@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?
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?
X and Y simply depend on the Cartesian system that you are using it's not really an issue. In my case I employ the right hand type Cartesian system, which is probably are more correct system (I believe at the time of writing the wiki I used the left-hand type, which I assume you are also be using).
What I find odd though is what you eventually come up with as your final solution. It simply isn't necessary; I've experimentally verified that TargetHeading and TargetElevation are completely unaffected by cockpit orientation. I will provide video evidence of this later on. In the meantime, please check the FT guide for diagrams that explain these variables in a more visual manner. You must take the cockpit as a point in space; the orientation simply doesn't matter.
TargetHeading is a global measurement in the first place, so might as well utilize that instead. If you need a relative measurement, you can simply use deltaangle(Heading,TargetHeading).
Your math seems to overcomplicated. Dunno what's up with that, I'll send you something relevant that's easier to deal with: https://pastebin.pl/view/6b2a8c85
Incorrect. All existing systems seem to use relative coordinates. If you're talking about turret-cockpit offset, that's can very easily be compensated for via trig/parallax.
@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?
I just saw your newer comment regarding Heading direction; I caught this a long time ago. Diagram from FT guide.
X and Y simply depend on the Cartesian system that you are using it's not really an issue. In my case I employ the right hand type Cartesian system, which is probably are more correct system (I believe at the time of writing the wiki I used the left-hand type, which I assume you are also be using).
What I find odd though is what you eventually come up with as your final solution. It simply isn't necessary; I've experimentally verified that TargetHeading and TargetElevation are completely unaffected by cockpit orientation. I will provide video evidence of this later on. In the meantime, please check the FT guide for diagrams that explain these variables in a more visual manner. You must take the cockpit as a point in space; the orientation simply doesn't matter.
TargetHeading is a global measurement in the first place, so might as well utilize that instead. If you need a relative measurement, you can simply use
deltaangle(Heading,TargetHeading).Your math seems to overcomplicated. Dunno what's up with that, I'll send you something relevant that's easier to deal with: https://pastebin.pl/view/6b2a8c85
Incorrect. All existing systems seem to use relative coordinates. If you're talking about turret-cockpit offset, that's can very easily be compensated for via trig/parallax.