@Kendog84
Yes on both accounts, depending on what you mean. A lynx-type torpedo is a custom-built projectile powered by either a rocket or infinite rotator, and connected to the launching sub with a winch (similar to wire-guided torps IRL) so that the cannon wouldn't be disconnected with the launching vessel.
@Kendog84 Once again, waterproof doesn't help you with missile despawning - it just meant it wouldn't automatically become a dud upon contacting with water.
@Kendog84 @Leviatham
My personal recommendation? if you're making an ASW torp, just use a rocket as the basis. In real life, ship-launched ASW torpedoes carry less than 100lb (45kg) of explosives, while those heavy sub-launched keelbreakers often carry 650lb (250kg) or more... so I guess you can just strap a dozen (deactivated) rockets to the torp and call it a day?
@Kendog84
The cannon trick is something used widely by @Mintlynx, which is a cannon {Cannon-1} part with {projectileLifetime} or {fuseInput} set to zero, {projectileType} set to explosive, plus a high {explosionScalar} or {diameter} (or both) to cause a massive explosion when the shell is fired (cannon projectiles will disappear underwater too, but not if they detonate before the game engine tells it to despawn). The issue is it's all but granted to be command-detonation and if the toepedo have already impacted the target the cannon might break off from the impact, rendering it a dud.
You can make a custom missile that flies straight and doesn't need a target (maybe this is what you mean by the cannon trick?), but it will be less reliable (it will explode upon contact with a plane, but can go through terrain sometimes).
I think I know what you're talking about, but I'm also pretty sure the missile will keep its tracking and proximity detonation assuming you're using fire-and-forget missiles like the Inferno {Missile-Ground-1}, Cleaver {Missile-Ground-2}, or Interceptor {Missle-Long-1}.
Either way, here is my tutorial on how to make such missiles, although given the parameter of "submarine torpedoes" I doubt missiles would be that useful given they disappear under water.
@RamboJutter My personal revised model, here. The prop coding was all mine, but feel free to include them in your future creations as long as credit is given. Everything else is just common knowledge.
@RamboJutter Found out the hard way that setting the anti-gravs at 90mph was the hard limit on a full-throttle takeoff - if they kick in before that it would end up with the plane slamming back into the ground... and somehow when that plane is at 50% throttle the antigravs can be set to activate at 60mph and the planes gently kicks off the ground.
@RamboJutter Tried to mimic the effect of a constant-speed prop... and promptly realized that somehow pushing the engine anywhere beyond 75% before reaching 60mph would cause an automatic propstrike now.
@RamboJutter Also, what, exactly, is "V"? I didn't see anything resembling that in the variable setter. And when I tried to use it as-is, the game said I need to define "V" first.
@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.
@Kendog84
About 50ft or 15 meters.
+1@Kendog84
Yes on both accounts, depending on what you mean. A lynx-type torpedo is a custom-built projectile powered by either a rocket or infinite rotator, and connected to the launching sub with a winch (similar to wire-guided torps IRL) so that the cannon wouldn't be disconnected with the launching vessel.
@Kendog84 Once again,
waterproofdoesn't help you with missile despawning - it just meant it wouldn't automatically become a dud upon contacting with water.Fallout Stingray, anyone?
+1@Kendog84 @Leviatham
+2My personal recommendation? if you're making an ASW torp, just use a rocket as the basis. In real life, ship-launched ASW torpedoes carry less than 100lb (45kg) of explosives, while those heavy sub-launched keelbreakers often carry 650lb (250kg) or more... so I guess you can just strap a dozen (deactivated) rockets to the torp and call it a day?
@Kendog84
+2The cannon trick is something used widely by @Mintlynx, which is a cannon {
Cannon-1} part with {projectileLifetime} or {fuseInput} set to zero, {projectileType} set to explosive, plus a high {explosionScalar} or {diameter} (or both) to cause a massive explosion when the shell is fired (cannon projectiles will disappear underwater too, but not if they detonate before the game engine tells it to despawn). The issue is it's all but granted to be command-detonation and if the toepedo have already impacted the target the cannon might break off from the impact, rendering it a dud.@Kendog84 @Leviatham
I think I know what you're talking about, but I'm also pretty sure the missile will keep its tracking and proximity detonation assuming you're using fire-and-forget missiles like the Inferno {
Missile-Ground-1}, Cleaver {Missile-Ground-2}, or Interceptor {Missle-Long-1}.Either way, here is my tutorial on how to make such missiles, although given the parameter of "submarine torpedoes" I doubt missiles would be that useful given they disappear under water.
+2@MANYU19 No? I haven't really grasped the method to build high-quality ships - plus, I don't build replicas.
+1Radial P-38, right?
+1Nice as always! And good to see ya again.
+1Hey, good t' see a fine an' proper aerostat from ya, RJ!
@KingOfTypos Simpleplanes in simpleplanes when
@Robomo119DerMustangKiller @SomeSPGuyWhoLikesLore
+3"What the hell was on 572’s right wing?"
@RamboJutter Mine was 1.12.128.0.
@RamboJutter Which version are you using again?
@RamboJutter
.
..
... you know where the variable setter is, right? Here are two screenshots on what it's supposed to look like.
... just wait until you see the small bombs opening up and dropping even smaller bombs!
+1@RamboJutter My personal revised model, here. The prop coding was all mine, but feel free to include them in your future creations as long as credit is given. Everything else is just common knowledge.
@RamboJutter Found out the hard way that setting the anti-gravs at 90mph was the hard limit on a full-throttle takeoff - if they kick in before that it would end up with the plane slamming back into the ground... and somehow when that plane is at 50% throttle the antigravs can be set to activate at 60mph and the planes gently kicks off the ground.
@RamboJutter Tried to mimic the effect of a constant-speed prop... and promptly realized that somehow pushing the engine anywhere beyond 75% before reaching 60mph would cause an automatic propstrike now.
@RamboJutter Yeah, V felt pretty buggy as of now... I'm testing with a revised code using IAS, and the results are pretty promising.
@RamboJutter Also, what, exactly, is "V"? I didn't see anything resembling that in the variable setter. And when I tried to use it as-is, the game said I need to define "V" first.
@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.