@tsampoy
Here i found a link (to a site with picture of the rear end)
Nobody sees these because it's either shown flying or have that massive trail of fire (and smoke) lol here
No need to thank me or anything. I need it too
@tsampoy
I never had figured it out if I had not tried to build a actual space shuttle in Kerbal Space Program.
If you did then it become extremely apparent because each if the space shuttle's main engines give you 900KN at sea level while the boosters only give some 1200 KN each (not at 100% throttle to prevent accelerating too fast and burning up in atmosphere)
In fact, exactly as my first few attempts in KSP (that, of course, went boom, lol) it immediately pitched down (it was at pitch 90, remember?) so hard.
Yep. you need to angle the thrusters. Look at the airflow deflecting plate, it's angled!
But its okay. It's rocket science lol
I don't know too much about the OMS (orbital maneuvering system, a.k.a smaller engines) though, but because it's on top of the shuttle I reason it should be similarly angled (maybe 10 degrees) to point roughly toward the center of mass (of the shuttle)
@QuickNils
Just download, undo and redo.
@RusTanker
Why not, we have actual "tank gun" part now lol right?
I do expect recoil, though ... "smoke trails" can't give you that.
@tsampoy
lol.
The reason it will never fly is because the boosters of the shuttle is at a wrong angle
If the solid rocket boosters got detached, the center of thrust will be off the center of mass (which will be between the tank and the plane) which will cause the entire thing to ... well, go under Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly.
Angle the Space shuttle's main engines 22.5 degrees (outward) should slightly improve this issue.
The values (e.g. 4000, 5000 and the like) are only roughly accurate for a supersonic ramjet. Depend on the application (the amount of thrust needed, and the altitude), these values can be easily modified.
Note:
I hold absolutely NO RESPONSIBILITY in decreased range and increased fuel comsumption of modified engines.
Those responsibility are yours, so don't come to me about how it crashes the game, too.
(It really shouldn't. I set hard limits for it, too)
@PlaneFlightX
simple.
The syntax is (boolean expression) ? (value if true) : (value if false)
so you just nest these.
like (GS < 50)? (1):((GS < 75)? (0.5):(0))
so if GS is less than 50 it goes to the first part of the first ternary operator (which is 1). if speed is not less than 50 but smaller than 75 it goes 0.5. otherwise 0
Note that the GS is a absolute value (e.g. it wont be negative). To "reverse", you could catch the input of the VTOL to see if it's positive (or negative):
(VTOL >= 0) ? (do forward stuff) : (do reverse stuff)
To set the hard speed limit you can mod the wheels instead (there's a field called max angular momentum or something. default is 300 but for your vehicle maybe 125 is enough)
@PlaneFlightX
"Engine has the violently turning on and off problem when reaching set speed."
lol. That's the difficulty with bang-bang controls.
You could change the 0 and 1 part to include more ternary operators (on like, if the speed is greater than 75 then throttle down to 50 or something) to make the cut more gradual
@Suica
I basically clicked in because I saw the company "Rockwell".
They make a lot of plane and rockets parts and is inspiration for "Rockomax Conglomerate" which is pretty awesome
As much as I feel like the 700 part is a bit too much, I can't find a example (of a overuse of parts), so I guess it's "pretty good" on the scale.
Kudos.
@CRJ900Pilot
I genuinely hope the latter, but chances are, Jundroo is being lazy as they had always been.
Not as they are lazy, they just won't want to clean up the slightly messy code they had written before and instead write more mess to the pile called "simpleplanes".
I hope they can actually turn their head around and "enhance" a few original parts.
This is actually a bug!
TAS (as a variable for funky trees code you use to xml stuff) is not correctly returned when altitude is above 7500m (or something; it was working allright at sea level)
@Stupidman
Well, parts (if damaged sufficiently) explodes. This is true even to the legendary KSP.
Although, the amount of damage a exploding part exerts (on other parts next to it) is utterly ridiculous. Yes I struck the tail of my plane during take off. Maybe I got one or two blocks scraped off, right?
SP: Nope. You lost half of your plane. Because it explodes.
I like the new glass fuselage because it don't explode violently. (dude, these are fuselage blocks, NOT solid fuel or some nitrogen-containing compound like TNT)
@AndrewGarrison
"I will be thinking about how this can be improved in a future update."
Sadly, 5 years later and nothing happened.
Not a huge deal, though. We can live with part nudging and the newer attachment editor.
"Maybe those engines need to be more powerful?"
Yes and no.
"Maybe we need better supersonic drag simulation?"
Nothing should be able to fly at sea level at ... well, nevermind.
...
The reason is because we don't have a engine that draws a boost from speed (IAS).
Pulling the J-404 "Panther" Afterburning Turbofan from KSP as a example (which will be roughly equal to the 150KN jet we have in-game, based on stationary thrust)
...
Well, first of all, all jet engines have the same Isp in SP (at least, the difference is never told). This is highly unlikely and made things boring.
...
Secondly, none of the air intake (built-in in engines or independent) in SP draw a boost from IAS (and, again, sub-sonic, air-intake behavior should be linear. hypersonic require some ... alternative designs, but our ramp intake should do, as with Adjustable Ramp Intake). More air = more oxygen, which equal (roughly) to more thrust. At least, if the engine can use all of it up.
...
Thirdly, the engine curve in SP is linear. This is also highly unlikely, especially for a engine that specifically utilizes high-speed intake air (like any ramjet such as the J-X4 "Whiplash" Turbo Ramjet Engine), thrust at higher speed is significantly larger.
...
Fourth (if you really wanted to go that far), engines will fail to combust when the pressure is sufficiently low. This is independent of the amount of intake air: it simply cannot compress the thin air to a appropriate pressure to start a combustion with fuel. As a result engines flare out (from KSP data, it roughly happen at around 26000m). This is not simulated the in game, either.
...
Fifthly, I doubt the stock game can handle anything thar goes very fast (1500mph and upward). Supersonic require around 780 mph and at that point already the stock game start to handle it with issues.
...
So what do we get here?
1. No speed boost for engines
2. No air intake boost for air-intakes, engine's air demand is somewhat low (and unrealistic)
3. Engine have no speed boost (EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!)
Purchasing KSP is one of the best (at least, to me) moves I had made, from this position. Even if they (players of KSP) still think that "stock aero is nonsense", this aero is practically ...
Also, consider that KSP is actually a rocket game. This is a plane game, it should do better!
I assume you can borrow elements from SR2, but perhaps you hadn't introduced any of it yet. It's okay. Development of these things can be tough, but at least get to it.
I'm on the brink of quitting SP. Because all I see is just new features and parts added in, while most issues (and inconsistencies) we have with the parts we already have gets ignored.
Do I have to mention the abysmal torque of our "car engines"? Do I have to mention the ridiculous speed (where, smaller wheeled cars travel faster than larger wheeled cars) of the wheels?
KSP actually didn't even have wheels at the start. We didn't either. But when they added it in they had considered all this -- that tires could explode (quite literally) from a too-tough landing (which a engineer can repair), that the electric motors decrease in torque when the speed is higher, but have very large stationary torque.
The wheel suspension is also horrendous, but we can deal with it.
@LunchBox
I believe they are working correctly. Maybe crash tolerance is lower but ... I mean, it's glass.
They don't explode when they are destroyed either, which is nice.
And they have this "Terraria:pot" breaking sound when broken
@Jwpdaviesjr
Yes and no. The camera should not go below the surface but it do go down the surface from time to time.
Also observed in Kerbal Space Program.
@3To1
guys, this is here to post bugs, not suggestions or questions.
I believe most of the questions can (and will) be self-evident once the update rolls out.
@goboygo1
The palm trees had been stretching (being loaded) and shrinking (being unloaded) for very very long. It's probably not a bug.
Same apply to other things (grass, e.g.) and also in other games (world of tanks Blitz, mobile)
@Maxx2245
bug
Yes the start menu (essentially all places without a 3D rendering) is extremely choppy. I guess there's a issue with framerate limit not done proper.
Maybe turn off the double-finger gesture? It will be difficult (or straight-out impossible, because Apple is ####), though
@Tommytheplanes267
I remember once or twice, although it's ....
I don't care about them. Just like I don't care about my cockpit going into the ground (or "exploding") on a plane crash.
Tick-based physics miss collisions easily. This can be extremely frustrated for high-speed bombing (or just "bomb-shooting")
Anyway, so how are you going to solve the (potential case) with spawning in-ground? (like I save the location for Kraken but when I loaded the kraken is not up, so I ended up inside its ... well, surface.
@XP
It would be great, especially if it strengthen wing connections.
It might also be better if the wings are not rendered with square sizes (front and back). They could be rendered like round section of fuselages instead.
When you edit the shape of the wing (on iOS) you click on the "edit wing shape" button. Then the wing will be highlighted and everything else will be transparent.
Occasionally the camera won't move correctly. Going back and doing it again fixes it.
Also, for wing shape editor:
Especially for really large (or really small) wings (or panels, they are treated the same) the arrows that adjust their base width and tip width (or whatever you call it) isn't actuated by swiping up/down (parallel to the arrows). In fact it's more of a diagonal/perpendicular motion.
The fuselage still have a square collision even though they might appear round.
This fuselage issue .. are you going to fix them? Or will you just let it sit?
I bet it's not fixed yet. Noone cares.
@agnanSatrio
wing span of 275 meters ...
.-.
I was initially planning on building a non-mod plane that can carry anything that is smaller than the designer's circle, but your plane make that circle look like a ...
well, that microwave dish is bigger than that.
@PlaneFlightX
lol
But ... but I can see you fumbling around the trash interface of simpleplanes
Most ways to mod back at that time wasn't invented either.
Tell you what. I will give you a upvote, because the frontal shot look totally decent.
but the wings are just too forward.
@PlaneFlightX
Moderately adequate. I can't remember if the doors open (among other features)
I know the reason I did this (or that) is because I saw it (the model) sitting on my desk. so I just went ahead and made this.
@V
well maybe the strength or the whatever need cranking.
anyway this is quite a ... interesting novelty item that flies
(have it launch so it face upwards)
"Parents don't really understand the concept of a gaming community."
Whenever they SEE the WORD "game", they go mad at you even if you are like, grown up or stuff.
I was 19 and ... well, I grew to be sneaky and my parents grew to simply not care what I am doing.
I don't know. It's as if they expect you to be studying all the time.
But video games are pretty bad. And the stereotype for video games? CounterStrike. Stuff like Legends of Leagues (intentional. but isn't this name good too?). World of Tanks.
These are mildly violent (ESRB rating! not my opinion) and are heavy games with lots of involvement and excitement. Priority over boring math homework can easily be made by students.
(hear mom footstep)
Gimme a sec I'll pretend I am making my math cheatsheet
\cos^{2}{x}=\frac{1}{2}(1-\cos{2x}
ehh ... where are we?
Oh. Yes. Even as they educate you about "video games are bad", this is not even a typical video game. It actually let you "think" and expand creativity: How do you start a piston engine (in its dead state) without a starter?
I have been fiddling with this question as I come back to this game and focus on perpetual motion devices (that does not use a infinitely larger input).
There's articles out there that actually talk about parental distrust and stuff, and various parents also differ from each other (lol. parents ARE objects, after all. they are animated objects that talk and do stuff)
But if you ask any parents about whether they distrust their kid they usually say "no". Those articles (at least one of them) also claims that this distrust lie in their sub-conscious.
Anyway, I had burnt enough time on this.
\frac{dy}{dx}=\frac{r' \sin{\theta}+r\cos{\theta}}{r'\cos{\theta}-r\sin{\theta}}
"why do challenges with 36 upvotes and 478 downloads only have 9 entries?"
I am not sure where the 469 downloads went. Perhaps they never really started work, 10% of those that started work did nit finish it, and the 10% that finished it did not upload it.
Earlier yesterday I saw a 3.1K part passion build (built with android) and found its 150 upvotes ... impressive, but sad.
It's a GAME. And you paid for it. Then you work like a horse or something for four month to get that done. It's true that Simpleplanes allow you to export models now, so not all efforts are wasted.
I too had a passion build. And for me it's ... I don't even think it had more than 10 upvotes.
So now I no longer care about upvotes. But when I release hard-working builds (months and years, although discontinuous) they had all too often end up with zero upvotes, because one or more parts of them use outdated stuff (or whatever random excuse they come up. Ask any gold guy.)
Fuselage wings ... yeah, it's cool, but I don't have the time for that. Plus it's draggy and heavy.
So you then mod it so it's dragless & massless.
Why not just ... get Autodesk 123D (the free version of the legendary Autocad)? Why not Tinkercad? Librecad?
You will me making TRUE pieces of art and mechanic. You will say goodbye to the horrendous designer interface available. Plus, you often end up being able to 3D print it.
For me, the only reason to NOT switch is because I have bought it. Although it's not my money (I got $1.5K from high school scholarship). And time -- I don't have time for big builds or extended CAD sessions.
Right now there is this same swarm of people "ruining" Simplerockets 2 before it even got itself stabilized.
It's SIMPLE PLANES, DUDE. Not "artistic planes". Although we all kind of appreciate those sophisticated ones.
(as a matter of fact, more than one people is actually using outside tool to aid the construction of their crafts. Not mods -- entirely outside tools.)
What am I looking for here?
I've always been a mostly vanilla player, though some of the Funky Trees stuff got me interested -- it's what I call "enhanced vanilla".
Four years and I still didn't see the release of a double-side "block" rotator. I still see pistons with the same wobbly connection that it had years ago. Aerodynamics is nonsense. Car engine acceleration is ridiculous. Air intake still does not take airspeed into count. Still no overheating from friction. They had added useful parts are the small rotators, the gyro, the helicopter stuff, and the cannon, but they never made any part of existing items any better than ... well, 3, 4, or 5 years ago. The only fix I noticed, is from the "new" propeller engines -- 3 years ago it will break if you try to rotate it (by a rotator) while it is spinning. That is fixed.
The game is broken, dude. They just throw more parts at it and expect it to "become better". It haven't.
@DilophDilophTheDumDum
everyone should know the smallest (unmodded) plane is this one from me
"a horizontal net external force of 3.7N is applied to a box ..."
What?
Sorry. I was busy with work.
Yes, my plane is slightly wider, but it's shorter AND lower AND flies better. Not advertising, but ... why don't you guys know this?
I'm surprised to see that the entrees didn't have gyros equipped. They will provide so many assistance in flight characteristics of those oversized components ...
@PlaneFlightX
lol nobody replied
sadness :((
well, set engine activate group to 7.
You want a speed limiter I understand.
So you will evaluate if the current speed (use GS or TAS) is greater than ... say, 100 times the input of VTOL/Trim/Throttle. If it is greater than the value then 0, if not than 1.
This would be ... well, following:
@Fedegamer
uh oh. seems like this one was less popular ..
same exploding propeller issue. I know you had tried to make it realistic (like having a really tight shroud) but simpleplanes physics don't work this way.
@Fedegamer
The engine explodes ...
seems like one of the turboprop is too big.
(honestly, why turboprop? regular propeller engine have a smaller footprint too, and the old propeller engines have linear thrust)
It'd be more realistic if you use VTOL nozzles for the fuel injectors (rather than sneaking up a jet engine inside)
and ... why unlimited fuel. stick a unlimited fuel somewhere next to it is better (for people that actually want to use such a engine)
@lemoose
This is very great.
the PID input was very interesting, however unfortunately due to device limitations (or whatever) the aircraft can only yaw at a speed of about 0.3 deg / s and displayed stability issues during takeoff (and/or landing)
I'm not sure how you would do this (or how I would do this), so I'm not saying it's bad.
Simpleplanes cut too many corners.
want to use fuselage to make the entire plane wing-shaped?
this should be actually easy. Start out with two stripes (or three) of fuselage (oval shape, laid horizontally at the edges of the wings) then just "fill in" the gaps with rectangular fuselage.
But it's so black, most efforts used to do this would be efforts wasted. I can't even see the shape (of the engine and cockpit stuff) without changing the color palette.
@winterro
true, the leg suspension is pretty perfect
i wish the ... well, frequency of "walking" can be changed. perhaps the input will then be a function of time, vtol, and throttle
lol the getaway plane for Lord Lazzari
somewhat weird, but hey it's cool
@tominator
@methamanaerospace
@tsampoy
Here i found a link (to a site with picture of the rear end)
Nobody sees these because it's either shown flying or have that massive trail of fire (and smoke) lol
here
No need to thank me or anything. I need it too
@tsampoy
I never had figured it out if I had not tried to build a actual space shuttle in Kerbal Space Program.
If you did then it become extremely apparent because each if the space shuttle's main engines give you 900KN at sea level while the boosters only give some 1200 KN each (not at 100% throttle to prevent accelerating too fast and burning up in atmosphere)
In fact, exactly as my first few attempts in KSP (that, of course, went boom, lol) it immediately pitched down (it was at pitch 90, remember?) so hard.
Yep. you need to angle the thrusters. Look at the airflow deflecting plate, it's angled!
But its okay. It's rocket science lol
I don't know too much about the OMS (orbital maneuvering system, a.k.a smaller engines) though, but because it's on top of the shuttle I reason it should be similarly angled (maybe 10 degrees) to point roughly toward the center of mass (of the shuttle)
@PlaneFlightX
+1.-.
If it pleases you.
@QuickNils
+2Just download, undo and redo.
@RusTanker
Why not, we have actual "tank gun" part now lol right?
I do expect recoil, though ... "smoke trails" can't give you that.
@tsampoy
lol.
The reason it will never fly is because the boosters of the shuttle is at a wrong angle
If the solid rocket boosters got detached, the center of thrust will be off the center of mass (which will be between the tank and the plane) which will cause the entire thing to ... well, go under Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly.
Angle the Space shuttle's main engines 22.5 degrees (outward) should slightly improve this issue.
@tsampoy
lol
you'd get better off if you had used one of those spheres
@tsampoy
Did the real thing had no wheels?
You could just slap on some of this useless stuff called ... gears, or you can use frictionless hemispheres
@tsampoy
I don't know how this thing got to 89 upvotes.
None from me, sadly. I see no point in this.
But the can is nice tho
@tominator
Dude this is dope
I'm not too happy about the welding joints, so I reflowed them
here
@LUFTWAFFALES
yep it is
The values (e.g. 4000, 5000 and the like) are only roughly accurate for a supersonic ramjet. Depend on the application (the amount of thrust needed, and the altitude), these values can be easily modified.
Note:
I hold absolutely NO RESPONSIBILITY in decreased range and increased fuel comsumption of modified engines.
Those responsibility are yours, so don't come to me about how it crashes the game, too.
(It really shouldn't. I set hard limits for it, too)
@PlaneFlight
does 1 mph really matter?
I guess there's something that have to do with kmph and mph (or meter per second). or knots.
why, we are already trying desperately so simpleplanes physics would be less broken. it doesn't mean it isn't broken after the knicknacks to "fix" it
+1@PlaneFlightX
simple.
The syntax is (boolean expression) ? (value if true) : (value if false)
so you just nest these.
like (GS < 50)? (1):((GS < 75)? (0.5):(0))
so if GS is less than 50 it goes to the first part of the first ternary operator (which is 1). if speed is not less than 50 but smaller than 75 it goes 0.5. otherwise 0
Note that the GS is a absolute value (e.g. it wont be negative). To "reverse", you could catch the input of the VTOL to see if it's positive (or negative):
(VTOL >= 0) ? (do forward stuff) : (do reverse stuff)
To set the hard speed limit you can mod the wheels instead (there's a field called max angular momentum or something. default is 300 but for your vehicle maybe 125 is enough)
+1@PlaneFlightX
+1"Engine has the violently turning on and off problem when reaching set speed."
lol. That's the difficulty with bang-bang controls.
You could change the 0 and 1 part to include more ternary operators (on like, if the speed is greater than 75 then throttle down to 50 or something) to make the cut more gradual
@Suica
I basically clicked in because I saw the company "Rockwell".
They make a lot of plane and rockets parts and is inspiration for "Rockomax Conglomerate" which is pretty awesome
As much as I feel like the 700 part is a bit too much, I can't find a example (of a overuse of parts), so I guess it's "pretty good" on the scale.
+1Kudos.
@CRJ900Pilot
+1I genuinely hope the latter, but chances are, Jundroo is being lazy as they had always been.
Not as they are lazy, they just won't want to clean up the slightly messy code they had written before and instead write more mess to the pile called "simpleplanes".
I hope they can actually turn their head around and "enhance" a few original parts.
@AndrewGarrison
BUG
This is actually a bug!
TAS (as a variable for funky trees code you use to xml stuff) is not correctly returned when altitude is above 7500m (or something; it was working allright at sea level)
@Stupidman
Well, parts (if damaged sufficiently) explodes. This is true even to the legendary KSP.
Although, the amount of damage a exploding part exerts (on other parts next to it) is utterly ridiculous. Yes I struck the tail of my plane during take off. Maybe I got one or two blocks scraped off, right?
SP: Nope. You lost half of your plane. Because it explodes.
I like the new glass fuselage because it don't explode violently. (dude, these are fuselage blocks, NOT solid fuel or some nitrogen-containing compound like TNT)
+1@AquiliusEpic
Yes, the Mig 25 is supersonic. for 1920 ... mph? it goes to roughly mach 3.
@AndrewGarrison
I quite like this build. Simple but to the point. THIS is SimplePlanes spirit.
@AndrewGarrison
"I will be thinking about how this can be improved in a future update."
Sadly, 5 years later and nothing happened.
Not a huge deal, though. We can live with part nudging and the newer attachment editor.
"Maybe those engines need to be more powerful?"
Yes and no.
"Maybe we need better supersonic drag simulation?"
Nothing should be able to fly at sea level at ... well, nevermind.
...
The reason is because we don't have a engine that draws a boost from speed (IAS).
Pulling the J-404 "Panther" Afterburning Turbofan from KSP as a example (which will be roughly equal to the 150KN jet we have in-game, based on stationary thrust)
...
Well, first of all, all jet engines have the same Isp in SP (at least, the difference is never told). This is highly unlikely and made things boring.
...
Secondly, none of the air intake (built-in in engines or independent) in SP draw a boost from IAS (and, again, sub-sonic, air-intake behavior should be linear. hypersonic require some ... alternative designs, but our ramp intake should do, as with Adjustable Ramp Intake). More air = more oxygen, which equal (roughly) to more thrust. At least, if the engine can use all of it up.
...
Thirdly, the engine curve in SP is linear. This is also highly unlikely, especially for a engine that specifically utilizes high-speed intake air (like any ramjet such as the J-X4 "Whiplash" Turbo Ramjet Engine), thrust at higher speed is significantly larger.
...
Fourth (if you really wanted to go that far), engines will fail to combust when the pressure is sufficiently low. This is independent of the amount of intake air: it simply cannot compress the thin air to a appropriate pressure to start a combustion with fuel. As a result engines flare out (from KSP data, it roughly happen at around 26000m). This is not simulated the in game, either.
...
Fifthly, I doubt the stock game can handle anything thar goes very fast (1500mph and upward). Supersonic require around 780 mph and at that point already the stock game start to handle it with issues.
...
So what do we get here?
1. No speed boost for engines
2. No air intake boost for air-intakes, engine's air demand is somewhat low (and unrealistic)
3. Engine have no speed boost (EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!)
Purchasing KSP is one of the best (at least, to me) moves I had made, from this position. Even if they (players of KSP) still think that "stock aero is nonsense", this aero is practically ...
Also, consider that KSP is actually a rocket game. This is a plane game, it should do better!
I assume you can borrow elements from SR2, but perhaps you hadn't introduced any of it yet. It's okay. Development of these things can be tough, but at least get to it.
I'm on the brink of quitting SP. Because all I see is just new features and parts added in, while most issues (and inconsistencies) we have with the parts we already have gets ignored.
+3Do I have to mention the abysmal torque of our "car engines"? Do I have to mention the ridiculous speed (where, smaller wheeled cars travel faster than larger wheeled cars) of the wheels?
KSP actually didn't even have wheels at the start. We didn't either. But when they added it in they had considered all this -- that tires could explode (quite literally) from a too-tough landing (which a engineer can repair), that the electric motors decrease in torque when the speed is higher, but have very large stationary torque.
The wheel suspension is also horrendous, but we can deal with it.
@LunchBox
I believe they are working correctly. Maybe crash tolerance is lower but ... I mean, it's glass.
They don't explode when they are destroyed either, which is nice.
And they have this "Terraria:pot" breaking sound when broken
@Jwpdaviesjr
+1Yes and no. The camera should not go below the surface but it do go down the surface from time to time.
Also observed in Kerbal Space Program.
@3To1
+1guys, this is here to post bugs, not suggestions or questions.
I believe most of the questions can (and will) be self-evident once the update rolls out.
@goboygo1
The palm trees had been stretching (being loaded) and shrinking (being unloaded) for very very long. It's probably not a bug.
Same apply to other things (grass, e.g.) and also in other games (world of tanks Blitz, mobile)
@Maxx2245
bug
Yes the start menu (essentially all places without a 3D rendering) is extremely choppy. I guess there's a issue with framerate limit not done proper.
Maybe turn off the double-finger gesture? It will be difficult (or straight-out impossible, because Apple is ####), though
@Tommytheplanes267
I remember once or twice, although it's ....
I don't care about them. Just like I don't care about my cockpit going into the ground (or "exploding") on a plane crash.
Tick-based physics miss collisions easily. This can be extremely frustrated for high-speed bombing (or just "bomb-shooting")
Anyway, so how are you going to solve the (potential case) with spawning in-ground? (like I save the location for Kraken but when I loaded the kraken is not up, so I ended up inside its ... well, surface.
+1@XP
It would be great, especially if it strengthen wing connections.
It might also be better if the wings are not rendered with square sizes (front and back). They could be rendered like round section of fuselages instead.
The ... well.
bug
When you edit the shape of the wing (on iOS) you click on the "edit wing shape" button. Then the wing will be highlighted and everything else will be transparent.
Occasionally the camera won't move correctly. Going back and doing it again fixes it.
Also, for wing shape editor:
Especially for really large (or really small) wings (or panels, they are treated the same) the arrows that adjust their base width and tip width (or whatever you call it) isn't actuated by swiping up/down (parallel to the arrows). In fact it's more of a diagonal/perpendicular motion.
The fuselage still have a square collision even though they might appear round.
+2This fuselage issue .. are you going to fix them? Or will you just let it sit?
I bet it's not fixed yet. Noone cares.
@agnanSatrio
wing span of 275 meters ...
.-.
I was initially planning on building a non-mod plane that can carry anything that is smaller than the designer's circle, but your plane make that circle look like a ...
well, that microwave dish is bigger than that.
@BagelPlane
lol
@PlaneFlightX
+1lol
But ... but I can see you fumbling around the trash interface of simpleplanes
Most ways to mod back at that time wasn't invented either.
Tell you what. I will give you a upvote, because the frontal shot look totally decent.
but the wings are just too forward.
@PlaneFlightX
+1Moderately adequate. I can't remember if the doors open (among other features)
I know the reason I did this (or that) is because I saw it (the model) sitting on my desk. so I just went ahead and made this.
@V
well maybe the strength or the whatever need cranking.
anyway this is quite a ... interesting novelty item that flies
(have it launch so it face upwards)
"Parents don't really understand the concept of a gaming community."
Whenever they SEE the WORD "game", they go mad at you even if you are like, grown up or stuff.
I was 19 and ... well, I grew to be sneaky and my parents grew to simply not care what I am doing.
I don't know. It's as if they expect you to be studying all the time.
But video games are pretty bad. And the stereotype for video games? CounterStrike. Stuff like Legends of Leagues (intentional. but isn't this name good too?). World of Tanks.
These are mildly violent (ESRB rating! not my opinion) and are heavy games with lots of involvement and excitement. Priority over boring math homework can easily be made by students.
(hear mom footstep)
Gimme a sec I'll pretend I am making my math cheatsheet
\cos^{2}{x}=\frac{1}{2}(1-\cos{2x}
ehh ... where are we?
Oh. Yes. Even as they educate you about "video games are bad", this is not even a typical video game. It actually let you "think" and expand creativity: How do you start a piston engine (in its dead state) without a starter?
I have been fiddling with this question as I come back to this game and focus on perpetual motion devices (that does not use a infinitely larger input).
There's articles out there that actually talk about parental distrust and stuff, and various parents also differ from each other (lol. parents ARE objects, after all. they are animated objects that talk and do stuff)
But if you ask any parents about whether they distrust their kid they usually say "no". Those articles (at least one of them) also claims that this distrust lie in their sub-conscious.
Anyway, I had burnt enough time on this.
\frac{dy}{dx}=\frac{r' \sin{\theta}+r\cos{\theta}}{r'\cos{\theta}-r\sin{\theta}}
"why do challenges with 36 upvotes and 478 downloads only have 9 entries?"
I am not sure where the 469 downloads went. Perhaps they never really started work, 10% of those that started work did nit finish it, and the 10% that finished it did not upload it.
@APilotOfPlanes
You are not alone.
Earlier yesterday I saw a 3.1K part passion build (built with android) and found its 150 upvotes ... impressive, but sad.
It's a GAME. And you paid for it. Then you work like a horse or something for four month to get that done. It's true that Simpleplanes allow you to export models now, so not all efforts are wasted.
I too had a passion build. And for me it's ... I don't even think it had more than 10 upvotes.
So now I no longer care about upvotes. But when I release hard-working builds (months and years, although discontinuous) they had all too often end up with zero upvotes, because one or more parts of them use outdated stuff (or whatever random excuse they come up. Ask any gold guy.)
Fuselage wings ... yeah, it's cool, but I don't have the time for that. Plus it's draggy and heavy.
So you then mod it so it's dragless & massless.
Why not just ... get Autodesk 123D (the free version of the legendary Autocad)? Why not Tinkercad? Librecad?
You will me making TRUE pieces of art and mechanic. You will say goodbye to the horrendous designer interface available. Plus, you often end up being able to 3D print it.
For me, the only reason to NOT switch is because I have bought it. Although it's not my money (I got $1.5K from high school scholarship). And time -- I don't have time for big builds or extended CAD sessions.
Right now there is this same swarm of people "ruining" Simplerockets 2 before it even got itself stabilized.
It's SIMPLE PLANES, DUDE. Not "artistic planes". Although we all kind of appreciate those sophisticated ones.
(as a matter of fact, more than one people is actually using outside tool to aid the construction of their crafts. Not mods -- entirely outside tools.)
What am I looking for here?
I've always been a mostly vanilla player, though some of the Funky Trees stuff got me interested -- it's what I call "enhanced vanilla".
Four years and I still didn't see the release of a double-side "block" rotator. I still see pistons with the same wobbly connection that it had years ago. Aerodynamics is nonsense. Car engine acceleration is ridiculous. Air intake still does not take airspeed into count. Still no overheating from friction. They had added useful parts are the small rotators, the gyro, the helicopter stuff, and the cannon, but they never made any part of existing items any better than ... well, 3, 4, or 5 years ago. The only fix I noticed, is from the "new" propeller engines -- 3 years ago it will break if you try to rotate it (by a rotator) while it is spinning. That is fixed.
+1The game is broken, dude. They just throw more parts at it and expect it to "become better". It haven't.
@Shemes213
cute. I like it.
Dude that's some advanced use of fuselage blocks. That is very nice ...
@Shemes213
this is very very beautiful. From the pics, at least.
@SledDriver
High speed flight characteristic is pretty decent.
For that, I will give my share of upvote.
How come do is this module weigh 20 tons?!
@V
lmao
you could totally slap a gyro on it tho :p
@DilophDilophTheDumDum
everyone should know the smallest (unmodded) plane is this one from me
"a horizontal net external force of 3.7N is applied to a box ..."
What?
Sorry. I was busy with work.
Yes, my plane is slightly wider, but it's shorter AND lower AND flies better. Not advertising, but ... why don't you guys know this?
I'm surprised to see that the entrees didn't have gyros equipped. They will provide so many assistance in flight characteristics of those oversized components ...
@PlaneFlightX
lol nobody replied
sadness :((
well, set engine activate group to 7.
You want a speed limiter I understand.
So you will evaluate if the current speed (use GS or TAS) is greater than ... say, 100 times the input of VTOL/Trim/Throttle. If it is greater than the value then 0, if not than 1.
This would be ... well, following:
((100 * VTOL) > GS)?1:0
+1Clearly I am late to this game
It's almost equivalent to programming, except when I can't add variables.
Is there a way to get the current value of the input?
@MTBCrafter
I'm glad you got a job.
@Fedgamer
+1lol you just can't do one without vertical stabilizers right?
Games broken trust me I know
See that one and this and this one
@Fedegamer
uh oh. seems like this one was less popular ..
same exploding propeller issue. I know you had tried to make it realistic (like having a really tight shroud) but simpleplanes physics don't work this way.
@Fedegamer
The engine explodes ...
seems like one of the turboprop is too big.
(honestly, why turboprop? regular propeller engine have a smaller footprint too, and the old propeller engines have linear thrust)
It'd be more realistic if you use VTOL nozzles for the fuel injectors (rather than sneaking up a jet engine inside)
and ... why unlimited fuel. stick a unlimited fuel somewhere next to it is better (for people that actually want to use such a engine)
@lemoose
This is very great.
the PID input was very interesting, however unfortunately due to device limitations (or whatever) the aircraft can only yaw at a speed of about 0.3 deg / s and displayed stability issues during takeoff (and/or landing)
I'm not sure how you would do this (or how I would do this), so I'm not saying it's bad.
Simpleplanes cut too many corners.
want to use fuselage to make the entire plane wing-shaped?
this should be actually easy. Start out with two stripes (or three) of fuselage (oval shape, laid horizontally at the edges of the wings) then just "fill in" the gaps with rectangular fuselage.
But it's so black, most efforts used to do this would be efforts wasted. I can't even see the shape (of the engine and cockpit stuff) without changing the color palette.
@scratch
why spend that much time with a car/truck
just strap on a bunch of wheels (like a armored personal carrier) and roll it. it wont tip, too
@winterro
true, the leg suspension is pretty perfect
i wish the ... well, frequency of "walking" can be changed. perhaps the input will then be a function of time, vtol, and throttle