Calculus building? Lol no one uses any sort of maths to build panelled curves, we all do it by eye. I hate referencing myself, but you can see my panelling get better over time if you compare my old builds with my new ones. If you do not try it, you’ll never get there. You don’t just get there magically. However, if you believe in what your doing now, that’s fine and continue to do as such, but don’t complain when it doesn’t get the attention you want it to. @vcharng
Why do you disagree with my first statement? It’s clearly the most objective statement of the all, just look at all the people in the comments, they hate it. @jamesPLANESii
Hmm, 3 section wings don’t take as many parts as you think, ur picking horrible examples. Look at recent builds from good players, then you’ll understand the construction and the simplicity yet effectiveness of building wings that way. Wings only get complex when you want to do slotted flaps, slats or Lg housing, anything else is relatively easy. 1 wing section can take merely 5 parts, and the entire pair of wings no more than 50. If you insist on 2 section wings, be prepared to deal with this lack of attention. @vcharng
You may not think it’s douchey, but clearly everyone else thinks it kinda is... A bit superfluous to add that ur planes are more accurate than simulator crafts, I very much doubt that you have incorporated more accurate stall dynamics and cockpit visuals and functionality, given SP’s notably lack of realism... I’d also press the point that access to WIP crafts does not provide the same hours of gameplay as a mod, hence they provide less utility and are just not worth anything at all really. Let’s be real, most people spend their time building here, not actually flying given the lack of map interest, I certainly know that’s the case for me and others. Why anyone would pay to have someone play the game for them? Not exactly my cup of tea. @jamesPLANESii
You talk about part inflation, but this build looks like a 300 part build on the surface. Smooth wings do not consume parts like you may think they do, it’s a matter of being smart with them. A cockpit however will, but that’s the price you pay. When I say proper cockpit I mean without the simulated glass, just doing the frames and the outline of the bubble with a high gloss thin piece and leaving the inside hollow. Most SP users love that stuff, even if you might hate it. Also, that FW-190 is an extremely detailed plane, the gauges alone consist of 100’s of parts. You do not need to do that, you can simply just spend around 10 parts per gauge and achieve a result not too dissimilar while looking much better from what you currently have. It’s also about how you use those parts, more parts doesn’t equal better. @vcharng
Yea took a quick look and it seems to have the same issues that I had with reload. Mainly that holding the button resets the reload, but we’ll see if maybe someone will come up with a breakthrough. @DarDragon
In regards to the cockpit, considering that somehow this build has 600+ parts, you could’ve have implemented part saving measures and actually have done a proper cockpit. @vcharng
Perhaps just that one section, although I would argue that it’s at least slightly tapered, all the other non smooth sections are issues, the wing tip is ugly, and the nose just doesn’t look right compared to the blueprints. @vcharng
Hmm yeah I thought about hiding cannons and seeing them to different activation states depending on which if my turrets where enabled, but hopefully maybe there’s a cleaner way to do it with just 1 cannon part. @DarDragon
People don’t like this idea because it’s just wrong. It comes of as greedy, condescending and kinda douchey. No one really thinks that an SP craft is on the same level as a mod or piece of art, even if you do spend lots of time on it. I can understand your desire to capitalise, but it just doesn’t fit in with the current community environment. There’ll be a lot of backlash.
.
And either way, who would pay you? You’ve only got like 800 followers, many of whom are probably not active, lots that are under 18 for sure and probably cannot pay, and then those who are older and wouldn’t wish to pay money for what is a less valuable thing than say access to a mod on another game which can provide hours of gameplay than the mere 30mins of gameplay that ur stuff could provide.
Huh, so you can individually fire each gun as well as fire them altogether at once? How’d you go about doing that, I’ve tried but I always get issues with the reload time and the guns reloading too quickly
Huh?
I don’t see the point in this, unless there’s some sort of inter-build interactivity, but even that’s kinda a stretch. Could literally just copy paste the code ...
Nice concept, but I don’t think your the first to do it sorry. Certainly yours is a bit different from that one though.
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/uMKXf1/P-51-Mustang-Tester-Cluster
Looks great visually, cannot fault it at all really. But everything’s static other than the throttle and joystick. We have so many funky tree inputs that could’ve made this amazing, but instead it’s just a bit boring, kinda of a shame to be honest.
I’m actually going crazy, I don’t know whether half these people understand the joke and are joking around, or whether they actually believe that it’s real...
Glad you took that well, sorry if I sounded a bit rude but I certainly believe you could one if the better creators if you fixed up a couple things. @ReignSUPREME
Hmm, not sure I understand the hype around this one. Decent fuselage and cockpit but an absolutely appalling flight model and functionality.
.
- Has a take off run not far off from a damn helicopter, acceleration is way too fast, I assume it’s the excessive engine thrust required to overcome the 14000 drag.
- TAS speedometer in cockpit is inaccurate (testing on mobile anyways)
- Cockpit artificial horizon screen, why not put it onto roll angle instead of just roll, we have these functions now, there’s literally no excuse.
- That nozzle clipping and breaking, I’m surprised you didn’t pick that up when testing it, doesn’t show that you care much for the craft if you didn’t even test it :(
- Flaps have no functionality, why even bother building them in the first place? Also TRIM is also missing.
- Turn radius of something like 500m, pilot would be squished to pulp from the 20G’s, plane would’ve disintegrated into ash at this point.
.
These aren’t hard things to fix, they’d take less than 30mins if you were efficient. I hope you take on board some of the things here into your new builds, because you’ve definitely got the fuselage building skills and potential that many would be envious of.
You could run a sum function via funky trees, so you sum the input of fire guns and then subtract it from a value, after that value gets below 0 or something the input would be zero (comparator) and so you wouldn’t be able to fire anymore.
Why not do it yourself? This build is so old now it’s just not worth it for me to come back to it. Heck I don’t even have it saved anymore. @Chicken256
Hmm, that’s just making the game more complicated. Imagine ur completely new, you given the new parts to play with, then you wanna download something cause it looks cool and then all the sudden it has completely different parts. That’s just gonna confuse people. I admit it’d be nice, but I think if we want sp2 to be good we have to leave SP1 behind. @jamesPLANESii
Not true, that Spitfire on the highest rated was made in a fairly short period of time by my standards, granted that was also my first major build so clearly with more practice it could’ve taken a lot less time. @asteroidbook345
No I mean SP1 files in SP2, but either way how clumsy is that? We’ll have the less than ideal wings and fuselages from SP1 with the realistic airfoils and parts in SP2. Let’s not forget mass scaling of these parts, fuel, most importantly drag? SP’s drag model is less than ideal to say the least, I don’t want that in SP2. Its better we start off with a clean slate that we can really make good, having backwards compatibility would just make the game more complicated than it needs to be. No point in having “antique” parts. @Notaleopard
I feel by keeping SP2 backwards compatible with SP1, you won’t be able to implement half of these features properly. If we keep clinging onto the past, we’ll never progress any further.
I’d love to take part in this, don’t know if I’ll have the time (even with the very generous deadline). I’ll try my best to see if I can whip something up.
People have recommended this for ages, but just think about how they would go about implementing something like this our builds? That’s only one body, but builds here have hundreds if not thousands of bodies that would each need to be included when painting like that. I just don’t see how it’s easily possible.
PID controllers essentially take an input (like pitch angle for example), and will create an output to correct to a given Setpoint (I.e. 0) depending on the error (distance from Setpoint) and the variables p, i, d. It’ll make FBW’s a whole lot easier and much simpler to code. Definitely worth looking into to get to know how it actually works.
Ahh yeah that’s what I had going on mine, but it would tend to oscillate a lot if you pitched up or down, which would’ve be easy to fix using a PID controller, but cause I didnt way to check the rate of change I couldn’t damper the oscillation if you know what I mean. @ChisP
Yeah I was, still am but I was kinda waiting for the devs to release a delta(x) function and then I’d go and finish it off. But yeah very interested how you managed without a rate of change function, keep me updated. @ChisP
Actually the flight model is really accurate, it even factors in P-factor. Much better than nearly any other plane on this site tbh.
+4@Mostly
Calculus building? Lol no one uses any sort of maths to build panelled curves, we all do it by eye. I hate referencing myself, but you can see my panelling get better over time if you compare my old builds with my new ones. If you do not try it, you’ll never get there. You don’t just get there magically. However, if you believe in what your doing now, that’s fine and continue to do as such, but don’t complain when it doesn’t get the attention you want it to. @vcharng
Why do you disagree with my first statement? It’s clearly the most objective statement of the all, just look at all the people in the comments, they hate it. @jamesPLANESii
Hmm, 3 section wings don’t take as many parts as you think, ur picking horrible examples. Look at recent builds from good players, then you’ll understand the construction and the simplicity yet effectiveness of building wings that way. Wings only get complex when you want to do slotted flaps, slats or Lg housing, anything else is relatively easy. 1 wing section can take merely 5 parts, and the entire pair of wings no more than 50. If you insist on 2 section wings, be prepared to deal with this lack of attention. @vcharng
You may not think it’s douchey, but clearly everyone else thinks it kinda is... A bit superfluous to add that ur planes are more accurate than simulator crafts, I very much doubt that you have incorporated more accurate stall dynamics and cockpit visuals and functionality, given SP’s notably lack of realism... I’d also press the point that access to WIP crafts does not provide the same hours of gameplay as a mod, hence they provide less utility and are just not worth anything at all really. Let’s be real, most people spend their time building here, not actually flying given the lack of map interest, I certainly know that’s the case for me and others. Why anyone would pay to have someone play the game for them? Not exactly my cup of tea. @jamesPLANESii
+1You talk about part inflation, but this build looks like a 300 part build on the surface. Smooth wings do not consume parts like you may think they do, it’s a matter of being smart with them. A cockpit however will, but that’s the price you pay. When I say proper cockpit I mean without the simulated glass, just doing the frames and the outline of the bubble with a high gloss thin piece and leaving the inside hollow. Most SP users love that stuff, even if you might hate it. Also, that FW-190 is an extremely detailed plane, the gauges alone consist of 100’s of parts. You do not need to do that, you can simply just spend around 10 parts per gauge and achieve a result not too dissimilar while looking much better from what you currently have. It’s also about how you use those parts, more parts doesn’t equal better. @vcharng
Yea took a quick look and it seems to have the same issues that I had with reload. Mainly that holding the button resets the reload, but we’ll see if maybe someone will come up with a breakthrough. @DarDragon
+1In regards to the cockpit, considering that somehow this build has 600+ parts, you could’ve have implemented part saving measures and actually have done a proper cockpit. @vcharng
Perhaps just that one section, although I would argue that it’s at least slightly tapered, all the other non smooth sections are issues, the wing tip is ugly, and the nose just doesn’t look right compared to the blueprints. @vcharng
I made a breakdown of your thumbnail, it’s harsh but concise.
Pic
The FT might be amazing, but who would know that?
Hmm yeah I thought about hiding cannons and seeing them to different activation states depending on which if my turrets where enabled, but hopefully maybe there’s a cleaner way to do it with just 1 cannon part. @DarDragon
People don’t like this idea because it’s just wrong. It comes of as greedy, condescending and kinda douchey. No one really thinks that an SP craft is on the same level as a mod or piece of art, even if you do spend lots of time on it. I can understand your desire to capitalise, but it just doesn’t fit in with the current community environment. There’ll be a lot of backlash.
+2.
And either way, who would pay you? You’ve only got like 800 followers, many of whom are probably not active, lots that are under 18 for sure and probably cannot pay, and then those who are older and wouldn’t wish to pay money for what is a less valuable thing than say access to a mod on another game which can provide hours of gameplay than the mere 30mins of gameplay that ur stuff could provide.
Huh, so you can individually fire each gun as well as fire them altogether at once? How’d you go about doing that, I’ve tried but I always get issues with the reload time and the guns reloading too quickly
ohh ok i see, yea possibly useful, not sure how applicable to do though @ChisP
Huh?
I don’t see the point in this, unless there’s some sort of inter-build interactivity, but even that’s kinda a stretch. Could literally just copy paste the code ...
I think there’s just been a misunderstanding, no need to accuse one another. @Sinacraft
Also, seeing Sm10684’s perspective now I wouldn’t go so far to call him a thief, maybe you two should talk it out somewhere. @Sinacraft
+1@Sinacraft
It seems like the Hpdunagan keeps harassing you, maybe you should just block him so he stops spamming your forum.
Nice concept, but I don’t think your the first to do it sorry. Certainly yours is a bit different from that one though.
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/uMKXf1/P-51-Mustang-Tester-Cluster
Ahh ok, so that explains why the pictures look so damn real. @TakeYourLife3000
Out of interest, did you happen to export the plane and render it in another software for the pictures?
Looks great visually, cannot fault it at all really. But everything’s static other than the throttle and joystick. We have so many funky tree inputs that could’ve made this amazing, but instead it’s just a bit boring, kinda of a shame to be honest.
+4That’s just google ads for ya
The variables thing sounds very much like SR2’s vizzy, which unfortunately they said probably wouldn’t be coming to SP.
+1I’m actually going crazy, I don’t know whether half these people understand the joke and are joking around, or whether they actually believe that it’s real...
Ahaha, all my hard panelling :(
Definitely will try it out though
@ChisP
That concave fuselage is a piece of wizardry!
+13Glad you took that well, sorry if I sounded a bit rude but I certainly believe you could one if the better creators if you fixed up a couple things. @ReignSUPREME
Hmm, not sure I understand the hype around this one. Decent fuselage and cockpit but an absolutely appalling flight model and functionality.
+9.
- Has a take off run not far off from a damn helicopter, acceleration is way too fast, I assume it’s the excessive engine thrust required to overcome the 14000 drag.
- TAS speedometer in cockpit is inaccurate (testing on mobile anyways)
- Cockpit artificial horizon screen, why not put it onto roll angle instead of just roll, we have these functions now, there’s literally no excuse.
- That nozzle clipping and breaking, I’m surprised you didn’t pick that up when testing it, doesn’t show that you care much for the craft if you didn’t even test it :(
- Flaps have no functionality, why even bother building them in the first place? Also TRIM is also missing.
- Turn radius of something like 500m, pilot would be squished to pulp from the 20G’s, plane would’ve disintegrated into ash at this point.
.
These aren’t hard things to fix, they’d take less than 30mins if you were efficient. I hope you take on board some of the things here into your new builds, because you’ve definitely got the fuselage building skills and potential that many would be envious of.
You could run a sum function via funky trees, so you sum the input of fire guns and then subtract it from a value, after that value gets below 0 or something the input would be zero (comparator) and so you wouldn’t be able to fire anymore.
+1I’m not mad with you, but like this build is literally 2.5 years old. @Chicken256
Why not do it yourself? This build is so old now it’s just not worth it for me to come back to it. Heck I don’t even have it saved anymore. @Chicken256
Hmm, that’s just making the game more complicated. Imagine ur completely new, you given the new parts to play with, then you wanna download something cause it looks cool and then all the sudden it has completely different parts. That’s just gonna confuse people. I admit it’d be nice, but I think if we want sp2 to be good we have to leave SP1 behind. @jamesPLANESii
Not true, that Spitfire on the highest rated was made in a fairly short period of time by my standards, granted that was also my first major build so clearly with more practice it could’ve taken a lot less time. @asteroidbook345
No I mean SP1 files in SP2, but either way how clumsy is that? We’ll have the less than ideal wings and fuselages from SP1 with the realistic airfoils and parts in SP2. Let’s not forget mass scaling of these parts, fuel, most importantly drag? SP’s drag model is less than ideal to say the least, I don’t want that in SP2. Its better we start off with a clean slate that we can really make good, having backwards compatibility would just make the game more complicated than it needs to be. No point in having “antique” parts. @Notaleopard
+3I feel by keeping SP2 backwards compatible with SP1, you won’t be able to implement half of these features properly. If we keep clinging onto the past, we’ll never progress any further.
+1Hahahaha very funny joke
+2I beg to differ, it actually makes more sense. Gear Deployed = 1, gear retracted = -1. @vcharng
I’d love to take part in this, don’t know if I’ll have the time (even with the very generous deadline). I’ll try my best to see if I can whip something up.
+1People have recommended this for ages, but just think about how they would go about implementing something like this our builds? That’s only one body, but builds here have hundreds if not thousands of bodies that would each need to be included when painting like that. I just don’t see how it’s easily possible.
Overload is literally baked into the game now...
+1@Randomdoggo
Yea that’d be very helpful actually. I’ll tag you on some stuff that I might need help on in future. @ChisP
I’ll have to experiment with some of the newer stuff to see if I can obtain a better FBW, but thanks for that line of code. @ChisP
PID controllers essentially take an input (like pitch angle for example), and will create an output to correct to a given Setpoint (I.e. 0) depending on the error (distance from Setpoint) and the variables p, i, d. It’ll make FBW’s a whole lot easier and much simpler to code. Definitely worth looking into to get to know how it actually works.
ahaha, who would’ve guessed the update would’ve come so soon.
@ChisP
Ahaha I understand if that’s the case. Keep me informed though.
@ChisP
If you wouldn’t mind doing so?
@ChisP
Ahh yeah that’s what I had going on mine, but it would tend to oscillate a lot if you pitched up or down, which would’ve be easy to fix using a PID controller, but cause I didnt way to check the rate of change I couldn’t damper the oscillation if you know what I mean. @ChisP
Yeah I was, still am but I was kinda waiting for the devs to release a delta(x) function and then I’d go and finish it off. But yeah very interested how you managed without a rate of change function, keep me updated. @ChisP
T
Looks pretty nice, very interested in the FBW though. I’ll be interested to see how you managed to do it without any calculus.