@Greggory005 If the impacForce of the back row miniguns is x, set the impactForce on the front row to -2 * x. The miniguns have a natural impactForce of 10, so set the front row to -20 if you didn't set up the back row.
To insert a link, type [text](link)
@Greggory005 Try to fly with the plane, notice that it shakes a lot regardless the airspeed? That vibration is what Spef and I call the RID, and it shouldn't be there.
Too many RIDs, it's a wonder that it can maintain atmospheric flight without shaking itself apart, let alone getting to orbital velocities. I had some discussions w/ @Spefyjerbf a few months ago about similar systems, and I hope it may be of some use to you.
Also, in case anyone's wondering, the grey cylindrical engines behind that saucer are the drive units. Feel free to take it apart to see how it works!
TL;DR: The underlying principle of such engines is that the higher the miniguns' muzzle velocity the more stable it is.
@EliteArsenals24 Nah, the ones I provided links of are simply the ones I marked as favorite, and I can sorta figure out a design by seeing it in action once, so...
@EliteArsenals24 Actually IIRC that cannon-missile set was first made by some @riko guy in an anti-ship missile launcher sorta build... Then someone else made a British V-bomber with the same set...
@spefyjerbf Also, I've just built my first orbital strike uplink based on both this principle and something I scrounged up from @AtlasAviation's build. So now I can freely blow up everything from the other side of the mountain range...
@NormalPioneer enter the list of xml commands for the missile then tell people how to attach those both custom missile body and commands
That's basically what I was trying to do in this post. Also, it's less XML and more exploiting a system bug...
@Yourcrush Something I just found out. Also, sorry for accidentally deleting my postimage archive so that I have to delete that post as well... Because that post would make zero sense without the pictures...
@Spefyjerbf @EliteArsenals24 @Sadboye12 Something I managed to find via reverse-engineering. Not sure if you guys already have entire stashes of such weapons in your arsenals, though...
@NormalPioneer That... abomination that looks like something spewed by someone completely void of reasoning and sanity, and then mangled by some machine-translator intentionally designed to reduce the sanity of any and all who read its finished translation to negative?
"Slow, Heavy, and hard to move"
Tanks may be heavy, but IIRC most walkers can't sprint at 40mph for extended periods of time without destroying the entire road... And something tells me the ground pressure of tanks is already large enough to get them sinking into the mud, let alone something with similar mass but a much smaller contact area with the ground...Granted, this particular platform is more like a mini-mech designed to engage infantry (or perhaps a tankette designed to flank larger vehicles) instead of a front-line armored vehicle built to fight an enemy armored column head-on...
All these years... The only change this craft would need would be a new gauss cannon (and prolly a working landing gear) and it wouldn't look out of place...
Hmmm... Not bad... I myself have tested such systems on the rare days when my work is less busy, and I'm assuming the first weapon systems is some sort of guided plasma cannon? I'll do quite a few more tests on such designs when I have the time.
@AsteroidAsteroidTheBook Well, it's not as if modern jet fighters and bombers have that many external sensor suites... And that's why I said it's a "viable" instead of a "good" design. And of course, modern planes are supposed to have a myriad of AWACS and JSTARS planes plus a full dozen satellites guiding them, while IIRC capital ships are actually supposed to be feeding other ships information instead of the opposite...
@AsteroidAsteroidTheBook Well, I never said the starships in Star Trek are good: at least the Enterprises are civilian research vessels first and foremost, and the Bird of Prey is a strike craft (I mean, that ship have only a dozen crew and space for four POWs), aaaand... the only viable (and not even good designs while we're at that) ships in the entire franchise is prolly the Defiant-class - and that's it. And even the Defiant-class is more strike craft than capital ship based on weapon emplacement and fighting style.
@spefyjerbf The point is that we aren't? Also, I'm pretty sure I'm not talking about the relationship between the energy and the blast radius... It's more like "in-game damage vs in-game setting". Be notified that the explosionScalar on cannons just means the "caliber" of the explosion (so a 50mm gun w/ the explosionScalar set to 5 is equivalent to a 250mm gun w/ the explosionScalar set to 1), and I'm pretty sure the in-game blast radius of the cruise missile and two 500lb bombs are different, but they do deal around the same damage when striking the carrier (aka the carrier sinks at the same rate). So...
Well, thanks for the upvote anyways. And I've been wondering about one thing in particular, how do we calculate the "local"(aka respective to your own aircraft) TargetHeading and TargetElevation, especially when you have a significant pitch and/or roll angle and yet you're trying to use an FT turret. Like when you have a turreted gun on a flying helo? Or a defensive gun on a WWI-WWII heavy fighter (or a turreted starship for that matter). Always wanted to build starships with side turrets (basically turrets w/ elevation and THEN traverse unlike the "standard" traverse-then-elevation turrets), but is always left wondering about how to actually control them. Or just any turret not mounted on the up-down axis for that matter.
@UtsuhoReiuji Hey, ya 'ave me thanks nukie lassie! Or shall I say, Oi, bomm gal, tank yer lotz fer yer up-voot! Sorry for speaking in a dwarven and then an orcish accent.
@Greggory005 Also, this might be useful if you need to know more about formatting and the like.
@Greggory005 If the
impacForceof the back row miniguns isx, set theimpactForceon the front row to-2 * x. The miniguns have a naturalimpactForceof10, so set the front row to-20if you didn't set up the back row.To insert a link, type
[text](link)@Greggory005 Try to fly with the plane, notice that it shakes a lot regardless the airspeed? That vibration is what Spef and I call the RID, and it shouldn't be there.
@Greggory005 That's why I have a link there...
Too many RIDs, it's a wonder that it can maintain atmospheric flight without shaking itself apart, let alone getting to orbital velocities. I had some discussions w/ @Spefyjerbf a few months ago about similar systems, and I hope it may be of some use to you.
Also, in case anyone's wondering, the grey cylindrical engines behind that saucer are the drive units. Feel free to take it apart to see how it works!
TL;DR: The underlying principle of such engines is that the higher the miniguns' muzzle velocity the more stable it is.
Bombs away!!! Seriously, is this loadout designed to destroy a small city or what?
Inspired by this, right?
+1@Mic56qp Thanks again for that holiday greetings! And also, happy Thanksgiving!
May I ask... HOW? How does the mine work?
+1@EliteArsenals24 Also, the other bomber I talked about, turns out it's not a V-bomber afterall...
@EliteArsenals24 I deemed the previous builds to be of low quality or of outdated lore.
@EliteArsenals24 Nah, the ones I provided links of are simply the ones I marked as favorite, and I can sorta figure out a design by seeing it in action once, so...
@EliteArsenals24 Actually IIRC that cannon-missile set was first made by some @riko guy in an anti-ship missile launcher sorta build... Then someone else made a British V-bomber with the same set...
+1@spefyjerbf Also, I've just built my first orbital strike uplink based on both this principle and something I scrounged up from @AtlasAviation's build. So now I can freely blow up everything from the other side of the mountain range...
+1@Yourcrush Thanks, and sorry again...
+1@NormalPioneer
enter the list of xml commands for the missilethen tell people how to attach those both custom missile body and commandsThat's basically what I was trying to do in this post. Also, it's less XML and more exploiting a system bug...
@RamboJutter Hey thanks mate! Also, how's the drone?
@Yourcrush Something I just found out. Also, sorry for accidentally deleting my postimage archive so that I have to delete that post as well... Because that post would make zero sense without the pictures...
+2@NormalPioneer Well, let's hope this post makes slightly more sense than that one...
@Spefyjerbf @EliteArsenals24 @Sadboye12 Something I managed to find via reverse-engineering. Not sure if you guys already have entire stashes of such weapons in your arsenals, though...
@NormalPioneer That... abomination that looks like something spewed by someone completely void of reasoning and sanity, and then mangled by some machine-translator intentionally designed to reduce the sanity of any and all who read its finished translation to negative?
@rexrexThezion Well, try out the drone, take apart the six missiles underneath its wings, and you might get a better understanding of what I'm saying.
@rexrexThezion About what?
@rexrexThezion As in? I mean, that also what I thought when I first saw that Reuben nuke in action...
The beginning of the PROJECT division and your profile pic, I assume?
+1@AzureCorp Inhales TANKS FOR LIFE! TANKS FOREVER!! CRUSH UNBELIEVERS UNDER OUR ALMIGHTY TREADS!!!1!!1!
+1"Slow, Heavy, and hard to move"
+1Tanks may be heavy, but IIRC most walkers can't sprint at 40mph for extended periods of time without destroying the entire road... And something tells me the ground pressure of tanks is already large enough to get them sinking into the mud, let alone something with similar mass but a much smaller contact area with the ground...Granted, this particular platform is more like a mini-mech designed to engage infantry (or perhaps a tankette designed to flank larger vehicles) instead of a front-line armored vehicle built to fight an enemy armored column head-on...
All these years... The only change this craft would need would be a new gauss cannon (and prolly a working landing gear) and it wouldn't look out of place...
All the other kids with the pumped up kicks...
+3Sorry can't control myself when I saw a gun w/ the logo of a company that makes sports shoes...
Hmmm... Not bad... I myself have tested such systems on the rare days when my work is less busy, and I'm assuming the first weapon systems is some sort of guided plasma cannon? I'll do quite a few more tests on such designs when I have the time.
@Nerfaddict Ten?!
How TF did you manage to upload five screenshots?
@AndrewS4 Thanks!
Wait, what's an ADMM again?
HONSE
+1*sniff* beautiful...
Given the gears, I assume a stealth fighter/bomber of sorts?
+1@AtlasAviation Not really, but spent enough hours browsing the wiki to appreciate the aesthetics...
@AtlasAviation Ha! No wonder why I'm wondering where that beautiful but blocky aesthetics come from!
Wait, they slow down?
+1@AsteroidAsteroidTheBook Well, it's not as if modern jet fighters and bombers have that many external sensor suites... And that's why I said it's a "viable" instead of a "good" design. And of course, modern planes are supposed to have a myriad of AWACS and JSTARS planes plus a full dozen satellites guiding them, while IIRC capital ships are actually supposed to be feeding other ships information instead of the opposite...
@AsteroidAsteroidTheBook Well, I never said the starships in Star Trek are good: at least the Enterprises are civilian research vessels first and foremost, and the Bird of Prey is a strike craft (I mean, that ship have only a dozen crew and space for four POWs), aaaand... the only viable (and not even good designs while we're at that) ships in the entire franchise is prolly the Defiant-class - and that's it. And even the Defiant-class is more strike craft than capital ship based on weapon emplacement and fighting style.
@mad414max Thanks!
@Grob0s0VBRa Tank ya fer da up-voot!
+1@ArcturusAerospace My only question is: what have the elves been smoking/drinking when they designed this thing?
@YoDudeChase Thanks!
Should this be considered some sort of shower thought or "onsen thought"?
@spefyjerbf The point is that we aren't? Also, I'm pretty sure I'm not talking about the relationship between the energy and the blast radius... It's more like "in-game damage vs in-game setting". Be notified that the explosionScalar on cannons just means the "caliber" of the explosion (so a 50mm gun w/ the
+1explosionScalarset to 5 is equivalent to a 250mm gun w/ theexplosionScalarset to 1), and I'm pretty sure the in-game blast radius of the cruise missile and two 500lb bombs are different, but they do deal around the same damage when striking the carrier (aka the carrier sinks at the same rate). So...Well, thanks for the upvote anyways. And I've been wondering about one thing in particular, how do we calculate the "local"(aka respective to your own aircraft)
TargetHeadingandTargetElevation, especially when you have a significant pitch and/or roll angle and yet you're trying to use an FT turret. Like when you have a turreted gun on a flying helo? Or a defensive gun on a WWI-WWII heavy fighter (or a turreted starship for that matter). Always wanted to build starships with side turrets (basically turrets w/ elevation and THEN traverse unlike the "standard" traverse-then-elevation turrets), but is always left wondering about how to actually control them. Or just any turret not mounted on the up-down axis for that matter.@UtsuhoReiuji Hey, ya 'ave me thanks nukie lassie! Or shall I say, Oi, bomm gal, tank yer lotz fer yer up-voot!
Sorry for speaking in a dwarven and then an orcish accent.
@Baldovino Thanks mate!
+1