Also, have you truly looked for every option in order to achieve said action? One thing I detest is uninformed people who simply complain whilst not trying hard enough to resolve their issues. I'm fairly certain it's still possible- I've seen a mobile build with custom thumbs recently.
.
Also, submit a uservoice or something, not complain on the forums. This isn't the place to do that. Get directly to the devs, not the community. Please do consider that devs have been working hard to push out this recent update.
@EternalDarkness Cool, that's awesome. I was originally considering that option too, although I intentionally used detachers for the purpose of eliminating the process of having to go into ordnance tab and selecting the rockets. As I stated here:
The launcher uses ingame rockets, but they will not show up as usable for offensive capability (and therefore does not interfere with preexisting builds that use rockets as tank rounds).
Although, if it's something like an IFV I'd assume you don't use rockets on other areas of the vehicle... Just a little more for advocating the use of detachers: as an added plus, using detachers let you give a more "projectile-parabola" trajectory to the travel of the smoke grenades, giving them a slightly more authentic feel (which isn't possible to my knowledge without detachers.)
.
On a final note: thank you for being a nice member of the community and giving credit for what's just the concept. That made my day.
Torsion bars would certainly be interesting. It would actually be more interesting if they added them separately, and that would allow the first truly "elastic" part with multiple degrees of freedom.
@Hazerz
.
Variables are a part of the larger Funky Trees framework. There is a fundamental understanding of FT mechanics required to use them in any meaningful capacity.
While I understand the frustration, we all have to gather the information from somewhere. The patch notes detail any new changes, special mechanics... A good read of them can help you piece together a complete picture of how things work.
Not quite up to date with 1.11 & 1.12 yet, I've'nt had the time--but expect them to come fairly soon.
EngineRPM should be an output variable for individual parts, you can assign a variable name to carry the data, and that variable can be used for reference.
@asteroidbook345
.
While FT most definitely is a skill, it doesn't detract from the fact that dynamic control capabilities with it are far beyond any human control. It would be possible to program an entire flight regime that effectively warps between checkpoints.
Perhaps a separate "TAS" category might be more sensible.
Modeling tools have improved substantially and programming capability has been added. Very much different from a couple years ago, and I still love it.
@PlaneFlightX
.
Strangely enough a lot of people don't seem to be knowledgeable on inverse trig nomenclature. Arc or a notation is about as common as inverse notation in my experience, so that's very strange to me.
@WolfSpark
.
Impossible with the design of SP systems--also file uploading by users en masse is generally a bad idea.
.
A tone generator is possible and a mod implementation already exists, so that sounds more likely.
@Aweyer26
.
I've recently made some updates to the site and as a result the link has changed slightly. It's at https://snowflake0s.github.io/funkyguide instead of https://snowflake0s.github.io/funkyguide.html. Sorry for the inconvinience.
Definitely why the smooth function remains one of the most important functions we have. As for the rate though, I personally recommend using a really large number, like pow(10,5) in order to ensure that the function properly "snaps" to any value.
@AN2Felllla
.
Ah, also spefy and Bacon are far better mathematicians than I am. If I have somehow presented myself as otherwise, I apologize. I am nowhere near as qualified to talk about mathematics on a higher degree than basic calculus.
@Stinky
.
You didn't get the joke, Mr. I can't get sarcasm made plainfully obvious. Do you need a /s or something to help you out? Or is your language comprehension that terrible lmao
No, no problem with the mentions. Here's an example: nudging decals into fuselages to make them much more non-intrusive. It takes 2 seconds to press "T" and press Shift-WASD to move it in by an inch or two. Really... not hard. Yet ignored.
@QuitePossiblyMangled
.
I'm not saying that I immediately expect great improvement, but when tips that take 2 minutes to incorporate are not taken then it becomes an insult to the advice I give.
@AGKxCREW
.
You'll have to take one apart yourself. The problem with piston engines in SP is that they lack a starter, which makes it very difficult to avoid reciprocating motion. If you know what crankshafts look like, they're not terribly difficult to make. The problem is getting motion direction uniform.
@Brields95
.
Hey, what's with the open indication of hostility facilitated by the use of all caps? That aside, no, just that I dislike baseless slander, which is being done here with your previous comment. I never specified that I am entitled to an explanation.
However, as this is a public forum, you are held responsible for your actions and claims- and thus should be aware that personal opinions, when vocalized, become a means of affecting the general population. It is very much undesireable for public opinion to be swayed by baseless claims, which is why I am requesting supporting data on your end. You see, I like to form my opinions as objectively as possible, even if that means changing my original perception of things. That is, I want to see your side of the story.
Otherwise, I see no value in the aforementioned comment for the sake of discussion, to which you should take action to indicate it as so.
@Rickyjasper2
.
You're wrong. Reports all read. You're wrong if you think plats are immune from bans b/c they did dumb things, you haven't been around here enough to see one that stupid. I don't think silver is much of an "larger" user either, so that's that.
@Kirby144p
.
Here's a slightly more elegant solution- this doesn't need any other modifications except for the actual input (no need to deal with damperMultiplier):
clamp(PitchAngle*0.01, -1, 1)
all you need is a rotator with 90º range (the default). No other modifications needed. Although, this also requires that you add a separate part to elevate your gun- though when modifying older builds to have a stabilizer, my solution will likely be easier to use, and the same can be done to add a horizontal stabilizer:
clamp(RollAngle*0.01, -1, 1)
Both in tandem create an effective two-plane stabilizer.
First of all, tank aren't underrated. They receive substantial amounts of upvotes. It's just that Bronze or Silver users are bronze and silver for a reason- their quality isn't high enough.
Most tanks are also replicas. If you aren't faithful enough to the real thing, you likely won't receive good feedback.
@ThomasRoderick It's not like I didn't know about that. Chaffs and flares don't create a large or somewhat lasting effect that visually masks a vehicle; they do work as a IR countermeasure, as certain types of irl smoke grenades do, but fail to give the visual effect most people want.
Yes, I know how ATGMs work, and most gun launched ATGM types (usually SACLOS) are operator guided, which make a visual masking effective, but with IR detection devices this protection is rendered useless as well. The only effective smoke grenades still in modern use are those that mask the vehicle visually, thermally, and disrupt its silhouette effectively.
@jamesPLANESii
+4.
Nah, I never learnt programming. Funky trees is my first exposure to it, really.
No, it's done using DesignerSuite.
Also, have you truly looked for every option in order to achieve said action? One thing I detest is uninformed people who simply complain whilst not trying hard enough to resolve their issues. I'm fairly certain it's still possible- I've seen a mobile build with custom thumbs recently.
+4.
Also, submit a uservoice or something, not complain on the forums. This isn't the place to do that. Get directly to the devs, not the community. Please do consider that devs have been working hard to push out this recent update.
@EternalDarkness Cool, that's awesome. I was originally considering that option too, although I intentionally used detachers for the purpose of eliminating the process of having to go into ordnance tab and selecting the rockets. As I stated here:
Although, if it's something like an IFV I'd assume you don't use rockets on other areas of the vehicle... Just a little more for advocating the use of detachers: as an added plus, using detachers let you give a more "projectile-parabola" trajectory to the travel of the smoke grenades, giving them a slightly more authentic feel (which isn't possible to my knowledge without detachers.)
+4.
On a final note: thank you for being a nice member of the community and giving credit for what's just the concept. That made my day.
@Samfpanzer
+3.
What told you SP2 will have bootleg Vizzy? FT is here to stay.
Something might be coming
+3You literally pay less.
+3Now this is where it still remains fun...
+3Multivariable calculus be like:
Torsion bars would certainly be interesting. It would actually be more interesting if they added them separately, and that would allow the first truly "elastic" part with multiple degrees of freedom.
+3@Hazerz
+3.
Variables are a part of the larger Funky Trees framework. There is a fundamental understanding of FT mechanics required to use them in any meaningful capacity.
While I understand the frustration, we all have to gather the information from somewhere. The patch notes detail any new changes, special mechanics... A good read of them can help you piece together a complete picture of how things work.
+3Funky Trees Documentation
Not quite up to date with 1.11 & 1.12 yet, I've'nt had the time--but expect them to come fairly soon.
+3EngineRPM should be an output variable for individual parts, you can assign a variable name to carry the data, and that variable can be used for reference.
@hpgbproductions
+3.
Too bad. Now there's Python scripts floating around the SP dark webs making this far too easy for the average user.
Have you looked at any of the good builds of the year?
+3이민호 씨..?
+3엌 ㅋㅋㅋㅋ
@asteroidbook345
+3.
While FT most definitely is a skill, it doesn't detract from the fact that dynamic control capabilities with it are far beyond any human control. It would be possible to program an entire flight regime that effectively warps between checkpoints.
Perhaps a separate "TAS" category might be more sensible.
Modeling tools have improved substantially and programming capability has been added. Very much different from a couple years ago, and I still love it.
+3@Sm10684
+3.
I'm not doing that again. 4 sleepless nights for a 1 minute speck. I do feel good about the result though.
@exosuit
+3.
Yes. Make sure to bring supplies because you'll be here for quite a bit.
@PlaneFlightX
+3.
Strangely enough a lot of people don't seem to be knowledgeable on inverse trig nomenclature. Arc or a notation is about as common as inverse notation in my experience, so that's very strange to me.
@rexzion
+3.
You should be able to do pretty much anything from your cockpit/GUI.
F9...
+3@BogdanX
+3.
I don't think you need pistons to do it though
A piece of advice... Learn to use perspective lines
+3@WolfSpark
+3.
Impossible with the design of SP systems--also file uploading by users en masse is generally a bad idea.
.
A tone generator is possible and a mod implementation already exists, so that sounds more likely.
@Aweyer26
+3.
I've recently made some updates to the site and as a result the link has changed slightly. It's at https://snowflake0s.github.io/funkyguide instead of https://snowflake0s.github.io/funkyguide.html. Sorry for the inconvinience.
Definitely why the smooth function remains one of the most important functions we have. As for the rate though, I personally recommend using a really large number, like pow(10,5) in order to ensure that the function properly "snaps" to any value.
+3@Darren101
+3.
You can just, you know, make custom weapons... It has been done for ages.
For all practical purposes, yes.
+3@AN2Felllla
+3.
Ah, also spefy and Bacon are far better mathematicians than I am. If I have somehow presented myself as otherwise, I apologize. I am nowhere near as qualified to talk about mathematics on a higher degree than basic calculus.
@Stinky
+3.
You didn't get the joke, Mr. I can't get sarcasm made plainfully obvious. Do you need a /s or something to help you out? Or is your language comprehension that terrible lmao
@CrazyPenguin1306
+3.
Looks to be coded to drop after 8 years.
No, no problem with the mentions. Here's an example: nudging decals into fuselages to make them much more non-intrusive. It takes 2 seconds to press "T" and press Shift-WASD to move it in by an inch or two. Really... not hard. Yet ignored.
+3@QuitePossiblyMangled
+3.
I'm not saying that I immediately expect great improvement, but when tips that take 2 minutes to incorporate are not taken then it becomes an insult to the advice I give.
@2534
+3.
Mobile mods no longer exist.
@AGKxCREW
+3.
You'll have to take one apart yourself. The problem with piston engines in SP is that they lack a starter, which makes it very difficult to avoid reciprocating motion. If you know what crankshafts look like, they're not terribly difficult to make. The problem is getting motion direction uniform.
@Brields95
+3.
Hey, what's with the open indication of hostility facilitated by the use of all caps? That aside, no, just that I dislike baseless slander, which is being done here with your previous comment. I never specified that I am entitled to an explanation.
However, as this is a public forum, you are held responsible for your actions and claims- and thus should be aware that personal opinions, when vocalized, become a means of affecting the general population. It is very much undesireable for public opinion to be swayed by baseless claims, which is why I am requesting supporting data on your end. You see, I like to form my opinions as objectively as possible, even if that means changing my original perception of things. That is, I want to see your side of the story.
Otherwise, I see no value in the aforementioned comment for the sake of discussion, to which you should take action to indicate it as so.
Neat build, SR. Always nice to see things that aren't aircraft.
Great work on the 1919, could be a standalone build (where have I seen that before?).
+3@ChisP
+3.
If you thought SD would respond nicely to anyone who doesn't worship him, you're very new here.
You can't just expect people to be online.
+3@Rickyjasper2
+3.
You're wrong. Reports all read. You're wrong if you think plats are immune from bans b/c they did dumb things, you haven't been around here enough to see one that stupid. I don't think silver is much of an "larger" user either, so that's that.
@PositivePlanes
.
- That makes it look hideous
- That inflates your ammo count for no good reason
- They don't act like actual shell casings (look at how these tumble in the air)
+3@GeneralPatrick2
+3.
Keep in mind that each casing system will create an additional 2 parts for every shot of cannon ammo. That can stack quick.
@Stormfur
+3.
They've told us how you use them... Pretty darn well actually. I'll make a simplified guide though for those who aren't so sure, though.
It's from Gravatar, not SP servers.
+3@Gusti1301
+3.
It's not meant to fly high. I don't think you understand what this is.
Hmmm.
+3@Kirby144p
.
Here's a slightly more elegant solution- this doesn't need any other modifications except for the actual input (no need to deal with damperMultiplier):
clamp(PitchAngle*0.01, -1, 1)all you need is a rotator with 90º range (the default). No other modifications needed. Although, this also requires that you add a separate part to elevate your gun- though when modifying older builds to have a stabilizer, my solution will likely be easier to use, and the same can be done to add a horizontal stabilizer:
+3clamp(RollAngle*0.01, -1, 1)Both in tandem create an effective two-plane stabilizer.
First of all, tank aren't underrated. They receive substantial amounts of upvotes. It's just that Bronze or Silver users are bronze and silver for a reason- their quality isn't high enough.
+3Most tanks are also replicas. If you aren't faithful enough to the real thing, you likely won't receive good feedback.
@ThomasRoderick It's not like I didn't know about that. Chaffs and flares don't create a large or somewhat lasting effect that visually masks a vehicle; they do work as a IR countermeasure, as certain types of irl smoke grenades do, but fail to give the visual effect most people want.
Yes, I know how ATGMs work, and most gun launched ATGM types (usually SACLOS) are operator guided, which make a visual masking effective, but with IR detection devices this protection is rendered useless as well. The only effective smoke grenades still in modern use are those that mask the vehicle visually, thermally, and disrupt its silhouette effectively.
+3An absolute mad lad
+3