@Aeromotive
.
In any case, then it just means an incorrectly built flight model. You can build realistic planes in SP, just that it requires a lot of tweaking on your end. I suppose your design doesn't follow such needs. A vertical climb should not be possible.
@Aeromotive
.
In a straight, 90º climb? If this is the case your numbers would be correct, but otherwise you're missing out a lot on your calculations.
Accuracy, yes- blueprints aren't really abundant, and I have to cross reference around three 3D models and 5 pictures to make sure I'm getting it right, even for just this little rail piece. Takes a bit of time. This is probably the biggest issue. I could wing it and do it in two minutes, but I want to make my work as good as possible.
To be fair, it makes no sense for the mobile versions to have the same capabilities as the PC version, which costs more than the mobile edition. Do as you will with that idea.
@ObliviousCed
.
Not necessarily in the sense that you mentioned, but you can bind different inputs to do the job. F doesn't really have a corresponding game input, so it's hard to do that particular case.
Yaw isn't a boolean.. It's a number. That explains the incorrect interaction with the and operator.
For disabling something when a condition isn't fulfilled, you want to do something I call clamping a boolean. In this context, since we want Yaw input only when GearDown = true, we can simply do Yaw*clamp01(GearDown)- to which when GearDown = false, the clamp01() function will output 0, making any input from Yaw multiply out to 0.
-LandingGear isn't really a correct input in the first place (it becomes -0, -1) so I'm not sure exactly what you need, so let's discuss it in context. Do you mean you want a single blink when the gear goes down, or up? If you can clarify that I can help for sure.
@MAHADI
.
1. Zoom mod.
2. Semi-automatic. Only steps required is pointing camera at target and setting linear LoS range.
3. It is designed to be used on turrets.
4. Probably.
Why is this the most advanced FCS possible in SP, you ask? Well, it's not me being arrogant- for a more complete FCS, that is, a system with automatic lead and predictive targeting capabilities, the solving of a massive quartic (not quadratic) equation is required, which cannot be done without a dedicated quartic solver as no defined general form for quartics exist. Thus, this is about the best FCS that can be created in game right now.
@AGKxCREW
.
You'll have to take one apart yourself. The problem with piston engines in SP is that they lack a starter, which makes it very difficult to avoid reciprocating motion. If you know what crankshafts look like, they're not terribly difficult to make. The problem is getting motion direction uniform.
@Wi1dSk7
.
Imagine having to delete drama posts as a moderator, having to comment on it because it gets out of hand, and someone bashing on said comment regarding "drama".
@MercuryCorporation
.
I cannot help you with systems that use physics glitches... FT is very much grounded in physics calculations. If you have a specifc behavior in mind I might be able to help.
@Jerba
. Simple of a game??? Not to be too brash, but SP is far from simple at in its current form. The level of depth it offers is simply outstanding. No other game in the genre holds a candle to it.
.
I do find that while mobile builds can be decent, if you'd ask me to choose a build from mobile or PC I'd bet on PC any day. You got any examples of mobile builds that offer the same level of quality as good PC builds?
@jamesPLANESii
.
No, they have a full suspension animation, realistic track physics and steering. You just need effort.
@Vincent_
.
Yes
You can make good modless tracks...
ok
+2sum(FireWeapons)orsum(FireGuns)should fit the bill.@Aeromotive
.
In any case, then it just means an incorrectly built flight model. You can build realistic planes in SP, just that it requires a lot of tweaking on your end. I suppose your design doesn't follow such needs. A vertical climb should not be possible.
@Aeromotive
.
In a straight, 90º climb? If this is the case your numbers would be correct, but otherwise you're missing out a lot on your calculations.
@SodiumChloride
.
I hate the watermark with a passion. It's the bandicam of SP.
A quick refresher- be sure to check out Funky Trees. In-depth documentation is available on my website. You were known for bombsights- check out the one made using Funky Trees, which works for all altitudes and plane orientations with exceptional accuracy.
+2Give me a set of number to work with and I can help you. FT help requires specificity. Time to spool up, throttle behavior, performance curves etc.
@rexzion
.
Lol. A couple of reasons-
Cool maths
+1To be fair, it makes no sense for the mobile versions to have the same capabilities as the PC version, which costs more than the mobile edition. Do as you will with that idea.
+1@F104Deathtrap
+1.
Fair point. I'm just saying that it's not immediately necessary, as it is fairly easy to do these when you get used to them.
@F104Deathtrap
+1.
Detacher method has always been without AGs. That's the point.
No, with Funky Trees this has become incredibly easy. No need. Additionally, the old detacher method works fine.
Why not a fully functional beluga whale? Congrats!
+1@CarnationRED
.
Cool, thanks for the reply.
@2534
+3.
Mobile mods no longer exist.
I suppose this is done by treating projectiles as an "aircraft"?
+1No reshade on lè Màc :P
+1ま、英語版なら私がもう作っていますので気にせずしてください
@ThomasRoderick
.
Fairly certain they do.
@BagelPlane
.
That should work, maybe it's something with your syntax. Otherwise try the inverter operator
!. For more information check my website.@ThomasRoderick
+1.
Ah, none currently are available. You can simulate it using
smoothhowever.@ThomasRoderick
.
LaunchCountermeasuresMaybe BATUS? I would like some good hilly fields.
@ObliviousCed
.
Not necessarily in the sense that you mentioned, but you can bind different
inputsto do the job.Fdoesn't really have a corresponding game input, so it's hard to do that particular case.Oh god
+1@Birdman9301
.
Could you specify a duration?
This should give you a short blink when the gear goes up only.
Yaw isn't a boolean.. It's a number. That explains the incorrect interaction with the
andoperator.For disabling something when a condition isn't fulfilled, you want to do something I call clamping a boolean. In this context, since we want Yaw input only when GearDown = true, we can simply do
+2Yaw*clamp01(GearDown)- to which when GearDown = false, the clamp01() function will output 0, making any input from Yaw multiply out to 0.-LandingGear isn't really a correct input in the first place (it becomes -0, -1) so I'm not sure exactly what you need, so let's discuss it in context. Do you mean you want a single blink when the gear goes down, or up? If you can clarify that I can help for sure.
Also I'm lazy so @FairFireFight might be able to help
@MAHADI
.
1. Zoom mod.
2. Semi-automatic. Only steps required is pointing camera at target and setting linear LoS range.
3. It is designed to be used on turrets.
4. Probably.
Why is this the most advanced FCS possible in SP, you ask? Well, it's not me being arrogant- for a more complete FCS, that is, a system with automatic lead and predictive targeting capabilities, the solving of a massive quartic (not quadratic) equation is required, which cannot be done without a dedicated quartic solver as no defined general form for quartics exist. Thus, this is about the best FCS that can be created in game right now.
@officialryanyang
.
A good mix of Funky Trees and physics.
@WIZARD2017
.
Not any that I know of.
Fantastic! Great shape too.
@SajabAerospace
+1.
You'll have to use a PID controller, which takes a lot of manual tuning... You'll have to try and deal with that on your own.
@AGKxCREW
+3.
You'll have to take one apart yourself. The problem with piston engines in SP is that they lack a starter, which makes it very difficult to avoid reciprocating motion. If you know what crankshafts look like, they're not terribly difficult to make. The problem is getting motion direction uniform.
@Wi1dSk7
+4.
Imagine having to delete drama posts as a moderator, having to comment on it because it gets out of hand, and someone bashing on said comment regarding "drama".
@MercuryCorporation
.
I cannot help you with systems that use physics glitches... FT is very much grounded in physics calculations. If you have a specifc behavior in mind I might be able to help.
@Jerba
+2.
Simple of a game??? Not to be too brash, but SP is far from simple at in its current form. The level of depth it offers is simply outstanding. No other game in the genre holds a candle to it.
.
I do find that while mobile builds can be decent, if you'd ask me to choose a build from mobile or PC I'd bet on PC any day. You got any examples of mobile builds that offer the same level of quality as good PC builds?
@JustDatGuy
+2.
Custom thumbnails are a mod. Mobile users don't get to complain about mods.
Did I mention mobile pays less?
@WNP78
+19.
Can we ban these posts? Kinda need rules for the forums now...
@winterro
.
The calculation process is clearly delineated in the video. I'm afraid I can't really explain it much simpler.
あ、そうですか。。
人形を作った前例がなくて知らなかったです
がんばってください（笑）
ほかのはともかく、
機体の軽さはxmlのmassScaleでやればいいのでは。。？
Definitely needs some work on part count reduction. Good idea though.