I believe you said that you didn’t have time for this and call me condescending.
Oh, I'll call you condescending again, and am happy to state as many times as you like that I don't have time for the likes of you. After I posted that comment, I decided to reply to your points anyway, so I deleted the first one. Trust me, I never say anything I'm not willing to fully back up, so screenshot away to your heart's content.
Cool, you executed something “perfectly” first. Doesn’t really mean much.
Honest people would disagree. This is the entire basis of intellectual property.
You simply managed to make it first, apparently. Does it stop people from making their own versions of it? According to what you are saying then yes, they cannot create there own version.
Wrong. I have always said, many times over, that all builds on SP are open source, and anyone is free to use any part of my builds. So where did you pull that assertion out of?
I only called it a 2D vtol system because of the previous comments I have read. I just assumed that it is called that, I’m surprised you didn’t call it out earlier.
Earlier when, before you called my system a 2D VTOL system? How do you expect me to do that?
And how do you know that your version is the best in SP? You made it so you will have a bias towards your own work.
By objective standards like stability, controllability, precision, flight handling....
If it was the best then I’m sure you’d have a higher average upvote and download count to spefy... oh wait. You don’t. The numbers don’t add up.
Oh, boy. Time to take some screenshots of my own -- Tully2001 thinks that facts are decided democratically! By that thinking, Galileo was wrong when he determined that the Earth moves around the sun, just because most people didn't agree.
you merely interpreted the original idea and perhaps changed how it performs.
I combined several concepts together to create what is so far the only hover-flight system that has by far the best performance in SimplePlanes. This is not "interpretation," it's innovation.
Can you stop calling my system a "2D VTOL system", if only to stop embarrassing yourself? Look up what 2D and 3D mean. Both my hover-flight system and the so-called "2D VTOL system" move in three dimensions, there's nothing 2D about them.
They’re both based upon the same idea, they both perform the same task and guess what? They are different to each other. Yes, they both seat 1 pilot, have 2 engines, 2 intakes and both are a shade of grey. Now from what you 2 are saying, that alone is enough to consider them carbon copies of each other. Strange...
Oh, and please just stop claiming that you are the“Inventor of the sideways fuselage building method.” because you aren’t. People have been building with side wards fuselages before you made your account, like me. You just interpreted it. It’s a pretty common technique to use
@spefyjerbf You've done nothing but spout garbage, using words you don't understand, putting them together in flowery, meaningless ways. Your extreme verbosity belies your claim that your time is valuable.
I've said what I had to say, and am not interested in anything further you have to say, unless you start being honest and using language properly.
@EternalDarkness Excuse me, I did invent it. The perfection of my hover-flight module has not yet been equalled. If you can find a prior build that implements the idea of using axial thrusters on a symmetrical chassis with a zero-mass "shell," I will retract my claim.
@Stingray Sure, why not. It's only a few bucks, and I'd always recommend supporting Jundroo. It's got some pretty visual effects, and is fine for casual builds.
If I did, indeed, take your flight system, then why does mine differ so much in aspects such as installation, altitude control, etc.?
It differs in "aspects such as installation" because I use a unique method to create my builds. It differs in altitude control methods, etc., because that would make it very clear that it's my system. The core idea is not the inputs. Claiming that yours is original because you use the VTOL input to change altitude while I use pitch, for instance, is just laughably disingenuous.
What did I steal from your system? An answer involving my use of thrusters and gyros is insufficient.
You stole the whole idea. Prior to this build (Cyclops), every single VTOL system on SimplePlanes was based on rotating VTOL thrusters. To claim that you came up with the same idea as mine, right after I posted Cyclops, is disingenuous in the extreme.
That kind of flight system can be, and was, developed without any outside influence.
Looks like we have a semantic misunderstanding here. The comment that I referred to implied that I installed your spaceship-like flight system directly into one of my aircraft, when I have not.
Not at all. My comment said very clearly that your "2D VTOL system" is based off my hover-flight/spaceship system. Your attempt to pin it down to a very specific interpretation is an old trick used by the guilty. "Are you saying that I stole the lawnmower on Tuesday night by jumping over the fence? Because if that's what you're saying, your allegations are completely wrong! Because I stole it on Wednesday afternoon by picking the lock on the front gate! Ha!"
Plagiarism is never ok. It simply seems suspicious that you remained silent until another user credited me for a flight system that I helped with, almost two years later.
I let it go at the time thinking it's just a kid being a kid... but when I see you claiming that it's your "2D VTOL system", I decide to call you out on it. That's "suspicious"?
If my flight system is not my own work, then why was it flawed when I first implemented it on the drone?
It was flawed because at that point I hadn't explained my system.
If I stole the system from you, it would have been perfect on my first try.
I am sure that you did intend that meaning, but unfortunately, that is how I (and a few others) interpreted it.
What does this even mean? I intended a certain meaning, but that's how you and others interpreted it? If I and you interpreted it the same way, what's the "but" for?
But, since I am requesting that you provide evidence to support your otherwise baseless claims, I might as well provide evidence of my own. While I coined the term, 2D VTOL, with Volitus, it was not the first build of mine to use a gyro-thruster flight system. In fact, Volitus was actually a refinement of an earlier flight system that I tested on an earlier build (which is a small drone) as my first 1.6 build. Therefore, your accusation simply doesn't make sense to me. Based on the functional congruence of Volitus and the drone, it appears to be more likely that Volitus was simply the successor of Helios Security Drone's flight system, which I obviously developed myself.
All the builds you link are 1.8 years old -- so what does that prove?
@spefyjerbf Ah, so you're taking the "brazen it out" approach. I already posted all the evidence needed, which should make it clear to anyone with half a brain and a smidgen of integrity what's going on. However, let's take this elsewhere, dear friend.
@spefyjerbf Misinformation, huh? Let's see... I only linked to my spaceship tutorial because that's the clearest and simplest description of my system, but I built a "cruciform VTOL" some time before that, which was definitely the first to use that system.
This is the first build ever to use the cruciform arrangement of engines to build a VTOL system. Unfortunately, SP doesn't show the exact timestamp so the Cyclops and Volitus both say "1.8 years ago." However, I definitely remember mine being first, because I took note of how you immediately rebranded it as your "2D VTOL system."
Here are some photos showing the engine arrangement on the builds in question (engines have been scaled, translated along their axis when necessary, and painted red to make things clearer):
@Destroyerz117 That's all right, it just seems odd that you would make a point of mentioning the "bare-bones VTOL" system but not the one which is actually doing most of the work. And just so you know, the so-called "2-D VTOL system" is based off my hover-flight chassis as well.
Hmm... you say you used this to power this thing, which uses a single engine powering two rotating VTOL thrust ports to achieve VTOL capability. But looking at your build it's clear you've actually used the "six engines lined up along all three axes" method, along with "set the mass/drag of everything except the flight chassis to zero", and also "use jet engines with max 0.01 and powerMultiplier set to a high value"... all of which looks suspiciously like this. Just a coincidence, I suppose?
@enzoBoeing757 Well, first of all, thank you. Second, you shouldn't feel bad about how your planes compare to anyone else's. I've put in quite a bit of time into the game and have some unique skills. If you go around comparing yourself to other people you'll always feel terrible, because there's always going to be someone better than you at most things. I can't run as fast as a professional sprinter or lift as much as a pro powerlifter. And that's fine by me :) The only person you should be competing with is yourself. Every day, try to be a little better at something than you were yesterday, and you'll be happy.
@Abhishek700 There's no way to set a rotator to be activated when an activation group is off, but you can simulate it using two rotators:
Clone the rotator you want to use this for, so that you have two rotators, R1 and R2, with exactly the same config.
On R2, negate the value of the invert attribute on the InputController.State -- i.e., if R1 has invert="true", R2 should have invert="false".
Set R2's activation group to 8 and R1's activation group to 0.
Mount R2 where you originally intended to mount R1, then mount R1 on top of R2.
Optionally, set R1's position to be the same as that of R2.
This will give you a system where when AG8 is on, R2 will exactly negate the rotation of R1, causing the effective rotation to be zero. When AG8 is off, only R1 will rotate, which is what you want.
@junglekiIIer Er, yeah, it's in the second-to-last photo above. If your plane is too slow, you can use this one or this one, either of those will get you there in just over a minute.
@evilbadger34 XML modding is not the only advantage computers have, the increased precision of a mouse is one thing. Much larger screens, more computing power, and the ability to edit the airplane code directly are others.
@AWESOMENESS360 Essentially, you use a VTOL thrustPort pointing straight upwards to push the submarine down; to limit the depth you use a buoyant block scaled down to be invisible and placed above the central block; to balance the mass of the buoyant block you place another non-buoyant block at the same distance below the central block.
@MintLynx Well, I'm glad to meet someone who can actually see someone else's point of view. Yeah, SP is not the game I want to spend too much time building submarines in. In an ideal world, SP would have graphics and levels like Crysis, and you'd be able to build anything from submarines to artillery to spaceships. But we live in a far from ideal world...
@MintLynx Yeah I'm aware of that, it slipped my mind. It's the best way in general, but the drawbacks are low speed and rotator noise. Also, you need to constantly adjust trim to stay at a constant depth.
@enzoBoeing757 Yeah, pretty much.
@Tully2001
Oh, I'll call you condescending again, and am happy to state as many times as you like that I don't have time for the likes of you. After I posted that comment, I decided to reply to your points anyway, so I deleted the first one. Trust me, I never say anything I'm not willing to fully back up, so screenshot away to your heart's content.
Honest people would disagree. This is the entire basis of intellectual property.
Wrong. I have always said, many times over, that all builds on SP are open source, and anyone is free to use any part of my builds. So where did you pull that assertion out of?
Earlier when, before you called my system a 2D VTOL system? How do you expect me to do that?
By objective standards like stability, controllability, precision, flight handling....
Oh, boy. Time to take some screenshots of my own -- Tully2001 thinks that facts are decided democratically! By that thinking, Galileo was wrong when he determined that the Earth moves around the sun, just because most people didn't agree.
@Tully2001
I combined several concepts together to create what is so far the only hover-flight system that has by far the best performance in SimplePlanes. This is not "interpretation," it's innovation.
@Tully2001
Can you stop calling my system a "2D VTOL system", if only to stop embarrassing yourself? Look up what 2D and 3D mean. Both my hover-flight system and the so-called "2D VTOL system" move in three dimensions, there's nothing 2D about them.
@Tully2001
This is called a straw man argument.
@Tully2001
No, and there's certainly nothing new about the idea of axial thrusters. However, I was the first to execute it perfectly. Which means something.
@Tully2001
OK, fair point. I was not aware of your build.
@AndrewGarrison Interesting... I think now is the time for me to give SR2 another go.
@spefyjerbf You've done nothing but spout garbage, using words you don't understand, putting them together in flowery, meaningless ways. Your extreme verbosity belies your claim that your time is valuable.
I've said what I had to say, and am not interested in anything further you have to say, unless you start being honest and using language properly.
@EternalDarkness
No.
No.
@EternalDarkness Excuse me, I did invent it. The perfection of my hover-flight module has not yet been equalled. If you can find a prior build that implements the idea of using axial thrusters on a symmetrical chassis with a zero-mass "shell," I will retract my claim.
@DestinyAviation Hmm, I don't see it.
Nice build. Can you give us a hint about what kind of secret it is? (hidden logo, functionality, etc.)?
@AndrewGarrison Nice work! This is pretty much exactly what I was talking about.
Now if we could only get the ability to hook up engines to any input we choose... :)
@Stingray Sure, why not. It's only a few bucks, and I'd always recommend supporting Jundroo. It's got some pretty visual effects, and is fine for casual builds.
@spefyjerbf
It differs in "aspects such as installation" because I use a unique method to create my builds. It differs in altitude control methods, etc., because that would make it very clear that it's my system. The core idea is not the inputs. Claiming that yours is original because you use the VTOL input to change altitude while I use pitch, for instance, is just laughably disingenuous.
You stole the whole idea. Prior to this build (Cyclops), every single VTOL system on SimplePlanes was based on rotating VTOL thrusters. To claim that you came up with the same idea as mine, right after I posted Cyclops, is disingenuous in the extreme.
Coincidences like that just don't happen.
@spefyjerbf
Not at all. My comment said very clearly that your "2D VTOL system" is based off my hover-flight/spaceship system. Your attempt to pin it down to a very specific interpretation is an old trick used by the guilty. "Are you saying that I stole the lawnmower on Tuesday night by jumping over the fence? Because if that's what you're saying, your allegations are completely wrong! Because I stole it on Wednesday afternoon by picking the lock on the front gate! Ha!"
@spefyjerbf
I let it go at the time thinking it's just a kid being a kid... but when I see you claiming that it's your "2D VTOL system", I decide to call you out on it. That's "suspicious"?
It was flawed because at that point I hadn't explained my system.
Does not follow.
@spefyjerbf
Again, 1.8 years ago... what's your point?
That was my mistake, but are you saying that just because I didn't call you out on it right away, it makes it ok? How does that work, dear friend?
@spefyjerbf
What does this even mean? I intended a certain meaning, but that's how you and others interpreted it? If I and you interpreted it the same way, what's the "but" for?
All the builds you link are 1.8 years old -- so what does that prove?
@spefyjerbf Ah, so you're taking the "brazen it out" approach. I already posted all the evidence needed, which should make it clear to anyone with half a brain and a smidgen of integrity what's going on. However, let's take this elsewhere, dear friend.
@spefyjerbf Misinformation, huh? Let's see... I only linked to my spaceship tutorial because that's the clearest and simplest description of my system, but I built a "cruciform VTOL" some time before that, which was definitely the first to use that system.
This is the first build ever to use the cruciform arrangement of engines to build a VTOL system. Unfortunately, SP doesn't show the exact timestamp so the Cyclops and Volitus both say "1.8 years ago." However, I definitely remember mine being first, because I took note of how you immediately rebranded it as your "2D VTOL system."
Here are some photos showing the engine arrangement on the builds in question (engines have been scaled, translated along their axis when necessary, and painted red to make things clearer):
Cyclops (1.8 years ago)
Volitus (1.8 years ago)
Axiom of Luxury (1.3 years ago)
Planet Express
@Simplemike Hey, almost all my planes go Mach 5+, I couldn't care less about how realistic the speed is. I want to go places and do things :)
+1@Destroyerz117 All right, then.
@Destroyerz117 That's all right, it just seems odd that you would make a point of mentioning the "bare-bones VTOL" system but not the one which is actually doing most of the work. And just so you know, the so-called "2-D VTOL system" is based off my hover-flight chassis as well.
Flies really well, and looks good too. Nice work.
+2Hmm... you say you used this to power this thing, which uses a single engine powering two rotating VTOL thrust ports to achieve VTOL capability. But looking at your build it's clear you've actually used the "six engines lined up along all three axes" method, along with "set the mass/drag of everything except the flight chassis to zero", and also "use jet engines with max 0.01 and powerMultiplier set to a high value"... all of which looks suspiciously like this. Just a coincidence, I suppose?
@Notaleopard Er... yes, that's the whole reason I posted my flight modules, so people could use them.
Nice, you're getting the hang of making interesting shapes.
@enzoBoeing757 Well, first of all, thank you. Second, you shouldn't feel bad about how your planes compare to anyone else's. I've put in quite a bit of time into the game and have some unique skills. If you go around comparing yourself to other people you'll always feel terrible, because there's always going to be someone better than you at most things. I can't run as fast as a professional sprinter or lift as much as a pro powerlifter. And that's fine by me :) The only person you should be competing with is yourself. Every day, try to be a little better at something than you were yesterday, and you'll be happy.
+3@enzoBoeing757 Why? It's not as if "there can be only one" -- Everyone and their builds can coexist without any conflict.
@Abhishek700 There's no way to set a rotator to be activated when an activation group is off, but you can simulate it using two rotators:
This will give you a system where when AG8 is on, R2 will exactly negate the rotation of R1, causing the effective rotation to be zero. When AG8 is off, only R1 will rotate, which is what you want.
+1@CRJ900Pilot OK, sure.
+1@Abhishek700 Yes.
Thanks, @Ariathe
@Abhishek700 You can set the input to -Activate8 and that will cause the rotator to turn as soon as you disable AG8.
@Stingray Yeah, SR2 is a lot more limited than SP, unfortunately. But as you say, there're plenty of other things to do in life.
@Kerbango That's just your zodiac-centred tunnel vision... I was going more for something along these lines.
@Stingray yeah, this sub does fire torpedos while underwater... Haven't seen you on here in a while?
@Notaleopard It is a bit hard to control... after transforming, it starts to turn somersaults in the air.
@Notaleopard Well, it does transform, so I'm not sure what you're asking...?
Thanks, @AWESOMENESS360
@junglekiIIer Er, yeah, it's in the second-to-last photo above. If your plane is too slow, you can use this one or this one, either of those will get you there in just over a minute.
@junglekiIIer Well, you must've done something wrong, then.
@evilbadger34 XML modding is not the only advantage computers have, the increased precision of a mouse is one thing. Much larger screens, more computing power, and the ability to edit the airplane code directly are others.
Thanks, @grizzlitn
+1@AWESOMENESS360 Essentially, you use a VTOL thrustPort pointing straight upwards to push the submarine down; to limit the depth you use a buoyant block scaled down to be invisible and placed above the central block; to balance the mass of the buoyant block you place another non-buoyant block at the same distance below the central block.
@MintLynx Well, I'm glad to meet someone who can actually see someone else's point of view. Yeah, SP is not the game I want to spend too much time building submarines in. In an ideal world, SP would have graphics and levels like Crysis, and you'd be able to build anything from submarines to artillery to spaceships. But we live in a far from ideal world...
A preference toward being quick? You could say that....
+2@MintLynx Yeah I'm aware of that, it slipped my mind. It's the best way in general, but the drawbacks are low speed and rotator noise. Also, you need to constantly adjust trim to stay at a constant depth.
@SubXTribe Yeah, I had a Typhoon-class in mind when I made this.