Usually if it shows the entire code, you're missing a parenthesis or </> or bracket or something somewhere. The only thing I can see is either put parentheses around TargetDistance>0 (I've had a few issues where the line before the ? only worked if in parentheses), or add a space between the two quotation marks at the end.
Hmm... I don't know if it's possible to limit the movement of a floppy rotator. The min and max are for the input, so if there's no input, they obviously won't do anything.
Actually, I just thought of a potential solution (depending on how you're trying to do this). If the rotator needs to be able to go, say, 60deg backwards (and nothing at all forwards), you might be able to get away with turning the rotator 30deg backwards and letting it move 30deg in either direction. Don't know if this will work for what you're doing, though.
There's probably some complicated way to fix this with FT, but a much simpler solution would be to just move the center of mass forward or backward a bit, depending on whether the aircraft is pitching up or down.
So, this is a "look what you could have enjoyed if you'd given me more internet points" post?
It's quite possible that you didn't get the attention you wanted for this build because of a lack of teasers. If you don't post teasers prior to the release of a build, it's possible that it won't be noticed as much as you would prefer, meaning it eventually gets buried in "New" and you don't get those internet points.
Since you clearly put a very large amount of work into this aircraft, I'm rather surprised at the lack of teasers to get peoples' attention, as well as the fact that you were so hasty to remove it since it wasn't immediately as popular as you would have liked.
'Tis a shame. I would have liked to try it out, but not anymore I suppose.
Teggsas
Usually if it shows the entire code, you're missing a parenthesis or </> or bracket or something somewhere. The only thing I can see is either put parentheses around
TargetDistance>0(I've had a few issues where the line before the ? only worked if in parentheses), or add a space between the two quotation marks at the end.T
T
Hmm... I don't know if it's possible to limit the movement of a floppy rotator. The
minandmaxare for the input, so if there's no input, they obviously won't do anything.Actually, I just thought of a potential solution (depending on how you're trying to do this). If the rotator needs to be able to go, say, 60deg backwards (and nothing at all forwards), you might be able to get away with turning the rotator 30deg backwards and letting it move 30deg in either direction. Don't know if this will work for what you're doing, though.
You can also set the
maxorminto 0 (instead of 1/-1, respectively), and then invert the input if necessary.Basically it's trigonometry, and you can use it for things if you find both an angle and a distance, but want to know m o r e.
Ooh, definitely T.
Also, how about that last lap of the race last night? That was something.
Very stable and forgiving even with the gyro off, as any good trainer should be. Nice work!
@YYEE How about the tower of the USS Tiny?
Bold of you to assume that I have a functioning metabolism.
I don't think that's possible, no.
T
@PriyanshuGM Hmm... Is the aircraft pitching up, or down?
There's probably some complicated way to fix this with FT, but a much simpler solution would be to just move the center of mass forward or backward a bit, depending on whether the aircraft is pitching up or down.
So, this is a "look what you could have enjoyed if you'd given me more internet points" post?
It's quite possible that you didn't get the attention you wanted for this build because of a lack of teasers. If you don't post teasers prior to the release of a build, it's possible that it won't be noticed as much as you would prefer, meaning it eventually gets buried in "New" and you don't get those internet points.
Since you clearly put a very large amount of work into this aircraft, I'm rather surprised at the lack of teasers to get peoples' attention, as well as the fact that you were so hasty to remove it since it wasn't immediately as popular as you would have liked.
'Tis a shame. I would have liked to try it out, but not anymore I suppose.
If you've already requested a tag on the original teaser, you don't need to request another one here.
I'd imagine you could set something up using the repeat() function, but not specifically for countermeasures (since you can't customize their input).
Made using this, this, and this
Oh this won't be confusing at all :)
As an additional feature, the part count actively lies to you. It's actually 624, not 26.
Phabulous
@Almost Try reattaching the camera to the shock (using the lowermost attachment point on the camera).