Now, it isn't inconceivable for a guided bomb to be made with FT and using actual control surfaces, but that is a technical challenge that is likely beyond you (or me, for the matter).
Use of missiles for directional control, i.e. guiding, require missiles to have thrust. Without thrust, the missile is a dud and has no way to guide itself.
If I recall correctly, you can use NACA wing profile types directly using XML edit, so you have a bit more freedom than that of just the default selection types.
@Adityo0502
.
The follower system is near useless. Barely anyone looks at the jet stream. I can agree with the latter portion (in regards to people with clout just getting upvotes easily) but the first simply isn't true, although it's clearly a hyperbole used for rhetorical purposes. I've seen more than enough 0 point uploaders strike 100 upvotes on their first build.
So was I- it wasn't I made a build that was novel, inventive, and genuinely interesting to play with that was garner a notable sum of upvotes.
@Brields95
.
Hey, what's with the open indication of hostility facilitated by the use of all caps? That aside, no, just that I dislike baseless slander, which is being done here with your previous comment. I never specified that I am entitled to an explanation.
However, as this is a public forum, you are held responsible for your actions and claims- and thus should be aware that personal opinions, when vocalized, become a means of affecting the general population. It is very much undesireable for public opinion to be swayed by baseless claims, which is why I am requesting supporting data on your end. You see, I like to form my opinions as objectively as possible, even if that means changing my original perception of things. That is, I want to see your side of the story.
Otherwise, I see no value in the aforementioned comment for the sake of discussion, to which you should take action to indicate it as so.
@JuanShot2Go
.
Of course, as is with programming languages, an eclectic approach is acceptable and whichever solution you deem to be the most fitting is the one you should use. Regarding the specific scenario you presented, depends on what you need. FT will sometimes ignore the limits set by min/max of inputControllers, so ideally you should use a clamp function to restrict your ranges of values, just in case.
.
As for your second question- storing variables are a just a bit more difficult, but is somewhat possible. The main idea is to use the smooth function, mainly by having your actual "variable" be in the x part of smooth(x, r), and the r- the rate of the smooth function- be a very high value, like 10^5, when you want to change the value of the variable, and also be 0 whenever you want to store it. For example, I could "store" the altitude value with AG1 by using smooth(Altitude, clamp01(Activate1)*pow(10,5)), in which when AG1 is off, the output of the smooth function does not change in value, but should I want to update my variable, I press AG1 and the smooth function "updates" to output the current Altitude value. If I wanted to store it again, I could disable AG1 to do so.
.
It is my pleasure to be able to help others. No problem.
@Brields95
.
I'm not one to take sides, but I do dislike claims made without adequate evidence. Can you provide explicit evidence that fortifies your assertion?
.
Additionally, @AircraftoftheRedStar , I don't see how that particular fable is applicable here. The essence of that story is the idea of constant, diligent work; it does not correspond with the current situation in which a long break was taken for real-life obligations.
.
Of course, his recent actions were nowhere near optimal, but it deviates from the argument at hand.
.
Both of you are clearly jumping the gun, evidently instigated by other individuals who also are making logical leaps.
If you so dislike how they listen to suggestions all the time, go start modding and become prominent enough to become a dev yourself and also snatch a job along the way. 2 devs out of the small team we have at Jundroo are community member-turned-devs.
@Nerfaddict
.
Not to diss the tracks mod, but I personally dislike parts mods very much... much rather work with default parts. Not to mention, the tracks mod isn't the best at doing double pin tracks.
.
Also, working suspension and all the cool stuff of tracks included.
@Bob9998
.
Weird. My first "serious" build- one I built when I was not very well known, at bronze, was awarded with 50+ upvotes. Bronze users- more accurately, newer users- tend to lack apt building technique, which prevents them from making the quality builds that most (but not all) platinum builders do.
In addition to what others have said, I just want to point out that the number of physics calculations / updates per second are affected by settings. This can make a lot of things not work, so always check the settings that the builder recommends.
@CRJ900Pilot
.
No, but are you using <= instead of < ? For tolerancing purposes, just try rolling with < and see how that plays out. Also, you can remove the Throttle* bit, I forgot to change that in the previous comment.
@CRJ900Pilot
.
If you're putting it on an aircraft, I suppose you won't exactly go backwards, so you don't really need the directional control vector... so including an altitude limitation, the code would be something like clamp01(AltitudeAgl < a)*sum(Control*GS)/(2pi*r), same thing for r and a is the max altitude above the ground at which the wheels will operate.
.
Set the rotator speed to 1.5x ~ 2x and range to 180º.
@CRJ900Pilot
.
If you wanf it to be realistic, then you have to first find the circumference of the wheel, then divide the integral displacement of the vehicle by it. That is, something like sum(Control*GS)/(2pi*r), where r is the radius of your wheel, in meters, and Control is the control input you are using for your car (something like Pitch). I recommend using Pitch and Roll for the vehicle's controls.
@typeZERO
.
Sorry, I must've missed your question somehow. If we're talking miles per hour here, then 900mph ~= 402 m/s, so in the input attribute of a part writing TAS > 402 would return a output of 1 when it is true, and -1 otherwise.
@typeZERO @MRMDAWURM
. typeZERO is incorrect, every unit in Funky Trees is based on SI units (not necessarily metric, but most SI units are metric). Unless you're using the archaic system of (v < spd), which you should not be, the system is consistent in using meters per second for data calculation.
.
If you have evidence that proves otherwise, please notify me and I will contact the devs.
@Mustang51 @Mustang51
.
Just a thing to add- no need for G-meters: the console command DebugExpression VerticalG gives exactly what you need with incredible accuracy.
@MemeLord21 @Bman01 @Ultra0
.
Reason he's making this is to let others build upon the frame as they see fit, clearly he builds what he wants to and is leaving the base frame for open source.
Hey, the physics in SP are actually pretty good when you use them correctly.
Funky trees really expands the options here for doing a lot of things, but generally it's best if you have data from flight manuals that tell you control surface effectiveness relative to IAS. Usually it turns out something like logarithm, so as long as you have the data you can make it incredibly realistic.
@An2k
.
Most people do, but it's fairly pointless to do so normally because FT expressions are usually specifc to the craft. Instead, what really helps others is creating a general form of a system, like he did with the Desmos widget, but it take more effort and most don't have the time to spare.
Now, it isn't inconceivable for a guided bomb to be made with FT and using actual control surfaces, but that is a technical challenge that is likely beyond you (or me, for the matter).
Use of missiles for directional control, i.e. guiding, require missiles to have thrust. Without thrust, the missile is a dud and has no way to guide itself.
Imagine not knowing how aircraft links and downloading works
+1If I recall correctly, you can use NACA wing profile types directly using XML edit, so you have a bit more freedom than that of just the default selection types.
+2Imagine paying less and wanting equal treatment
+9@Minecraftpoweer
.
Alright, I got the gist of it. Any specifics on the limits?
@Adityo0502
+1.
The follower system is near useless. Barely anyone looks at the jet stream. I can agree with the latter portion (in regards to people with clout just getting upvotes easily) but the first simply isn't true, although it's clearly a hyperbole used for rhetorical purposes. I've seen more than enough 0 point uploaders strike 100 upvotes on their first build.
So was I- it wasn't I made a build that was novel, inventive, and genuinely interesting to play with that was garner a notable sum of upvotes.
@Brields95
+3.
Hey, what's with the open indication of hostility facilitated by the use of all caps? That aside, no, just that I dislike baseless slander, which is being done here with your previous comment. I never specified that I am entitled to an explanation.
However, as this is a public forum, you are held responsible for your actions and claims- and thus should be aware that personal opinions, when vocalized, become a means of affecting the general population. It is very much undesireable for public opinion to be swayed by baseless claims, which is why I am requesting supporting data on your end. You see, I like to form my opinions as objectively as possible, even if that means changing my original perception of things. That is, I want to see your side of the story.
Otherwise, I see no value in the aforementioned comment for the sake of discussion, to which you should take action to indicate it as so.
@Minecraftpoweer
.
Could you specify? I kind of have an idea but I ain't sure
Dammit! I was gonna make one of these, but I couldn't find the time for it...
+1@JuanShot2Go
.
Of course, as is with programming languages, an eclectic approach is acceptable and whichever solution you deem to be the most fitting is the one you should use. Regarding the specific scenario you presented, depends on what you need. FT will sometimes ignore the limits set by min/max of inputControllers, so ideally you should use a clamp function to restrict your ranges of values, just in case.
.
As for your second question- storing variables are a just a bit more difficult, but is somewhat possible. The main idea is to use the
smoothfunction, mainly by having your actual "variable" be in thexpart ofsmooth(x, r), and ther- the rate of the smooth function- be a very high value, like 10^5, when you want to change the value of the variable, and also be 0 whenever you want to store it. For example, I could "store" the altitude value with AG1 by usingsmooth(Altitude, clamp01(Activate1)*pow(10,5)), in which when AG1 is off, the output of the smooth function does not change in value, but should I want to update my variable, I press AG1 and the smooth function "updates" to output the currentAltitudevalue. If I wanted to store it again, I could disable AG1 to do so..
It is my pleasure to be able to help others. No problem.
@Brields95
+5.
I'm not one to take sides, but I do dislike claims made without adequate evidence. Can you provide explicit evidence that fortifies your assertion?
.
Additionally, @AircraftoftheRedStar , I don't see how that particular fable is applicable here. The essence of that story is the idea of constant, diligent work; it does not correspond with the current situation in which a long break was taken for real-life obligations.
.
Of course, his recent actions were nowhere near optimal, but it deviates from the argument at hand.
.
Both of you are clearly jumping the gun, evidently instigated by other individuals who also are making logical leaps.
@Ultra0
.
Change the function to do that. You know, change the multiplier to the sine... Period is
2pi/b.@Ultra0
.
In the input field, write in
sin(Time*180)... You said it yourself.Use your own client... Overload is built-in.
- You're not helping
- If you so dislike how they listen to suggestions all the time, go start modding and become prominent enough to become a dev yourself and also snatch a job along the way. 2 devs out of the small team we have at Jundroo are community member-turned-devs.
+2@MRMDAWURM
.
2.1k atm.
@Nerfaddict
.
Not to diss the tracks mod, but I personally dislike parts mods very much... much rather work with default parts. Not to mention, the tracks mod isn't the best at doing double pin tracks.
.
Also, working suspension and all the cool stuff of tracks included.
@brians1209
+7.
Yeah, I'm in my senior year and I have to start getting ready for college applications- just a tad bit busy.
This post is wrong in every way possible. You clearly haven't spent enough time here.
+1Use your built-in finetuner or Overload mod.
@Pophead
+1.
I suppose you can do with activationGroup gimmicks, but probably it will be incredibly buggy.
Try starting with
sum(Pitch)and see where that gets you.Use the massEdit script.
@Bob9998
+4.
Weird. My first "serious" build- one I built when I was not very well known, at bronze, was awarded with 50+ upvotes. Bronze users- more accurately, newer users- tend to lack apt building technique, which prevents them from making the quality builds that most (but not all) platinum builders do.
In addition to what others have said, I just want to point out that the number of physics calculations / updates per second are affected by settings. This can make a lot of things not work, so always check the settings that the builder recommends.
+1@CRJ900Pilot
.
Odd. Possibly send screenshots of the Overload window and how you set it up?
Wack.
+1一番いい方法ならオンラインIDEなどうを使って（たとえばrepl.it）スクリプトにするものですが、十分な説明があるかぎりどんなかたちでもかまわないんだっとおもっています。
@CRJ900Pilot
.
Try this:
clamp01(AltitudeAgl < 5)
*sum(GS)/(2pi*0.24)@CRJ900Pilot
.
No, but are you using <= instead of < ? For tolerancing purposes, just try rolling with < and see how that plays out. Also, you can remove the
Throttle*bit, I forgot to change that in the previous comment.@CRJ900Pilot
.
If you're putting it on an aircraft, I suppose you won't exactly go backwards, so you don't really need the directional control vector... so including an altitude limitation, the code would be something like
clamp01(AltitudeAgl < a)*sum(Control*GS)/(2pi*r), same thing forrandais the max altitude above the ground at which the wheels will operate..
Set the rotator speed to 1.5x ~ 2x and range to 180º.
@CRJ900Pilot
.
If you wanf it to be realistic, then you have to first find the circumference of the wheel, then divide the integral displacement of the vehicle by it. That is, something like
sum(Control*GS)/(2pi*r), whereris the radius of your wheel, in meters, andControlis the control input you are using for your car (something like Pitch). I recommend using Pitch and Roll for the vehicle's controls.@typeZERO
.
I have started a series on them, but progress is a bit slow- I should be able to push a new video out by next week. Thanks for asking.
Neat build, SR. Always nice to see things that aren't aircraft.
Great work on the 1919, could be a standalone build (where have I seen that before?).
+3@MRMDAWURM
.
Heh. I can talk!
@typeZERO
.
Sorry, I must've missed your question somehow. If we're talking miles per hour here, then 900mph ~= 402 m/s, so in the input attribute of a part writing
TAS > 402would return a output of 1 when it is true, and -1 otherwise.@typeZERO @MRMDAWURM
.
typeZERO is incorrect, every unit in Funky Trees is based on SI units (not necessarily metric, but most SI units are metric). Unless you're using the archaic system of (v < spd), which you should not be, the system is consistent in using meters per second for data calculation.
.
If you have evidence that proves otherwise, please notify me and I will contact the devs.
@Mustang51 @Zoowarp
.
Open the console, copy and paste the aforementioned text.
@Mustang51 @Mustang51
.
Just a thing to add- no need for G-meters: the console command
DebugExpression VerticalGgives exactly what you need with incredible accuracy.@MemeLord21 @Bman01 @Ultra0
+5.
Reason he's making this is to let others build upon the frame as they see fit, clearly he builds what he wants to and is leaving the base frame for open source.
スポットーライトしました！今度もいい作品ですね
+1@TOMJeb117
.
tbh I understand why most people don't- it's more effort that the needs.
To reduce visible "visible ammo count" you can apply FT to the activationGroup of the "shell casing" cannon in order to disable whenever applicable.
Personally enjoy the fuselage-detacher ejection method better, but given that the ammo count is 1200 I think I know why you chose this method.
Great build.
@RuvienRepublicCitizen
.
Part count != quality, but generally with 300 parts or less you aren't gonna get very far.
Hey, the physics in SP are actually pretty good when you use them correctly.
+1Funky trees really expands the options here for doing a lot of things, but generally it's best if you have data from flight manuals that tell you control surface effectiveness relative to IAS. Usually it turns out something like logarithm, so as long as you have the data you can make it incredibly realistic.
@Blyatsickle
.
Easy, make do with the
ammofunction.@Blyatsickle
+1.
Discord has been having seizures for the last few months. Keep trying. It's happening for everyone.
@An2k
.
Most people do, but it's fairly pointless to do so normally because FT expressions are usually specifc to the craft. Instead, what really helps others is creating a general form of a system, like he did with the Desmos widget, but it take more effort and most don't have the time to spare.
@Urya
+1.
ランプをつかって作ることはなんでもきれいで機能性もありますが、やはり画質上げるとパーツの数が多すぎくなりますよね。。。