@AN2Felllla
.
To begin with, I do agree that this is incredibly basic in essence. I did clarify in the TL;DR that it is no more than annoying trigonometry. Never in the description did I claim to use any complex theory or concept, just applications of simple geometric methods.
.
However, I do have a problem with you labelling this as some form of intellectualism. I dunno where jargon was used except for terms like apothem (although, that's something that most people who've taken a course in geometry will understand). I also left a TL;DR for that explicit purpose. I don't quite understand why you've read through the long version on choice and are pointing out an issue with that. How else do you want me to describe an orthographic projection of a pentagon? Use the adjacent leg of the inclined triangle as the inner radius for the pentagon shape? Besides, that bit is intentionally written as documentation (which, again, is not for average joe).
.
Quite frankly, I don't know what you have against using specific mathematical language because there's an incredible amount of rigor and discipline that I get consequences for not doing otherwise in my normal life. It is genuinely the way I think, and is the most effective way to communicate to others interested in the very specifics of methods I've used.
.
To add, I have not actively expressed an interest in gathering clout amongst the many young people of the community. I build for my enjoyment (this one was really on a whim) and for some others who appreciate it for what it is. I think my demeanor towards KoR and Co. well expresses my stance on that particular matter. Anyhow, thank you for the compliments. I intend to try making a more complex shape next.
@Hedero
.
The system provided here would work pretty well for your purposes. The description provides usage instructions, if you see that it doesn't work come up with a set of requirements and I'll figure something out.
@Stinky
.
You didn't get the joke, Mr. I can't get sarcasm made plainfully obvious. Do you need a /s or something to help you out? Or is your language comprehension that terrible lmao
Well, since Kenneth has decided to pull the trigger and break to you that math does not work that way I'd like to just clarify a couple things.
. explosionScalar implies the explosive power of ordnance is a scalar (constant). Which should already be some red flags as to never perform calculus on it.
Ken did say this, but the derivative of your supposed TNT function (which you claim is exponential) would be some logarithm-related result, which won't really ever be directly proportional to a linear function, unless you meant something else. TNT yields IRL would presumably correlate linearly to the mass of reactant.
@WalrusAircraft
.
Still waiting for the regular decisions release in April, but I got accepted to UMichigan in the early cycle, so unless anything changes I'll be attending there in the fall.
@CaptFoxworth19
.
It's simply a stepped function. Each piston has a dependency on the threshold of the Throttle value, for example the first piston would have Throttle > 0.25 as the qualifier, the next Throttle > 0.5, etc.
@Ormalawayo
. input indeed is a place for you to write things that change part behavior. You can even program parts- check the Funky trees guide in the pinned posts on the forums, which also includes text formatting guides.
@Lanc
.
We've gone over this once before--I assume this is a joke, but still, for those who take this a bit too far: just because one can make maps does not make you a developer... The two are very different things.
.
One can do programming magic... the other does not necessarily.
@Numbers
.
The current guide is definitely not the most easy thing to understand, but it still functions as extensive documentation that most can get by. Don't worry though, the project I'm pushing ahead right now is precisely an easier, more interactive course for FT.
@AN2Felllla
+4.
To begin with, I do agree that this is incredibly basic in essence. I did clarify in the TL;DR that it is no more than annoying trigonometry. Never in the description did I claim to use any complex theory or concept, just applications of simple geometric methods.
.
However, I do have a problem with you labelling this as some form of intellectualism. I dunno where jargon was used except for terms like apothem (although, that's something that most people who've taken a course in geometry will understand). I also left a TL;DR for that explicit purpose. I don't quite understand why you've read through the long version on choice and are pointing out an issue with that. How else do you want me to describe an orthographic projection of a pentagon? Use the adjacent leg of the inclined triangle as the inner radius for the pentagon shape? Besides, that bit is intentionally written as documentation (which, again, is not for average joe).
.
Quite frankly, I don't know what you have against using specific mathematical language because there's an incredible amount of rigor and discipline that I get consequences for not doing otherwise in my normal life. It is genuinely the way I think, and is the most effective way to communicate to others interested in the very specifics of methods I've used.
.
To add, I have not actively expressed an interest in gathering clout amongst the many young people of the community. I build for my enjoyment (this one was really on a whim) and for some others who appreciate it for what it is. I think my demeanor towards KoR and Co. well expresses my stance on that particular matter. Anyhow, thank you for the compliments. I intend to try making a more complex shape next.
@Hedero
.
Probably, sounds like it.
@Hedero
.
Which part of your attempt didn't work? Looks fine to me, although it looks like it'll only work for negative angles of attack.
@Hedero
.
The system provided here would work pretty well for your purposes. The description provides usage instructions, if you see that it doesn't work come up with a set of requirements and I'll figure something out.
@Mostly
.
How society functions is a wonder to me at this point
@Stinky
+3.
You didn't get the joke, Mr. I can't get sarcasm made plainfully obvious. Do you need a /s or something to help you out? Or is your language comprehension that terrible lmao
@ArkRoyalTheDDhunter
+1.
Nope, completely unrelated. It's made using rockets. It's a further development of this system here.
@MrShenanigans
.
Yep!
Just use your 40 African children in the basement to get money for you
+6@BaconAircraft
.
I just decided to troubleshoot and fix lelelel
@Fungus
.
Currently no other customization options, might change in the future.
Look at this ripoff of the default seaplane
+13Might be possible to have the AI cockpit track the player.
+1Well, since Kenneth has decided to pull the trigger and break to you that math does not work that way I'd like to just clarify a couple things.
.
explosionScalarimplies the explosive power of ordnance is a scalar (constant). Which should already be some red flags as to never perform calculus on it.Ken did say this, but the derivative of your supposed TNT function (which you claim is exponential) would be some logarithm-related result, which won't really ever be directly proportional to a linear function, unless you meant something else. TNT yields IRL would presumably correlate linearly to the mass of reactant.
+5Why would you need calculus for this lmfao
@WalrusAircraft
.
Awesome, hoping to learn more so I can apply stuff to builds.
@WalrusAircraft
.
Still waiting for the regular decisions release in April, but I got accepted to UMichigan in the early cycle, so unless anything changes I'll be attending there in the fall.
@WalrusAircraft
.
Wrong tags, but the technical limitations are a matter of doing enough math, which is tedious.
Interesting to hear about your son. I'm heading to the States this fall to study engineering as well- will graduate HS in May.
Which mods do you have installed?
@UltraLight
.
Yes
@tsampoy
.
ERROR: Textures Missing
@UltraLight
.
A bit later to be exact
elongated circle
+1@asteroidbook345
.
You see I've been playing SimpleMachines the whole time
@asteroidbook345
+2.
Anime typically runs on 12-episode cours each season. A season may have one or two cours (the former is more common).
Have you ever touched
partCollisionResponse?True, but with enough effort it's doable.
They already do..?
Use code boxes.
long code thing, using three ticks instead of 1 on each sideIf you're uploading more than 10 a day something is wrong...
+6@CaptFoxworth19
+1.
It's simply a stepped function. Each piston has a dependency on the threshold of the Throttle value, for example the first piston would have Throttle > 0.25 as the qualifier, the next Throttle > 0.5, etc.
@goldEagle
.
Through enough math, yes.
@Ormalawayo
.
inputindeed is a place for you to write things that change part behavior. You can even program parts- check the Funky trees guide in the pinned posts on the forums, which also includes text formatting guides.@edensk
.
Possible**.
**Requires stupid amounts of math. Math not included.
+1Set your
inputtoActivate1.If you don't like the boolean behavior, use
clamp01(Activate1)instead.@CrazyPenguin1306
+3.
Looks to be coded to drop after 8 years.
@Lanc
+1.
We've gone over this once before--I assume this is a joke, but still, for those who take this a bit too far: just because one can make maps does not make you a developer... The two are very different things.
.
One can do programming magic... the other does not necessarily.
Very scenic.
+1@X4JB
.
A combination of me recording this at midnight and a crappy mic.
Never been told I can't speak properly, lol.
@EliteArsenals24
.
Thanks!
@PaperCrafter1622
.
Yes, it's my channel. Lol.
@PaperCrafter1622
.
https://www.simpleplanes.com/Videos/View/1100727/Realistic-Walkers-Biomechanics-in-SimplePlanes
@TirpitzWantsPlanes
.
It's unreleased. Go bug @BaconAircraft for it.
it is beneficial to type like this, it saves one character every block or sentenc
Very informative pos
Oh wow. I was gonna make one; Guess you beat me to it.
No, you don't get a fully humanlike walk cycle. The elliptical movement does not work like bipedal legs at all.
+5@PvtJok3r
+1.
Join link is uh, in the post.
@Numbers
+1.
The current guide is definitely not the most easy thing to understand, but it still functions as extensive documentation that most can get by. Don't worry though, the project I'm pushing ahead right now is precisely an easier, more interactive course for FT.
@spefyjerbf
+1.
Ha! Happens to me from time to time as well. No idea.
Cool!
Welcome back.
This is a lie