@spefyjerbf Yup, the rear engine pods and parts of the fuselage do resemble their counterparts on the orbis, although most of those can also be seen as a direct successor to that of the RONIN MKI. That said, this build is indeed quite a majestic one.
@BlazeInfinity Indeed... 571 parts on android would be a more than a bit laggy... Though given the context, the Italians could mount their own torpedo tubes on the vacancy left from the SAN tubes...
Some bollocks will be saying that the description looks AI generated, but no! I'm not using any help of AI to build the description. I've heaten up my head to build some words for the description.
Yeah, preemptive apologies but modern MTLs have advanced enough to not behave like ESLs anymore.
@LJh2
Not sure why you'd want a RARDEN cannon onboard any aircraft given its abysmal rate of fire, but of course you can as long as you mention where the codes came from.
Also thanks for the spotlight.
and Grand Explorer... well, let your imagination run wild!! it could be what it says.. or maybe it's what they call cruisers in this world.. maybe it's just a fancy name..? many options really ;3
I mean, given its *YUGE* glass nose, exposed engines, and lack of traditional sensor masts it's rather clear the airframe is not designed to go toe-to-toe against enemy warships, with the glass nose seemingly designed to be a large panoramic window for either higher-class passengers or for geographers and cartographers to conduct aerial surveying and mapping. The lack of more windows (plus the Southern Airship News Gazette) do suggest the latter, though.
My verdict? The "Grand Explorers" are armed exploration/research ships with enough firepower to fend off potential attackers but not enough structural integrity to survive prolonged conflict. They're good at discovering new locations and plotting new skyroutes while fending off hostile wildlife and sometimes the odd pirate ship, but to send them into active conflict is plain old inadvisable.
I know I'm necro'ing, but.... I've got a similar code since a while ago that works on sum(abs(rate(Activate1)/2))... which should work with repeat function as well. Not sure about the performance cost though.
@SchmooveBrain
Ah, nvm; on that note, how's the setup?
Also, for those weird cannons on Warrior IFVs, you're probably going to be interested in this as well.
@BlackGearCompany
Turns out high-caliber cannons in-game have quite a bit of recoil, and springs in-game can output its current length.... So my FT code just records the last time the spring is compressed beyond a certain threshold and will only reactivate the cannon after a set amount of time has passed. The elevation code (plus simulated recoil) is also based on the same timer.
@BlackGearCompany
As of now I think I've cracked the code for the fire -> recoil -> loading position -> reload -> firing position cycle, and I think I just need to mangle a few @Blyatnov hulls to work out some of the last kinks...
@BlackGearCompany
Kinda both? But IIRC most modern naval guns fall under the "singular guns with autoloader" category so my autoloader/clip gun setups should already cover them.... but yeah, quite a few modern (or at least Cold-War era) ships still have multiple 76+mm guns in different firing arcs so.... hmmm... Now I'll try to make the FOURTH variation of my autoloader concept, a clip/autoloader-based naval gun setup that relies on recoil instead of ammunition counters.
My curret project is indeed focused on the historical ones (from the 4"+ guns on smaller destroyers all the way to Yamato's 18" guns) to give them the correct firing sequence.
Really tho... Seeing autcannon firing just turned me on if im being honest. Those firepower... Hehe.
Same 'ere, but for naval guns... which I'm currently testing a (somewhat) plug-and-play system for if just to make historically-accurate naval guns (and 8+ gun broadsides) a reality.
@BOSinitiate
1&3: Description updated to include construction guide.
2: Yes of course! All of my codes are free to use as long as you give credit somewhere in your build.
... apparently nobody heard of the Vultee XP-54 Swoose Goose, Curtiss-Wright XP-55 Ascender, or the Northrop XP-56 Black Bullet....
.
Lemme guess, the fire's caused by an improperly connected oil line?
.
Also, a tail-heavy aircraft would threaten to flip over and stall, not bury it's nose into the ground; the reason why it refused to take off is because of the disproportionately short nose gear... and it's a darn miracle that it didn't collapse under the immense power of the Merlin.
.
The sluggish yaw control on takeoff is likely due to the lack of propwash.
.
..
...
The verdict:
Henry should've made the nose gear longer.
Does the craft need to survive re-entry to count?
+2It's... Beautiful...
+2@spefyjerbf Yup, the rear engine pods and parts of the fuselage do resemble their counterparts on the orbis, although most of those can also be seen as a direct successor to that of the RONIN MKI. That said, this build is indeed quite a majestic one.
+2@spefyjerbf Same here, and shares an uncanny resemblance to your (and Epwurd's) aesthetics as well
+2Vickers Vimy?
+2For the Emperor!
+2Good to see another build form you!
+2@Ethological [the thing you want to say](whatever the link is)
+2@BlazeInfinity Indeed... 571 parts on android would be a more than a bit laggy... Though given the context, the Italians could mount their own torpedo tubes on the vacancy left from the SAN tubes...
+2... is that a kamikaze airship?
+1Yeah, preemptive apologies but modern MTLs have advanced enough to not behave like ESLs anymore.
+1Mikoyan?
WELCOME BAAAAAAAACK ! ! !
+1Grats on gold!
+1@LJh2
+1Not sure why you'd want a RARDEN cannon onboard any aircraft given its abysmal rate of fire, but of course you can as long as you mention where the codes came from.
Also thanks for the spotlight.
@Monarchii
I mean, given its *YUGE* glass nose, exposed engines, and lack of traditional sensor masts it's rather clear the airframe is not designed to go toe-to-toe against enemy warships, with the glass nose seemingly designed to be a large panoramic window for either higher-class passengers or for geographers and cartographers to conduct aerial surveying and mapping. The lack of more windows (plus the Southern Airship News Gazette) do suggest the latter, though.
+1My verdict? The "Grand Explorers" are armed exploration/research ships with enough firepower to fend off potential attackers but not enough structural integrity to survive prolonged conflict. They're good at discovering new locations and plotting new skyroutes while fending off hostile wildlife and sometimes the odd pirate ship, but to send them into active conflict is plain old inadvisable.
Sound the foghorns; the airships are back!!!
* HONK *
* HOOOOOONNNNNNK *
+1I know I'm necro'ing, but.... I've got a similar code since a while ago that works on
+1sum(abs(rate(Activate1)/2))... which should work withrepeatfunction as well. Not sure about the performance cost though.=^.^= Meow? :3
+1@SchmooveBrain
+1Ah, nvm; on that note, how's the setup?
Also, for those weird cannons on Warrior IFVs, you're probably going to be interested in this as well.
@SchmooveBrain @BOSSentinel
+1Errrrm.... anybody please explain to me what's going on again?
@SamuelHayden Thanks! How's the setup?
+1.
..
... Also, forgive me for my insolence but... "Mosquito with a RARDEN Gun", anyone?
@BlackGearCompany
+1Turns out high-caliber cannons in-game have quite a bit of recoil, and springs in-game can output its current length.... So my FT code just records the last time the spring is compressed beyond a certain threshold and will only reactivate the cannon after a set amount of time has passed. The elevation code (plus simulated recoil) is also based on the same timer.
@BlackGearCompany
+1As of now I think I've cracked the code for the fire -> recoil -> loading position -> reload -> firing position cycle, and I think I just need to mangle a few @Blyatnov hulls to work out some of the last kinks...
@BlackGearCompany
+1Kinda both? But IIRC most modern naval guns fall under the "singular guns with autoloader" category so my autoloader/clip gun setups should already cover them.... but yeah, quite a few modern (or at least Cold-War era) ships still have multiple 76+mm guns in different firing arcs so.... hmmm... Now I'll try to make the FOURTH variation of my autoloader concept, a clip/autoloader-based naval gun setup that relies on recoil instead of ammunition counters.
My curret project is indeed focused on the historical ones (from the 4"+ guns on smaller destroyers all the way to Yamato's 18" guns) to give them the correct firing sequence.
@BlackGearCompany
Same 'ere, but for naval guns... which I'm currently testing a (somewhat) plug-and-play system for if just to make historically-accurate naval guns (and 8+ gun broadsides) a reality.
+1@BlackGearCompany
+1I'm but a simple man, I see good builds, I upvote; I see good builder, I mass-upvote....
@BlackGearCompany
+1I guess the L21A1 RARDEN is indeed a bit obsolete for the BGC, I see...
@BlackGearCompany
+1Thanks! Feel free to use the setup(s) in your future projects!
@BlackGearCompany
+1Thanks! Feel free to use the setup in your future projects!
Welcome Back!
+1Grats on Silver!
+1@TRS051 Keks; thanks for the upvotes either way.
+1@Zerkk Thanks! How's the setup?
+1@BOSinitiate
+11&3: Description updated to include construction guide.
2: Yes of course! All of my codes are free to use as long as you give credit somewhere in your build.
@TheRealGoober Thanks!
+1@Hikikomori
+1Grats on silver!
Publishing yay!
+1... apparently nobody heard of the Vultee XP-54 Swoose Goose, Curtiss-Wright XP-55 Ascender, or the Northrop XP-56 Black Bullet....
+1.
Lemme guess, the fire's caused by an improperly connected oil line?
.
Also, a tail-heavy aircraft would threaten to flip over and stall, not bury it's nose into the ground; the reason why it refused to take off is because of the disproportionately short nose gear... and it's a darn miracle that it didn't collapse under the immense power of the Merlin.
.
The sluggish yaw control on takeoff is likely due to the lack of propwash.
.
..
...
The verdict:
Henry should've made the nose gear longer.
@Subsere Yes, as the lines are actually straight now and there's no noise to speak of.
+1(also I've changed my PFP to the one you uploaded)
@PrussianAirWorks Some early jets do actually resemble propeller fighters, case in point: the Yak-15 plus Yak-17 and Yak-23 that descended from the Yak-3, the La-152 and La-160 that superficially resembles both the aforementioned Yak-15 family and piston-powered Lavochkins, the Ambrosini/Aerfer Sagittario and Aerfer Ariete that ultimately descended from the Ambrosini S.7, the Saab 21R that was literally a re-engined Saab 21, and even arguably the F-86D/K/L Sabredog that shared a few visual cues with its distant ancestor the P-51D/K Mustang.
+1Someone forgot to retract their landing gears?
+1The fixed gears do kinda stick out like a sore thumb, ngl...
+1Great Going and Grats on Gold!
+1Gratz on Platz sharkie!
+1++Achieve your mission with all your might.++
+1++Despair not till your last breath.++
++Make your death count.++
@StraitAircraft
+1Understood.
Also, Aviatik, not Aviatak.
Long Ta-152
+1Gratz on Gold!
+1Ah, the Yak-51, greatest Rumerican fighter of its era...
+1Errr... welcome back?
+1