I could probably make this functional, at least with the ability to type in a username and password, display a fake desktop environment, and open a notepad window where you can type stuff. I would do it too, if I wasn't working on my plane.
Try the city mods here. The mods are made by Toscio56, although his google drive links are no longer working. You can also try looking through my entire archive
There are likely already more than one million planes if you consider deleted posts.
In fact, this forum has the ID of 2109164, meaning 2109164 posts (biographies, crafts, forums, videos, blogs) have been made since the site was created.
@GrandmasterPotato @aMosquito I play the game pretty much every single day, often for many hours at a time. It's not that I don't play anymore, it's that I focus on working on my plane instead of posting lots of low effort planes and forums. I'm still highly active on the website, even if I don't comment that often (ping me at any time and I'll respond in a few hours unless I'm asleep). I'm probably an exception though; I know a few platinum players on Discord who just stopped playing the game.
@windshifter1 yeah that doesn't explain the meme amount of gigawatts though. I spent half an hour combining a full stream deck of macros and my G502's unlockable scroll wheel and I could only do 8 kilowatts per session.
@GoldenAviation It's hard to explain, as I didn't set out to make a cockpit screens mod to release to the public. The screens were originally developed for the SWL-120, and (as explained in the description) aren't even proper standalone parts, requiring some labels to assist with some numbers.
I don't really know how I made it into a mod; it's just a bunch of moving textures using repetitive (with changes) C# code. You can view the code yourself by downloading the source code.
@ShinyGemsBro @StockPlanesRemastered They could also be upgraded slightly with some of the new environment creation skills of the devs, which would be cool.
You probably just aren't online when everyone else is. Also, MP is a mod, which means only a select range of PC players use it (compared to everyone having access all the time)
When I was 7 my parents downloaded it to my iPad and I've just gone from there. SimplePlanes has been a major part of my life ever since (in fact, I've always been confused why other sites weren't structured like this site lol)
@MobileBuilder21 I spent 7 months so far on waypoints/maps/other stuff that is specific to SP1, so it's likely that instead of the SP1 and SP2 SWL-120s releasing together, the SP1 version will release first and then the SP2 version (and mod) will release later
This seems pretty good so far! I would suggest making all lights turn off unless a power source is active, to truly give the impression of no electrical power. For labels, I have two labels, one with and one without emission, and use a tertiary selector to hide one or the other (simple example: {CePaLights = 0 ? "" : "ELECTRICS
BAT 1 BAT 2
ENG 1 ENG 2"})
The expression would be CePaLights = 1 on the other, with the other code being the same.
@vSoldierT about your aircraft, some generic suggestions are:
- Disable drag (calculateDrag = false) on all but a few parts such as inlets. Increase dragScale to keep realistic drag.
- Optimize variables/code if applicable (for me I got 2000 variables down to 1000 and later 700 with optimization, although this is probably unique to me)
- Avoid excessive trigonometry calculations, as these are up to 200 times more performance intensive than other operations like multiplication or division (this is one of the reasons why my text label screens are so laggy). I'm not saying remove every single one, as many codes require them, but don't just put like 500 lines of sin(PitchAngle) in a label and expect it to have no lag.
@vSoldierT There are currently two types of cockpit screens (cockpit screens being 2x PFD, 2x navigation display, and 1x multifunction EICAS display). One uses labels (mentioned here), while the other uses mod parts to drastically improve performance. In fact, my FPS doubles from 30 to 60 if I remove the laggy label screens and replace them with my mod screens. The mod screens basically just move textures around, which has almost no performance impact.
@Dissent3R I have no clue; all my stuff is fictional with irl inspiration because I suck at making replicas; I like building for fun and doing whatever is easiest in SP
@jamesPLANESii mine's kinda of an abomination. Engine power increases with speed and altitude and I plucked some random dragScale value and put in on the one part with drag. It works and I haven't touched it in 2 years
@IFVuser yeah if I were to assemble every pre-export into one file, it would easily be in the tens of thousands. I can run everything no problem at 60FPS though right now with mods. Total part count is 2000, most of that being buttons and stuff in the cockpit.
I have a question about the code for this, there is a variable error in the console saying "Unary operator not supported: And". Do you get this warning too?
@Solent I found the issue to be a feedback loop with the smooth() I used on the trim component of the altitude autopilot... not sure why I didn't catch this earlier. I have fixed this and updated the xml. Is the issue fixed for you now?
I didn't make a video, but I did test it again and this is my feedback:
Movement: overall 5/10, but if scored relative to the type of craft 8/10 (obviously a large bomber/cruiser will be more sluggish than a fighter). The autotrim is a little jerky sometimes which detracts the score.
Weapons: I haven't tested the advanced targeting systems, but selecting a target aims the cannons and a launched bomb will fly to the target. The autoaim on the cannons and autoflight on the bombs is good. 9/10 (sometimes bombs loop around targets)
Playability: ignoring the actual framerate and game performance, the actual craft is fun to control and startup once I'm familiar with it. One thing I should note is the lack of any labelled diagrams, as when I first flew it a while ago I was struggling to find the controls mentioned in the checklists. Once I did know where everything was, the engine startup sequence was pretty fun. I'd give playability an 8/10, the detractors being a lack of diagrams and some quirks with how it flies sometimes.
I would also like to note how it leans back when first spawned in. Maybe consider moving the CoG forward or the main landing gear backward?
AWESOME!!!!!
+2Now
I
Know
How
To
Format text
+2Thanks for your explanation.
I could probably make this functional, at least with the ability to type in a username and password, display a fake desktop environment, and open a notepad window where you can type stuff. I would do it too, if I wasn't working on my plane.
+1@Raider883 they mean a PID controller
+1My autopilot tutorial may be useful; just hardcode the target altitude to be 40 after tuning the autopilot and you should be good to go.
+1Try the city mods here. The mods are made by Toscio56, although his google drive links are no longer working. You can also try looking through my entire archive
+1It's fuselage slicing all over again
+1There are likely already more than one million planes if you consider deleted posts.
+1In fact, this forum has the ID of 2109164, meaning 2109164 posts (biographies, crafts, forums, videos, blogs) have been made since the site was created.
@GrandmasterPotato @aMosquito I play the game pretty much every single day, often for many hours at a time. It's not that I don't play anymore, it's that I focus on working on my plane instead of posting lots of low effort planes and forums. I'm still highly active on the website, even if I don't comment that often (ping me at any time and I'll respond in a few hours unless I'm asleep). I'm probably an exception though; I know a few platinum players on Discord who just stopped playing the game.
+1@marcox43 That was MVC not me, although eventually the SWL-120's cockpit will have sounds so I will learn that then.
+1@windshifter1 yeah that doesn't explain the meme amount of gigawatts though. I spent half an hour combining a full stream deck of macros and my G502's unlockable scroll wheel and I could only do 8 kilowatts per session.
+1@32 I can confirm, although a select few mods only render to one eye.
+1(again you need to be on a computer, and have both the base game and VR)
@GoldenAviation It's hard to explain, as I didn't set out to make a cockpit screens mod to release to the public. The screens were originally developed for the SWL-120, and (as explained in the description) aren't even proper standalone parts, requiring some labels to assist with some numbers.
+1I don't really know how I made it into a mod; it's just a bunch of moving textures using repetitive (with changes) C# code. You can view the code yourself by downloading the source code.
Is this PCVR or a standalone VR headset? I've heard the new lever types aren't in VR for some reason.
+1@Solent Waypoints would be cool too, especially proper built-in ones instead of my cool-but-absurdly-complex waypoint system on the -120
+1@ShinyGemsBro @StockPlanesRemastered They could also be upgraded slightly with some of the new environment creation skills of the devs, which would be cool.
+1Pressing it will install RTX 6090ti and a free copy of SimplePlanes2 with VR (you get shipped a free VR headset)
+1(jk)
You probably just aren't online when everyone else is. Also, MP is a mod, which means only a select range of PC players use it (compared to everyone having access all the time)
+1When I was 7 my parents downloaded it to my iPad and I've just gone from there. SimplePlanes has been a major part of my life ever since (in fact, I've always been confused why other sites weren't structured like this site lol)
+1@MobileBuilder21 I spent 7 months so far on waypoints/maps/other stuff that is specific to SP1, so it's likely that instead of the SP1 and SP2 SWL-120s releasing together, the SP1 version will release first and then the SP2 version (and mod) will release later
+1This seems pretty good so far! I would suggest making all lights turn off unless a power source is active, to truly give the impression of no electrical power. For labels, I have two labels, one with and one without emission, and use a tertiary selector to hide one or the other (simple example: {CePaLights = 0 ? "" : "ELECTRICS
+1BAT 1 BAT 2
ENG 1 ENG 2"})
The expression would be CePaLights = 1 on the other, with the other code being the same.
I think you're right
+1Only took me 2 weeks, but I added it lol
+1@Randomplayer By that logic devs don't exist (I asked Andrew why and he just said they were "in hiding" lol)
+1@KPLBall Ah okay, still no sorry
+1@TheMouse You've been here for about half the time the SWL-120 has been in development.
+1That thing is ancient
I have a plane with a basic computer and autonavigation system.
+1Powered by 4 years of dedication.
@Kendog84
+1Thanks, I'll take a look when I have a chance
@vSoldierT about your aircraft, some generic suggestions are:
+1- Disable drag (calculateDrag = false) on all but a few parts such as inlets. Increase dragScale to keep realistic drag.
- Optimize variables/code if applicable (for me I got 2000 variables down to 1000 and later 700 with optimization, although this is probably unique to me)
- Avoid excessive trigonometry calculations, as these are up to 200 times more performance intensive than other operations like multiplication or division (this is one of the reasons why my text label screens are so laggy). I'm not saying remove every single one, as many codes require them, but don't just put like 500 lines of sin(PitchAngle) in a label and expect it to have no lag.
@vSoldierT There are currently two types of cockpit screens (cockpit screens being 2x PFD, 2x navigation display, and 1x multifunction EICAS display). One uses labels (mentioned here), while the other uses mod parts to drastically improve performance. In fact, my FPS doubles from 30 to 60 if I remove the laggy label screens and replace them with my mod screens. The mod screens basically just move textures around, which has almost no performance impact.
+1what is this
+1@Dissent3R I have no clue; all my stuff is fictional with irl inspiration because I suck at making replicas; I like building for fun and doing whatever is easiest in SP
+1@jamesPLANESii good question
+1@jamesPLANESii mine's kinda of an abomination. Engine power increases with speed and altitude and I plucked some random dragScale value and put in on the one part with drag. It works and I haven't touched it in 2 years
+1@Yoloooooo This is the in-progress advanced one
+1clamp01(GS < 17.8816) * Yaw
+117.8816 is 40mph in m/s.
@vonhubert Good luck!
+1I joined in my very early childhood when the game first released on iOS and plan to be around for many more years.
+1@IFVuser yeah if I were to assemble every pre-export into one file, it would easily be in the tens of thousands. I can run everything no problem at 60FPS though right now with mods. Total part count is 2000, most of that being buttons and stuff in the cockpit.
+1I listen to literally anything, from podcasts to several genres of music.
+1@IzzyIA Ah I see. Still very cool regardless!
+1@IFVuser @TacticalCrusader There are several android mods in my mod archive. The folder with the most android mods is Kakhikotchauri1.
+1I have a question about the code for this, there is a variable error in the console saying "Unary operator not supported: And". Do you get this warning too?
+1Sometimes all I have to show for 2 hours of "work" is a few new parts on my 3000 part interior
+1@Graingy I released the SWL-120 early if you want to check it out
+1@Solent I found the issue to be a feedback loop with the smooth() I used on the trim component of the altitude autopilot... not sure why I didn't catch this earlier. I have fixed this and updated the xml. Is the issue fixed for you now?
+1I didn't make a video, but I did test it again and this is my feedback:
+1Movement: overall 5/10, but if scored relative to the type of craft 8/10 (obviously a large bomber/cruiser will be more sluggish than a fighter). The autotrim is a little jerky sometimes which detracts the score.
Weapons: I haven't tested the advanced targeting systems, but selecting a target aims the cannons and a launched bomb will fly to the target. The autoaim on the cannons and autoflight on the bombs is good. 9/10 (sometimes bombs loop around targets)
Playability: ignoring the actual framerate and game performance, the actual craft is fun to control and startup once I'm familiar with it. One thing I should note is the lack of any labelled diagrams, as when I first flew it a while ago I was struggling to find the controls mentioned in the checklists. Once I did know where everything was, the engine startup sequence was pretty fun. I'd give playability an 8/10, the detractors being a lack of diagrams and some quirks with how it flies sometimes.
I would also like to note how it leans back when first spawned in. Maybe consider moving the CoG forward or the main landing gear backward?
@rimiha It's fixed now, excellent.
+1@griges I can have a look, yes
+1hmm, I don't really know then
+1Is the height of the label part big enough?