@TheGreatToad
Yes, but obviously no improvements had taken place.
Well, there are some slight improvements, but mostly just new parts with no changes to core game mechanics to either be more realistic or be more performant. To say we have a new aero engine would be a false statement.
I'm writing this here because 6.3 years ago, the developer thought "hmm this does not seem right. Something is probably wrong here" and he gave suggestions such as "more powerful engines" and "more realistic drag/aero". However, during this 6.3 years, we do not have "more powerful engines" and we do not have "more realistic drag/aero". What we have is a bunch of new crap that doesn't work very well.
However, to say that they didn't do anything would be a understatement. They released SimpleRockets 2, which sounds promising, however it's a separate app and it costs quite a handful
@haidebiany
2 years ago, when "hacky" things did not exist yet, you created this. No gyro, no VTOL engine's help, just the propeller engine. Technical marvel.
woah woah woah this topic is getting quite hot actually. not expecting it.
@SnoWFLakE0s
Fantastic work on documentation. I will read it.
Ha. There is a typo on "list of variables". The GS entry have the "the" typed wrong.
Wait. Brake is a boolean value? What the $#&*
@jamesPLANESii
That's interesting. I was wondering what the variable tabs are for.
It's a bit like in CAD where you can create your own labels and variables and use them in your designs (in case say you need to scale a part)
@WormWithLegs
I understand there are a wheel rpm limit. That's something visible in the "part editor" where you can specify the maxwheelrpm. Obviously there are code associated with it, just as it's obvious car engines have a rpm variable.
__
Yes. We have the "brake" .. wait.
Yes, we have the brake input as a variable (so we have gauges and stuff pre-cockpit update, good job dev) but ew never actually have a part that has a brake with a "brake" input field where you can input the control for braking (e.g. you might want a parking brake you can engage while you are revving up the jets), except airbrakes.
That will actually be very cool. Just like old Cessna you can now brake your plane wheels no matter what else it is doing. Heck we even have these new VR handles and switches.
So far limiting wheel rpm the only way I have found to limit the speed of a ground vehicle (if you want something slow but powerful, like a tank or a truck)
I overheard a conversation about people modding engines to include "power multiplier" and max power (if that's the case) and how it affects engines. I know it affects Jet engines, but I also heard discussions on car engines yet I cannot find them
@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.
Also, regarding prop rpm:
What will happen if I have multiple propeller engines? There is no way to select which propeller rpm it is. I would assume it's the last prop engine you put on the plane that counts.
What about multiple car engines for that sake?
@Vastalen
The physics of the game just isn't accurate enough to handle things like that.
I think you will be better off with spheres (or hemispheres) with large friction values (and some mechanism to maintain contact between the two).
And, well, you know how the game treat all fuselage (no matter the edges) as cubes.
@NightmareCorporation
Imaging seeing someone driving this around in multiplayer ...
I mean it handles okay, so a ground trip from Yeager to Bandit won't be too hard...
Well, depend on how many people (you) are (being) chased (chase) wt
Not exemplary. but some decent effort.
Welcome to the edge of the rabbit hole. Grab your beginning points and perhaps get ready to dump a load of time on your future aircraft. Or vehicle. Or watercraft. Or spacecraft.
@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.
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.
@UwU
Well I hadn't been split finger by any lego pieces. Their plastic wrapping, maybe. Or just improper scissor usage.
Ah, the good old days ..
I like this build. Lego style, but not overdone.
Does it have the Lego letters on the ...
Nah, it didn't. Counterfeit lego pieces ...
Just kidding. Very very good job. Bravo!
lol. too true.
probably because the spawn had to be as big as Wright (or north runway) otherwise it would run into buildings and stuff.
Let's try this again ...
@duanyu7373
Don't worry about it.
@BogdanX
I am not too surprised to see it wildly off the scale. It's extremely difficult to make things tiny in Simpleplanes (beside scaling, and even that the attachments mess up).
I had kind of gave up on my builds, although I admit they are "cute" and they "drive nice".
@MethaManAircraft
Because you mentioned about pistons that started half way ...
can't you stack pistons? (like, one extended on top of one retracted)
this way, if you want to retract you retract the first one, and when you want to extend you extend the last one.
It's doable with inputs that have negative values (eg. yaw, pitch, VTOL, Trim) but throttle ... you may need some modding.
@lllKenlll
When the runway is not big enough ...
Let's make it land on the sea! That is big enough!
And that pushed them to make huge flying structures ...
I fly it on my iPad. Everything LOW, except Terrain and Physics, which are set to HIGH.
Yes that the landing gear is not to be as far back as possible.
BUT there are planes that do have landing gear very far behind.
And that only work with planes that are horizontal when standing on the wheels-taildraggers are another story.
@Gestour
No need. If I upvote something it means it is good, and I like it.
It is not a "I-help-you-by-giving-you-15-points"
It is "I like it" and "get more things like that here to reseive ore upvotes"
So no need to thank me.
@ThePrototype My friend have a RC plane at school that look similar, and that can fly at a slow biking pace (6mph)
Ah, cockpit blocks. They are fairly light, that's sure.
They however have more drag...
Update:
From simple guidance in Discord I am able to locate (and extract) engine RPMs. However they are of little use because they are directly tied to wheel speed (and doesn't idle) and thus does not reflect the actual power output.
The game's even worse than I had thought.
You can do a university-level project just by building one of this out. Then you can write and publish a worthwhile article by bragging about it.
Remote-control bird anyone? N-20 motors are quite versatile. Battery may be heavy but at least we have plastic.
@UltraLight
This is very decent.
And, I mean, only 200 parts. This is good.
And, perhaps, a reminder that we really shouldn't be building highly detailed cars ...
@Cyan "@MtecCommand do you see now? this person is not rawr495"
Nope. I'm not.
"spooked when us gold gangstas ganged up on him"
lol. It's true that I'm not gold yet. So you are gonna help me get there, right?
@lilgreen06
As much as I would like to, I have studies to do. Otherwise I will probably be making a mod or some sort already.
The changes I mentioned wouldn't even take half a year provided I am given the ability to work on it. It's just altering the simple mathematic functions that totals the thrust of the engines (effectively that).
Although, according to my suggestions, we will be adding a function (that take per intake part) and calculate the amount of air going into it (and adding it up to the engine), but it's only one function. It's a small thing and isn't difficult.
And hey we aren't even making it real. We are just making it less fake. It don't need to be even close to real. But it shall be closer than what we had right now.
Instead of the current function (which I happened to somewhat reverse-engineer with my afterburning engines), we can just add tweaks (much like the functions I provide) and the game will be "better".
They had already done the hard work of rendering and making everything work in 3D. The rest (especially part stats tweaking) is easy stuff.
As easy as your XML modding, in fact.
And look, we had non-exploding blocks here already, right?
Just re-use the code. Or simply reduce the damage number. It don't even require changes in existing code (just a static value)
I can understand things because I WROTE GAMES MYSELF. Even though they are very simple ones with 2D graphics they still feature calculations.
And no, I didn't wrote them in python. I wrote them in C.
Developers such as him should be more concerned about this than I do. I am merely pointing them out the flaws so they can consider improving those instead of scratching their head thinking about what next cool (and not-very-useful) part they add.
I can just quit and turn to KSP (which I in fact already own), why can't I?
I'm merely giving detailed suggestions here, since he thought the inability for the mig to hit 1920 mph is "something to think about".
In fact, that's perhaps the only reason I posted this here.
The reason I colored the central shaft black is because that one is the drive shaft (which connects from the central power distribution hub to the rear and front axle)
The reason I did not color much of the other parts is because I am lazy :P
And the reason I actually did not recommend people meddling with the "big muscle" (and instead you should try the un-lengthened "muscle") is because it's lengthened (and hence the dimensions incorrect)
The Mustang, being a American car, also should have a extruding bumper (as part of the 5mph collision requirement). That's what that make your front end rather ... flat.
The rear end should have those taillight stripes (three stripes of red light on each side) and a round silver badge
The color scheme was fine, but I would appreciate if you can find out a way to give it a floorpad (that is, a floorpad that does not collide with much of the suspension travel)
Just go use the original structure by linking back the loops of the autocredit.
@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.
@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)
@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.
@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.
@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.
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.
@TheGreatToad
Yes, but obviously no improvements had taken place.
Well, there are some slight improvements, but mostly just new parts with no changes to core game mechanics to either be more realistic or be more performant. To say we have a new aero engine would be a false statement.
I'm writing this here because 6.3 years ago, the developer thought "hmm this does not seem right. Something is probably wrong here" and he gave suggestions such as "more powerful engines" and "more realistic drag/aero". However, during this 6.3 years, we do not have "more powerful engines" and we do not have "more realistic drag/aero". What we have is a bunch of new crap that doesn't work very well.
However, to say that they didn't do anything would be a understatement. They released SimpleRockets 2, which sounds promising, however it's a separate app and it costs quite a handful
+6Nice arcade game.
+4AND, exactly 500 parts!
@haidebiany
+42 years ago, when "hacky" things did not exist yet, you created this. No gyro, no VTOL engine's help, just the propeller engine. Technical marvel.
woah woah woah this topic is getting quite hot actually. not expecting it.
@SnoWFLakE0s
Fantastic work on documentation. I will read it.
Ha. There is a typo on "list of variables". The GS entry have the "the" typed wrong.
Wait. Brake is a boolean value? What the $#&*
@jamesPLANESii
That's interesting. I was wondering what the variable tabs are for.
It's a bit like in CAD where you can create your own labels and variables and use them in your designs (in case say you need to scale a part)
@WormWithLegs
I understand there are a wheel rpm limit. That's something visible in the "part editor" where you can specify the maxwheelrpm. Obviously there are code associated with it, just as it's obvious car engines have a rpm variable.
__
Yes. We have the "brake" .. wait.
Yes, we have the brake input as a variable (so we have gauges and stuff pre-cockpit update, good job dev) but ew never actually have a part that has a brake with a "brake" input field where you can input the control for braking (e.g. you might want a parking brake you can engage while you are revving up the jets), except airbrakes.
That will actually be very cool. Just like old Cessna you can now brake your plane wheels no matter what else it is doing. Heck we even have these new VR handles and switches.
So far limiting wheel rpm the only way I have found to limit the speed of a ground vehicle (if you want something slow but powerful, like a tank or a truck)
+3I overheard a conversation about people modding engines to include "power multiplier" and max power (if that's the case) and how it affects engines. I know it affects Jet engines, but I also heard discussions on car engines yet I cannot find them
@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.
@chancey21
+3Das torpedo ist gute genug
That torpedo is good enough
German have a little problem in their brain-going a this rather than building more Tigers.
+3Also, regarding prop rpm:
+2What will happen if I have multiple propeller engines? There is no way to select which propeller rpm it is. I would assume it's the last prop engine you put on the plane that counts.
What about multiple car engines for that sake?
@Vastalen
+2The physics of the game just isn't accurate enough to handle things like that.
I think you will be better off with spheres (or hemispheres) with large friction values (and some mechanism to maintain contact between the two).
And, well, you know how the game treat all fuselage (no matter the edges) as cubes.
@NightmareCorporation
Imaging seeing someone driving this around in multiplayer ...
I mean it handles okay, so a ground trip from Yeager to Bandit won't be too hard...
+2Well, depend on how many people (you) are (being) chased (chase) wt
Not exemplary. but some decent effort.
+2Welcome to the edge of the rabbit hole. Grab your beginning points and perhaps get ready to dump a load of time on your future aircraft. Or vehicle. Or watercraft. Or spacecraft.
@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.
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.
@UwU
+2Well I hadn't been split finger by any lego pieces. Their plastic wrapping, maybe. Or just improper scissor usage.
Ah, the good old days ..
I like this build. Lego style, but not overdone.
Does it have the Lego letters on the ...
Nah, it didn't. Counterfeit lego pieces ...
Just kidding. Very very good job. Bravo!
@SpicyViper
Only 419 parts pfft it’ll run smoothly
Edit: loads build and game crashes
lol. too true.
+2probably because the spawn had to be as big as Wright (or north runway) otherwise it would run into buildings and stuff.
Let's try this again ...
@duanyu7373
+2Don't worry about it.
@BogdanX
I am not too surprised to see it wildly off the scale. It's extremely difficult to make things tiny in Simpleplanes (beside scaling, and even that the attachments mess up).
I had kind of gave up on my builds, although I admit they are "cute" and they "drive nice".
@MethaManAircraft
+2Because you mentioned about pistons that started half way ...
can't you stack pistons? (like, one extended on top of one retracted)
this way, if you want to retract you retract the first one, and when you want to extend you extend the last one.
It's doable with inputs that have negative values (eg. yaw, pitch, VTOL, Trim) but throttle ... you may need some modding.
@lllKenlll
+2When the runway is not big enough ...
Let's make it land on the sea! That is big enough!
And that pushed them to make huge flying structures ...
I fly it on my iPad. Everything LOW, except Terrain and Physics, which are set to HIGH.
Yes that the landing gear is not to be as far back as possible.
+2BUT there are planes that do have landing gear very far behind.
And that only work with planes that are horizontal when standing on the wheels-taildraggers are another story.
@Gestour
+2No need. If I upvote something it means it is good, and I like it.
It is not a "I-help-you-by-giving-you-15-points"
It is "I like it" and "get more things like that here to reseive ore upvotes"
So no need to thank me.
@haidebiany
+2You do know that you can BUY one at the local Apple Store for LESS THAN 125 USD right?
@ThePrototype My friend have a RC plane at school that look similar, and that can fly at a slow biking pace (6mph)
+2Ah, cockpit blocks. They are fairly light, that's sure.
They however have more drag...
Update:
+1From simple guidance in Discord I am able to locate (and extract) engine RPMs. However they are of little use because they are directly tied to wheel speed (and doesn't idle) and thus does not reflect the actual power output.
The game's even worse than I had thought.
@bityu
+1It's not necessary the look that matters. Although, few of the few care about handling, too.
Quite a lineup.
I had a upload using regular pistons to power the wheels, but it gets janky.
You can use the wheels on my vehicle, if you like.
The input for the rotators can also simply be a set of ternary operator like the following:
(Trim < 0) ? (-0.5) : ( (Trim >0) ? 0.5 : 0 )
+1I used 0.5 here because if you max out Trim it will be rather janky.
You can do a university-level project just by building one of this out. Then you can write and publish a worthwhile article by bragging about it.
+1Remote-control bird anyone? N-20 motors are quite versatile. Battery may be heavy but at least we have plastic.
If we remove all the reference whatsoever, this is a pretty handsome guy in the flying suit.
+1@UgandaKnuckles
+1I am.
@UltraLight
+1This is very decent.
And, I mean, only 200 parts. This is good.
And, perhaps, a reminder that we really shouldn't be building highly detailed cars ...
@DEN12345
+1I refuse to mod things, so the smallest (and simplest) wheel possible is a rotator attached this way
@Cyan "@MtecCommand do you see now? this person is not rawr495"
+1Nope. I'm not.
"spooked when us gold gangstas ganged up on him"
lol. It's true that I'm not gold yet. So you are gonna help me get there, right?
@airlinerbuilder
+1It'll have plenty of difficulty taking off and landing, but at Yeager I bet it's doable
@MtecCommand
Listen, if you continue to assume me to be another user, then you can continue to do so. I wouldn't care about it.
If you really think I have no leverage just block me why spend half a dozen post polluting someone else's post
+1@MtecCommand blocked.
@KangaKangaTheRoo
true, but aren't these two different things?
Edit: changed name
+1@lilgreen06
As much as I would like to, I have studies to do. Otherwise I will probably be making a mod or some sort already.
The changes I mentioned wouldn't even take half a year provided I am given the ability to work on it. It's just altering the simple mathematic functions that totals the thrust of the engines (effectively that).
Although, according to my suggestions, we will be adding a function (that take per intake part) and calculate the amount of air going into it (and adding it up to the engine), but it's only one function. It's a small thing and isn't difficult.
And hey we aren't even making it real. We are just making it less fake. It don't need to be even close to real. But it shall be closer than what we had right now.
Instead of the current function (which I happened to somewhat reverse-engineer with my afterburning engines), we can just add tweaks (much like the functions I provide) and the game will be "better".
They had already done the hard work of rendering and making everything work in 3D. The rest (especially part stats tweaking) is easy stuff.
As easy as your XML modding, in fact.
And look, we had non-exploding blocks here already, right?
Just re-use the code. Or simply reduce the damage number. It don't even require changes in existing code (just a static value)
I can understand things because I WROTE GAMES MYSELF. Even though they are very simple ones with 2D graphics they still feature calculations.
And no, I didn't wrote them in python. I wrote them in C.
Developers such as him should be more concerned about this than I do. I am merely pointing them out the flaws so they can consider improving those instead of scratching their head thinking about what next cool (and not-very-useful) part they add.
I can just quit and turn to KSP (which I in fact already own), why can't I?
+1I'm merely giving detailed suggestions here, since he thought the inability for the mig to hit 1920 mph is "something to think about".
In fact, that's perhaps the only reason I posted this here.
wow
No it didn't break the law of physics. It's just perfectly elastic collisions
+1The reason I colored the central shaft black is because that one is the drive shaft (which connects from the central power distribution hub to the rear and front axle)
+1The reason I did not color much of the other parts is because I am lazy :P
And the reason I actually did not recommend people meddling with the "big muscle" (and instead you should try the un-lengthened "muscle") is because it's lengthened (and hence the dimensions incorrect)
The Mustang, being a American car, also should have a extruding bumper (as part of the 5mph collision requirement). That's what that make your front end rather ... flat.
The rear end should have those taillight stripes (three stripes of red light on each side) and a round silver badge
The color scheme was fine, but I would appreciate if you can find out a way to give it a floorpad (that is, a floorpad that does not collide with much of the suspension travel)
Just go use the original structure by linking back the loops of the autocredit.
@PlaneFlightX
+1.-.
If it pleases you.
@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.
@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@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.
@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@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.
@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.