I started work on something yesterday as practice for general form factor.
Ended up learning a fuselage shaping technique.
Then started adding custom landing gear.
Probably going to end up with a cockpit and maybe afterburners.
All this knowing I'm gonna have to outdo it with the much older, still unreleased Archfiend.
Your is possessive.
Your flight.
Your sandwich.
You're is "you are". Contractions don't always have identical meanings, but those are fringe uses (like the infamous "that's the kind of linguist I'm," which is painful to read).
You're (you are) going for a walk.
You're (you are) good?
@MrSilverWolf I wanted to confirm what exactly I was dealing with before blocking. I use the feature as a last resort.
Soon as I was certain I blocked.
Yeah lol I just saw that somewhere. Funny how things work out.
I downloaded them all since they're all different.
This one is waaayy simpler. I'm just here to reverse-engineer, mind. I prefer to do things in-house if I can help it. Easier to parse simpler designs, rather than things with FT down to the manufacturer's nameplate.
I probably could have saved myself like an hour if I had started this little journey knowing about throttle>1.
So you have a camera. Great.
You've put image recognition in SP too. Neato.
You are on the path to combine these technologies into smart weapons. This is the stuff that gets you a job at Lockheed Martin.
I feel like this may be... is it survivorship bias?
What I mean to say is that there aren't that many (proportionally, who knows), you just notice the ones that are.
Oh, this was only 11 days ago.
Anyways, I'm gonna crack into these like a particularly hard pistachio. I do not have fingers.
Though I am curious about the degree of complexity.
Oh. Being pedantic, FT is a programming language. The number of interactable programs people have made backs that up.
Maybe you should clarify how you format so people don't come in and be confused, chasing around some nonexistent variable or function they thought they missed.
You can get a similar ish thing by screwing around with Reshade, but from what I can tell Reshade is permanently busted in SP. You can't actually use it properly because of the weirdness with the depth map.
@Boeing727200F @F16xl @SuperSuperTheSylph You three are exceedingly unhelpful.
+1Unless SuperSuperTheSylph meant $50 Million range?
I started work on something yesterday as practice for general form factor.
Ended up learning a fuselage shaping technique.
Then started adding custom landing gear.
Probably going to end up with a cockpit and maybe afterburners.
All this knowing I'm gonna have to outdo it with the much older, still unreleased Archfiend.
@MIGFOXHOUND31BSM26 I see. You built it, looked at its performance, and thought "yep, just what I was looking for."
@MIGFOXHOUND31BSM26 You just intentionally built it poorly and took what you got?
@LowQualityRepublic You've been trusting me all this time.
@MIGFOXHOUND31BSM26 I see.
Did you specifically try to induce particular kinds of instability?
@MIGFOXHOUND31BSM26 You intentionally made it unstable?
@LowQualityRepublic You've been trusting me all this time.
@MIGFOXHOUND31BSM26 What's the flaw in it?
Aerial incompetence, sounds like.
I suppose "you are good?" is a bit clunky. "You're" would probably be used instead.
Your is possessive.
Your flight.
Your sandwich.
You're is "you are". Contractions don't always have identical meanings, but those are fringe uses (like the infamous "that's the kind of linguist I'm," which is painful to read).
You're (you are) going for a walk.
You're (you are) good?
@Ashdenpaw1
What happened on April 1st 2001?
You're
+1?
Get ready for a reveal
Feature creep is a bitch
TutorialPlane
Oop, it stopped,
Still says publishing, eh?
@Ashdenpaw1 Fortunately I found the answer.
Throttle multiplier over 1 for VTOL nozzles. Starts to separate.
@DDVC that was intentional, yes?
+1Wonderful example. Structural limitations.
@Ashdenpaw1 Mach diamonds, sorry. Ring seems to be the term used on this site from what I can gather.
Was having some trouble the other day, is all.
@MrSilverWolf I wanted to confirm what exactly I was dealing with before blocking. I use the feature as a last resort.
Soon as I was certain I blocked.
Funny, I've been looking into afterburners this afternoon.
+2... Why didn't I think of that?
Man I'm dumb. I went with a cannon for my 3 part design.
Yeah lol I just saw that somewhere. Funny how things work out.
+1I downloaded them all since they're all different.
This one is waaayy simpler. I'm just here to reverse-engineer, mind. I prefer to do things in-house if I can help it. Easier to parse simpler designs, rather than things with FT down to the manufacturer's nameplate.
I probably could have saved myself like an hour if I had started this little journey knowing about throttle>1.
Ahh I see.
Anyways, welcome to Platinum. I own you now.
@Ashdenpaw1 Mhm. Anyways, you wouldn't happen to know anything about mach rings, would you?
Oh great, the resource is gone. The mach ring link is deleted.
How does it work?
Okay, okay...
So you have a camera. Great.
+11You've put image recognition in SP too. Neato.
You are on the path to combine these technologies into smart weapons. This is the stuff that gets you a job at Lockheed Martin.
I feel like this may be... is it survivorship bias?
+6What I mean to say is that there aren't that many (proportionally, who knows), you just notice the ones that are.
@Ashdenpaw1 And water is wet.
Your ass is mine
Where fuel?
Oh, this was only 11 days ago.
Anyways, I'm gonna crack into these like a particularly hard pistachio. I do not have fingers.
Though I am curious about the degree of complexity.
Does this really need to be this complicated? I can't work out what exactly it needs to do by being this intricate.
@XEPOH Pardon?
@THEOKPILOT See Me 163.
Pilots had to be extremely careful with the thing, lest they either explode or be melted alive.
@THEOKPILOT I mean, some aircraft do use volatile fuel.
Oh. Being pedantic, FT is a programming language. The number of interactable programs people have made backs that up.
Maybe you should clarify how you format so people don't come in and be confused, chasing around some nonexistent variable or function they thought they missed.
@Ashdenpaw1 If you're trying to convey something then you're failing miserably.
You can get a similar ish thing by screwing around with Reshade, but from what I can tell Reshade is permanently busted in SP. You can't actually use it properly because of the weirdness with the depth map.
@SPWithLizzie There are many things wrong with that suggestion
+1To be clear, the reason I'd suspect someone would do this is because many aircraft aren't perfect. Many have quirks that have to be worked around.
@XEPOH If you intended me to see that, maybe consider not deleting every damn thing you say.
+1@Boeing727200F Not what I meant.
Alternatively, let the polygon edges be painted as a variable thickness line. Like inlet trim.
Would look sick if with high emission paint.
@Ashdenpaw1 cool beans