse engineering my builds, or to modify them in any way you like. Gentlemen will give credit where credit is due.
@sheepsblood Yeah, it was a special plane. There's a description of how it felt to fly it in this post.
@ChallengerHellcat Because then it would no longer be collision-proof. Also, this built is meant to be flown in third person view anyway.
@Zanedavid Thanks, I'm glad you agree.
Thanks, @Subnerdica
@sheepsblood Yeah, the Blackbird wasn't built for turning, just burning. Its airframe could only handle about 2 Gs, and the turn radius at Mach 3 was 100 miles.
For me, the beauty of the SR-71 comes from the fact that it was designed for one purpose. Most aircraft have to accommodate a variety of requirements, so the design is a combination of compromises. But the Blackbird... it had one thing to do, and with that purity of purpose comes a purity of design that's just beautiful. There's a reason it's still the most striking-looking aircraft ever made...
+1@sheepsblood No, it's what SR-71 pilots used to call themselves. The airplane was the "sled," because of its handling characteristics; the pilots were sled drivers.
+1@Zanedavid Not sure what you mean by "pushing." Isn't it normal, when you discover something new, to develop it as far as you can?
@robloxweponco For someone who can't even be bothered to upvote my builds, you sure have a lot of requests.
@robloxweponco Well, if I ever come up with something like that, I'll post it.
@Panzer828 Well, if you post the build I'll look at it tomorrow.
@Panzer828 It's probably become attached to another part which is stationary. Check the connections and make sure it's only connected to the axle of the rotator. And in future, when working with complex builds, never, ever attach two subassemblies by dragging them closer together.
@robloxweponco Like this, you mean?
@Panzer828 Sure. If you reduce the max of an engine, it will use proportionately less fuel. I.e., if you set max to 0.25, it'll only use 25% of its normal fuel usage at a given throttle setting. This will also reduce the power output, though, so you'll probably want to increase the powerMultiplier to compensate.
Another side benefit of reducing max is that the engines become quieter.
+1@TheBruh007 Well, the file timestamp shows me that the first version of this was created on Feb 29. But I work on multiple things at the same time, so I couldn't tell you even roughly how much time I spent on this.
Thanks, @Tarquez.
+1@sheepsblood That's the whole reason I made it...
@TheBruh007 On SP, you can use wings decoratively, or functionally. The same goes for most parts. If you want a build to fly like an airplane, however, you do need functional wings.
@Panzer828 Do you want a cargo bay, with the fuselage being a hollow shell, or a weapon bay? Hollow fuselages are pretty much impossible to do well on SP. If you just want a weapon bay, that can be done relatively well. See this build for an example.
@sheepsblood Not bad, but I prefer ones that have less clutter in the background, like this one. Oh, and 30 fps is nice.
@TheBruh007 Exactly.
@Panzer828 A deployable cannon as on the C-130? Interiors don't work very well on SP, but go for it. Feel free to ask if you need help.
@Panzer828 Pretty much. An anvil can fly if you give it enough thrust. As long as you have something countering the force of gravity, anything can fly.
@Panzer828 Of course it has wings, otherwise how would it fly? They're just hidden. The canards and vertical stabilizers are purely for show, they have wingPhysicsEnabled set to false.
@sheepsblood Make sure you include the cannon fire. Interesting to see a flak cannon mounted on an airplane.
@TheBruh007 Yes, because it adds nothing to the conversation. Don't take it personally. If I don't clean that stuff up, before you know it the entire comment section is full of "FIRST!" "SECOND!" and so on.
@sheepsblood This is outstanding. You should really upload a GIF so people can see it in action. Or at least include some screenshots.
@Panzer828 No, airbrakes don't generate lift, they increase drag as they open. You can see the effect on this and similar builds: the speed goes up and down by a couple of hundred mph as they "flap" their "wings."
On this build (and the last two), I'm augmenting the drag with engines, so that when the wing sweeps back or extends, the acceleration and deceleration are more dramatic, and the range of speeds much greater (450 mph to 2500 mph near sea level). End result: eye-popping performance.
@Panzer828 Each wing is made out of 90 airbrakes, with inputs and positions configured to create the wing shape. You could do the same thing with a bunch of wings, but wings can't handle the new input system.
Thanks, @Treadmill103. I tried a few color schemes before settling on this one. The colors used for the stripes are 13, 12, and 11, so if you want, you can try other combinations :)
@Panzer828 Oh yeah. Amazing what can be done with good old airbrakes.
Thanks, @TheBruh007
@Mustang51 lol
@Smoothray Where have you been, Stingray?
@Bendabomb Er... well done, I guess?
@Mustang51 Not sure I understand what you're saying.
@ViciousTNT Sorry, I don't take requests. Because that just leads to more requests, and then the game starts to seem like a chore instead of fun.
Thanks, @LofiTank. You ain't seen nothing yet :)