@Rayquaza4590
It's the instructor's cockpit only seen on the -B trainer variants. For other SR-71s and YF-12s the second cockpit is inline with the fuselage as there's no need for the weapons/reconnaissance systems officer to have full forward view.
I'm not sure if you can add back custom variables via this method, though.
Yes. Near the top of the xml file the first section there's a <Variables> </Variables> section, in which the format goes as follows:
<Variables>
<Setter variable="VariableName1" function="VariableFunction1" priority="0" />
<Setter variable="VariableName2" function="VariableFunction2" priority="0" />
... etc
<Setter variable="LastVariableName" function="LastVariableFunction" priority="0" />
</Variables>
.
.
Just copy the <Setter variable="... /> parts and you should be all set. Do remember that the variable setter hates any undefined inputs with a passion, so do make sure all parts of the function use inputs that either show up in the variable setter, are vanilla inputs, are outputs from other parts, or are defined by cockpit controls.
@griges
The input should be " inverselerp(110,80,IAS) /180 ", and the Current Angle should be " flap ".
Setting the input on the actual flaps to " flap/180 " (instead of dividing the rotator input by 180) would also work, yes, but it'd be more of a hassle, costs more time to set up and more performance to run, and adds another possible point for failure.
@griges
Right, one other thing: if the variable is designed to store a value until the next update conditions are met, then set the rotator's activationGroup to the update condition, zeroOnDeactivate to "false", and the input to whatever the function calculating the input is.
@griges
Well.... IIRC there was some @Kendog84 guy who used rotators to store the variables, but personally I can't really say for sure about the output precision compared to the variable setter....
To store a variable with a rotator, divide the original input by the rotator's range, then name the rotator's Current Angle output as the original variable name. Remember the speed of the rotator might need to be very large if the output calls for rapid changes in value.
@LunarEclipseSP Given it's based on the Mi-24 platform, I'd assume it can still perform the role of an "aerial IFV" designed to support its passengers once they disembark... or to help create landing zones for S&R or medivac.
@MrCOPTY
@foury2
Nvm, just checked the technical drawings, the C-2 had a shorter nose and a flatter ventral fuselage. The domeless E-2 is most likely this one, in which an E-2D had its radome damaged by hail and was flown from its home base to another base for radome replacement.
@blt Oh, you meant starting procedures... and here I thought @MisterT had it down a while before this one, and some PlaneFlightX guy was building a modern jetliner down to the last detail, but yeah... as far as "performance efficient plane with startup" goes this one is probably one of the earliest ones... if not still the only one to-date.
.
..
... Edit: apparently there's a forum post dedicated to planes with startup procedures, but as far as planes with less than 500 parts go this seems to be one of the very few.
....
.....
...... note to self: include starting procedures in my own builds.... and see if it's possible to make one that actually distinguishes between airspawn and groundspawn (airspawn = start in the air so logically the starting procedures had already been finished some nondescript amount of time ago, groundspawn = start on the ground so startup's necessary, or even a hybrid system where landing and shutting down means going through startup again)....
@StraitAircraft ... yet somehow you still managed to mess up the image.
Remember, for simple images, , and for images with embedded links, [](embedded link).
@StraitAircraft For postimage use the "direct link", which for the particular picture is https://i.postimg.cc/MT8TMC6H/Screenshot-20250204-161837-Simple-Planes.jpg
.
..
... or just copy the "markdown" option in whole and call it a day, no extra formatting required.
@StraitAircraft
Eh... wait, what? I'm not saying you're at fault - everyone have to begin somewhere, nay? And I can promise back when I first had my account I was much worse.
@Seeras Sorry for the wording then.... turns out I'm still bad at NOT committing faux pas left and right, I see.... (So should I refer to you as a former mod then? And are curators mods?)
... and how much deeper did I just dig my own grave?
Also, the proper name of the ex-mod was @Seeras, and for the number of active mods check this page. For added efficiency check the most recent comment from all of them then decide on whom to ping.
@StraitAircraft
Start with shit replicas and improve upon yourself, then one day you'll make good replicas, nay? Also, it's not called "determination", but rather somewhere between "autistic hyperfocus", "blatant insanity", and "uncontrollable urge to tutor someone else".
@StraitAircraft Nah, let's just chalk it up to SP not knowing a thing about real-life weapon dimensions and call it a day. Still, let's see..... the Hawker Horsley was in service between 1927 and 1935, and the most likely air-dropped torpedo of that era would be an 18" Mark VIII, which had an explosive charge of about 320lb and a total weight of about 3,280lb.
.
An in-game torp is about 250lb heavy, so the massScale need to be set to 3280/250=13.12.
.
Through the use of a fuselage block with both width and height set to 0.9 (remember that one "block unit" in game equals to 0.5m so the fuselage would now have the same diameter as an 18" or 450mm torpedo), we can determine the first two values of its scale equals to 1.8 (which also meant that one vanilla in-game torpedo is about 10" or 250mm in diameter, good to know and I'll take note of that for my own future designs).
.
And though the use of a reference image of a Blackburn Ripon, we can estimate the length of the torpedo using the in-game "blueprint" function; note that some foreshortening exist in the photo, so it needs to compensated for through some trigonometry (aka match the length of the torpedo in the picture then divide by the cosine of the foreshortening angle which is somewhere around 15 degrees), but the last value of its scale should be somewhere around 2.75.
.
Now, for explosive scales.... @ReinMcDeer had an awesome chart for explosionScale of aerial bombs, and taking into the account that an average aerial bomb have about half its weight in the explosive filler, the 320lb TNT filler of our torpedo would have an equivalent explosive mass somewhere slightly larger than that of a 500lb bomb, so for simplicity's sake let's just put it somewhere about 1.06: the chart used a 500lb bomb as the "1" number which is about right given an IRL 500lb bomb have a lethal radius of about 80m, and by linear extrapolation between 500lb bombs and 1000lb bombs we get something like 1.056 for the explosionScalar value.
.
..
...
So ultimately this is what I've got, and preemptive apologies for the word vomit.
Given the M3 halftrack originated from the M2 halftrack, which itself was based on the M3 scout car.... should this be called "M3 scout truck" instead?
Ahh, so that is where the reproductive systems on male AC-130s are located! Another breakthrough in understanding those majestic beasts if I say so myself...
@RamboJutter
.... and here I thought it's because a few weightless and zero-drag parts are a lot less performance hungry than a label showing the same roundel, but labels are a lot more suitable for complex images and fonts (e.g. noseart, or more complex roundels like the East German one) and usually don't mess up connection points nearly as much. But yeah, labels do have a hard time on any surface with changing curvatures.
.
..
... also, IIRC Nagi/Planaria made a modified converter so the output isn't faded anymore, but I'd hate to think about the performance cost of a full-resolution image.....
What are the pros and cons of labels and fuselage parts for roundels? Am currently trying to go into this whole "detailing" stuff so pointers are appreciated.
Hmmmmm..... Try to time the light so that it only turns on at the same second as the chute, and you'd have a good starshell.
Also, I think I just made the first viable searchlight in SP.
@Rayquaza4590
It's the instructor's cockpit only seen on the -B trainer variants. For other SR-71s and YF-12s the second cockpit is inline with the fuselage as there's no need for the weapons/reconnaissance systems officer to have full forward view.
Grats on plats Andi!
s u s
+2Common concept of spring:
+1.
Not depicted: allergies, so many fookin' alergies.
@HungrySu34
01110111 01101000 01111001 00100000 01100010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 00111111
@MosquitowithaMachineGun
+1Why sudden spotlight now... thx anyways.
Which map did you use?
Something something 88mph?
+2++ LAW ENFORCED BY TANK ++
+1@Rb2h
+1The saved backup: here
Hmmm.....
Publishing...
+1.... willing to share insights on the rockets?
Right, almost forgot it's your birthday. 'Appy Cake Day Juan!
+1Missing
dragScaleattribute for parts. Seems to be an error given the description ofcalculateDragcompared the two.@Kendog84
@griges
Yes. Near the top of the xml file the first section there's a <Variables> </Variables> section, in which the format goes as follows:
<Variables>
+1<Setter variable="VariableName1" function="VariableFunction1" priority="0" />
<Setter variable="VariableName2" function="VariableFunction2" priority="0" />
... etc
<Setter variable="LastVariableName" function="LastVariableFunction" priority="0" />
</Variables>
.
.
Just copy the <Setter variable="... /> parts and you should be all set. Do remember that the variable setter hates any undefined inputs with a passion, so do make sure all parts of the function use inputs that either show up in the variable setter, are vanilla inputs, are outputs from other parts, or are defined by cockpit controls.
@griges
+1The
inputshould be " inverselerp(110,80,IAS)/180", and theCurrent Angleshould be " flap ".Setting the input on the actual flaps to " flap/180 " (instead of dividing the rotator input by 180) would also work, yes, but it'd be more of a hassle, costs more time to set up and more performance to run, and adds another possible point for failure.
@griges
Right, one other thing: if the variable is designed to store a value until the next update conditions are met, then set the rotator's
activationGroupto the update condition,zeroOnDeactivateto "false", and theinputto whatever the function calculating the input is.@griges
+2Well.... IIRC there was some @Kendog84 guy who used rotators to store the variables, but personally I can't really say for sure about the output precision compared to the variable setter....
To store a variable with a rotator, divide the original input by the rotator's
range, then name the rotator'sCurrent Angleoutput as the original variable name. Remember thespeedof the rotator might need to be very large if the output calls for rapid changes in value.@griges
+1Not really unless you want to use a text editor, I'm afraid....
@griges
+1Next time the auto-crediting system bugs out, try contacting the mods or good ol' Seeras to fix it.
@MrSilverWolf
@Seeras
@crazyplaness
Could you please make this a successor to this? Thanks!
+1CONGRATS ! ! !
🥳🎉🥳🎉🥳🎉🥳🎉🥳🎉🥳🎉
+1@Jamawi Those are landing lights. Also, AG2 lights are navigation lights.
Source: https://photos.kitmaker.net/news/36512/002.jpg
@LunarEclipseSP Given it's based on the Mi-24 platform, I'd assume it can still perform the role of an "aerial IFV" designed to support its passengers once they disembark... or to help create landing zones for S&R or medivac.
+1Holy hells, HOW?
+1Back in my days when people said "pillow fort" they usually didn't mean a literal one with cannons..... how time has changed....
+1Gratz on silver Straity!
+1@MrCOPTY
+1@foury2
Nvm, just checked the technical drawings, the C-2 had a shorter nose and a flatter ventral fuselage. The domeless E-2 is most likely this one, in which an E-2D had its radome damaged by hail and was flown from its home base to another base for radome replacement.
@blt Oh, you meant starting procedures... and here I thought @MisterT had it down a while before this one, and some PlaneFlightX guy was building a modern jetliner down to the last detail, but yeah... as far as "performance efficient plane with startup" goes this one is probably one of the earliest ones... if not still the only one to-date.
+1.
..
... Edit: apparently there's a forum post dedicated to planes with startup procedures, but as far as planes with less than 500 parts go this seems to be one of the very few.
....
.....
...... note to self: include starting procedures in my own builds.... and see if it's possible to make one that actually distinguishes between airspawn and groundspawn (airspawn = start in the air so logically the starting procedures had already been finished some nondescript amount of time ago, groundspawn = start on the ground so startup's necessary, or even a hybrid system where landing and shutting down means going through startup again)....
@StraitAircraft 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
+1@StraitAircraft ... yet somehow you still managed to mess up the image.
+1Remember, for simple images,
, and for images with embedded links,[](embedded link).@StraitAircraft For postimage use the "direct link", which for the particular picture is
https://i.postimg.cc/MT8TMC6H/Screenshot-20250204-161837-Simple-Planes.jpg
.
..
... or just copy the "markdown" option in whole and call it a day, no extra formatting required.
@StraitAircraft
Eh... wait, what? I'm not saying you're at fault - everyone have to begin somewhere, nay? And I can promise back when I first had my account I was much worse.
@Seeras Sorry for the wording then.... turns out I'm still bad at NOT committing faux pas left and right, I see.... (So should I refer to you as a former mod then? And are curators mods?)
+1... and how much deeper did I just dig my own grave?
Also, the proper name of the ex-mod was @Seeras, and for the number of active mods check this page. For added efficiency check the most recent comment from all of them then decide on whom to ping.
+1@StraitAircraft
+1Start with shit replicas and improve upon yourself, then one day you'll make good replicas, nay? Also, it's not called "determination", but rather somewhere between "autistic hyperfocus", "blatant insanity", and "uncontrollable urge to tutor someone else".
@StraitAircraft Nah, let's just chalk it up to SP not knowing a thing about real-life weapon dimensions and call it a day. Still, let's see..... the Hawker Horsley was in service between 1927 and 1935, and the most likely air-dropped torpedo of that era would be an 18" Mark VIII, which had an explosive charge of about 320lb and a total weight of about 3,280lb.
+1.
An in-game torp is about 250lb heavy, so the
massScaleneed to be set to 3280/250=13.12..
Through the use of a fuselage block with both width and height set to 0.9 (remember that one "block unit" in game equals to 0.5m so the fuselage would now have the same diameter as an 18" or 450mm torpedo), we can determine the first two values of its
scaleequals to 1.8 (which also meant that one vanilla in-game torpedo is about 10" or 250mm in diameter, good to know and I'll take note of that for my own future designs)..
And though the use of a reference image of a Blackburn Ripon, we can estimate the length of the torpedo using the in-game "blueprint" function; note that some foreshortening exist in the photo, so it needs to compensated for through some trigonometry (aka match the length of the torpedo in the picture then divide by the cosine of the foreshortening angle which is somewhere around 15 degrees), but the last value of its
scaleshould be somewhere around 2.75..
Now, for explosive scales.... @ReinMcDeer had an awesome chart for
explosionScaleof aerial bombs, and taking into the account that an average aerial bomb have about half its weight in the explosive filler, the 320lb TNT filler of our torpedo would have an equivalent explosive mass somewhere slightly larger than that of a 500lb bomb, so for simplicity's sake let's just put it somewhere about 1.06: the chart used a 500lb bomb as the "1" number which is about right given an IRL 500lb bomb have a lethal radius of about 80m, and by linear extrapolation between 500lb bombs and 1000lb bombs we get something like 1.056 for theexplosionScalarvalue..
..
...
So ultimately this is what I've got, and preemptive apologies for the word vomit.
Good plane; tiny torp.
Given the M3 halftrack originated from the M2 halftrack, which itself was based on the M3 scout car.... should this be called "M3 scout truck" instead?
+1Ahh, so that is where the reproductive systems on male AC-130s are located! Another breakthrough in understanding those majestic beasts if I say so myself...
+5It's "Short Singapore" not "Shorts Singapore"; one is an aircraft, the other is a film festival.
+2@MrCOPTY
+1Well.... it's slowly getting less and less simple over time....
@MrCOPTY
+1Thanks!
@RamboJutter
+1.... and here I thought it's because a few weightless and zero-drag parts are a lot less performance hungry than a label showing the same roundel, but labels are a lot more suitable for complex images and fonts (e.g. noseart, or more complex roundels like the East German one) and usually don't mess up connection points nearly as much. But yeah, labels do have a hard time on any surface with changing curvatures.
.
..
... also, IIRC Nagi/Planaria made a modified converter so the output isn't faded anymore, but I'd hate to think about the performance cost of a full-resolution image.....
What are the pros and cons of labels and fuselage parts for roundels? Am currently trying to go into this whole "detailing" stuff so pointers are appreciated.
++Panzer vor!++
+3@WritersCrusadersAirCo2
+3... and hi there pal, it's Disney. Cease and Desist or prepare to get sued. (jklol)
Hmmmmm..... Try to time the light so that it only turns on at the same second as the chute, and you'd have a good starshell.
Also, I think I just made the first viable searchlight in SP.
Y'sure it's a worm and not a tsuchinoko? Noko Noko Bocchinok- uh oops.
+1