@Notaleopard Follow the formatting of a standard link, but instead of normal text, put the picture format in the [square brackets]. I can provide an example of the syntax if you want.
Ranks generally mean nothing. Although if your rank is high enough to be on the first page(s), then I suppose that more people will stumble along your profile to see your stuff.
@randomusername Awesome. I might look into that! I would have to streamline the concept a lot though.
Edit: of course, I will give credit where it is due!
@Minecraftpoweer The physics get confused when it happens. I originally did this to try to "catch" the momentum of the flares to propel my aircraft, but this happened instead. It made for a fun gif though!
Thanks for asking - it’s always fun to experiment a bit. Try looking at some new cockpit shapes! It looks like you can try a sleeker, or more bulky route. Feel free to take apart any of my builds to see how their cockpits are constructed.
@CoolPeach Ouch. The dimensions are a perfect match. This is probably a copy. Looks like it was too good to be true. Unfortunately I cannot un-spotlight a build...
Awesome. I started playing SP around the time that I learned basic physics/mechanics, and it was really cool to see concepts that I learned in class appear in my hobby!
@SledDriver I wanted to clearly demonstrate my logic. Obviously that was ineffective, and this conversation will only result in petty mudslinging. I have said my stance too. Refer to my conclusion for more information. Take care.
.
Oh, and it looks like my preface got cut off. Here's the rest of the text:
... in the inclusion of two extra AGs. Also, please refer to your replies to Eternal for more information about how your system is different.
Conclusion:
It seems like this conversation has screeched to a halt by a neutral party, EternalDarkness. You do not own a simple concept, and neither do I. If you have any other (small) concerns, I am happy to entertain them, but I have more than adequately defended myself, and my time is more valuable than this. My work was my own, and so was yours. There is more than enough evidence to support this, and all replies after this will be much, much more brief.
Addressing your core argument...
Let’s start with the important part, the 2D-Flight concept. It relies on upward force provided by a static thruster, while other static thrusters control translational motion. Gyros provide stability. Your response verifies these characteristics: ”You stole the whole idea. Prior to this build (Cyclops), every single VTOL system on SimplePlanes was based on rotating VTOL thrusters. To claim that you came up with the same idea as mine, right after I posted Cyclops, is disingenuous in the extreme.”
There are a few things to unpack here. First – the first sentence. Once again, your method of analysis begins with a conclusion, and ends with evidence. I should not need to tell you why this is logically incoherent.
Once again, I am mentioning evidence, so, lets Segway into my evidence. The 2D-VTOL concept is older than you think it is. Specifically, a flight system that automatically balanced the aircraft, and used fixed thrusters for movement had been done before, by me – just in a different game. I have mentioned it a few times before, but I did make flying vehicles in Garry’s Mod before I found SimplePlanes. Interestingly enough, I remember creating a flight system that is conceptually identical to 2D-VTOL flight years ago in GMOD. The aircraft is here.
It is, functionally speaking, a 2D-VTOL, with its conceptual framework almost perfectly aligning with my perception of what a 2D-VTOL is. It uses thrusters for translational motion, as well as an upward thruster for altitude control. It even has a mechanism that keeps it upright – it uses an invisible counterbalance to counter any random torques on the aircraft. Nifty, right? When SP 1.6 came out, I replicated the flight system that I made years ago in that other game, Garry’s mod. As Eternal said, the idea is older than BOTH of our accounts.
Since I came up with the same concept (2D-VTOL) in another game years ago, it would be foolish to assume that I am not capable of creating the same concept in a game that gives me better tools to implement the concept in question. Therefore, I can confidently state that my flight system’s concept was the result of my own work.
@SledDriver A preface with some clarifications
First, your tone and responses indicate a mindset that pre-determines me as guilty, regardless of my rebuttals and evidence. I will ignore this for now, but I kindly request that you take my responses seriously, as I am with yours.
Your quote here, for example, demonstrates your current attitude: ”It was flawed because at that point I hadn't explained my system.”
Let’s be honest here. I had about 1.5 years of SP experience before I uploaded my system. If I had a template to follow, would I be foolish enough to fail in implementing it seamlessly? I sincerely hope that my profile at least demonstrates that I am not that incompetent.
.
Second, and most importantly, your response(s) completely ignored the core to my defense of my position. If I am acting like the guilty one, then why did you fail to address the section of my response, titled “Now, lets get into the meat.”? I have only seen you address the weak parts of my argument – you have only peripherally addressed my position. Once again, I kindly request that you take my responses seriously. As a refresher, here is a list of the critical elements of my stance that you have failed to respond to:
- The flight systems are not identical in concept and implementation (You most likely disagree with this one, understandably, so I elaborated on this in the “Addressing your core argument” section.)
- Your statement of me having no concept of 2D-VTOL flight before you uploaded your flight system is demonstrably false.
- The timing of the flight systems can be explained by plagiarism, yes, but it is more feasible that the nature of the 1.6 update was responsible for the unfortunate timing.
.
Third, I must address the following quote: ”The core idea is not the inputs. Claiming that yours is original because you use the VTOL input to change altitude while I use pitch, for instance, is just laughably disingenuous.”
Tone aside, your comment is false by the description of your aircraft. Based on my understanding of your flight system (which is, I admit, is not perfect, as I have never downloaded any of your builds), it provides an upward force to match the weight of the aircraft, then uses top-mounted and bottom-mounted thrusters to control altitude. My system uses one thruster to control altitude in a much more… conventional fashion. In my opinion, that is a significant functional difference between the two systems, that is reflected in the inclusion of two e
CONTINUING FROM THE BELOW COMMENT... Now, lets get into the meat.
I asked you for evidence, because your evidence is insufficient. You have failed to elaborate your points, so I am forced to make assumptions about your evidence. It looks like you are accusing me of plagiarism based on two points of interest:
- The timing of our uploads
- The conceptual similarity of the uploads
Therefore, I must assume that your logic operates on the following statements:
- The flight systems are identical in concept and implementation
- I had no concept of 2D-VTOL flight before you uploaded your flight system
- Gyro-VTOL flight systems cannot be developed simultaneously without plagiarism occurring. All three of the above statements are demonstrably false. For brevity’s sake, I will only elaborate if you ask me to do so. I should state though, that my evidence, which I have yet to reveal, is much more solid than anything that I have presented to you.
.
Once again, the timing of the uploads simply doesn’t matter. I can confidently say that, when gyros were released, many players, including both of us, worked to develop a gyro-VTOL flight system.
.
I must also ask:
If I did, indeed, take your flight system, then why does mine differ so much in aspects such as installation, altitude control, etc.? What did I steal from your system? An answer involving my use of thrusters and gyros is insufficient. That kind of flight system can be, and was, developed without any outside influence.
@SledDriver Thank you for taking the initiative to move this conversation to a more suitable place. Looks like I have a lot to unpack here, so let’s start with the little things. ”I intended a certain meaning, but that's how you and others interpreted it? If I and you interpreted it the same way, what's the "but" for?”
Looks like we have a semantic misunderstanding here. The comment that I referred to implied that I installed your spaceship-like flight system directly into one of my aircraft, when I have not.
. ”That was my mistake, but are you saying that just because I didn't call you out on it right away, it makes it ok?”
Plagiarism is never ok. It simply seems suspicious that you remained silent until another user credited me for a flight system that I helped with, almost two years later. That is an awkward time frame, as almost all of the facts have been forgotten since then - only your allegations remain in recent memory. Seems very convenient for you, doesn’t it? It almost seems like you wanted to start drama, but based on your comment history, you are adamant against instigating drama. Therefore, this timing confuses me, and makes me question your motives.
. ”All the builds you link are 1.8 years old -- so what does that prove?”
The builds (and teaser) that I linked were evidence of me iteratively improving a flight system that I was designing. The flaws present in the earlier build (the drone) were improved on in the later build (Volitus). I then presented a conclusion stating that the improvements between my two designs were evidence of me using an iterative design process to improve my flight system. If my flight system is not my own work, then why was it flawed when I first implemented it on the drone? If I stole the system from you, it would have been perfect on my first try. Your accusation then, seems unlikely to me. Instead, my perception of the situation, which you wholly ignored, seems more likely.
@Notaleopard Follow the formatting of a standard link, but instead of normal text, put the picture format in the [square brackets]. I can provide an example of the syntax if you want.
No problem!
Ranks generally mean nothing. Although if your rank is high enough to be on the first page(s), then I suppose that more people will stumble along your profile to see your stuff.
+6The mods page can be found under “stuff”
+2@MTakach In overload, there should be an attribute similar to that, yes.
@MTakach The attributes of “tracerColor” and fireRate were modified.
@EliteArsenals24 There is definitely some similarity, but this player certainly has a unique building style of their own, that’s i quite enjoy!
I like the color scheme!
+2@randomusername I was planning on maybe using such a system. It would work well when used with a braking system, too!
@randomusername In space, yes. Though getting up there is the boring part, as there is too much drag.
@BACconcordepilot Interesting. I’ll give it a try.
@randomusername Yep! RCN thrusters can be used in space. They are a little slow though!
Thanks for testing! It seems like the brake only works on very lightweight aircraft.
@ColonelStriker Hm. What physics are you using?
+1Born and raised in the SF area in California. Now going to uni in the Midwest!
@Minecraftpoweer Yep! Looks like I was too quick to say that I didn't have a use for it.
@Stormfur They do the trick pretty well. They also work in space, too, which is very convenient.
+1@belugasub Ha, I gotta avoid over-studying though!
@randomusername Awesome. I might look into that! I would have to streamline the concept a lot though.
+1Edit: of course, I will give credit where it is due!
@randomusername Awesome. If you don't mind me asking, what parts does it use? I still haven't been able to find one.
+2@Minecraftpoweer The physics get confused when it happens. I originally did this to try to "catch" the momentum of the flares to propel my aircraft, but this happened instead. It made for a fun gif though!
Thank you! Now I can link people to this post instead of trying to explain the formatting.
+2About 35, if I remember right. I could strap more on the plane, but that seems a little too extra.
+2Thanks for asking - it’s always fun to experiment a bit. Try looking at some new cockpit shapes! It looks like you can try a sleeker, or more bulky route. Feel free to take apart any of my builds to see how their cockpits are constructed.
+1@MDippold1995 That seems to be the case. This user did make some significant edits, but they should have used the successor system.
+1Looks pretty cool. I don’t have enough time to download it, so I guess I’ll compensate with a follow!
The contrasting colors are quite nice.
+2@CoolPeach Ouch. The dimensions are a perfect match. This is probably a copy. Looks like it was too good to be true. Unfortunately I cannot un-spotlight a build...
Looks wonderful! High quality builds like this don’t get posted every day - especially by bronze-ranked users.
Edit: Yeah.... spotlighting was a mistake here. 99% chance that this plane is a copy. I'm dumb.
+1@Bacondoggie Probably not in the near future. I have some cooler concepts that I need to flesh out first, then I’ll think of it!
+1@Bacondoggie No problem!
Awesome. I started playing SP around the time that I learned basic physics/mechanics, and it was really cool to see concepts that I learned in class appear in my hobby!
+2@Ryn176 Thank you! I tried really hard on this little jet, so I am glad that it was good!
+1@Ryn176 Yep! But I’m still proud of this little plane.
+1It’s great to see another build from you! As usual, it looks beautiful.
+3A lot of these can be made with the parts that we already have. Try giving it a shot!
+4Beautiful! I love the sharp design.
@PlaneMan21 Odd. Are you in android or PC? What steps have you taken to install the mod?
@PlaneMan21 Are you having issues running the mod?
Very nice. I'm not sure why I wasn't already following you - time to fix that.
+1@SledDriver I wanted to clearly demonstrate my logic. Obviously that was ineffective, and this conversation will only result in petty mudslinging. I have said my stance too. Refer to my conclusion for more information. Take care.
.
Oh, and it looks like my preface got cut off. Here's the rest of the text:
... in the inclusion of two extra AGs. Also, please refer to your replies to Eternal for more information about how your system is different.
Conclusion:
It seems like this conversation has screeched to a halt by a neutral party, EternalDarkness. You do not own a simple concept, and neither do I. If you have any other (small) concerns, I am happy to entertain them, but I have more than adequately defended myself, and my time is more valuable than this. My work was my own, and so was yours. There is more than enough evidence to support this, and all replies after this will be much, much more brief.
Addressing your core argument...
+1Let’s start with the important part, the 2D-Flight concept. It relies on upward force provided by a static thruster, while other static thrusters control translational motion. Gyros provide stability. Your response verifies these characteristics:
”You stole the whole idea. Prior to this build (Cyclops), every single VTOL system on SimplePlanes was based on rotating VTOL thrusters. To claim that you came up with the same idea as mine, right after I posted Cyclops, is disingenuous in the extreme.”
There are a few things to unpack here. First – the first sentence. Once again, your method of analysis begins with a conclusion, and ends with evidence. I should not need to tell you why this is logically incoherent.
Once again, I am mentioning evidence, so, lets Segway into my evidence. The 2D-VTOL concept is older than you think it is. Specifically, a flight system that automatically balanced the aircraft, and used fixed thrusters for movement had been done before, by me – just in a different game. I have mentioned it a few times before, but I did make flying vehicles in Garry’s Mod before I found SimplePlanes. Interestingly enough, I remember creating a flight system that is conceptually identical to 2D-VTOL flight years ago in GMOD.
The aircraft is here.
It is, functionally speaking, a 2D-VTOL, with its conceptual framework almost perfectly aligning with my perception of what a 2D-VTOL is. It uses thrusters for translational motion, as well as an upward thruster for altitude control. It even has a mechanism that keeps it upright – it uses an invisible counterbalance to counter any random torques on the aircraft. Nifty, right? When SP 1.6 came out, I replicated the flight system that I made years ago in that other game, Garry’s mod. As Eternal said, the idea is older than BOTH of our accounts.
Since I came up with the same concept (2D-VTOL) in another game years ago, it would be foolish to assume that I am not capable of creating the same concept in a game that gives me better tools to implement the concept in question. Therefore, I can confidently state that my flight system’s concept was the result of my own work.
@SledDriver
A preface with some clarifications
First, your tone and responses indicate a mindset that pre-determines me as guilty, regardless of my rebuttals and evidence. I will ignore this for now, but I kindly request that you take my responses seriously, as I am with yours.
Your quote here, for example, demonstrates your current attitude:
”It was flawed because at that point I hadn't explained my system.”
Let’s be honest here. I had about 1.5 years of SP experience before I uploaded my system. If I had a template to follow, would I be foolish enough to fail in implementing it seamlessly? I sincerely hope that my profile at least demonstrates that I am not that incompetent.
.
Second, and most importantly, your response(s) completely ignored the core to my defense of my position. If I am acting like the guilty one, then why did you fail to address the section of my response, titled “Now, lets get into the meat.”? I have only seen you address the weak parts of my argument – you have only peripherally addressed my position. Once again, I kindly request that you take my responses seriously. As a refresher, here is a list of the critical elements of my stance that you have failed to respond to:
- The flight systems are not identical in concept and implementation (You most likely disagree with this one, understandably, so I elaborated on this in the “Addressing your core argument” section.)
- Your statement of me having no concept of 2D-VTOL flight before you uploaded your flight system is demonstrably false.
- The timing of the flight systems can be explained by plagiarism, yes, but it is more feasible that the nature of the 1.6 update was responsible for the unfortunate timing.
.
Third, I must address the following quote:
”The core idea is not the inputs. Claiming that yours is original because you use the VTOL input to change altitude while I use pitch, for instance, is just laughably disingenuous.”
Tone aside, your comment is false by the description of your aircraft. Based on my understanding of your flight system (which is, I admit, is not perfect, as I have never downloaded any of your builds), it provides an upward force to match the weight of the aircraft, then uses top-mounted and bottom-mounted thrusters to control altitude. My system uses one thruster to control altitude in a much more… conventional fashion. In my opinion, that is a significant functional difference between the two systems, that is reflected in the inclusion of two e
The conversation has been moved. Sorry for cluttering your build’s comments section, OP.
CONTINUING FROM THE BELOW COMMENT... Now, lets get into the meat.
I asked you for evidence, because your evidence is insufficient. You have failed to elaborate your points, so I am forced to make assumptions about your evidence. It looks like you are accusing me of plagiarism based on two points of interest:
- The timing of our uploads
- The conceptual similarity of the uploads
Therefore, I must assume that your logic operates on the following statements:
- The flight systems are identical in concept and implementation
- I had no concept of 2D-VTOL flight before you uploaded your flight system
- Gyro-VTOL flight systems cannot be developed simultaneously without plagiarism occurring.
All three of the above statements are demonstrably false. For brevity’s sake, I will only elaborate if you ask me to do so. I should state though, that my evidence, which I have yet to reveal, is much more solid than anything that I have presented to you.
.
Once again, the timing of the uploads simply doesn’t matter. I can confidently say that, when gyros were released, many players, including both of us, worked to develop a gyro-VTOL flight system.
.
I must also ask:
If I did, indeed, take your flight system, then why does mine differ so much in aspects such as installation, altitude control, etc.? What did I steal from your system? An answer involving my use of thrusters and gyros is insufficient. That kind of flight system can be, and was, developed without any outside influence.
@SledDriver Thank you for taking the initiative to move this conversation to a more suitable place. Looks like I have a lot to unpack here, so let’s start with the little things.
”I intended a certain meaning, but that's how you and others interpreted it? If I and you interpreted it the same way, what's the "but" for?”
Looks like we have a semantic misunderstanding here. The comment that I referred to implied that I installed your spaceship-like flight system directly into one of my aircraft, when I have not.
.
”That was my mistake, but are you saying that just because I didn't call you out on it right away, it makes it ok?”
Plagiarism is never ok. It simply seems suspicious that you remained silent until another user credited me for a flight system that I helped with, almost two years later. That is an awkward time frame, as almost all of the facts have been forgotten since then - only your allegations remain in recent memory. Seems very convenient for you, doesn’t it? It almost seems like you wanted to start drama, but based on your comment history, you are adamant against instigating drama. Therefore, this timing confuses me, and makes me question your motives.
.
”All the builds you link are 1.8 years old -- so what does that prove?”
The builds (and teaser) that I linked were evidence of me iteratively improving a flight system that I was designing. The flaws present in the earlier build (the drone) were improved on in the later build (Volitus). I then presented a conclusion stating that the improvements between my two designs were evidence of me using an iterative design process to improve my flight system. If my flight system is not my own work, then why was it flawed when I first implemented it on the drone? If I stole the system from you, it would have been perfect on my first try. Your accusation then, seems unlikely to me. Instead, my perception of the situation, which you wholly ignored, seems more likely.
Not sure how I missed this, but it looks great!
@CptJacobson Thanks! I’ll be sure to tag you.
Beautiful! Good idea for a map mod.
+1