@chancey21 Yes, but the part count would be prohibitive. It'd have to be made up of a bunch of tapering rings, and each ring would need, at a minimum, 30 parts. So if you use 10 rings, you'd need 300 parts, and it still wouldn't look smooth.
@Mustang51 Way to ruin a party. They don't tend to take no for an answer either, right? I used to think women made too big a deal out of harassment, but after experiencing firsthand what hateful pests some "men" can be, I finally understood how bad women have it.
@Mustang51 Well, that's all good then. It's sad I had to ask, but after quite a few nasty surprises I've learned to be suspicious of compliments from men.
@CRJ900Pilot Yeah I got that, thanks, but the way you phrased it ("it still looks cool") sounds like "It looks cool even though...", that's all. I know what you meant.
Oh, I know anything can be made to fly in SP. I meant that there isn't much for a submarine-as-submarine to do in SP. Nice build, though it could use some missile tubes with operational hatches.
@Sheeper @Planefun Thanks. It didn't take as many tries as you might think, because I already have aimable howitzers like this one that give me the traverse angle, elevation angle, and detachForce I need. So I start off with a mortar that's already ranged, and it takes between 10-20 tries to get it accurate enough to hit a specific point on the bridge, like the central column on the eastern bridge in the GIF.
@Treadmill103 I had to do that, because if this thing hits the target with anything but the exposed fuze in its nose, it doesn't explode. Took a lot of tries, I can tell you. But when you finally score a hit, it's so worth it.
Other improvements that could be implemented without too much trouble (well, probably):
The ability to designate parts as the ones you want attached. For instance, when adding a subassembly to a build, players should be able to say that they want this part on the subassembly to attach to that part on the build, and no other parts should get involved, thank you.
The ability to edit multiple parts as a group, as in Fine Tuner, except that parts should be selectable by clicking-and-dragging, like applying paint, rather than clicking, clicking, clicking....
The ability to "pick" certain properties from one part and "drop" them on to other parts using a property brush.
The ability to mega-nudge a part a good way away from the build to attach other parts to it, then un-mega-nudge it back, along with all the new parts connected to it.
Keyboard shortcuts to increase/decrease time of day in steps of 1 hour.
The ability to draw a bounding box around the build, to simplify physics calculations. For instance, if an airplane has 600 parts, its overall shape could be contained within one cylinder to contain the fuselage, and one flat box for each wing surface, enabling the physics calculations to be done with just 6 parts. This would improve the performance of high-part-count builds a great deal, and enable mobile users to download more complex builds.
@JangoTheMango Since you're on Windows, you can use shaders (via Reshade) to enhance the look of your game, and of course in-game screenshots. A lot less work than photo editing. A link to my shaders is on my profile, at the end.
Some of these are not the developers' fault, they're an inherent limitation of the Unity engine, especially the bug with the rotators and angular momentum.
Also keep in mind that this is an indie game, with very few resources. If it was by a big-name studio, it would be much more expensive to make, meaning it would have to appeal to a much wider audience to make a profit. Think "Press F to enable flight capability."
The undo functionality could be improved, and the mirroring/login bugs could be fixed, I agree with that.
Even the graphics could be easily improved -- a lot -- with very simple, low-performance-cost shaders. Many reviewers have pointed out how the graphics look dull and muddy overall. I'd be happy to donate my shaders to the cause. @AndrewGarrison
@chancey21 Yes, but the part count would be prohibitive. It'd have to be made up of a bunch of tapering rings, and each ring would need, at a minimum, 30 parts. So if you use 10 rings, you'd need 300 parts, and it still wouldn't look smooth.
Thanks, @chancey21, that's good to know.
@Stingray Air-to-ground something, huh? Sounds interesting.
@Stingray link
@Stingray yeah, it should be in my two most recent posts pages. Missile pod, burst fire it's called.
@Sunnyskies the angle is fine, i meant removing the platform and using a brighter background using a designer mod.
@Stingray thanks, don't forget the modded interceptors though.
Thanks, @Alpha029 . It's actually very simple: Make it look fast, powerful and dangerous.
@FlyingNarwhal There's a third bridge?
@Mustang51 Yeah, I guess it is. Anyway, I'm signing off. Watch out for dem pests.
@Mustang51 Yep. Next time you see a woman, give her a hug and say "I understand."
Oh wait...
@Mustang51 Way to ruin a party. They don't tend to take no for an answer either, right? I used to think women made too big a deal out of harassment, but after experiencing firsthand what hateful pests some "men" can be, I finally understood how bad women have it.
@Mustang51 Well, that's all good then. It's sad I had to ask, but after quite a few nasty surprises I've learned to be suspicious of compliments from men.
@Jetpackturtle Easy there, Whitney Houston...
Why, thank you, @Davisplanez
Nice. I think you're doing yourself a disservice by not using better screenshots for your airplanes.
@CRJ900Pilot Yeah I got that, thanks, but the way you phrased it ("it still looks cool") sounds like "It looks cool even though...", that's all. I know what you meant.
@Mustang51 Err, are you hitting on me now? 'Cause I don't swing that way.
@CRJ900Pilot Thanks, but if I didn't think it looked cool I wouldn't have uploaded it...
@CRJ900Pilot Yeah, I suppose there's a resemblance, though I conceived it as a generic 4.5-gen fighter.
@Mustang51 If I was compensating, I'd be building really tiny airplanes...
Wow. The interior especially is really nice.
Thanks, @Mustang51. I have my reasons for building big, you know :)
Thanks, @Treadmill103. I'm always torn between adding more detail and keeping part count low enough to be usable for most people.
Nice build, but when you have a bright colour like red you need another color, like white, to set it off.
+1Oh, I know anything can be made to fly in SP. I meant that there isn't much for a submarine-as-submarine to do in SP. Nice build, though it could use some missile tubes with operational hatches.
@EternalDarkness of course :) thanks for the spotlight.
The engines are a bit small, but it's still great.
+1Thanks again, @Planefun
Shiny. I like it.
@BaconRoll Did you expect anything less? :)
Flies surprisingly well.
@chancey21 No problem, hope you had fun with it.
Thanks, @Davisplanez
@datpilotguy Dirty Harry would be envious.
@Davisplanez At SledDriver Industries, we're all about fun.
@Sheeper @Planefun Thanks. It didn't take as many tries as you might think, because I already have aimable howitzers like this one that give me the traverse angle, elevation angle, and detachForce I need. So I start off with a mortar that's already ranged, and it takes between 10-20 tries to get it accurate enough to hit a specific point on the bridge, like the central column on the eastern bridge in the GIF.
@KSPFSXandSP OK, I'll make a tutorial post.
@KSPFSXandSP Affirmative, Eagle, it's in case you encounter little green men.
@datpilotguy Thanks. Check out this and this as well, they might make your day three times over.
+1@chancey21 Here you go.
@Treadmill103 I had to do that, because if this thing hits the target with anything but the exposed fuze in its nose, it doesn't explode. Took a lot of tries, I can tell you. But when you finally score a hit, it's so worth it.
+2@goboygo1 Here's my version, it flies quite well. I also added an unobstructed cockpit view, and some guns, because why not.
@FGW2014 Very innovative as usual, but it's too flat from the side view. Some thickness would make it much more appealing.
@Cream Thanks. I think you'll find that flight performance is quite consistent across my recent builds.
Other improvements that could be implemented without too much trouble (well, probably):
- The ability to designate parts as the ones you want attached. For instance, when adding a subassembly to a build, players should be able to say that they want this part on the subassembly to attach to that part on the build, and no other parts should get involved, thank you.
- The ability to edit multiple parts as a group, as in Fine Tuner, except that parts should be selectable by clicking-and-dragging, like applying paint, rather than clicking, clicking, clicking....
- The ability to "pick" certain properties from one part and "drop" them on to other parts using a property brush.
- The ability to mega-nudge a part a good way away from the build to attach other parts to it, then un-mega-nudge it back, along with all the new parts connected to it.
- Keyboard shortcuts to increase/decrease time of day in steps of 1 hour.
- The ability to draw a bounding box around the build, to simplify physics calculations. For instance, if an airplane has 600 parts, its overall shape could be contained within one cylinder to contain the fuselage, and one flat box for each wing surface, enabling the physics calculations to be done with just 6 parts. This would improve the performance of high-part-count builds a great deal, and enable mobile users to download more complex builds.
+5@JangoTheMango In that case, go for it.
@JangoTheMango Since you're on Windows, you can use shaders (via Reshade) to enhance the look of your game, and of course in-game screenshots. A lot less work than photo editing. A link to my shaders is on my profile, at the end.
Some of these are not the developers' fault, they're an inherent limitation of the Unity engine, especially the bug with the rotators and angular momentum.
Also keep in mind that this is an indie game, with very few resources. If it was by a big-name studio, it would be much more expensive to make, meaning it would have to appeal to a much wider audience to make a profit. Think "Press F to enable flight capability."
The undo functionality could be improved, and the mirroring/login bugs could be fixed, I agree with that.
Even the graphics could be easily improved -- a lot -- with very simple, low-performance-cost shaders. Many reviewers have pointed out how the graphics look dull and muddy overall. I'd be happy to donate my shaders to the cause. @AndrewGarrison
+7Great build and flies very well, but when do we get to see some big, bad, grown-up warplanes from you?
+2