@yoshicraze It's the regular sandbox map, it just looks different because I use a custom shader with Reshade. The ships are positioned using a custom location (it involves editing XML). I've posted a guide somewhere, let me find the link.
To create a tube out of a bunch of fuselage blocks, you need to figure out how to draw the blocks in a circle around a point. In two-dimensional geometry, if you have a circle with its center at (0,0), the x and y coordinates of the points on that circle are given by:
x = sin(theta) x radius
y = cos(theta) x radius
Where theta is the angle the point makes with the perpendicular.
So you just run a loop in steps of, say, five degrees, calculate the x and y positions, and render blocks at (x, y, 0).
@chancey21 No need to make it a successor, if that's what you mean. Credit isn't required, but is nice to have. You don't have to limit yourself to this set, either. Generating these takes literally seconds, so if you let me know your tube wall thickness, radius, length, and number of parts you want, I can create a custom one for you. Just don't expect it immediately.
@chancey21 That's not possible with inlet blocks. You can attach two inlet blocks back to back so that the openings face outward, but in the middle they'll be closed.
@BaconRoll Wing flutter happens (in SP at least) when the wing loading is too low, i.e., when the airplane has too much wing for its mass. Increase the mass and/or decrease the wing area, and the flutter will stop.
@BaconRoll Sorry, but the rules specify that the aircraft will be flown at 100% throttle. The weight and length are also below the minimum requirements...
@Davisplanez Well, thank you. Probably because I've built nearly a build a day for nine months now. And I focus on performance at least as much as aesthetics.
@spefyjerbf That wasn't a mistake, I stand behind it one hundred percent. If you don't see how he was in the wrong there, well, there's nothing I can do about that.
@FGW2014 lockTime="0.01" will make them lock on in one-hundredth of a second. Other useful settings are maxRange, maxTargetingAngle, maxSpeed, maxHeadingAngleAdjustmentRate, maxVelocityAngleAdjustmentRate.
@Blue0Bull I wish people like you would understand that other people have different value systems, priorities, criteria by which they judge things, etc. What's important to me is the overall shape of the aircraft, build quality (how well parts fit together), and performance. I take pains to get curves exactly right, and to get shapes to flow smoothly into one another. I make sure every build of mine flies extremely well. I mod engines so that the noise isn't too loud, and use custom cameras for cockpits to avoid the annoying wind noise that the default cockpit has. I didn't like the default weapons in SP, so I built my own (that work really well).
If I were to evaluate others' builds by my standards, I'd be giving out maybe a couple of upvotes a month. Some builds that get 50, 100, and even more upvotes have parts falling off them on takeoff, fly like a drunk turkey, don't do any of their functions well, randomly explode, etc. I upvote builds that meet enough of my criteria, and I don't point out their flaws unless asked to because I understand my first statement above, and I'm happy to let people do their own thing. For some reason, though, some people find it really, really hard to extend me the same courtesy.
I have zero interest in cockpits as they are in SP, because even the best ones look like crap to me. People making gauge dials out of fuselage blocks and rotators, ugly little beacon lights all over the place -- they simply don't look good. If SP provided a way to make good cockpits (pre-built instruments, textures, switches, etc.) I'd be building cockpits. As it doesn't, I don't build them. That's all. The same goes for all mechanical parts (rotators, pistons, detachers, pylons). They don't work well, so I don't use them.
To me, your blackbird has so many facets that it looks more like an F-117. The "cockpit" is pretty much a few bars in the viewport. It doesn't fly very well, is noisy, the exhaust looks wrong, the speed is wrong, the black is too black and the decals are too bright. By my standards, it's just not very good. But I still upvoted it, and I didn't point out its flaws. But that's just me.
@FGW2014 TobogganSteerer... that's funny. FYI, "Sled Driver" is what SR-71 pilots used to call themselves, because the Blackbird was pretty much only good at moving in a straight line, hence "sled."
@AndrewGarrison Feel free to take up my offer, any time.
That's a nice way of looking at it, but the only time I'd want a game world leaking into real life is if I made a few million dollars in-game. :) Plus, it's not I who gets frustrated -- I rarely crash my builds -- it's other users.
@AndrewGarrison I posted this on another thread, but wanted you to see it, and discuss it with you somewhere too many people won't see it.
[There's a problem with] the "airplanes" tab of the website. It links to the "hottest" airplanes, which is usually full of mediocre builds. It doesn't matter how much effort someone puts into a build, it will be off the "hottest" list in at most two days, and likely won't get any upvotes after the first 24 hours. This is discouraging for those who post high quality builds, and the incentive is to keep posting lots of low-quality ones. Why put days or weeks into something when it will only be seen for a day, or a week at most if it hits the front page? Quality posts should keep earning upvotes for weeks and months to reward hard work. Perhaps the default "airplanes" page should have a random selection of high-ranked posts, no matter how long ago they were posted. At present the only way to reach good builds that are older is to go to "Highest rated > all time," then keep clicking through the pages. Clicking past the first few pages is tiresome -- there's no way to go directly to an older page -- and most people will stop before page 10 or so, and probably never come back, because getting to page 11 means clicking through pages 1 - 10 again. I think this is a serious defect with the website and needs to be fixed.
Another problem is the presentation of the posts -- the thumbnails are just too small, the default background is too dark and has an ugly pedestal, and the page itself is glaring white, which means you have to squint hard to see some of the builds. The thumbnails need to be at least twice as large and presented better, and the background needs to be dark grey so that images stand out more. The screenshot mode should offer users a selection of backgrounds and lighting setups so that users can show off their builds in the best way possible. If larger images would put too much load on the server, the image format can be changed from PNG to JPG - the difference would be hardly noticeable, and there would be significant savings in page load time and bandwidth.
@AndrewGarrison If you need some help with styling the website, I'd be happy to do some pro bono work -- I'm a professional web designer/developer.
@Neoteraphyte Thank you. The time they take varies a lot. Some planes I've cranked out in literally 15 minutes. Others have taken up to half a day. Also, most of my planes are evolutions of my earlier designs, so it's hard to say how much time went into any given one.
@chancey21 How many is "slightly lower?" I can make it with whatever exact number of parts you need.
+1@chancey21 Here you go.
+1@yoshicraze It's the regular sandbox map, it just looks different because I use a custom shader with Reshade. The ships are positioned using a custom location (it involves editing XML). I've posted a guide somewhere, let me find the link.
+1@RMark1
To create a tube out of a bunch of fuselage blocks, you need to figure out how to draw the blocks in a circle around a point. In two-dimensional geometry, if you have a circle with its center at (0,0), the x and y coordinates of the points on that circle are given by:
x = sin(theta) x radius
y = cos(theta) x radius
Where theta is the angle the point makes with the perpendicular.
So you just run a loop in steps of, say, five degrees, calculate the x and y positions, and render blocks at (x, y, 0).
+1@KSPFSXandSP it's very simple, actually. I can explain if you like.
+1@chancey21 No need to make it a successor, if that's what you mean. Credit isn't required, but is nice to have. You don't have to limit yourself to this set, either. Generating these takes literally seconds, so if you let me know your tube wall thickness, radius, length, and number of parts you want, I can create a custom one for you. Just don't expect it immediately.
+1@chancey21 That's not possible with inlet blocks. You can attach two inlet blocks back to back so that the openings face outward, but in the middle they'll be closed.
+1@chancey21 So a bunch of inlet blocks?
+1@chancey21 So you mean simple cylindrical fuselage blocks in a bunch of sizes?
+1@chancey21 Do you mean single fuselage blocks in different diameters?
+1@SoulDestroyer9 @Stingray @Maxwell1 Glad you like it.
+1@AndrewGarrison and there was much rejoicing.
+1@BaconRoll Wing flutter happens (in SP at least) when the wing loading is too low, i.e., when the airplane has too much wing for its mass. Increase the mass and/or decrease the wing area, and the flutter will stop.
+1@BaconRoll Sorry, but the rules specify that the aircraft will be flown at 100% throttle. The weight and length are also below the minimum requirements...
+1@ThomasRoderick There's no kill like overkill.
+1@Davisplanez Well, thank you. Probably because I've built nearly a build a day for nine months now. And I focus on performance at least as much as aesthetics.
+1@DJ123 It's just Wright, it looks different because I'm using a custom shader. And thanks.
+1@Peekofwar Yeah that's what I meant, it's complicated behind the scenes, but the end result is simple smooth shapes.
To format text, use this syntax:
#heading1
heading1
##heading2
heading2
###heading3
heading3
####heading4
heading4
#####heading5
heading5
######heading6
heading6
Links are made like this (make sure to remove the space between ']' and '(' ):
[link text here] (https://www.website.com/path)
You can embed images in the description using this (remove all spaces):
! [] (https://website.com/image.jpg)
*italic text*
italic text
**bold text**
bold text
***bold italic text***
+1bold italic text
Thanks, @Davisplanez
+1@Flightsonic I have to commute home now, if this thread is still up I will continue the conversation.
+1@bjac0 if you were honest, you'd ask me why i think you're wrong. Confirmation bias indeed.
+1@bjac0 wrong.
+1@MrDoolittle no, I like using apt descriptions of people. Name calling is what people like you do when they don't have facts or logic on their side.
+1@bjac0 don't bring spefy into this, our conversation was entirely amicable. I'm rejecting your idea because it's wrong.
+1@bjac0 I didn't ask for your opinion, bjac boy.
+1And for the record, I don't block people because of criticism, I block them for behaving badly.
+1@spefyjerbf That wasn't a mistake, I stand behind it one hundred percent. If you don't see how he was in the wrong there, well, there's nothing I can do about that.
+1Did I hurt your feewings much, @MrDoolittle? Still carrying the torch, I see.
+1This is one of the best inventions I've seen on here.
+1@Jetpackturtle I'm a long way from running out of ideas, don't worry.
+1@TheBlueRobotProduct Nah, it looks like too much effort went into it. Try harder to try as little as possible.
+1@Peekofwar Yeah, it's definitely a birdlike shape.
+1Not pointless enough for modern art, try harder. (/joke)
+1@RedstoneAeroAviation Yeah, I don't do landing gear. The default ones are too basic, and custom gears aren't worth the hassle.
+1@F104Deathtrap Thanks for getting it. That's exactly what I was aiming for -- to capture the essence of the thing.
+1@FGW2014 lockTime="0.01" will make them lock on in one-hundredth of a second. Other useful settings are maxRange, maxTargetingAngle, maxSpeed, maxHeadingAngleAdjustmentRate, maxVelocityAngleAdjustmentRate.
+1@Blue0Bull I wish people like you would understand that other people have different value systems, priorities, criteria by which they judge things, etc. What's important to me is the overall shape of the aircraft, build quality (how well parts fit together), and performance. I take pains to get curves exactly right, and to get shapes to flow smoothly into one another. I make sure every build of mine flies extremely well. I mod engines so that the noise isn't too loud, and use custom cameras for cockpits to avoid the annoying wind noise that the default cockpit has. I didn't like the default weapons in SP, so I built my own (that work really well).
If I were to evaluate others' builds by my standards, I'd be giving out maybe a couple of upvotes a month. Some builds that get 50, 100, and even more upvotes have parts falling off them on takeoff, fly like a drunk turkey, don't do any of their functions well, randomly explode, etc. I upvote builds that meet enough of my criteria, and I don't point out their flaws unless asked to because I understand my first statement above, and I'm happy to let people do their own thing. For some reason, though, some people find it really, really hard to extend me the same courtesy.
I have zero interest in cockpits as they are in SP, because even the best ones look like crap to me. People making gauge dials out of fuselage blocks and rotators, ugly little beacon lights all over the place -- they simply don't look good. If SP provided a way to make good cockpits (pre-built instruments, textures, switches, etc.) I'd be building cockpits. As it doesn't, I don't build them. That's all. The same goes for all mechanical parts (rotators, pistons, detachers, pylons). They don't work well, so I don't use them.
To me, your blackbird has so many facets that it looks more like an F-117. The "cockpit" is pretty much a few bars in the viewport. It doesn't fly very well, is noisy, the exhaust looks wrong, the speed is wrong, the black is too black and the decals are too bright. By my standards, it's just not very good. But I still upvoted it, and I didn't point out its flaws. But that's just me.
+1@Maxwell1 Nothing like a good belly laugh.
+1@Ephwurd Is that what they're calling my spaceship mode these days?
+1As far as I'm concerned, upvotes are a way of saying thanks for uploading quality builds, so you should be saying "you're welcome."
+1Screenshots
+1@FGW2014 TobogganSteerer... that's funny. FYI, "Sled Driver" is what SR-71 pilots used to call themselves, because the Blackbird was pretty much only good at moving in a straight line, hence "sled."
+1@AndrewGarrison Feel free to take up my offer, any time.
That's a nice way of looking at it, but the only time I'd want a game world leaking into real life is if I made a few million dollars in-game. :) Plus, it's not I who gets frustrated -- I rarely crash my builds -- it's other users.
+1@AndrewGarrison I posted this on another thread, but wanted you to see it, and discuss it with you somewhere too many people won't see it.
[There's a problem with] the "airplanes" tab of the website. It links to the "hottest" airplanes, which is usually full of mediocre builds. It doesn't matter how much effort someone puts into a build, it will be off the "hottest" list in at most two days, and likely won't get any upvotes after the first 24 hours. This is discouraging for those who post high quality builds, and the incentive is to keep posting lots of low-quality ones. Why put days or weeks into something when it will only be seen for a day, or a week at most if it hits the front page? Quality posts should keep earning upvotes for weeks and months to reward hard work. Perhaps the default "airplanes" page should have a random selection of high-ranked posts, no matter how long ago they were posted. At present the only way to reach good builds that are older is to go to "Highest rated > all time," then keep clicking through the pages. Clicking past the first few pages is tiresome -- there's no way to go directly to an older page -- and most people will stop before page 10 or so, and probably never come back, because getting to page 11 means clicking through pages 1 - 10 again. I think this is a serious defect with the website and needs to be fixed.
Another problem is the presentation of the posts -- the thumbnails are just too small, the default background is too dark and has an ugly pedestal, and the page itself is glaring white, which means you have to squint hard to see some of the builds. The thumbnails need to be at least twice as large and presented better, and the background needs to be dark grey so that images stand out more. The screenshot mode should offer users a selection of backgrounds and lighting setups so that users can show off their builds in the best way possible. If larger images would put too much load on the server, the image format can be changed from PNG to JPG - the difference would be hardly noticeable, and there would be significant savings in page load time and bandwidth.
@AndrewGarrison If you need some help with styling the website, I'd be happy to do some pro bono work -- I'm a professional web designer/developer.
+1Let's see how long this takes to get featured.
+1Nice.
+1@Neoteraphyte Thank you. The time they take varies a lot. Some planes I've cranked out in literally 15 minutes. Others have taken up to half a day. Also, most of my planes are evolutions of my earlier designs, so it's hard to say how much time went into any given one.
+1@MajorSix Well, as long as you like it : )
@MajorSix Check my profile, it's satirical. Appreciate the offer, though I don't play this as an RPG.
@MajorSix I'm flattered, but I hardly have time for my own stuff...