Just one more thing, can you provide me a reference frame to work with, i.e., how large you want the whole gun to be? I need you to provide me some dimensions in some form, preferably in fuselage units (e.g. 0.5 wide, 2 length, 0.5 height, fuselage units).
.
If I wasn't clear enough, I'll be happy to elaborate.
I don't think you've understood what I've said yet. I think I made it pretty clear I already know how cannon caliber nomenclature works.
.
Perhaps the purpose of my statement wasn't clear enough for you. Let me be more direct: I was calling you out on a significant English Convention error, not questioning how caliber nomenclature works. You've also made a mistake again in your explanation:
If you have a 16" .50 caliber barrel, it'll be roughly 66.5 feet long, because the barrel is 50 calibers long,
Is the difference between .50 and 50 caliber not apparent to you? You've also made this error in your original post, as per my previous comment:
You wrote .38 caliber, not 38 caliber.
I must apologise for being such a nitpick, but it drastically alters the meaning of the sentence, and therefore becomes erroneous in meaning. That I just can't pass by.
the reason things got so stacked is because of the upload system and me losing access to SP for a year
Never in your comment history or a forum post of some kind have I spotted this argument. Not really consistent, are we?
drop it lad other wise ill get mods informed on this comment
Did I break a rule? I'm just questioning how one produces 80 or so quality builds somehow, especially if you have so little time to invest in SP:
have a job I have a life and only one device I play SP on and im sorry if I hang out with friends and Live a normal teens life
I get that you've been unbanned, and probably for a credible argument about how you aren't taking parts, but I still haven't seen a proper clarification that I can comprehend. A general consensus between the community leads me to believe that there was a compelling reason to get you banned in the first place. I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm asking for clear, upfront clarification on the issue so we can all continue in peace. Surely a supposed 16 year old is capable of doing so, if I can take credit from the personal details provided on your profile. Is this too much to ask from you? I just tend to be a skeptical, especially on the Internet.
@Jim1the1Squid
.
Nope. Nobody can ever keep up worthwhile quality exceeding 3 posts per day. No top builder ever posts more than 2 a day. If you need so much to post, just do an unlisted post or two. I gurantee CptJacobson's supposed 80 projects are not up to par in terms of quality, that or some parts are taken from other builds. It practically is impossible to produce 3+ quality builds a day unless SP is your full time job or something.
I'm not exactly sure if you've previously worked with mechanical SP builds, but the hitbox-collision physics in SP treat hollow fuselages not too nicely when you're trying to make a wheel-type mechanism. It is far more advantageous to add an extra 100 or so parts for a smoother mechanism than it is to use a hollow fuselage. With the nature of these style of builds, a high part count naturally follows and it isn't the highest priority consideration.
@Adanene
If your device can't handle the part count, I'm afraid you'll have to suffer through the lag. A detailed build will generally reach over 500 parts.
.
I'll have to go to greater lengths to explain everything you've asked me, but generally making an interior requires that you physically make a hollow hull of the tank in SP. This is already going to accrue you quite a bit of parts, especially if the vehicle you're making has a strange hull shape.
.
Recoil is an open path. You can model it with pistons, like most do, but I personally prefer impactForce recoil systems.
.
I'll stop here, you get the general idea.
@SpiritusRaptor
Hey SR, it's been awhile.
I have a project coming up that requires me to develop something like this, although I want to make something that fits in a very small space (smaller than the smallest engine here!). After repeated experiments, the major issue seems to be that the pistons won't rotate the shaft in a single direction, but instead in an oscillating back-and-forth motion. Mind if you can guide me on how you fixed that issue here?
First of all, tank aren't underrated. They receive substantial amounts of upvotes. It's just that Bronze or Silver users are bronze and silver for a reason- their quality isn't high enough.
Most tanks are also replicas. If you aren't faithful enough to the real thing, you likely won't receive good feedback.
@IlikeToFlyandcrash First, some spelling... "Sight" means something drastically different from "site". As I said, I can only infer what you are trying to say if you don't use proper English conventions.
.
As an rebuttal to your nonsensical argument about how Jundroo has "copied" someone's plane and "added 2 parts"... If you have any sense of how the game works, it's pretty obvious they've change more than "adding 2 parts". Changes to a build aren't all about the part count. If you have eyes you can see that.
In addition, I've already made it pretty clear to you:
I also have no idea what you're raising an issue with. Nobody "copied" anything. Jundroo decided that a certain plane was fitting as a stock plane, so they took the basic chassis, modified it, and included it as a stock plane for all players to gain inspiration from or to play with. All of this was done with consent from the original author.
Nobody stole anything. Plus, your works of "adding 3 pieces and a different paint job" are objectively not worth cluttering the site with, to be frank with you. Not a single person has got away with simply repainting an existing build. It doesn't show any effort. If you want to know what a real "modification" looks like, check this for example. Your work shows far too little effort, especially if it isn't something original. In the example I gave you, the part count jumped some 400 parts. Your "adding of 2 parts" is just so meager and insignificant.
.
Hope this makes sense to you.
@IlikeToFlyandcrash
Mind if you use formal, understandable English? Your argument don't stand very well if you can't phrase things accurately.
I also have no idea what you're raising an issue with. Nobody "copied" anything. Jundroo decided that a certain plane was fitting as a stock plane, so they took the basic chassis, modified it, and included it as a stock plane for all players to gain inspiration from of or to play with. All of this was done with consent from the original author.
@benjiboyy06 Fair try, but just as a precaution... For a concept that is as dated and widespread like piston engines, it's hard to say "credit me" unless someone takes this exact build and uses it.
For some feedback... as far as piston engines go, this one lacks the compactness and power output required of a good piston engine.
@TheOwlAce Can happen with negative fire rate potentially, also can be game trying to not lag out. If you do want to make them last longer, try changing the lifeTime attribute on your gun part.
@EternalDarkness Makes good sense, although ~20 parts won't make too much of a difference. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with. Tags, if you do that sort of thing.
@EternalDarkness Cool, that's awesome. I was originally considering that option too, although I intentionally used detachers for the purpose of eliminating the process of having to go into ordnance tab and selecting the rockets. As I stated here:
The launcher uses ingame rockets, but they will not show up as usable for offensive capability (and therefore does not interfere with preexisting builds that use rockets as tank rounds).
Although, if it's something like an IFV I'd assume you don't use rockets on other areas of the vehicle... Just a little more for advocating the use of detachers: as an added plus, using detachers let you give a more "projectile-parabola" trajectory to the travel of the smoke grenades, giving them a slightly more authentic feel (which isn't possible to my knowledge without detachers.)
.
On a final note: thank you for being a nice member of the community and giving credit for what's just the concept. That made my day.
Your use of shocks have no purpose in this build. For the shocks to work as I believe you intend them to, the shocks themselves should also be placed on a "free-moving platform", for a lack of a better word.
@EternalDarkness
.
Stumbled across this whilst looking through the user's comment history. Might want to look into him, a rather peculiar user... I must say.
@Linethesmarty A 2013 Macbook can run it fine. Maybe you're not considering the fact that SP builds can get extremely detailed. Remove the "extra blocks"? Funny of you to say something like that when it's clear you don't recognize craftsmanship. When builders reach a certain point there isn't anything called unecessary parts. Everything is purposeful and there for a reason.
@CRJ900Pilot
Sure thing! I apologize for the delay- I was originally trying to get it delivered to you earlier, but I got a bit caught up with things.
@Badplanesdotnet
Quite obviously not meant for low physics though, is it?
@CRJ900Pilot
Just one more thing, can you provide me a reference frame to work with, i.e., how large you want the whole gun to be? I need you to provide me some dimensions in some form, preferably in fuselage units (e.g. 0.5 wide, 2 length, 0.5 height, fuselage units).
.
If I wasn't clear enough, I'll be happy to elaborate.
@Jim1the1Squid
I don't think you've understood what I've said yet. I think I made it pretty clear I already know how cannon caliber nomenclature works.
.
Perhaps the purpose of my statement wasn't clear enough for you. Let me be more direct: I was calling you out on a significant English Convention error, not questioning how caliber nomenclature works. You've also made a mistake again in your explanation:
Is the difference between .50 and 50 caliber not apparent to you? You've also made this error in your original post, as per my previous comment:
I must apologise for being such a nitpick, but it drastically alters the meaning of the sentence, and therefore becomes erroneous in meaning. That I just can't pass by.
Never in your comment history or a forum post of some kind have I spotted this argument. Not really consistent, are we?
Did I break a rule? I'm just questioning how one produces 80 or so quality builds somehow, especially if you have so little time to invest in SP:
I get that you've been unbanned, and probably for a credible argument about how you aren't taking parts, but I still haven't seen a proper clarification that I can comprehend. A general consensus between the community leads me to believe that there was a compelling reason to get you banned in the first place. I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm asking for clear, upfront clarification on the issue so we can all continue in peace. Surely a supposed 16 year old is capable of doing so, if I can take credit from the personal details provided on your profile. Is this too much to ask from you? I just tend to be a skeptical, especially on the Internet.
+1@Sovjetair
The WiFi looking button on the title area of any type of post lets you toggle notifications.
@CRJ900Pilot
Sure, but I'll need you be a little more specific. Is it also okay if I take a day or two? I'm out of the country right now.
@Jim1the1Squid
You wrote .38, not 38 caliber.
@Jim1the1Squid
.
Nope. Nobody can ever keep up worthwhile quality exceeding 3 posts per day. No top builder ever posts more than 2 a day. If you need so much to post, just do an unlisted post or two. I gurantee CptJacobson's supposed 80 projects are not up to par in terms of quality, that or some parts are taken from other builds. It practically is impossible to produce 3+ quality builds a day unless SP is your full time job or something.
@Jim1the1Squid
.38 caliber cannon? Is that supposed to be the length of a water bottle? Cannon "caliber" measures barrel length, I think you mixed that up...
Not worth uploading at all.
+2@Zippy6
I'm not exactly sure if you've previously worked with mechanical SP builds, but the hitbox-collision physics in SP treat hollow fuselages not too nicely when you're trying to make a wheel-type mechanism. It is far more advantageous to add an extra 100 or so parts for a smoother mechanism than it is to use a hollow fuselage. With the nature of these style of builds, a high part count naturally follows and it isn't the highest priority consideration.
@Sm10684 This isn't that much of an effective setup either. The pistons are bound to break like this.
Care to follow rules, buddy.
+2@Mod
Teaser.
Cool!
@SpiritusRaptor I'll get around to you later in the day, thanks.
@ACEPILOT109 I just want the shocks in the game be able to be "pre-compressed" like the way pistons can be set to push or pull...
@Adanene
If your device can't handle the part count, I'm afraid you'll have to suffer through the lag. A detailed build will generally reach over 500 parts.
.
I'll have to go to greater lengths to explain everything you've asked me, but generally making an interior requires that you physically make a hollow hull of the tank in SP. This is already going to accrue you quite a bit of parts, especially if the vehicle you're making has a strange hull shape.
.
Recoil is an open path. You can model it with pistons, like most do, but I personally prefer impactForce recoil systems.
.
I'll stop here, you get the general idea.
@SpiritusRaptor
Hey SR, it's been awhile.
I have a project coming up that requires me to develop something like this, although I want to make something that fits in a very small space (smaller than the smallest engine here!). After repeated experiments, the major issue seems to be that the pistons won't rotate the shaft in a single direction, but instead in an oscillating back-and-forth motion. Mind if you can guide me on how you fixed that issue here?
@Minecraftpoweer Shameless self plug. Lol.
First of all, tank aren't underrated. They receive substantial amounts of upvotes. It's just that Bronze or Silver users are bronze and silver for a reason- their quality isn't high enough.
+3Most tanks are also replicas. If you aren't faithful enough to the real thing, you likely won't receive good feedback.
@IlikeToFlyandcrash First, some spelling... "Sight" means something drastically different from "site". As I said, I can only infer what you are trying to say if you don't use proper English conventions.
.
As an rebuttal to your nonsensical argument about how Jundroo has "copied" someone's plane and "added 2 parts"... If you have any sense of how the game works, it's pretty obvious they've change more than "adding 2 parts". Changes to a build aren't all about the part count. If you have eyes you can see that.
In addition, I've already made it pretty clear to you:
Nobody stole anything. Plus, your works of "adding 3 pieces and a different paint job" are objectively not worth cluttering the site with, to be frank with you. Not a single person has got away with simply repainting an existing build. It doesn't show any effort. If you want to know what a real "modification" looks like, check this for example. Your work shows far too little effort, especially if it isn't something original. In the example I gave you, the part count jumped some 400 parts. Your "adding of 2 parts" is just so meager and insignificant.
+1.
Hope this makes sense to you.
Little to no modification, still... Not worth it.
This doesn't exactly have a suspension...
@IlikeToFlyandcrash
Mind if you use formal, understandable English? Your argument don't stand very well if you can't phrase things accurately.
I also have no idea what you're raising an issue with. Nobody "copied" anything. Jundroo decided that a certain plane was fitting as a stock plane, so they took the basic chassis, modified it, and included it as a stock plane for all players to gain inspiration from of or to play with. All of this was done with consent from the original author.
Mind if you better phrase your post, please?
.
Also, christie suspension build I made earlier
No, the Devs decide if they want to include it as a stock plane. The Devs ask the original creator if they can include it as a stock plane.
+2Excellent! I was looking for a reference as I was trying to build one of my own. This is a nice way of dealing with the clutch and gear shift!
@Trainzo Haha, just that the wings look a bit lacking compared to the glorious cockpit.
@benjiboyy06 Fair try, but just as a precaution... For a concept that is as dated and widespread like piston engines, it's hard to say "credit me" unless someone takes this exact build and uses it.
For some feedback... as far as piston engines go, this one lacks the compactness and power output required of a good piston engine.
@Trainzo Excellent, although the exterior could use some furnishing!
This then?
@Tessemi Cause vanilla is cool. At least for me. Plus, replicating the mechanics of how these things work is just really nice for me, at least.
@Galland Excellent job. Looks like another quality builder is on the rise.
@SpiritusRaptor Cool. Thanks for credits on the sights!
Ha! I've never gone below 300 parts on my regular builds.
@IStoleYourMeme A piston system won't be part efficient, I would assume.
@IStoleYourMeme You could also go for a setup with oscillating pistons and a free rotator to create a more authentic mechanism.
+1@TheOwlAce Can happen with negative fire rate potentially, also can be game trying to not lag out. If you do want to make them last longer, try changing the lifeTime attribute on your gun part.
Try replicating a MG34 belt fed mechanism. I've worked on it for years with no avail.
@EternalDarkness Makes good sense, although ~20 parts won't make too much of a difference. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with. Tags, if you do that sort of thing.
+1@EternalDarkness Cool, that's awesome. I was originally considering that option too, although I intentionally used detachers for the purpose of eliminating the process of having to go into ordnance tab and selecting the rockets. As I stated here:
Although, if it's something like an IFV I'd assume you don't use rockets on other areas of the vehicle... Just a little more for advocating the use of detachers: as an added plus, using detachers let you give a more "projectile-parabola" trajectory to the travel of the smoke grenades, giving them a slightly more authentic feel (which isn't possible to my knowledge without detachers.)
+4.
On a final note: thank you for being a nice member of the community and giving credit for what's just the concept. That made my day.
@YAMADA034290 Pics are broken.
@HarrisCraft
Truly... Not what I ever expected. Uh, let me go um, looking for, that...
.
Funny. The user you mentioned is also gone. Coincidence?
@jamesPLANESii @RailfanEthan
What is the "Royal Suite" referring to?
https://imgur.com/a/2hkmPnB
@Awsomur I was so confused
Your use of shocks have no purpose in this build. For the shocks to work as I believe you intend them to, the shocks themselves should also be placed on a "free-moving platform", for a lack of a better word.
@EternalDarkness
.
Stumbled across this whilst looking through the user's comment history. Might want to look into him, a rather peculiar user... I must say.
@Linethesmarty A 2013 Macbook can run it fine. Maybe you're not considering the fact that SP builds can get extremely detailed. Remove the "extra blocks"? Funny of you to say something like that when it's clear you don't recognize craftsmanship. When builders reach a certain point there isn't anything called unecessary parts. Everything is purposeful and there for a reason.
+6