@Kreep2knight
.
Actually, I was horrible at programming and anything CS before FT! Wrap your head around it once and you never forget. If you really need one I can explain things to you.
Are these boolean operators? As in if I put VTOL>0.5 I will get a "1" when over 0.5 and a "-1" when under 0.5?
.
TL;DR: Yes and yes. Your logic is spot-on.
.
The comparison operators are as math works anywhere else. Specifically, the non-inclusive comparison operators- < and > - mean that if the value is equal, it is still untrue because it is non-inclusive. There's also the inclusive operators- <= and >= - which will behave the same as the non-inclusive operators but when compared values are the same, the operator will return true because it is inclusive.
.
Will it round up like with the round(x) function?
.
Comparison has nothing to do with rounding. It will behave as outlined above.
.
These are great questions, hope I helped.
@47parzival41
.
Depends completely on the context. I have special code that calculates the tank turret orientation and checks which direction the tank is moving in. If that's what's being wanted here, I definitely can help.
But fundamentally, you're going to have to use the variable AngleOfAttack in order to determine your movement direction.
@Aeromotive
.
In any case, then it just means an incorrectly built flight model. You can build realistic planes in SP, just that it requires a lot of tweaking on your end. I suppose your design doesn't follow such needs. A vertical climb should not be possible.
@Aeromotive
.
In a straight, 90º climb? If this is the case your numbers would be correct, but otherwise you're missing out a lot on your calculations.
Accuracy, yes- blueprints aren't really abundant, and I have to cross reference around three 3D models and 5 pictures to make sure I'm getting it right, even for just this little rail piece. Takes a bit of time. This is probably the biggest issue. I could wing it and do it in two minutes, but I want to make my work as good as possible.
@ObliviousCed
.
Not necessarily in the sense that you mentioned, but you can bind different inputs to do the job. F doesn't really have a corresponding game input, so it's hard to do that particular case.
-LandingGear isn't really a correct input in the first place (it becomes -0, -1) so I'm not sure exactly what you need, so let's discuss it in context. Do you mean you want a single blink when the gear goes down, or up? If you can clarify that I can help for sure.
@MAHADI
.
1. Zoom mod.
2. Semi-automatic. Only steps required is pointing camera at target and setting linear LoS range.
3. It is designed to be used on turrets.
4. Probably.
Why is this the most advanced FCS possible in SP, you ask? Well, it's not me being arrogant- for a more complete FCS, that is, a system with automatic lead and predictive targeting capabilities, the solving of a massive quartic (not quadratic) equation is required, which cannot be done without a dedicated quartic solver as no defined general form for quartics exist. Thus, this is about the best FCS that can be created in game right now.
@MercuryCorporation
.
I cannot help you with systems that use physics glitches... FT is very much grounded in physics calculations. If you have a specifc behavior in mind I might be able to help.
Now, it isn't inconceivable for a guided bomb to be made with FT and using actual control surfaces, but that is a technical challenge that is likely beyond you (or me, for the matter).
Use of missiles for directional control, i.e. guiding, require missiles to have thrust. Without thrust, the missile is a dud and has no way to guide itself.
@ChrisPy
.
Typical projectile motion equation.
Please check around before you post such things.
@Kreep2knight
.
Actually, I was horrible at programming and anything CS before FT! Wrap your head around it once and you never forget. If you really need one I can explain things to you.
@47parzival41
.
.
TL;DR: Yes and yes. Your logic is spot-on.
.
The comparison operators are as math works anywhere else. Specifically, the non-inclusive comparison operators- < and > - mean that if the value is equal, it is still untrue because it is non-inclusive. There's also the inclusive operators- <= and >= - which will behave the same as the non-inclusive operators but when compared values are the same, the operator will return true because it is inclusive.
.
.
Comparison has nothing to do with rounding. It will behave as outlined above.
.
These are great questions, hope I helped.
@FeiWu
.
You can start with sign(AngleOfAttack) < 0. I'll get to you if you need something more sophisticated.
@47parzival41
.
Depends completely on the context. I have special code that calculates the tank turret orientation and checks which direction the tank is moving in. If that's what's being wanted here, I definitely can help.
But fundamentally, you're going to have to use the variable
AngleOfAttackin order to determine your movement direction.@FalconGT12
.
Depends on which input. Please specify.
Nope, they are separate weapon types and cannot be used in the way you described.
@uselessuser151
.
No. Fuselage blocks. I never use any part mods.
@ThePropellerIsAFan
.
I need numbers. As in, how many seconds until your gear doors open, how many until your actual gears deploy, etc.
@jamesPLANESii
.
Ah, my mistake. That misconception came from me thinking about how the ingame airfoils were based on specific NACA airfoils.
個人的には写真のけむり。。っていうかブーラがちょっと強いと思っていますが作品自体はいいですね。
Never use the Uw/S mod. Use DesignerSuite instead. Uw/S is buggy as all hell and forces crashes. A fresh install could help as well.
@Aarons123
.
It was always in the game. You can select your wing profile type using NACA airfoil IDs.
Cool design! Always looking for mechanical designs out here.
@jamesPLANESii
.
I just said they, like, move. And do track things. You can customize them to make them look like actual tracks, be it steel links or double pin.
@jamesPLANESii
.
No, they have a full suspension animation, realistic track physics and steering. You just need effort.
@Vincent_
.
Yes
You can make good modless tracks...
ok
@Aeromotive
.
In any case, then it just means an incorrectly built flight model. You can build realistic planes in SP, just that it requires a lot of tweaking on your end. I suppose your design doesn't follow such needs. A vertical climb should not be possible.
@Aeromotive
.
In a straight, 90º climb? If this is the case your numbers would be correct, but otherwise you're missing out a lot on your calculations.
@SodiumChloride
.
I hate the watermark with a passion. It's the bandicam of SP.
Give me a set of number to work with and I can help you. FT help requires specificity. Time to spool up, throttle behavior, performance curves etc.
@rexzion
.
Lol. A couple of reasons-
No, with Funky Trees this has become incredibly easy. No need. Additionally, the old detacher method works fine.
@CarnationRED
.
Cool, thanks for the reply.
ま、英語版なら私がもう作っていますので気にせずしてください
@ThomasRoderick
.
Fairly certain they do.
@BagelPlane
.
That should work, maybe it's something with your syntax. Otherwise try the inverter operator
!. For more information check my website.@ThomasRoderick
.
LaunchCountermeasuresMaybe BATUS? I would like some good hilly fields.
@ObliviousCed
.
Not necessarily in the sense that you mentioned, but you can bind different
inputsto do the job.Fdoesn't really have a corresponding game input, so it's hard to do that particular case.@Birdman9301
.
Could you specify a duration?
This should give you a short blink when the gear goes up only.
-LandingGear isn't really a correct input in the first place (it becomes -0, -1) so I'm not sure exactly what you need, so let's discuss it in context. Do you mean you want a single blink when the gear goes down, or up? If you can clarify that I can help for sure.
Also I'm lazy so @FairFireFight might be able to help
@MAHADI
.
1. Zoom mod.
2. Semi-automatic. Only steps required is pointing camera at target and setting linear LoS range.
3. It is designed to be used on turrets.
4. Probably.
Why is this the most advanced FCS possible in SP, you ask? Well, it's not me being arrogant- for a more complete FCS, that is, a system with automatic lead and predictive targeting capabilities, the solving of a massive quartic (not quadratic) equation is required, which cannot be done without a dedicated quartic solver as no defined general form for quartics exist. Thus, this is about the best FCS that can be created in game right now.
@officialryanyang
.
A good mix of Funky Trees and physics.
@WIZARD2017
.
Not any that I know of.
Fantastic! Great shape too.
@MercuryCorporation
.
I cannot help you with systems that use physics glitches... FT is very much grounded in physics calculations. If you have a specifc behavior in mind I might be able to help.
@winterro
.
The calculation process is clearly delineated in the video. I'm afraid I can't really explain it much simpler.
あ、そうですか。。
人形を作った前例がなくて知らなかったです
がんばってください（笑）
ほかのはともかく、
機体の軽さはxmlのmassScaleでやればいいのでは。。？
Definitely needs some work on part count reduction. Good idea though.
Now, it isn't inconceivable for a guided bomb to be made with FT and using actual control surfaces, but that is a technical challenge that is likely beyond you (or me, for the matter).
Use of missiles for directional control, i.e. guiding, require missiles to have thrust. Without thrust, the missile is a dud and has no way to guide itself.
@Minecraftpoweer
.
Alright, I got the gist of it. Any specifics on the limits?