@Mostly Yea, I stated that its a rare thing that can happen when fuselage pieces are shot off. Yes the plane do become unbalanced when pieces of it is missing, but this is something else entirely.
.
As I said before, when the glass breaks the plane assumes a critically damaged state. Wings lose an arbitrary amount of lift, engines lose power. Depending on the build, it can become completely unflyable all because of broken glass.
@YourWife I've tried this and even bumped the health to a ridiculous value. Unfortunately, it didn't work. The game assumes the plane is broken as soon as the glass breaks. Also, I discovered that raising the health does nothing to increase durability of the glass. Perhaps you have done something else differently as well?
@WNP78 So, I was testing my plane's ability to handle battle damage. Every time the enemy destroys the glass fuselage, the rotators become stuck in a weird position and my plane loses control even if the control surfaces still work. If this is a feature, it should removed, as it adds a huge weakness to every builds that use the glass fuselage.
.
Honestly, whatever code that acts as a kill switch for "this plane stops flying now because of critical damage" should be removed. The flight modeling in SP is good enough that such an artificial way of making a plane stop flying is unnecessary.
For shocks, I simply increased the strength to 1000% and damper to 500%. I've also changed mass scale from 15 to 1. The ripping no longer occurs during high G turns with gears down.
.
For the nudging, you have to take the nudge into account when you design your landing gears. Unfortunately, that's how it is until we get perfect rotators, pistons, and shocks.
.
To alleviate the veering, I set forward and sideways traction on the nose wheels to 50. There is still some veering, but not as exaggerated as before. I believe there is some underlying issues with wheel physics. I've send a bug report about it for 1.10 beta but it seems that the issue may not be resolved anytime soon.
.
This little exercise makes me wish there's a proper parts manager. It was tiresome trying to select a part that is hidden in another part.
The Devs already coded AI controlled firing system on the AI controlled destroyers and AA Tanks. I don't see why they can't just give us that instead of forcing the users to input complex math to accomplish the same thing.
.
I dislike the idea of FT being used as a band-aid fix for everything when a simpler, robust coded solution is available or has been implemented but unavailable to the user. It just feels lazy on the Devs' part.
If you're unwilling to fiddle with outboard spoilers to control the slip of the plane, then hidden stabilizer maybe your best option. Northrop's older flying wing designs used pusher prop engine nacelle as impromptu stabilizer. Those would be great references on how to hide your stabilizers (Note that fuselage pieces don't offer any type of stability in SP).
You see patriots, the true strategic importance of this plane is that if the enemy shoots it down over their territory, the fallout would poison their own ppl ))))))))))
Everyone: long wish list of things that clearly do not fit in a small update
.
Actual Update: The Devs finally remembering and fixing a visual bug in which the prop blades on the T2000 would become off-centered when pitched.
Your rig inspired me to make my own. After some testing, I found out for a given wing, there exists a maximum lift that cannot be exceeded, regardless of how you change its shape via control surfaces. All this time, VTOL based flap will cause a wing to stall sooner at lower AoA rather than providing additional lift that a more cambered wing should provide.
Only men of culture appreciate Anime. Keep doing what you love and never change for the trolls and haters. There's no need to understand or open a dialogue with those who harbor malicious intent.
Being the police has always been a thankless job. Liking the cops is a matter of personal preference, but understand that they exists to enforce the law, not to be your friend. I appreciate the peace and security their presence provides. I rather eat tickets from an overzealous cop then be robbed at gunpoint because the police aren't there anymore.
There's always a vocal few that feels entitled to every attention, upvotes, and points. They are simply envious of the joke builds that brought everyone laughs and thus the attention. No need to pay these vocal few any heeds, just move on - this is the internet after all.
Can't tell if this is a joke post. You know, the kind where people go "Oh, I'm just joking, chill guys" after they've been seriously burned. Regardless, a disgrace to this community is those who steal others' builds and profit from it.
Reading an excellent write-up like me makes me wish that the wings in SP eventually evolve out of its current simple form. I want to have spoilers, more complex high lift devices, the ability the cut the shape of the control surface in ways I want, and more. Building a fuselage wing "armor" as a pretend complex wing just doesn't do it for me.
But because the physics is simple, we can play our 1000+ parts build. If complex physics are to be implemented, then we need to have the tools to build planes with complex shapes and functions using 20 parts or less. This is how other flight sims are coded so that they don't nuke our computer. Take Il-2 BoS for example - the crashes are beautiful to look at, but it is obvious that the planes themselves are comprised of few large sections.
@OrangeConnor I have no idea how to send you a private message. Regardless, thank you for the comments on my simple builds. These are built with AI auto-spawn in mind, so understandably, they are too simple to be noticed by the community at large.
The Blade T2000 engine still has a graphical glitch in which the propeller blades are not properly aligned at pitch angle other than neutral. The re-sizable wheels still behaves strangely if the mass of the plane is altered mid-flight.
.
Continuing the trend of begging: Can we please have an option to control how the AI automatically spawns air traffic? Maybe some we can have sort of lists or something.
I see a lot of salt over rotator driven planes. The way I see it, the rules are clearly stated, and anything else are rules you've made up in your head. I had submitted a prop engine design, but then I got curious at how people are breaking the speed limit for a even faster time. I took the time and effort to learn about my competition and rotator propulsion so that I can create my own. I took advantage of the time given to me to build a competitive racer. If you didn't because of arbitrary reasons, or was too lazy to submit a competitive design, then that was entirely your choice. At the end of the day, it is a matter of how much you really want to win the tournament. Plus, don't think that having additional rules and restriction is going to help you. There's always a better builder out there.
I think there's enough features wish-listed in user voice for a Simple Planes 2 and Simple Planes 2: Episode 1 and beyond. Though I would totally pay for a game that combines the best of SP and the best of SR2
@Warbirdnation It's a prompt for you to enter all sorts of commands. press the ~ key if you're on PC. Don't know how to do it on mobile. Perhaps someone else can help you with that.
Ah yes, I had no idea today is Christmas. Since VerticalG is implemented in Funky Tree, may we have an UI display of it as well? Also, is it possible to use apply Funky Tree onto control surfaces?
@vcharng You raise a few fair points about creating more stable landing gears. However, the main issue here is how releasing/firing ordnance causes the re-sizable wheels to basically bug out. Try landing the plane without releasing ordnance and landing it once more after releasing ordnance. You should notice a more distinct swerve between the two conditions.
@vcharng This is the plane I am working on:
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/et8jRb/GD-01-Aegis-IV
.
There's no problem with loading the ordnance. The plane will land and take-off normally. However, the problem occurs once the ordnance are released. The plane will swerve violently after landing. This also happens in other builds, besides my own, with similar custom tricycle landing gears.
@asteroidbook345 This sounds plausible. I wonder when is the next time a bug report could be submitted. This bug is seriously impeding with the way I play this game. I just wanted to take-off drop bombs/fire missiles, and land normally.
@vcharng Enabling suspension on the wheels does even weirder things. My custom gears use shocks for suspension. The landing gears work fine under all conditions, even when there's cross-wind. It also works as intended when my build sustains battle damage, causing asymmetric drag and weight distribution. However, the problem occurs when I fire/release things like rockets, missiles, and bombs.
@TheFantasticTyphoon @asteroidbook345 You guys might be on to something. However, my build has detachable fuselage parts (300~ Ib each) that when detached, does not affect the landing gears' performance. Detaching a pair of Boom 25, however, causes the swerve.
I'm all for features that reduces the number of parts needed to make a functional, yet good looking plane. After all, I play SP because I want to have fun building, testing, and playing my builds. If I just wanted to build a high quality sculpture to look at, I'd use a 3D modeling tool.
@vcharng Yeah, I interpreted GS wrong. I kept thinking it was the horizontal speed component of the velocity vector. Though this is something else the dev and add to the list of variables we can use
It would be nice to have calculus functions. But from a coding perspective, it is more efficient to implement more variables for us to use. For example:
.
Vertical Speed (Rate of Climb): simply get the scalar, y-component (I think its y-axis) of the aircraft's velocity vector. This just made me realize... Vertical Speed = TAS - GS
.
Instantaneous Rate of Turn: get the difference between aircraft's current direction and its direction in the previous frame (May need to separate this into both a horizontal and vertical component).
.
Edit: Disregard that whole vertical speed = TAS - GS, I interpreted GS wrong
@Nickr Indeed, but for some, points and upvotes are numeric measurement of abstract ideas like skill, quality, seniority on this site, popularity, authority, self-worth, and E-peen size. Basically, your mileage may vary.
@asteroidbook345 I simply wish for an ability to adjust the parameters for AI spawning, so the AI can spawn aircraft that exceed part limits. Turning AI spawning off is the opposite of what I want.
@AndrewGarrison Ah, that is a shame. I was testing a cannon embedded within the fuselage and wondering why the projectile seems to do nothing against other airplanes.
Curiously, setting disableAircraftCollisions to true on cannon allows the fired projectile to bypass collision with other aircraft besides my own. Is this working as intended? (In other words, you can now recreate the infamous hisparko cannon from War Thunder)
@Minecraftpoweer I use an online converter currently. Both wing gun and gatling gun uses m/s for muzzle velocity, so why not change it on the cannon for consistency?
@Mostly Yea, I stated that its a rare thing that can happen when fuselage pieces are shot off. Yes the plane do become unbalanced when pieces of it is missing, but this is something else entirely.
.
As I said before, when the glass breaks the plane assumes a critically damaged state. Wings lose an arbitrary amount of lift, engines lose power. Depending on the build, it can become completely unflyable all because of broken glass.
@YourWife I've tried this and even bumped the health to a ridiculous value. Unfortunately, it didn't work. The game assumes the plane is broken as soon as the glass breaks. Also, I discovered that raising the health does nothing to increase durability of the glass. Perhaps you have done something else differently as well?
@WNP78 So, I was testing my plane's ability to handle battle damage. Every time the enemy destroys the glass fuselage, the rotators become stuck in a weird position and my plane loses control even if the control surfaces still work. If this is a feature, it should removed, as it adds a huge weakness to every builds that use the glass fuselage.
+1.
Honestly, whatever code that acts as a kill switch for "this plane stops flying now because of critical damage" should be removed. The flight modeling in SP is good enough that such an artificial way of making a plane stop flying is unnecessary.
For shocks, I simply increased the strength to 1000% and damper to 500%. I've also changed mass scale from 15 to 1. The ripping no longer occurs during high G turns with gears down.
+2.
For the nudging, you have to take the nudge into account when you design your landing gears. Unfortunately, that's how it is until we get perfect rotators, pistons, and shocks.
.
To alleviate the veering, I set forward and sideways traction on the nose wheels to 50. There is still some veering, but not as exaggerated as before. I believe there is some underlying issues with wheel physics. I've send a bug report about it for 1.10 beta but it seems that the issue may not be resolved anytime soon.
.
This little exercise makes me wish there's a proper parts manager. It was tiresome trying to select a part that is hidden in another part.
The Devs already coded AI controlled firing system on the AI controlled destroyers and AA Tanks. I don't see why they can't just give us that instead of forcing the users to input complex math to accomplish the same thing.
+1.
I dislike the idea of FT being used as a band-aid fix for everything when a simpler, robust coded solution is available or has been implemented but unavailable to the user. It just feels lazy on the Devs' part.
If you're unwilling to fiddle with outboard spoilers to control the slip of the plane, then hidden stabilizer maybe your best option. Northrop's older flying wing designs used pusher prop engine nacelle as impromptu stabilizer. Those would be great references on how to hide your stabilizers (Note that fuselage pieces don't offer any type of stability in SP).
You see patriots, the true strategic importance of this plane is that if the enemy shoots it down over their territory, the fallout would poison their own ppl ))))))))))
+1Everyone: long wish list of things that clearly do not fit in a small update
+1.
Actual Update: The Devs finally remembering and fixing a visual bug in which the prop blades on the T2000 would become off-centered when pitched.
It is required by law that you must play "Daredevil" while flying this build. Here, I'll provide the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kVdCaczLE8
+1Your rig inspired me to make my own. After some testing, I found out for a given wing, there exists a maximum lift that cannot be exceeded, regardless of how you change its shape via control surfaces. All this time, VTOL based flap will cause a wing to stall sooner at lower AoA rather than providing additional lift that a more cambered wing should provide.
+6Only men of culture appreciate Anime. Keep doing what you love and never change for the trolls and haters. There's no need to understand or open a dialogue with those who harbor malicious intent.
+7@Sanaba An SP user's making a joke. Laugh already.
I heard from a health expert on the internet that too much sodium intake is bad for your health.
I see you have created the most ultimate creation of them all... an extractor of sodium chloride from SP players.
+1Being the police has always been a thankless job. Liking the cops is a matter of personal preference, but understand that they exists to enforce the law, not to be your friend. I appreciate the peace and security their presence provides. I rather eat tickets from an overzealous cop then be robbed at gunpoint because the police aren't there anymore.
+2You got me, but know this: Thanks to your joke, the devs will delay the real update. Karma will find its way. I hope you are proud of yourself.
+2There's always a vocal few that feels entitled to every attention, upvotes, and points. They are simply envious of the joke builds that brought everyone laughs and thus the attention. No need to pay these vocal few any heeds, just move on - this is the internet after all.
Now it's time for Jundroo to pacify the SP community with another update patch for SP )))))))
+3Can't tell if this is a joke post. You know, the kind where people go "Oh, I'm just joking, chill guys" after they've been seriously burned. Regardless, a disgrace to this community is those who steal others' builds and profit from it.
+13Reading an excellent write-up like me makes me wish that the wings in SP eventually evolve out of its current simple form. I want to have spoilers, more complex high lift devices, the ability the cut the shape of the control surface in ways I want, and more. Building a fuselage wing "armor" as a pretend complex wing just doesn't do it for me.
+2But because the physics is simple, we can play our 1000+ parts build. If complex physics are to be implemented, then we need to have the tools to build planes with complex shapes and functions using 20 parts or less. This is how other flight sims are coded so that they don't nuke our computer. Take Il-2 BoS for example - the crashes are beautiful to look at, but it is obvious that the planes themselves are comprised of few large sections.
It would be fun to fly for sure, but not so fun to chase down a rogue AI flying this :p.
+1@OrangeConnor I have no idea how to send you a private message. Regardless, thank you for the comments on my simple builds. These are built with AI auto-spawn in mind, so understandably, they are too simple to be noticed by the community at large.
One of these days, you young'uns will learn to appreciate the finer things in life rather than vying for upvotes and downloads. Now get off my lawn.
+1The Blade T2000 engine still has a graphical glitch in which the propeller blades are not properly aligned at pitch angle other than neutral. The re-sizable wheels still behaves strangely if the mass of the plane is altered mid-flight.
+2.
Continuing the trend of begging: Can we please have an option to control how the AI automatically spawns air traffic? Maybe some we can have sort of lists or something.
I see a lot of salt over rotator driven planes. The way I see it, the rules are clearly stated, and anything else are rules you've made up in your head. I had submitted a prop engine design, but then I got curious at how people are breaking the speed limit for a even faster time. I took the time and effort to learn about my competition and rotator propulsion so that I can create my own. I took advantage of the time given to me to build a competitive racer. If you didn't because of arbitrary reasons, or was too lazy to submit a competitive design, then that was entirely your choice. At the end of the day, it is a matter of how much you really want to win the tournament. Plus, don't think that having additional rules and restriction is going to help you. There's always a better builder out there.
+1I think there's enough features wish-listed in user voice for a Simple Planes 2 and Simple Planes 2: Episode 1 and beyond. Though I would totally pay for a game that combines the best of SP and the best of SR2
+1@MrR0botinatoR I saw that match, nice plane
Good Game
+1@Warbirdnation It's a prompt for you to enter all sorts of commands. press the ~ key if you're on PC. Don't know how to do it on mobile. Perhaps someone else can help you with that.
@Warbirdnation Technically, both, as long as you have access to 1.9.202 Beta and console command
Ah yes, I had no idea today is Christmas. Since VerticalG is implemented in Funky Tree, may we have an UI display of it as well? Also, is it possible to use apply Funky Tree onto control surfaces?
@vcharng You raise a few fair points about creating more stable landing gears. However, the main issue here is how releasing/firing ordnance causes the re-sizable wheels to basically bug out. Try landing the plane without releasing ordnance and landing it once more after releasing ordnance. You should notice a more distinct swerve between the two conditions.
@vcharng This is the plane I am working on:
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/et8jRb/GD-01-Aegis-IV
.
There's no problem with loading the ordnance. The plane will land and take-off normally. However, the problem occurs once the ordnance are released. The plane will swerve violently after landing. This also happens in other builds, besides my own, with similar custom tricycle landing gears.
@asteroidbook345 This sounds plausible. I wonder when is the next time a bug report could be submitted. This bug is seriously impeding with the way I play this game. I just wanted to take-off drop bombs/fire missiles, and land normally.
@vcharng Enabling suspension on the wheels does even weirder things. My custom gears use shocks for suspension. The landing gears work fine under all conditions, even when there's cross-wind. It also works as intended when my build sustains battle damage, causing asymmetric drag and weight distribution. However, the problem occurs when I fire/release things like rockets, missiles, and bombs.
@DickBrazen Prepare for a world of pain. For reasons I can't fathom, you can't just attach wheels to your custom gears and call it a day.
+1@TheFantasticTyphoon @asteroidbook345 You guys might be on to something. However, my build has detachable fuselage parts (300~ Ib each) that when detached, does not affect the landing gears' performance. Detaching a pair of Boom 25, however, causes the swerve.
This is why we need them wing part with realistic airfoil, so we can stop hiding scaled wings inside fake fuselage wings.
+3I'm all for features that reduces the number of parts needed to make a functional, yet good looking plane. After all, I play SP because I want to have fun building, testing, and playing my builds. If I just wanted to build a high quality sculpture to look at, I'd use a 3D modeling tool.
@vcharng Yeah, I interpreted GS wrong. I kept thinking it was the horizontal speed component of the velocity vector. Though this is something else the dev and add to the list of variables we can use
It would be nice to have calculus functions. But from a coding perspective, it is more efficient to implement more variables for us to use. For example:
.
Vertical Speed (Rate of Climb): simply get the scalar, y-component (I think its y-axis) of the aircraft's velocity vector. This just made me realize... Vertical Speed = TAS - GS
.
Instantaneous Rate of Turn: get the difference between aircraft's current direction and its direction in the previous frame (May need to separate this into both a horizontal and vertical component).
.
Edit: Disregard that whole vertical speed = TAS - GS, I interpreted GS wrong
At this point, might as well implement a completely malleable fuselage block that can be molded to fit all shape and size
@Nickr Indeed, but for some, points and upvotes are numeric measurement of abstract ideas like skill, quality, seniority on this site, popularity, authority, self-worth, and E-peen size. Basically, your mileage may vary.
It's the feeling of disappointment and value dissonance, how one receive little to no return for what is perceived to be hard work or great effort.
+22@asteroidbook345 I simply wish for an ability to adjust the parameters for AI spawning, so the AI can spawn aircraft that exceed part limits. Turning AI spawning off is the opposite of what I want.
@AndrewGarrison Ah, that is a shame. I was testing a cannon embedded within the fuselage and wondering why the projectile seems to do nothing against other airplanes.
Just tested, no more sudden yaws or weirdness
Curiously, setting disableAircraftCollisions to true on cannon allows the fired projectile to bypass collision with other aircraft besides my own. Is this working as intended? (In other words, you can now recreate the infamous hisparko cannon from War Thunder)
@Minecraftpoweer I use an online converter currently. Both wing gun and gatling gun uses m/s for muzzle velocity, so why not change it on the cannon for consistency?
@AndrewGarrison Can't wait to test the new version!