Don't really like them, the Prius in particular. They're too heavy and understeers so badly that you don't even have to bother using the steering wheel. I'll stick with my Evo9 Mitsu Lancer for now.
They're not bad quality though, Toyotas are well built die-hard cars. There are ancient cave drawings of Toyota Corollas that still runs today.
I am not too sure if SR2 would be able to dethrone Kerbal Space Program, let alone SP. Building spacecraft in SR2 seems more detailed but it is KSP's career/campaign mode that make it stand out, it gives you something to work for. It's all nice to build stuff but it gets boring if you can't use them for a meaningful gameplay purpose. SP's game world being populated with AI craft for combat and interaction gives it a similar edge over other games of the same type, which tends to have empty game worlds devoid of life and activity.
EDIT: I may be wrong, saw this on the SR2 Q&A: "Q. Why am I seeing a price there?
A. We are planning a campaign mode, though we still need to work out the details quite a bit."
Awesome, finally a proper Tu-160 replica and also nice to see a strategic bomber getting some love. My bombers were largely inspired by the Tu-160 and, looking at the real thing now, I actually came pretty close design-wise. And you kept part count below 1000, something I failed at.
@SteadfastContracting I think the size hogs some performance as well, I always try to build 1:1 scale but it does have it's drawbacks, especially when part count gets a bit out of hand...
I am not for or against the argument but, I have an example to give:
>
I built a rather crude bomber to keep part count below 500, it got 15 upvotes (which is great for me!).
>
I then rebuilt the same bomber, disregarding part count to make it more refined and more detailed, with more function and more weapons. It ended up with a part count over 1000 and people did not like it (I think it got 2 upvotes). Maybe I made silly mistakes on the bomber (nothing mentioned) but, it does appear that higher part counts is a negative unless it is a really special build.
A career mode similar to KSP would be real nice but, instead of running your own space program, you run your own airline company or private military company. It's all nice to build your own aircraft and vehicles but there's usually not much to do with them afterwards. Having a game world populated by AI planes and vehicles in SP is already a great addition, it only needs some continuity or expanded gameplay to give you something to work towards.
>
Multiplayer would be fun, as long as it doesn't come at the expense of the rest of the game as commonly the case with complex indie games trying to do multiplayer. I'd rather have a complete, content-rich singleplayer game than a featureless tech demonstration that has multiplayer. If you don't have the additional staff to tackle multiplayer development, just leave it alone.
>
Perhaps it may also be better to split PC and mobile versions in order to fully exploit the PC's capabilities? I do feel that the game is being held back by it's PC-mobile cross compatibility. May be a difficult topic considering the sheer number of players on mobile devices, one cannot just slam the door in their faces.
@armanla777 Nothing really seriously wrong with it. Looks nice, great detailing and it drives like a muscle car. I downloaded the unmodded version BTW and that's already more than good enough for me. It's basically my "default" land vehicle now. The vehicle I use to just cruise around, go check something out on the map or when showing the game to friends.
Maybe I'm biased because it's a GT 500 but, I did expect this to rack up much more upvotes in 5 days' time.
I also noticed that it's listed as a successor to a much earlier bomber of mine, it's actually unrelated. I loaded up the old bomber, took it apart to use some bits, eventually deleted it and started anew.
How did you make them? Engines attached to rotators for thrust vectoring causes weight distribution to bug out for me, the reason I stopped using them. Did you figure out another way perhaps?
Did some digging on the net and found the cause of the problem, the bug is caused by thrust vectoring engines, specifically engines attached to rotators (which this particular aircraft has). Removing the rotators fixed the problem. Best to use wing blocks for thrust vectoring instead.
EDIT
@randomusername All fuel tanks are arranged to be on the CoM already from the start, like any other plane. No need for XML edits either, 950 gallons is enough.
@Minecraftpoweer I will upload the thrust vectoring version as well eventually since many people play with unlimited fuel, if you remove all fuel from the plane, or don't burn any fuel in-flight, the bug does not occur. The standard version (which does not bug out) ended up being just as nimble anyway.
EDIT2: Added examples to the original post, please note that the aircraft is not the final product.
@Minecraftpoweer Let me try a simpler explanation:
Take an empty glass, the empty glass weighs 100g with the CoM on the bottom end. Add a tiny bit of water to the glass, it weighs more and the CoM moved upwards. Drink the water in the glass and the empty glass weighs 100g again with the CoM back on the bottom end.
Now take the same 100g glass and fill it to the brim with water, it weighs more and the CoM moved upwards even more. Drink all the water in the glass but, instead of the empty glass weighing 100g again with the CoM at the bottom end, it now weighs only 50g with the CoM at the top.
That is the problem, doesn't matter how much water you added or how much the water weighs, if the glass is empty, it should weigh 100g with the CoM on the bottom end, not 50g with the CoM at the top.
@Minecraftpoweer I know, but that doesn't matter at all if there's no fuel left in the aircraft. The issue is with how differently the plane behaves after expending all fuel (or very little left). If I fill the plane with 10% fuel and use up all the fuel, it behaves differently than when I fill it up with 100% fuel and also use up all the fuel. If there's no fuel left in the plane, it should behave the same regardless of how much fuel I started with.
@Minecraftpoweer That's pretty obvious, yes. The issue is not with the weight of fuel but, the difference in how the plane behaves when empty, depending on how much fuel added before flying. See the bit below, by "run it dry", I mean using up all fuel.
"When I fill the plane up with 10% fuel and run it dry, it performs as intended.
When I fill the plane up with 100% fuel and run it dry, it becomes unstable..."
I may also use a mod in the meantime until the issue get fixed, if at all (it was first reported more than two years ago).
@CursedFlames It is indeed the exact same plane, only fuel load changed.
I usually test planes with as little fuel as possible in order to test flight characteristics when the plane is at it's lightest, and also to test empty weight unpowered glide capability. I fuel it up properly once it "enters service".
For hostile AI planes, build a few "generic" planes and give them weapons, they will not attack you on sight if they spawn in sandbox but, if you aggro them by locking on to them, they will retaliate by force.
Just remember the 7 wing limit for planes to spawn in sandbox.
Just a tip for level bombing: If you select camera 6 (bomb bay view) and not rotate the camera, you can use the attitude indicator as a bombsight. Fly at 10000ft at 840mph for fairly good accuracy.
Greetings to all BTW, this is my first upload on SP and my first comment/post as well.
Don't really like them, the Prius in particular. They're too heavy and understeers so badly that you don't even have to bother using the steering wheel. I'll stick with my Evo9 Mitsu Lancer for now.
They're not bad quality though, Toyotas are well built die-hard cars. There are ancient cave drawings of Toyota Corollas that still runs today.
+2@Kentheman Looks epic my man, will it be built to scale?
I am not too sure if SR2 would be able to dethrone Kerbal Space Program, let alone SP. Building spacecraft in SR2 seems more detailed but it is KSP's career/campaign mode that make it stand out, it gives you something to work for. It's all nice to build stuff but it gets boring if you can't use them for a meaningful gameplay purpose. SP's game world being populated with AI craft for combat and interaction gives it a similar edge over other games of the same type, which tends to have empty game worlds devoid of life and activity.
EDIT: I may be wrong, saw this on the SR2 Q&A: "Q. Why am I seeing a price there?
A. We are planning a campaign mode, though we still need to work out the details quite a bit."
What crap are you referring to? I see a Tu-160, a runway, some structures, grass... but I see no crap anywhere, not even an outhouse so to speak.
Awesome, finally a proper Tu-160 replica and also nice to see a strategic bomber getting some love. My bombers were largely inspired by the Tu-160 and, looking at the real thing now, I actually came pretty close design-wise. And you kept part count below 1000, something I failed at.
Thanks a lot guys!
@SteadfastContracting I think the size hogs some performance as well, I always try to build 1:1 scale but it does have it's drawbacks, especially when part count gets a bit out of hand...
Thanks!
Adding some livery as LiamW suggested may be a good idea.
Very interesting design, it vaguely reminds me of the fighters from the 1999 Wing Commander film. Modern yet retro.
Seems political to me. This is not the place for political statements.
I am not for or against the argument but, I have an example to give:
>
I built a rather crude bomber to keep part count below 500, it got 15 upvotes (which is great for me!).
>
I then rebuilt the same bomber, disregarding part count to make it more refined and more detailed, with more function and more weapons. It ended up with a part count over 1000 and people did not like it (I think it got 2 upvotes). Maybe I made silly mistakes on the bomber (nothing mentioned) but, it does appear that higher part counts is a negative unless it is a really special build.
A career mode similar to KSP would be real nice but, instead of running your own space program, you run your own airline company or private military company. It's all nice to build your own aircraft and vehicles but there's usually not much to do with them afterwards. Having a game world populated by AI planes and vehicles in SP is already a great addition, it only needs some continuity or expanded gameplay to give you something to work towards.
>
Multiplayer would be fun, as long as it doesn't come at the expense of the rest of the game as commonly the case with complex indie games trying to do multiplayer. I'd rather have a complete, content-rich singleplayer game than a featureless tech demonstration that has multiplayer. If you don't have the additional staff to tackle multiplayer development, just leave it alone.
>
Perhaps it may also be better to split PC and mobile versions in order to fully exploit the PC's capabilities? I do feel that the game is being held back by it's PC-mobile cross compatibility. May be a difficult topic considering the sheer number of players on mobile devices, one cannot just slam the door in their faces.
No Ka-17? It's probably the craziest plane I've seen (never actually flew, but still). And there's already a Simpleplanes version here.
That unidentified helicopter prototype is epic though! Is it 6th generation?
@armanla777 Nothing really seriously wrong with it. Looks nice, great detailing and it drives like a muscle car. I downloaded the unmodded version BTW and that's already more than good enough for me. It's basically my "default" land vehicle now. The vehicle I use to just cruise around, go check something out on the map or when showing the game to friends.
Maybe I'm biased because it's a GT 500 but, I did expect this to rack up much more upvotes in 5 days' time.
I also noticed that it's listed as a successor to a much earlier bomber of mine, it's actually unrelated. I loaded up the old bomber, took it apart to use some bits, eventually deleted it and started anew.
How did you make them? Engines attached to rotators for thrust vectoring causes weight distribution to bug out for me, the reason I stopped using them. Did you figure out another way perhaps?
Thanks @DerekSP
I haven't played SP for a while, started tinkering with it again and it sucked me right back in.
My favourite muscle car, and beautifully crafted. Thanks for this!
Did some digging on the net and found the cause of the problem, the bug is caused by thrust vectoring engines, specifically engines attached to rotators (which this particular aircraft has). Removing the rotators fixed the problem. Best to use wing blocks for thrust vectoring instead.
EDIT
@randomusername All fuel tanks are arranged to be on the CoM already from the start, like any other plane. No need for XML edits either, 950 gallons is enough.
@Minecraftpoweer I will upload the thrust vectoring version as well eventually since many people play with unlimited fuel, if you remove all fuel from the plane, or don't burn any fuel in-flight, the bug does not occur. The standard version (which does not bug out) ended up being just as nimble anyway.
EDIT2: Added examples to the original post, please note that the aircraft is not the final product.
@Minecraftpoweer Doesn't matter, the plane is empty (no fuel, nothing in fuel tanks, bone dry, running on air etc.) when the bug occurs.
If I add 10% fuel ---->>and use up all the fuel in-flight<<---- the plane remains stable.
But if I add 100% fuel ---->>and use up all the fuel in-flight<<---- the plane becomes very unstable.
or
If I only add 10% fuel, there's no problem.
If I add 100% fuel and burn it down to 10% in-flight (meaning the aircraft's fuel load, weight and CoM is the same as above), it becomes unstable.
i.e. the --->>empty weight<--- of the aircraft changes/bugs out.
@Minecraftpoweer Let me try a simpler explanation:
Take an empty glass, the empty glass weighs 100g with the CoM on the bottom end. Add a tiny bit of water to the glass, it weighs more and the CoM moved upwards. Drink the water in the glass and the empty glass weighs 100g again with the CoM back on the bottom end.
Now take the same 100g glass and fill it to the brim with water, it weighs more and the CoM moved upwards even more. Drink all the water in the glass but, instead of the empty glass weighing 100g again with the CoM at the bottom end, it now weighs only 50g with the CoM at the top.
That is the problem, doesn't matter how much water you added or how much the water weighs, if the glass is empty, it should weigh 100g with the CoM on the bottom end, not 50g with the CoM at the top.
@Minecraftpoweer I know, but that doesn't matter at all if there's no fuel left in the aircraft. The issue is with how differently the plane behaves after expending all fuel (or very little left). If I fill the plane with 10% fuel and use up all the fuel, it behaves differently than when I fill it up with 100% fuel and also use up all the fuel. If there's no fuel left in the plane, it should behave the same regardless of how much fuel I started with.
@Minecraftpoweer That's pretty obvious, yes. The issue is not with the weight of fuel but, the difference in how the plane behaves when empty, depending on how much fuel added before flying. See the bit below, by "run it dry", I mean using up all fuel.
"When I fill the plane up with 10% fuel and run it dry, it performs as intended.
When I fill the plane up with 100% fuel and run it dry, it becomes unstable..."
I may also use a mod in the meantime until the issue get fixed, if at all (it was first reported more than two years ago).
@CursedFlames It is indeed the exact same plane, only fuel load changed.
I usually test planes with as little fuel as possible in order to test flight characteristics when the plane is at it's lightest, and also to test empty weight unpowered glide capability. I fuel it up properly once it "enters service".
@Gestour Or a "Vanilla" tag, yeah. Just some form of distinguishing mark.
Is there such a tag?
Nevermind about updating, a quick search on Reddit revealed the successor feature.
Thanks for the upvotes all, glad to see people like it, it was a rather tricky build.
@CALVIN232 The springs are inside the body, in front of and behind the driver position.
How do you update an aircraft? The wheels had to be nudged backward/forward a bit. Should I just re-upload and delete the old?
Thanks!
Greetings, I am new here myself!
For hostile AI planes, build a few "generic" planes and give them weapons, they will not attack you on sight if they spawn in sandbox but, if you aggro them by locking on to them, they will retaliate by force.
Just remember the 7 wing limit for planes to spawn in sandbox.
Pretty accurate, brilliant build mate!
Will you try to build the Yamato as well someday?
Just a tip for level bombing: If you select camera 6 (bomb bay view) and not rotate the camera, you can use the attitude indicator as a bombsight. Fly at 10000ft at 840mph for fairly good accuracy.
Greetings to all BTW, this is my first upload on SP and my first comment/post as well.