@Graingy I agree with that actually (WASD rotating). Several times I press Ctrl + S, forget the Ctrl part, and have to reload my last save because I rotated the entire wing into the fuselage and created 5 hours of work (if I were to reconnect everything).
One way to improve the code in the label is to use a stacked tertiary selector. For example:
Time < 2 "Funny text" : (Time < 3 ? "..." : (Time < 4 ? "Punchline" : ("...")))
This improves the performance, as the code only runs the required sections. I also use Time instead of sum(1) to further reduce calculations.
set massScale to 0, calculateDrag to false, and disableAircraftCollisions to true on every part I drag out of the menu. It's a habit now. I only turn mass on for parts which need it for physics reasons or one main part for most mass, and drag on just one or two parts, usually an inlet.
It's not a car, but I've made a pushback tug (same controls I guess). What I did is had two grips hidden inside the steering wheel. On the right one, I made pressing the trigger on your controller control pitch (gas). The left grip has brake when the trigger is pressed. As you can only go forward, I made a gearstick to go backwards or forwards.
Alternatively, players can plug in a set of USB pedals and have that (PCVR only).
Hello! You will want to make a variable called anything, eg FuelRamp (idk what to call it). In that variable, put Time / 300 (Edit: don't do that, see below. Now, make a button, set its interactionType to Once (or Continuous, your choice), the outputValue to 0, and the input to be your variable name.
Edit: Don't use time. Make it a self referencing variable, where the variable is called FuelRamp, and the code in it is FuelRamp + 0.01 or something. If you use Time, the value will revert back to normal as soon as you release the button.
Please note I am in no way a moderator, and cannot give any 100% accurate statements, but I can make fairly accurate assumptions
The two reasons your posts get removed are you bypass the autocredit system, and the liveries are also not enough modifications. Additionally, FoxtrotCharlieCharlieX has a policy against using his aircraft for any reason other than to download and fly.
About the moderators removing your crafts, there is a function of the website called "automod". It is not a moderator, but can remove crafts, when, for example, there are a number of reports created. The moderators always (or mostly always, again I am not a moderator) write a comment to briefly explain why they remove a craft. If there is no such comment on the removed craft in question, then it is safe to assume automod removed it due to a large number of reports.
This is a perfect example of what a successor of an upload should be. You took the original nose, and then instead of adding a fuselage and saying it's done, you built a reasonably detailed plane around it. Good job!
This looks pretty good, but it can be even better. The five part airfoil technique allows for more advanced and smooth airfoils with more details. Here's part 1 of a tutorial on making it. (Sorry if I sound like a salesperson lol)
@IceCraftGaming In fact, I have ideas for making a plane where I 3D model lots of parts of it in an external application (fuselage base and wing root, then wing segments, then doors and large moving things), then make a mod which adds all those parts, and assemble it in SP for a part count of around 100 ish parts. Good for potato PC users.
In other news, April Fools Day is not the right time to post actual good content. Not only will it be buried by the jokes, people might think it's a joke. Here is an example of a great build which suffered this fate.
@JustWingIt Well I guess it's maybe advertising? Around page 5000 or so they all have some random link in the bio. There was also the funny one about a law firm advertising here. Ah yes a bunch of 14 year old aviation enthusiasts will need a lawyer.
Bug: RPM gauges automatically change to RotorRPM/600. I keep putting Engine1RPM/600 in (defined by the output of an engine), and I save and reload, and it changes.
To replicate, grab a dial, change it to RPM, and then put any input in. It will change upon reload.
Upon further testing, this affects ALL gauges with custom inputs. They will revert back to their default values.
Upon yet more testing, this is because the gauge doesn't change to "custom", and custom gauges work fine. The bug occurs when just the FT input to a gauge is changed. The gauge doesn't automatically change to custom.
@jamesPLANESii @BeastHunter Then there's like all the advanced builders who just have a single part with calculateDrag true, the rest are false. To improve performance.
Video here
The gear codes you are describing are this:
Gear Doors (Ones which stay open if the gear is down): (ceil(smooth(clamp01(GearDown), GearDown ? pow(10, 10) : 1 / 10.75 ))
Gear Doors (Open when gear is being retracted or extended): clamp01(abs((40 * abs(smooth((LandingGear - 0.5), 0.09))) - 20))
Gear (The landing gear): clamp01(smooth((GearDown * -2) , 1.1))
I just remembered one critical problem with the existing system: "Failed to mirror part because another part already exists"
This is a relic of many years ago, and just flat out doesn't work. I was working on my autopilot panel and wanted to mirror a button to the other side (inside the cockpit cavity, there was nothing there), and it wouldn't let me. I suggest either removing this check entirely or adding an option to disable it.
I personally prefer the current building method, although I'm probably an outlier since the parts of my plane that aren't externally created are in the tens of thousands of parts, with thousands of variables. Some heavy optimization would be nice though.
Some of those features could be useful, although I am extremely proficient (muscle memory too) with using the existing building methods, and I simply could not use the SR2 interface. From the teaser screenshots it seems to be very similar to the current SP, and I hope it stays that way (at least in terms of existing features and the layout). That said, new features can be useful, although they should complement/be an alternative to the existing tools, instead of replacing them.
@GuyWhoBuildStuff I'm not a dev, but the reason of doing a staged rollout (or similar) of a feature is to be able to fix critical bugs or improve features with a smaller group. Its like this in any large product or service when they add features.
I think the reason it's done by points is because there are less users with lots of points, and this serves as an easy way to get a small test group, and then go from there. Again I am not a dev, I'm just guessing the reason for the delay
It is
not
the old landing gear
+5you took the real gear and made it look like other landing gear with extra parts.
@Graingy I agree with that actually (WASD rotating). Several times I press Ctrl + S, forget the Ctrl part, and have to reload my last save because I rotated the entire wing into the fuselage and created 5 hours of work (if I were to reconnect everything).
+4One way to improve the code in the label is to use a stacked tertiary selector. For example:
+4Time < 2 "Funny text" : (Time < 3 ? "..." : (Time < 4 ? "Punchline" : ("...")))
This improves the performance, as the code only runs the required sections. I also use Time instead of sum(1) to further reduce calculations.
set
+4massScaleto 0,calculateDragto false, anddisableAircraftCollisionsto true on every part I drag out of the menu. It's a habit now. I only turn mass on for parts which need it for physics reasons or one main part for most mass, and drag on just one or two parts, usually an inlet.SimplePlanes 2
+4It's not a car, but I've made a pushback tug (same controls I guess). What I did is had two grips hidden inside the steering wheel. On the right one, I made pressing the trigger on your controller control pitch (gas). The left grip has brake when the trigger is pressed. As you can only go forward, I made a gearstick to go backwards or forwards.
+4Alternatively, players can plug in a set of USB pedals and have that (PCVR only).
@TheMouse That actually means the Maywar windmills are insanely performance efficient, rather than running 56*1000 = 56,000 parts all the time
+4The answer to this question is in the FAQ.
+4Hello! You will want to make a variable called anything, eg
+4FuelRamp(idk what to call it). In that variable, put Time / 300 (Edit: don't do that, see below. Now, make a button, set itsinteractionTypeto Once (or Continuous, your choice), theoutputValueto 0, and the input to be your variable name.Edit: Don't use time. Make it a self referencing variable, where the variable is called
FuelRamp, and the code in it isFuelRamp + 0.01or something. If you useTime, the value will revert back to normal as soon as you release the button.@longanbieu I do in fact have this mod in my archive. You can download it here.
+4@SILVERPANZER @HuskyDynamics01 I've been working on one plane for 2 years. I post teasers about every month or so.
+4@ToeTips Honestly the moment I saw the words "accident" and "SWL-120" on the same post.
+4@MrShenanigansSP I wish I could run it
+4FT inputs for brakes is the feature I'd like the most. Anything else is just "nice to have" or can be done with mods.
+4Try
+4smooth(clamp01(Activate1), 1)SimplePlanes 1 + ((7C7 * 7C7) + (1!)P(1!) - 1) when
+4No offense, but this post is the reason for the upload limit's entire existence.
+4Please note I am in no way a moderator, and cannot give any 100% accurate statements, but I can make fairly accurate assumptions
+4The two reasons your posts get removed are you bypass the autocredit system, and the liveries are also not enough modifications. Additionally, FoxtrotCharlieCharlieX has a policy against using his aircraft for any reason other than to download and fly.
About the moderators removing your crafts, there is a function of the website called "automod". It is not a moderator, but can remove crafts, when, for example, there are a number of reports created. The moderators always (or mostly always, again I am not a moderator) write a comment to briefly explain why they remove a craft. If there is no such comment on the removed craft in question, then it is safe to assume automod removed it due to a large number of reports.
I think my SWL-10 is one of the best, and my upcoming SWL-120 will be the best.
+4@MrShenanigansSP Yes there is. The SWL-120 uses it. It's complicated. But it works.
+4And finally, he has returned!
+4This is a perfect example of what a successor of an upload should be. You took the original nose, and then instead of adding a fuselage and saying it's done, you built a reasonably detailed plane around it. Good job!
+4This looks pretty good, but it can be even better. The five part airfoil technique allows for more advanced and smooth airfoils with more details. Here's part 1 of a tutorial on making it. (Sorry if I sound like a salesperson lol)
+4it sorta looks like sp...
+4Will every single switch work?
+4It takes like a single extra part per segment. I personally use a five part airfoil, but sheesh, a basic airfoil is 2 parts. IT'S SO EASY!
+4Please tag me on anything you post. If you ever need help, also tag me.
+4I used to have a PC. Now I have a small star.
+4Jokes aside, this is now giving my RTX 3060 something to do.
@IceCraftGaming In fact, I have ideas for making a plane where I 3D model lots of parts of it in an external application (fuselage base and wing root, then wing segments, then doors and large moving things), then make a mod which adds all those parts, and assemble it in SP for a part count of around 100 ish parts. Good for potato PC users.
+4@BaconAircraft @OrderlyHippo And on top of that, they should be happy about the free advertising!
+4No, we don't.
+4In other news, April Fools Day is not the right time to post actual good content. Not only will it be buried by the jokes, people might think it's a joke. Here is an example of a great build which suffered this fate.
+4@JustWingIt Well I guess it's maybe advertising? Around page 5000 or so they all have some random link in the bio. There was also the funny one about a law firm advertising here.
+4Ah yes a bunch of 14 year old aviation enthusiasts will need a lawyer.
It's amazing how many bots sign up per day. I swear this has increased by like 200 pages since a week ago.
+4@Korzalerke Yes, I think he coded another bot to automatically upvote every single forum post the second they are created.
+4Massive Issue With Gauges
Bug: RPM gauges automatically change to
+4RotorRPM/600. I keep puttingEngine1RPM/600in (defined by the output of an engine), and I save and reload, and it changes.To replicate, grab a dial, change it to RPM, and then put any input in. It will change upon reload.
Upon further testing, this affects ALL gauges with custom inputs. They will revert back to their default values.
Upon yet more testing, this is because the gauge doesn't change to "custom", and custom gauges work fine. The bug occurs when just the FT input to a gauge is changed. The gauge doesn't automatically change to custom.
@jamesPLANESii @BeastHunter Then there's like all the advanced builders who just have a single part with calculateDrag true, the rest are false. To improve performance.
+4Video here
+4The gear codes you are describing are this:
Gear Doors (Ones which stay open if the gear is down): (ceil(smooth(clamp01(GearDown), GearDown ? pow(10, 10) : 1 / 10.75 ))
Gear Doors (Open when gear is being retracted or extended): clamp01(abs((40 * abs(smooth((LandingGear - 0.5), 0.09))) - 20))
Gear (The landing gear): clamp01(smooth((GearDown * -2) , 1.1))
@jamesPLANESii All right i9 11900k vs this thing let's go
Wow it only took 2 minutes
+4@Stickman The 1.12 beta, which is currently available with the lack of a blog post.
+4@Leepicthebaconeepic Ai eats processing power like it's unlimited.
+4Can we please have engine fuel flow variables?
+4HOLY SH--
+4I just remembered one critical problem with the existing system: "Failed to mirror part because another part already exists"
+3This is a relic of many years ago, and just flat out doesn't work. I was working on my autopilot panel and wanted to mirror a button to the other side (inside the cockpit cavity, there was nothing there), and it wouldn't let me. I suggest either removing this check entirely or adding an option to disable it.
You need 100 or more points to post an image, likely due to previous abuse as spam.
+3I personally prefer the current building method, although I'm probably an outlier since the parts of my plane that aren't externally created are in the tens of thousands of parts, with thousands of variables. Some heavy optimization would be nice though.
+3@DDVC I had a look at the image with inspect element, and there is no image. It's just an empty img tag.
+3@lizi13399a Thank you for permission, I have also invited you to be a contributor to the mod page.
+3Some of those features could be useful, although I am extremely proficient (muscle memory too) with using the existing building methods, and I simply could not use the SR2 interface. From the teaser screenshots it seems to be very similar to the current SP, and I hope it stays that way (at least in terms of existing features and the layout). That said, new features can be useful, although they should complement/be an alternative to the existing tools, instead of replacing them.
+3@GuyWhoBuildStuff I'm not a dev, but the reason of doing a staged rollout (or similar) of a feature is to be able to fix critical bugs or improve features with a smaller group. Its like this in any large product or service when they add features.
+3I think the reason it's done by points is because there are less users with lots of points, and this serves as an easy way to get a small test group, and then go from there.
Again I am not a dev, I'm just guessing the reason for the delay