@11qazxc Did it not work at very high altitudes? If the accuracy of altitude degrades with increasing altitude, then there’s not much that can be done about that - that issue would be the result of how SP itself is programmed, rather than my code
@SyntheticL Chances are that traveling to the moon in such a low timeframe would increase the price of the mission exponentially, which isn’t worth it given that this is not a crewed mission
@Sadboye12 And thank you! Now of course there are no promises, but I haven’t necessarily “quit” for good. Just an indefinite hiatus from building. I may make something, sometime, though I don’t see that happening too soon
@Sadboye12 Kinda for me, though I come on the site every once in a while. I’m not really building anymore; life has gotten very interesting for me lol. Though I still lurk on the site every once in a while
@Daviationcat99 May be a physics issue - when testing this originally, everything worked as planned. Though an SP physics update, as well as your physics settings, may have something to do with that issue
@Daviationcat99 I think a lot of my earlier builds did that. If trim tabs are available, then use them. Otherwise, that issue was something that I overlooked
@Handlewithcare I’m glad to be an inspiration. With some dedication, you will be able to create your own style that you will be satisfied with. I suggest looking at some of your favorite builds from a wide variety of creators, and dissect those planes to see how each creator made them. You may discover something even more inspiring!
As some extra encouragement, I decided to upvote one of your builds. Welcome to SP!
@Handlewithcare Thank you! Detail comes with a lot of practice, and a little bit of design intent. Adding details that make the design look more believable, such as vents, panels, fans, etc definitely help.
As for the quotes, they come from many places. Sometimes conversations in my own life, or from media such as music, movies, etc.
@FuriousChicken My current job satisfies my need for engineering design, so I don’t really have any builds planned at the moment. I still browse the site every once in a while though
@TRD6932 If you subscribed, then the mod should be installed. Steam workshop uses the term "subscribe" interchangeably with "download" or "install". Sometimes steam integration with SP can be a bit odd with mods though, so the mod might not have been installed
@TRD6932 I think workshop should work, though I haven’t tried it myself. Though google has been troublesome for me so I won’t be able to have a direct .spmod upload anytime soon. Sorry!
@yellowbananabus Google drive has removed public sharing via link on my profile for now. There is a workaround, but I do not have to time to do it. Your best bet is steam workshop
@OrderlyHippo You would choose C (in both integrations) to match the aircraft’s initial conditions at time=0.
.
In other words, after your first integration, you will have an expression for velocity, plus C. C really just depends on the initial velocity, so if you plug in your initial velocity at time=0, you can solve for the correct C value.
.
When you have found C after your first integration, integrate again for position. You will get another + C. Substitute your initial position at time=0 to solve for the correct C, which will result in a correct position expression.
@OrderlyHippo In this case, the term "inertial" means that the velocity is measured by an observer that is not moving. So, "inertial" velocity is what someone on the ground would measure if they took a speed reading of the plane.
.
A navigation system that would use something like inertia (as in the physical property) would measure the acceleration of the aircraft, and integrate it twice to get a position. A good amount of guidance systems have used this principle, including some early ICBMs. I'm not sure how such a system would be implemented in SP though.
@TheMightyBuildDigger you might be thinking of another build, Edgecrusher, which uses a roughly similar flight system, as well as a blended wing shape
@Bonk21474 setting lockTime to zero on guardians ensures that a lock can be re-established, even in flight
+1@Grob0s0VBRa
+1No problem :)
Another good example of sympathy upvoting
We do a little uploading unlisted posts
@11qazxc Did it not work at very high altitudes? If the accuracy of altitude degrades with increasing altitude, then there’s not much that can be done about that - that issue would be the result of how SP itself is programmed, rather than my code
+1It's been a fun ride. Feel free to lurk a bit ;)
+1@TheTomatoLover Thank you! Life is good. I don’t have enough time to build these days, but I do lurk on the site still :)
+2This is a certified hooke's law classic
+4@Alpha6 Not necessarily. Any durability was coincidental
@Ian_Yashima Understandable, thank you! Feel free to keep doing what you are doing - I like the stuff that you make.
+1@SyntheticL Chances are that traveling to the moon in such a low timeframe would increase the price of the mission exponentially, which isn’t worth it given that this is not a crewed mission
+1we do a little observing
+5.
.
.
.
.
It's been a while since I've clicked the spotlight button, so well done!
@Sadboye12 And thank you! Now of course there are no promises, but I haven’t necessarily “quit” for good. Just an indefinite hiatus from building. I may make something, sometime, though I don’t see that happening too soon
+2@Sadboye12 Kinda for me, though I come on the site every once in a while. I’m not really building anymore; life has gotten very interesting for me lol. Though I still lurk on the site every once in a while
+3I appreciate the tag. Looks great :)
+1Looks great! It's good to see you again.
+3Ight I'm gonna become a wikipedia contributor brb
+1car
+2@IICXLVIICDLXXXIIIDCXLVII I was lazy lol
+2@Daviationcat99 May be a physics issue - when testing this originally, everything worked as planned. Though an SP physics update, as well as your physics settings, may have something to do with that issue
@Daviationcat99 I think a lot of my earlier builds did that. If trim tabs are available, then use them. Otherwise, that issue was something that I overlooked
@Handlewithcare Yep! Feel free to do whatever u want description-wise
@Handlewithcare I forgot. Try experimenting to see what you like best!
6DOF tomfoolery
+3@Handlewithcare I’m glad to be an inspiration. With some dedication, you will be able to create your own style that you will be satisfied with. I suggest looking at some of your favorite builds from a wide variety of creators, and dissect those planes to see how each creator made them. You may discover something even more inspiring!
As some extra encouragement, I decided to upvote one of your builds. Welcome to SP!
@Handlewithcare Thank you! Detail comes with a lot of practice, and a little bit of design intent. Adding details that make the design look more believable, such as vents, panels, fans, etc definitely help.
+1As for the quotes, they come from many places. Sometimes conversations in my own life, or from media such as music, movies, etc.
@AriVex Thanks! Most notably the vehicle has been edited to have a very low mass, which accounts for a lot of its flight characteristics
+1@Lucanmoonshadow Ty!
@FuriousChicken My current job satisfies my need for engineering design, so I don’t really have any builds planned at the moment. I still browse the site every once in a while though
+2@StefGR The mod is no longer supported for the latest versions of SP. sorry about that.
@TRD6932 If you subscribed, then the mod should be installed. Steam workshop uses the term "subscribe" interchangeably with "download" or "install". Sometimes steam integration with SP can be a bit odd with mods though, so the mod might not have been installed
@TRD6932 I think workshop should work, though I haven’t tried it myself. Though google has been troublesome for me so I won’t be able to have a direct .spmod upload anytime soon. Sorry!
+1@Spamton Thank you! Means a lot that a build of mine got you to dive into SP
+1I deleted my original comment because it did not answer the given question 💀
+1@CavyNugget9000 Thank you!
@yellowbananabus Google drive has removed public sharing via link on my profile for now. There is a workaround, but I do not have to time to do it. Your best bet is steam workshop
@LobsterBisque128 Nothing is planned at the moment. My life seems to be too busy for SP
+2@CaptainXMLRenzo Ty! Yep, the performance is weird with low physics iirc
multiply the input by -1 in funky trees. i.e., -1*pitch
+1@Grob0s0VBRa Ah, that was probably a while ago then!
+1Looks great! I forgot what codes I provided but thanks for the credit
+1tfw i enjoy cadding in CATIA V5 more than other packages
@OrderlyHippo You would choose C (in both integrations) to match the aircraft’s initial conditions at time=0.
+1.
In other words, after your first integration, you will have an expression for velocity, plus C. C really just depends on the initial velocity, so if you plug in your initial velocity at time=0, you can solve for the correct C value.
.
When you have found C after your first integration, integrate again for position. You will get another + C. Substitute your initial position at time=0 to solve for the correct C, which will result in a correct position expression.
@OrderlyHippo In this case, the term "inertial" means that the velocity is measured by an observer that is not moving. So, "inertial" velocity is what someone on the ground would measure if they took a speed reading of the plane.
+1.
A navigation system that would use something like inertia (as in the physical property) would measure the acceleration of the aircraft, and integrate it twice to get a position. A good amount of guidance systems have used this principle, including some early ICBMs. I'm not sure how such a system would be implemented in SP though.
Make a funny plane covered in airbrakes
+3I’m back too 💀
+8@Mustang51 Fuel consumption won’t change with powerMultiplier, it does change with the throttle input though.
+3@Grroro Ty!
+1lmao what
+1