@Speedhunter The "flying flapjack" is the Vought XF5U, and the "flying pancake" is the Vought V-173; and TBPH when I said "Luftwaffle" this is what I had in mind...
I never knew the word "Gyatt" had any other meaning beyond a rare surname and this particular ship... Now I knew, and somehow I lost even more faith in humanity even though I thought I've already got none left to lose...
@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.
@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.
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.
@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!
@Kendog84 Sorry for the late reply; as it's written, the calculations performed by the lead-predictor is based on the wing gun/gatling gun with the highest muzzle velocity. Placement in the designer does not seem to have ay effects other than which gun is fired first.
@Bryan5 Probably the wings then. Yeah, gyros wouldn't be too help when the plane's basically disintegrating under the stress. So... was the issue solved after changing the wings?
@Sadboye12
Now I can say with a certainty that the predictor follows the muzzle velocity of the highest active bullet-type weapon. Test results are as follows:
Test One:
all muzzle velocities differ, damaging bullet gun highest - HIT
all muzzle velocities differ, non-damaging bullet gun highest - MISS
all muzzle velocities differ, damaging cannon highest - MISS
damaging cannon equals highest bullet velocity - HIT
Conclusion: Predictor based on bullet-type weapon with highest muzzle velocity, cannons are not included in the calculation
Test Two:
all muzzle velocities differ, cannon highest and locked by AG - NO EFFECT
all muzzle velocities differ, bullet gun highest and locked by AG - PREDICTOR CHANGE ON AG
Conclusion: Predictor influenced by the current active bullet-type weapon; cannons are once again ignored.
Addendum:
When no guns are active, cannons use a square predictor based on the current cannon muzzle velocity; whenever there is an active gun the predictor changes to the round predictor used by guns.
@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.
@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.
@Sadboye12 Once again, no need to apologize. And yeah... when all else fails, just roll back the version, eh? But IIRC that all but guarantees that whatever new features of 1.11 would not be supported when using PC... which just sorta defeats the purpose of having it on pc...
@Grob0s0VBRa So... basically, it's like tanks in 1930s, engines the size of a house with main gun the size of a broom? That said, although early-war Churchills are house-sized pillboxes the late-war variants are both sturdy and powerful in their own right. Perhaps there could be some sort of upgrade kits to their weapons as later variants, like with more coaxial guns and rocket launchers and such?
.
. Granted, the issue about non-chemical weapons is that the energy (and thus damage) output available is directly tied to the reactors - without a powerful enough reactor, you can't power the guns. With a chemical platform (including chemical guns and rockets/missiles), as long as you can support the weight (and recoil) you can use it.
🐶 * woof * 🐾
+2@Karroc9522 It's literally the predecessor of the X-wing so...
+2Absolutely B O O T I F U L.
+2@LunarEclipseSP
+2Freefoot? Frogfighter?
Nose of a frog, tail of a tiger, F r u g g e r.
Is this... the ol' Monarchii with Iowa's 1980s modernization?
+2f r u g f u t
+2I'm here!
+2@AluminiumFX No worries, drywall isn't normally made out of aluminum anyways....
+2Gina's new car after the incident with her previous one?
+2@Speedhunter The "flying flapjack" is the Vought XF5U, and the "flying pancake" is the Vought V-173; and TBPH when I said "Luftwaffle" this is what I had in mind...
+2@LunarEclipseSP Thanks!
+2I never knew the word "Gyatt" had any other meaning beyond a rare surname and this particular ship... Now I knew, and somehow I lost even more faith in humanity even though I thought I've already got none left to lose...
+2hmm...
+2f I R s T
+2Hey, Centuri, always goo'ta see ya'gain!
+2Is this the de Havilland Conmet, or is this the BAC Comecord again?
+2randomusername? Is it really you? * sniff * Welcome back, my friend.
+2My therapist: "The Hawksprey isn't real, it can't hurt you."
+2The Hawksprey:
@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... just wait until you see the small bombs opening up and dropping even smaller bombs!
+2@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.
ZOGGIN' BOOTIFUL, BOSS!
+2.
..
... The engine arrangement would have the crew chief ranting and raving about not being paid enough, but everything else? Perfection.
@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.
"DONT TREAD ON ME"
+2Welcome back Centuri! How's it going?
+2Welcome to the gold club, sister. And congrats.
+2@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!
@SimplePilot28465 Thanks! Feel free to use them in your designs as long as you give credit.
+2@Kendog84 Sorry for the late reply; as it's written, the calculations performed by the lead-predictor is based on the wing gun/gatling gun with the highest muzzle velocity. Placement in the designer does not seem to have ay effects other than which gun is fired first.
+2@Bryan5 Probably the wings then. Yeah, gyros wouldn't be too help when the plane's basically disintegrating under the stress. So... was the issue solved after changing the wings?
+2@FirstFish83828 not 12 inch, the Germans somehow thought a 14-incher is a perfectly normal and sane weapon to mount on a plane...
+2@Grob0s0VBRa Thanks Grobs! And Merry Christmas🎄.
+2@Sadboye12
+2Now I can say with a certainty that the predictor follows the muzzle velocity of the highest active bullet-type weapon. Test results are as follows:
@Sadboye12 Cannons or machine guns? Cannons seem to have their own predictor... but IIRC guns don't work like that?
+2@Sadboye12 Well, I would be surprised if something like Mikoyan-Gurevich or Raytheon suddenly started making sportscars, too...
+2@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@IAlsoBuildPlane "Broke in the wrong goddamn rec room didn't you ya bastard!" - Burt Gumner
+2Atlas! I.... it's really you!
+2* [inhales] * WELCOME BACK ATLAS!
@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.
@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.
You're back! Welcome back, sir.
+2@MAPA Right, Snowstone has no "final approach" air start, unlike the other three...
+2@Sadboye12 Once again, no need to apologize. And yeah... when all else fails, just roll back the version, eh? But IIRC that all but guarantees that whatever new features of 1.11 would not be supported when using PC... which just sorta defeats the purpose of having it on pc...
+2@Sadboye12 I'm alive, just.... not building much. The laptop can't quite work with 1.11 somehow.
+2@YEEEETplane Well, technically speaking you weren't wrong...
+2@Tookan Soon enough, someone will make their simulated humans play a simulated flight simulator that's slowly turning into a human simulator....
+2@Grob0s0VBRa So... basically, it's like tanks in 1930s, engines the size of a house with main gun the size of a broom? That said, although early-war Churchills are house-sized pillboxes the late-war variants are both sturdy and powerful in their own right. Perhaps there could be some sort of upgrade kits to their weapons as later variants, like with more coaxial guns and rocket launchers and such?
+2.
.
Granted, the issue about non-chemical weapons is that the energy (and thus damage) output available is directly tied to the reactors - without a powerful enough reactor, you can't power the guns. With a chemical platform (including chemical guns and rockets/missiles), as long as you can support the weight (and recoil) you can use it.