@Graingy No.
@XEPOH Are you entirely unfamiliar with the concept of a second set of eyes? I am quite confident with what I’ve built and any flaws I’ve encountered I consider to be acceptable within the margins of its type. I do not need someone to fix it, I need a second opinion on whether others consider it pleasant to fly, and if there’s any finer visual details I could add that I overlooked. If you’re going to fling accusations that I am wholly dependent on others to make an adequate aircraft, do it elsewhere. Or, preferably, not at all.
I opted for the boring but functional activation group route. If Eject=1 then ActivateX.
On a related note, anybody recall how to make something activate only if two activation groups are active?
@CaptainBrayden I will provide a link later. Thank you.
@XEPOH You accused me of needing someone else to “fix my crafts” when I asked for testers.
@GuyWhoBuildStuff This is a pile of intentionally crude imitation and a healthy serving of filters.
@Graingy No.
@GuyWhoBuildStuff I… I am the designer? I am looking for test pilots, however, if you’d check my previous forum.
@Graingy No.
@XEPOH Are you entirely unfamiliar with the concept of a second set of eyes? I am quite confident with what I’ve built and any flaws I’ve encountered I consider to be acceptable within the margins of its type. I do not need someone to fix it, I need a second opinion on whether others consider it pleasant to fly, and if there’s any finer visual details I could add that I overlooked. If you’re going to fling accusations that I am wholly dependent on others to make an adequate aircraft, do it elsewhere. Or, preferably, not at all.
@Graingy No.
???
To clarify: No, this is not, in itself, a combat aircraft.
@GuyWhoBuildStuff
@GuyWhoBuildStuff
Got something working. Excessively complicated, probably, but it works.
I opted for the boring but functional activation group route. If Eject=1 then ActivateX.
On a related note, anybody recall how to make something activate only if two activation groups are active?
@BagelPlane Unfortunate.
Read this.
Minecraft Classic is free with a keyboard.
Calm down.
+1I'm not sure what I'm looking at.
@GuyWhoBuildStuff That hurts to look at.
@BagelPlane At an arbitrary speed? Seems odd.
Wetted area means what?
@YarisHatchback I may have overdone it a bit.
All in the name of being eye-catching.
@JBPAviation You can't see it, but it's reinforced.
+1@JBPAviation It's hard plastic.
Soviet?
Language.
+2@crazyplaness There have also been no failed manned moon missions in 50 years. Must be safe.
Very simple. Appealing.
@Graingy Yes.
That reminds me, @GuyWhoBuildStuff
Then it clearly happened again.
@hpgbproductions I don't follow.
I am going to assume you're an animator because treating it as an animation is meaningless when I'm not one.
@Graingy Boy, you sure took your time to catch on.
You didn't need to tag me twice.
@hpgbproductions I don't follow?
@Graingy This is much more affordable.
... For a brief moment I thought I was looking at a toilet with guns sticking out of it.
+2This would be useful information, yes.
This is the opposite of ergonomic.
I've dealt with enough weird eldritch stuff in my time. I'll pass.
+3Add in a sea monster for a good sea tale.
+1@GuyWhoBuildStuff Try Gravatar.
@Graingy Yes, keeping cost low was a priority. It's a highly affordable aircraft, and should be competitive in the civilian sector as well.
@JSTQ I already achieved it with round()
+1@JSTQ I had tried interchanging GearDown and LandingGear. I don't believe the result was any different.
Nice picture.
@JSTQ None of what you said made any sense whatsoever.
Please rephrase.
Content is no longer available you idiot.
Use a proper image hosting site, not Discord.
@griges The pain of being Silver.
+2Aight, figured it out.
+2The gear, not why the original method didn't work.
round() appears to hold a solution, though I'm still not sure why my original solution did not function as expected.
Altered the title and text to reflect my current issue.