I tried this in VR and the seat and controls are a bit small. Also, the flight stick is very sensitive and gives max roll and pitch within about an inch of movement. Other than that, nice build!
@rfostoria Totally understandable. Without VR it's very difficult to know how to size things correctly. I'm going through a few recent designs tonight and giving feedback as I try them in VR.
If you make a new model, you will need to make a new post, unfortunately.
Very cool build, but one thing I noticed while trying this in VR is that the cockpit is very big. I'm able to comfortably stand up in the cockpit without hitting my head on the canopy.
Very nice tanker, but the landing gear bounce around a lot on low physics on mobile and Quest. This can be fixed by adding about 500lbs+ of dead weight to the wheel assemblies.
Really fun bomber. I tried this out in VR and my only feedback is the cockpit is a little too shallow which makes the seat very high. The seat of the chair is about even with my navel. Other than that I like it.
@jamesPLANESii Performance cost is an attempt to measure the computational intensity of a craft in terms of straight blocks. For example, if a craft has a performance cost of 500, then you might expect it to affect framerate about the same as a craft that was made of 500 straight blocks. It's still very much just an estimate, but hopefully, it is a better estimate than part count.
Each part type has a constant performance cost associated with it. Some part types have an additional cost depending on their settings. For example, wings will have more performance cost if they are larger because that requires more sections of wing physics. Bladed engines have additional cost with each blade. Labels cost more if they use expressions.
@jamesPLANESii I have a service running that downloads all planes to calculate a "performance cost." We haven't published it yet, but the idea is that performance cost will give a better idea than part count in terms of how well a craft will perform.
Thanks for letting us know. I have bought a (used) Chromebook that reproduces the issue and we will investigate and see if there's anything we can do to fix the issue. It's difficult when platforms have a sliding window of supported devices, but we'll see what we can do.
I'm not able to reproduce this. I just verified in a test case that the publish date and created date are both updated to the time at which the publish job finishes publishing the post. How long did you wait before checking those lists? Did you ensure that the "publishing" label under the post's title was gone? If it wasn't in a subscriber's jet stream, then that indicates to me that it had not finished publishing yet.
Is it failing to start on your Chromebook? We've had several reports of players that are unable to play on a Chromebook after the v1.11 update. We are investigating the issue, but unfortunately, we are not sure if SP will be supported on some Chromebooks in the future.
We released 1.11.106 today on Google Play. I imagine it will crash on startup as well, but it might be worth trying to see if it behaves any differently.
@Default4 Sorry for the continuous back and forth without any answers, but we don't have a Chromebook here at the office to investigate this issue. I am curious though, when you installed the old version of SimplePlanes, did the folder and log file appear?
@Default4 Sounds like SimplePlanes is crashing because it can't write to your device. Can you try checking the app permissions for SimplePlanes? I'm not sure if this article is still relevant.
@Default4 I understand, but hopefully whatever errors it encounters will be written to the log file. So be sure to let it run and crash before grabbing the log file, if you can find it.
@Default4 This is due to Google's new privacy changes. Do you have a PC? If so you can connect it and view the files using Windows Explorer. If not, try one of the apps listed here. Ensure that you grab the player.log.txt file after running the game at least once.
@GabrielFangster70 We should have this update out next week or the week after. SPVR is coming before the end of the year or I'm chowing some black licorice.
@vonhubert Glad to see you got it working. I didn't have time to fully read your comment, but here's an example of how to use Nicky's new stuff (XML here).
@Deadeye4827089057 Did you opt in to the beta? If not, instructions are in my pinned comment at the top. If you did opt in, what device are you using and what country are you in?
@Baldovino This is the expected behavior because we want SimplePlanes to use simple colliders during flight for performance. You can improve the quality of that fuselage collider by using the new collider attribute and setting it to ConvexMesh using Overload or just straight XML modding. Example here.
I tried this in VR and the seat and controls are a bit small. Also, the flight stick is very sensitive and gives max roll and pitch within about an inch of movement. Other than that, nice build!
+1@rfostoria Totally understandable. Without VR it's very difficult to know how to size things correctly. I'm going through a few recent designs tonight and giving feedback as I try them in VR.
If you make a new model, you will need to make a new post, unfortunately.
+5Very cool build, but one thing I noticed while trying this in VR is that the cockpit is very big. I'm able to comfortably stand up in the cockpit without hitting my head on the canopy.
+5Very nice tanker, but the landing gear bounce around a lot on low physics on mobile and Quest. This can be fixed by adding about 500lbs+ of dead weight to the wheel assemblies.
Really fun bomber. I tried this out in VR and my only feedback is the cockpit is a little too shallow which makes the seat very high. The seat of the chair is about even with my navel. Other than that I like it.
+6Very cool, but the cockpit camera is too far back and too low in VR.
+5Nice plane. I tried it in VR and the only problem I have is the cockpit camera is too low and too far back. I can't reach any of the controls.
+2@Sjwnwbwnjwjwjjw that’s the thing, in VR I will put it on myself.
+2We need a jetpack for VR!
+15@Default4 sure thing. Thanks!
+2@Default4 I really appreciate that. I'm not sure if we can fix it, but we'll give it an honest effort.
+1@jamesPLANESii Performance cost is an attempt to measure the computational intensity of a craft in terms of straight blocks. For example, if a craft has a performance cost of 500, then you might expect it to affect framerate about the same as a craft that was made of 500 straight blocks. It's still very much just an estimate, but hopefully, it is a better estimate than part count.
Each part type has a constant performance cost associated with it. Some part types have an additional cost depending on their settings. For example, wings will have more performance cost if they are larger because that requires more sections of wing physics. Bladed engines have additional cost with each blade. Labels cost more if they use expressions.
+2@jamesPLANESii I have a service running that downloads all planes to calculate a "performance cost." We haven't published it yet, but the idea is that performance cost will give a better idea than part count in terms of how well a craft will perform.
+4Thanks for letting us know. I have bought a (used) Chromebook that reproduces the issue and we will investigate and see if there's anything we can do to fix the issue. It's difficult when platforms have a sliding window of supported devices, but we'll see what we can do.
+2@jamesPLANESii I was able to confirm this was an error with our publish job. Sorry for the inconvenience. I'll think about how we can improve this.
+4I can check the error log. Do you remember about when you published it?
I'm not able to reproduce this. I just verified in a test case that the publish date and created date are both updated to the time at which the publish job finishes publishing the post. How long did you wait before checking those lists? Did you ensure that the "publishing" label under the post's title was gone? If it wasn't in a subscriber's jet stream, then that indicates to me that it had not finished publishing yet.
@LarryTad Google Play
Is it failing to start on your Chromebook? We've had several reports of players that are unable to play on a Chromebook after the v1.11 update. We are investigating the issue, but unfortunately, we are not sure if SP will be supported on some Chromebooks in the future.
@KnightOfRen What are the specs on your Chromebook? What kind of CPU?
The update may be delayed on the Amazon App Store, but should be available tomorrow.
We released 1.11.106 today on Google Play. I imagine it will crash on startup as well, but it might be worth trying to see if it behaves any differently.
SimplePlanes VR is coming to Steam and Oculus Quest this year. If you want to know when it’s released, you can wishlist SPVR on Steam here.
@Default4 Sorry for the continuous back and forth without any answers, but we don't have a Chromebook here at the office to investigate this issue. I am curious though, when you installed the old version of SimplePlanes, did the folder and log file appear?
\Android\data\com.jundroo.SimplePlanes\files\Player.log.txt@Default4 Sounds like SimplePlanes is crashing because it can't write to your device. Can you try checking the app permissions for SimplePlanes? I'm not sure if this article is still relevant.
@Default4 I understand, but hopefully whatever errors it encounters will be written to the log file. So be sure to let it run and crash before grabbing the log file, if you can find it.
@Default4 This is due to Google's new privacy changes. Do you have a PC? If so you can connect it and view the files using Windows Explorer. If not, try one of the apps listed here. Ensure that you grab the player.log.txt file after running the game at least once.
@Default4 Can you send us your log file? You should be able to find it here (or something similar):
\Android\data\com.jundroo.SimplePlanes\files\Player.log.txtCan you confirm that you have version 1.11.104?
@Dllama4 Nice! I've been wanting to buy that Sigma 150-600mm lens for a while now! Maybe I will now that I've seen what it can do...
@SajabAerospace Thanks for the feedback.
+2@GabrielFangster70 We should have this update out next week or the week after. SPVR is coming before the end of the year or I'm chowing some black licorice.
@vonhubert Glad to see you got it working. I didn't have time to fully read your comment, but here's an example of how to use Nicky's new stuff (XML here).
Whoa, nice! But, also I'm not sure how I feel about this...
+66Great photos! What camera and lens(es) are you shooting with?
+3@vonhubert You should check out the variable system that Nicky has added.
@Deadeye4827089057 Did you opt in to the beta? If not, instructions are in my pinned comment at the top. If you did opt in, what device are you using and what country are you in?
Thanks for letting us know. Any idea why we are being targeted?
@monke123456765456765 hi!
+3@Zue5s Unfortunately not. The upgrade has not fixed the issues that prevent us from allowing mods on Android.
+1@Augusta81 Just to clarify, you have already opted into the beta here and you cannot access the beta here, correct? If so, what country are you in?
@HelloHelloTheUnt Can you elaborate on how it is broken? Also, what is your device model?
@Allahuakhbar @Augusta81 What is your device manufacturer and model?
What version of SimplePlanes do you have? What is your exact device model?
@KnightOfRen Thanks for letting us know. So you were able to get the beta?
@KnightOfRen @PapaKernels I believe the Google Play beta should be available to you now. If it is not, then let me know.
+1@Baldovino This is the expected behavior because we want SimplePlanes to use simple colliders during flight for performance. You can improve the quality of that fuselage collider by using the new collider attribute and setting it to ConvexMesh using Overload or just straight XML modding. Example here.
+1Right-click SimplePlanes in your Steam Library -> Properties -> BETAS -> select Public Test from the dropdown.
+1@One2 Mobile resolutions are so high that they really don't have much of an aliasing problem, but I suppose we could look into it if we have time.
+1@V lol, thank you for the honesty. Now I can see why you were so excited to start a tournament!