@MDDJB So... I'm assuming the proper "battleships" in your world is something armed with main calibers well over 20 inches, weighs a couple hundred thousand metric tonnes in displacement, crewed by a full dozen thousand crew members, and have their own hydroponic farms for food production?
The construction is impeccable - hell, I myself tested things like this a few years back, before the advent of 1.9 and Funky Trees, but abandoned it due to, well, FT coding not existing back then, plus the fact that you can't control the yield of missiles or bombs before 1.10. Now, here's a question: how the hell did you make the wings unfold by themselves? I didn't see any FT inputs on those rotators that would suggest they're only deployed when the missile is launched - so how? I really wanted to know.
... and here's some nitpicking that I really shouldn't be doing: the warhead is a bit too powerful: an explosionScale of 2.6 would mean the warhead contains around 3 metric tonnes of high explosive - yet an IRL JASSM only had 450kg in payload - so 1.8 or 1.9 would be nice. Another thing would be the gyroscope: disabling every controls and set all three rotational axis to zero would not cause any noticeable changes to the missile's flight model, yet ensures that the missile would not be accidentally steered by the launching plane.
@BreadDoBeKindaSus Well, I'm now following you so perhaps no need for that? (And I'm pretty sure I used to follow you a while ago, not sure why I un-followed you but apparently I missed out a lot)
@Diloph
Install two intakes in the fuselage, remove the engines on the bombs, and problem solved.
.
The thing is that in-game air does not pass through pylons, detachers, rotators, or wings. And as you had two engines in the fuselage that needs intakes (the low bypass turbofan and the VTOL engine), you need two or more intakes.
@Formula350 So the point is that I tried putting the cockpit on the edge of fuselage blocks, nothing weird happened beside the tank now yawing/turning a bit while the gyro-locked turret didn't thus spoiling the aim. But for the coding part... I'm equally bad (if not even worse) at math, but IIRC the first number after pow should be somewhere near 1250 (the muzzle velocity of the guns)? Other than that the coding is equally incomprehensible to me as it is to you.
@Formula350 For some reason I didn't manage to replicate the effect of "If the part that the cockpit is attached to is rotated".
You sure the hull itself didn't move/rotate after loading (which I did notice) and that the your craft/cockpit is pointing exactly at 000 degrees, with no bank and/or pitch angles?
@Formula350 I think I've already told you about the cockpit thing.... The thing is, Jundroo's system is simplistic - and perhaps overly so. One would've thought the target data would be relative to the plane doing the aiming? Wrong! The coordinates are absolute for it's based on the relative coordinates of the plane(s) as "viewed" by the computer! And thus I'm pretty sure there will never be any localized FCS....
.
"High" as in "10 meters higher than the target"? 'Cause the gun is mounted about 10 meters above the cockpit.
.
Wait, I haven't noticed the part about a cockpit WITH rotation on all three axis being zero causing any guns to aim off by the rotation angle of the part the cockpit is mounted on...
@Formula350 Oh, about the secondary guns (the big AA guns above the main turret)... the entire spaghetti code is WAY beyond me... Although according to the original builder (@Sadboye12), the problem is still caused by the gun being mounted too far away from the cockpit - * beep *, he actually said that part of the reason why the flak guns rotate with the main turret is because then you can manually correct that target lead... I think the problem is caused (at least partially) by the fact that the turret is mounted around 10m above and 10m behind the cockpit, which means the shots would constantly miss by about 10 meters, depending on which direction the plane comes from.
@Simplelildude @Brendorkus
No worries, on a second thought I did come off as rather passive-aggressive (or at least quite condescending) with that highlighted "someone". Should've just typed "the guns have no bullet drop but the elevation codes compensated for it, use this code below for these type of guns next time".
.
... Or would this be even worse than the previous one? I'm autistic so subtle things like emotions do tend to elude me a lot....
.
And I... I was indeed a bit frustrated for seeing the wrong elevation code being used by literally EVERYONE (well not everyone ofc, but still too many to be a simple noob mistake), so I really wanted to tell it to someone who might have known the correct code and use it in his/her next build... Plus that most of my builds don't tend to stay on the site for too long before I delete them en masse, so I felt uploading a "fixed" version would be pointless in the long run as I would've deleted them by the next month if not earlier... Plus I did place functionality sacresonact so I might have snapped a bit after he said those turrets are just for decoration... I know I'm not supposed to judge others for how functional their designs are, but...
@Treadmill103 A lot of Atlas's aesthetics can be best summed as "cold-war / retrofuturistic crossed with the low-poly blockiness of Supreme Commander game series"...
@Sadboye12 I'm not trying to argue... And I'm not saying you're making poor quality builds - exactly the opposite: it's that there's still something that can be improved so the design (and subsequent designs) can be even greater than it already is. Why don't I publish a "fixed" version? I don't deserve even a tiny bit of credit for fixing a simple piece of code that everyone probably knows already when my construction skills and sense of aesthetics are still garbage-tier. More than half of my collections are builds I have modified for my personal use (a few for historical accuracy, a few for weapons training, a few for code testing, etc), but there's no point in uploading them - I don't deserve any upvotes for them anyway.
Anyways, the elevation code for energy weapons is more or less clamp((TargetElevation + (rate(TargetElevation) * (TargetDistance / muzzle velocity))) , max depression , max elevation) / 90
with both depression and elevation in degrees and muzzle velocity in m/s, assuming the range of the rotator is 90 degrees and both min and max are set to 1.
@Sadboye12 pray tell me, which part of the clamp((TargetElevation + rate(TargetElevation)(((800 * sin(asin((TargetDistance * 9.81)/(pow(800, 2)))/2))/9.81) * 2)) + (asin(((TargetDistance + rate(TargetDistance)(((800 * sin(asin((TargetDistance * 9.81)/(pow(800, 2)))/2))/9.81) * 2))* 9.81)/(pow(800, 2)))/2),-10,90)/90
elevation code is for convergence? Like, which part of the (largely horizontal, while we're at it) convergence would require the guns to aim up when the target is actually lower than you?
@Sadboye12 I'm not mad, I'm just grumpy. And I did say that you coded the projectile velocity correctly - the error's in the type of codes - the code is for cannons with bullet drop, not for (energy) guns which does not. You can see that as the guns aims up instead of down when targeting the USS Beast battle group.
@Sadboye12 Wait, are you meaning to tell me that you made the entire spaghetti code that compensates for bullet drop without thinking, and yet the simple "point and shoot" code didn't, for some reason, cross your mind even once?
.
.
... Anyways, it probably boils down to the fact that the rotators came from the same source and then people didn't bother to check what it's supposed to do. Hell, I've seen people making turrets that can't hit the broadside of a barn while inside of it because they didn't bother to change the muzzle velocity! So you're forgiven.
@Sadboye12
Well that's not how it goes on those battleships back in WWII so why should landships be any different?
Also, apparently someone forgot the fact that in-game machine guns don't have bullet drop, so the tertiary guns can't hit shit beyond one mile or so...
@AvalonIndustries The thing is that when the main turret turns, the flak turret turns with it - and that angle is added to the traverse angle of the flak turret. So when the turret is not pointing straight forward the flak cannon points to the wrong direction.
@Sadboye12
So... here's some random guesstimation:
The Aethereal Reactor have a particle reaction of some kind (my bet is on some means to siphon zero-point radiation, using methods similar to the Iskandarian Mechanism, if the name "Aether" means "the Dirac Sea" instead of "the inventor have delusions of grandeur plus a fetish for archaic vocabulary") contained in an energy field and powers various systems of the vehicle, including the both the antigrav coils and primary (probably worked on the same principle as the antigrav ones, only pointed rearwards instead of down) drive coils, plus the avionics of the craft and whatever AI node it used (its tendency to perform better in formations is a stereotypical behavior for networked self-reasoning AI systems, each additional node to the network allows the calculation/reasoning process to more precise and more efficient by a large amount, some times exponentially so, both from the increased FC sensor precision due to triangulation and from increased synaptic capacity).
The "Telion Charge" system is one of the many expressions of the energy released from the Aethereal Core, where some of the energy is encased in a separate containment field and ejected from the reactor core (whether the field is self-sustaining is largely dependent on what type of particles are used and what reaction it is), whereas the Harmonic Glitter is more about adding an outer layer to the containment fields, fill both layers with enough energy (probably by partially lowering/collapsing the inner layer), then suddenly collapsing the outer layer while simultaneously maintaining full strength on the inner layer to create a devastating particle "pulse" that fries everything around the focus, aka the reactor. So basically a weaponized (and slight more controllable) form of the dreaded "reactor/field overload" event.
.
.
. ... Okay, how many of you consider me insane, crazy, drunk, high, or a combination of the above after this post? Comment down below. ... in case anyone's wondering it's just a side effect of the covid vac- Tom! Is it so hard for you to admit that you're just autistic that you need to spin up some bullshit like that so that more people can get the f#cking virus and die in some of the most agonizing way possible you little $hit?! Admit it. NOW!
. ... that came from nowhere.
. ... yeah I'm autistic and for some reason I'm unreasonably attracted to all those fictional technology in speculative fiction, both sci-fi and magitek...
.
... and I'm sorry for hogging the channel.
@Grob0s0VBRa DAT IZ DA ROIGHT AN' PROPA ORKY WOI OV DA MEKBOYZ! WAAAAAAAAGGGHHH!!! Silliness aside, that sounds pretty dangerous... to both friends and foes alike. The system seem to share some similarities with the Type 492-C dual-purpose mass driver in the utilisation of particle dispersion technology to create massive amounts of destruction, though.
Farewell. Take your well-earned break. May the trade winds be always on your side. We'll patiently wait for your return.
... and Godspeed.
This is the way.
+5🎶~I look across the raging war and feel the steady beating of my heart~🎶
+1Errr... could you please update the codes for the 1.11 update? Like, the missile lock codes or something like that?
+2@MDDJB So... I'm assuming the proper "battleships" in your world is something armed with main calibers well over 20 inches, weighs a couple hundred thousand metric tonnes in displacement, crewed by a full dozen thousand crew members, and have their own hydroponic farms for food production?
A heavy cruiser with 15" main battery? Wouldn't that make it a battlecruiser?
ROKKIT BARRAGE! WAAAAAGGGHHH!!!
+1@Darkhound Sorry, just an obligatory "cute dog" joke about the plane's name...
+1Who's a good boy? Who's a good boy?
@Sergio666 Of course you could! Just give some credit for that post and you're all set!
+1@Sergio666 There is one, but I highly doubt if that's what you're looking for...
+2The construction is impeccable - hell, I myself tested things like this a few years back, before the advent of 1.9 and Funky Trees, but abandoned it due to, well, FT coding not existing back then, plus the fact that you can't control the yield of missiles or bombs before 1.10. Now, here's a question: how the hell did you make the wings unfold by themselves? I didn't see any FT inputs on those rotators that would suggest they're only deployed when the missile is launched - so how? I really wanted to know.
+1... and here's some nitpicking that I really shouldn't be doing: the warhead is a bit too powerful: an explosionScale of 2.6 would mean the warhead contains around 3 metric tonnes of high explosive - yet an IRL JASSM only had 450kg in payload - so 1.8 or 1.9 would be nice. Another thing would be the gyroscope: disabling every controls and set all three rotational axis to zero would not cause any noticeable changes to the missile's flight model, yet ensures that the missile would not be accidentally steered by the launching plane.
Is that... a jet P-51?
@BreadDoBeKindaSus Well, I'm now following you so perhaps no need for that? (And I'm pretty sure I used to follow you a while ago, not sure why I un-followed you but apparently I missed out a lot)
@BreadDoBeKindaSus WDYM?
Also, here is my personal fix for this flyer.
@Diloph
Install two intakes in the fuselage, remove the engines on the bombs, and problem solved.
.
The thing is that in-game air does not pass through pylons, detachers, rotators, or wings. And as you had two engines in the fuselage that needs intakes (the low bypass turbofan and the VTOL engine), you need two or more intakes.
f i r s t
+1Incredible...
+3Holy... It's... beautiful...
Nice as always, Kako!
+1Dammit Grobs... That's first, some quality engineering, and second, funny AF...
Welcome to the impulse club, pal!
+1.
...My position on gyroscopes and high muzzle velocities (plus zero spread) still stands, though.
@Formula350 So the point is that I tried putting the cockpit on the edge of fuselage blocks, nothing weird happened beside the tank now yawing/turning a bit while the gyro-locked turret didn't thus spoiling the aim. But for the coding part... I'm equally bad (if not even worse) at math, but IIRC the first number after
powshould be somewhere near 1250 (the muzzle velocity of the guns)? Other than that the coding is equally incomprehensible to me as it is to you.@Formula350 For some reason I didn't manage to replicate the effect of "If the part that the cockpit is attached to is rotated".
You sure the hull itself didn't move/rotate after loading (which I did notice) and that the your craft/cockpit is pointing exactly at 000 degrees, with no bank and/or pitch angles?
@Formula350 I think I've already told you about the cockpit thing.... The thing is, Jundroo's system is simplistic - and perhaps overly so. One would've thought the target data would be relative to the plane doing the aiming? Wrong! The coordinates are absolute for it's based on the relative coordinates of the plane(s) as "viewed" by the computer! And thus I'm pretty sure there will never be any localized FCS....
.
"High" as in "10 meters higher than the target"? 'Cause the gun is mounted about 10 meters above the cockpit.
.
Wait, I haven't noticed the part about a cockpit WITH rotation on all three axis being zero causing any guns to aim off by the rotation angle of the part the cockpit is mounted on...
@Formula350 Oh, about the secondary guns (the big AA guns above the main turret)... the entire spaghetti code is WAY beyond me... Although according to the original builder (@Sadboye12), the problem is still caused by the gun being mounted too far away from the cockpit - * beep *, he actually said that part of the reason why the flak guns rotate with the main turret is because then you can manually correct that target lead... I think the problem is caused (at least partially) by the fact that the turret is mounted around 10m above and 10m behind the cockpit, which means the shots would constantly miss by about 10 meters, depending on which direction the plane comes from.
+2@Sadboye12 [gives a big hug] No worries... If anyone I'd be the one who started it all...
+2Tom's here!
@Simplelildude @Brendorkus
+3No worries, on a second thought I did come off as rather passive-aggressive (or at least quite condescending) with that highlighted "someone". Should've just typed "the guns have no bullet drop but the elevation codes compensated for it, use this code below for these type of guns next time".
.
... Or would this be even worse than the previous one? I'm autistic so subtle things like emotions do tend to elude me a lot....
.
And I... I was indeed a bit frustrated for seeing the wrong elevation code being used by literally EVERYONE (well not everyone ofc, but still too many to be a simple noob mistake), so I really wanted to tell it to someone who might have known the correct code and use it in his/her next build... Plus that most of my builds don't tend to stay on the site for too long before I delete them en masse, so I felt uploading a "fixed" version would be pointless in the long run as I would've deleted them by the next month if not earlier... Plus I did place functionality sacresonact so I might have snapped a bit after he said those turrets are just for decoration... I know I'm not supposed to judge others for how functional their designs are, but...
Atlas, are your drone units standing by in the upper atmosphere?
@Treadmill103 A lot of Atlas's aesthetics can be best summed as "cold-war / retrofuturistic crossed with the low-poly blockiness of Supreme Commander game series"...
+2@Sadboye12
+1[sheepishly] Thanks for having my back... And my uploads are only as good as the ones I haven't deleted yet...
Do-38? P-335?
@Sadboye12 I'm not trying to argue... And I'm not saying you're making poor quality builds - exactly the opposite: it's that there's still something that can be improved so the design (and subsequent designs) can be even greater than it already is. Why don't I publish a "fixed" version? I don't deserve even a tiny bit of credit for fixing a simple piece of code that everyone probably knows already when my construction skills and sense of aesthetics are still garbage-tier. More than half of my collections are builds I have modified for my personal use (a few for historical accuracy, a few for weapons training, a few for code testing, etc), but there's no point in uploading them - I don't deserve any upvotes for them anyway.
+1Anyways, the elevation code for energy weapons is more or less
clamp((TargetElevation + (rate(TargetElevation) * (TargetDistance /
muzzle velocity))) ,max depression,max elevation) / 90with both depression and elevation in degrees and muzzle velocity in m/s, assuming the range of the rotator is 90 degrees and both min and max are set to 1.
@Sadboye12 pray tell me, which part of the
+1clamp((TargetElevation + rate(TargetElevation)(((800 * sin(asin((TargetDistance * 9.81)/(pow(800, 2)))/2))/9.81) * 2)) + (asin(((TargetDistance + rate(TargetDistance)(((800 * sin(asin((TargetDistance * 9.81)/(pow(800, 2)))/2))/9.81) * 2))* 9.81)/(pow(800, 2)))/2),-10,90)/90
elevation code is for convergence? Like, which part of the (largely horizontal, while we're at it) convergence would require the guns to aim up when the target is actually lower than you?
@Sadboye12 I'm not mad, I'm just grumpy. And I did say that you coded the projectile velocity correctly - the error's in the type of codes - the code is for cannons with bullet drop, not for (energy) guns which does not. You can see that as the guns aims up instead of down when targeting the USS Beast battle group.
+1@Sadboye12 The bullets can fly 5 miles, the accuracy goes to hell after 1 from the faulty algorithm.
+1@Sadboye12 Wait, are you meaning to tell me that you made the entire spaghetti code that compensates for bullet drop without thinking, and yet the simple "point and shoot" code didn't, for some reason, cross your mind even once?
+1.
.
... Anyways, it probably boils down to the fact that the rotators came from the same source and then people didn't bother to check what it's supposed to do. Hell, I've seen people making turrets that can't hit the broadside of a barn while inside of it because they didn't bother to change the muzzle velocity! So you're forgiven.
@Sadboye12 Deleting a plane that's 4 feet away from you sounds decidedly much less impressive than, say, 4 miles away...
+1@Sadboye12
+1Well that's not how it goes on those battleships back in WWII so why should landships be any different?
Also, apparently someone forgot the fact that in-game machine guns don't have bullet drop, so the tertiary guns can't hit shit beyond one mile or so...
@Sadboye12 Well I guess that's not too efficient when you're both bombarding a target 20 miles away and under attack from enemy bombers...
+1@AvalonIndustries The thing is that when the main turret turns, the flak turret turns with it - and that angle is added to the traverse angle of the flak turret. So when the turret is not pointing straight forward the flak cannon points to the wrong direction.
+1Battleship on land, eh?
.
.
... Unleash 19 barrels of hell!
.
.
... the flak cannon on top of the turret needs some rework, though...
@Sadboye12
So... here's some random guesstimation:
The Aethereal Reactor have a particle reaction of some kind (my bet is on some means to siphon zero-point radiation, using methods similar to the Iskandarian Mechanism, if the name "Aether" means "the Dirac Sea" instead of "the inventor have delusions of grandeur plus a fetish for archaic vocabulary") contained in an energy field and powers various systems of the vehicle, including the both the antigrav coils and primary (probably worked on the same principle as the antigrav ones, only pointed rearwards instead of down) drive coils, plus the avionics of the craft and whatever AI node it used (its tendency to perform better in formations is a stereotypical behavior for networked self-reasoning AI systems, each additional node to the network allows the calculation/reasoning process to more precise and more efficient by a large amount, some times exponentially so, both from the increased FC sensor precision due to triangulation and from increased synaptic capacity).
The "Telion Charge" system is one of the many expressions of the energy released from the Aethereal Core, where some of the energy is encased in a separate containment field and ejected from the reactor core (whether the field is self-sustaining is largely dependent on what type of particles are used and what reaction it is), whereas the Harmonic Glitter is more about adding an outer layer to the containment fields, fill both layers with enough energy (probably by partially lowering/collapsing the inner layer), then suddenly collapsing the outer layer while simultaneously maintaining full strength on the inner layer to create a devastating particle "pulse" that fries everything around the focus, aka the reactor. So basically a weaponized (and slight more controllable) form of the dreaded "reactor/field overload" event.
.
.
.
... Okay, how many of you consider me insane, crazy, drunk, high, or a combination of the above after this post? Comment down below.
... in case anyone's wondering it's just a side effect of the covid vac-
Tom! Is it so hard for you to admit that you're just autistic that you need to spin up some bullshit like that so that more people can get the f#cking virus and die in some of the most agonizing way possible you little $hit?! Admit it. NOW!
.
... that came from nowhere.
.
... yeah I'm autistic and for some reason I'm unreasonably attracted to all those fictional technology in speculative fiction, both sci-fi and magitek...
.
... and I'm sorry for hogging the channel.
@Grob0s0VBRa
+2DAT IZ DA ROIGHT AN' PROPA ORKY WOI OV DA MEKBOYZ! WAAAAAAAAGGGHHH!!!
Silliness aside, that sounds pretty dangerous... to both friends and foes alike. The system seem to share some similarities with the Type 492-C dual-purpose mass driver in the utilisation of particle dispersion technology to create massive amounts of destruction, though.
What the hell is the harmonic glitter...
+1A submarine in the sky, eh?
Moooooooooooooo~
+5Is that a YF-23/F-14 mix? I'm almost feeling sorry for anything that happened to be on the receiving end of this duo...
@Grob0s0VBRa Oh, so "just" archaeotech (whether its original form is considered silica animus is up for debate) corrupted by the ruinous powers, eh?