@Sadboye12 Thanks for your kind words my friend! Sorry this design ultimately went nowhere and got stuck in the pipelines - might as well try to revive it one day as well. Thanks to my collabs with @Gx (rest in peace, may his weary spirit be finally allowed rest and the powers that be forever watch over his immortal soul) I think I've managed to get most of the critical components (missile arrays and terminally-guided railgun shells, to be specific) done, so once I get the new aesthetics and lore done (which is to say "somewhere in my next reincarnation"-grade far away) I will get it right this time.
@Sadboye12 So... whichever company/design bureau your high-tech gadgets came form in-universe really ain't big on making civvie stuff, eh? And also, "Tier-1 wheeled vehicle that will be relatively similar to a car"... we're portée-bly getting a bit too technical here, aren't we?
.
..
... and sorry for the dad jokes. Along with being a compulsory upvoter and upvote-appreciator, I seem to be a compulsory bad pun maker as well...
@Sadboye12 Also, any plans on bringing back the Velocée (did I spell the name of that fancy cyberpunk sports car correctly?) That car was like the only sci-fi car I've seen on this site with integrated grav generators to keep it driving on surfaces that should never be driven on...
.
..
... Correction: the name of the car is "Velóce".
@Sadboye12 And you as well my friend. I'll keep my eyes peeled if you ever remaster one of your many gorgeous creations.
.
..
... and please bring back the Valiant MBT.
@Sadboye12 Well, as I have said, I'm just that weird kid who pays attention to details that nobody really cares about while taking zero heed in things everyone else do have an interest in, so people not understanding why my planes have very specific damage models and health points is quite forgivable. Also, wingtip beacon lights are a pain in the arse: if you notice the plane being ever so slightly off-center, I'm pretty sure it have something to do with the nudged lights there - the off-center issue's gone the second I removed the lights, eitherway.
@Sadboye12 Well... there * was * that twin-engine bomber I've made (and deleted) two years back with the same damage model... And well, given the framework of that design was literally older than my account, I'm not sure if I can save that thing even if I wanted to: for some reason bugs and file corruption just seem to creep up wherever I'm not looking, ultimately ending up with connection points that fail for no good reason and two mutually symmetrical pieces having different drag points. Still, that plane was fun while it lasted - learned a lot about dogfight there, too. Perhaps one day, just perhaps, I'll remaster some of my old designs - rebuild them from ground up, make them realistic-looking using new techniques granted by fuselage slicing and glass parts, the whole nine yards.
@Farewellntchii Well, thanks for listening to all my rambling without going "my way or highyway"! I'm just that weird kid who spent way too much time online and somehow managed to know a lil' bit of everything, afterall.
@Farewellntchii
Pretty sure all three of the heavy weapons you mentioned were on dedicated ground attackers - and you forgot the de Havilland Mozzie tankhunters equipped with 57mm guns. And the German recoilless gun was 356(!)mm. Mounting cannons on attackers is nothing new, and on interceptors and heavy fighters (esp. the twin-engine ones) cannons were common even in early war (Bell Airacuda, * cough cough *). The dynamic back then was pretty much rock-paper-scissors, with interceptors shredding bombers, bombers shrugging off dogfighters, and dogfighters killing interceptors... which the Germans somehow failed to grasp: while everyone's busy building their twin-engine monsters into perfect bomberhunters, the German Zerstörer fighters (e.g. Bf-110) were designed to tangle with dogfighters while leaving single-engine fighters to hunt the big bois. It didn't end well. Twin-engine fighters (except the P-38, and even then it's just barely capable of) just cannot tangle with single-engine dogfighters and still expect to come out on top.
As for the cockpit rear armor... I myself would simply make the parts behind the pilot (rear canopy, upper rear fuselage, etc) tougher. Pretty sure Robert S. Johnson's armored seat stopped a few 20mm shells, so guess those parts need 250+ HP.
@Farewellntchii Exactly. And later on, their "I get four cannons, you get four cannons, everyone gets four cannons" mentality. The 12.7mm AN/M2 Browning hits a lot harder than the 7.7mm Browning M1919, and a long burst from six 12.7mm guns oftentimes causes about as much damage as a short burst of four 20mm cannons (which means disintegrating a Zeke or tearing the Betty a new one, while we're at it), so the Ma Deuce served the Yanks just fine. Of course, the fact that the Yanks, in all their (questionable) wisdom, refused to correct a minor design flaw (the a-few-sizes-too-large firing chamber) when it became increasingly apparent, which made their guns even less reliable than needed (earlier British 20mm cannons freeze up so they use a mixed armament, the Yankee 20mm guns simply misfire and jam six ways till Sunday), probably made the switch towards cannons that much harder. Prolly have something to do with the fact that cannon shells, no matter how small, are by technicality artillery ordnance and are therefore subject to different regulations - and thus different design tolerances - than bullets, and when the Yanks realized their mistake they've already made a dozen million rounds that might not fit inside the correct-sized chambers.
Variants of this Skylance might as well carry six cannons... after reducing the size of the main fuel tank for a bit and putting two in the nose like those Russians and Germans did.
@Farewellntchii Nah you're forgiven. Most other questgivers (for lack of a better word) I've seen would simply set a hard limit to max HP and bullet damage. There are nuances to how a plane flies and fights, and hitting different parts often begets different results. Hell, early in the Battle of Britain when the both sides were still using LMGs and MMGs, the Heinkel bombers are pretty much only vulnerable in the nose (thanks to their glass nose being made out of, well, glass) and the engine nacelles. Which suits the Brits just fine given their fighters carry eight MMGs apiece, so who cares if a bullet bounced off? Something fragile will give sooner or later under the sheer volume of fire anyways. Not as if the Brits didn't go so far down the "MOAR DAKKA" path that they didn't create a monstrosity with Browning M1919s crammed into every nook and crevice that fits one... Yes, I'm referring to the Hurricane Mk IIB, the only single-engine fighter in history with twelve(!) individual guns.
On a side note, I have, on a technicality, "won" a challenge a few years back... an XML weapon-building challenge posted by a Silver, with two participants in total, both early bronze. To say I was ashamed for even participating there was to say nothing about it.
@Farewellntchii Not at all. Also, on a second thought, I might have botched the damage model on this plane a bit: the prop gearbox and spinner should probably have an HP of 10 or less (any damage and the prop unravels, good luck hitting that though!), but the tail might as well have 2000+ HP and the innermost section of the wings 500, given Robert S. Johnson's plane was hit by over 200 7.7mm rounds and the plane kept chugging along, and the fact that the P-47 was among the few single-engined planes that can eat a 30mm Minengeschoß to the wing and not disintegrate outright.
@Farewellntchii Basically, my current system uses three "tiers" of aircraft structural integrity: "basic", which can be reliably brought down by LMG/MMG fire in a few short bursts (WWI-1930s design, or civil aviation in general); "reinforced", which can soak up considerable amount of LMG/MMG fire barring specific weak spots (e.g. radiator, fuel tank, pilot) and normally requires a few short bursts of HMG fire or a few 20mm hits to take out (most all-metal WWII planes with self-sealing tanks); and "armored", which are all but impervious to LMG/MMG fire, soaks up a lot of HMG fire, and requires a short burst of 20mm fire or a few 30+mm hits to take down (multi-engine bombers, P-47 from behind, Il-2 from below). If all else remain the same, with a 20mm Minengeschoß dealing 125 damage, then I'd put a British 20mm shell to cause 75-90 damage - an early-war plane might survive a direct hit here and there, but most of the components inside are done for. A Minengeschoß shell, on the other hand, would simply disintegrate the entire plane. So for me "basic" = 50-150 health, "reinforced" = 250-500 health, and "armored" = 750-2000 health, depending on the size of the section. Small parts might get fewer HP to represent the fact that it's, well, small. This system was first spotted on Tonnka's own ASAP (just called "AI Enemy" back then) fighters and Poly's replicas. What I wanted to do next might be actually increasing the division between "Tier"s using muzzle energy as the basis. ImpactForce would be directly connected to the muzzle energy on all non-explosive rounds, with the damage adjusted by the ammo type (ball = × 1, AP and Incendiary = × 1.1-1.2, API = × 1.3-1.5, with certain powerful APs and Incendiaries crossing into 1.3-1.5 range). Explosive shells might have their impactForce and damage based on part of their explosive power (1g TNT = 4kJ), and so on, so forth.
@Farewellntchii You do understand that the design of this thing have literally nothing to do with me, right? Herearethree of my original designs (hereby defined as "not a platform recycled from an old design with a different name", and let's face it, no amount of renaming changes the fact that a turd is a turd) that have once gained a mediocum of success and would be much more representative of what my construction style looks like.
I doubt if the targeting system actually calculates the lead of the beam. Yes, I know IRL lasers don't really need to calculate something like that; also yes, you can't actually make the beams go 3e+8m/s without the game failing to render the beam beyond the first "bullet" out of the muzzle.
@WolfHunter9111 It's XML, and it probably predate the introduction of FT, or was at least introduced alongside the earliest FT codes. First seen on someone's sub-launched guided torpedoes. Forgot whom (IIRC one of the submarine challenges a few years back), but the knowledge stayed with me in the form of my own missiles.
"Their missile was launched, but it just slowly falling down like a feather instead of hitting it's target."
.
..
... Does the "waterproof" attribute on the missiles solve the issue?
@GhostHTX Well, it was more than four years ago, long before all these nifty new gadgets like funkytrees or fuselage slicing... And given my own creations back then were oftentimes below 100 parts with no paneling or interior to speak of... it would be much more forgivable to have a non-functional turret than a hideous plane. And about fakery... it's just that I personally enjoy having my planes' flight characteristics as close to how it would be be IRL as possible. Given my personal builds are oftentimes created with my personal AU settings (no, I won't write a fic about them, I'm too autistic for that) in mind, I felt it personally necessary to "feel" how something would function in-universe, and not just in-game.
@GhostHTX Their loss, pal, their loss. Also, what rules? Unless you meant those self-imposed restrictions only someone as autistic as I am would follow...
Question one: why?
Question two: how?
Either way, impressive design, although I sorta see why traditional VLS cells became more popular than other launching mechanisms...
@GenrichTitov Not "everything", just "everything I find good-looking" as per usual. I guess that's why I can never run challenges: I'm very unsure about whether I could hold myself back enough to not upvote everything good I see, and thereby rendering the entire reward system moot.
@ZoaMiki Wait what? Last time I checked the HPM Wolfpaws (read: nuclear micro missiles) are short-range (about 20s of burn time) missiles with around 1700m/s of delta-v...
@V Posted a few fixes and updates using the improvement form.
Quick summary:
new input: LaunchCountermeasures (first seen in this design)
new attribute under CounterMeasureDispenser: autoDispenseDelay (first seen in this design)
Pretty sure LandingGear is boolean, or at least it defaults to -1.
@ZoaMiki Right, Zoa, any updates on this plane? Still wondering whether I should add a set of target/bucket type thrust reversers on the plane's "space engine" when reverse thrust is in effect...
.
..
... Or just a new exhaust nozzle with the reversers installed, to be perfectly honest.
Yeah. I found out that it's pretty much the best way to make them spaceworthy. Refer to commlog here.
I mean, given his (admittedly around as autistic as I am) settings, he is intending to use them as anti-starship torpedoes, and with data I've gathered with my (largely mothballed) Proxima project, I just did what I would consider to be the best course of action.
Ah, I see, malicious compliance at its finest. Somehow the site seems to be divided into monsters with 600+ parts... and potatoes with less than a hundred. What happened to the era of 200-500 part moderates?
Errrr.... Whose auto-aim turrets are you trying to use? The @SenSkysh one (link) workes for me well enough...
.
..
... and granted, I don't even have an upload for like, 14 months or so, so I'm pretty sure I don't really have the right to tell a plat what to do or not...
@Sadboye12 Well, I would be surprised if something like Mikoyan-Gurevich or Raytheon suddenly started making sportscars, too...
+1@Sadboye12 Thanks for your kind words my friend! Sorry this design ultimately went nowhere and got stuck in the pipelines - might as well try to revive it one day as well. Thanks to my collabs with @Gx (rest in peace, may his weary spirit be finally allowed rest and the powers that be forever watch over his immortal soul) I think I've managed to get most of the critical components (missile arrays and terminally-guided railgun shells, to be specific) done, so once I get the new aesthetics and lore done (which is to say "somewhere in my next reincarnation"-grade far away) I will get it right this time.
+1@Sadboye12 So... whichever company/design bureau your high-tech gadgets came form in-universe really ain't big on making civvie stuff, eh? And also, "Tier-1 wheeled vehicle that will be relatively similar to a car"... we're portée-bly getting a bit too technical here, aren't we?
+1.
..
... and sorry for the dad jokes. Along with being a compulsory upvoter and upvote-appreciator, I seem to be a compulsory bad pun maker as well...
@Sadboye12 Thanks!
+1@Sadboye12 Thanks!
+1@Sadboye12 Thanks!
+1@Sadboye12 Also, any plans on bringing back the Velocée (did I spell the name of that fancy cyberpunk sports car correctly?) That car was like the only sci-fi car I've seen on this site with integrated grav generators to keep it driving on surfaces that should never be driven on...
+1.
..
... Correction: the name of the car is "Velóce".
@Sadboye12 Thanks!
+1@Sadboye12 And you as well my friend. I'll keep my eyes peeled if you ever remaster one of your many gorgeous creations.
+1.
..
... and please bring back the Valiant MBT.
@Sadboye12 Well, as I have said, I'm just that weird kid who pays attention to details that nobody really cares about while taking zero heed in things everyone else do have an interest in, so people not understanding why my planes have very specific damage models and health points is quite forgivable. Also, wingtip beacon lights are a pain in the arse: if you notice the plane being ever so slightly off-center, I'm pretty sure it have something to do with the nudged lights there - the off-center issue's gone the second I removed the lights, eitherway.
+1@Sadboye12 Well... there * was * that twin-engine bomber I've made (and deleted) two years back with the same damage model... And well, given the framework of that design was literally older than my account, I'm not sure if I can save that thing even if I wanted to: for some reason bugs and file corruption just seem to creep up wherever I'm not looking, ultimately ending up with connection points that fail for no good reason and two mutually symmetrical pieces having different drag points. Still, that plane was fun while it lasted - learned a lot about dogfight there, too. Perhaps one day, just perhaps, I'll remaster some of my old designs - rebuild them from ground up, make them realistic-looking using new techniques granted by fuselage slicing and glass parts, the whole nine yards.
+1@Sadboye12 Thanks pal!
+1@Farewellntchii :3
+1@Farewellntchii Well, thanks for listening to all my rambling without going "my way or highyway"! I'm just that weird kid who spent way too much time online and somehow managed to know a lil' bit of everything, afterall.
@Farewellntchii
Pretty sure all three of the heavy weapons you mentioned were on dedicated ground attackers - and you forgot the de Havilland Mozzie tankhunters equipped with 57mm guns. And the German recoilless gun was 356(!)mm.
Mounting cannons on attackers is nothing new, and on interceptors and heavy fighters (esp. the twin-engine ones) cannons were common even in early war (Bell Airacuda, * cough cough *). The dynamic back then was pretty much rock-paper-scissors, with interceptors shredding bombers, bombers shrugging off dogfighters, and dogfighters killing interceptors... which the Germans somehow failed to grasp: while everyone's busy building their twin-engine monsters into perfect bomberhunters, the German Zerstörer fighters (e.g. Bf-110) were designed to tangle with dogfighters while leaving single-engine fighters to hunt the big bois. It didn't end well. Twin-engine fighters (except the P-38, and even then it's just barely capable of) just cannot tangle with single-engine dogfighters and still expect to come out on top.
As for the cockpit rear armor... I myself would simply make the parts behind the pilot (rear canopy, upper rear fuselage, etc) tougher. Pretty sure Robert S. Johnson's armored seat stopped a few 20mm shells, so guess those parts need 250+ HP.
@Farewellntchii Exactly. And later on, their "I get four cannons, you get four cannons, everyone gets four cannons" mentality. The 12.7mm AN/M2 Browning hits a lot harder than the 7.7mm Browning M1919, and a long burst from six 12.7mm guns oftentimes causes about as much damage as a short burst of four 20mm cannons (which means disintegrating a Zeke or tearing the Betty a new one, while we're at it), so the Ma Deuce served the Yanks just fine. Of course, the fact that the Yanks, in all their (questionable) wisdom, refused to correct a minor design flaw (the a-few-sizes-too-large firing chamber) when it became increasingly apparent, which made their guns even less reliable than needed (earlier British 20mm cannons freeze up so they use a mixed armament, the Yankee 20mm guns simply misfire and jam six ways till Sunday), probably made the switch towards cannons that much harder. Prolly have something to do with the fact that cannon shells, no matter how small, are by technicality artillery ordnance and are therefore subject to different regulations - and thus different design tolerances - than bullets, and when the Yanks realized their mistake they've already made a dozen million rounds that might not fit inside the correct-sized chambers.
+1Variants of this Skylance might as well carry six cannons... after reducing the size of the main fuel tank for a bit and putting two in the nose like those Russians and Germans did.
@Farewellntchii Nah you're forgiven. Most other questgivers (for lack of a better word) I've seen would simply set a hard limit to max HP and bullet damage. There are nuances to how a plane flies and fights, and hitting different parts often begets different results. Hell, early in the Battle of Britain when the both sides were still using LMGs and MMGs, the Heinkel bombers are pretty much only vulnerable in the nose (thanks to their glass nose being made out of, well, glass) and the engine nacelles. Which suits the Brits just fine given their fighters carry eight MMGs apiece, so who cares if a bullet bounced off? Something fragile will give sooner or later under the sheer volume of fire anyways. Not as if the Brits didn't go so far down the "MOAR DAKKA" path that they didn't create a monstrosity with Browning M1919s crammed into every nook and crevice that fits one... Yes, I'm referring to the Hurricane Mk IIB, the only single-engine fighter in history with twelve(!) individual guns.
+2On a side note, I have, on a technicality, "won" a challenge a few years back... an XML weapon-building challenge posted by a Silver, with two participants in total, both early bronze. To say I was ashamed for even participating there was to say nothing about it.
@Farewellntchii Not at all. Also, on a second thought, I might have botched the damage model on this plane a bit: the prop gearbox and spinner should probably have an HP of 10 or less (any damage and the prop unravels, good luck hitting that though!), but the tail might as well have 2000+ HP and the innermost section of the wings 500, given Robert S. Johnson's plane was hit by over 200 7.7mm rounds and the plane kept chugging along, and the fact that the P-47 was among the few single-engined planes that can eat a 30mm Minengeschoß to the wing and not disintegrate outright.
+2@Farewellntchii Basically, my current system uses three "tiers" of aircraft structural integrity: "basic", which can be reliably brought down by LMG/MMG fire in a few short bursts (WWI-1930s design, or civil aviation in general); "reinforced", which can soak up considerable amount of LMG/MMG fire barring specific weak spots (e.g. radiator, fuel tank, pilot) and normally requires a few short bursts of HMG fire or a few 20mm hits to take out (most all-metal WWII planes with self-sealing tanks); and "armored", which are all but impervious to LMG/MMG fire, soaks up a lot of HMG fire, and requires a short burst of 20mm fire or a few 30+mm hits to take down (multi-engine bombers, P-47 from behind, Il-2 from below). If all else remain the same, with a 20mm Minengeschoß dealing 125 damage, then I'd put a British 20mm shell to cause 75-90 damage - an early-war plane might survive a direct hit here and there, but most of the components inside are done for. A Minengeschoß shell, on the other hand, would simply disintegrate the entire plane. So for me "basic" = 50-150 health, "reinforced" = 250-500 health, and "armored" = 750-2000 health, depending on the size of the section. Small parts might get fewer HP to represent the fact that it's, well, small. This system was first spotted on Tonnka's own ASAP (just called "AI Enemy" back then) fighters and Poly's replicas. What I wanted to do next might be actually increasing the division between "Tier"s using muzzle energy as the basis. ImpactForce would be directly connected to the muzzle energy on all non-explosive rounds, with the damage adjusted by the ammo type (ball = × 1, AP and Incendiary = × 1.1-1.2, API = × 1.3-1.5, with certain powerful APs and Incendiaries crossing into 1.3-1.5 range). Explosive shells might have their impactForce and damage based on part of their explosive power (1g TNT = 4kJ), and so on, so forth.
+1@Farewellntchii You do understand that the design of this thing have literally nothing to do with me, right? Here are three of my original designs (hereby defined as "not a platform recycled from an old design with a different name", and let's face it, no amount of renaming changes the fact that a turd is a turd) that have once gained a mediocum of success and would be much more representative of what my construction style looks like.
@Farewellntchii
@IceCraftGaming Fastest updoot in the...
Look who's back! Welcome back cats! :3
+1I doubt if the targeting system actually calculates the lead of the beam. Yes, I know IRL lasers don't really need to calculate something like that; also yes, you can't actually make the beams go 3e+8m/s without the game failing to render the beam beyond the first "bullet" out of the muzzle.
And here I thought sum(
input) >=[insert the delay needed]works equally as well.Here are a few of my projects done using the principle.
I'm assuming that the
sumfunction added in later versions made this largely redundant?@WolfHunter9111 It's XML, and it probably predate the introduction of FT, or was at least introduced alongside the earliest FT codes. First seen on someone's sub-launched guided torpedoes. Forgot whom (IIRC one of the submarine challenges a few years back), but the knowledge stayed with me in the form of my own missiles.
+1"Their missile was launched, but it just slowly falling down like a feather instead of hitting it's target."
+1.
..
... Does the "waterproof" attribute on the missiles solve the issue?
Wait... did you just lurk for six years?
+1@IAlsoBuildPlane "Broke in the wrong goddamn rec room didn't you ya bastard!" - Burt Gumner
+2@GhostHTX Well, it was more than four years ago, long before all these nifty new gadgets like funkytrees or fuselage slicing... And given my own creations back then were oftentimes below 100 parts with no paneling or interior to speak of... it would be much more forgivable to have a non-functional turret than a hideous plane. And about fakery... it's just that I personally enjoy having my planes' flight characteristics as close to how it would be be IRL as possible. Given my personal builds are oftentimes created with my personal AU settings (no, I won't write a fic about them, I'm too autistic for that) in mind, I felt it personally necessary to "feel" how something would function in-universe, and not just in-game.
+1@GhostHTX Their loss, pal, their loss. Also, what rules? Unless you meant those self-imposed restrictions only someone as autistic as I am would follow...
+1From Amerika Bomber to American bomber, I see...
Question one: why?
+3Question two: how?
Either way, impressive design, although I sorta see why traditional VLS cells became more popular than other launching mechanisms...
Atlas! I.... it's really you!
+2* [inhales] * WELCOME BACK ATLAS!
Damn. Good to see you haven't lost your edge!
+1@GenrichTitov Not "everything", just "everything I find good-looking" as per usual. I guess that's why I can never run challenges: I'm very unsure about whether I could hold myself back enough to not upvote everything good I see, and thereby rendering the entire reward system moot.
+1@xNotDumb Oh, the engines are straight cylinders that sits at an angle?
+1@xNotDumb ?
+1@ZoaMiki Wait what? Last time I checked the HPM Wolfpaws (read: nuclear micro missiles) are short-range (about 20s of burn time) missiles with around 1700m/s of delta-v...
@V Posted a few fixes and updates using the improvement form.
+2Quick summary:
new input:
LaunchCountermeasures(first seen in this design)new attribute under CounterMeasureDispenser:
autoDispenseDelay(first seen in this design)Pretty sure LandingGear is boolean, or at least it defaults to -1.
@Kendog84 IIRC for pretty much everything the attribute would only be hidden if the value matches the default of the specific part type.
+1@ZoaMiki Right, Zoa, any updates on this plane? Still wondering whether I should add a set of target/bucket type thrust reversers on the plane's "space engine" when reverse thrust is in effect...
+2.
..
... Or just a new exhaust nozzle with the reversers installed, to be perfectly honest.
Yeah. I found out that it's pretty much the best way to make them spaceworthy. Refer to commlog here.
+1I mean, given his (admittedly around as autistic as I am) settings, he is intending to use them as anti-starship torpedoes, and with data I've gathered with my (largely mothballed) Proxima project, I just did what I would consider to be the best course of action.
Genrich?
+1.
..
... So this is your way of saying "I'm back", interesting....
.
Welcome back anyways.
Always good to see another upload of yours, Kako!
+1Nice to see ya again, Polaris!
+1Ah, I see, malicious compliance at its finest. Somehow the site seems to be divided into monsters with 600+ parts... and potatoes with less than a hundred. What happened to the era of 200-500 part moderates?
+5f I r S t
Errrr.... Whose auto-aim turrets are you trying to use? The @SenSkysh one (link) workes for me well enough...
+1.
..
... and granted, I don't even have an upload for like, 14 months or so, so I'm pretty sure I don't really have the right to tell a plat what to do or not...