@WalrusAircraft
.
Still waiting for the regular decisions release in April, but I got accepted to UMichigan in the early cycle, so unless anything changes I'll be attending there in the fall.
@Ormalawayo
. input indeed is a place for you to write things that change part behavior. You can even program parts- check the Funky trees guide in the pinned posts on the forums, which also includes text formatting guides.
@JoshuaW
.
First and foremost, welcome back. You've been a lot of inspiration for me thus far!
Regarding automatic aim turrets under adverse movement conditions, there's been quite a few attempts so far (including myself). I believe this is a mathematical challenge because we're quite limited in the selection of data we have access to, but for example here is an attempt that uses Euler coordinates to make a system tilt proof (thus also not needing a cloud deck). However this one has the problem of having code that is far too long as well.
Your approach using vector arithmetic sounds promising, but I haven't touched vectors in a long time to I'm quite rusty in that department so I'm afraid I can't offer you much assistance. I sort of want to say that a complete, perfect solution is actually impractical here, and an approximation of some sort would be more ideal-- collecting the data on the required angles for the Roll hinge and generating a regression model may be a possible approach to calculate the required correction.
I'm sorry I couldn't be of much help. Good luck in your endeavors.
The reason for this being that the more you zoom in, the more bloxky it appears
Incorrect. The circle equation, x^2+y^2 = r^2, in a Cartesian plane, is perfect. If you wanted, you could use polar coordinates- but the result would be the same. The way a circle is defined, is the sum of an infinite amount of points that are exactly x distance- the radius- away from the center point, and those equation account for exactly that. To say that's impossible is like refusing to acknowledge the entirety of math. lmfao.
Besides, the point with your infinity thing is invalid because if you refuse to accept that you effectively refute all of calculus. Go figure.
I think you're twisting words a little here- pulling definitions and whatnot- consider context. Concede as in admit it's valid, if you will. Let me indulge as well:
While it is acceptable to have them, it in unacceptable to not work to improve them.
Does that mean you find lack of improvement unacceptable? Sounds pretty familiar...
On your point on replicas: replicas in this context of SimplePlanes mean an accurate visual model and a good flight model. While you could say frame-less builds are technically inaccurate, a lot of builders I know build a frame first and remove it later on for part count purposes. I suppose that would count?
When you post a replica plane, you're announcing to the rest of the community and especially hardcore replica builders that you've made something with exacting precision. A build with basic replica features missing (correct blueprint sizes, shape) is definitely grounds for backlash, because- you may not have noticed in your short 4 months of being here- there's a long standing tradition of replica building here in the community, and to the community of replica builders it's almost a sacred tradition. Frankly, when basic replica standards are not adhered to, it's taken as an insult to that community. That's why you face significant backlash.
Great- it's great that you have a tilt-proof system, but the code is so immensely long that it's not as practical. Did you ever figure out how to simplify this?
From here on out is just feedback from me. You may decide to scrutinize this, skim over it, or maybe ignore it altogether. The choice is yours, but I advise you to take a look at it at least.
.
The canopy glass is way too light. Increase the opacity of that glass. You don't need a perfect cockpit; but you still have to stay true to colors at minimum.
.
Since you made custom LG- awesome- make sure to make gear wells as well. The exposed wheels are very noticeable.
.
I also strongly suggest you make better use of blueprints- they aren't hard to find- so that you can fix issues like the plane length, fuselage shape, and radar dome shape.
.
Make sure to use good nudging as well. Cool decal; but it would be better if you spent a minute nudging it in such that the decal isn't as intrusive or "3D".
.
Overall cool for 4 months here! Hope my advice is useful to you.
Alright buddy. I'm giving you a spotlight because I just want you to read this over a bit.
You know you're getting significant backlash for your work. I just want to tell you the underlying reason behind that and some things you could do to mediate it.
.
Fun definitely is subjective. You don't have to subject yourself to grueling work in order to achieve absolute accuracy, but let's take it this way: it's pretty universal for things to be more fun when you feel confident doing it- people don't enjoy a game of Counter Strike when they get yeeted from across the map because they can't position themselves properly. That's one thing I want you to know- I know you're improving, so keep up at it.
.
There's a considerable amount of sentiment in regards to replicas in general. When you post a replica plane, you're announcing to the rest of the community and especially hardcore replica builders that you've made something with exacting precision. A build with basic replica features missing (correct blueprint sizes, shape) is definitely grounds for backlash, because- you may not have noticed in your short 4 months of being here- there's a long standing tradition of replica building here in the community, and to the community of replica builders it's almost a sacred tradition. Frankly, when basic replica standards are not adhered to, it's taken as an insult to that community. That's why you face significant backlash. I also want to mention that point status is one of the first things people look at like it or not. People expect some standard of work- be it funny builds or replicas- but since you've announced yourself as a replica builder, people expect good replicas based on your point count. Which is why some are angry with the recognition you get.
.
The last thing I want to point out is that simply rejecting feedback regardless of the sentiment included is not the most desirable approach. When feedback is given (note "feedback"- not mere name-calling and insult) it's in your best interest to review it to some extent. You might not agree with it; but it's good to at least take a look at what they have to say.
@ACEPILOT109
.
Simple problems that take 5 minutes to fix.
e.g. Canopy glass opacity, gear wells, contraprop spacing, decal nudging, the front radar dome is out of proportion.
@WalrusAircraft
.
Still waiting for the regular decisions release in April, but I got accepted to UMichigan in the early cycle, so unless anything changes I'll be attending there in the fall.
@WalrusAircraft
.
Wrong tags, but the technical limitations are a matter of doing enough math, which is tedious.
Interesting to hear about your son. I'm heading to the States this fall to study engineering as well- will graduate HS in May.
Which mods do you have installed?
@UltraLight
.
Yes
@tsampoy
.
ERROR: Textures Missing
@UltraLight
.
A bit later to be exact
@asteroidbook345
.
You see I've been playing SimpleMachines the whole time
Have you ever touched
partCollisionResponse?True, but with enough effort it's doable.
They already do..?
Use code boxes.
long code thing, using three ticks instead of 1 on each side@goldEagle
.
Through enough math, yes.
@Ormalawayo
.
inputindeed is a place for you to write things that change part behavior. You can even program parts- check the Funky trees guide in the pinned posts on the forums, which also includes text formatting guides.Set your
inputtoActivate1.If you don't like the boolean behavior, use
clamp01(Activate1)instead.@X4JB
.
A combination of me recording this at midnight and a crappy mic.
Never been told I can't speak properly, lol.
@EliteArsenals24
.
Thanks!
@PaperCrafter1622
.
Yes, it's my channel. Lol.
@PaperCrafter1622
.
https://www.simpleplanes.com/Videos/View/1100727/Realistic-Walkers-Biomechanics-in-SimplePlanes
@TirpitzWantsPlanes
.
It's unreleased. Go bug @BaconAircraft for it.
it is beneficial to type like this, it saves one character every block or sentenc
Very informative pos
Oh wow. I was gonna make one; Guess you beat me to it.
Cool!
Welcome back.
This is a lie
i cant anymroe plaseasfv asd[obiqhwdbpqwoiehrbqw
@JoshuaW
.
First and foremost, welcome back. You've been a lot of inspiration for me thus far!
Regarding automatic aim turrets under adverse movement conditions, there's been quite a few attempts so far (including myself). I believe this is a mathematical challenge because we're quite limited in the selection of data we have access to, but for example here is an attempt that uses Euler coordinates to make a system tilt proof (thus also not needing a cloud deck). However this one has the problem of having code that is far too long as well.
Your approach using vector arithmetic sounds promising, but I haven't touched vectors in a long time to I'm quite rusty in that department so I'm afraid I can't offer you much assistance. I sort of want to say that a complete, perfect solution is actually impractical here, and an approximation of some sort would be more ideal-- collecting the data on the required angles for the Roll hinge and generating a regression model may be a possible approach to calculate the required correction.
I'm sorry I couldn't be of much help. Good luck in your endeavors.
Was thinking it looked oddly similar to the Challenger 2 I built. I suppose this one is a fictional vehicle?
@X4JB
.
That might be a better option. Or I could attempt to touch up the shadows in PS as well; will look into all options.
@JeffChandler
.
Indeed. With a mild dose of pain.
@RYAviation
.
Possibly sometime in the future ;)
Thanks for the kind words.
@AsteroidAsteroidTheBook
.
Made with dedication and cool vanilla tech! Also I dislike mod parts, which is why.
@JeffChandler
.
Jokes aside, Macbook. For real.
@RYAviation
.
Have you enabled the main gun?
@DerVito
.
Good job! You win the mini-game.
@EliteArsenals24
.
I'm back!
@MetallicFox
.
All my work is public use granted!
Simple sinusoids.
e.g.
Throttle*sin(Time*180).I also recommend you read up on sinusoidal transformations should you want to alter the oscillation frequency.
@RAIDer1
.
If you need my discord username, it's on my profile page. I do not own a server, if that's what you're talking about.
Funky Trees documentation is available here.
There is a SimplePlanes dark mode extension made by WNP78.
You called?
Incorrect. The circle equation, x^2+y^2 = r^2, in a Cartesian plane, is perfect. If you wanted, you could use polar coordinates- but the result would be the same. The way a circle is defined, is the sum of an infinite amount of points that are exactly x distance- the radius- away from the center point, and those equation account for exactly that. To say that's impossible is like refusing to acknowledge the entirety of math. lmfao.
Besides, the point with your infinity thing is invalid because if you refuse to accept that you effectively refute all of calculus. Go figure.
@typeZERO
.
Oh sorry, I assumed your first language was Japanese, and responded accordingly. May I inquire what it actually is?
I think you're twisting words a little here- pulling definitions and whatnot- consider context. Concede as in admit it's valid, if you will. Let me indulge as well:
Does that mean you find lack of improvement unacceptable? Sounds pretty familiar...
On your point on replicas: replicas in this context of SimplePlanes mean an accurate visual model and a good flight model. While you could say frame-less builds are technically inaccurate, a lot of builders I know build a frame first and remove it later on for part count purposes. I suppose that would count?
@BMWM3
.
No. No mods going forward will have mobile support.
Never had an issue with it. What's the exact expression you're typing into the console?
Ja!
Great- it's great that you have a tilt-proof system, but the code is so immensely long that it's not as practical. Did you ever figure out how to simplify this?
From here on out is just feedback from me. You may decide to scrutinize this, skim over it, or maybe ignore it altogether. The choice is yours, but I advise you to take a look at it at least.
.
The canopy glass is way too light. Increase the opacity of that glass. You don't need a perfect cockpit; but you still have to stay true to colors at minimum.
.
Since you made custom LG- awesome- make sure to make gear wells as well. The exposed wheels are very noticeable.
.
I also strongly suggest you make better use of blueprints- they aren't hard to find- so that you can fix issues like the plane length, fuselage shape, and radar dome shape.
.
Make sure to use good nudging as well. Cool decal; but it would be better if you spent a minute nudging it in such that the decal isn't as intrusive or "3D".
.
Overall cool for 4 months here! Hope my advice is useful to you.
Alright buddy. I'm giving you a spotlight because I just want you to read this over a bit.
You know you're getting significant backlash for your work. I just want to tell you the underlying reason behind that and some things you could do to mediate it.
.
Fun definitely is subjective. You don't have to subject yourself to grueling work in order to achieve absolute accuracy, but let's take it this way: it's pretty universal for things to be more fun when you feel confident doing it- people don't enjoy a game of Counter Strike when they get yeeted from across the map because they can't position themselves properly. That's one thing I want you to know- I know you're improving, so keep up at it.
.
There's a considerable amount of sentiment in regards to replicas in general. When you post a replica plane, you're announcing to the rest of the community and especially hardcore replica builders that you've made something with exacting precision. A build with basic replica features missing (correct blueprint sizes, shape) is definitely grounds for backlash, because- you may not have noticed in your short 4 months of being here- there's a long standing tradition of replica building here in the community, and to the community of replica builders it's almost a sacred tradition. Frankly, when basic replica standards are not adhered to, it's taken as an insult to that community. That's why you face significant backlash. I also want to mention that point status is one of the first things people look at like it or not. People expect some standard of work- be it funny builds or replicas- but since you've announced yourself as a replica builder, people expect good replicas based on your point count. Which is why some are angry with the recognition you get.
.
The last thing I want to point out is that simply rejecting feedback regardless of the sentiment included is not the most desirable approach. When feedback is given (note "feedback"- not mere name-calling and insult) it's in your best interest to review it to some extent. You might not agree with it; but it's good to at least take a look at what they have to say.
@ACEPILOT109
.
Simple problems that take 5 minutes to fix.
e.g. Canopy glass opacity, gear wells, contraprop spacing, decal nudging, the front radar dome is out of proportion.