@AWESOMENESS360 Better late than never...
I was, myself, wondering if one could simply replace them with Pistons on a Cycle instead of Gear, entirely...?
.
Though, with FT, maybe one could take it a step further by limiting the Piston's "Speed", depending on which AG is toggled. And if it still needed more speed granularity, for anyone REALLY good at it (ie, not me lol), one could make it where multiple AG's turned on could act as higher settings.
IOW: 1-8 for the first 8 speed settings, then 1+2-8 for speeds 9-16, then 1+2+3-8 for speeds 17-26, etc etc. (Although, by that point I'm sure the SP physics engine would decide to pack it in, blowing everything up lol)
Yea, I think what Dann810 is trying to convey is that due to the width of the plane and passenger cabin, the people seated along the outter rows will experience a LOT more movement when the plane banks/rolls, due to their position being further away from the center axis.
.
I had seen... somewhere... it pitched to have there be seating only in the center of the plane like current airliners use, and then equip screens instead of windows. (I feel like this was a discussion that took place in the comments of someone's plane here, actually)
That would require multiple decks in order to keep everyone seated along the centerline, however, now that no one would be outboard, all that room is free for cargo/luggage, so it offsets itself and capacity isn't really lost.
.
Of course, now you contend with the huge expense of electronics going bad with the inclusion of a large screen for every row of seats, plus multiple decks which multiplies the number of rows. Just as well, the various number of cameras needed, to provide those views for people. (Thankfully you'd only need a dozen, and everyone would get the same view, but could change between which camera their screen taps into [likely want to keep L and R sides to their respective sides, so that the plane doesn't loook like it's traveling the wrong way lol])
And, of course, there's still the problem of emergency evacuation routes... :\
.
Still, I'd say just make the planes smaller. Less people, less room to fit more than 2 decks, means easy access to top and bottom of the plane for emergency exits. PLUS, with all that room on the wings, you'd then have lots of cargo space. If these are extremely more efficient, it could replace Over The Road long haul deliveries by having those passenger flights have ample room to carry lots of bulk cargo. ;)
I agree, that's a nice boat. :)
The anti-aliasing on the long cone underneath initially made me think it was a "Lily Impeller" lol
(Which I only know about that, due to this video by Integza I'd watched recently.)
@Robertguerra2 It's best not to ask for Technical Support in a blog post (use the Forums for that). I'll still try to help quick, but I won't follow up here afterwards :P
My guess is perhaps while playing, you accidentally clicked "Respawn Here" when you had crashed in the ocean.
The best solution is to load in a plane, and then open the menu.
Upper-left you'll see a Map Marker looking icon (upside down tear-drop shape); click that to open a menu where you can select where you spawn from
Find "Wright Airport" in the list and click on that, then click "Okay".
You now will be back at the airport runway and will continue to spawn there from now on (or until you change your spawn location again.)
True to life, as I imagine, this thing is not the BEST flying aircraft... A fact that appears to be inherent to the design, considering another C1 in SP also seemed to be a pain in the butt to fly!
.
This took considerable effort to fine tune its flying, and in the end it is vastly superior to what it was when I first built it. Unfortunately, the realism is slightly lost because so much XML editing of Drag was required, and even then the engine needed more power than it had in real life (which was only 150HP).
.
While my first flight did not end in a crash due to a sudden Roll... it DID crash from a continued Pitch Up (loop) after liftoff. Alas, I managed to nail down a workable CoM point along with dialing down the Drag on a lot of parts at the front. Not ideal, but, necessary. Admittedly, it is NOT what I'd envision a combat plane to have for flight behavior, but it would make for a great Leisure Plane.
@MAHADI Here is my entry for the WWI Challenge. :)
@brians1209 @PoinX25tlessWhyShouldI
If I came across as patronizing or insulting, I apologize, that wasn't my intent!
I was just trying to offer a relatively simple suggestion as a work-around for the whole (very unfortunate) debacle.
I can see tempers are still high, which I can empathize over, and I'm sorry for bringing that up as I didn't mean to stir things up again. :)
My suggestion, withdraw this design as your submission.
1) Add wings to those ""wing roots" near where the tail starts.
2) Encase them to look snazzy and match the rest of the build's aesthetics.
3) XML edit all the parts newly added and: Set Mass to 0, Disable Caclulation of Drag, Disable any wing parts' Lift function (making them just structural parts). Since they are now all weightless, dragless, liftless parts, the flight characteristics should theoretically be unchanged!
4) Re-submit the new build which now incorporates "wings", and define it as the fictional precursor to the later-developed wing-less variant; thus, putting you within the requirements of the rules. ^_^
However, I can also appreciate if the entire situation has caused you guys to have lost interest in the challenge and have no motivation to make those modifications in an effort to validate the design.
Challenge aside, it's a great build and clearly a sentiment shared by everyone! :) (Even Mahadi I'd say, since he upvoted it)
@LieutenantSOT Thanks! :D
And yea, I was gone from July 14th and just got back on Aug 18th :} I had to submit my entry hastily the night before I left, didn't get to do any further work like I'd have wanted to... Alas, I'm still happy with it, so we'll see what Astro thinks. I'm going through them all, in order, but haven't come to mine yet. Hopefully that's a good thing! lol
.
Anyways, thanks again, and for the quick response!
@AvalonIndustries Not a problem! :P It was such a wild coincidence that it was worth mentioning heh
That, and admittedly, I didn't want anyone to think I shamelessly copied you.... :}
OK! I managed to refine it down today to make it ALMOST automated (ie we just pull the trigger). This is better than I've experienced so far :)
Problem is, the Cockpit is inside the Flak Turret so it might have screwed up some other stuff... (The AA Machineguns are still just as deadly since they're spraying so much lead)
.
That being said... [important changes to the code are in bold] NEW Fuselage Block @ Coords:0.0000027, 26.43127, -22.29239
-------Rotation: 0, 0, 0
-------Attachment Point: "Bottom" to the "Top" of Part ID 328 (the big fuselage on top of the triple guns) Cockpit Moved to Coords:0.0000027, 26.43127,- 22.29239(yes, same spot)
-------Rotation: 0, 0, 0
-------Attachment Point: "Bottom" to the "Center" of New Fuselage at same coords
-------(NOTE: Be sure to disconnect the cockpit from its original point; it will only be connected to this new fuselage part) UPPER Flak Cannon XML Changes (ID 173):
-------explosionScalar: 3.5
-------fuseInput:
------- CameraVantage -> viewMode: Chase(seems better, for when new targets are acquired) Flak ELEVATION Rotator (ID 168):
-------invert: true(should be this already, but just in case)
-------input:
Flak TRAVERSE Rotator (ID 165): (unfortunately its scale is 0,0,0 so need to edit this in the XML, or do as I did and edit its scale back to 1,1,1 so you can access it in game)
-------invert: true(pretty certain it's already this)
-------input:
(TargetHeading - Heading + rate(TargetHeading)*(((1000 * sin(asin((TargetDistance * 9.81)/(pow(1000, 2)))/2))/9.81) * 2))/180 (this could probably use to have those 1000 set to 1250)
EDIT: Stupid Markdown codebox not using word-wrap... AND this site lacking the ``` code-block ability! Ugh
(boy can I ramble, huh?....) EFFECTIVENESS:
-In my tests --which were all performed at Wright's Spawn point-- I'm now able to, with ONLY the Flak Cannons (no AA machineguns), eliminate moderately-fast moving targets that are NOT performing elaborate acrobatics or have a high rate of climb/descent. Drone, Bomber, a few of my own builds, Astro's AS-15 Dagger, Enemy, were various targets I managed to take out.
-Depending on direction of travel, I had to use a slight bit of main-turret rotation in order to lead or trail the target JUST A TINY AMOUNT so that the shells exploded closer to them; hence, thinking that Traverse "1000" may be fine to change to "1250" (or maybe it needs to go back to 800?).
-RANGE though? In conjunction with my change to Fuse timing, that's now anywhere from <1 mile, to a peak of 3.5mi for slow moving targets (Drone), but an average Max of 2.2mi! :D If the Elevation with VTOL (noted below in Future Plans) were implemented, then this could be increased easily up to 5mi I think.
-Targets coming in to land were the ones that were usually closer before being able to destroy (~1mi, AS-15), but not always, as slower planes landing were destroyed around 2mi.
.
Code Changes:
Elevation - Changed the -10 at the end, to -12.5 (determined after trying -20 and -15)
Rotation - Changed the two 800 entries to 1000
.
Additional notes:
I tried a few things with the Elevation which didn't work out. Such as setting all the asin to sin, changing the 2000 to 1250, changing the few * 2 to various * 1.9x values, and combinations of those. Ultimately, they produced drastic changes and needed to be reversed, with finally testing changes to just -10 and having the results I was after; lower values drop the Point of Aim, so -20 is far too low (the obverse to -10's too-high impacts).
.
Future Plans:
1) At least for use as a turret on a vehicle/plane that isn't already using the VTOL input, I plan to either...
A) use VTOL as the "multiplier" in my Fuse code, so that you can adjust the fuse timing on the fly
or
B) use VTOL somehow, somewhere, in the Elevation code (maybe as a (-12.5 + VTOL)) so that the aim height can be adjusted for targets based on whether they're further or closer away.
2) I need to add a damn camera to the turret body so that I can switch back and be viewing behind the turret, with the camera pointing at the new target! When mouse click is needed to rotate AND is assigned to fire cannon, it's... a waste of ammo to rotate the camera lol
@ThomasRoderick Yea the assumption I had was as you said, the first set of numbers are the velocity, right? Except the coding in this thing totally contradicts that?? :( The only place that it turns up is in the Fuze timing :\
.
Traverse code: (TargetHeading - Heading + rate(TargetHeading)*(((800 * sin(asin((TargetDistance * 9.81)/(pow(800, 2)))/2))/9.81) * 2))/180
... uses 800.
.
Elevation code: clamp((TargetElevation + rate(TargetElevation)*(((2000 * sin(asin((TargetDistance * 9.81)/(pow(2000, 2)))/2))/9.81) * 2)) + (asin(((TargetDistance + rate(TargetDistance)*(((2000 * sin(asin((TargetDistance * 9.81)/(pow(2000, 2)))/2))/9.81) * 2))* 9.81)/(pow(2000, 2)))/2),-10,45)/45
... uses 2000 *throws papers in the air*
So what the Eff, Jeff?! lol
Anyways, since I have a moment, I'll throw some of today's thoughts at the code right now and see what it results in!
OK new findings after moving the cockpit...
1) Screw you Jundroo! :D
2) That SORT of addresses some of the problem; it's STILL shooting high, I'll get back to you on leading or trailing too far; Fuze timing seems pretty good now though.
3) See 1. The part you attach it to, or at least how you attach to that part, seems to impact how everything functions. For example, I tried manually attaching its Rear-Bottom point, to various part's (fuselages) Center point... Result: ANY part that was oriented any way other than X:0. Y:0, Z:0 would cause the auto-aim to be "off" by that amount.
4) Naturally, at least in hindsight, you can't attach it to any part ON the turret because... it moves, and as a result of the cockpit moving, the FT script can't calculate, and it freaks out. It'd always rotate 180 backwards, and then wobble a couple degrees left and right since it was basically stuck in a loop heh
@ThomasRoderick That sounds plausible...
I wonder what is more important (seriously heh): having the Flak being accurate, or having the various side-guns, which also use auto-aim code....
.
Because if that's the problem, then the solution would simply be to move the Cockpit up to the Flak turret. The main triple-guns don't use it (I don't think?). so there doesn't seem to be much point having it centered near them.
I'll have to give that a try, thanks. I didn't think the cockpit's LOCATION also had an impact on stuff *facepalm* Jundroo is really kneecapping us on what all can be done, despite giving us so much power with FunkyTrees coding :(
I'm seriously about ready to give up... In addition to being unable to time the fuze well, there's more!
There seems to be a serious bit of screwiness, like with the Exhaust Scale when using asymm values, where it matters which direction you're facing for whether your jet exhaust looks correctly. or oblong shaped. :|
.
In this case, I'm having it....
- lead craft too much when they're traveling S to N.
- aim too far left when they're traveling W to E
- trail craft too far when they're traveling N to S
I assume, too, that E to W would to the inverse, as well.
Unfortunately, I fear this is either a core SP bug, or a much worse bug that relates to Unity Engine....
.
I at least managed to get the Fuze timing a bit closer to detonating when it's properly near the plane, but it's hard to refine it further when I have these aiming anomalies that require a consistent aircraft spawning system heh
I can hit stuff that's under a mile from me, since the accuracy is trivial at that point, but we already knew that.
@ThomasRoderick I can confirm what Woody was saying, that the Flak AA turret's aiming is still way off and missing almost everything unless it's super close. The one was only 2.5mi (just over 4km) out, flying horizontally in front of me, and every 5 shots exploded high above it (about at the top of its targeting square, visually at that range).
.
After shooting some more and tinkering, I realized there's a bullet cam setup on the Flakk heh Which is showing the round exploding WAY too early actually. So I wager that the visual effect of going "high" is actually because the round has only barely reached its peak height. That's seemingly confirmed by the bullet camera, as for craft flying at ~3000-5000ft alt seem to be below the round still just as it explodes, because it hasn't had time to arc back down towards the target.
.
I'm still tinkering to try and figure this out, but I'm --pardon the pun-- shooting blindly here since not only is the FT coding out of my league, but so is the math (yea I'm that bad at math shush lol). But it's also important to me, since I need to use this code for myself! :}
@LunchBox Don't worry, I will :D I'm just not done with it, and have hit a considerable snag that is below my ability to fix and am throwing my idiocity at it, hoping my ignorant attempts to solve it actually work! lol
I mean I know what's happening --and-- I just now figured out "why", but it uses not only FT, but math, and both are further over my head than the Space Station is right now! :P
And I just had a Eureka moment before submitting this, which has indeed managed to solve 80% of the issue I was having! Goes the right way now, which is important lol That last 20% is rather critical though...
I see my head is in the right place in terms of going above and beyond what I've ever done before. Had I stopped where I normally would've, I'd have been way outclassed, and that's just based on seeing only yours!
.
It's funny you added those wing-to-tail antennas in that way, as I thought about doing the same thing in that same fashion! Instead I opted for the more cliche/traditional cockpit-to-rudder-base style :P
.
Looks great! (and apparently 18hrs ago, I forgot to click Submit for this comment!)
@winterro You do have a point.... haha
Or a Go-Go-Gadget Helicopter... :}
@Thunderhawk Yes, that's true. However, I don't really qualify skydiving, as "flying". Which is how I feel that a Kakapo would be like in this scenario... That is, as it is naturally.
With a jetpack, well that's indeed flying lol ((At least sci-fi type jetpacks, ala Iron Man; the real ones are closer to exaggerated thrust-vectored short-duration "leaps".)*
@KGcheater Thanks for the advice. I've indeed encountered the speed-wobble. I believe, in that instance, I was able to resolve it by actually making Attachment Points between each wing's tips. I guess you'd call it a "virtual attachment" since the two parts were not physically touching.
@PaperPlaneHasDream Thanks a bunch for the tip about Wings-2! Not only do they indeed seem to be much more rigid, as you said, but even better is they allow for much more refined control surface sizes :)
This will make my life significantly easier!
(Now all we need is for Jundroo to address the auto-roll [sometimes yaw as well] that will all-of-a-sudden manifest in a build. Wasn't present in the latest thing I'm working on, and then suddenly is. Super-awesome-fun-times!)
@surajshy Yes, Sled's work is very impressive for sure!
Alas, they are better suited for minimal/no-atmosphere and zero-gravity environments... lol Great for making something that shouldn't fly, be able to fly, but that itself sort of detracts from certain builds. In a planet's atmosphere, you're defying physics. I'm sure his systems can be toned down to feel realistic though, but I anticipate that's more work than I have experience in tinkering with currently.
I'll certainly utilize such a propulsion system some day, but I've not yet exhausted my enjoyment of vehicles that abide by physics! lol
Aww :( Guess that rules out my boy the Kakapo T_T heh
The kakapo, also called owl parrot, is a species of large, flightless, nocturnal, ground-dwelling parrot of the super-family Strigopoidea, endemic to New Zealand.
How do you get rockets to work --ie launch/detatch-- when there are other things attached to them?
I scaled down a Boom25 (I think it was 0.5,0.5,0.25) and attached it to the front of an Interceptor. I had the Interceptor already attached to a Pylon, then used the Attachment Editor to connect the Boom25 to the Interceptor.
.
Problem is, when I locked on to a target and launched the missile, it just stayed attached to the Pylon.
Hmm... Is that where the actual Detatcher part comes in and is what I should've used??
@LieutenantSOT You know... I just now realized the issue with the NASA tool... Not that it is an "issue" just... yea.
The differences between its Imperial and Metric is that it does MPH, but Meters/second! So when I plugged in "1000" it was just "slightly" off... lol (See, NASA, this was why your lander plowed into the Martian surface a few decades back! [I only kid; that was a programming oopsie from using imperial instead of metric heh])
I genuinely thought those MPH figures seemed way off, but it's late and I didn't even question it hahah Yep. I'm going to bed :P
EDIT:
Also, I believe I meant to put kph, not kmh XD
Monkey-see, Monkey-do, I suspect? As I had previously put "kmh" *facepalm* haha
Either way we clearly knew what each other meant, and that's all that's important!
Hot damn that's a sexy bird! Well done!
Granted, I'm biased due to my love of the HO-229, but... I think the 41 other upvotes --at least for the moment-- confirm my sentiments! lol
Nice!
I had an 89 Dodge Conquest (widebody, like you modeled) that I got from a towed vehicle auction back in like... 2002-ish. It had a blown turbo. Sadly, even after I fixed that I never got to drive it :\
I had pulled the Passenger side seat out before myself giving it away, and turned it into a computer chair.... Which I happen to be sitting on. lol
@PaperPlaneHasDream I was mixing up the wing types then, my bad.
I was thinking you were referring to the Structural Wing, and to convert it into that after having adding control surfaces. All the Wings (be it rudder, primary wing, or tail fins) suffer from the flex, though. It's just harder to notice on tails due to their smaller size and the fact that we don't usually have tails made from multiple wing parts, nor are they usually large enough.
.
A good one to witness the flex, no matter what wing is used, would be on this ""Airbus"".
The primary wings obviously exhibit flex here which is actually welcomed being that's realistic. Though the livery on the rudder shows how much sway it also has, and you can just see the flexing in the tail fins.
In that example, it's honestly not a bad thing. It's on smaller builds, with multi-part wings where most do not have control surfaces, but then the ones that DO are pretty much acting as though they have little-to-no attachments elsewhere. They don't just flex at the wing tips, but 'twist' at the root. It'd be fine is Wings were like Fuselage parts and had connection points at the sides, of like the Wedge (sloped) block or Cockpits, which have 2 connection points on a single surface.
.
The wings only have Root, Body, and Tip attachment points, and that doesn't really lend itself to rigidity :(
Granted, this isSimple Planes, and that is indeed the most basic number to accomplish what they're after... lol They definitely need to add an "Advanced" mode, since lots of us eventually outgrow that basic system in the game and need a stepping-stone before XML editing. (even Overdrive lacks the full accessibility, as it doesn't provide changing the connection points or what make up a "body") [/rant] lol EDIT: It's 13:00 here in East Coast US for me. Good night! Sleep well.
@Sadboye12 Out of curiosity, what's the meaning or significance of the 3 "characters/letters" on the right air intake?
You seem to have your bases covered in every other aspect, so I figure those aren't there "just because"... ;) (unless, they are lol)
Sadboye commenting on something I posted; a heavy modification of someone elses share
"anyways what a nice build! you dont see this everyday"
...Then he proceeds to upload this piece of awesomeness moments later, literally on the same day... lmao
Looks great though! Even the 2019 version, for that matter :D
@Dathcha Oh I see what you meant ahha
No no, I was referring to making it more centipede-like in terms of it having 80 or so segments! :P
I made a 1/32nd scale Kickingfish (and a 1/4 scale, which works way better) so I'm all for scaling stuff otherwise! heh
@JaphetSkie If you listen closely, you can hear him go BRRRrr-BRRRRrrt every time he jumps :D
For once, the noisy servos work to our advantage! heh
@LunchBox glad you like it!
Yes! We have Glass Fuselage, and Floating Fuselage, I think that... albeit silly as hell... a Gelatin Fuselage (or resizable square) would make for interesting comedic wonders. The physics wouldn't be very "simple" and it might murder mobile, but it'd be fun to play with for certain lol
@LeSkunk Actually.......
There is! LOL
It's the /\ to the right of where this +1 on yours now is ;) (since you pinned mine, it's now where the 'Pinned' shows up, and can't be upvoted)
I always liked the Le Pew cartoons when I was a kid :)
hah AND a trailer!
That's impressive, looks great!
Though, wouldn't Hinge Rotators centerline, would better? (or is it because they can't Cycle for why you didn't use them?)
@Dathcha Granted, but, I was mostly talking about the fact it'd be a few thousand parts heh Which would make mobile systems rather unhappy :} (and being mechano, probably PC systems as well!)
Hmm, wonder why it didn't auto-credit Sadboye's Goliath...
Either way, it's indeed crazy haha Shame SP is limited or it'd be nifty to see it be real centipede length! (but as we know, that'd make SP implode)
.
@Lunchbox
Discovery Channel's "Shark Week" IS coming up here sometime in July... ;)
And you could knock out two birds with one stone by *cough* making a Dog Shark :} (also, lawl at my snake suggestion kicking your butt! haha)
@Thunderhawk It may help it, yea. I may indeed revisit it at some point. I've considered a global scaling up of it to see if that'd also help.
I built something new last night --albeit completely unrelated to this-- that developed a strange anomaly, for lack of a better way to describe it, that I have to figure out first before I even want to THINK of going back to this nightmare! haha This Skorpion just hates me, so I'm willing to give it the space it needs :P
@Thunderhawk lol Yea, I did indeed try that. Even mentioned it in the post you replied to :}
Heck, I even played around with it MORE last night, after posting this and finding out the dimensions were wrong. Increased the wings to the proper width, set the height taller (only by making the Gear taller for better ground clearance), and moved the canards further forward, back, up, down.
And indeed, as mentioned in my main post, made sure to try every possible combination of Wing Type (Symmetric, Semi-Symmetric, Flat Bottom) on main wings and the canards. Not just that but even the various segments of each wing (the back is technically 4 wings, 2 main big wings and then two itty bitty ones to make the curved tip).. It took a long time, but ultimately I had to give up as I was making zero progress :\
@Thunderhawk Yea I did... a lot
I forgot to mention, but there's a thin, rectangular piece of Fuselage colored bright red that's positioned roughly between the root's leading edge (mid-plane) that I set its Mass scale to 5, or maybe even 10. I spent a long time moving it around, to put the CoM higher than CoL, on the same level as CoL, forward, behind.
Unstable, was the common result. :(
(There's also 2000lbs worth of deadweight in the top two fuselage parts of the landing gear, just to push the CoM forward and to try and solve that weird issue of it wanting to Yaw all over the runway while taking off; removing that weight makes it Yaw even worse)
.
Heck, I even played around with it MORE last night, after posting this and finding out the dimensions were wrong. Increased the wings to the proper width, set the height taller (only by making the Gear taller for better ground clearance), and moved the canards further forward, back, up, down.
Granted, it did take off slightly sooner, just before reaching the warning stripes instead of after bouncing off the grass... lol But its overall flight performance was worse. (Still liked producing more lift when flowing upside-down... I'm almost certain the key to the problem is somehow related to that...)
The only "fix" I have left in my bag of tricks would be to add hidden VTOL Thrusters. Only reason I am reluctant to do that is because it is a real plane that shouldn't need that level of cheap tricks to get it flying well! lol
Clearly I have done something wrong that is simply outside my level of expertise to find and resolve... which is fine, I can accept that fact. :P
@Captain247 No no, nothing like that. But you bring up a valid point. I should've quoted his comment to indicate what specifically I was replying to. When I was writing that, I wasn't actually aware that Walvis is also who made the video... <_> lol
I'll edit my post to include the comment. My bad!
Here's my unlisted variant if anyone's interested. It's only the Red Engine, but I made a number of specific tweaks to the Nozzles for a slightly improved "shock diamond" effect (this could also be done to the Blue Engine since it has the same inner row of nozzles.) https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/5JYCcl/Custom-Afterburner-Engine-Mk-F
Looks great!
I'm on a Parts-Cutting-Mission to see where I can cut them back yet retain the style and function. Already managed to cut each engine by 12 :D (Will edit this to include further findings) 1) Savings: 12 Parts (each engine), Location: Nozzles
The inner and outer flaps of the nozzles are both constructed with 2 parts each, except the inner row is straight only tapering down, unlike the outer ones which curve down at the tips. So I removed the small extra tip part of each inner flat, adding the length back to the main piece (making it 1.575) and setting its end dimensions to what the small piece's was (0.04x0.35). 2) Savings: 1 to 5 Parts (each), Location: Main Fuselage
If you remove the outer layers of fuselage and make the front Fuselage Intake 6.25 in length (painting Primary to that semi-flat dark gray) you can replace all the exterior fuselage parts. However, the small back ring would need to have its attachments all changed from those pieces, to that Intake. Since that was being done, might as well remove the forward central shaft that some of the VTOL nozzles are connected to, moving them over to the other one (in my notes that should be [for Red] ID 567's attachments moving over to ID 518)
GRANTED... That does ssssslightly change the view from the rear when looking into the engine while it's off, so alternatively ... If you kept the -outer- most ring that the hinged rotates are connected to and moved the -inner- rings to that. Then extended the outer's length so maybe 1.5ish, shortening the Intake to 4.75, you'd still remove 4 parts and retain the rear-look.
@Sadboye12 It's not an amazing giant walking spider-beast, or beautiful flying moth... BUT, I did get to use what you taught me on it, with the glowing glass. :D
Granted, this project was mostly done by the time I learned that, so it was only minor touches incorporated here. Still, the night vision effect on the scope eyepiece wouldn't have turned out as great without it! (toggled via AG3; otherwise it's hidden)
@Thunderhawk hah Thanks :) I wanted to use buttons and lights, and then thought about how the countermeasure part has that perfect "Number Pad" look to it.
I tried to use everything in the most obscure way I could think of. So the most "normal" thing on there, in terms of doing what it originally was intended, is probably the "scope camera" on the front! (honorable mention to the propellers functioning as itty bitty fans, since both are designed to move air)
There's two ways you can type that out....
The first way, to just make it so the underscores properly show up, is to type it like this: https://mortalengines.fandom.com/wiki/Mortal\_Engines\_Wiki
(Note the backslashes in front of each underscore, that 'disables' the text formatting)
OR, to make it into a clickable link as I did: [https://mortalengines.fandom.com/wiki/Mortal\_Engines\_Wiki](https://mortalengines.fandom.com/wiki/Mortal_Engines_Wiki)
EITHER WAY, the underscores need to be disabled ("escaped") for the first part! As... I just now found out for myself :D
.
Which doesn't specifically have to be like that. The first part in the brackets can be any text you want. For example: [Mortal Instruments Wiki](https://mortalengines.fandom.com/wiki/Mortal_Engines_Wiki)
Will produce: Mortal Instruments Wiki
In other words: [text](link) (I apologize if you knew this already! lol)
@AWESOMENESS360 Better late than never...
+1I was, myself, wondering if one could simply replace them with Pistons on a Cycle instead of Gear, entirely...?
.
Though, with FT, maybe one could take it a step further by limiting the Piston's "Speed", depending on which AG is toggled. And if it still needed more speed granularity, for anyone REALLY good at it (ie, not me lol), one could make it where multiple AG's turned on could act as higher settings.
IOW: 1-8 for the first 8 speed settings, then 1+2-8 for speeds 9-16, then 1+2+3-8 for speeds 17-26, etc etc.
(Although, by that point I'm sure the SP physics engine would decide to pack it in, blowing everything up lol)
Yea, I think what Dann810 is trying to convey is that due to the width of the plane and passenger cabin, the people seated along the outter rows will experience a LOT more movement when the plane banks/rolls, due to their position being further away from the center axis.
+1.
I had seen... somewhere... it pitched to have there be seating only in the center of the plane like current airliners use, and then equip screens instead of windows. (I feel like this was a discussion that took place in the comments of someone's plane here, actually)
That would require multiple decks in order to keep everyone seated along the centerline, however, now that no one would be outboard, all that room is free for cargo/luggage, so it offsets itself and capacity isn't really lost.
.
Of course, now you contend with the huge expense of electronics going bad with the inclusion of a large screen for every row of seats, plus multiple decks which multiplies the number of rows. Just as well, the various number of cameras needed, to provide those views for people. (Thankfully you'd only need a dozen, and everyone would get the same view, but could change between which camera their screen taps into [likely want to keep L and R sides to their respective sides, so that the plane doesn't loook like it's traveling the wrong way lol])
And, of course, there's still the problem of emergency evacuation routes... :\
.
Still, I'd say just make the planes smaller. Less people, less room to fit more than 2 decks, means easy access to top and bottom of the plane for emergency exits. PLUS, with all that room on the wings, you'd then have lots of cargo space. If these are extremely more efficient, it could replace Over The Road long haul deliveries by having those passenger flights have ample room to carry lots of bulk cargo. ;)
I agree, that's a nice boat. :)
+1The anti-aliasing on the long cone underneath initially made me think it was a "Lily Impeller" lol
(Which I only know about that, due to this video by Integza I'd watched recently.)
@Robertguerra2 It's best not to ask for Technical Support in a blog post (use the Forums for that). I'll still try to help quick, but I won't follow up here afterwards :P
+1My guess is perhaps while playing, you accidentally clicked "Respawn Here" when you had crashed in the ocean.
The best solution is to load in a plane, and then open the menu.
Upper-left you'll see a Map Marker looking icon (upside down tear-drop shape); click that to open a menu where you can select where you spawn from
Find "Wright Airport" in the list and click on that, then click "Okay".
You now will be back at the airport runway and will continue to spawn there from now on (or until you change your spawn location again.)
True to life, as I imagine, this thing is not the BEST flying aircraft... A fact that appears to be inherent to the design, considering another C1 in SP also seemed to be a pain in the butt to fly!
.
This took considerable effort to fine tune its flying, and in the end it is vastly superior to what it was when I first built it. Unfortunately, the realism is slightly lost because so much XML editing of Drag was required, and even then the engine needed more power than it had in real life (which was only 150HP).
.
While my first flight did not end in a crash due to a sudden Roll... it DID crash from a continued Pitch Up (loop) after liftoff. Alas, I managed to nail down a workable CoM point along with dialing down the Drag on a lot of parts at the front. Not ideal, but, necessary. Admittedly, it is NOT what I'd envision a combat plane to have for flight behavior, but it would make for a great Leisure Plane.
@MAHADI Here is my entry for the WWI Challenge. :)
+1@brians1209 @PoinX25tlessWhyShouldI
If I came across as patronizing or insulting, I apologize, that wasn't my intent!
I was just trying to offer a relatively simple suggestion as a work-around for the whole (very unfortunate) debacle.
I can see tempers are still high, which I can empathize over, and I'm sorry for bringing that up as I didn't mean to stir things up again. :)
+1My suggestion, withdraw this design as your submission.
1) Add wings to those ""wing roots" near where the tail starts.
2) Encase them to look snazzy and match the rest of the build's aesthetics.
3) XML edit all the parts newly added and: Set Mass to 0, Disable Caclulation of Drag, Disable any wing parts' Lift function (making them just structural parts). Since they are now all weightless, dragless, liftless parts, the flight characteristics should theoretically be unchanged!
4) Re-submit the new build which now incorporates "wings", and define it as the fictional precursor to the later-developed wing-less variant; thus, putting you within the requirements of the rules. ^_^
However, I can also appreciate if the entire situation has caused you guys to have lost interest in the challenge and have no motivation to make those modifications in an effort to validate the design.
+1Challenge aside, it's a great build and clearly a sentiment shared by everyone! :) (Even Mahadi I'd say, since he upvoted it)
@LieutenantSOT Thanks! :D
+1And yea, I was gone from July 14th and just got back on Aug 18th :} I had to submit my entry hastily the night before I left, didn't get to do any further work like I'd have wanted to... Alas, I'm still happy with it, so we'll see what Astro thinks. I'm going through them all, in order, but haven't come to mine yet. Hopefully that's a good thing! lol
.
Anyways, thanks again, and for the quick response!
@AvalonIndustries Not a problem! :P It was such a wild coincidence that it was worth mentioning heh
+1That, and admittedly, I didn't want anyone to think I shamelessly copied you.... :}
@Astro12 Here's my entry for your challenge.
@LunchBox here's.... well you can read LOL
+1It's the one I mentioned on your plane's page :)
1/1
OK! I managed to refine it down today to make it ALMOST automated (ie we just pull the trigger). This is better than I've experienced so far :)
Problem is, the Cockpit is inside the Flak Turret so it might have screwed up some other stuff... (The AA Machineguns are still just as deadly since they're spraying so much lead)
.
That being said... [important changes to the code are in bold]
NEW Fuselage Block @ Coords:
0.0000027, 26.43127, -22.29239-------Rotation:
0, 0, 0-------Attachment Point: "Bottom" to the "Top" of Part ID 328 (the big fuselage on top of the triple guns)
Cockpit Moved to Coords:
0.0000027, 26.43127,- 22.29239(yes, same spot)-------Rotation:
0, 0, 0-------Attachment Point: "Bottom" to the "Center" of New Fuselage at same coords
-------(NOTE: Be sure to disconnect the cockpit from its original point; it will only be connected to this new fuselage part)
UPPER Flak Cannon XML Changes (ID 173):
-------
explosionScalar: 3.5-------
fuseInput:LOWER Flak Cannon XML Changes (ID 172):
-------
explosionScalar: 3.5-------
fuseInput:------- CameraVantage ->
viewMode: Chase(seems better, for when new targets are acquired)Flak ELEVATION Rotator (ID 168):
-------
invert: true(should be this already, but just in case)-------
input:Flak TRAVERSE Rotator (ID 165):
(unfortunately its scale is 0,0,0 so need to edit this in the XML, or do as I did and edit its scale back to 1,1,1 so you can access it in game)
-------
invert: true(pretty certain it's already this)-------
input:EDIT: Stupid Markdown codebox not using word-wrap... AND this site lacking the ``` code-block ability! Ugh
+12/2
(boy can I ramble, huh?....)
+1EFFECTIVENESS:
-In my tests --which were all performed at Wright's Spawn point-- I'm now able to, with ONLY the Flak Cannons (no AA machineguns), eliminate moderately-fast moving targets that are NOT performing elaborate acrobatics or have a high rate of climb/descent. Drone, Bomber, a few of my own builds, Astro's AS-15 Dagger, Enemy, were various targets I managed to take out.
-Depending on direction of travel, I had to use a slight bit of main-turret rotation in order to lead or trail the target JUST A TINY AMOUNT so that the shells exploded closer to them; hence, thinking that Traverse "1000" may be fine to change to "1250" (or maybe it needs to go back to 800?).
-RANGE though? In conjunction with my change to Fuse timing, that's now anywhere from <1 mile, to a peak of 3.5mi for slow moving targets (Drone), but an average Max of 2.2mi! :D If the Elevation with VTOL (noted below in Future Plans) were implemented, then this could be increased easily up to 5mi I think.
-Targets coming in to land were the ones that were usually closer before being able to destroy (~1mi, AS-15), but not always, as slower planes landing were destroyed around 2mi.
.
Code Changes:
Elevation - Changed the
-10at the end, to-12.5(determined after trying -20 and -15)Rotation - Changed the two
800entries to1000.
Additional notes:
I tried a few things with the Elevation which didn't work out. Such as setting all the
asintosin, changing the2000to1250, changing the few* 2to various* 1.9xvalues, and combinations of those. Ultimately, they produced drastic changes and needed to be reversed, with finally testing changes to just -10 and having the results I was after; lower values drop the Point of Aim, so -20 is far too low (the obverse to -10's too-high impacts)..
Future Plans:
1) At least for use as a turret on a vehicle/plane that isn't already using the VTOL input, I plan to either...
A) use VTOL as the "multiplier" in my Fuse code, so that you can adjust the fuse timing on the fly
or
B) use VTOL somehow, somewhere, in the Elevation code (maybe as a
(-12.5 + VTOL)) so that the aim height can be adjusted for targets based on whether they're further or closer away.2) I need to add a damn camera to the turret body so that I can switch back and be viewing behind the turret, with the camera pointing at the new target! When mouse click is needed to rotate AND is assigned to fire cannon, it's... a waste of ammo to rotate the camera lol
@ThomasRoderick Yea the assumption I had was as you said, the first set of numbers are the velocity, right? Except the coding in this thing totally contradicts that?? :( The only place that it turns up is in the Fuze timing :\
+1.
Traverse code:
(TargetHeading - Heading + rate(TargetHeading)*(((800 * sin(asin((TargetDistance * 9.81)/(pow(800, 2)))/2))/9.81) * 2))/180... uses 800.
.
Elevation code:
clamp((TargetElevation + rate(TargetElevation)*(((2000 * sin(asin((TargetDistance * 9.81)/(pow(2000, 2)))/2))/9.81) * 2)) + (asin(((TargetDistance + rate(TargetDistance)*(((2000 * sin(asin((TargetDistance * 9.81)/(pow(2000, 2)))/2))/9.81) * 2))* 9.81)/(pow(2000, 2)))/2),-10,45)/45... uses 2000
*throws papers in the air*
So what the Eff, Jeff?! lol
Anyways, since I have a moment, I'll throw some of today's thoughts at the code right now and see what it results in!
OK new findings after moving the cockpit...
+11) Screw you Jundroo! :D
2) That SORT of addresses some of the problem; it's STILL shooting high, I'll get back to you on leading or trailing too far; Fuze timing seems pretty good now though.
3) See 1. The part you attach it to, or at least how you attach to that part, seems to impact how everything functions. For example, I tried manually attaching its Rear-Bottom point, to various part's (fuselages) Center point... Result: ANY part that was oriented any way other than X:0. Y:0, Z:0 would cause the auto-aim to be "off" by that amount.
4) Naturally, at least in hindsight, you can't attach it to any part ON the turret because... it moves, and as a result of the cockpit moving, the FT script can't calculate, and it freaks out. It'd always rotate 180 backwards, and then wobble a couple degrees left and right since it was basically stuck in a loop heh
@ThomasRoderick That sounds plausible...
+1I wonder what is more important (seriously heh): having the Flak being accurate, or having the various side-guns, which also use auto-aim code....
.
Because if that's the problem, then the solution would simply be to move the Cockpit up to the Flak turret. The main triple-guns don't use it (I don't think?). so there doesn't seem to be much point having it centered near them.
I'll have to give that a try, thanks. I didn't think the cockpit's LOCATION also had an impact on stuff *facepalm* Jundroo is really kneecapping us on what all can be done, despite giving us so much power with FunkyTrees coding :(
I'm seriously about ready to give up... In addition to being unable to time the fuze well, there's more!
There seems to be a serious bit of screwiness, like with the Exhaust Scale when using asymm values, where it matters which direction you're facing for whether your jet exhaust looks correctly. or oblong shaped. :|
.
In this case, I'm having it....
- lead craft too much when they're traveling S to N.
- aim too far left when they're traveling W to E
- trail craft too far when they're traveling N to S
I assume, too, that E to W would to the inverse, as well.
Unfortunately, I fear this is either a core SP bug, or a much worse bug that relates to Unity Engine....
+1.
I at least managed to get the Fuze timing a bit closer to detonating when it's properly near the plane, but it's hard to refine it further when I have these aiming anomalies that require a consistent aircraft spawning system heh
I can hit stuff that's under a mile from me, since the accuracy is trivial at that point, but we already knew that.
@ThomasRoderick I can confirm what Woody was saying, that the Flak AA turret's aiming is still way off and missing almost everything unless it's super close. The one was only 2.5mi (just over 4km) out, flying horizontally in front of me, and every 5 shots exploded high above it (about at the top of its targeting square, visually at that range).
+1.
After shooting some more and tinkering, I realized there's a bullet cam setup on the Flakk heh Which is showing the round exploding WAY too early actually. So I wager that the visual effect of going "high" is actually because the round has only barely reached its peak height. That's seemingly confirmed by the bullet camera, as for craft flying at ~3000-5000ft alt seem to be below the round still just as it explodes, because it hasn't had time to arc back down towards the target.
.
I'm still tinkering to try and figure this out, but I'm --pardon the pun-- shooting blindly here since not only is the FT coding out of my league, but so is the math (yea I'm that bad at math shush lol). But it's also important to me, since I need to use this code for myself! :}
@LunchBox Don't worry, I will :D I'm just not done with it, and have hit a considerable snag that is below my ability to fix and am throwing my idiocity at it, hoping my ignorant attempts to solve it actually work! lol
I mean I know what's happening --and-- I just now figured out "why", but it uses not only FT, but math, and both are further over my head than the Space Station is right now! :P
And I just had a Eureka moment before submitting this, which has indeed managed to solve 80% of the issue I was having! Goes the right way now, which is important lol That last 20% is rather critical though...
+1It's not Starship, but I did make "Ingenuity", the Mars helicopter 'drone' that was sent along with the "Perseverance" rover, which landed late last year.
+1NASA's Mars ''Ingenuity'' Helicopter [Real-life Scale]
I see my head is in the right place in terms of going above and beyond what I've ever done before. Had I stopped where I normally would've, I'd have been way outclassed, and that's just based on seeing only yours!
+1.
It's funny you added those wing-to-tail antennas in that way, as I thought about doing the same thing in that same fashion! Instead I opted for the more cliche/traditional cockpit-to-rudder-base style :P
.
Looks great!
(and apparently 18hrs ago, I forgot to click Submit for this comment!)
I'll try that, thanks :)
+1@winterro You do have a point.... haha
Or a Go-Go-Gadget Helicopter... :}
@Thunderhawk Yes, that's true. However, I don't really qualify skydiving, as "flying". Which is how I feel that a Kakapo would be like in this scenario... That is, as it is naturally.
+1With a jetpack, well that's indeed flying lol ((At least sci-fi type jetpacks, ala Iron Man; the real ones are closer to exaggerated thrust-vectored short-duration "leaps".)*
@KGcheater Thanks for the advice. I've indeed encountered the speed-wobble. I believe, in that instance, I was able to resolve it by actually making Attachment Points between each wing's tips. I guess you'd call it a "virtual attachment" since the two parts were not physically touching.
@PaperPlaneHasDream Thanks a bunch for the tip about Wings-2! Not only do they indeed seem to be much more rigid, as you said, but even better is they allow for much more refined control surface sizes :)
This will make my life significantly easier!
(Now all we need is for Jundroo to address the auto-roll [sometimes yaw as well] that will all-of-a-sudden manifest in a build. Wasn't present in the latest thing I'm working on, and then suddenly is. Super-awesome-fun-times!)
@surajshy Yes, Sled's work is very impressive for sure!
+1Alas, they are better suited for minimal/no-atmosphere and zero-gravity environments... lol Great for making something that shouldn't fly, be able to fly, but that itself sort of detracts from certain builds. In a planet's atmosphere, you're defying physics. I'm sure his systems can be toned down to feel realistic though, but I anticipate that's more work than I have experience in tinkering with currently.
I'll certainly utilize such a propulsion system some day, but I've not yet exhausted my enjoyment of vehicles that abide by physics! lol
Aww :( Guess that rules out my boy the Kakapo T_T heh
+1How do you get rockets to work --ie launch/detatch-- when there are other things attached to them?
+1I scaled down a Boom25 (I think it was 0.5,0.5,0.25) and attached it to the front of an Interceptor. I had the Interceptor already attached to a Pylon, then used the Attachment Editor to connect the Boom25 to the Interceptor.
.
Problem is, when I locked on to a target and launched the missile, it just stayed attached to the Pylon.
Hmm... Is that where the actual Detatcher part comes in and is what I should've used??
@LieutenantSOT You know... I just now realized the issue with the NASA tool... Not that it is an "issue" just... yea.
The differences between its Imperial and Metric is that it does MPH, but Meters/second! So when I plugged in "1000" it was just "slightly" off... lol (See, NASA, this was why your lander plowed into the Martian surface a few decades back! [I only kid; that was a programming oopsie from using imperial instead of metric heh])
I genuinely thought those MPH figures seemed way off, but it's late and I didn't even question it hahah Yep. I'm going to bed :P
EDIT:
Monkey-see, Monkey-do, I suspect? As I had previously put "kmh" *facepalm* haha
+1Either way we clearly knew what each other meant, and that's all that's important!
Hot damn that's a sexy bird! Well done!
+1Granted, I'm biased due to my love of the HO-229, but... I think the 41 other upvotes --at least for the moment-- confirm my sentiments! lol
Nice!
+1I had an 89 Dodge Conquest (widebody, like you modeled) that I got from a towed vehicle auction back in like... 2002-ish. It had a blown turbo. Sadly, even after I fixed that I never got to drive it :\
I had pulled the Passenger side seat out before myself giving it away, and turned it into a computer chair.... Which I happen to be sitting on. lol
@PaperPlaneHasDream I was mixing up the wing types then, my bad.
I was thinking you were referring to the Structural Wing, and to convert it into that after having adding control surfaces.
All the Wings (be it rudder, primary wing, or tail fins) suffer from the flex, though. It's just harder to notice on tails due to their smaller size and the fact that we don't usually have tails made from multiple wing parts, nor are they usually large enough.
.
A good one to witness the flex, no matter what wing is used, would be on this ""Airbus"".
The primary wings obviously exhibit flex here which is actually welcomed being that's realistic. Though the livery on the rudder shows how much sway it also has, and you can just see the flexing in the tail fins.
In that example, it's honestly not a bad thing. It's on smaller builds, with multi-part wings where most do not have control surfaces, but then the ones that DO are pretty much acting as though they have little-to-no attachments elsewhere. They don't just flex at the wing tips, but 'twist' at the root. It'd be fine is Wings were like Fuselage parts and had connection points at the sides, of like the Wedge (sloped) block or Cockpits, which have 2 connection points on a single surface.
+1.
The wings only have
Root,Body, andTipattachment points, and that doesn't really lend itself to rigidity :(Granted, this is Simple Planes, and that is indeed the most basic number to accomplish what they're after... lol They definitely need to add an "Advanced" mode, since lots of us eventually outgrow that basic system in the game and need a stepping-stone before XML editing. (even Overdrive lacks the full accessibility, as it doesn't provide changing the connection points or what make up a "body")
[/rant]lolEDIT: It's 13:00 here in East Coast US for me. Good night! Sleep well.
@Sadboye12 Out of curiosity, what's the meaning or significance of the 3 "characters/letters" on the right air intake?
+1You seem to have your bases covered in every other aspect, so I figure those aren't there "just because"... ;) (unless, they are lol)
Sadboye commenting on something I posted; a heavy modification of someone elses share...Then he proceeds to upload this piece of awesomeness moments later, literally on the same day... lmao
+1Looks great though! Even the 2019 version, for that matter :D
@Dathcha Oh I see what you meant ahha
+1No no, I was referring to making it more centipede-like in terms of it having 80 or so segments! :P
I made a 1/32nd scale Kickingfish (and a 1/4 scale, which works way better) so I'm all for scaling stuff otherwise! heh
@JaphetSkie If you listen closely, you can hear him go BRRRrr-BRRRRrrt every time he jumps :D
For once, the noisy servos work to our advantage! heh
@LunchBox glad you like it!
+1Yes! We have Glass Fuselage, and Floating Fuselage, I think that... albeit silly as hell... a Gelatin Fuselage (or resizable square) would make for interesting comedic wonders. The physics wouldn't be very "simple" and it might murder mobile, but it'd be fun to play with for certain lol
@LeSkunk Actually.......
There is! LOL
It's the /\ to the right of where this +1 on yours now is ;)
(since you pinned mine, it's now where the 'Pinned' shows up, and can't be upvoted)
I always liked the Le Pew cartoons when I was a kid :)
+1hah AND a trailer!
+1That's impressive, looks great!
Though, wouldn't Hinge Rotators centerline, would better? (or is it because they can't Cycle for why you didn't use them?)
@Dathcha Granted, but, I was mostly talking about the fact it'd be a few thousand parts heh Which would make mobile systems rather unhappy :} (and being mechano, probably PC systems as well!)
+1Hmm, wonder why it didn't auto-credit Sadboye's Goliath...
+1Either way, it's indeed crazy haha Shame SP is limited or it'd be nifty to see it be real centipede length! (but as we know, that'd make SP implode)
.
@Lunchbox
Discovery Channel's "Shark Week" IS coming up here sometime in July... ;)
And you could knock out two birds with one stone by *cough* making a Dog Shark :}
(also, lawl at my snake suggestion kicking your butt! haha)
@LunchBox ROFL I just noticed the "Multirole" tag. Well played!
+1EDIT: Also, is the Easteregg his... uh... "third leg"? lol
@Thunderhawk It may help it, yea. I may indeed revisit it at some point. I've considered a global scaling up of it to see if that'd also help.
+1I built something new last night --albeit completely unrelated to this-- that developed a strange anomaly, for lack of a better way to describe it, that I have to figure out first before I even want to THINK of going back to this nightmare! haha This Skorpion just hates me, so I'm willing to give it the space it needs :P
That subliminal messaging doe......... lmao
+1@Thunderhawk lol Yea, I did indeed try that. Even mentioned it in the post you replied to :}
And indeed, as mentioned in my main post, made sure to try every possible combination of Wing Type (Symmetric, Semi-Symmetric, Flat Bottom) on main wings and the canards. Not just that but even the various segments of each wing (the back is technically 4 wings, 2 main big wings and then two itty bitty ones to make the curved tip).. It took a long time, but ultimately I had to give up as I was making zero progress :\
+1@Thunderhawk Yea I did... a lot
I forgot to mention, but there's a thin, rectangular piece of Fuselage colored bright red that's positioned roughly between the root's leading edge (mid-plane) that I set its Mass scale to 5, or maybe even 10. I spent a long time moving it around, to put the CoM higher than CoL, on the same level as CoL, forward, behind.
Unstable, was the common result. :(
(There's also 2000lbs worth of deadweight in the top two fuselage parts of the landing gear, just to push the CoM forward and to try and solve that weird issue of it wanting to Yaw all over the runway while taking off; removing that weight makes it Yaw even worse)
.
Heck, I even played around with it MORE last night, after posting this and finding out the dimensions were wrong. Increased the wings to the proper width, set the height taller (only by making the Gear taller for better ground clearance), and moved the canards further forward, back, up, down.
Granted, it did take off slightly sooner, just before reaching the warning stripes instead of after bouncing off the grass... lol But its overall flight performance was worse. (Still liked producing more lift when flowing upside-down... I'm almost certain the key to the problem is somehow related to that...)
The only "fix" I have left in my bag of tricks would be to add hidden VTOL Thrusters. Only reason I am reluctant to do that is because it is a real plane that shouldn't need that level of cheap tricks to get it flying well! lol
+1Clearly I have done something wrong that is simply outside my level of expertise to find and resolve... which is fine, I can accept that fact. :P
@edensk or @Sadboye12 Do either of you gurus happen to know the answer to Huax's question/issue? :}
+1I'm not a musician, but I definitely appreciate your attention to detail!
+1@Captain247 No no, nothing like that. But you bring up a valid point. I should've quoted his comment to indicate what specifically I was replying to. When I was writing that, I wasn't actually aware that Walvis is also who made the video... <_> lol
+1I'll edit my post to include the comment. My bad!
Here's my unlisted variant if anyone's interested. It's only the Red Engine, but I made a number of specific tweaks to the Nozzles for a slightly improved "shock diamond" effect (this could also be done to the Blue Engine since it has the same inner row of nozzles.)
+1https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/5JYCcl/Custom-Afterburner-Engine-Mk-F
Looks great!
+1I'm on a Parts-Cutting-Mission to see where I can cut them back yet retain the style and function. Already managed to cut each engine by 12 :D (Will edit this to include further findings)
1) Savings: 12 Parts (each engine), Location: Nozzles
The inner and outer flaps of the nozzles are both constructed with 2 parts each, except the inner row is straight only tapering down, unlike the outer ones which curve down at the tips. So I removed the small extra tip part of each inner flat, adding the length back to the main piece (making it 1.575) and setting its end dimensions to what the small piece's was (0.04x0.35).
2) Savings: 1 to 5 Parts (each), Location: Main Fuselage
If you remove the outer layers of fuselage and make the front Fuselage Intake 6.25 in length (painting Primary to that semi-flat dark gray) you can replace all the exterior fuselage parts. However, the small back ring would need to have its attachments all changed from those pieces, to that Intake. Since that was being done, might as well remove the forward central shaft that some of the VTOL nozzles are connected to, moving them over to the other one (in my notes that should be [for Red] ID 567's attachments moving over to ID 518)
GRANTED... That does ssssslightly change the view from the rear when looking into the engine while it's off, so alternatively ... If you kept the -outer- most ring that the hinged rotates are connected to and moved the -inner- rings to that. Then extended the outer's length so maybe 1.5ish, shortening the Intake to 4.75, you'd still remove 4 parts and retain the rear-look.
@Sadboye12 It's not an amazing giant walking spider-beast, or beautiful flying moth... BUT, I did get to use what you taught me on it, with the glowing glass. :D
+1Granted, this project was mostly done by the time I learned that, so it was only minor touches incorporated here. Still, the night vision effect on the scope eyepiece wouldn't have turned out as great without it! (toggled via AG3; otherwise it's hidden)
@Thunderhawk hah Thanks :) I wanted to use buttons and lights, and then thought about how the countermeasure part has that perfect "Number Pad" look to it.
+1I tried to use everything in the most obscure way I could think of. So the most "normal" thing on there, in terms of doing what it originally was intended, is probably the "scope camera" on the front! (honorable mention to the propellers functioning as itty bitty fans, since both are designed to move air)
Here's the fix for your link:
!https://mortalengines.fandom.com/wiki/Mortal_Engines_Wiki
There's two ways you can type that out....
+1The first way, to just make it so the underscores properly show up, is to type it like this:
https://mortalengines.fandom.com/wiki/Mortal\_Engines\_Wiki(Note the backslashes in front of each underscore, that 'disables' the text formatting)
OR, to make it into a clickable link as I did:
[https://mortalengines.fandom.com/wiki/Mortal\_Engines\_Wiki](https://mortalengines.fandom.com/wiki/Mortal_Engines_Wiki)EITHER WAY, the underscores need to be disabled ("escaped") for the first part! As... I just now found out for myself :D
.
Which doesn't specifically have to be like that. The first part in the brackets can be any text you want. For example:
[Mortal Instruments Wiki](https://mortalengines.fandom.com/wiki/Mortal_Engines_Wiki)Will produce: Mortal Instruments Wiki
In other words:
[text](link)(I apologize if you knew this already! lol)