@Grob0s0VBRa Yeah, gotcha. Because when I hear "wind-up" the first thing that came up in my mind was something akin to the wave motion gun or similar weapons of that nature (super-heavy spinals that have to be kept charging for a while before unleashing a devastating torrent of pain), so please forgive me if I misunderstood for a bit.
@Karzigg Yeah, it does give off the same vibes as a (partially) refitted super dreadnought/early fast battleship like the BritishR-class or the Japanese Nagato-class with casement guns and range clocks and whatnot... while also sporting seaplane catapults and late interwar gun directors/optics... that somehow featured no fire control radars whatsoever.
... and here I thought it's the concept that counts?
If you want to use a gun-based system, just use 13 miniguns, all with xml'ed bulletScale, muzzleVelocity, tracerColor, damage, lifetime and whatnot, just remember to keep timeBetweenBursts the same for all guns and burstCount to 1.
.
..
... That said, I myself would probably use a more complex system involving cannon-based intervalometers and detacher/pylon based launchers to lob bombs and rockets on various trajectories to better stimulate the line of explosions.
Is it possible to assign infinite number to the repeat function
Okay... how to explain...
First, my entire experiment is about "how to make sure the stored value only change when I want it to, nothing more and nothing less", and to be perfectly honest, if you just want something to not change after the first input then a simple if-else function works a lot better.
And second, what repeat(a, b) does... is to divide a by b and give out the remainder of the division as the output. I first saw the function being used by @Soldier289 on the IJN Kongō, in which the turrets used such a function to never travel beyond the hardstops while remaining unerringly controllable with just pitch and yaw inputs.
So if you mean "can I simply set the a in the repeat(a, b) function to some arbitrarily large number and call it a day", the answer is "why should you", but if you mean "can the a get too large for the game to register anymore", I guess so? Although I'd assume the game would bug/lag out or the numbers would loop back to negative by then.
@Sadboye12 Who's "we"?
Also, keep in mind that cannons can never truely "fire together" per se as there's always a delay between shots, no matter how minor, and if one gun's damaged/jammed the firing sequence would not adjust for the missing gun. However, if you meant "wing guns and miniguns" then... @AtlasAviation has been doing that "combined trace" for a few years now with just miniguns, no coding required. I'm currently working on a clip/mag fed cannon that can only start reloading after the entire "clip" was fired, though.
Oh also--did you know that rockets on a detacher can be fired remotely (when disconnected from the primary cockpit) by activating the detacher?
And so are missiles and straight-run torps. I've made a cluster bomb a few years back with that principle... and promptly deleted it after realizing how laggy the build is - daisychained detachers and modified weight result in floppy builds.
@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.
@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 See that "puff" of fire? That's the "explody" part. It somehow functions differently than when the shell is set to "explosive", but it does still have a small blast radius and can still unravel planes. That said, given the whole "unraveling" process is caused by a part receiving too much damage instead of any inherent process...
@Kendog84 What I have also seen is that sometime rockets/bombs/torps/missiles would not damage something it could clearly destroy if that thing was formerly separated from a cockpit. Say, My first bomb destroyed a target and the target's parts (checked to have 100 health) are scattered on the ground. When I drop my bombs again on the scattered parts sometimes literally nothing happened. Does the broken chain also prevent a part from being damaged by explosions?
@11qazxc Guns have a distinctive issue of "shooting at ghosts", aka for (quite) a few frames a block you've already destroyed would still absorb the shots.
@Kendog84 The thing is... from what I've seen from gun tests, say we have a cockpit - wing - wing chain or a cockpit - block - block chain, and the second the end of the chain gets destroyed/blows up (which seems to have its own AOE effect) it would sometimes detonate the surrounding parts until it reaches the cockpit. My personal creations usually have locked rotators (range of motion = 0, speed = floppy) to break up the chain.
@Kendog84 From what I got, no it doesn't. Cannon shells and (older, non-cleaver) missiles are probably coded the same way, and so does the Cleaver and bombs. explosiveScalar is the sole determining factor of the damaging effect, while the size of the bomb only determines the visual effects. On rockets... I don't think either the visual effects or the damage effects can be changed.
These are the only insights I've managed to gain from this whole "explosive shell" thing, so... not much. Hell, the only rule-of-thumb I've got is that if a bomb/rocket/missile/shell detonates inside a block the whole thing disintegrates... without much understanding on the "proper" damage models. There's a reason I'm pretty much the foremost researcher in bullet-type weapons - no one else can be bothered to do much research on them once they managed to get those sweet high-explosives flying.
@SimplePilot28465 Well, self-sealing tanks are indeed useful at absorbing machine gun bullets (especially for the smaller calibers), but much less useful when the enemies start using high-caliber shells. As for the survivability of a pusher aircraft... as long as the plane is properly armored at the cockpit and engines it should be okay, given the Il-2 used a water-cooled engine protected by heavy armor and was known to be extremely hard to take down with anti-aircraft guns of the era. Still, the biggest issue about all pusher aircrafts is the fact that the propeller would be in the way if the pilot ever need to parachute out of the plane, necessitating the use of ejection seats, which would still be a relatively new and unproven technology back in WWII.
.
..
... and sorry for rambling.
@SimplePilot28465
Also, "tough" and "indestructible" are two very different things IRL. Just because something can survive an incredible amount of damage (the Il-2, the P-47, or the A-10, for example) doesn't mean the designers don't need to make contingencies for the inevitability that someone got lucky and managed to hit something important. Its push-prop configuration would have probably helped its survivability against groundfire or head-on attacks, but I highly doubt a pusher plane would survive long against attacks from behind, the engine in the direct line of fire and all.
@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 The clip-based cannon, as promised. I will try to write an educational post about how to make them later.
+1@Grob0s0VBRa Yeah, gotcha. Because when I hear "wind-up" the first thing that came up in my mind was something akin to the wave motion gun or similar weapons of that nature (super-heavy spinals that have to be kept charging for a while before unleashing a devastating torrent of pain), so please forgive me if I misunderstood for a bit.
+1@Karzigg Yeah, it does give off the same vibes as a (partially) refitted super dreadnought/early fast battleship like the BritishR-class or the Japanese Nagato-class with casement guns and range clocks and whatnot... while also sporting seaplane catapults and late interwar gun directors/optics... that somehow featured no fire control radars whatsoever.
+1@XtarsAgency
... and here I thought it's the concept that counts?
+1If you want to use a gun-based system, just use 13 miniguns, all with xml'ed
bulletScale,muzzleVelocity,tracerColor,damage,lifetimeand whatnot, just remember to keeptimeBetweenBurststhe same for all guns andburstCountto1..
..
... That said, I myself would probably use a more complex system involving cannon-based intervalometers and detacher/pylon based launchers to lob bombs and rockets on various trajectories to better stimulate the line of explosions.
@Kendog84
Okay... how to explain...
+1First, my entire experiment is about "how to make sure the stored value only change when I want it to, nothing more and nothing less", and to be perfectly honest, if you just want something to not change after the first input then a simple
if-elsefunction works a lot better.And second, what
repeat(a, b)does... is to divideabyband give out the remainder of the division as the output. I first saw the function being used by @Soldier289 on the IJN Kongō, in which the turrets used such a function to never travel beyond the hardstops while remaining unerringly controllable with just pitch and yaw inputs.So if you mean "can I simply set the
ain therepeat(a, b)function to some arbitrarily large number and call it a day", the answer is "why should you", but if you mean "can theaget too large for the game to register anymore", I guess so? Although I'd assume the game would bug/lag out or the numbers would loop back to negative by then.@Kendog84 Thanks!
+1@Sadboye12 Who's "we"?
+1Also, keep in mind that cannons can never truely "fire together" per se as there's always a delay between shots, no matter how minor, and if one gun's damaged/jammed the firing sequence would not adjust for the missing gun. However, if you meant "wing guns and miniguns" then... @AtlasAviation has been doing that "combined trace" for a few years now with just miniguns, no coding required. I'm currently working on a clip/mag fed cannon that can only start reloading after the entire "clip" was fired, though.
@Gabriel747
... and I've yet to understand how I even managed to reach gold.
+1@Kendog84
And so are missiles and straight-run torps. I've made a cluster bomb a few years back with that principle... and promptly deleted it after realizing how laggy the build is - daisychained detachers and modified weight result in floppy builds.
+1@Kendog84
About 50ft or 15 meters.
+1Fallout Stingray, anyone?
+1@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.
+1... just wait until you see the small bombs opening up and dropping even smaller bombs!
+1Congrats for silver my friend!
+1The (fictional) British version of the FJ-1 Fury, I'm assuming?
+1h o o p
+1@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.
@LonelyAustrianUhlan The nose and the windshield looks pretty Douglas-ish to me... perhaps it's just me then.
+1f l o o f y b i r b
+1i'm loenin' it
+1F i R s T
+1You'll know a design have issues when it makes the F-35 look serviceable...
+1c y b e r t o n k
+1@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.
ZOGGIN' BOOTIFUL, BOSS!
+1@EasternPatrick Thanks. I'll try to incorporate that into my next upload.
+1Quick question: how did you manage to upload three screenshots from an Android platform?
+1Holy. Hell.
+1@IceCraftGaming Whom?
+1@IceCraftGaming Thanks!
+1
+1ZOGGIN BOOTIFUL, BOSS!@OPaiTaOn
Yeah, the Gsh-2-23 don't have flash hiders and are way smaller than the ones shown in the GIF.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryPorn/comments/3hps61/gsh302fire400x225_gif/
https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryGfys/comments/33p5if/mi24pfiringitsimpressivefixed_gryazevshipunov/
https://youtu.be/7fX3t5bg7N4
+1Tom here, patiently waiting for Meko's return.
+1@Kendog84 See that "puff" of fire? That's the "explody" part. It somehow functions differently than when the shell is set to "explosive", but it does still have a small blast radius and can still unravel planes. That said, given the whole "unraveling" process is caused by a part receiving too much damage instead of any inherent process...
+1@Kendog84 What I have also seen is that sometime rockets/bombs/torps/missiles would not damage something it could clearly destroy if that thing was formerly separated from a cockpit. Say, My first bomb destroyed a target and the target's parts (checked to have 100 health) are scattered on the ground. When I drop my bombs again on the scattered parts sometimes literally nothing happened. Does the broken chain also prevent a part from being damaged by explosions?
+1@Kendog84 Say, this for example, if your weapons hit the parts on a roatator, the rotator would snap but the remaining parts would be fine.
+1@11qazxc Guns have a distinctive issue of "shooting at ghosts", aka for (quite) a few frames a block you've already destroyed would still absorb the shots.
+1@Kendog84 The thing is... from what I've seen from gun tests, say we have a
+1cockpit - wing - wingchain or acockpit - block - blockchain, and the second the end of the chain gets destroyed/blows up (which seems to have its own AOE effect) it would sometimes detonate the surrounding parts until it reaches the cockpit. My personal creations usually have locked rotators (range of motion = 0, speed = floppy) to break up the chain.@Kendog84 From what I got, no it doesn't. Cannon shells and (older, non-cleaver) missiles are probably coded the same way, and so does the Cleaver and bombs.
+1explosiveScalaris the sole determining factor of the damaging effect, while the size of the bomb only determines the visual effects. On rockets... I don't think either the visual effects or the damage effects can be changed.@Kendog84 Thanks!
+1These are the only insights I've managed to gain from this whole "explosive shell" thing, so... not much. Hell, the only rule-of-thumb I've got is that if a bomb/rocket/missile/shell detonates inside a block the whole thing disintegrates... without much understanding on the "proper" damage models. There's a reason I'm pretty much the foremost researcher in bullet-type weapons - no one else can be bothered to do much research on them once they managed to get those sweet high-explosives flying.
+1@SimplePilot28465 Well, self-sealing tanks are indeed useful at absorbing machine gun bullets (especially for the smaller calibers), but much less useful when the enemies start using high-caliber shells. As for the survivability of a pusher aircraft... as long as the plane is properly armored at the cockpit and engines it should be okay, given the Il-2 used a water-cooled engine protected by heavy armor and was known to be extremely hard to take down with anti-aircraft guns of the era. Still, the biggest issue about all pusher aircrafts is the fact that the propeller would be in the way if the pilot ever need to parachute out of the plane, necessitating the use of ejection seats, which would still be a relatively new and unproven technology back in WWII.
+1.
..
... and sorry for rambling.
@SimplePilot28465
+1Also, "tough" and "indestructible" are two very different things IRL. Just because something can survive an incredible amount of damage (the Il-2, the P-47, or the A-10, for example) doesn't mean the designers don't need to make contingencies for the inevitability that someone got lucky and managed to hit something important. Its push-prop configuration would have probably helped its survivability against groundfire or head-on attacks, but I highly doubt a pusher plane would survive long against attacks from behind, the engine in the direct line of fire and all.
I thought unguided missiles are called "rockets"? Also, let's sincerely hope the plane have ejection seats if the plane's ever shot down...
+1@Kendog84 Thanks!
+1@SimplePilot28465 You're in ninth grade? Bro you're awesome! Keep up the good work matey!
+1@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?
+1@Bryan5 What is the current mass of the build? Aside from the use of structural wings, it's likely that having higher mass would help as well.
+1