@Monarchii
My sailboat goes around roughly 9m by the beam and roughly 34m long excluding the bowsprit. This is based nearly identical to Brigantines.
About the rope, it depends as not all yards should be tied down on their very end (because you can just cheat that in SP). In real life though, all yards are always often roped so the crew can adjust it.
The site doesn't like extremely long word soups so my message was cut and actually forgot what I wrote next so I'd ad-lib the next again lol.
Gaff sails are better as they are wide and not too tall compared to Bermuda rigs. If you have extra mast height, you can add Gaff topsails above the Gaff (the stick) and the Gaff sail. It's visible in my Sailboat Teaser.
I apologize if this felt quick as the last few messages that were cut were actually two more paragraphs long but that's basically the very summarized version of it. I apologize for the late reply too as I was sick these past few days.
@Monarchii
Please pin this so you don't lose it. I will explain it with these in mind: zero engines and zero fuel included in the build— pure sailing. Additionally with realism in mind, so waving sails will be the primary means of doing it.
Working sails in SimplePlanes use primarily one method: wings. This of course is obvious but I'll tell you how they function. It is extremely difficult to make a square sail (four-cornered, the ones who catch running wind) as SP wings doesnt seem to like to bend in a realistic fashion and additionally, they dont seem to really be efficient in giving your boat enough push, with how much wind you give it. For example, even if you resize the wing in Overload to trick the game into thinking it's a larger wing, you will need a couple of them to make it wave thus weight becoming an issue. Reduce weight = wings sputter everywhere even with a slight wind breeze. Don't resize them and let too much wind just push you? Unrealistic and honestly could screw with other sails. This is the main reason as to why I never made them.
Unless you want to compromise with a static square sail, the bestest option is to ditch it all together and use jibs and either a Bermuda mainsail or a Gaff mainsail. I obviously will pick the Jib+Gaff sail configuration as this aligns with how SP wings work and is the easiest way you can make a sail rig actually function realistically. See Choufleur, outdated but this works as the very basic sail config I used.
Again, although I didn't say it was impossible to make square sails (I have seen at least two people try two different methods of their own and both worked), square sails are extremely expensive to make it look realistic (sail HAS to bulge to the middle as it is often tied to all four ends of the sail, not top and down only). Hinges are the primary culprit along with segmenting the wings themselves. The least I can tell you is to use triangle wing sections and piece them like puzzle pieces with hinges binding all together. Again, very expensive and not very efficient in doing their job at catching running wind, SP wings doesnt work best with that.
For now, I will tell you why Jibs and Gaff sails work best for SP. DO NOTE that always identify which is the leading edge of the wing and use it as the actual leading edge of the sail. Jibs are often triangular, this helps you in making the shape as well as making the sail flutter.
@Graingy
There you are again with the saving-face. If you really don't want to waste time on someone then just ignore them, you do not need a whole list of everything.
Oh, you typed a message on a post of someone who blocked you and cannot send it? Then don't try. It's not like you spent more than an hour coming up with a small-talk.
Funnily enough. The fact that you didn't even say anything about the rule breaking you're doing, not even trying to defend it— says a lot. I guess you really just want to brush that under the rug, no? Also a cheap shot on the 'salty bastards' comment. You mean we're salty because you're using the site wrong, and, by the way— in a rule-breaking manner? Of course, ignoring the issue is one way to handle it. But just so we’re clear—you’re not fooling anyone with the act. Thought you should know.
Anyway, I thought I should end it here. If you think that's for the best and your mind’s already made up—then you do you.
@Graingy
Then you’ve comically missed my point—unnecessary effort. There’s no need to do all that. If you’re blocked, you’re blocked—what’s it to you whether you know why or not?
And let’s not pretend you’re just being rational here. It’s painfully obvious you’re trying to 'get equal' with the person who blocked you by making it 'mutual.' That’s the classic 'you can’t fire me because I quit' mentality I was talking about—you're clearly offended and scrambling to save face, pretending it’s just 'bookkeeping.'
You're not showing strength, you're just projecting your own insecurity and trying to pass it off as some sort of policy. You aren’t being noble. You’re just uncomfortable with the idea that someone might reject you, and you need to make it look mutual to protect your ego.
Yes I can read, Graingy. I know I can ignore this but that doesn't mean I couldn't. This is the same thing as you wishing the users that blocked you to just reply [on your alt] to confirm if they really blocked you, they could just easily block you again. Things not going your way... annoying isn't it?
@MIGFOXHOUND31BSM26.
I didn't say it doesn't exist, I meant it as highly unlikely to happen. The method to confirm this is also rule-breaking. Are you saying it's justified 'just because'? I'm not the type to follow rules all the time, but if you violate a simple rule, what makes it any easier to ignore a more complex one?
Get over it. If you're blocked then you're blocked. You're not that famous nor a celebrity to confirm it with the user that blocked you. It's not your decision if the user blocked you again on your alt and never reply. If you used an alt to immediately contact the user who blocked you then have the 'basic courtesy' to just respect that, not violating the rules just to 'confirm something'.
The audacity of you to have a 'You can't fire me because I quit' mentality in this forum. Stop justifying rule breaking because it's a 'confirmation' if you're blocked then most likely that's intentional.
Off-topic posts are too vague to classify. They are allowed and as the rules state, there is a threshold for how 'off-topic' a post can be.
For convenience, I will classify forums similar as build posts.
Off-topic posts often happen in the forums section as uploading something to the website still counts as playing the game and thus a contribution to the airplane section of the site unless it's way too bland or had no effort put into it at all (e.g. a label part that has words in it and nothing else). Although I should say this mostly count as 'spam' rather than off-topic posts, but they can be.
As for the forums, oh do I have a lot of basis for you. Forum posts in recent times have become a nest for wanna-be social media influencers. There's a handful of users treating and 'abusing' this vague rule where they post forums not really on-topic to SimplePlanes (e.g. random forum about this/that or a forum about questions no one really cares about). Of course, things like these are allowed but if that's the majority of your account's posts section, then it's safe to assume that a report is valid for such posts as they could count as off-topic spamming (stated by the rules: "-However, we do reserve the right to remove posts if they are too far off-topic.")
TLDR, Post whatever you like as off-topic posts are allowed, but be mindful to not stray too much away from plane-related topics (or any buildable vehicles) . Make sure that these posts also follow the written rules as well as rules a sane human being would think as proper.
And most importantly, The forums is NOT a social media platform. It is not Twitter/X, it is not Facebook, it is a forum section of a plane-focused sandbox game. If you were to make an off-topic post, make sure that it's sparse when seen in your account.
None, the heart of the seas is deep within me.
Jokes aside, Wright (and the seas around it) for convenience purposes. This is due to the amount of saved positions I have in it.
Although, I fancy Snowstone and Maywar because of terrain colour and scenery.
Adding mass to the wheels usually work (if less doesn't work, try adding more but not to an absurd amount) but since you've tried that method, you should work next to the wheels' traction, and if suspension is enabled, try to fiddle with that too and see if what fixes it. Vague answer but it might give you insights on what to do.
It's usually dependent on multiple things but majorly about the drag. Engine HP would not really matter if you have too much drag on your build. To solve this, you could either reduce the drag by setting the drag of a part to zero or by making the drag calculation of that part to 'false' in Overload. Another thing is to use fixed-angle blades by setting it manually in the part settings.
I can testify to the effort given to this build is way more than what you think. For the part count, it is efficient and the details are unique and varied especially the hull number. New systems are put in place to simulate shooting with the use of buttons only and is highly accurate to a certain range. A lot of historical memoirs were used to create a perfect model alongside some existing game-engine renders. Even the difference of the ship to her sisters are put in for historical accuracy and that's only to name a few.
If you can run it without bricking your device, I suggest you do so.
Awesome job, BM:)
@Monarchii.
If you're asking for any inclusion of airbrakes for the spine, I'd say none. Though I will say that if you add always-active airbrakes which doesn't stop the ship when it's powered, it would be a neat feature if, let's say, you want to stop the ship without using other source of thrust. It mimics fluid drag per se.
@Monarchii
Chordscale plays a major role and so is the size of the propellers. You should also consider capping the maxRpm to below 500 to make it look realistic as well as taking in consideration how deep the propellers should be on your ship since if you put it way too deep, they won't work.
@Monarchii
The amount of hinges and buoyant blocks depends on you but the 'least' amount you should at least use is around six each (hinges and blocks, two on front, two on the middle, two on the stern. One on each side). They do not need gyros. CoM is fine wherever as long as the CoM is not too high or the spine is not wide enough to accommodate the high CoM. Additionally, If you plan on making a damage model, you could use the same spine and have the buoyant blocks have low-to-none HP so whenever they get hit by torpedoes, they get destroyed which produce listing on one side.
About the propellers, I am currently using a rotator-powered propeller on my WIP, which was made by another user. I have to ask the specific user if I could lend it to you. It would be better if you tag me on an unlisted (or dm me on Discord) to discuss it.
Although, if you're saving parts and if your ship is big enough (let's say, cruiser size and up), I could tell you some tips on how to make the vanilla propellers work on ships (they produce the actual thrust so if these propellers gets destroyed, they won't produce any). I have this installed on at least two of my battleships. They mostly don't work on smaller vessels sadly, and cannot reverse.
@Monarchii
Surely, you asked the right person for that lol. It would be difficult (and most likely boring) to just read instructions but I'll do it anyway.
The materials you need would be hinge rotators with disabled inputs (range and speed can be ignored) as well as the buoyant fuselage on the end.
The wave dampers that I designed works similarly to a leaf spring. When the weight of the ship pushes down on the hinges, the hinges' flex will decrease the bounce force (or whatever it's called) thus making the ship less bouncy. Again, it is a leaf spring that run across a ship.
What I would suggest is to create a 'spine-like' separate sub-assembly for the damping system where all the hinges are attached on a single part and the hinges are spread on most points (front, middle, and back areas of the ship). The most basic spine I could think of comprises of six hinges and buoyant blocks (Two in the bow, midship, and stern. One on each side).
Another tip is that the distance of the buoyant blocks and the hinges affect the 'sensitivity' of the dampers. The closer the buoyant block is to the hinges, the less effective it is since the hinges will flex less (or flex more resulting in you actually bouncing more). This means that the larger the ship, the easier to make it more stable (on Ocean Mod as well, as it was designed to be used on).
You should always remember that the amount of buoyancy of the blocks will heavily affect the performance of the damper, this is crucial too. Too much and it will be too stiff, less and it will sink more often/deeper than it should do.
If ya need more help, just ask me. I love seeing notifications when opening the site lol.
@Mahoots. There is a neat feature for the camera part, you can set cameras to focus on the cockpit so most angles had a camera + cockpit + piston combo. You can also use multiple pistons (or just rotators) to do some weird panning. I don't know if I have to mention this but yes, I did move the cockpit part all around the aircraft to get 'focus' shots.
@ZeroWithSlashedO
I am using a new image hosting site. It actually is there on my end but if you could suggest a better image hosting site, I'll try it out.
@Monarchii
+1My sailboat goes around roughly 9m by the beam and roughly 34m long excluding the bowsprit. This is based nearly identical to Brigantines.
About the rope, it depends as not all yards should be tied down on their very end (because you can just cheat that in SP). In real life though, all yards are always often roped so the crew can adjust it.
The site doesn't like extremely long word soups so my message was cut and actually forgot what I wrote next so I'd ad-lib the next again lol.
Gaff sails are better as they are wide and not too tall compared to Bermuda rigs. If you have extra mast height, you can add Gaff topsails above the Gaff (the stick) and the Gaff sail. It's visible in my Sailboat Teaser.
I apologize if this felt quick as the last few messages that were cut were actually two more paragraphs long but that's basically the very summarized version of it. I apologize for the late reply too as I was sick these past few days.
@Monarchii
Please pin this so you don't lose it. I will explain it with these in mind: zero engines and zero fuel included in the build— pure sailing. Additionally with realism in mind, so waving sails will be the primary means of doing it.
Working sails in SimplePlanes use primarily one method: wings. This of course is obvious but I'll tell you how they function. It is extremely difficult to make a square sail (four-cornered, the ones who catch running wind) as SP wings doesnt seem to like to bend in a realistic fashion and additionally, they dont seem to really be efficient in giving your boat enough push, with how much wind you give it. For example, even if you resize the wing in Overload to trick the game into thinking it's a larger wing, you will need a couple of them to make it wave thus weight becoming an issue. Reduce weight = wings sputter everywhere even with a slight wind breeze. Don't resize them and let too much wind just push you? Unrealistic and honestly could screw with other sails. This is the main reason as to why I never made them.
Unless you want to compromise with a static square sail, the bestest option is to ditch it all together and use jibs and either a Bermuda mainsail or a Gaff mainsail. I obviously will pick the Jib+Gaff sail configuration as this aligns with how SP wings work and is the easiest way you can make a sail rig actually function realistically. See Choufleur, outdated but this works as the very basic sail config I used.
Again, although I didn't say it was impossible to make square sails (I have seen at least two people try two different methods of their own and both worked), square sails are extremely expensive to make it look realistic (sail HAS to bulge to the middle as it is often tied to all four ends of the sail, not top and down only). Hinges are the primary culprit along with segmenting the wings themselves. The least I can tell you is to use triangle wing sections and piece them like puzzle pieces with hinges binding all together. Again, very expensive and not very efficient in doing their job at catching running wind, SP wings doesnt work best with that.
For now, I will tell you why Jibs and Gaff sails work best for SP. DO NOTE that always identify which is the leading edge of the wing and use it as the actual leading edge of the sail. Jibs are often triangular, this helps you in making the shape as well as making the sail flutter.
@spectre118. A themed-upload. All of us followed a specification or an era-appropriate theme to follow.
As my first ground vehicle (to have had effort put into it), I would like to hear what you think about the build to further improve next ones.
@RestlessGalaxies
Sorry, no.
It was very fun.
+1Tamagoyaki.
+1Tamagoyaki.
+2@Graingy, Whatever floats your boat. The upvote ratio says otherwise.
+1@Graingy
+8There you are again with the saving-face. If you really don't want to waste time on someone then just ignore them, you do not need a whole list of everything.
Oh, you typed a message on a post of someone who blocked you and cannot send it? Then don't try. It's not like you spent more than an hour coming up with a small-talk.
Funnily enough. The fact that you didn't even say anything about the rule breaking you're doing, not even trying to defend it— says a lot. I guess you really just want to brush that under the rug, no? Also a cheap shot on the 'salty bastards' comment. You mean we're salty because you're using the site wrong, and, by the way— in a rule-breaking manner? Of course, ignoring the issue is one way to handle it. But just so we’re clear—you’re not fooling anyone with the act. Thought you should know.
Anyway, I thought I should end it here. If you think that's for the best and your mind’s already made up—then you do you.
@Graingy
+9Then you’ve comically missed my point—unnecessary effort. There’s no need to do all that. If you’re blocked, you’re blocked—what’s it to you whether you know why or not?
And let’s not pretend you’re just being rational here. It’s painfully obvious you’re trying to 'get equal' with the person who blocked you by making it 'mutual.' That’s the classic 'you can’t fire me because I quit' mentality I was talking about—you're clearly offended and scrambling to save face, pretending it’s just 'bookkeeping.'
You're not showing strength, you're just projecting your own insecurity and trying to pass it off as some sort of policy. You aren’t being noble. You’re just uncomfortable with the idea that someone might reject you, and you need to make it look mutual to protect your ego.
Yes I can read, Graingy. I know I can ignore this but that doesn't mean I couldn't. This is the same thing as you wishing the users that blocked you to just reply [on your alt] to confirm if they really blocked you, they could just easily block you again. Things not going your way... annoying isn't it?
@MIGFOXHOUND31BSM26.
I didn't say it doesn't exist, I meant it as highly unlikely to happen. The method to confirm this is also rule-breaking. Are you saying it's justified 'just because'? I'm not the type to follow rules all the time, but if you violate a simple rule, what makes it any easier to ignore a more complex one?
Get over it. If you're blocked then you're blocked. You're not that famous nor a celebrity to confirm it with the user that blocked you. It's not your decision if the user blocked you again on your alt and never reply. If you used an alt to immediately contact the user who blocked you then have the 'basic courtesy' to just respect that, not violating the rules just to 'confirm something'.
The audacity of you to have a 'You can't fire me because I quit' mentality in this forum. Stop justifying rule breaking because it's a 'confirmation' if you're blocked then most likely that's intentional.
+12@jamesPLANESii, Well I don't really have anything to argue lol, I just assumed he's busy though still interested in participating.
@jamesPLANESii, I reckon it's not more on the preventing side, more like no time at all to participate?
Off-topic posts are too vague to classify. They are allowed and as the rules state, there is a threshold for how 'off-topic' a post can be.
+1For convenience, I will classify forums similar as build posts.
Off-topic posts often happen in the forums section as uploading something to the website still counts as playing the game and thus a contribution to the airplane section of the site unless it's way too bland or had no effort put into it at all (e.g. a label part that has words in it and nothing else). Although I should say this mostly count as 'spam' rather than off-topic posts, but they can be.
As for the forums, oh do I have a lot of basis for you. Forum posts in recent times have become a nest for wanna-be social media influencers. There's a handful of users treating and 'abusing' this vague rule where they post forums not really on-topic to SimplePlanes (e.g. random forum about this/that or a forum about questions no one really cares about). Of course, things like these are allowed but if that's the majority of your account's posts section, then it's safe to assume that a report is valid for such posts as they could count as off-topic spamming (stated by the rules: "-However, we do reserve the right to remove posts if they are too far off-topic.")
TLDR, Post whatever you like as off-topic posts are allowed, but be mindful to not stray too much away from plane-related topics (or any buildable vehicles) . Make sure that these posts also follow the written rules as well as rules a sane human being would think as proper.
And most importantly, The forums is NOT a social media platform. It is not Twitter/X, it is not Facebook, it is a forum section of a plane-focused sandbox game. If you were to make an off-topic post, make sure that it's sparse when seen in your account.
Which era? That's too vague of a request.
You definitely should have added more pictures of the deck I gave ya.
None, the heart of the seas is deep within me.
Jokes aside, Wright (and the seas around it) for convenience purposes. This is due to the amount of saved positions I have in it.
Although, I fancy Snowstone and Maywar because of terrain colour and scenery.
@ComradeComissar, Sure. Goodluck on your build.
+1Adding mass to the wheels usually work (if less doesn't work, try adding more but not to an absurd amount) but since you've tried that method, you should work next to the wheels' traction, and if suspension is enabled, try to fiddle with that too and see if what fixes it. Vague answer but it might give you insights on what to do.
Good stuff, I forgot I ever did the testing due to how long it's been.
+1@Monarchii Surely.
+1@Monarchii, Filling in a niche, someone's gotta do it lol.
+1Very fun boat. Although difficult to steer (due to SP physics), the details of the boat is great and also within a certain low part count.
+1I would love to hear your opinions about the aircraft to improve my future ones.
It's usually dependent on multiple things but majorly about the drag. Engine HP would not really matter if you have too much drag on your build. To solve this, you could either reduce the drag by setting the drag of a part to zero or by making the drag calculation of that part to 'false' in Overload. Another thing is to use fixed-angle blades by setting it manually in the part settings.
People have lives to live. 3 months is not a lot of time to be on hiatus.
+8@Makrelek331
Man overboard, man overboard.
I can testify to the effort given to this build is way more than what you think. For the part count, it is efficient and the details are unique and varied especially the hull number. New systems are put in place to simulate shooting with the use of buttons only and is highly accurate to a certain range. A lot of historical memoirs were used to create a perfect model alongside some existing game-engine renders. Even the difference of the ship to her sisters are put in for historical accuracy and that's only to name a few.
If you can run it without bricking your device, I suggest you do so.
+1Awesome job, BM:)
@Monarchii, As far as I know, waving flags don't really need any FT help as you can just give it floppy hinge rotators separating the fuselage.
+1@Monarchii.
+1If you're asking for any inclusion of airbrakes for the spine, I'd say none. Though I will say that if you add always-active airbrakes which doesn't stop the ship when it's powered, it would be a neat feature if, let's say, you want to stop the ship without using other source of thrust. It mimics fluid drag per se.
@Monarchii
Chordscale plays a major role and so is the size of the propellers. You should also consider capping the maxRpm to below 500 to make it look realistic as well as taking in consideration how deep the propellers should be on your ship since if you put it way too deep, they won't work.
@Monarchii, I haven't tried, personally but it might work if the propeller blades turn.
@Monarchii.
Reverse can be compensated by using jet engines. but i guess you're also going with the aesthetics.
@Monarchii
The amount of hinges and buoyant blocks depends on you but the 'least' amount you should at least use is around six each (hinges and blocks, two on front, two on the middle, two on the stern. One on each side). They do not need gyros. CoM is fine wherever as long as the CoM is not too high or the spine is not wide enough to accommodate the high CoM. Additionally, If you plan on making a damage model, you could use the same spine and have the buoyant blocks have low-to-none HP so whenever they get hit by torpedoes, they get destroyed which produce listing on one side.
About the propellers, I am currently using a rotator-powered propeller on my WIP, which was made by another user. I have to ask the specific user if I could lend it to you. It would be better if you tag me on an unlisted (or dm me on Discord) to discuss it.
Although, if you're saving parts and if your ship is big enough (let's say, cruiser size and up), I could tell you some tips on how to make the vanilla propellers work on ships (they produce the actual thrust so if these propellers gets destroyed, they won't produce any). I have this installed on at least two of my battleships. They mostly don't work on smaller vessels sadly, and cannot reverse.
@Monarchii
Surely, you asked the right person for that lol. It would be difficult (and most likely boring) to just read instructions but I'll do it anyway.
The materials you need would be hinge rotators with disabled inputs (range and speed can be ignored) as well as the buoyant fuselage on the end.
The wave dampers that I designed works similarly to a leaf spring. When the weight of the ship pushes down on the hinges, the hinges' flex will decrease the bounce force (or whatever it's called) thus making the ship less bouncy. Again, it is a leaf spring that run across a ship.
What I would suggest is to create a 'spine-like' separate sub-assembly for the damping system where all the hinges are attached on a single part and the hinges are spread on most points (front, middle, and back areas of the ship). The most basic spine I could think of comprises of six hinges and buoyant blocks (Two in the bow, midship, and stern. One on each side).
Another tip is that the distance of the buoyant blocks and the hinges affect the 'sensitivity' of the dampers. The closer the buoyant block is to the hinges, the less effective it is since the hinges will flex less (or flex more resulting in you actually bouncing more). This means that the larger the ship, the easier to make it more stable (on Ocean Mod as well, as it was designed to be used on).
You should always remember that the amount of buoyancy of the blocks will heavily affect the performance of the damper, this is crucial too. Too much and it will be too stiff, less and it will sink more often/deeper than it should do.
If ya need more help, just ask me. I love seeing notifications when opening the site lol.
Really fun vehicle to use especially mixed with the part efficiency, Good stuff, Chiichii :))
+1(interesting variable names too, lol)
What’s keeping you from retaining the successor system in the thing to credit the original builder?
+2It would be an insult to not tag me. Beautiful boat.
+1Everyone who treats the forums like a social media platform, asking stupid questions.
+5@SomeSPGuyWhoLikesLore @overlord5453
I'm not sure, either.
@Mahoots. There is a neat feature for the camera part, you can set cameras to focus on the cockpit so most angles had a camera + cockpit + piston combo. You can also use multiple pistons (or just rotators) to do some weird panning. I don't know if I have to mention this but yes, I did move the cockpit part all around the aircraft to get 'focus' shots.
@ZeroWithSlashedO, I initially used imgbb but switched to a new one, I could try it again.
@ZeroWithSlashedO
I am using a new image hosting site. It actually is there on my end but if you could suggest a better image hosting site, I'll try it out.
Sorry, I probably missed the request lol.
@IDK0
@MAPA
@KudaOni
@TemporaryReplacement
+1@LUPIN
@TheMouse
@CaptainNoble
@126
@LoganAviation
@MitsubishiTritonMyBeloved
@S1lly
@DISHWASHER2005