@RamboJutter
So basically, given Bogdan and you were talking about having the antigravs/repulsors/techno-babble-lifting-engines kicking in at lower speeds on takeoff and shutting down at higher speeds on landing, what I said is basically to revise the coding to use different inputs under different conditions: when the throttle is wide open, the wing stuff (I still refuse to call it antigrav) kicks in at over 60mph, while when the throttle is lower than a select setting, the antigrav would only kick in at 90mph.
TL;DR: what I tried (and utterly failed) to convey is... does the function
Beautiful as ever my pal! Although... pray tell me, why isn't something called "anti-grav" always pointing against the direction of gravity again?
.
..
... Yeah, I know, that lil' brown pupper probably meant "something that functions like wings/thrusters but different", but seriously, whenever people say "antigravity" in sci-fi it functions like a thruster - and things that actually goes against gravity are usually not called as such: in Star Wars it's called "repulsorlift", in Mass Effect it's "mass effect field" and "element zero", in Star Trek it's "inertial dampeners", and in Star Blazers it's "gravity anchor"... and yet somehow the massive honkin' rocket engines that lifted an entire city in Age of Ultron was called "anti-grav".
.
..
... I myself would imagine a "true" anti-gravity vehicle to function like a flying submarine or an oddly sleek dirigible - with all the advantages and challenges that entails. They would probably be better at S/VTOL flight than a conventional craft, but would probably be worse at cross-wind landing assuming no other traditional lifting engines/fans/nozzles are present. Trim and ballast becomes crucial for attitude and altitude control - sometimes even more so than whatever vestigial fins they have, and they would probably have distinctive tendencies to "right" themselves in a certain direction as there's another force at play unless carefully balanced... which sounds rather hard as combat planes tend to carry external stores under their wings and fuselage... while civilian planes tend to cram fuel into every available nook and cranny in their wings and fuselage.
.
..
...
....
.....
...... and sorry for rambling.
@Weisbrich
Napier Sabre engines? Those things are MASSIVE! And you used two of them?! No wonder why the airframe starts to look like the good ol' jug! Yeah, I'm a P-47 fan, and when I see the rear cockpit my first instinct was literally "wait that jug be lookin' sus"...
.
..
... and the P-47 only used a 2000hp engine. Your monsters managed to reach the 6750hp benchmark.
.
..
... and why the "scissor lift" gun pod? And what happened to just loading the bombs under the wings (or the fuselage) like civilized people?
.
.
... and bonus nitpicking time™: the pitch authority feels a bit lacking for a plane of its size, and there are no gun sights. Still, the overall build quality is remarkable - it wouldn't look out of place among the portfolio of a plat, so for a first timer? It's simply marvelous.
.
..
... I'm now considering building a plane inspired by this and based on my existing prototype, a mangled P-47 with contra-rotating props and a Russian(?)/German(?) style canopy. I will credit you if I finally overcame my procrastination and started building it.
.
..
... and sorry for rambling.
@Weisbrich Not really talking about how the design would affect people, more like the general serviceability of the plane and how reliable the design would be - the gearbox and fairing arrangement on this plane probably made it that lil' bit harder to service, while having two engines mated to the same driveshaft instead of, ya know, having an actual flat-12 engine (or whatever the actual number of cylinders the plane ended up with) there just meant more camshafts and oil pumps and whatnot to deal with. Most planes with contra-rotating props don't have different engines powering the different props, afterall: if one engine fails the dead prop instantaneously becomes dead weight - and it's harder to synchronize two engines to run at exactly the same RPM than just using a gearbox to make sure the two props turn at the same rate.
.
..
... and sorry for over-analyzing things - especially on someone else's very first plane. Just take it as the autistic rambling of the resident aspie, pay no heed.
ZOGGIN' BOOTIFUL, BOSS!
.
..
... The engine arrangement would have the crew chief ranting and raving about not being paid enough, but everything else? Perfection.
@LunarEclipseSP
@DeutscheLufthansaAG
@Yourlocalhuman
I'd see it as less "offensive" and more "something trolls will capitalize on"... Whenever there's anything vaguely related to the war uploaded there's a bunch of "strongly opinionated people" (read: assorted retards, flamers, and trolls) getting heated over nothing - hells, back in 2018, two walking anime characters (v959rY "Phoebe" and pPVIyL "Camille") were all it took to plunge the entire comment section into a cesspool of toxic arsehattery, with v959rY "Phoebe" taken down and restored more than once... for literally being an original anime-style character. Yeah, there are always people who will intentionally try to start arguments online for their own twisted gratification, which, to be perfectly honest, sucks.
.
..
... and sorry for hogging the channel.
@Grob0s0VBRa ... and here I thought it looked closer to a BattleMech.
Hell, the size meant it's probably a ProtoMech, and the 2 × A/C2 loadout checks out.
@IceCraftGaming Yeah, definitely, "Fastest updoot in the southeast boii".
I'm still working on that plane, in case anybody's wondering, and here's my latest version. Yeah, I made an unholy amalgamation between a F6F Hellcat, an Fw-190 Würger, a Bf109, and a P-47 Jug. Don't judge.
@Kendog84 From my tests (and pile o' bombs), bomb mass doesn't affect bomb speed either. The plane's performance, on the other hand, is indeed affected by the mass of the bombs... for obvious reasons. Just not the drag.
Also, when combined with the result of this, in which we discovered the explosive radius of a cannon shell is also scalar, plus a rocket = 250mm shell (5 × 50mm) and a missile = 350mm (7 × 50mm) shell, we can basically make everything out of everything!
Hurrah for the innovative, hurrah for the inquisitive, and hurrah for the persevering!
Two quick questions:
First, does the impactDamageScalar scale with caliber? (Scalar of 50mm × 1 = Scalar of 25mm × 2, for example)
Second, does the same system also work with explosives?
@Kendog84 See that "puff" of fire? That's the "explody" part. It somehow functions differently than when the shell is set to "explosive", but it does still have a small blast radius and can still unravel planes. That said, given the whole "unraveling" process is caused by a part receiving too much damage instead of any inherent process...
@Astro12 Just ran another test, turns out the best way to use cannons as aircraft weapon (aside from "just say no") is that... make it explosive and then nerf both the impactDamageScalar and the explosionScalar.
@Astro12 Yeah, that "crack" sound is an explosion as you can first, damage yourself with it; and second, make smaller by literally making the round explosive and reduce the explosionScalar. I have managed to (somehow) unravel a ship with a .50cal "shell" with both impactDamageScalar and explosionScalar at zero, and after that I just quitted using cannons altogether. My rule of thumb? If the ammo explodes and destroys a part then something's getting unraveled. But retarded bouncyballs are really unfun so I just switched to guns.
@Kendog84 What I have also seen is that sometime rockets/bombs/torps/missiles would not damage something it could clearly destroy if that thing was formerly separated from a cockpit. Say, My first bomb destroyed a target and the target's parts (checked to have 100 health) are scattered on the ground. When I drop my bombs again on the scattered parts sometimes literally nothing happened. Does the broken chain also prevent a part from being damaged by explosions?
@Astro12 Yeah... from what I have gleamed from my (only) design with actual glass I can attest to that: my glass canopy was shot out; not a scratch on the frames it's connected to. Does connecting a part with multiple other parts help prevent the chain from affecting the block?
@RamboJutter Just checked the code, forgot to capitalize the "t" in "Throttle". Fixed now.
Gratz on platz!
@RamboJutter
So basically, given Bogdan and you were talking about having the antigravs/repulsors/techno-babble-lifting-engines kicking in at lower speeds on takeoff and shutting down at higher speeds on landing, what I said is basically to revise the coding to use different inputs under different conditions: when the throttle is wide open, the wing stuff (I still refuse to call it antigrav) kicks in at over 60mph, while when the throttle is lower than a select setting, the antigrav would only kick in at 90mph.
TL;DR: what I tried (and utterly failed) to convey is... does the function
work?
Congrats for silver my friend!
+1@RamboJutter
essentially its a compromise
So apparently "if throttle >
SetValuethen (bool V > 60) else (bool V > 90)" isn't the way to go?Beautiful as ever my pal! Although... pray tell me, why isn't something called "anti-grav" always pointing against the direction of gravity again?
.
..
... Yeah, I know, that lil' brown pupper probably meant "something that functions like wings/thrusters but different", but seriously, whenever people say "antigravity" in sci-fi it functions like a thruster - and things that actually goes against gravity are usually not called as such: in Star Wars it's called "repulsorlift", in Mass Effect it's "mass effect field" and "element zero", in Star Trek it's "inertial dampeners", and in Star Blazers it's "gravity anchor"... and yet somehow the massive honkin' rocket engines that lifted an entire city in Age of Ultron was called "anti-grav".
.
..
... I myself would imagine a "true" anti-gravity vehicle to function like a flying submarine or an oddly sleek dirigible - with all the advantages and challenges that entails. They would probably be better at S/VTOL flight than a conventional craft, but would probably be worse at cross-wind landing assuming no other traditional lifting engines/fans/nozzles are present. Trim and ballast becomes crucial for attitude and altitude control - sometimes even more so than whatever vestigial fins they have, and they would probably have distinctive tendencies to "right" themselves in a certain direction as there's another force at play unless carefully balanced... which sounds rather hard as combat planes tend to carry external stores under their wings and fuselage... while civilian planes tend to cram fuel into every available nook and cranny in their wings and fuselage.
.
..
...
....
.....
...... and sorry for rambling.
The (fictional) British version of the FJ-1 Fury, I'm assuming?
+1h o o p
+1@Weisbrich
+2Napier Sabre engines? Those things are MASSIVE! And you used two of them?! No wonder why the airframe starts to look like the good ol' jug!
Yeah, I'm a P-47 fan, and when I see the rear cockpit my first instinct was literally "wait that jug be lookin' sus"...
.
..
... and the P-47 only used a 2000hp engine. Your monsters managed to reach the 6750hp benchmark.
.
..
... and why the "scissor lift" gun pod? And what happened to just loading the bombs under the wings (or the fuselage) like civilized people?
.
.
... and bonus nitpicking time™: the pitch authority feels a bit lacking for a plane of its size, and there are no gun sights. Still, the overall build quality is remarkable - it wouldn't look out of place among the portfolio of a plat, so for a first timer? It's simply marvelous.
.
..
... I'm now considering building a plane inspired by this and based on my existing prototype, a mangled P-47 with contra-rotating props and a Russian(?)/German(?) style canopy. I will credit you if I finally overcame my procrastination and started building it.
.
..
... and sorry for rambling.
@Weisbrich Not really talking about how the design would affect people, more like the general serviceability of the plane and how reliable the design would be - the gearbox and fairing arrangement on this plane probably made it that lil' bit harder to service, while having two engines mated to the same driveshaft instead of, ya know, having an actual flat-12 engine (or whatever the actual number of cylinders the plane ended up with) there just meant more camshafts and oil pumps and whatnot to deal with. Most planes with contra-rotating props don't have different engines powering the different props, afterall: if one engine fails the dead prop instantaneously becomes dead weight - and it's harder to synchronize two engines to run at exactly the same RPM than just using a gearbox to make sure the two props turn at the same rate.
+1.
..
... and sorry for over-analyzing things - especially on someone else's very first plane. Just take it as the autistic rambling of the resident aspie, pay no heed.
ZOGGIN' BOOTIFUL, BOSS!
+2.
..
... The engine arrangement would have the crew chief ranting and raving about not being paid enough, but everything else? Perfection.
@LonelyAustrianUhlan The nose and the windshield looks pretty Douglas-ish to me... perhaps it's just me then.
+1Cursed DC-3
-- "How many guns do you want on this plane?"
+3-- "Y E S"
f l o o f y b i r b
+1@Aditiaa Thanks!
@LunarEclipseSP
+2@DeutscheLufthansaAG
@Yourlocalhuman
I'd see it as less "offensive" and more "something trolls will capitalize on"... Whenever there's anything vaguely related to the war uploaded there's a bunch of "strongly opinionated people" (read: assorted retards, flamers, and trolls) getting heated over nothing - hells, back in 2018, two walking anime characters (v959rY "Phoebe" and pPVIyL "Camille") were all it took to plunge the entire comment section into a cesspool of toxic arsehattery, with v959rY "Phoebe" taken down and restored more than once... for literally being an original anime-style character. Yeah, there are always people who will intentionally try to start arguments online for their own twisted gratification, which, to be perfectly honest, sucks.
.
..
... and sorry for hogging the channel.
i'm loenin' it
+1F i R s T
+1You'll know a design have issues when it makes the F-35 look serviceable...
+1"DONT TREAD ON ME"
+2c y b e r t o n k
+1When the engineers took the term "Airbus" a bit too literally...
f I r S t
+4... and welcome back, my diesel/decopunk-loving feline friend.
Welcome back Centuri! How's it going?
+2@Anomalocaris "A little bit of parts" sounds "a little bit" unconvincing when the plane is literally one part short of one full thousand...
Always good seeing another one from ya, RJ!
@Grob0s0VBRa ... and here I thought it looked closer to a BattleMech.
+1Hell, the size meant it's probably a ProtoMech, and the 2 × A/C2 loadout checks out.
ZOGGIN' BOOTIFUL, BOSS!
+1@EasternPatrick Thanks. I'll try to incorporate that into my next upload.
+1Quick question: how did you manage to upload three screenshots from an Android platform?
+1Welcome to the gold club, sister. And congrats.
+2Holy. Hell.
+1@IceCraftGaming Yeah, definitely, "Fastest updoot in the southeast boii".
I'm still working on that plane, in case anybody's wondering, and here's my latest version. Yeah, I made an unholy amalgamation between a F6F Hellcat, an Fw-190 Würger, a Bf109, and a P-47 Jug. Don't judge.
@IceCraftGaming Whom?
+1@IceCraftGaming Thanks!
+1Saab 35 Draken?
@GuyFolk Well, better late than never! Plus, I ain't the dude who invented this thing - I'm but a humble amateur chronicler, afterall.
@Kendog84 From my tests (and pile o' bombs), bomb mass doesn't affect bomb speed either. The plane's performance, on the other hand, is indeed affected by the mass of the bombs... for obvious reasons. Just not the drag.
+2Also, when combined with the result of this, in which we discovered the explosive radius of a cannon shell is also scalar, plus a rocket = 250mm shell (5 × 50mm) and a missile = 350mm (7 × 50mm) shell, we can basically make everything out of everything!
Hurrah for the innovative, hurrah for the inquisitive, and hurrah for the persevering!
+1ZOGGIN BOOTIFUL, BOSS!@OPaiTaOn
Yeah, the Gsh-2-23 don't have flash hiders and are way smaller than the ones shown in the GIF.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryPorn/comments/3hps61/gsh302fire400x225_gif/
https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryGfys/comments/33p5if/mi24pfiringitsimpressivefixed_gryazevshipunov/
https://youtu.be/7fX3t5bg7N4
+1Errr... I thought the guns shown in the GIF is the Gsh-30-2?
Tom here, patiently waiting for Meko's return.
+1@SimplePilot28465 Thanks! Feel free to use them in your designs as long as you give credit.
+2Two quick questions:
First, does the impactDamageScalar scale with caliber? (
Scalarof 50mm × 1 =Scalarof 25mm × 2, for example)Second, does the same system also work with explosives?
@Kendog84 See that "puff" of fire? That's the "explody" part. It somehow functions differently than when the shell is set to "explosive", but it does still have a small blast radius and can still unravel planes. That said, given the whole "unraveling" process is caused by a part receiving too much damage instead of any inherent process...
+1@Astro12 Just ran another test, turns out the best way to use cannons as aircraft weapon (aside from "just say no") is that... make it explosive and then nerf both the impactDamageScalar and the explosionScalar.
@Astro12 Yeah, that "crack" sound is an explosion as you can first, damage yourself with it; and second, make smaller by literally making the round explosive and reduce the explosionScalar. I have managed to (somehow) unravel a ship with a .50cal "shell" with both impactDamageScalar and explosionScalar at zero, and after that I just quitted using cannons altogether. My rule of thumb? If the ammo explodes and destroys a part then something's getting unraveled. But retarded bouncyballs are really unfun so I just switched to guns.
@Kendog84 What I have also seen is that sometime rockets/bombs/torps/missiles would not damage something it could clearly destroy if that thing was formerly separated from a cockpit. Say, My first bomb destroyed a target and the target's parts (checked to have 100 health) are scattered on the ground. When I drop my bombs again on the scattered parts sometimes literally nothing happened. Does the broken chain also prevent a part from being damaged by explosions?
+1@Astro12 Yeah... from what I have gleamed from my (only) design with actual glass I can attest to that: my glass canopy was shot out; not a scratch on the frames it's connected to. Does connecting a part with multiple other parts help prevent the chain from affecting the block?