@KlydeVenierez Since the bridge is not a point target but has length, width and height, a range of bearings and elevations will hit it. The settings in the description are just the ones I happened to choose.
@Notaleopard I saw that transformer thing. It's very impressive, but you're using my flight module in a way it was never intended to be used. You should be glad it flies reasonably well at all.
@Notaleopard This flight module ("Bullet") is an evolution of the TBV-100. I'm not sure what you mean by poor performance: I think the maneuverability of that module is extraordinary, surpassed only by this one. And I have automated the same module quite successfully, so I can only infer that you're doing something wrong.
@AWESOMENESS360 Yeah, it's definitely one of the better books I've read about combat flying. It's called "Stealth Fighter," by Lt. Col. William O'Connor.
The most common mistakes people make in SP are thinking that wing shape and aircraft shape matter in the same way as they do in real life. In short, they don't. To simulate fluid dynamics in SP would mean it would only run on a very powerful computer. So you have to think in terms of the simplifications in the SP flight model.
Quick tips:
- Wing shape does not matter at all. Swept wing, delta wing, straight wing, they're all treated as point sources of lift.
- Aircraft shape only matters to the extent that it provides a drag number and an overall size. Meaning that if you build a Su-27 lookalike in SP, it doesn't mean it will fly the same as a real Su-27. You can build something in SP that's literally one brick-shaped fuselage block with flat rectangular wings sticking out of it that will fly better than the most faithful replica of the best-flying fighter jet.
Also remember that in real life, aircraft use advanced technology like fuel-balancing computers, fly-by-wire computers, etc. What fly-by-wire does is add stability to designs that have too little wing area to be aerodynamically stable. Why is smaller wing area desirable? Because it creates less drag. But in SP, since we don't have fly-by-wire, we need to decrease the wing loading to make airplanes fly well. This creates more drag, but that can be countered by increasing thrust -- in SP, thrust is free.
The problems with this build at a glance:
- Control surfaces using rotators. Rotators are a terrible way to create control surfaces, because every time you activate them, they impart an improbable amount of angular momentum to your aircraft. Use proper wing control surfaces.
- Wing loading is too high. As explained above, we need to compensate for the lack of fly-by-wire systems by decreasing wing loading. The F-22 has a wing loading of 77 lbs per square foot, so aim for a value lower than that. Remember that in SP, wings can be scaled up or down without affecting their performance.
Thanks, @Belloaka. It's a lot easier nowadays with the part transform tool and the connection tool. It used to be a lot more work before those were available. I don't know your building method, but if you just follow one simple rule -- never attach two subassemblies together the old way, by dragging one close to the other -- it's quite easy. Always use the connection tool to manually create connections, then nudge the new part/subassembly into place.
@ChisP I guess the recuperator cylinder being on top of the barrel makes them look similar. I wonder if the design of the M1 was influenced by the Flak 88.
@unCANNY I appreciate that you're trying to help, but I've been playing this game for nearly three years and have over 450 published builds. Do you really think I haven't tried those tricks, and a whole lot besides? :)
If you reduce the mass of the recoil system to zero or close to it, what happens to the acceleration of the moving parts? How does that affect the compression of the shock absorber spring and the time period of the recoil?
@unCANNY In general, the mechanical parts in SP (rotators, pistons, shock absorbers) only work well when the mass of a build is below a certain limit. Beyond that limit, things get wobbly.
And before you ask the obvious question, this build had to be this large and heavy, precisely because I'm using cannon recoil and shock absorbers. Just adding the one rotator for the breech block caused quite a bit of wobble on this build.
I suggest you try building a prototype heavy cannon (or modifying this build if you're up for it) to get an idea of what I'm talking about.
@Gameboi14 Algebra by itself won't teach you much about FT, which is more about logic and boolean algebra. In short, FT lets you use mathematical functions as inputs where previously you could only use activation groups and sliders. So instead of a simple on-off toggle or a linear ramping up and down, you can have complex curves or step functions.
@Notaleopard A rotator can only rotate around one axis, so you can't make a pitch/roll thrust vectoring nozzle with just one rotator. You can have any number of inputs going into one rotator, though.
@Gameboi14 First of all, this build doesn't really use funky trees inputs. Second, that's a terrible attitude. If you give up when things get difficult, how are you going to get through life? Your profile says you're 15, so there's no reason you should feel bad about not understanding how it works. If anything, it's the game developers' fault for not providing examples and tutorials.
If you want to learn, feel free to ask me for help.
The reason for the flutter is that its mass is way too low. I don't have time to do a complete fix, but simply by replacing massScale="0.1" with massScale="3" the wing flutter went away. As a general rule, keep your physical parameters somewhat realistic.
@robloxweponco Any build that's posted on SP is open source by design, which means that when someone uploads something they're explicitly giving their consent for people to do with it what they please. So yes, feel free to use any concept you learn from reverse engineering my builds, or to modify them in any way you like. Gentlemen will give credit where credit is due.
@KlydeVenierez Since the bridge is not a point target but has length, width and height, a range of bearings and elevations will hit it. The settings in the description are just the ones I happened to choose.
@JohnnyBoythePilot Oh. I've never been into anime, so...
@Thecatbaron Not enough damage.
@ChallengerHellcat Depends on what your goal is.
@Notaleopard But my VG airbrakes have nothing to do with rotator-based control surfaces.... I didn't come up with them as an "alternative" to RBCS.
@JohnnyBoythePilot What's the JAM?
@Notaleopard I saw that transformer thing. It's very impressive, but you're using my flight module in a way it was never intended to be used. You should be glad it flies reasonably well at all.
@JolyLoly Thanks.
@Notaleopard This flight module ("Bullet") is an evolution of the TBV-100. I'm not sure what you mean by poor performance: I think the maneuverability of that module is extraordinary, surpassed only by this one. And I have automated the same module quite successfully, so I can only infer that you're doing something wrong.
@AWESOMENESS360 Yeah, it's definitely one of the better books I've read about combat flying. It's called "Stealth Fighter," by Lt. Col. William O'Connor.
@SpiritusRaptor I know, right?
@Boatrider No problem.
@Boatrider
The most common mistakes people make in SP are thinking that wing shape and aircraft shape matter in the same way as they do in real life. In short, they don't. To simulate fluid dynamics in SP would mean it would only run on a very powerful computer. So you have to think in terms of the simplifications in the SP flight model.
Quick tips:
- Wing shape does not matter at all. Swept wing, delta wing, straight wing, they're all treated as point sources of lift.
- Aircraft shape only matters to the extent that it provides a drag number and an overall size. Meaning that if you build a Su-27 lookalike in SP, it doesn't mean it will fly the same as a real Su-27. You can build something in SP that's literally one brick-shaped fuselage block with flat rectangular wings sticking out of it that will fly better than the most faithful replica of the best-flying fighter jet.
Also remember that in real life, aircraft use advanced technology like fuel-balancing computers, fly-by-wire computers, etc. What fly-by-wire does is add stability to designs that have too little wing area to be aerodynamically stable. Why is smaller wing area desirable? Because it creates less drag. But in SP, since we don't have fly-by-wire, we need to decrease the wing loading to make airplanes fly well. This creates more drag, but that can be countered by increasing thrust -- in SP, thrust is free.
The problems with this build at a glance:
- Control surfaces using rotators. Rotators are a terrible way to create control surfaces, because every time you activate them, they impart an improbable amount of angular momentum to your aircraft. Use proper wing control surfaces.
- Wing loading is too high. As explained above, we need to compensate for the lack of fly-by-wire systems by decreasing wing loading. The F-22 has a wing loading of 77 lbs per square foot, so aim for a value lower than that. Remember that in SP, wings can be scaled up or down without affecting their performance.
@Jirachi Just something I came up with.
@sheepsblood Thank you!
@sheepsblood Thank you :) I'll post it (or something with the same capabilities) tomorrow.
Excellent.
Thanks, @Treadmill103. I could post it right now if you like :)
Thanks, @Boatrider
@hafydays I'm not sure what you mean by "get" the howitzer. Everything in this build was created from scratch.
Thanks, @tictacjack56
@Thefuriouschicken Nice :) Now try for all three in one shot.
Thanks, @Belloaka. It's a lot easier nowadays with the part transform tool and the connection tool. It used to be a lot more work before those were available. I don't know your building method, but if you just follow one simple rule -- never attach two subassemblies together the old way, by dragging one close to the other -- it's quite easy. Always use the connection tool to manually create connections, then nudge the new part/subassembly into place.
@Tex338 Use the X-ray feature, you'll see that the shock absorber is inside the barrel.
Thanks, @Stormfur @nadvgia
@realluochen9999 If this build doesn't deserve a spotlight, what does? The nozzles and exhaust effects are especially good.
@Panzer828 A proper Flak cannon with gear-based elevation and traversal mechanisms is coming soon...
@Treadmill103 Thanks for noticing the outriggers :)
@Panzer828 Not quite a Flak 88, but you might be interested anyway.
@ChisP I guess the recuperator cylinder being on top of the barrel makes them look similar. I wonder if the design of the M1 was influenced by the Flak 88.
@unCANNY I appreciate that you're trying to help, but I've been playing this game for nearly three years and have over 450 published builds. Do you really think I haven't tried those tricks, and a whole lot besides? :)
If you reduce the mass of the recoil system to zero or close to it, what happens to the acceleration of the moving parts? How does that affect the compression of the shock absorber spring and the time period of the recoil?
@unCANNY In general, the mechanical parts in SP (rotators, pistons, shock absorbers) only work well when the mass of a build is below a certain limit. Beyond that limit, things get wobbly.
And before you ask the obvious question, this build had to be this large and heavy, precisely because I'm using cannon recoil and shock absorbers. Just adding the one rotator for the breech block caused quite a bit of wobble on this build.
I suggest you try building a prototype heavy cannon (or modifying this build if you're up for it) to get an idea of what I'm talking about.
@Gameboi14 Algebra by itself won't teach you much about FT, which is more about logic and boolean algebra. In short, FT lets you use mathematical functions as inputs where previously you could only use activation groups and sliders. So instead of a simple on-off toggle or a linear ramping up and down, you can have complex curves or step functions.
@Notaleopard A rotator can only rotate around one axis, so you can't make a pitch/roll thrust vectoring nozzle with just one rotator. You can have any number of inputs going into one rotator, though.
@unCANNY When the cannon is this large and heavy, it does.
@Notaleopard Hi. Yes, it's possible, but what do you mean by a "double AG rotator"?
@Gameboi14 First of all, this build doesn't really use funky trees inputs. Second, that's a terrible attitude. If you give up when things get difficult, how are you going to get through life? Your profile says you're 15, so there's no reason you should feel bad about not understanding how it works. If anything, it's the game developers' fault for not providing examples and tutorials.
If you want to learn, feel free to ask me for help.
@Gameboi14 Why?
If you want the "wings" to taper in width towards the tips, reduce the X-scale.
The reason for the flutter is that its mass is way too low. I don't have time to do a complete fix, but simply by replacing massScale="0.1" with massScale="3" the wing flutter went away. As a general rule, keep your physical parameters somewhat realistic.
Again, no idea how the control surfaces are moving in the opposite direction to the one they should, but it flies well.
The pitch control surfaces work in the opposite way I'd expect, but it flies really well and is an interesting design. Nice work.
@robloxweponco Any build that's posted on SP is open source by design, which means that when someone uploads something they're explicitly giving their consent for people to do with it what they please. So yes, feel free to use any concept you learn from reverse engineering my builds, or to modify them in any way you like. Gentlemen will give credit where credit is due.
@sheepsblood Yeah, it was a special plane. There's a description of how it felt to fly it in this post.
@ChallengerHellcat Because then it would no longer be collision-proof. Also, this built is meant to be flown in third person view anyway.
@Zanedavid Thanks, I'm glad you agree.
Thanks, @Subnerdica
@Zanedavid Not sure what you mean by "pushing." Isn't it normal, when you discover something new, to develop it as far as you can?
@robloxweponco For someone who can't even be bothered to upvote my builds, you sure have a lot of requests.
@robloxweponco Well, if I ever come up with something like that, I'll post it.