Well this plane is too small for the grand slam bomb lol, it’s a medium fighter. Anyways I don’t really want to enlarge the bomb bay, it’s too much work sorry. @Dude32
It depends how many parts you want to use. You could do bogdan’s way, but that only works well if you mask it with paint. You could try that concave fuselage thing, but I’ve found that’s it’s really hard to get it to match any shape you want. You could also do it it like my F-16 or Xanavis panelling, just with hard edged fuselage blocks for the concave section and regular circular edged fuselages for the convex shapes. @ChisP
Bruh read the damn description, tail gear doesnt function cause that’s what it was like. And it pulls to the right as a result of engine torque, perhaps a bit much, but its still tremendous attention to detail. @JamesBleriot
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
What if there’s an emergency and the plane begins leaking fuel? If you just had enough fuel to make it there you’d crash. Better safe than sorry. @randomusername
Well this plane is too small for the grand slam bomb lol, it’s a medium fighter. Anyways I don’t really want to enlarge the bomb bay, it’s too much work sorry. @Dude32
I’m sure you can do it. I’ve been pretty busy as of lately. @Dude32
I’m not sure what you mean, but sure go ahead. @Dude32
Excellent work, flies very nicely and looks beautiful. Certainly one of the best P-51’s on the site!
It depends how many parts you want to use. You could do bogdan’s way, but that only works well if you mask it with paint. You could try that concave fuselage thing, but I’ve found that’s it’s really hard to get it to match any shape you want. You could also do it it like my F-16 or Xanavis panelling, just with hard edged fuselage blocks for the concave section and regular circular edged fuselages for the convex shapes. @ChisP
You probably need to use more parts on the cockpit to get it smoother, and just on the fuselage in general.
Ahh I see, still very impressive. @Leehopard
Bruh read the damn description, tail gear doesnt function cause that’s what it was like. And it pulls to the right as a result of engine torque, perhaps a bit much, but its still tremendous attention to detail. @JamesBleriot
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 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
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
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
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
@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?
That’s just google ads for ya
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...
Ahaha, all my hard panelling :(
Definitely will try it out though
@ChisP
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
I’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
I beg to differ, it actually makes more sense. Gear Deployed = 1, gear retracted = -1. @vcharng
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.
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.
Andrew said he was considering adding a delta(x) function, so certainly a possibility in very near future
What if there’s an emergency and the plane begins leaking fuel? If you just had enough fuel to make it there you’d crash. Better safe than sorry. @randomusername
Wow that’s looking really good!
https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vTCfs-yqNlHkz26WuTzx8RQ2LV3JrX8EPB5czzAHrDDfEcvlsBYf7k2V5sm2q-sANGi9rx1omgeH8Qi/pub
@CRJ900Pilot
Yeah there’s no way of tracking other crafts, so pretty obvious no.
Currently making an F-16c, maybe later?
@Schiefensnarglez
Nah, for me anyways, some functions don’t work if I don’t put spaces between the subtraction/addition signs
@vcharng