I agree about spotlights. Especially when you're as far up the users list as I am, those appear once in a blue moon. But upvotes are too common, and are often given without even downloading the build. I don't value them too much. Best thing are honest comments, the ones that actually express an opinion other than "nice".
@riko lag comes from my laptop being some five years old. It's not a build problem. Tracks mod is a bit heavy on the processor, so I can run fewer parts smoothly if tracks are involved. Custom tracks made out of wheels would have the same effect, so there's no fixing that problem.
A little piece of advice:
Use large wings to keep the ship on course. Large vertical stabilizers near the center of mass, as well as smaller ones near the stern will make your ship handle much better. Also, make sure that all engines are getting enough air by using inlets. If engines are on rotators, you have to attach inlets to the engines, as air doesn't go through rotators. You can then edit powerMultiplier value in Overload to get the amount of power you need.
An SAM or AAM will usually detonate close to the target without making a contact, and will shower the target with multiple rings of shrapnel, cutting through the engines, hydraulics, fuel tanks, and structural elements. Target will often go up in flames, lose control, and disintegrate from G forces.
@Homemade some users seem to have found a way, but I have no idea how. As for spamming, do keep in mind that I have a life outside of SP. I have a job, social life, and other things to attend to, and cannot be online 24/7.
While this is a cute build, I think I should give you a bit of constructive criticism on it:
Wings aren't very strong, and main landing gear, which bears most of the weight, shouldn't be on wingtips. Only planes with main gear under the fuselage in bicycle fashion have wingtip outriggers, like Harrier. Also, you should go for all-moving horizontal stabilizers. Put structural wings on rotators and give them input Pitch + Trim/10. That will give you both pitch control and trim that is 10% of pitch. Adjust the max angle and speed of rotators to avoid pitch oscillations.
Money prize wouldn't be a problem, it wouldn't be the first time steam cards were given to winners. However, upvote prize system is simple. If the winner is to receive five upvotes, you go to their profile and upvote five builds.
@Alta2809 I have linked my example of the technique, as it is the only tutorial for it that I know of. It is unlisted and I'm not getting upvotes on it.
@Brencool35 not really a lead indicator, as you cannot input target properties. A sight that would compensate for movement of the plane is possible though. One good input I got from my friend reduces turning angle of a wheel as the speed increases, preventing user from flipping the build over. Another limits horsepower on level terrain and adds power on climbs, allowing for an off-road vehicle with realistic acceleration.
Funky Trees allow you to combine multiple inputs along with mathematical functions in inlut fields of rotators and other moving bits. I suggest checking WNP78's post for better explanation.
You should be more specific about xml editing. Can one scale mass along with size? Also, maybe count smoothness of flight, and explain judging criteria. For example, every 100m off the end of Wright runway adds 1 point, looks 5 points, smoothness of flight 5 points...
The way challenge is written now, users don't know how their entries will be rated. You may use other ways of rating, I'm just giving an example of whst I think could work.
For the measurement of distsnce off the end of the runway, save location there, spawn an ai cockpit, and check distance to it in air-to-air targeting mode. Also, maybe punish sideways deviation (auto roll).
Alternately, do not come to a game related site seeking compassion. Open a Facebook account, or, if you really insist on sharing your pain with SP community, consider visiting one of many Discord servers.
I don't remember requesting to be tagged. I'm following you, so I would have seen it as soon as I'm online anyway.
Nice build. Could have been smoother in some areas, but given the complexity of the shape I'd say it's not bad. Performance seem decent enough, as good as SP will allow I think.
Try using Heading input on two rotators, one set to quickly move the pointer off center, the other, with the same input in opposite direction, to slowly move it back to the starting position.
Velocity. It's the old input for speed. Input will go from 0 to 1 when the cockpit is traveling at more than 800m/s. It is still useable, and better for some things than new inputs.
@ChisP it damages with impact if that's what you meant with the first question, and explosion scales with caliber. A 1000mm gun scaled to look like a 20mm will have explosions of a 1000mm gun.
I have saved a location off the end ofthe Wright runway to snipe with my 180mm naval cannon, as it is a fixed emplacement. If yor platform is mobile, just spawn on Wright and taxy to the end of the runway. As BlackhattAircraft mentioned, Wright North is also a good location for sniping.
@LeonardoEngineering yes as long as that plane is in the post too. I have suggested an exception to the rule for challenges though, and I'll come back to you when I get conclusive results.
@mikoyanster I felt the need to ping you personally, as you have the habit of using unrealted images for your challenges. I suggest you experiment a bit with fuselage art. It's easier than it seems.
@Parshainaerospace to save you an effort of asking me for every single build, everyone can play with my builds any way they like. Yes, you can have it.
Buddy, this is a game about planes. While I've got nothing against posts like this one, you should probably post some planes to get a bit of reputation before assaulting forum section.
I'm not sure about trim tabs. I have noticed upon a brief inquiry that later versions have split elevator, but I think full span one looks much better. Your choice though. Also, I notice you date yours to 1945, making full span elevator a more realistic option, as split elevator is a 1948 modification.
Actual custom elevator would have been easy to make and would make the build significantly better. Also, it's missing flaps. Other than that, very nice build. Good performance and surprisingly low part count.
Or you can tag a moderator with a link to the original build. We can now edit successors.
+2Your link to the challenge post leads back to this results post, not to the challenge post itself.
+2I agree about spotlights. Especially when you're as far up the users list as I am, those appear once in a blue moon. But upvotes are too common, and are often given without even downloading the build. I don't value them too much. Best thing are honest comments, the ones that actually express an opinion other than "nice".
+2@jamesPLANESii indeed. I simply posted it because the alternative would be deleting it.
+2@riko lag comes from my laptop being some five years old. It's not a build problem. Tracks mod is a bit heavy on the processor, so I can run fewer parts smoothly if tracks are involved. Custom tracks made out of wheels would have the same effect, so there's no fixing that problem.
+2A little piece of advice:
+2Use large wings to keep the ship on course. Large vertical stabilizers near the center of mass, as well as smaller ones near the stern will make your ship handle much better. Also, make sure that all engines are getting enough air by using inlets. If engines are on rotators, you have to attach inlets to the engines, as air doesn't go through rotators. You can then edit
powerMultipliervalue in Overload to get the amount of power you need.@JamesBleriot no, of course not. It has been a very valuable asset ever since it was introduced. It got your rule-breaking post, didn't it?
+2Your post has been removed for being very political. Have you checked the rules recently? There's one literally saying you shouldn't politics.
+2You have a contact button in the bottom right corner of the page. I suggest using that to get in touch with the company and resolve the situation.
+2@Oofsoda quit spamming Andrew. He's not a builder, and probably wouldn't know a good build if it were to hit him in the face. He's a developer.
+2An SAM or AAM will usually detonate close to the target without making a contact, and will shower the target with multiple rings of shrapnel, cutting through the engines, hydraulics, fuel tanks, and structural elements. Target will often go up in flames, lose control, and disintegrate from G forces.
+2@Homemade some users seem to have found a way, but I have no idea how. As for spamming, do keep in mind that I have a life outside of SP. I have a job, social life, and other things to attend to, and cannot be online 24/7.
+2While this is a cute build, I think I should give you a bit of constructive criticism on it:
+2Wings aren't very strong, and main landing gear, which bears most of the weight, shouldn't be on wingtips. Only planes with main gear under the fuselage in bicycle fashion have wingtip outriggers, like Harrier. Also, you should go for all-moving horizontal stabilizers. Put structural wings on rotators and give them input
Pitch + Trim/10. That will give you both pitch control and trim that is 10% of pitch. Adjust the max angle and speed of rotators to avoid pitch oscillations.Money prize wouldn't be a problem, it wouldn't be the first time steam cards were given to winners. However, upvote prize system is simple. If the winner is to receive five upvotes, you go to their profile and upvote five builds.
+2@KerlonceauxIndustries do not "owo"!
+2Congratulations on silver :)
+2@Skyler717 207k.
+2Mass scale one part and clone it around.
+2@Alta2809 I have linked my example of the technique, as it is the only tutorial for it that I know of. It is unlisted and I'm not getting upvotes on it.
+2@Brencool35 not really a lead indicator, as you cannot input target properties. A sight that would compensate for movement of the plane is possible though. One good input I got from my friend reduces turning angle of a wheel as the speed increases, preventing user from flipping the build over. Another limits horsepower on level terrain and adds power on climbs, allowing for an off-road vehicle with realistic acceleration.
+2Funky Trees allow you to combine multiple inputs along with mathematical functions in inlut fields of rotators and other moving bits. I suggest checking WNP78's post for better explanation.
+2You should be more specific about xml editing. Can one scale mass along with size? Also, maybe count smoothness of flight, and explain judging criteria. For example, every 100m off the end of Wright runway adds 1 point, looks 5 points, smoothness of flight 5 points...
+2The way challenge is written now, users don't know how their entries will be rated. You may use other ways of rating, I'm just giving an example of whst I think could work.
For the measurement of distsnce off the end of the runway, save location there, spawn an ai cockpit, and check distance to it in air-to-air targeting mode. Also, maybe punish sideways deviation (auto roll).
It looks very nice. Good job.
+2Alternately, do not come to a game related site seeking compassion. Open a Facebook account, or, if you really insist on sharing your pain with SP community, consider visiting one of many Discord servers.
+2Don't tag me, I'm following you.
+2I don't remember requesting to be tagged. I'm following you, so I would have seen it as soon as I'm online anyway.
Nice build. Could have been smoother in some areas, but given the complexity of the shape I'd say it's not bad. Performance seem decent enough, as good as SP will allow I think.
+2@YAMATOBATTLESHIP2222 having a huge vertical stabiliser near CoM and a smaller one astern usually stops the excess drifting.
+2Long time no see friend. Nice comeback.
+2Try using
+2Headinginput on two rotators, one set to quickly move the pointer off center, the other, with the same input in opposite direction, to slowly move it back to the starting position.I have made the link clickable. Edit the post to see how.
+2Velocity. It's the old input for speed. Input will go from
+20to1when the cockpit is traveling at more than 800m/s. It is still useable, and better for some things than new inputs.New inputs allow us to programme our crafts anyway we want though, and cannon is amazing. You're missing out on a lot.
+2You could have posted unlisted though.
+2Oh, sorry then.
+2@ChisP it damages with impact if that's what you meant with the first question, and explosion scales with caliber. A 1000mm gun scaled to look like a 20mm will have explosions of a 1000mm gun.
+2Congratulations. People will be expecting more from you now, so you better start practicing custom control surfaces :)
+2I have saved a location off the end ofthe Wright runway to snipe with my 180mm naval cannon, as it is a fixed emplacement. If yor platform is mobile, just spawn on Wright and taxy to the end of the runway. As BlackhattAircraft mentioned, Wright North is also a good location for sniping.
+2@Lorileni @Evenstsrike333 I'm glad you like it.
+2@LeonardoEngineering yes as long as that plane is in the post too. I have suggested an exception to the rule for challenges though, and I'll come back to you when I get conclusive results.
+2@LeonardoEngineering post was just edited to address that. Logos and texts are perfectly fine.
+2@mikoyanster I felt the need to ping you personally, as you have the habit of using unrealted images for your challenges. I suggest you experiment a bit with fuselage art. It's easier than it seems.
+2@Parshainaerospace oh, ok then :)
+2@Parshainaerospace to save you an effort of asking me for every single build, everyone can play with my builds any way they like. Yes, you can have it.
+2Of this old ugly thing?! Sure XD
+2@Parshainaerospace
@ChiyomiAnzai "If you are continually telling people their airplanes suck, then maybe you suck."
+2Your comment has been removed.
100th :)
+2Buddy, this is a game about planes. While I've got nothing against posts like this one, you should probably post some planes to get a bit of reputation before assaulting forum section.
+2I'm not sure about trim tabs. I have noticed upon a brief inquiry that later versions have split elevator, but I think full span one looks much better. Your choice though. Also, I notice you date yours to 1945, making full span elevator a more realistic option, as split elevator is a 1948 modification.
+2Try combining tags Cargo and Vehicle.
+2Actual custom elevator would have been easy to make and would make the build significantly better. Also, it's missing flaps. Other than that, very nice build. Good performance and surprisingly low part count.
+2