@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...
@mohsen
.
This guide is outdated. Check snowflake0s.github.io for a better guide. Although basic algebra is highly recommended, the guide it meant to teach you from the ground up.
@Type2volkswagen
.
50% is not a number. Use 0.5 instead. Also capitalization for Fuel. Also for logic operators, either side should be a boolean value. So instesd of the max function, use Fuel < 0 as the qualifier for fuel being more than 0.
@spefyjerbf
.
Yep, just within the next month (before May 1st). I have no limit to the amount of system you can include, I'll try to judge them somewhat separately. If the whole system is designed to work in tandem, I'd say that counts as a single system with multiple components.
or maybe even program blocks that let you program builds to do something every few seconds or so with hinges pistons rotators gyroscopes flaps props exedra.
@vcharng
.
If that ever happens, I'm going to expect it's for SP2. SimplePlanes's basic structure is too archaic in its current state to be as powerful. For such functionality, I think a completely new work from the ground up would be much more suitable.
@vcharng
.
At that point why shouldn't SimplePlanes become an industry standard program? I mean, it's still a game... I'm not expecting game devs to compete with the number one industry standard software, really...
@Adityo0502
.
WIth your input, you start at a value of 1 because -1 * -1 = 1. During the "increase" of the smooth function, you eventually will reach a point where 0 * 0 = 0. FInally, upon the end of the increase you'll have 1 * 1 = 1, leading to this looping back motion you mentioned.
@spefyjerbf
.
Very simple, simply start with smooth(clamp01(boolX), 1/d) = 1, where d is the delay in seconds. Will return true or false. Also note that behavior is delayed activation when boolean is true & immediate deactivation on boolean becoming false.
@vcharng
.
The point is to not use LandingGear as a standard FT variable. Use GearDown instead. The input response algorithm changed in the first place. It's not meant for you to use LandingGear as a FT input anymore.
@spefyjerbf
.
It caps a boolean input to increase at a certain rate instead of instantly. In this case, the boolean goes from 0 to 1 instantly, but smooth caps it at a rate of 1/60ths per second. Therefore, every second, the ouput of smooth increases by 1/60ths. You can use the rate further: by adding a boolean modifier to the rate part of smooth, if I set the rate of change to 0 it simply stays at whatever value it was on, hence a working stop/start system for the stopwatch.
Ah shoot! I was just about to do this... Nice job.
As long as all bugs get fixed, the reference-point type system may be feasible with the SelectedWeapon identifier system.
@vcharng
.
Yes, that's a known thing. In FT 1.9.1 the values of LandingGear was 0/1, but with the new fix it is now -1/1. There was an inherent issue with the parsing of such inputs, so it had to be changed. Unfortunate, but it's for a better, consistent system going forward.
I've talked to the devs about this already, that's basically what they said.
@spefyjerbf
.
I found that it works, if you do rate(rate(Altitude)) on a cockpit w/ no drag, the console displays a value around the gravitational constant.
Yes, you should be able to do this. Either make me a logic table for me to generate an input for you, or visit this link to orient yourself on a way to do this.
Here's an example of a logic table:
AoA > 4 degrees and IAS < 103 m/s, flaps extend to 3/4 (.75)
AoA > 4 degrees and IAS > 103 m/s, flaps retract back down to 1/4 (.25)
AoA > 8 degrees and IAS < 103 m/s, flaps extend to full (1.0)
AoA > 8 degrees and IAS > 103 m/s, flaps retract back down to 1/2 (.5)
@Erebos
.
Exponential functions exist. It's you wgo hasn't looked hard enough for them. They're done through pow(a, b).
Given that you can manipulate a logarithm, I think you also realize that nth root functions are in actuality exponential functions. So there you go, everything you needed... From exponentials to nth root functions.
One note on text formatting with the code style formatting option for your system... You've used a character that it doesn't support. Try to fix that, else people can't copy / paste. I'm being mean here, but run through the spelling once more.
@spefyjerbf
.
Awesome! So you did find a way to make it work out with repl. Cross platform, lightweight, and smooth. You've done everything you needed to do! Nice job.
@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.
@mohsen
+1.
This guide is outdated. Check snowflake0s.github.io for a better guide. Although basic algebra is highly recommended, the guide it meant to teach you from the ground up.
@Type2volkswagen
+1.
50% is not a number. Use 0.5 instead. Also capitalization for Fuel. Also for logic operators, either side should be a boolean value. So instesd of the max function, use Fuel < 0 as the qualifier for fuel being more than 0.
@JaeBeansS
+1.
https://snowflake0s.github.io/funkyguide.html
@spefyjerbf
+1.
Yep, just within the next month (before May 1st). I have no limit to the amount of system you can include, I'll try to judge them somewhat separately. If the whole system is designed to work in tandem, I'd say that counts as a single system with multiple components.
@EliteArsenals24
+1.
Thanks! Anybody can do what I do with some time, lol.
@WarHawk95
+1.
Oops, thank you! Fixed.
Funky Trees says hello.
+1Cool, but the complexity is quite unnecessary.
+1@Saturnite
+1.
Precisely the concept.
Thickness? I'm not sure what this is about.
+1@X4JB
+1.
Ah, I wasn't thinking straight, but you should be able to do that with the smooth function by manipulating the rate.
@vcharng
+1.
If that ever happens, I'm going to expect it's for SP2. SimplePlanes's basic structure is too archaic in its current state to be as powerful. For such functionality, I think a completely new work from the ground up would be much more suitable.
@vcharng
+1.
At that point why shouldn't SimplePlanes become an industry standard program? I mean, it's still a game... I'm not expecting game devs to compete with the number one industry standard software, really...
@Adityo0502
+1.
Essentially, what you've done is model a quadratic parabola with an equation of x^2, to put it into that perspective. Glad to help.
@Adityo0502
+1.
WIth your input, you start at a value of
1because -1 * -1 = 1. During the "increase" of the smooth function, you eventually will reach a point where 0 * 0 = 0. FInally, upon the end of the increase you'll have 1 * 1 = 1, leading to this looping back motion you mentioned.@asteroidbook345
+1.
Referring to older, banned users who were banned for doing dumb things.
@jamesPLANESii
+1.
It'll be released in due time. I just don't want someone to go ahead and release a build using my data before I do.
@ndfr623
+1.
Did you read through? We have a debug console to do exactly that.
@spefyjerbf
+1.
Very simple, simply start with
smooth(clamp01(boolX), 1/d) = 1, wheredis the delay in seconds. Will returntrueorfalse. Also note that behavior is delayed activation when boolean istrue& immediate deactivation on boolean becomingfalse.@Type2volkswagen
+1.
No, that's just something with funky trees. To disable it, just enter
0. (I think that should work.)@LeonardoEngineering
+1.
It's especially more useful when you manipulate the
rateof thesmoothfunction.@ChallengerHellcat
+1.
In your Steam library... I think you need to use some common sense here. Also you can access the
Librarydirectory on a Mac.@vcharng
+1.
The point is to not use
LandingGearas a standard FT variable. UseGearDowninstead. The input response algorithm changed in the first place. It's not meant for you to useLandingGearas a FT input anymore.@Pnicks15
+11. No
2. Yes
Doesn't get much simpler.
+1@F4f879
+1.
Completely depends on whatever you're modeling. If you can bring me an RPM curve graph, I can help you; otherwise I can't really help.
@spefyjerbf
+1.
It caps a boolean input to increase at a certain rate instead of instantly. In this case, the boolean goes from 0 to 1 instantly, but smooth caps it at a rate of 1/60ths per second. Therefore, every second, the ouput of
smoothincreases by 1/60ths. You can use the rate further: by adding a boolean modifier to the rate part ofsmooth, if I set the rate of change to 0 it simply stays at whatever value it was on, hence a working stop/start system for the stopwatch.@MrSilverWolf
+1.
The method is simply an integral of the XYZ components of the velocity. It's not too complicated.
Nightmare fuel.
+1@cedblox332
+1.
Awesome, keep on liking math.
@DickBrazen
+1.
There are links to the resources in the video description. As for the subtitles, I'll try to push that out if you so wish.
@GeneralOliverVonBismarck
+1.
I never stop people from using what I post. Go ahead.
Ah shoot! I was just about to do this... Nice job.
+1As long as all bugs get fixed, the reference-point type system may be feasible with the
SelectedWeaponidentifier system.@Numbers
+1.
It's not an update. You need a special app to try it.
@vcharng
.
Yes, that's a known thing. In FT 1.9.1 the values of
LandingGearwas 0/1, but with the new fix it is now -1/1. There was an inherent issue with the parsing of such inputs, so it had to be changed. Unfortunate, but it's for a better, consistent system going forward.I've talked to the devs about this already, that's basically what they said.
+1@spefyjerbf
+1.
I found that it works, if you do rate(rate(Altitude)) on a cockpit w/ no drag, the console displays a value around the gravitational constant.
@spefyjerbf
+1.
Haha, our guides are now useless! Rejoice! I'm so happy right now.
@NightmareCorporation
+1.
That's a Google issue... Not Jundroo.
@EngineerOtaku
+1.
Input the following...
clamp01(ceil(TAS - 223.52))This in a piston will do what you asked for.
Yes, you should be able to do this. Either make me a logic table for me to generate an input for you, or visit this link to orient yourself on a way to do this.
Here's an example of a logic table:
+1@Erebos
.
Exponential functions exist. It's you wgo hasn't looked hard enough for them. They're done through
pow(a, b).Given that you can manipulate a logarithm, I think you also realize that nth root functions are in actuality exponential functions. So there you go, everything you needed... From exponentials to nth root functions.
One note on text formatting with the code style formatting option for your system... You've used a character that it doesn't support. Try to fix that, else people can't copy / paste. I'm being mean here, but run through the spelling once more.
+1@nadvgia
+1.
Fixed. Thanks.
@spefyjerbf
+1.
Definitely- I've also been thinking about the possibility of arcade games using a system like this.
@DickBrazen
+1.
Nah, it's an username I came up with many years ago, just out of randomness.
@Pulkit
+1.
Here's your function.
clamp01(ceil(X - 19.99))*clamp01(ceil(20.01 - X))+ clamp01(ceil(20 - X))
- clamp01(ceil(X - 20))
I think this should work.
@Starlight
+1.
Welcome to 10k! Here's your commemorative upvote.
@spefyjerbf
+1.
Awesome! So you did find a way to make it work out with repl. Cross platform, lightweight, and smooth. You've done everything you needed to do! Nice job.