@NTH ultimately WCAC decides what they draw, no one forced them to draw that and any true artist is subject to criticism. And the issue isn't just proportions its also the chosen pose and how they decided to shrink wrap the clothes of the one on the right. To be clear, the one on the left, I have little to no issue with, the one on the right is clearly drawn in a more explicit manor. I have nothing left to say on the matter. Juan previously stated they'd like the arguing to stop in this comment section, I don't think that statement was strictly limited to me and that other dude.
@ThomasRoderick Simpleplanes is rated E for everyone, nowhere does it say that SP or the website is PG13, the closest thing to that you'd find is the rule against children under 13 making an account but that rule is 1, there for legal reasons due to COPPA. 2, is seldom actually enforced (i was 10 when I started playing sp, 11 when i made my account on sp, I've seen several other users tell mods directly that they are under 13 and then keep on using the website). And 3, the rule only prohibits making an account, not the usage of the website. And if we're gonna talk about rules, rule #1 on this website is "No sexually suggestive content". I'd argue quite heavily that the proportions chosen for these (and a few other drawings by WCAC) are not just for character building and that the poses are chosen to exaggerate said proportions. Its also an intentional decision to shrink-wrap her shirt and have her skirt tuck in towards her... you know what. I'm a fellow drawer of things and I have done female anatomy, these are all very intentional decisions you make in the artistic process. I don't really understand why you're bringing up Tinker Bell of all things as that has literally nothing to do with anything we're talking about. Technically a woman wearing a latex suit is fully clothed but good luck arguing to anyone that that is G-rated. The clothes are hardly the issue here although I will admit could be worse. Juan has drawn some pretty scantily clad women for the site before though...
.
Worth mentioning that this post still has about the same amount of upvotes as downloads which is unusual for most posts. Clearly something here is attracting people more than the build itself.
.
Im just gonna end this by saying that WCAC is clearly far from the worst offenders of my critiques, I felt like reaching out hoping that I would have a nice conversation about this stuff, creative to creative.
(Sorry bout the wall of text, this is a complicated subject and requires a complicated conversation)
@ThomasRoderick Do not mischaracterize me or what I said. Im not shitting on WCAC's drawings or even their builds for that matter; I can tell care went into them, it's just not the right context. My arguement was simply that the drawings aren't just drawn for the plot if you catch my drift. I have no issue with the quality of WCAC's drawings or their builds, but the drawing just don't really add much to the build and I don't think its exactly appropriate for a website dedicated to a childrens game. And I think it's still evident that theres only 28 downloads compared to 24 upvotes, clearly the main attraction here is unfortunately not the build itself. If my original comments hadn't been deleted you would've seen that my arguement was much more fleshed out than "grr... anime".
@verxzl likely not too many (leaving this vague in case someone has a good idea for a code), this post mostly follows code for things that should have a related funky-trees shorthand function (ie: GForce, AngleOfAttack, etc).
I don't think the change makes it better. I think having to state your reason to downvote is kinda besides the point of downvoting. At that point just leave your criticism as a comment. And besides, moderators are already swamped with countless bogus reports.
This has been proven to be a bad idea. Long time ago (like 8 years ago?) the SP website used to use a 5-star rating system instead of the upvote system. What would often happen is that new players would often get low ratings and that would then drive them away because often your first build is gonna be objectively garbage. There were also a few times that players would use the feature to target others and knowing some of the... factions on today's site, I think such a feature would just be a recipe for disaster. It's a lot easier to moderate rude comments than rude ratings.
@RTRMUSTANG28283 honestly the leaf spring how I did it is kind of smoke in mirrors. The parts physically representing the leaf spring don't provide any suspension and are actually used more to guide the springs next to them. Overall creating the illusion of functioning leaf spring
yeah... the security on this site has never been too great, I mean hell back when they added forum posts, I found out you could edit other people's posts by simply changing "/View" in the URL to "/Edit".
@L3FT2R1GHT yeah I'll add them back, wasn't sure if anyone was using them tbh. And unfortunately no, the codes aren't averages, they're rather just instantaneous approximations. I might make some updated versions in the future
would it be cool if I put the target velocity heading code in an updated version of Useful FT Codes forum?(mainly cause my code is super bulky comparison lol) I'll make sure to give you credit
@FlyingPatriot its a really cool map. unrelated though I found some bugs, some parts of the roads have missing collision boxes, images linked below so you can find them
this is f'n sick
first my instagram feed now simpleplanes. I can not avoid this man
+1@ToastedRainbowSandwich typically its pronounced as "bee-jack" its an acronym so honestly you can just pronounce it however you want
@NTH ultimately WCAC decides what they draw, no one forced them to draw that and any true artist is subject to criticism. And the issue isn't just proportions its also the chosen pose and how they decided to shrink wrap the clothes of the one on the right. To be clear, the one on the left, I have little to no issue with, the one on the right is clearly drawn in a more explicit manor. I have nothing left to say on the matter. Juan previously stated they'd like the arguing to stop in this comment section, I don't think that statement was strictly limited to me and that other dude.
+2yeah its unfortunately been hidden for a while now, there are ways to access it still but its kind of tedious
+1@ThomasRoderick Simpleplanes is rated E for everyone, nowhere does it say that SP or the website is PG13, the closest thing to that you'd find is the rule against children under 13 making an account but that rule is 1, there for legal reasons due to COPPA. 2, is seldom actually enforced (i was 10 when I started playing sp, 11 when i made my account on sp, I've seen several other users tell mods directly that they are under 13 and then keep on using the website). And 3, the rule only prohibits making an account, not the usage of the website. And if we're gonna talk about rules, rule #1 on this website is "No sexually suggestive content". I'd argue quite heavily that the proportions chosen for these (and a few other drawings by WCAC) are not just for character building and that the poses are chosen to exaggerate said proportions. Its also an intentional decision to shrink-wrap her shirt and have her skirt tuck in towards her... you know what. I'm a fellow drawer of things and I have done female anatomy, these are all very intentional decisions you make in the artistic process. I don't really understand why you're bringing up Tinker Bell of all things as that has literally nothing to do with anything we're talking about. Technically a woman wearing a latex suit is fully clothed but good luck arguing to anyone that that is G-rated. The clothes are hardly the issue here although I will admit could be worse. Juan has drawn some pretty scantily clad women for the site before though...
+5.
Worth mentioning that this post still has about the same amount of upvotes as downloads which is unusual for most posts. Clearly something here is attracting people more than the build itself.
.
Im just gonna end this by saying that WCAC is clearly far from the worst offenders of my critiques, I felt like reaching out hoping that I would have a nice conversation about this stuff, creative to creative.
(Sorry bout the wall of text, this is a complicated subject and requires a complicated conversation)
@ThomasRoderick Do not mischaracterize me or what I said. Im not shitting on WCAC's drawings or even their builds for that matter; I can tell care went into them, it's just not the right context. My arguement was simply that the drawings aren't just drawn for the plot if you catch my drift. I have no issue with the quality of WCAC's drawings or their builds, but the drawing just don't really add much to the build and I don't think its exactly appropriate for a website dedicated to a childrens game. And I think it's still evident that theres only 28 downloads compared to 24 upvotes, clearly the main attraction here is unfortunately not the build itself. If my original comments hadn't been deleted you would've seen that my arguement was much more fleshed out than "grr... anime".
+3@MrCOPTY I have now added your code!
+1@MrCOPTY that looks a decent bit shorter than my code lol, mind if I replace the one in the post with yours? (with credit ofc)
+1@Lian07 t
+1@KSB24 I have now added your comments to the forum post
+1@verxzl likely not too many (leaving this vague in case someone has a good idea for a code), this post mostly follows code for things that should have a related funky-trees shorthand function (ie: GForce, AngleOfAttack, etc).
@KSB24 yo could I add your codes to the forum post?
+112 tables
@Kangy NOP'E
+2@V Sounds like a good idea, maybe have the formulas under drop-down menus (I'm just shootin ideas)
@DeezDucks 100%
I don't think the change makes it better. I think having to state your reason to downvote is kinda besides the point of downvoting. At that point just leave your criticism as a comment. And besides, moderators are already swamped with countless bogus reports.
+2This has been proven to be a bad idea. Long time ago (like 8 years ago?) the SP website used to use a 5-star rating system instead of the upvote system. What would often happen is that new players would often get low ratings and that would then drive them away because often your first build is gonna be objectively garbage. There were also a few times that players would use the feature to target others and knowing some of the... factions on today's site, I think such a feature would just be a recipe for disaster. It's a lot easier to moderate rude comments than rude ratings.
+4UPDATE: This is now my most upvoted build to date! Thank you all for the support, I love me some internet points.
@THEOKPILOT how did you even find this comment?? lmao
@crazyplaness they're fake images and not of the actual build, pretty dubious tbh
Wow! This looks like a totally different game!
@RTRMUSTANG28283 honestly the leaf spring how I did it is kind of smoke in mirrors. The parts physically representing the leaf spring don't provide any suspension and are actually used more to guide the springs next to them. Overall creating the illusion of functioning leaf spring
+1curious as to why my b-17 is in the bottom category lol
@RailfanEthan Lack of Skua's nightmare as well lol
@OrangeConnor2 damn what'd we do lol
aw man, I thought cedy had a new post
@GabrielFangster70 those german firetrucks are no joke
Heres my submission https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/iMgGz1/bjac-co-Bullfrog-Rally-Truck @TastuTheOtaku
yeah... the security on this site has never been too great, I mean hell back when they added forum posts, I found out you could edit other people's posts by simply changing "/View" in the URL to "/Edit".
@L3FT2R1GHT yeah I'll add them back, wasn't sure if anyone was using them tbh. And unfortunately no, the codes aren't averages, they're rather just instantaneous approximations. I might make some updated versions in the future
@AtlasAir747MyBeloved bro???
isn't she a minor?
@32
Mach reading added
Forward/Reverse Differentiation code improved
Improved post formatting
@dardragon forgot to mention when I uploaded the post, my bad
+1@ToeTips lol one of my friends sent me the challenge, I just might tbh
+1would it be cool if I put the target velocity heading code in an updated version of Useful FT Codes forum?(mainly cause my code is super bulky comparison lol) I'll make sure to give you credit
+1damn wtf, it did a way better job than me at coding lol
My "Target velocity heading"
(rate(Longitude+(TargetDistance*sin(TargetHeading)))>0?atan(rate(Latitude+((TargetDistance*cos(TargetElevation))*cos(TargetHeading)))/rate
(Longitude+((TargetDistance*cos(TargetElevation))*sin(TargetHeading))))
-90:atan(rate(Latitude+((TargetDistance*cos(TargetElevation))*cos(TargetHeading)))/rate
(Longitude+((TargetDistance*cos(TargetElevation))*sin(TargetHeading))))+90)/-1
AI "target velocity heading"
atan2(rate(TargetDistance*cos(TargetElevation)*sin(TargetHeading)+ Longitude),rate(TargetDistance*cos(TargetElevation)*cos(TargetHeading)+Latitude))
All hail our robot overlords
+1what force made you do this
+4@dearbullet42 around 1k lol...
you might have to look into quaternions (trigonometry on steroids) as well as PID controllers
@Talon7192 much more respectable than reporting the post
+1nuremburg king ! !
@FlyingPatriot its very fast. idk how to get a lap that fast without slamming head first into a wall lol
+2man, minimum avg speed of 156kph
@RepublicOfCursedPlanes dont you dare finish that lol
@RepublicOfCursedPlanes TRUE
@FlyingPatriot its a really cool map. unrelated though I found some bugs, some parts of the roads have missing collision boxes, images linked below so you can find them
picture 1
picture 2
sick as hell