@Samair I make it in a small scale first, and then scale it back up to the size it's supposed to be. It's a lot of trial and error, making things while it's small, and then scaling it up to the appropriate size to see if it still works and functions properly. Also it's ideal to remove drag calculations and set the drag scale to 0 on all parts with these enormous creations, so that the game doesn't just crash immediately upon loading in the creation.
@Chaosblackdragon21 hey man idk if you even check this site or do much here anymore, but I've been getting more active recently and I might think about making more RainWorld stuff. I've actually been working on a Void Worm for about a couple days now, so maybe if i ever do more RainWorld stuff I'll make a vulture, which could be fun
@LucadaConcord1128 well it's only 303 parts, and its performance cost isn't very high either, so I'd say that's normal for a mobile device to run it smoothly
@BagelPlane I have done this before though, with this plane even if I use structural wings and set them to have control surfaces, the wings still flap around and cause the aircraft to jitter. There's seemingly no way to surpass this limit.
@Dracul0Anderson so basically, I used structural wings, and edited their overload to give them control surfaces. I then gave them 0.1 mass, also using overload, so they wouldn't sag too much. It also helps a lot to make sure every attachment point on the wing is attached to something, to ensure no part of the wing is loose. The actual wing parts themselves are rather big, but again, using overload, I scaled them down to be smaller. This edits their physical and visual size, but it does not affect the amount of lift they produce, meaning they produce a lot of life still, despite being about the same size as the default primary wing.
I agree with Trainzo, I've never seen this anywhere else on SP. I've actually never even heard of this at all, so I'd say this is one of the first, if not the very first representation of it in SimplePlanes. Or any flight game, for that matter.
Alas I am a simple man, I see huge flying wing, I upvote.
Parts definitely do heal. Also fun thing you can try, give a gun negative damage and keep another gun at normal damage, aim them both at a fuselage block, with set activation groups so they don't fire simultaneously. If you turn on show damage, you'll see that the negative damage gun turns parts blue instead of red!
@Pnut well to be fair I don't either, I don't think it would be a funky trees thing though. I was thinking it might be an overload thing, but it likely isn't.
@Pnut well that's the thing, I need the projectiles to not last very long, only like five seconds. And I need them to not explode upon disappearing.
The only reason I need it to behave like this is that I'm making something that uses lots of game particles, and since explosions from cannon rounds and the tracers of the cannon rounds create a lot of particles, some of the particles I need to have get deleted when I fire the cannon parts, which I don't want happening.
@SPairforce well to be fair, SimplePlanes is not exactly the most accurate representation of how planes irl fly. Plus, if you wanted to make a consistent, somewhat coherent comparison between the two in SimplePlanes, you'd need to have many more rounds than this, the player should fly both aircrafts too, in order to mitigate the advantage the player has over an Ai, and thereby a false representation of info due to the player flying only one of the two being compared. Am I taking this too seriously? Yes.
@Speedhunter oh nice, must be a Samsung or pixel phone then, right? I'm sure it would be fine as long as you connected it to SP or atleast gave it the off topic tag
@TheAviator77 'Ery Noice! Sometimes I'll do astrophotography with what little setup I have, other days I'll just be outside with my monocular to do stargazing. It's very nurturing to me.
I actually noticed this a few years ago! My astronomy nerd side always loves to see if the night sky in games is real, although it'd be nice if you could see things like the Orion Nebula and the Andromeda galaxy in more videogame night skies, because they are visible to the naked eye and are usually just a star in videogame night skies.
I know where Cassiopeia is, so I wanna be able to see the andromeda galaxy!
I swear bro I don't get how you don't have more points than you do, your build quality is just absolutely beautiful. I was not aware that KLM flies or has flown Citations!
It's impossible to pick a single favorite, but to list a lot that I love...
The J7W1 Shinden, Pfalz D.IIIa, YF-23 Black Widow II, FW-190A4, XP-67 Moonbat, SU-57 Felon, SU-30SM, F-22A Raptor, JAS-39 Gripen, AJS-37 Viggen, TU-160 Blackjack, P-63 Kingcobra, MiG-21bis, J-20 Mighty Dragon, SU-47 Berkut, Panavia Tornado, F-35C Lightning II, SR-71 Blackbird, XR-7 ThunderDart, T1 Hawk, Rockwell X-31 Vector, F-105D Thunderchief, F-111 Aardvark, SU-34 Fullback, Sopwith Tripehound, Yak-9D, ohhh lord the list goes on forever...
And that's just the airforce stuff! I have lots of favorite commercial aircraft's, helicopters, civilian planes, so much. Just an unhealthy amount of favorites. I need help.
@SILVERPANZER ok so I've switched up the missile a little bit, now instead of firing micro missiles it fires unguided rockets, but they're programmed to air burst around the main missiles target. I still can't figure out how to use the FT inputs, would it be too much of an inconvenience for me to tag you in an unlisted post of the project for help? I just want the missile to fire off like normal, and then when the detachers come within a certain distance of the target, they fire off the rockets. I think that's doable, atleast it should be?
@SILVERPANZER ok this sounds pretty legit, how would I use these FT Codes precisely? Like what overload values in the "name" and "value" section go where, I am very thankful for your input here
@Yish42 ah, I was afraid of that. I need to be able to have more than one and also not have the cockpit attached to it, so that's a bit of a problem. Thanks for the help anyway, much appreciated!
@DatTrainGuy19 just a bot, it was only a matter of time before porn bots invaded the SimplePlanes website, as they do every website. Report and block, hopefully a moderator deletes it.
@jamesPLANESii in hindsight it probably wasn't a UFO, but it definitely wasn't the ISS. Too bright and it moved erratically, not in a straight line. About a year ago I actually watched the ISS fly overhead, it's a really neat thing to see.
@winterro I have tried joystick bases. They work great until they don't, they tend to just be floppy though. I tried using them for the jet-ring actuation, to maneuver the thrusters during VTOL mode, but the entire mechanism would flop around and have no rigidity when connected to the joystick base. Even after putting the mass scale and drag scale at 0 for not just the parts connected to the base, but the base itself too, it would still dangle flap around. So I just used normal block style rotators. I wouldn't know what overload codes would adjust the wobbliness to the joystick rotators either, or if it's something that can be edited in the default part editor.
@Mousewithamachinegun123 really? The hellraiser stuff I used to do was honestly pretty low quality. "Make somewhat interesting looking plane, slap an inappropriate amount of weapons on it." That's all it was tbh. My SeaDart is ok I guess, idk why it's my most upvoted build but ehh whatever.
@Mousewithamachinegun123 idk. I've been debating posting stuff again, just for ol' times sake. I wouldn't say I ever truly left, per se. Just went dormant, still active on the website occasionally.
@Mousewithamachinegun123 read the pinned comment. All parts that make up the tail, both internal and external, are modified to have zero mass and drag. I've also encountered the problem with shaky wings at super high speeds, and have used the structural panel solution for this. Weirdly enough, or perhaps not weirdly enough, I still experience shaky wings even using structural panels, going at speeds less than 10,000 or even just 5,000mph.
Please if someone can tell me why it does this, and how to fix it, it would be greatly appreciated.
Yes I'm using high physics. The tail structure consists of only fuselage blocks and rotators. All fuselage parts and rotators in the tail have their mass scale values and drag scale values set to 0. There are no wing parts in the tail section, and yet for some reason it still shakes at high speeds and/or low altitudes. Pretty much anywhere around 2,500mph, around and below 1,000ft, it starts shaking. Absolutely no idea why, and the shaking also stops at higher altitudes despite moving far faster, so something tells me it's a drag related problem, given that there's less air resistance at higher altitudes and the game does actually simulate that, so it would only make sense.
Then again tons of things in this game don't make any sense so I would not know for sure, if anyone can help with this that would be awesome.
Jundroo's getting better with their parody videos I see
+4I love the Parasaurolophus, it's so goddamn cute. Awesome little recreation of it in SP!!
+1@Samair I make it in a small scale first, and then scale it back up to the size it's supposed to be. It's a lot of trial and error, making things while it's small, and then scaling it up to the appropriate size to see if it still works and functions properly. Also it's ideal to remove drag calculations and set the drag scale to 0 on all parts with these enormous creations, so that the game doesn't just crash immediately upon loading in the creation.
@TheAviator77 Horsham air museum in Pennsylvania
Print the entire flight manual for the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II
+1@Chaosblackdragon21 hey man idk if you even check this site or do much here anymore, but I've been getting more active recently and I might think about making more RainWorld stuff. I've actually been working on a Void Worm for about a couple days now, so maybe if i ever do more RainWorld stuff I'll make a vulture, which could be fun
@LucadaConcord1128 well it's only 303 parts, and its performance cost isn't very high either, so I'd say that's normal for a mobile device to run it smoothly
@FANNYsSECRETSERVICE I wouldn't call that a warcrime per se, just kinda defeating the point of the build lol
+1@BagelPlane I have done this before though, with this plane even if I use structural wings and set them to have control surfaces, the wings still flap around and cause the aircraft to jitter. There's seemingly no way to surpass this limit.
@Dracul0Anderson so basically, I used structural wings, and edited their overload to give them control surfaces. I then gave them 0.1 mass, also using overload, so they wouldn't sag too much. It also helps a lot to make sure every attachment point on the wing is attached to something, to ensure no part of the wing is loose. The actual wing parts themselves are rather big, but again, using overload, I scaled them down to be smaller. This edits their physical and visual size, but it does not affect the amount of lift they produce, meaning they produce a lot of life still, despite being about the same size as the default primary wing.
Not bad cinematics, pretty cool! The aircraft is gorgeous.
+1That looks so damn clean and smooth, no seams or breaks in the shape at all!
I agree with Trainzo, I've never seen this anywhere else on SP. I've actually never even heard of this at all, so I'd say this is one of the first, if not the very first representation of it in SimplePlanes. Or any flight game, for that matter.
Alas I am a simple man, I see huge flying wing, I upvote.
+1of course baconeggs spotlighted this, nearly nine years after it was posted lmao
brain is scrampled eg
Ngl I have no idea what I'm looking at but it looks pretty neat
Parts definitely do heal. Also fun thing you can try, give a gun negative damage and keep another gun at normal damage, aim them both at a fuselage block, with set activation groups so they don't fire simultaneously. If you turn on show damage, you'll see that the negative damage gun turns parts blue instead of red!
+2@Pnut well to be fair I don't either, I don't think it would be a funky trees thing though. I was thinking it might be an overload thing, but it likely isn't.
The unending chaos of SimplePlanes multiplayer knows no bounds
@Pnut well that's the thing, I need the projectiles to not last very long, only like five seconds. And I need them to not explode upon disappearing.
The only reason I need it to behave like this is that I'm making something that uses lots of game particles, and since explosions from cannon rounds and the tracers of the cannon rounds create a lot of particles, some of the particles I need to have get deleted when I fire the cannon parts, which I don't want happening.
@ToeTips I don't have a computer so I can't do MP stuff, I wouldn't really even know how it works either even if I did have a computer tbh lol
+1@SPairforce well to be fair, SimplePlanes is not exactly the most accurate representation of how planes irl fly. Plus, if you wanted to make a consistent, somewhat coherent comparison between the two in SimplePlanes, you'd need to have many more rounds than this, the player should fly both aircrafts too, in order to mitigate the advantage the player has over an Ai, and thereby a false representation of info due to the player flying only one of the two being compared. Am I taking this too seriously? Yes.
yes I am.
It's fun looking, but also completely ruins any kind of tracer system that requires cleanliness tbh
@Speedhunter oh nice, must be a Samsung or pixel phone then, right? I'm sure it would be fine as long as you connected it to SP or atleast gave it the off topic tag
+1@TheAviator77 'Ery Noice! Sometimes I'll do astrophotography with what little setup I have, other days I'll just be outside with my monocular to do stargazing. It's very nurturing to me.
+1T
I actually noticed this a few years ago! My astronomy nerd side always loves to see if the night sky in games is real, although it'd be nice if you could see things like the Orion Nebula and the Andromeda galaxy in more videogame night skies, because they are visible to the naked eye and are usually just a star in videogame night skies.
I know where Cassiopeia is, so I wanna be able to see the andromeda galaxy!
+1@Gro ah ok, I was thinking they had Citations for normal flight procedures and not just that.
I swear bro I don't get how you don't have more points than you do, your build quality is just absolutely beautiful. I was not aware that KLM flies or has flown Citations!
@edeison idk, haven't tested it for that. I may though now, now that you've given me the idea!
+1only platinum users in the upvotes lol
+2It's impossible to pick a single favorite, but to list a lot that I love...
The J7W1 Shinden, Pfalz D.IIIa, YF-23 Black Widow II, FW-190A4, XP-67 Moonbat, SU-57 Felon, SU-30SM, F-22A Raptor, JAS-39 Gripen, AJS-37 Viggen, TU-160 Blackjack, P-63 Kingcobra, MiG-21bis, J-20 Mighty Dragon, SU-47 Berkut, Panavia Tornado, F-35C Lightning II, SR-71 Blackbird, XR-7 ThunderDart, T1 Hawk, Rockwell X-31 Vector, F-105D Thunderchief, F-111 Aardvark, SU-34 Fullback, Sopwith Tripehound, Yak-9D, ohhh lord the list goes on forever...
And that's just the airforce stuff! I have lots of favorite commercial aircraft's, helicopters, civilian planes, so much. Just an unhealthy amount of favorites. I need help.
+2Not really sure what I'm looking at but it's pretty neat
+2This is like, really, really well made. Astonishing work here!!
+4@SILVERPANZER ok so I've switched up the missile a little bit, now instead of firing micro missiles it fires unguided rockets, but they're programmed to air burst around the main missiles target. I still can't figure out how to use the FT inputs, would it be too much of an inconvenience for me to tag you in an unlisted post of the project for help? I just want the missile to fire off like normal, and then when the detachers come within a certain distance of the target, they fire off the rockets. I think that's doable, atleast it should be?
@SILVERPANZER aight. Sorry for so many questions, but which of these go on the detachers, and which go on the micro missiles?
@SILVERPANZER ok this sounds pretty legit, how would I use these FT Codes precisely? Like what overload values in the "name" and "value" section go where, I am very thankful for your input here
Pretty neat! Its design is like a combination of the J7W1 Shinden and DO-335 Arrow.
@Yish42 ah, I was afraid of that. I need to be able to have more than one and also not have the cockpit attached to it, so that's a bit of a problem. Thanks for the help anyway, much appreciated!
+1@DatTrainGuy19 just a bot, it was only a matter of time before porn bots invaded the SimplePlanes website, as they do every website. Report and block, hopefully a moderator deletes it.
I spawned in thirty Ai tankers in at once and I didn't really lose any fps so I think it's fine
Craft the creature
+1I am a simple man. I see flying aircraft carrier, I upvote.
+1Oooh pretty. The Victor bomber is one of my all time favorites, it just looks so darn cool.
@jamesPLANESii in hindsight it probably wasn't a UFO, but it definitely wasn't the ISS. Too bright and it moved erratically, not in a straight line. About a year ago I actually watched the ISS fly overhead, it's a really neat thing to see.
@winterro I have tried joystick bases. They work great until they don't, they tend to just be floppy though. I tried using them for the jet-ring actuation, to maneuver the thrusters during VTOL mode, but the entire mechanism would flop around and have no rigidity when connected to the joystick base. Even after putting the mass scale and drag scale at 0 for not just the parts connected to the base, but the base itself too, it would still dangle flap around. So I just used normal block style rotators. I wouldn't know what overload codes would adjust the wobbliness to the joystick rotators either, or if it's something that can be edited in the default part editor.
@Mousewithamachinegun123 really? The hellraiser stuff I used to do was honestly pretty low quality. "Make somewhat interesting looking plane, slap an inappropriate amount of weapons on it." That's all it was tbh. My SeaDart is ok I guess, idk why it's my most upvoted build but ehh whatever.
@Mousewithamachinegun123 idk. I've been debating posting stuff again, just for ol' times sake. I wouldn't say I ever truly left, per se. Just went dormant, still active on the website occasionally.
@Mousewithamachinegun123 read the pinned comment. All parts that make up the tail, both internal and external, are modified to have zero mass and drag. I've also encountered the problem with shaky wings at super high speeds, and have used the structural panel solution for this. Weirdly enough, or perhaps not weirdly enough, I still experience shaky wings even using structural panels, going at speeds less than 10,000 or even just 5,000mph.
Please if someone can tell me why it does this, and how to fix it, it would be greatly appreciated.
Yes I'm using high physics. The tail structure consists of only fuselage blocks and rotators. All fuselage parts and rotators in the tail have their mass scale values and drag scale values set to 0. There are no wing parts in the tail section, and yet for some reason it still shakes at high speeds and/or low altitudes. Pretty much anywhere around 2,500mph, around and below 1,000ft, it starts shaking. Absolutely no idea why, and the shaking also stops at higher altitudes despite moving far faster, so something tells me it's a drag related problem, given that there's less air resistance at higher altitudes and the game does actually simulate that, so it would only make sense.
Then again tons of things in this game don't make any sense so I would not know for sure, if anyone can help with this that would be awesome.