@JoshuaW
.
First and foremost, welcome back. You've been a lot of inspiration for me thus far!
Regarding automatic aim turrets under adverse movement conditions, there's been quite a few attempts so far (including myself). I believe this is a mathematical challenge because we're quite limited in the selection of data we have access to, but for example here is an attempt that uses Euler coordinates to make a system tilt proof (thus also not needing a cloud deck). However this one has the problem of having code that is far too long as well.
Your approach using vector arithmetic sounds promising, but I haven't touched vectors in a long time to I'm quite rusty in that department so I'm afraid I can't offer you much assistance. I sort of want to say that a complete, perfect solution is actually impractical here, and an approximation of some sort would be more ideal-- collecting the data on the required angles for the Roll hinge and generating a regression model may be a possible approach to calculate the required correction.
I'm sorry I couldn't be of much help. Good luck in your endeavors.
@shipster
.
Seems like a known issue. I've had one other report from a iOS user that the sights do not seem to function. Thank you for the notification.
@X4JB
.
Thanks for the kind words. Here's my excuses for the annoyances:
The color palette issue: I would have liked to color the details slightly differently, but I ran out of color spaces and the extra color management was too much to bother with especially since there were too many involved. Also had some issues getting the whole thing to work in the first place. My colors are out of order for some reason.
.
The thumbnail: it was taken with ReShade on by Numbers, and there were certain issues with RTGI that I disliked a lot and I told him to turn it off for the thumbnail.
.
Shadows: is there an alternative? I do like having shadows vs. no shadows.
.
Regardless thank you for the feedback. Will keep this stuff in mind for the next time I decide to commit 8 months to a project! If it's any excuse, this is my first build. No joke.
The reason for this being that the more you zoom in, the more bloxky it appears
Incorrect. The circle equation, x^2+y^2 = r^2, in a Cartesian plane, is perfect. If you wanted, you could use polar coordinates- but the result would be the same. The way a circle is defined, is the sum of an infinite amount of points that are exactly x distance- the radius- away from the center point, and those equation account for exactly that. To say that's impossible is like refusing to acknowledge the entirety of math. lmfao.
Besides, the point with your infinity thing is invalid because if you refuse to accept that you effectively refute all of calculus. Go figure.
Stating the obvious is not a "theory"- that's the opposite of a theory
"I've calculated it is impossible"- how do you even calculate this? Care to give a formula?
"It is the same reason an AI cannot create a perfect circle"- ROFL. The definition of a circle is given by x^2 + y^2 = r^2, you're saying an equation can't be calculated, what?
Your idea about "impeccable detail" is simply invalid because by your logic no production aircraft is perfect in the first place because they all have minute differences. You do realize that, no?
SP replicas are supposed to be a visual/performance replica. If it looks similar enough it's good enough. If it acts similar enough it's good enough, because in the given context it's the best thing we have.
Stop packaging your statements in such a verbose fashion. It helps no-one.
Great, this is exactly the kind of implementation I was looking for. I reckon those "noteblock songs" they do in MC could be done also in SP through this.
I think you're twisting words a little here- pulling definitions and whatnot- consider context. Concede as in admit it's valid, if you will. Let me indulge as well:
While it is acceptable to have them, it in unacceptable to not work to improve them.
Does that mean you find lack of improvement unacceptable? Sounds pretty familiar...
On your point on replicas: replicas in this context of SimplePlanes mean an accurate visual model and a good flight model. While you could say frame-less builds are technically inaccurate, a lot of builders I know build a frame first and remove it later on for part count purposes. I suppose that would count?
No, no problem with the mentions. Here's an example: nudging decals into fuselages to make them much more non-intrusive. It takes 2 seconds to press "T" and press Shift-WASD to move it in by an inch or two. Really... not hard. Yet ignored.
@QuitePossiblyMangled
.
I'm not saying that I immediately expect great improvement, but when tips that take 2 minutes to incorporate are not taken then it becomes an insult to the advice I give.
Just one thing... build style != build accuracy. The two are separate. In building replicas there is no excuse for lacking build accuracy. The difference in style might come from possibly using different parts to replicate a structure, but overall accuracy is a non-negotiable area.
.
Questioning why you get flak for insulting a long standing tradition is simply ignorance and disrespect.
When you post a replica plane, you're announcing to the rest of the community and especially hardcore replica builders that you've made something with exacting precision. A build with basic replica features missing (correct blueprint sizes, shape) is definitely grounds for backlash, because- you may not have noticed in your short 4 months of being here- there's a long standing tradition of replica building here in the community, and to the community of replica builders it's almost a sacred tradition. Frankly, when basic replica standards are not adhered to, it's taken as an insult to that community. That's why you face significant backlash.
Duck is the common name for numerous species in the waterfowl family Anatidae which also includes swans and geese. Ducks are divided among several subfamilies in the family Anatidae; they do not represent a monophyletic group (the group of all descendants of a single common ancestral species) but a form taxon, since swans and geese are not considered ducks. Ducks are mostly aquatic birds, mostly smaller than the swans and geese, and may be found in both fresh water and sea water.
Great- it's great that you have a tilt-proof system, but the code is so immensely long that it's not as practical. Did you ever figure out how to simplify this?
From here on out is just feedback from me. You may decide to scrutinize this, skim over it, or maybe ignore it altogether. The choice is yours, but I advise you to take a look at it at least.
.
The canopy glass is way too light. Increase the opacity of that glass. You don't need a perfect cockpit; but you still have to stay true to colors at minimum.
.
Since you made custom LG- awesome- make sure to make gear wells as well. The exposed wheels are very noticeable.
.
I also strongly suggest you make better use of blueprints- they aren't hard to find- so that you can fix issues like the plane length, fuselage shape, and radar dome shape.
.
Make sure to use good nudging as well. Cool decal; but it would be better if you spent a minute nudging it in such that the decal isn't as intrusive or "3D".
.
Overall cool for 4 months here! Hope my advice is useful to you.
Alright buddy. I'm giving you a spotlight because I just want you to read this over a bit.
You know you're getting significant backlash for your work. I just want to tell you the underlying reason behind that and some things you could do to mediate it.
.
Fun definitely is subjective. You don't have to subject yourself to grueling work in order to achieve absolute accuracy, but let's take it this way: it's pretty universal for things to be more fun when you feel confident doing it- people don't enjoy a game of Counter Strike when they get yeeted from across the map because they can't position themselves properly. That's one thing I want you to know- I know you're improving, so keep up at it.
.
There's a considerable amount of sentiment in regards to replicas in general. When you post a replica plane, you're announcing to the rest of the community and especially hardcore replica builders that you've made something with exacting precision. A build with basic replica features missing (correct blueprint sizes, shape) is definitely grounds for backlash, because- you may not have noticed in your short 4 months of being here- there's a long standing tradition of replica building here in the community, and to the community of replica builders it's almost a sacred tradition. Frankly, when basic replica standards are not adhered to, it's taken as an insult to that community. That's why you face significant backlash. I also want to mention that point status is one of the first things people look at like it or not. People expect some standard of work- be it funny builds or replicas- but since you've announced yourself as a replica builder, people expect good replicas based on your point count. Which is why some are angry with the recognition you get.
.
The last thing I want to point out is that simply rejecting feedback regardless of the sentiment included is not the most desirable approach. When feedback is given (note "feedback"- not mere name-calling and insult) it's in your best interest to review it to some extent. You might not agree with it; but it's good to at least take a look at what they have to say.
@ACEPILOT109
.
Simple problems that take 5 minutes to fix.
e.g. Canopy glass opacity, gear wells, contraprop spacing, decal nudging, the front radar dome is out of proportion.
i cant anymroe plaseasfv asd[obiqhwdbpqwoiehrbqw
@KingOog000
+1.
;) Meant to be
@JoshuaW
.
First and foremost, welcome back. You've been a lot of inspiration for me thus far!
Regarding automatic aim turrets under adverse movement conditions, there's been quite a few attempts so far (including myself). I believe this is a mathematical challenge because we're quite limited in the selection of data we have access to, but for example here is an attempt that uses Euler coordinates to make a system tilt proof (thus also not needing a cloud deck). However this one has the problem of having code that is far too long as well.
Your approach using vector arithmetic sounds promising, but I haven't touched vectors in a long time to I'm quite rusty in that department so I'm afraid I can't offer you much assistance. I sort of want to say that a complete, perfect solution is actually impractical here, and an approximation of some sort would be more ideal-- collecting the data on the required angles for the Roll hinge and generating a regression model may be a possible approach to calculate the required correction.
I'm sorry I couldn't be of much help. Good luck in your endeavors.
@shipster
+1.
Seems like a known issue. I've had one other report from a iOS user that the sights do not seem to function. Thank you for the notification.
Was thinking it looked oddly similar to the Challenger 2 I built. I suppose this one is a fictional vehicle?
@KingOog000
+2.
It's already out here!
@X4JB
.
That might be a better option. Or I could attempt to touch up the shadows in PS as well; will look into all options.
@X4JB
.
Thanks for the kind words. Here's my excuses for the annoyances:
The color palette issue: I would have liked to color the details slightly differently, but I ran out of color spaces and the extra color management was too much to bother with especially since there were too many involved. Also had some issues getting the whole thing to work in the first place. My colors are out of order for some reason.
.
The thumbnail: it was taken with ReShade on by Numbers, and there were certain issues with RTGI that I disliked a lot and I told him to turn it off for the thumbnail.
.
Shadows: is there an alternative? I do like having shadows vs. no shadows.
.
Regardless thank you for the feedback. Will keep this stuff in mind for the next time I decide to commit 8 months to a project! If it's any excuse, this is my first build. No joke.
B) and C) are the same thing matey
+6@Nirvash
+1.
why must you do this
@JeffChandler
.
Indeed. With a mild dose of pain.
@RYAviation
.
Possibly sometime in the future ;)
Thanks for the kind words.
@RYAviation
+1.
And selected the weapon? Sounds like it might be some isolated issue on your end- never seen that one happen to anyone else.
@AsteroidAsteroidTheBook
.
Made with dedication and cool vanilla tech! Also I dislike mod parts, which is why.
@JeffChandler
.
Jokes aside, Macbook. For real.
@RYAviation
.
Have you enabled the main gun?
Well edited!
+1@DerVito
.
Good job! You win the mini-game.
@Sovetskysoyus
.
Drag is disabled on all parts except one or two parts. Thanks for the kind words!
@HappyFeetWhyshouldi @Jefftheneef @Bernkastel
+1.
Thanks for the kind words!
@EliteArsenals24
.
I'm back!
@MetallicFox
.
All my work is public use granted!
@DarthAbhinav
+1.
A bit too long! I might make a little something about exactly that sometime. A reflection of sorts, perhaps?
Simple sinusoids.
e.g.
Throttle*sin(Time*180).I also recommend you read up on sinusoidal transformations should you want to alter the oscillation frequency.
@RAIDer1
.
If you need my discord username, it's on my profile page. I do not own a server, if that's what you're talking about.
미쳤습니까 휴먼?
+4Funky Trees documentation is available here.
There is a SimplePlanes dark mode extension made by WNP78.
You called?
Incorrect. The circle equation, x^2+y^2 = r^2, in a Cartesian plane, is perfect. If you wanted, you could use polar coordinates- but the result would be the same. The way a circle is defined, is the sum of an infinite amount of points that are exactly x distance- the radius- away from the center point, and those equation account for exactly that. To say that's impossible is like refusing to acknowledge the entirety of math. lmfao.
Besides, the point with your infinity thing is invalid because if you refuse to accept that you effectively refute all of calculus. Go figure.
Stop packaging your statements in such a verbose fashion. It helps no-one.
+1@typeZERO
.
Oh sorry, I assumed your first language was Japanese, and responded accordingly. May I inquire what it actually is?
@typeZERO
+1.
誤解してます、Adithecat3459ーさんは島風がアメリカの船だと言いませんでした
Go do your homework.
+2Great, this is exactly the kind of implementation I was looking for. I reckon those "noteblock songs" they do in MC could be done also in SP through this.
+5I think you're twisting words a little here- pulling definitions and whatnot- consider context. Concede as in admit it's valid, if you will. Let me indulge as well:
Does that mean you find lack of improvement unacceptable? Sounds pretty familiar...
On your point on replicas: replicas in this context of SimplePlanes mean an accurate visual model and a good flight model. While you could say frame-less builds are technically inaccurate, a lot of builders I know build a frame first and remove it later on for part count purposes. I suppose that would count?
Fair point. I'll concede on that. Although, I've to admit that it genuinely is intrusive when I'm exposed to something multiple times a day.
+1No, no problem with the mentions. Here's an example: nudging decals into fuselages to make them much more non-intrusive. It takes 2 seconds to press "T" and press Shift-WASD to move it in by an inch or two. Really... not hard. Yet ignored.
+3@QuitePossiblyMangled
+3.
I'm not saying that I immediately expect great improvement, but when tips that take 2 minutes to incorporate are not taken then it becomes an insult to the advice I give.
Just one thing... build style != build accuracy. The two are separate. In building replicas there is no excuse for lacking build accuracy. The difference in style might come from possibly using different parts to replicate a structure, but overall accuracy is a non-negotiable area.
+2.
Questioning why you get flak for insulting a long standing tradition is simply ignorance and disrespect.
@BMWM3
.
No. No mods going forward will have mobile support.
@Brendorkus
.
How? He doesn't "build".
+4Duck is the common name for numerous species in the waterfowl family Anatidae which also includes swans and geese. Ducks are divided among several subfamilies in the family Anatidae; they do not represent a monophyletic group (the group of all descendants of a single common ancestral species) but a form taxon, since swans and geese are not considered ducks. Ducks are mostly aquatic birds, mostly smaller than the swans and geese, and may be found in both fresh water and sea water.
+7Never had an issue with it. What's the exact expression you're typing into the console?
Ja!
Great- it's great that you have a tilt-proof system, but the code is so immensely long that it's not as practical. Did you ever figure out how to simplify this?
From here on out is just feedback from me. You may decide to scrutinize this, skim over it, or maybe ignore it altogether. The choice is yours, but I advise you to take a look at it at least.
.
The canopy glass is way too light. Increase the opacity of that glass. You don't need a perfect cockpit; but you still have to stay true to colors at minimum.
.
Since you made custom LG- awesome- make sure to make gear wells as well. The exposed wheels are very noticeable.
.
I also strongly suggest you make better use of blueprints- they aren't hard to find- so that you can fix issues like the plane length, fuselage shape, and radar dome shape.
.
Make sure to use good nudging as well. Cool decal; but it would be better if you spent a minute nudging it in such that the decal isn't as intrusive or "3D".
.
Overall cool for 4 months here! Hope my advice is useful to you.
Alright buddy. I'm giving you a spotlight because I just want you to read this over a bit.
You know you're getting significant backlash for your work. I just want to tell you the underlying reason behind that and some things you could do to mediate it.
.
Fun definitely is subjective. You don't have to subject yourself to grueling work in order to achieve absolute accuracy, but let's take it this way: it's pretty universal for things to be more fun when you feel confident doing it- people don't enjoy a game of Counter Strike when they get yeeted from across the map because they can't position themselves properly. That's one thing I want you to know- I know you're improving, so keep up at it.
.
There's a considerable amount of sentiment in regards to replicas in general. When you post a replica plane, you're announcing to the rest of the community and especially hardcore replica builders that you've made something with exacting precision. A build with basic replica features missing (correct blueprint sizes, shape) is definitely grounds for backlash, because- you may not have noticed in your short 4 months of being here- there's a long standing tradition of replica building here in the community, and to the community of replica builders it's almost a sacred tradition. Frankly, when basic replica standards are not adhered to, it's taken as an insult to that community. That's why you face significant backlash. I also want to mention that point status is one of the first things people look at like it or not. People expect some standard of work- be it funny builds or replicas- but since you've announced yourself as a replica builder, people expect good replicas based on your point count. Which is why some are angry with the recognition you get.
.
The last thing I want to point out is that simply rejecting feedback regardless of the sentiment included is not the most desirable approach. When feedback is given (note "feedback"- not mere name-calling and insult) it's in your best interest to review it to some extent. You might not agree with it; but it's good to at least take a look at what they have to say.
@ACEPILOT109
.
Simple problems that take 5 minutes to fix.
e.g. Canopy glass opacity, gear wells, contraprop spacing, decal nudging, the front radar dome is out of proportion.