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.
@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.
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.
@FeistyPapa
.
It is specifically designed not to do that. Have you set the speed high enough? Also, upon further consideration the following code is simpler and should work (works on my end).
smooth(pow(10,10), clamp01(FireWeapons))
Regarding your concern, it is only an relevant application of preexisting concepts. In this case the irreversible boolean activation concept is used without the concept of "activation", merely using the irreversible boolean section of the code.
@Ja380
.
Think a bit carefully... if those values were not standardized, one player would have a drastically different experience when using certain aircraft from another person with different unit settings.
@Brields95
.
Regarding your statement about wheels... Apparently you're wrong: according to a dev, an engine in SP does divide the HP between the assigned wheels. Also, the actual HP vs. spec HP is different; if you so wish, you can use the ingame debugger to run tests for the amount of work performed by the driveshaft.
Since work = Fd, this can be further broken down into m*a*d, thus a derivative of the velocity (or double derivative of position) multiplied by the mass of the vehicle and also multiplied by the change in position should grant you the work value of this car at any time interval. Next, divide your work value by the time taken; you then obtain the average power, in Watts, for the vehicle. Of course, this is subject to frictional forces and whatnot, so you most definitely should get a lower value than engine HP values. If this vehicle actually was overpowered (engine), then this calculated measurement will be higher than the spec-wise engine HP.
Make like the thousandth Mustang out here? the hundredth Zero?
Do it justice, and you will be rewarded. While upvotes really aren't a good metric of a build's quality (especially recently- it's a better indicator of popularity), I do think your building can use improvement. The FT inputs certainly are impressive. I can't praise you enough for that. That being said, I think the following is some valid advice.
First of all, the plane feels.... far too "chunky". Your gauges can be far better than that. The main fuselage definitely needs work. You could add an additional 10 parts to help out a bit with that. You're on PC, it's not difficult.
Two. Attention to detail. Despite the fact that your recent build doesn't have much blueprint to go off of, I highly doubt the LG would've looked like that. Often a strong distinguishing factor is the LG. It's a good idea to sink a good amount of effort into it. Also, why is your plane lacking any sort of trim?
I was going to put something for three, but I think the above does it good enough, at least for a start. Your plane's acceleration is also a bit too fast, but in flight performance seems plausible enough. Again, upvotes are inherently a metric of popularity. If you wanted to know about the quality of a build, SP would have a 5-star rating system or something. That's all I have for you right now, keep trying till you find what works.
@spefyjerbf
.
Due to some issues, rate(anyspeedvar) is kind of broken right now. Regardless, thinking in terms of predefined X-Y-Z components makes things a lot easier, because now you don't have to consider frames of reference.
Again, there are numerous problems with trying to implement mods into the game. The only reason why some where is because the creators of those specific mods were Jundroo developers.
@Sm10684
.
PC builds by nature are more beefy and detailed. Mobile builds are generally far, far less detailed than are PC builds. My older builds did plenty well w/o ingame screenshots...
Literally just
+1Activate7@Vladimir1944
+1.
You can already do 99% of those things you requested with some creativity and math.
@Chancey21
+1.
Heh... I reported that one. I noticed it just after 1.9... Got a chance to report it so I did, lol.
@RandomDisplay
+1.
Probably an issue of your syntax itself. Looking at it, your first statement isn't a boolean, probably why.
@PlaneFlightX
+1.
Hey, go try making a forum post about it. I'm not the only resource.
@Bombsmithfurry67
+1.
1. I replied on your post
2. Planaria's second suggestion should work fine.
@PlanariaLab
+1.
多分このポストの作者さんは二番目の事を望んでいたんでしょ
一番目はactivationGroup, zeroOnDeactivateにinputにもFireWeaponsが書いていなければ作者さんののぞみ通りうごきません
@Kureshik
+1.
(x=100) ? 1 : 0Haha. It definitely can be confusing!
+1@BoganBoganTheMan
+1.
Angry French noises intensify
That's fairly nonspecific, but to answer that request something like
+1smooth(GearDown, 1) > 0should give you 1 second delayed movement.@Shootingstar07
+1.
Please feel free to take the code!
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.
Why not a fully functional beluga whale? Congrats!
+1I suppose this is done by treating projectiles as an "aircraft"?
+1No reshade on lè Màc :P
+1@ThomasRoderick
+1.
Ah, none currently are available. You can simulate it using
smoothhowever.Oh god
+1@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.
Imagine not knowing how aircraft links and downloading works
+1@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.
Dammit! I was gonna make one of these, but I couldn't find the time for it...
+1This post is wrong in every way possible. You clearly haven't spent enough time here.
+1@Pophead
+1.
I suppose you can do with activationGroup gimmicks, but probably it will be incredibly buggy.
Wack.
+1スポットーライトしました！今度もいい作品ですね
+1Hey, 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
+1.
Discord has been having seizures for the last few months. Keep trying. It's happening for everyone.
@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。。。
@Dllama4
+1.
Hack Bacon's account and obtain the unlisted builds
@FeistyPapa
.
It is specifically designed not to do that. Have you set the speed high enough? Also, upon further consideration the following code is simpler and should work (works on my end).
smooth(pow(10,10), clamp01(FireWeapons))Regarding your concern, it is only an relevant application of preexisting concepts. In this case the irreversible boolean activation concept is used without the concept of "activation", merely using the irreversible boolean section of the code.
+1For your reference...
+1The below is an application of this concept
For more information please visit snowflake0s.github.io
Stronk tonk
+1@Ja380
+1.
Think a bit carefully... if those values were not standardized, one player would have a drastically different experience when using certain aircraft from another person with different unit settings.
@Brields95
.
Regarding your statement about wheels... Apparently you're wrong: according to a dev, an engine in SP does divide the HP between the assigned wheels. Also, the actual HP vs. spec HP is different; if you so wish, you can use the ingame debugger to run tests for the amount of work performed by the driveshaft.
Since
+1work = Fd, this can be further broken down intom*a*d, thus a derivative of the velocity (or double derivative of position) multiplied by the mass of the vehicle and also multiplied by the change in position should grant you the work value of this car at any time interval. Next, divide your work value by the time taken; you then obtain the average power, in Watts, for the vehicle. Of course, this is subject to frictional forces and whatnot, so you most definitely should get a lower value than engine HP values. If this vehicle actually was overpowered (engine), then this calculated measurement will be higher than the spec-wise engine HP.@BeryllCorp
+1.
No, you could control the AG for the cannon... but not the firing.
Do it justice, and you will be rewarded. While upvotes really aren't a good metric of a build's quality (especially recently- it's a better indicator of popularity), I do think your building can use improvement. The FT inputs certainly are impressive. I can't praise you enough for that. That being said, I think the following is some valid advice.
First of all, the plane feels.... far too "chunky". Your gauges can be far better than that. The main fuselage definitely needs work. You could add an additional 10 parts to help out a bit with that. You're on PC, it's not difficult.
Two. Attention to detail. Despite the fact that your recent build doesn't have much blueprint to go off of, I highly doubt the LG would've looked like that. Often a strong distinguishing factor is the LG. It's a good idea to sink a good amount of effort into it. Also, why is your plane lacking any sort of trim?
I was going to put something for three, but I think the above does it good enough, at least for a start. Your plane's acceleration is also a bit too fast, but in flight performance seems plausible enough. Again, upvotes are inherently a metric of popularity. If you wanted to know about the quality of a build, SP would have a 5-star rating system or something. That's all I have for you right now, keep trying till you find what works.
+1@F104Deathtrap
+1.
As AG... Or you could do it the input way, but that's another story. As for the other question... It's a longer explanation. Read here.
@edensk @Pophead
+1.
Major mistake here!
SelectedWeaponis a variable, not a function! SelectedWeapon cannot be modified.@spefyjerbf
+1.
Due to some issues, rate(anyspeedvar) is kind of broken right now. Regardless, thinking in terms of predefined X-Y-Z components makes things a lot easier, because now you don't have to consider frames of reference.
In-game: Press the menu button and click "publish".
+1I like this.
+1Again, there are numerous problems with trying to implement mods into the game. The only reason why some where is because the creators of those specific mods were Jundroo developers.
+1"Mobile friendly"
+1Laughs
@Sm10684
+1.
PC builds by nature are more beefy and detailed. Mobile builds are generally far, far less detailed than are PC builds. My older builds did plenty well w/o ingame screenshots...
@nadvgia
+1.
Good work! Counted into list of entries.
@DarDragon
+1.
Executable code. Who knows, I could've put in a virus in there if I had malicious intent.