I'll watch, but
.
Make. The. Rules. Strict.
Having watched SPSC's dogfight tournament, relaxed rules were a MAJOR issue for balancing. Set a limit on guns, missiles, etc. and their XML values. I'd also enforce liftScale=1 and scale=(1,1,1) for wings and some rules regarding hidden wings and engine power at the very least.
@MrShenanigansSP Thanks!
.
@Diloph idk lol
I never really intended to become a low-part builder, but I just happened to fit the niche really well so I stuck with it. Weaverfish was also my inspiration for the build style.
I moved the weapons changelog since it became somewhat problematic when updating older aircrafts. It didn't make much sense to to have the weapons changelog span across multiple posts, so it is now one living document instead.
.
On a side note, the F/A-18F Super Hornet, F/A-18E Super Hornet -Maverick-, and F-15C Eagle will be updated this standard soon. I'll make a forum post when the time comes. As for the F-16C Viper, I have other plans.
But the GameSpot, like AVGN, didn't give a good evaluation.
Don't sweat it. Video game journalists SUCK at air combat games. But they don't get the special "it's too hard so I'll just say its good" treatment that games like Dark Souls gets.
@Tsuchiisan AI in general needs to be improved as well. WAY too often they turnfight while inverted for some reason, which is weird because I remember that wasn't always an issue.
These screenshots are absolutely fantastic.
The first one and the thumbnail don't even look like SP, they look like renders!
And the ones showing off the weapons have great attention to detail; the props really help a lot. You even put the covers on the Sidewinders!
Awesome job.
@TheWeebREBORN It's definitely the proxy distance. It works kind of like the WW2 flak and does a small amount of damage over a wide area. (Reference: being hit by proxy detonated missiles)
@X99STRIKER To be fair, I think Jundroo hasn't done a good job of making this known. The only mention of it is in an update video. A big disclaimer in the mods section would be nice.
You might also want to consider the missiles attached to aircraft. If you use the normal explosion scale on a decent size plane with no missiles, the damage is actually pretty reasonable. When the missiles cause a chain reaction with bombs and missiles, that causes issues.
@Diloph i.e. If you're working on the F-16, but then you want to work on the F-18, you have to remove the F-16 blueprints, load in the F-18 blueprints, and resize it and move it to the correct position. And you have to do that everytime you switch since it doesn't save the position or size. It gets kind of annoying for me at least
@TheWeebREBORN If I redo the F-15J, it'll be a new post. I think AAM-3 or AIM-9 would be more reasonable for the older F-15J loadout instead of Type 04 AAM-5.
I'll watch, but
+2.
Make. The. Rules. Strict.
Having watched SPSC's dogfight tournament, relaxed rules were a MAJOR issue for balancing. Set a limit on guns, missiles, etc. and their XML values. I'd also enforce liftScale=1 and scale=(1,1,1) for wings and some rules regarding hidden wings and engine power at the very least.
@TheWeebREBORN Noted. I play on high, so thanks for letting me know. Does this happen on both configs?
@Rjenteissussy It can, but it's realistic PSM. You'll gain a bit of altitude when you cobra at highish speed since as seen here at 1:05.
+2I need to put this on a growler
+1Make sure to turn collisions off
+3@MrShenanigansSP Thanks!
+2.
@Diloph idk lol
I never really intended to become a low-part builder, but I just happened to fit the niche really well so I stuck with it. Weaverfish was also my inspiration for the build style.
@Diloph
+1@SELWYN101 @Dragoranos @BeastHunter
+2I moved the weapons changelog since it became somewhat problematic when updating older aircrafts. It didn't make much sense to to have the weapons changelog span across multiple posts, so it is now one living document instead.
.
On a side note, the F/A-18F Super Hornet, F/A-18E Super Hornet -Maverick-, and F-15C Eagle will be updated this standard soon. I'll make a forum post when the time comes. As for the F-16C Viper, I have other plans.
my eardrums
+5Don't sweat it. Video game journalists SUCK at air combat games. But they don't get the special "it's too hard so I'll just say its good" treatment that games like Dark Souls gets.
+8@TheWeebREBORN CAUTION PULL UP PULL UP PULL UP PULL UP
+2If you're adding compressor stalls, are you gonna add wing tearing?
Mans got piano fingers
+1Reminds me of the Rutan Voyager
30 SECONDS GOD BE WITH YOU
+2@Tsuchiisan AI in general needs to be improved as well. WAY too often they turnfight while inverted for some reason, which is weird because I remember that wasn't always an issue.
+1Yes pls
+1"T"
+1-Beasthunter
I sense murderous intent
+2@OkaNieba Sure, you don't need to ask. AWACS would be interesting... Prolly use the SAAB GlobalEye radar
+2@TheWeebREBORN You need at least 100 points to post screenshots
Kinda sucks, you had some nice ones
Not sure what I was expecting.
+2Not disappointed.
@BeastHunter @Dragoranos @SELWYN101
+2@Diloph
+2These screenshots are absolutely fantastic.
+1The first one and the thumbnail don't even look like SP, they look like renders!
And the ones showing off the weapons have great attention to detail; the props really help a lot. You even put the covers on the Sidewinders!
Awesome job.
@TheWeebREBORN They say the main limiting factor of the F-16 is the squishy bag of organs flying it for a reason :v
+2Pride? MONTH!?
+1@TheWeebREBORN It's definitely the proxy distance. It works kind of like the WW2 flak and does a small amount of damage over a wide area. (Reference: being hit by proxy detonated missiles)
@X99STRIKER To be fair, I think Jundroo hasn't done a good job of making this known. The only mention of it is in an update video. A big disclaimer in the mods section would be nice.
+3I see this craft having many happy landings in the near future.
You might also want to consider the missiles attached to aircraft. If you use the normal explosion scale on a decent size plane with no missiles, the damage is actually pretty reasonable. When the missiles cause a chain reaction with bombs and missiles, that causes issues.
@ZeroWithSlashedO I think later models can carry the R-77, don't know which one started it though. I know for sure the Su-27SK and J-11 can.
+1@OkaNieba Because when I made the Su-30, I realized converting from 2 seat to 1 seat is harder than the other way around.
+2@Aviator01 I got it, stand back son
+1@TheFlightGuySP Ooh I remember that.
I don't get nausea, headaches, or seizures from hearing it though. /s
We need someone to make a realistic XF-84 thunderscreech
+3@Diloph i.e. If you're working on the F-16, but then you want to work on the F-18, you have to remove the F-16 blueprints, load in the F-18 blueprints, and resize it and move it to the correct position. And you have to do that everytime you switch since it doesn't save the position or size. It gets kind of annoying for me at least
@Diloph Sure, glad you like them and glad I can help. :)
@Diloph So we can work on multiple planes without removing other planes' blueprints and rescaling them each time we switch.
And this is why we need to be able to have more than one blueprint loaded at the same time for different crafts.
Very nice planes tho
@OkaNieba 🍪
roflcopter
@Kangy daniel ricciardo?
+1those slats are spicy
@TheWeebREBORN 75 is close, but not quite
+1@TheWeebREBORN If I redo the F-15J, it'll be a new post. I think AAM-3 or AIM-9 would be more reasonable for the older F-15J loadout instead of Type 04 AAM-5.
+1What a strange interpretation of this year's regulations...
+14@OkaNieba But which Learjet?
+1@Ocean70 Su-27, yes, G650 no
+1@ZeroWithSlashedO 🍪