You've got talent. You could probably have presented this a little better, though. The thumbnail needs more contrast between the airplane and the background.
@Diloph Well, all I can say is "how much effort does this look like went into it" is not something I've ever thought about. The only thought on my mind when I decided to build the outer ring this way was build quality. The default hollow blocks have too few polygons to look smooth, and I wanted a smooth radius on the ring's edges. Something to increase the build's visual appeal. That's all.
@FCparis Well then, use structural wings. Before you get into building complex aircraft, I recommend figuring out the basics of flight with a minimal build (one block for the airframe, wings, engine, fuel tank) and working with that until you have it right.
@FCparis Wing flutter happens when the mass of the aircraft is too low for the size of the wings. You can adjust mass up, or use the "structural wing" part. By default it can't have control surfaces, but you can override that by setting allowControlSurfaces="true". Several people have created XML modding guides, reading those will help.
@Thefuriouschicken Yeah if you lose parts, that happens. But at certain angles it can take missile hits without a problem. Sometime I'll post a build that's completely invulnerable to missiles.
@Love0police Yeah, if I move the cockpit back, it can take collisions at any speed with no damage. It can also survive missile hits as well, as long as they're not too close to the cockpit.
@Werboithescientist Yeah, I can make something like that. In the meantime, if you're playing on a computer, you can edit this build yourself. Let me know if you want to try, I'll tell you how.
@Gameboi14 It's not about serious vs. fun, it's about smart vs. dumb. Memes, "FIRST!", etc. are dumb. The whole point of sharing builds is so other people can have fun with them. Anyway, thanks, I'm glad you like it.
@Diloph Yes, I know it works on these builds, that's why I posted them :) But think of something else you might want to build that you wanted to animate, without affecting drag of the overall build. Like digital gauges, dials, bar graphs, etc. You don't want your airplane to veer to a side when a needle on a gauge moves, do you?
Thanks, @Treadmill103. I built this to show the kind of thing that would be possible if the materials themselves could take an input. Along with glowing materials, that would enable some really entrancing builds.
@Diloph Because they can be animated. And even though they're limited in the range and type of animation, and you can't set drag to zero on them, that one feature makes them able to build things like this. Now imagine what could be done if we had zero-drag parts that could be moved along any axis, and rotated through any angle...
@Panzer828 Wow, the NIAI RK-I is really something. I haven't seen anything like it before. It's funny how Stalin inadvertently killed itbecause he was so interested in it.
@Panzer828 Well, with modern materials I'm sure it could be implemented with a metal frame and a tough flexible covering, but I'm not sure there would be much point. You would lose all or most of the wing's fuel storage capacity, and the mechanism to extend and retract the wing would be added weight. Nobody builds swing-wing aircraft any more for a reason.
As to how I did it in SP, it's because 1) the game is so flexible and 2) the flight physics is implemented really well. With a high-school level knowledge of physics, you can build things you never imagined possible. Each "wing" is made up of 90 airbrakes, with the inputs arranged in a manner to create that spiky shape when the airbrakes open up.
OK, I'll take you at face value and accept that this isn't just another "oh that SledDriver, he kin onlee play by cheeeeeetung, he can't mek normal plens."
I have several problems with your challenge rules:
You must use the given engine and weapon along with the weight connected to the propeller
This doesn't make sense to me. Why must that specfic weight be there?
No modding parts
This kills 99% of the potential for creativity. Say goodbye to beautifully shaped wings, and any decorative elements. If you love the way my aircraft look, you have to allow removing drag and mass on decorative elements like fuselage-based wings etc.
Maneuverability - how easily and fast it can change direction
I build and test on PC, and planes handle very differently on mobile. Specifically, on a PC, when you press a key the input goes straight from 0 to 1. There's no possibility of ramping up the input slowly or applying an intermediate degree of input, say 0.2 or 0.6. It's either OFF or ON. So how will you compare maneuverability between devices? What handles beautifully on a PC will seem sluggish on a mobile. Also, it's extremely easy to make an airplane that turns on a dime in SP. A better, objective version of this rule would be "the aircraft should take X seconds to make a 180/360 degree turn."
Presentation - your description along with looks.
This is highly subjective. Some people love decals. I hate them. Some people love recreating all the defects of old-time metal manufacturing like misaligned panels, exposed rivet heads, and large seams between panels. I hate them, because I don't like living in the past.
Creativity - just how much fun you had making the project which is the most important thing.
How will you even determine this? I can tell you straight up that I hate propeller planes, I find them boring and noisy, I hate the propeller blocking my view, among other things. So there's no way this will be fun for me. However, read on.
@Subnerdica Well, each claw is made up of 180 airbrakes with their inputs, positions, and angles set to create the claw shape. Using that many airbrakes means that from a distance, the shape looks smooth, like a single piece of metal. And before you ask, the reason I use airbrakes is because they're the only part that can take the new input system and move without using rotators or pistons. If I used fuselage blocks with rotators, not only would I need twice the parts to do the same thing, but the physics calculations would cause unnecessary lag.
@ChallengerHellcat Yeah, a bird's wing was the first thing that came to mind when I came up with this technique.
@Gameboi14 Well, I just call it the new input system, but yes.
You've got talent. You could probably have presented this a little better, though. The thumbnail needs more contrast between the airplane and the background.
@Zanedavid Hm? I don't get it.
@Diloph Well, all I can say is "how much effort does this look like went into it" is not something I've ever thought about. The only thought on my mind when I decided to build the outer ring this way was build quality. The default hollow blocks have too few polygons to look smooth, and I wanted a smooth radius on the ring's edges. Something to increase the build's visual appeal. That's all.
@ChallengerHellcat Well, some of them, anyway. Thanks.
@DeathStalker627 Now there's an idea, a spinning space station that can fly.
@Strucker Thanks. My last few builds are even more so :)
@DeathStalker627 Hmm I don't get it.... why energy shields?
Thanks, @BsetFan2020
@DeathStalker627 Yep. No rotators at all :)
@enzoBoeing757 Try to figure it out.
@Treadmill103 Thanks :)
@FCparis Well then, use structural wings. Before you get into building complex aircraft, I recommend figuring out the basics of flight with a minimal build (one block for the airframe, wings, engine, fuel tank) and working with that until you have it right.
@FCparis By a frame outside the control surfaces, I mean that when the control surface moves, there's a "frame" (beam, whatever) there.
@FCparis Wing flutter happens when the mass of the aircraft is too low for the size of the wings. You can adjust mass up, or use the "structural wing" part. By default it can't have control surfaces, but you can override that by setting allowControlSurfaces="true". Several people have created XML modding guides, reading those will help.
@FCparis Just build quality stuff.
@Danieldiaz Whaaaaaaa?
@FCparis Appreciation is nice, but that's not the reason I build. I build things because I like to build things.
@Werboithescientist Well, I never plan ahead as to what I will make. I have made a flying pig, though, search for "Porcus."
@FCparis What attention?
@FCparis She's a beauty, isn't she...
@Thefuriouschicken Yeah if you lose parts, that happens. But at certain angles it can take missile hits without a problem. Sometime I'll post a build that's completely invulnerable to missiles.
@Love0police Yeah, if I move the cockpit back, it can take collisions at any speed with no damage. It can also survive missile hits as well, as long as they're not too close to the cockpit.
@Texasfam04 Thanks, Tex. Aren't they though :)
@ChisP Really? I thought it's quite soothing.
@Werboithescientist Yeah, I can make something like that. In the meantime, if you're playing on a computer, you can edit this build yourself. Let me know if you want to try, I'll tell you how.
@DeathStalker627 Why, what's the problem? Look up "negative feedback loops".
@CRJ900Pilot It is fun, isn't it? Especially in VTOL mode.
@DeathStalker627 Yeah, amazing what you can do with simple trigonometric functions, isn't it?
@Gameboi14 It's not about serious vs. fun, it's about smart vs. dumb. Memes, "FIRST!", etc. are dumb. The whole point of sharing builds is so other people can have fun with them. Anyway, thanks, I'm glad you like it.
A stupendous achievement, @12705129
@Zanedavid No it didn't... this is way too smooth to trigger epilepsy.
@ArcturusAerospace MATH
@Trijets Yup, I can totally see the resemblance.
Welcome back, Tex.
@Treadmill103 And you are absolutely right, during the 05:00 - 06:00 period the colors are really something.
@Diloph Yes, I know it works on these builds, that's why I posted them :) But think of something else you might want to build that you wanted to animate, without affecting drag of the overall build. Like digital gauges, dials, bar graphs, etc. You don't want your airplane to veer to a side when a needle on a gauge moves, do you?
Thanks, @Treadmill103. I built this to show the kind of thing that would be possible if the materials themselves could take an input. Along with glowing materials, that would enable some really entrancing builds.
@Panzer828 Yeah, it's going to be an interesting next few decades.
@Trijets This is actually the SD-450 Moth Mark II, but thanks.
@Diloph Because they can be animated. And even though they're limited in the range and type of animation, and you can't set drag to zero on them, that one feature makes them able to build things like this. Now imagine what could be done if we had zero-drag parts that could be moved along any axis, and rotated through any angle...
@Zanedavid Thanks. Think of it like a magic trick: just enjoy it, don't try to figure it out :)
@Panzer828 Yeah. And we went from the Wright flyer to the SR-71 in only about sixty years...
@Panzer828 Wow, the NIAI RK-I is really something. I haven't seen anything like it before. It's funny how Stalin inadvertently killed it because he was so interested in it.
@Panzer828 Yeah, I know the benefits of variable-geometry wings :) I just looked up the plane, is it the Makhonin Mak-123 or Mak-10?
@Panzer828 Well, with modern materials I'm sure it could be implemented with a metal frame and a tough flexible covering, but I'm not sure there would be much point. You would lose all or most of the wing's fuel storage capacity, and the mechanism to extend and retract the wing would be added weight. Nobody builds swing-wing aircraft any more for a reason.
As to how I did it in SP, it's because 1) the game is so flexible and 2) the flight physics is implemented really well. With a high-school level knowledge of physics, you can build things you never imagined possible. Each "wing" is made up of 90 airbrakes, with the inputs arranged in a manner to create that spiky shape when the airbrakes open up.
Part 1 of 2
OK, I'll take you at face value and accept that this isn't just another "oh that SledDriver, he kin onlee play by cheeeeeetung, he can't mek normal plens."
I have several problems with your challenge rules:
This doesn't make sense to me. Why must that specfic weight be there?
This kills 99% of the potential for creativity. Say goodbye to beautifully shaped wings, and any decorative elements. If you love the way my aircraft look, you have to allow removing drag and mass on decorative elements like fuselage-based wings etc.
I build and test on PC, and planes handle very differently on mobile. Specifically, on a PC, when you press a key the input goes straight from 0 to 1. There's no possibility of ramping up the input slowly or applying an intermediate degree of input, say 0.2 or 0.6. It's either OFF or ON. So how will you compare maneuverability between devices? What handles beautifully on a PC will seem sluggish on a mobile. Also, it's extremely easy to make an airplane that turns on a dime in SP. A better, objective version of this rule would be "the aircraft should take X seconds to make a 180/360 degree turn."
This is highly subjective. Some people love decals. I hate them. Some people love recreating all the defects of old-time metal manufacturing like misaligned panels, exposed rivet heads, and large seams between panels. I hate them, because I don't like living in the past.
How will you even determine this? I can tell you straight up that I hate propeller planes, I find them boring and noisy, I hate the propeller blocking my view, among other things. So there's no way this will be fun for me. However, read on.
@Panzer828 Do I know you? What is your motive for inviting me to this challenge?
@Subnerdica Well, each claw is made up of 180 airbrakes with their inputs, positions, and angles set to create the claw shape. Using that many airbrakes means that from a distance, the shape looks smooth, like a single piece of metal. And before you ask, the reason I use airbrakes is because they're the only part that can take the new input system and move without using rotators or pistons. If I used fuselage blocks with rotators, not only would I need twice the parts to do the same thing, but the physics calculations would cause unnecessary lag.