@Vidal99977
I don't know what's up with you, but please get some help. I'm going to assume you're serious, please don't anything rash.
If you want a break from the game, just calmly request an account hold.
If you want to "take advice" as per the assumed purpose of this post, I suggest that what you may think is an interesting addition may not necessarily appeal to the general public. Just a comment.
From what I've seen, I recall quite a few designs from Leehopard (usually the ones with 100+ upvotes), a few from your end, and also some that I cannot confirm the owners of. However, I think the most prominently affected was most definitely Leehopard.
Just one more thing, can you provide me a reference frame to work with, i.e., how large you want the whole gun to be? I need you to provide me some dimensions in some form, preferably in fuselage units (e.g. 0.5 wide, 2 length, 0.5 height, fuselage units).
.
If I wasn't clear enough, I'll be happy to elaborate.
I don't think you've understood what I've said yet. I think I made it pretty clear I already know how cannon caliber nomenclature works.
.
Perhaps the purpose of my statement wasn't clear enough for you. Let me be more direct: I was calling you out on a significant English Convention error, not questioning how caliber nomenclature works. You've also made a mistake again in your explanation:
If you have a 16" .50 caliber barrel, it'll be roughly 66.5 feet long, because the barrel is 50 calibers long,
Is the difference between .50 and 50 caliber not apparent to you? You've also made this error in your original post, as per my previous comment:
You wrote .38 caliber, not 38 caliber.
I must apologise for being such a nitpick, but it drastically alters the meaning of the sentence, and therefore becomes erroneous in meaning. That I just can't pass by.
@Jim1the1Squid
.
Nope. Nobody can ever keep up worthwhile quality exceeding 3 posts per day. No top builder ever posts more than 2 a day. If you need so much to post, just do an unlisted post or two. I gurantee CptJacobson's supposed 80 projects are not up to par in terms of quality, that or some parts are taken from other builds. It practically is impossible to produce 3+ quality builds a day unless SP is your full time job or something.
I'm not exactly sure if you've previously worked with mechanical SP builds, but the hitbox-collision physics in SP treat hollow fuselages not too nicely when you're trying to make a wheel-type mechanism. It is far more advantageous to add an extra 100 or so parts for a smoother mechanism than it is to use a hollow fuselage. With the nature of these style of builds, a high part count naturally follows and it isn't the highest priority consideration.
@Adanene
If your device can't handle the part count, I'm afraid you'll have to suffer through the lag. A detailed build will generally reach over 500 parts.
.
I'll have to go to greater lengths to explain everything you've asked me, but generally making an interior requires that you physically make a hollow hull of the tank in SP. This is already going to accrue you quite a bit of parts, especially if the vehicle you're making has a strange hull shape.
.
Recoil is an open path. You can model it with pistons, like most do, but I personally prefer impactForce recoil systems.
.
I'll stop here, you get the general idea.
@SpiritusRaptor
Hey SR, it's been awhile.
I have a project coming up that requires me to develop something like this, although I want to make something that fits in a very small space (smaller than the smallest engine here!). After repeated experiments, the major issue seems to be that the pistons won't rotate the shaft in a single direction, but instead in an oscillating back-and-forth motion. Mind if you can guide me on how you fixed that issue here?
@IlikeToFlyandcrash
Mind if you use formal, understandable English? Your argument don't stand very well if you can't phrase things accurately.
I also have no idea what you're raising an issue with. Nobody "copied" anything. Jundroo decided that a certain plane was fitting as a stock plane, so they took the basic chassis, modified it, and included it as a stock plane for all players to gain inspiration from of or to play with. All of this was done with consent from the original author.
@benjiboyy06 Fair try, but just as a precaution... For a concept that is as dated and widespread like piston engines, it's hard to say "credit me" unless someone takes this exact build and uses it.
For some feedback... as far as piston engines go, this one lacks the compactness and power output required of a good piston engine.
@TheOwlAce Can happen with negative fire rate potentially, also can be game trying to not lag out. If you do want to make them last longer, try changing the lifeTime attribute on your gun part.
Your use of shocks have no purpose in this build. For the shocks to work as I believe you intend them to, the shocks themselves should also be placed on a "free-moving platform", for a lack of a better word.
@EternalDarkness
.
Stumbled across this whilst looking through the user's comment history. Might want to look into him, a rather peculiar user... I must say.
@Vidal99977
I don't know what's up with you, but please get some help. I'm going to assume you're serious, please don't anything rash.
If you want a break from the game, just calmly request an account hold.
@Armyguy1534
If you want to "take advice" as per the assumed purpose of this post, I suggest that what you may think is an interesting addition may not necessarily appeal to the general public. Just a comment.
@Armyguy1534
Just another thing... Why is the end of the barrel tapered?
The barrel looks far too thick.
@jamesPLANESii
From what I've seen, I recall quite a few designs from Leehopard (usually the ones with 100+ upvotes), a few from your end, and also some that I cannot confirm the owners of. However, I think the most prominently affected was most definitely Leehopard.
@Chancey21
My experience with iMovie wasn't that great... I'd rather take other programs like Screenflow any day of the week.
@Gestour
Sounds like something you would do.
@dawson123 Nudge.
Good Work!
@CRJ900Pilot
Sure thing! I apologize for the delay- I was originally trying to get it delivered to you earlier, but I got a bit caught up with things.
@Badplanesdotnet
Quite obviously not meant for low physics though, is it?
@CRJ900Pilot
Just one more thing, can you provide me a reference frame to work with, i.e., how large you want the whole gun to be? I need you to provide me some dimensions in some form, preferably in fuselage units (e.g. 0.5 wide, 2 length, 0.5 height, fuselage units).
.
If I wasn't clear enough, I'll be happy to elaborate.
@Jim1the1Squid
I don't think you've understood what I've said yet. I think I made it pretty clear I already know how cannon caliber nomenclature works.
.
Perhaps the purpose of my statement wasn't clear enough for you. Let me be more direct: I was calling you out on a significant English Convention error, not questioning how caliber nomenclature works. You've also made a mistake again in your explanation:
Is the difference between .50 and 50 caliber not apparent to you? You've also made this error in your original post, as per my previous comment:
I must apologise for being such a nitpick, but it drastically alters the meaning of the sentence, and therefore becomes erroneous in meaning. That I just can't pass by.
@Sovjetair
The WiFi looking button on the title area of any type of post lets you toggle notifications.
@CRJ900Pilot
Sure, but I'll need you be a little more specific. Is it also okay if I take a day or two? I'm out of the country right now.
@Jim1the1Squid
You wrote .38, not 38 caliber.
@Jim1the1Squid
.
Nope. Nobody can ever keep up worthwhile quality exceeding 3 posts per day. No top builder ever posts more than 2 a day. If you need so much to post, just do an unlisted post or two. I gurantee CptJacobson's supposed 80 projects are not up to par in terms of quality, that or some parts are taken from other builds. It practically is impossible to produce 3+ quality builds a day unless SP is your full time job or something.
@Jim1the1Squid
.38 caliber cannon? Is that supposed to be the length of a water bottle? Cannon "caliber" measures barrel length, I think you mixed that up...
@Zippy6
I'm not exactly sure if you've previously worked with mechanical SP builds, but the hitbox-collision physics in SP treat hollow fuselages not too nicely when you're trying to make a wheel-type mechanism. It is far more advantageous to add an extra 100 or so parts for a smoother mechanism than it is to use a hollow fuselage. With the nature of these style of builds, a high part count naturally follows and it isn't the highest priority consideration.
@Sm10684 This isn't that much of an effective setup either. The pistons are bound to break like this.
@Mod
Teaser.
Cool!
@SpiritusRaptor I'll get around to you later in the day, thanks.
@ACEPILOT109 I just want the shocks in the game be able to be "pre-compressed" like the way pistons can be set to push or pull...
@Adanene
If your device can't handle the part count, I'm afraid you'll have to suffer through the lag. A detailed build will generally reach over 500 parts.
.
I'll have to go to greater lengths to explain everything you've asked me, but generally making an interior requires that you physically make a hollow hull of the tank in SP. This is already going to accrue you quite a bit of parts, especially if the vehicle you're making has a strange hull shape.
.
Recoil is an open path. You can model it with pistons, like most do, but I personally prefer impactForce recoil systems.
.
I'll stop here, you get the general idea.
@SpiritusRaptor
Hey SR, it's been awhile.
I have a project coming up that requires me to develop something like this, although I want to make something that fits in a very small space (smaller than the smallest engine here!). After repeated experiments, the major issue seems to be that the pistons won't rotate the shaft in a single direction, but instead in an oscillating back-and-forth motion. Mind if you can guide me on how you fixed that issue here?
@Minecraftpoweer Shameless self plug. Lol.
Little to no modification, still... Not worth it.
This doesn't exactly have a suspension...
@IlikeToFlyandcrash
Mind if you use formal, understandable English? Your argument don't stand very well if you can't phrase things accurately.
I also have no idea what you're raising an issue with. Nobody "copied" anything. Jundroo decided that a certain plane was fitting as a stock plane, so they took the basic chassis, modified it, and included it as a stock plane for all players to gain inspiration from of or to play with. All of this was done with consent from the original author.
Mind if you better phrase your post, please?
.
Also, christie suspension build I made earlier
Excellent! I was looking for a reference as I was trying to build one of my own. This is a nice way of dealing with the clutch and gear shift!
@Trainzo Haha, just that the wings look a bit lacking compared to the glorious cockpit.
@benjiboyy06 Fair try, but just as a precaution... For a concept that is as dated and widespread like piston engines, it's hard to say "credit me" unless someone takes this exact build and uses it.
For some feedback... as far as piston engines go, this one lacks the compactness and power output required of a good piston engine.
@Trainzo Excellent, although the exterior could use some furnishing!
This then?
@Tessemi Cause vanilla is cool. At least for me. Plus, replicating the mechanics of how these things work is just really nice for me, at least.
@Galland Excellent job. Looks like another quality builder is on the rise.
@SpiritusRaptor Cool. Thanks for credits on the sights!
Ha! I've never gone below 300 parts on my regular builds.
@IStoleYourMeme A piston system won't be part efficient, I would assume.
@TheOwlAce Can happen with negative fire rate potentially, also can be game trying to not lag out. If you do want to make them last longer, try changing the lifeTime attribute on your gun part.
Try replicating a MG34 belt fed mechanism. I've worked on it for years with no avail.
@YAMADA034290 Pics are broken.
@HarrisCraft
Truly... Not what I ever expected. Uh, let me go um, looking for, that...
.
Funny. The user you mentioned is also gone. Coincidence?
@jamesPLANESii @RailfanEthan
What is the "Royal Suite" referring to?
https://imgur.com/a/2hkmPnB
@Awsomur I was so confused
Your use of shocks have no purpose in this build. For the shocks to work as I believe you intend them to, the shocks themselves should also be placed on a "free-moving platform", for a lack of a better word.
@EternalDarkness
.
Stumbled across this whilst looking through the user's comment history. Might want to look into him, a rather peculiar user... I must say.
Profanity.