@Pizzaschnitzel
Actually, since you can mod guns ...
why not just make a gun that shoot insanely wide bullets directly upward (with, say, a bullet shell life of 0.1s)?
There could be better ways for rotating it (e.g. mod the input of rotator to "fireguns"), but man this is ... this is spectacular
I doubt I will call it "radar", though. it's more of a rotating blade of death
@AndrePlaysSP
"since the jets there, as you go faster"
Well ...
there's different kinds of jets. Airliner jets (high-bypass turbofan) and military non-afterburning jets (low-bypass turbofan) behave more linearly and, in the case of hi-bypass jets, can't exceed 0.9 mach.
low-bypass can reached past 1 mach but they quickly loose efficiency (or thrust).
Only the ones with afterburner will have similar effects, and yet they will also be capped at a certain speed.
My function here actually had the value capped by TAS too. It's just because simpleplanes' atmosphere model is crazy beyond 10KM, the throttle is multiplied too much so the jet seem to responds slowly.
But I believe that the TAS value (retrieved via "TAS" from funky trees) above 15KM is also unreliable (and value tend to go too big), so I just throw together the most practical formula I can and called it a day.
I hadn't had SP2 yet; I have little reason to ask for one, too, since I am having some decent fun building vehicles in SP and low-altitude aircrafts.
I could ask for more, but now that I don't -- I simply avoid it.
It's also disappointing to see Jundroo implementing this "feature" in newer software where they could clearly update their old one. Perhaps they want more cash, I don't know. I feel like this is unfair so I started shouting at different places.
@cyan
initially it was a "attempt" at figuring out a actual suspension scheme robustly enough to make my overtly-ambitious plan of making a scaled lego 42009 from 5mm thick aluminum sheets (with parts made from cnc the 5mm sheets) because I can't afford the steep price.
Being so large a project, it simply got put on the shelf and I forgot about it.
This would most closely mimic what later on became a crude (albeit, very Simpleplanes) model of my 1:28 RC drift car I bought myself for my birthday.
it looked like one of these, but it had a fully cnc machined aluminum chassis and a beefier motor (and a different case), and a standard two-stick "aerial" transmitter as I don't want to spend more cash so I used my existing T8fb set rather than the car-focused "trigger and wheel" type.
!kyosho 66602 rc car
somehow i can't put images, so yeah you got to click on that
@Cyan
If you really enjoyed the build, well, then feel free to upvote it.
If you are upvoting for the sake of upvoting, please, stop.
You gave me 500 points. Wow.
At least, don't make me become gold until I finish the build to celebrate me becoming a golden member, okay?
do me that favor. thank you.
@AirCorp
"it always launches itself up in the air so I will say 4/10 performance."
Well, this car is tricky to steer, but I intentionally beefed up the power for the jets (and removed the speed limit for the wheels) so it CAN break the land record (just barely)
To do that, first enable slow motion. Then GENTLY pitch up (car engine pitch is the upper right gauge). recommend 20%
Then you can thrust up the jets as they are above the COM so they push the craft down anyway
Then when the speed is at least 300 mph (somewhere around that), you can floor the gas pedal.
Steer extremely carefully. A sedan like this one should not even attempt to go to sonic speed.
If you really wanted speedy stability, I had a "equation" formula one that can beat the grand prix in 45 seconds (or something like that). Strap jet engines to that and you'll get seriously fast and stable. But that one had a bit too much downforce and isn't as redneck, so that's why I insisted to make this to be able to beat the "max ground speed".
It really did, trust me.
Thank you, if you really think this is impressive. I believe other paint schemes works too (to a certain extent), so that's why I used a default palette.
@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?
This illustrate how SP physics is broken
You can't exceed speed of sound with that high-bypass turbofan it will get shattered to pieces
But SP don't care
@SmSmThe10684
Talk about supersonic speeds at corner racing ...
lol. Not today. Maybe by the time we had actual flying cars we might be able to talk about it
hall effect thrusters? That's a good start.
@Nickil0212
one of my favorites.
This one looked like the U.S. version with more protruding bumpers (for the 5mph test in U.S.)
Wish I could make some cool stuff like this ...
actually somewhat acceptable, even though the 1960 era didn't see the introduction of a rear spoiler to provide downforce; the concept isn't there yet
Okay they had the spoiler but can we get to that later? Focus on getting a decent fuselage-block-based vehicle body first
here is a image to get started
Vast improvement. Cockpit no longer leaks pilot (though it still leaks air). Flight characteristics is decent
Move the wing gears in (for a bit) and it will be even better. Also enable steering for the trailing landing gear for ground steering
@Spitfire12
I know the M1 was (which is also a wonderful car) but I didn't went ahead to make that.
I should probably find a time for it. But not until I finish these physics problems first ...
@AWESOMENESS360
really, i would prefer the yeet to be inside (so as to have bottom texture)
But it doesn't matter that much.
and it's both 3d games lol why 2d graphics
@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.
@nomalnormaltheman
says a user that didn't even post anything genuinely theirs.
Shhh, please. I'm just making my suggestions.
@BRRRT
Glad you helped. Unfortunately it doesn't help much.
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.
@DEN12345
lol
ignore the caliber of the in-game cannon, it doesn't factor in wall thickness
Yeah I think the wall (of the cannon) is like 1mm thick
Or maybe this game is just nonsense. That jackhammer they provided seem to be holding a 105mm (by the scale) and seems like it's not too far off u know
@MrEarth
You could just scale those "large landing gear" up and nudge them into fuselage. they come with their own gear doors.
SimplePlanes isn't really ... you CAN do it, and the result might be good, but the game is not designed with the intention of people building these stuff.
You can disprove me, but it's mostly self-evident.
The tutorial I guess was fine. But remember the power curve (number of advanced users versus average user)
The graph is similar to a 1 / x. Sadly.
@DEN12345
I think you can actually squeeze the 122mm D-2-5T into the chassis (and you had it, the su-122, su-122-54, etc although the gun mount have to be altered)
The 152mms such as BL-10 and BL-20 will need a bigger chassis (Su-152), though
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.
@MageMobius
look at your points.
it says "7,777"
I was going to upvote but I would ruin that number wouldn't I?
You said that this is "unrealistic".
Well, from the side view it looked kinda okay. maybe a bit tall, but perhaps it's a bit too narrow?
And yes, I was thinking whether I should use this suspension (with two pistons) but clearly they decided that this hydraulic-pneumatic suspension is military secret (or just no one cares) so 8 have difficulty finding out how exactly it works.
But from what I had learned they only involve in shifting the first and last (of the four) wheels.
Irrelevant: I found a article with a briefing of strv mechanism here
Your version is actually pretty low (in height) at 1.8m.
@evoevry
Wait it's in Gran Turismo??!!
(takes out PSP 3001 from beneath bed)
Aww the battery's dead. Gotta find a charger for it..
@Pizzaschnitzel
Actually, since you can mod guns ...
why not just make a gun that shoot insanely wide bullets directly upward (with, say, a bullet shell life of 0.1s)?
There could be better ways for rotating it (e.g. mod the input of rotator to "fireguns"), but man this is ... this is spectacular
I doubt I will call it "radar", though. it's more of a rotating blade of death
Not too bad. Hull can be a bit nicer but turret's good
@AndrePlaysSP
"since the jets there, as you go faster"
Well ...
there's different kinds of jets. Airliner jets (high-bypass turbofan) and military non-afterburning jets (low-bypass turbofan) behave more linearly and, in the case of hi-bypass jets, can't exceed 0.9 mach.
low-bypass can reached past 1 mach but they quickly loose efficiency (or thrust).
Only the ones with afterburner will have similar effects, and yet they will also be capped at a certain speed.
My function here actually had the value capped by TAS too. It's just because simpleplanes' atmosphere model is crazy beyond 10KM, the throttle is multiplied too much so the jet seem to responds slowly.
But I believe that the TAS value (retrieved via "TAS" from funky trees) above 15KM is also unreliable (and value tend to go too big), so I just throw together the most practical formula I can and called it a day.
I hadn't had SP2 yet; I have little reason to ask for one, too, since I am having some decent fun building vehicles in SP and low-altitude aircrafts.
I could ask for more, but now that I don't -- I simply avoid it.
It's also disappointing to see Jundroo implementing this "feature" in newer software where they could clearly update their old one. Perhaps they want more cash, I don't know. I feel like this is unfair so I started shouting at different places.
@cyan
initially it was a "attempt" at figuring out a actual suspension scheme robustly enough to make my overtly-ambitious plan of making a scaled lego 42009 from 5mm thick aluminum sheets (with parts made from cnc the 5mm sheets) because I can't afford the steep price.
Being so large a project, it simply got put on the shelf and I forgot about it.
This would most closely mimic what later on became a crude (albeit, very Simpleplanes) model of my 1:28 RC drift car I bought myself for my birthday.
it looked like one of these, but it had a fully cnc machined aluminum chassis and a beefier motor (and a different case), and a standard two-stick "aerial" transmitter as I don't want to spend more cash so I used my existing T8fb set rather than the car-focused "trigger and wheel" type.
!kyosho 66602 rc car
somehow i can't put images, so yeah you got to click on that
I can't believe how people wouldn't like the classic tri decker, even if it is weak and flies extremely slowly
@Cyan
Interesting to see that golden members are some of the only ones that eventually end up upvoting my stuff.
@Cyan
If you really enjoyed the build, well, then feel free to upvote it.
If you are upvoting for the sake of upvoting, please, stop.
You gave me 500 points. Wow.
At least, don't make me become gold until I finish the build to celebrate me becoming a golden member, okay?
do me that favor. thank you.
@Cyan
True. But hp make op printers
@cyan at least upvote the ones that are somewhat close to decent lol.
how come are you not platnium yet
@Cyan
woah woah woah take it easy ...
lol that was just a joke ... but thanks, if you want to do it that way.
Early Christmas for you too.
@AirCorp
"it always launches itself up in the air so I will say 4/10 performance."
Well, this car is tricky to steer, but I intentionally beefed up the power for the jets (and removed the speed limit for the wheels) so it CAN break the land record (just barely)
To do that, first enable slow motion. Then GENTLY pitch up (car engine pitch is the upper right gauge). recommend 20%
Then you can thrust up the jets as they are above the COM so they push the craft down anyway
Then when the speed is at least 300 mph (somewhere around that), you can floor the gas pedal.
Steer extremely carefully. A sedan like this one should not even attempt to go to sonic speed.
If you really wanted speedy stability, I had a "equation" formula one that can beat the grand prix in 45 seconds (or something like that). Strap jet engines to that and you'll get seriously fast and stable. But that one had a bit too much downforce and isn't as redneck, so that's why I insisted to make this to be able to beat the "max ground speed".
It really did, trust me.
Thank you, if you really think this is impressive. I believe other paint schemes works too (to a certain extent), so that's why I used a default palette.
@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.
This illustrate how SP physics is broken
You can't exceed speed of sound with that high-bypass turbofan it will get shattered to pieces
But SP don't care
@WarshipDude
I don't know why this is getting this many upvotes, but it's a good build
Details are just the right amount. I like it.
@SmSmThe10684
Talk about supersonic speeds at corner racing ...
lol. Not today. Maybe by the time we had actual flying cars we might be able to talk about it
hall effect thrusters? That's a good start.
Wow this one is wicked
@BagelPlane
Disappointed because it don't have a bagel on it
Because, well, you know. "bagel racer"
I have no comment otherwise. It's a good ... it's a good one.
@KangaKangaTheRoo
true, but aren't these two different things?
Edit: changed name
+1@Nickil0212
one of my favorites.
This one looked like the U.S. version with more protruding bumpers (for the 5mph test in U.S.)
Wish I could make some cool stuff like this ...
The "Classic Monster", the "BIGFOOT", the "ford pickup"
this one seems like the chevy silverado lol
not the Ford I'd be expecting, but it's close
actually somewhat acceptable, even though the 1960 era didn't see the introduction of a rear spoiler to provide downforce; the concept isn't there yet
Okay they had the spoiler but can we get to that later? Focus on getting a decent fuselage-block-based vehicle body first
here is a image to get started
Vast improvement. Cockpit no longer leaks pilot (though it still leaks air). Flight characteristics is decent
Move the wing gears in (for a bit) and it will be even better. Also enable steering for the trailing landing gear for ground steering
@Spitfire12
I know the M1 was (which is also a wonderful car) but I didn't went ahead to make that.
I should probably find a time for it. But not until I finish these physics problems first ...
@Juanfly154
That's one of the finest driving rides I have seen around. Insane handling.
@Baldeagle086
Oh is it?
I don't really care about replica or not as long it goes (or flies) fine and it have decent aesthetics.
@Baldeagle086
Very nice ...
A bit too much for everyday fun, but 769 parts isn't that too much. It had a rover, too, which is nice.
@KennethKennethTheKenneth
Does it add a ton of lag?
I hope not.
Adds similarity to KSP's SpacePlane Hangar. Very nice.
@AWESOMENESS360
really, i would prefer the yeet to be inside (so as to have bottom texture)
But it doesn't matter that much.
and it's both 3d games lol why 2d graphics
@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.
@nomalnormaltheman
says a user that didn't even post anything genuinely theirs.
Shhh, please. I'm just making my suggestions.
@BRRRT
Glad you helped. Unfortunately it doesn't help much.
nice effort
This reminds me of the farmtruck
@DEN12345
lol
The first picture (with the car jumping a turf around Krakabola).
Because you can't get these normally (not with some tricks)
@RankStwrfish201
Thank you. But if you like it, why didn't u upvote?
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.
@DEN12345
lol
ignore the caliber of the in-game cannon, it doesn't factor in wall thickness
Yeah I think the wall (of the cannon) is like 1mm thick
Or maybe this game is just nonsense. That jackhammer they provided seem to be holding a 105mm (by the scale) and seems like it's not too far off u know
too square ... .-.
@MrEarth
You could just scale those "large landing gear" up and nudge them into fuselage. they come with their own gear doors.
SimplePlanes isn't really ... you CAN do it, and the result might be good, but the game is not designed with the intention of people building these stuff.
You can disprove me, but it's mostly self-evident.
The tutorial I guess was fine. But remember the power curve (number of advanced users versus average user)
The graph is similar to a 1 / x. Sadly.
@artsjohn
I guess you can
wow
No it didn't break the law of physics. It's just perfectly elastic collisions
+1@AWESOMENESS360
Did nobody realize the "YEET" on the bottom side?
@tsampoy
huh okay
@DEN12345
I think you can actually squeeze the 122mm D-2-5T into the chassis (and you had it, the su-122, su-122-54, etc although the gun mount have to be altered)
The 152mms such as BL-10 and BL-20 will need a bigger chassis (Su-152), though
@BagelPlane
Ah hi there. And thank you
@DEN12345
People just like that picture, right?
@cat123
Wow despite the weird controls it actually flown decently
It also in fact looked somewhat decent
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)
+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.
@MageMobius
A bit long (or narrow), otherwise decent.
@MageMobius
look at your points.
it says "7,777"
I was going to upvote but I would ruin that number wouldn't I?
You said that this is "unrealistic".
Well, from the side view it looked kinda okay. maybe a bit tall, but perhaps it's a bit too narrow?
And yes, I was thinking whether I should use this suspension (with two pistons) but clearly they decided that this hydraulic-pneumatic suspension is military secret (or just no one cares) so 8 have difficulty finding out how exactly it works.
But from what I had learned they only involve in shifting the first and last (of the four) wheels.
Irrelevant: I found a article with a briefing of strv mechanism here
Your version is actually pretty low (in height) at 1.8m.