@ZanliV2 Yeah... This page is probably long overdue for a rewrite and I really should've added screenshots to clarify a lot of the things here.
But basically as a rundown... if you want an air-to-ground missile with no lock time, take a detacher, connect the small "detach" side to a pylon, grab a rocket/bomb/torp/cannon/what-have-you and connect it to something on one of the "sticky" sides, name it something you like, set the AG to "Disabled" or "-1" or something of that nature to prevent it from activating, then attach an air-to-surface missile to the other "sticky" side of the detacher, name it the same thing you gave to the first weapon, and you're set. If you want to make missile pods or something as a subassembly, you can just grab a fuselage piece, name and deactivate the first (unguided) weapon, connect it to the aforementioned fuselage, and then load up as many missiles with the same name as the first weapon as you like. As long as both the deactivated first weapon and the missiles are both mirrored at the same time it's mirror-friendly as well.
@Sadboye12 Well, when a detacher and a missile loves each other very, very much... and given who I am, the gun would most likely be fired with an AG and have the target acquired by a specially modified missile... as seen on the proof-of-concept prototype here.
Now if I launch a dormant missile at high speeds using a detacher and only ignite it after both a lock is acquired and a specific amount of time has passed... Bam! Instant guided artillery.
.
..
... That, or simply make the missiles not require a lock using this method...
@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 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 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.
@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...
@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.
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.
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...
@RamboJutter Moving the COG rearward is pretty much exactly the same as moving the COL forward? OFC then there's the the issue of visibility.... Also, I thought aside from the Imperial Japanese pretty much everyone else still somewhat value the pilots' lives? The Vultee XP-54 Swoose Goose had a downward ejection seat, while both the Curtiss XP-55 Ascender and the Northrop XP-56 Black Bullet were designed to jettison the props similar to the Do 335. Either way, all those things would probably make the plane heavier and slower than their traditional counterparts, and in the XP-56's case, make it too tail-heavy to be airworthy.
.
..
... Also, I thought the heaviest part of a plane is the engine? A front-engined pusher design also meant an engine shaft half a dozen meters long before we even get to the gearbox....
....
.....
...... And now, ungrateful nickpicking time®: I thought something called the anti-gravity system would always point against the direction of gravity? Would a gimbal system that always points the thrust down help a lil' bit?
@JeskoGoesVROOM
"absolutely hate going down to like 0.1cm fuselages so i use larger pieces instead and work around the size issue with slicing, rotating and other stuff"
Same.
@OrdinaryTankBuilder More like Ju 288, He 219, and Ju 287, plus a pinch of B-26's gun pods (Mitchell's are more flush with the fuselage) and the mangled remains of a de Havilland Mossie.
@RamboJutter Yeah, there's a reason why the interwar period was the golden age of aviation, right? Art deco lines and relatively low entry cost to still remain competitive. Also, on a side note, I have to say this plane looks like a German plane with British wings with her bubble-like stepless canopy that suggests a proud and noble Heinkel bloodline or even the warlike blood of a Junkers lady, which somehow made her even prettier just like those interwar movie sta- [record scratch] Tom, we've been through this. Stop. Simping. Over. Planes.
.
..
... But she looks so pretty... No, just... no. Stop. Please. Stop.
@Grob0s0VBRa ...And here I thought that a Baneblade analogue would resemble an even CHONK-ier Maus.... or perhaps the CNC3 MARV. Either way, if we wanted to make one using "only" historical parts.... the baneblade's coaxial turret just screams "Maus" with the main gun replaced with what's basically a 280mm howitzer (that somehow hits like a 150mm, so 15cm sFH18 or ML-20) and the coaxial nerfed (somehow) to a QF 2pdr or Borfors 40mm L/60, the Demolisher cannon is a dead ringer for Sturmtiger's RW61 rocket mortar (funny how the Leman Russ Demolisher could apparently fit one inside its smol turret while the Vindicator or even the Land Raider Ares needed to be emptied out just to fit one), plus six M19 grenade launchers and two 37mm guns (both based on their closest size equivalents) but apparently capable of punching through tanks because they're SuPEr aDVaNCed tEcHNOlOgY... Yeah, WH40k designs are weird, and a lot of the ordnance's firepower does not translate nearly as nicely to the tabletop as they're in the fluff. Hell, if anything, the closest equivalent to this particular Rampager in the WH40k universe would be the Leman Russ of all things, with a battle cannon (likely the Vanquisher variant) in the turret and two lascannons in the sponsons.
.
..
... Of course nobody's stopping ya from going hog-wild with Soviet tech by switching the demolisher cannon with a pair of RBT-5 rockets and the heavy bolters with DShK machine guns...
Tom here, waiting to see this masterpiece.
+1@ZanliV2 Good to know. Best of luck on your ventures and good hunting.
+1@ZanliV2 Yeah... This page is probably long overdue for a rewrite and I really should've added screenshots to clarify a lot of the things here.
+1But basically as a rundown... if you want an air-to-ground missile with no lock time, take a detacher, connect the small "detach" side to a pylon, grab a rocket/bomb/torp/cannon/what-have-you and connect it to something on one of the "sticky" sides, name it something you like, set the AG to "Disabled" or "-1" or something of that nature to prevent it from activating, then attach an air-to-surface missile to the other "sticky" side of the detacher, name it the same thing you gave to the first weapon, and you're set. If you want to make missile pods or something as a subassembly, you can just grab a fuselage piece, name and deactivate the first (unguided) weapon, connect it to the aforementioned fuselage, and then load up as many missiles with the same name as the first weapon as you like. As long as both the deactivated first weapon and the missiles are both mirrored at the same time it's mirror-friendly as well.
b a n a n a
+1@Sadboye12 Well, when a detacher and a missile loves each other very, very much... and given who I am, the gun would most likely be fired with an AG and have the target acquired by a specially modified missile... as seen on the proof-of-concept prototype here.
+1Now if I launch a dormant missile at high speeds using a detacher and only ignite it after both a lock is acquired and a specific amount of time has passed... Bam! Instant guided artillery.
.
..
... That, or simply make the missiles not require a lock using this method...
@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 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 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.
+1Look who's back! Welcome back cats! :3
+1@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@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...
+1Damn. 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@Kendog84 IIRC for pretty much everything the attribute would only be hidden if the value matches the default of the specific part type.
+1Yeah. 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!
+1Errrr.... 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...
@RamboJutter Moving the COG rearward is pretty much exactly the same as moving the COL forward? OFC then there's the the issue of visibility.... Also, I thought aside from the Imperial Japanese pretty much everyone else still somewhat value the pilots' lives? The Vultee XP-54 Swoose Goose had a downward ejection seat, while both the Curtiss XP-55 Ascender and the Northrop XP-56 Black Bullet were designed to jettison the props similar to the Do 335. Either way, all those things would probably make the plane heavier and slower than their traditional counterparts, and in the XP-56's case, make it too tail-heavy to be airworthy.
+1.
..
... Also, I thought the heaviest part of a plane is the engine? A front-engined pusher design also meant an engine shaft half a dozen meters long before we even get to the gearbox....
....
.....
...... And now, ungrateful nickpicking time®: I thought something called the anti-gravity system would always point against the direction of gravity? Would a gimbal system that always points the thrust down help a lil' bit?
Wish your a bright next chapter in life. Farewell, may fortunes favor and the winds to always be on your side.
+1Good to see ya again!
+1b o n i b i r b
+1@JeskoGoesVROOM
+1"absolutely hate going down to like 0.1cm fuselages so i use larger pieces instead and work around the size issue with slicing, rotating and other stuff"
Same.
@OrdinaryTankBuilder More like Ju 288, He 219, and Ju 287, plus a pinch of B-26's gun pods (Mitchell's are more flush with the fuselage) and the mangled remains of a de Havilland Mossie.
+1@RamboJutter Yeah, there's a reason why the interwar period was the golden age of aviation, right? Art deco lines and relatively low entry cost to still remain competitive. Also, on a side note, I have to say this plane looks like a German plane with British wings with her bubble-like stepless canopy that suggests a proud and noble Heinkel bloodline or even the warlike blood of a Junkers lady, which somehow made her even prettier just like those interwar movie sta- [record scratch]
+1Tom, we've been through this. Stop. Simping. Over. Planes.
.
..
... But she looks so pretty...
No, just... no. Stop. Please. Stop.
FiRsT
+1FiRsT
+1Good ta see ya again Sadboye!
+1F
+1@Gx
+1@Gx Good to know you're still alive, Greg! How's it going? As for me... I'm still unable to get to my Discord, so... yeah.
+1@Grob0s0VBRa ...And here I thought that a Baneblade analogue would resemble an even CHONK-ier Maus.... or perhaps the CNC3 MARV. Either way, if we wanted to make one using "only" historical parts.... the baneblade's coaxial turret just screams "Maus" with the main gun replaced with what's basically a 280mm howitzer (that somehow hits like a 150mm, so 15cm sFH18 or ML-20) and the coaxial nerfed (somehow) to a QF 2pdr or Borfors 40mm L/60, the Demolisher cannon is a dead ringer for Sturmtiger's RW61 rocket mortar (funny how the Leman Russ Demolisher could apparently fit one inside its smol turret while the Vindicator or even the Land Raider Ares needed to be emptied out just to fit one), plus six M19 grenade launchers and two 37mm guns (both based on their closest size equivalents) but apparently capable of punching through tanks because they're SuPEr aDVaNCed tEcHNOlOgY... Yeah, WH40k designs are weird, and a lot of the ordnance's firepower does not translate nearly as nicely to the tabletop as they're in the fluff. Hell, if anything, the closest equivalent to this particular Rampager in the WH40k universe would be the Leman Russ of all things, with a battle cannon (likely the Vanquisher variant) in the turret and two lascannons in the sponsons.
+1.
..
... Of course nobody's stopping ya from going hog-wild with Soviet tech by switching the demolisher cannon with a pair of RBT-5 rockets and the heavy bolters with DShK machine guns...