@Alpha029 Another cool fact: the incredible heat caused by travelling at Mach 3+ over and over again actually had an annealing effect on the metal of the airframe, meaning that the aircraft got better structurally with time.
@Jetpackturtle I thought that was well in the past, but OK. Let me state that someone who sees a build like that -- a Blackbird with curves never seen before in SP -- and their reaction is anything other than "holy crap, that is freaking awesome," and is in fact a criticism, is an amazingly negative person.
It's the thoughtlessness that annoys me -- how does a person see a build like that, and not understand that this is a person who knows what they're doing, who doesn't need to be told that the cockpit doesn't match the real thing? What about the fact that it has a freaking plasma cannon, did that not tip them off that it's not a replica? What about the "v02," did that not tip them off that this is one in a series of progressive enhancements, or at the very least not a replica?
How does a person fail to understand that when someone builds something of that quality, everything about it is intentional? It's the lack of thought and blithe arrogance ("Oho, let me correct this person, even though I couldn't do what they do, not in a million years") that makes me lose respect for a person like that. It's like a philistine looking at a renaissance painting or sculpture and going, "Ha, real people don't look/pose like that." Or reading Shakespeare and going "Hurr, 'methinks' is not a real word!" That person is missing the point by light years.
Furthermore, there was history between us prior to that incident. I knew that that person was one of those who consider my scripts cheating, so that also influenced my reaction.
Note that this is not an invitation to reopen that debate. If anyone posts that person's response to this on my post(s), I will block them as well. When I block someone, it means I don't want to hear from them, the least people can do is respect my wishes.
@Alpha029 OK, no problem. I wouldn't call it a hunk of junk, it's an original design and looks pretty cool. The only problem with it is that the center of lift (CoL) is ahead of the center of mass (CoM), which causes it to flip over in flight. To be stable, an airplane needs to have its CoM in front of the CoL. This causes the airplane to continually tend to fall forward, and the elevators balance that torque, creating a stable configuration.
The further ahead of the CoL the CoM is, the more stable the airplane will be in flight, and the closer it is, the more it will tend to depart from stable flight. You need to find the placement that suits you.
To understand the basics of flight, I'd recommend not starting out with fancy designs, instead building a very simple airplane with a plain cylinder for a fuselage, and rectangular wings, elevators, rudder, etc. Literally the kind of airplane you'd build in real life by sticking a ruler crosswise on a pencil or something. Keep wing loading between 25-50 lb/sq ft. Then, just experiment with moving the wings forward and backward, elevators in back, elevators in front, etc. Keep the mass of the plane realistic, if you make your airplane too light its flight handling will feel wrong. See how changing the mass while keeping the wing loading the same affects handling. Things like that.
Once you've got the basics of flight handling down pat, then you can proceed to design fancy airplanes that fly well.
@Jetpackturtle I'm fine with criticism, just not from stupid people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Anyone who thinks that putting together blocks one by one by hand is somehow noble and doing it using scripts is cheating is someone whose intellect I hold in no regard at all, and whose opinion is therefore worthless to me. Let me make a meme of it for you:
Designs toy airplanes using software
Calls another user a cheater for designing toy airplanes using different software
As for effort, only an idiot thinks that effort of the mind is inferior to effort of the body. Every single person who criticizes me for using scripts depends on the product of human minds every day. Everything from agriculture to manufacturing to utilities to cars to houses to space rockets -- and, yes, airplanes -- is built on mind-work. If you don't believe that, go get stranded in the middle of nowhere with no civilization and see how far you get with your noble manual labour.
Let's be honest, this is all about jealousy. These people are jealous that I'm able to build beautiful, detailed, smooth aircraft in minutes or hours when they couldn't achieve anything even close in days or weeks of labour. That's all there is to it.
Thanks, @Alpha029, you're too kind. Although I only developed this kind of chine starting with the Stiletto. I have to agree, chines make an aircraft look very cool and predatory. Did you know that the chines on the SR-71 were designed purely as a stealth measure, but it turned out they're also really beneficial for supersonic flight?
If you think the opinions, actions, or upvotes of people like you matter to me, you give yourself too much importance. Just take your upvotes and opinions and go away :)
@Treadmill103 Guess what, one of the people whom this hyar talk is about is going through all my posts and removing all their upvotes. Only thing is, they're so smart they upvoted the builds they hadn't upvoted previously. Must be one a dem inty-lectuals.
I usually never say this, but I'll make an exception: LOL!
(Their username rhymes with "forever cry"). Hil-freaking-arious.
@Mustang51 I don't know, it might get enough upvotes to be noticeable to the developers, but I doubt it. I'm guessing most users would be against the idea of paying more for anything.
@Treadmill103 Yah, I like big engines... speakin er which, this mighty fine lady tol' me I mus' be com-pen-say-tin fer my small peanuts cuz mah airyplane an' 'specially ma engines wer so durn big. You know anythin' 'bout dat? Duz dat mean guys who fly them itty-bitty fairy-toy ultra-lights have de bigges' peanuts? How duz dat work? I doan' even grow peanuts, fer Chrissake.
"Toroidal?" Thar ye go wit dem eddicated wurds agin. Dun ye know, we doan' like eddication 'roun' heah? We're salt-of-the-earth types, we work widder hands, not er brains. Whud are you, some kind of intylectual er sumpin? :)
@Mustang51 And as for ads, I wouldn't want them (I'd block them in any case, for privacy, security, and annoyance reasons). I don't think this website gets enough traffic to make a meaningful amount of money from ads anyway. I'd rather pay more.
@Mustang51 I'd love DLC -- maps, missions, parts, the lot: I'd be all "shut up and take my money" -- but the limiting factor, for maps and missions at least, is performance. If I'm flying a 1000-part build and spawn another AI-flown instance of it, the game becomes totally unplayable on my beast of a PC. Mobiles/tablets are a lot more limited. The SR2 engine seems to be better optimized, so let's see what that can handle.
Who knows, maybe some enterprising user can write a conversion tool to make SP builds playable in SR2. As long as they keep the file format open, I don't think that would be too hard.
@MAHADI I'm saying nobody can change a person, not others, not the person themselves. You see that on TV and in movies all the time -- someone resolves to become a better person and does -- but I'm sure I have a bit more life experience than you, and I can tell you, I've never seen that happen. The nasty kids I knew are now nasty grownups, the stupid kids are now stupid grownups, the nice kids are nice grownups. No exceptions.
@Mustang51 Well, consider how long builds "live" in SP even now. Most builds never make the front page, and drop off the Hottest page in hours (if they ever make it there in the first place). Even the ones that do make the all-time-highest-rated pages stop getting downloads and upvotes after a few weeks at most. So I don't think throwing away all the existing builds will really matter. Some long-term users will complain, sure, but there will be enough new users to make that not matter.
The trouble with the game is that SP's revenue model gives Jundroo no incentive to value long-term players. Jundroo only gets money once, when a user purchases a game. So they have to cater to new players, which is why they changed their ranking algorithm (several times, I think) to demote high-ranking builds off the Hottest pages more and more quickly -- new users were complaining about not being able to be seen at all.
From a revenue perspective, the best thing for Jundroo would be if new players constantly sign up, it doesn't matter how long they stay. A long-term user keeps costing them server time and bandwidth, but they don't get any money for it. To me, this is an obviously broken model. For a game to survive, it needs to bring in a steady stream of money.
Personally, I'd be happy with a monthly or yearly subscription, but I'm sure that would raise howls of protest from most players. And the game would have to offer much more playability than it does now, to justify the subscription model. I don't think Jundroo have the resources to make that happen. I'm actually surprised SP has lasted this long with the paltry amount of users they have.
I, too, would like to believe that people can change, but in all my life I haven't seen a single person do that. You can break a person mentally and/or physically and change their behaviour temporarily that way, but other than that, "the child is the father of the man."
Anyway, that's about as much as I want to speak of regarding that individual. Let's just enjoy building and appreciating cool stuff, ok?
@Mustang51 Sure, I get what you mean, but I'm not sure it can be done without fundamentally changing the game engine. Right now the game handles blocks as separate entities, so if you want to paint a shape made out of a bunch of blocks, especially if the shape has anything but flat surfaces, the engine would have to calculate the "total surface" of the shape, then map a texture to it. I'm pretty sure that's very difficult or impossible without converting the "bunch of separate blocks" to one mesh.
Also, for anything but flat surfaces -- if the user wants a paint a decal on a curved surface, for instance -- you'd need to project the flat decal on to the curved surface without distorting it, which is probably not possible with the current engine.
If we're talking about painting a texture on a flat block, then mounting that block on the airplane, yeah, that could probably be done quite easily. But flat blocks sticking out all over curved fuselages would just look ugly.
The other big problem with allowing users to add their own textures, of course, is the inevitable troublemakers who'll be sticking dirty pictures all over their planes, in obvious and hidden places. If some parent finds porn on something their 13-year-old is playing, well, that's a can of worms I'm sure nobody wants to open.
Finally, I'm pretty sure SP won't be getting any major updates any more. SR2 is supposed to be a superset of SP, and maintaining two codebases is just too hard for a small team like Jundroo. I'm OK with that, as long as they add weapons and lots of targets. Hopefully someday....
@Mustang51 On a desktop, you could simply implement NURBS modelling, which is much better than polygonal meshes for creating smooth shapes -- you just draw curves using splines, and the computer fills them in. You could create literally any shape.
Phones are fine, but they're limited in how much you can create with them. NURBS modeling would probably be impossible on a phone -- you don't have fine enough control, or a large enough screen.
If not NURBS, then at the very least, you should be able to define an arbitrary cross-section for a fuselage (or wing), then extrude it, taper it, blend it into another cross-section, and so on.
As for fuselage shape creating lift and drag, I'm in two minds about that. If that were implemented, it would restrict the game to serious and skilled builders who understand aerodynamics, and it would also prevent making unrealistic shapes like sci-fi builds. Perhaps it could be a per-build setting, for the best of both worlds.
If there was a desktop-only building game, so much could be done in terms of tools. You could take a cylinder, make it tapered using whatever curve you like at both ends, and you have a fuselage. Add a wing (with the proper airfoil shape), tell the game engine to blend it into the fuselage, add flaps and control surfaces, etc. and the engine could automatically do it for you, including hinges and pistons, etc. The lego-like approach is too limited.
@Mustang51 Nah, if you look at those builds, they're only 100-200 parts or so, and I would just edit the numbers directly in the XML file instead of using Overload or Fine Tuner, so it didn't take that long. It was just tedious.
@FinalGambit What, no 'Sleddy boi?' Nothing about how much you despise me, or what a "senile old dotard" and "full-of-himself f*er" I am?
It's very simple: you (and your friends) are not quite as clever as you think you are -- not by a long shot. You can change the way you write, but you can't change who you are, and your nature will always give you away.
Your problem is that you're fundamentally dishonest. Until I made you post this here just now, you were still doing what you used to do. Behaving badly in public, and apologising in private. Fundamentally, deeply dishonest.
As for your apology: are you aware of how much damage you have caused? Maligning my reputation, insulting me, trying to cause a fight between me and the SPMC, throwing tantrums to force a moderator to censor my profile (not because I said anything about you, I just posted a link to a screenshot of what you said), using social manipulation to get a lot of people to upvote your crappy builds, getting other people to build stuff for you and passing it off as your own... the list goes on.
Even with your "final gambit," with this supposed turning over a new leaf, what were you planning to do? To hide your identity and then reveal how you'd outsmarted everyone.
I'm sure this final gambit included getting me to give you my scripts, so you could boast to your dumb friends how you outsmarted me. Correct?
You're a pathological liar, a thorougly vile person, and a wannabe social manipulator (which is why I blocked you in the first place). Until you change that, you will never ever be friends with quality people. You may trick them for a while, maybe, but you'll be found out sooner rather than later. I can promise you -- with absolute certainty -- that if you don't change your ways now, you will grow up into an even more horrendous person and your life will be full of nothing but disappointments and frustration.
I don't believe people can change their basic nature, so the deck is stacked against you.
As for forgiveness, it's very simple: can you turn the clock back and undo the damage you have done? I don't think so, so no, I don't forgive you.
Now go on, report this post for name calling or whatever.
@Mustang51 Ha, no. This degree of smoothness is possible to achieve by hand (using a calculator or Excel or something), but that would take hours and hours, if not days. My first few builds were made by hand, before I got tired of the drudgery and wrote some programs to generate shapes for me. Now I just define curves using code, and the programs generate the shapes out of fuselage blocks in one go. On this plane, for instance, the nose cone, tapered fuselage, cockpit front curve, cockpit rear curve, engine spike, inlet cowling, nacelle, etc., are all individual subassemblies, generated separately. Then I snap them together in the designer, add flight capability and weapons, and bam, shiny new plane.
@FinalGambit that doesn't bother me at all, in fact i quite enjoy it, because that's how little people express their resentment of their betters. If the small-minded aren't mocking you, you're not doing anything worth noticing.
@Mostly kind of. I generate the individual shapes separately, like nose cone, rear fuselage, engine inlet cowling, cockpit front, cockpit rear, etc. Then i put them together in the designer, add flight capability, and weapons.
@Mustang51 Why should it offend anyone, aren't my builds crap, according to most people here? So why would anyone be reading my comments? :)
@BaconEggs Always knew you were a class act :) blocked
@Alpha029 Oh right. This is how:
[Whatever text you like](https://website.com/page)To post images in descriptions (not in comments):
To make headings:
#Level 1 headingLevel 1 heading
##Level 2 headingLevel 2 heading
###Level 3 headingLevel 3 heading
####Level 4 headingLevel 4 heading
#####Level 5 headingLevel 5 heading
######Level 6 headingLevel 6 heading
*italic text*italic text
**bold text**bold text
***bold italic text***bold italic text
@Mustang51 Yeah. The only downside of a cheap game is that it attracts cheap people...
@KillerDread Yeah, here you go.
@Alpha029 Well, post a link already :)
@Alpha029 As much? More :)
@Mustang51 Well, I did warn you...
@Alpha029 Yep. I doubt there's a single publicly available fact about the Blackbird that I don't know :) I've loved that aircraft since I was a kid.
@Alpha029 Another cool fact: the incredible heat caused by travelling at Mach 3+ over and over again actually had an annealing effect on the metal of the airframe, meaning that the aircraft got better structurally with time.
@Jetpackturtle I thought that was well in the past, but OK. Let me state that someone who sees a build like that -- a Blackbird with curves never seen before in SP -- and their reaction is anything other than "holy crap, that is freaking awesome," and is in fact a criticism, is an amazingly negative person.
It's the thoughtlessness that annoys me -- how does a person see a build like that, and not understand that this is a person who knows what they're doing, who doesn't need to be told that the cockpit doesn't match the real thing? What about the fact that it has a freaking plasma cannon, did that not tip them off that it's not a replica? What about the "v02," did that not tip them off that this is one in a series of progressive enhancements, or at the very least not a replica?
How does a person fail to understand that when someone builds something of that quality, everything about it is intentional? It's the lack of thought and blithe arrogance ("Oho, let me correct this person, even though I couldn't do what they do, not in a million years") that makes me lose respect for a person like that. It's like a philistine looking at a renaissance painting or sculpture and going, "Ha, real people don't look/pose like that." Or reading Shakespeare and going "Hurr, 'methinks' is not a real word!" That person is missing the point by light years.
Furthermore, there was history between us prior to that incident. I knew that that person was one of those who consider my scripts cheating, so that also influenced my reaction.
Note that this is not an invitation to reopen that debate. If anyone posts that person's response to this on my post(s), I will block them as well. When I block someone, it means I don't want to hear from them, the least people can do is respect my wishes.
@Alpha029 OK, no problem. I wouldn't call it a hunk of junk, it's an original design and looks pretty cool. The only problem with it is that the center of lift (CoL) is ahead of the center of mass (CoM), which causes it to flip over in flight. To be stable, an airplane needs to have its CoM in front of the CoL. This causes the airplane to continually tend to fall forward, and the elevators balance that torque, creating a stable configuration.
The further ahead of the CoL the CoM is, the more stable the airplane will be in flight, and the closer it is, the more it will tend to depart from stable flight. You need to find the placement that suits you.
To understand the basics of flight, I'd recommend not starting out with fancy designs, instead building a very simple airplane with a plain cylinder for a fuselage, and rectangular wings, elevators, rudder, etc. Literally the kind of airplane you'd build in real life by sticking a ruler crosswise on a pencil or something. Keep wing loading between 25-50 lb/sq ft. Then, just experiment with moving the wings forward and backward, elevators in back, elevators in front, etc. Keep the mass of the plane realistic, if you make your airplane too light its flight handling will feel wrong. See how changing the mass while keeping the wing loading the same affects handling. Things like that.
Once you've got the basics of flight handling down pat, then you can proceed to design fancy airplanes that fly well.
@Jetpackturtle I'm fine with criticism, just not from stupid people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Anyone who thinks that putting together blocks one by one by hand is somehow noble and doing it using scripts is cheating is someone whose intellect I hold in no regard at all, and whose opinion is therefore worthless to me. Let me make a meme of it for you:
As for effort, only an idiot thinks that effort of the mind is inferior to effort of the body. Every single person who criticizes me for using scripts depends on the product of human minds every day. Everything from agriculture to manufacturing to utilities to cars to houses to space rockets -- and, yes, airplanes -- is built on mind-work. If you don't believe that, go get stranded in the middle of nowhere with no civilization and see how far you get with your noble manual labour.
Let's be honest, this is all about jealousy. These people are jealous that I'm able to build beautiful, detailed, smooth aircraft in minutes or hours when they couldn't achieve anything even close in days or weeks of labour. That's all there is to it.
+1Thanks, @Alpha029, you're too kind. Although I only developed this kind of chine starting with the Stiletto. I have to agree, chines make an aircraft look very cool and predatory. Did you know that the chines on the SR-71 were designed purely as a stealth measure, but it turned out they're also really beneficial for supersonic flight?
If you think the opinions, actions, or upvotes of people like you matter to me, you give yourself too much importance. Just take your upvotes and opinions and go away :)
@Treadmill103 Guess what, one of the people whom this hyar talk is about is going through all my posts and removing all their upvotes. Only thing is, they're so smart they upvoted the builds they hadn't upvoted previously. Must be one a dem inty-lectuals.
I usually never say this, but I'll make an exception: LOL!
(Their username rhymes with "forever cry"). Hil-freaking-arious.
@Treadmill103 Yer, dem plasmy cannons sure are heavy. Nivver bring a GAU-8 to a plasmy cannon fight, as muh grandpappy used ter say...
@Mustang51 I don't know, it might get enough upvotes to be noticeable to the developers, but I doubt it. I'm guessing most users would be against the idea of paying more for anything.
@Treadmill103 Yah, I like big engines... speakin er which, this mighty fine lady tol' me I mus' be com-pen-say-tin fer my small peanuts cuz mah airyplane an' 'specially ma engines wer so durn big. You know anythin' 'bout dat? Duz dat mean guys who fly them itty-bitty fairy-toy ultra-lights have de bigges' peanuts? How duz dat work? I doan' even grow peanuts, fer Chrissake.
"Toroidal?" Thar ye go wit dem eddicated wurds agin. Dun ye know, we doan' like eddication 'roun' heah? We're salt-of-the-earth types, we work widder hands, not er brains. Whud are you, some kind of intylectual er sumpin? :)
Thanks, @Treadmill103.
@Alpha029 Does that mean you no longer need help with it?
@Alpha029 sure, I'm always happy to help. I'll look at it when i get home tonight.
@Mustang51 And as for ads, I wouldn't want them (I'd block them in any case, for privacy, security, and annoyance reasons). I don't think this website gets enough traffic to make a meaningful amount of money from ads anyway. I'd rather pay more.
@Mustang51 I'd love DLC -- maps, missions, parts, the lot: I'd be all "shut up and take my money" -- but the limiting factor, for maps and missions at least, is performance. If I'm flying a 1000-part build and spawn another AI-flown instance of it, the game becomes totally unplayable on my beast of a PC. Mobiles/tablets are a lot more limited. The SR2 engine seems to be better optimized, so let's see what that can handle.
Who knows, maybe some enterprising user can write a conversion tool to make SP builds playable in SR2. As long as they keep the file format open, I don't think that would be too hard.
@MAHADI I'm saying nobody can change a person, not others, not the person themselves. You see that on TV and in movies all the time -- someone resolves to become a better person and does -- but I'm sure I have a bit more life experience than you, and I can tell you, I've never seen that happen. The nasty kids I knew are now nasty grownups, the stupid kids are now stupid grownups, the nice kids are nice grownups. No exceptions.
@Mustang51 Well, consider how long builds "live" in SP even now. Most builds never make the front page, and drop off the Hottest page in hours (if they ever make it there in the first place). Even the ones that do make the all-time-highest-rated pages stop getting downloads and upvotes after a few weeks at most. So I don't think throwing away all the existing builds will really matter. Some long-term users will complain, sure, but there will be enough new users to make that not matter.
The trouble with the game is that SP's revenue model gives Jundroo no incentive to value long-term players. Jundroo only gets money once, when a user purchases a game. So they have to cater to new players, which is why they changed their ranking algorithm (several times, I think) to demote high-ranking builds off the Hottest pages more and more quickly -- new users were complaining about not being able to be seen at all.
From a revenue perspective, the best thing for Jundroo would be if new players constantly sign up, it doesn't matter how long they stay. A long-term user keeps costing them server time and bandwidth, but they don't get any money for it. To me, this is an obviously broken model. For a game to survive, it needs to bring in a steady stream of money.
Personally, I'd be happy with a monthly or yearly subscription, but I'm sure that would raise howls of protest from most players. And the game would have to offer much more playability than it does now, to justify the subscription model. I don't think Jundroo have the resources to make that happen. I'm actually surprised SP has lasted this long with the paltry amount of users they have.
+1@MAHADI Thanks. You've been away for a while...?
I, too, would like to believe that people can change, but in all my life I haven't seen a single person do that. You can break a person mentally and/or physically and change their behaviour temporarily that way, but other than that, "the child is the father of the man."
Anyway, that's about as much as I want to speak of regarding that individual. Let's just enjoy building and appreciating cool stuff, ok?
@Mustang51 Sure, I get what you mean, but I'm not sure it can be done without fundamentally changing the game engine. Right now the game handles blocks as separate entities, so if you want to paint a shape made out of a bunch of blocks, especially if the shape has anything but flat surfaces, the engine would have to calculate the "total surface" of the shape, then map a texture to it. I'm pretty sure that's very difficult or impossible without converting the "bunch of separate blocks" to one mesh.
Also, for anything but flat surfaces -- if the user wants a paint a decal on a curved surface, for instance -- you'd need to project the flat decal on to the curved surface without distorting it, which is probably not possible with the current engine.
If we're talking about painting a texture on a flat block, then mounting that block on the airplane, yeah, that could probably be done quite easily. But flat blocks sticking out all over curved fuselages would just look ugly.
The other big problem with allowing users to add their own textures, of course, is the inevitable troublemakers who'll be sticking dirty pictures all over their planes, in obvious and hidden places. If some parent finds porn on something their 13-year-old is playing, well, that's a can of worms I'm sure nobody wants to open.
Finally, I'm pretty sure SP won't be getting any major updates any more. SR2 is supposed to be a superset of SP, and maintaining two codebases is just too hard for a small team like Jundroo. I'm OK with that, as long as they add weapons and lots of targets. Hopefully someday....
Thank you, @Rodrigo110
@Mustang51 On a desktop, you could simply implement NURBS modelling, which is much better than polygonal meshes for creating smooth shapes -- you just draw curves using splines, and the computer fills them in. You could create literally any shape.
Phones are fine, but they're limited in how much you can create with them. NURBS modeling would probably be impossible on a phone -- you don't have fine enough control, or a large enough screen.
If not NURBS, then at the very least, you should be able to define an arbitrary cross-section for a fuselage (or wing), then extrude it, taper it, blend it into another cross-section, and so on.
As for fuselage shape creating lift and drag, I'm in two minds about that. If that were implemented, it would restrict the game to serious and skilled builders who understand aerodynamics, and it would also prevent making unrealistic shapes like sci-fi builds. Perhaps it could be a per-build setting, for the best of both worlds.
+1@Mustang51 Yeah, drudgery is soul-destroying.
If there was a desktop-only building game, so much could be done in terms of tools. You could take a cylinder, make it tapered using whatever curve you like at both ends, and you have a fuselage. Add a wing (with the proper airfoil shape), tell the game engine to blend it into the fuselage, add flaps and control surfaces, etc. and the engine could automatically do it for you, including hinges and pistons, etc. The lego-like approach is too limited.
@FinalGambit2 Shoo.
+1@FinalGambit TL;DR
@Mustang51 Nah, if you look at those builds, they're only 100-200 parts or so, and I would just edit the numbers directly in the XML file instead of using Overload or Fine Tuner, so it didn't take that long. It was just tedious.
@FinalGambit What, no 'Sleddy boi?' Nothing about how much you despise me, or what a "senile old dotard" and "full-of-himself f*er" I am?
It's very simple: you (and your friends) are not quite as clever as you think you are -- not by a long shot. You can change the way you write, but you can't change who you are, and your nature will always give you away.
Your problem is that you're fundamentally dishonest. Until I made you post this here just now, you were still doing what you used to do. Behaving badly in public, and apologising in private. Fundamentally, deeply dishonest.
As for your apology: are you aware of how much damage you have caused? Maligning my reputation, insulting me, trying to cause a fight between me and the SPMC, throwing tantrums to force a moderator to censor my profile (not because I said anything about you, I just posted a link to a screenshot of what you said), using social manipulation to get a lot of people to upvote your crappy builds, getting other people to build stuff for you and passing it off as your own... the list goes on.
Even with your "final gambit," with this supposed turning over a new leaf, what were you planning to do? To hide your identity and then reveal how you'd outsmarted everyone.
I'm sure this final gambit included getting me to give you my scripts, so you could boast to your dumb friends how you outsmarted me. Correct?
You're a pathological liar, a thorougly vile person, and a wannabe social manipulator (which is why I blocked you in the first place). Until you change that, you will never ever be friends with quality people. You may trick them for a while, maybe, but you'll be found out sooner rather than later. I can promise you -- with absolute certainty -- that if you don't change your ways now, you will grow up into an even more horrendous person and your life will be full of nothing but disappointments and frustration.
I don't believe people can change their basic nature, so the deck is stacked against you.
As for forgiveness, it's very simple: can you turn the clock back and undo the damage you have done? I don't think so, so no, I don't forgive you.
Now go on, report this post for name calling or whatever.
+3@FinalGambit Come off it, Darth. Your final gambit has failed.
+1@FinalGambit Nope, I don't make mistakes like that, Darth. That file is all you need.
You're quite active, I see, for a new user. Bustling like a bee. Is it ok if I call you Darth a Bee, now?
@FinalGambit You're welcome. By the way, do you mind if I call you Darth? Seeing as how you're so knowledgeable about Star Wars ;)
@Mustang51 Ha, no. This degree of smoothness is possible to achieve by hand (using a calculator or Excel or something), but that would take hours and hours, if not days. My first few builds were made by hand, before I got tired of the drudgery and wrote some programs to generate shapes for me. Now I just define curves using code, and the programs generate the shapes out of fuselage blocks in one go. On this plane, for instance, the nose cone, tapered fuselage, cockpit front curve, cockpit rear curve, engine spike, inlet cowling, nacelle, etc., are all individual subassemblies, generated separately. Then I snap them together in the designer, add flight capability and weapons, and bam, shiny new plane.
@FinalGambit re. The shader pack, read the instructions that come with reshade.
@FinalGambit that doesn't bother me at all, in fact i quite enjoy it, because that's how little people express their resentment of their betters. If the small-minded aren't mocking you, you're not doing anything worth noticing.
+1@Mustang51 experience, yes, but mostly it's using generated shapes that cuts down on build time.
@Mostly kind of. I generate the individual shapes separately, like nose cone, rear fuselage, engine inlet cowling, cockpit front, cockpit rear, etc. Then i put them together in the designer, add flight capability, and weapons.
@Mustang51 thanks. I usually make a build like this in one sitting, in under two hours. Some things like artillery take more time.
@Alpha029 (fist bump)
@Alpha029 thanks again. If only more people could be as positive and appreciative of good work as you are...
@Alpha029 thank you very much!
@ForeverPie Oh look, another luddite. "Manual labor good! Brain work bad!" Hilariously pathetic. Have a nice life :)
@ThePilotDude Why are you still here? Learn to take a hint.
@Mustang51 You're welcome :)