@IceCraftGaming Haha, thanks. It's not making the shell that's hard though; that's easy. It's adjusting all 34 individual wing panels to fit near-perfectly into the fuselage sections using the XML editor to manually adjust wing coordinates to very specific numbers that's a bit challenging (or at least time consuming).
@IceCraftGaming @AlbertanPlaneMaker If I didn't make custom wings the hard way then this amount of segments wouldn't be of any concern, but as you may have guessed I do do it the hard way...
A cross-section editor would be a nice addition in my opinion.
It would also allow for much more complex shapes that previously required paneling to achieve (or other complex processes), as well as 1 part custom airfoils.
@MrCOPTY Interesting. I'm not sure how well it would work on this though, since the control surfaces are curved instead of straight.
If you nudge a hinge rotator into just the right position, it should move just fine.
Keep in mind is that just because it has enough horizontal thrust doesn't mean that it has enough vertical thrust.
Either increase the Collective Range or the engine power itself.
@Red920 It would take away from the experience.
It would be difficult to actually enjoy MP, especially since there is only one public server that is operational.
That would mean only 4 out of dozens of routine MP players would be able to play at any given time. Ultimately it would be a terrible idea.
@Red920 Yeah, I see requests from time to time. I tell others the same thing.
SP servers just don't have the capacity. They can only hold around 10-15 users without overloading, and that's being generous.
Perhaps if separate servers for mobile users existed it would be slightly more feasible.
@Red920 That would work much better.
You would also need a way to set up a server. On PC it's an executable that you can download. I'm not sure exactly how that would work on mobile but it could be possible.
The question of "Is it reasonable to add as a default feature?" also comes into play. This sort of feature is for a more specific audience.
However, it would still be neat (and might be possible).
Alternatively, you could go through the trigonometry-nightmare task of creating your own functional rotor system with working rotor brakes.
Or you could use the "cheat method" and make a fake rotor system (with rotor brakes) with a hidden engine somewhere (I wouldn't recommend this method though).
Other than that, the previous comment explains it.
My NOVA robot is a good start for walking on uneven terrain. Its feet have a set cycle that allow it to walk both up and down slopes.
Traction? No idea. I think if the legs move too fast it causes issues.
I use gyros for bipedal walkers. They take a bit of tuning, but they work fine. Adding FT inputs to the gyro helps a lot as well.
Size can be adjusted with Fine Tuner. See what works best, and then go with that.
I'm sure rolling is entirely possible, but I have no idea how that would function on a bipedal walker.
How to make the walker go faster is really dependent on what code you're using. Higher speed can also be achieved by giving the walker a longer stride with each step (though settings this too high may cause balance issues).
A part with preset noises would be neat. Since we already have gauges/buttons/switches I don't see why adding alarm sounds would be a bad idea.
As far as imported sounds go, refer to the previous comment.
@MrCOPTY Hmm... It would be useful for splitting wings into sections automatically instead of manual wing calculation.
It would also be nice for landing gear/weapon bays, especially on aircraft that use paneling.
@ShinyGemsBro postimages.org
It hasn't had issues up to this point, and I believe temporaryplanetester was able to see them.
It might be a server error with postimages.org, as those have happened before.
@GabrielSatori That's a problem I attempted to fix (and mostly did) while I was designing the landing gear.
Landing should go decently as long as the aircraft is landing at the correct speed (listed above) and the correct rate of descent, and the user isn't trying a Ryanair landing.
Though, you can almost always expect a small bounce upon landing. This is something I hope to learn how to solve in the future (likely with actual suspension).
@F8boa Theoretically yes. With the right speed, timing, and altitude it's likely possible. Removing the vertical stabilizer might help if you intend to yaw the aircraft backwards.
@IceCraftGaming Haha, thanks. It's not making the shell that's hard though; that's easy. It's adjusting all 34 individual wing panels to fit near-perfectly into the fuselage sections using the XML editor to manually adjust wing coordinates to very specific numbers that's a bit challenging (or at least time consuming).
+1@IceCraftGaming @AlbertanPlaneMaker If I didn't make custom wings the hard way then this amount of segments wouldn't be of any concern, but as you may have guessed I do do it the hard way...
+1A cross-section editor would be a nice addition in my opinion.
+1It would also allow for much more complex shapes that previously required paneling to achieve (or other complex processes), as well as 1 part custom airfoils.
@MrCOPTY Interesting. I'm not sure how well it would work on this though, since the control surfaces are curved instead of straight.
+1If you nudge a hinge rotator into just the right position, it should move just fine.
Yes.
+1Generally if your aircraft is heavier, larger, etc., you want more engine power/more engines. This also depends on the aircraft.
@jamesPLANESii I also needed something for the title, and this is what came to mind, so I stuck with it.
+1@Droidy247 I plan to upload it this weekend.
+1Also, it looks very good.
+1I should probably design more helicopters; they're something I rarely bother with.
Congratulations, you've survived another trip around the Sun!
+1Keep in mind is that just because it has enough horizontal thrust doesn't mean that it has enough vertical thrust.
+1Either increase the Collective Range or the engine power itself.
Very informative. Thank you for addressing this in detail.
+1@Aviator01 Yep.
+1It might also work with the windmills as well, but I have yet to test that.
@Bryan5 Hmm...
+1Normally I would just say "fly higher", but if this happens at any altitude then I'm not sure how to help with that.
What altitude are you flying at?
+1@Red920 I've got several. However I've already posted most of them in previous forums.
+1⊥
+1Not sure how it started.
+1All I know is that I call it that because that's how everyone else calls it, and they likely picked it up the same way.
This is fine.
+1I use postimages.org
+1It rarely has issues (for me).
@Red920 Unless of course you were talking about 4 people for mobile servers, in which case that would work well for lower-end mobile devices.
+1@Red920 Also yes, that would be me.
+1@Red920 It would take away from the experience.
+1It would be difficult to actually enjoy MP, especially since there is only one public server that is operational.
That would mean only 4 out of dozens of routine MP players would be able to play at any given time. Ultimately it would be a terrible idea.
@Red920 Yeah, I see requests from time to time. I tell others the same thing.
+1SP servers just don't have the capacity. They can only hold around 10-15 users without overloading, and that's being generous.
Perhaps if separate servers for mobile users existed it would be slightly more feasible.
@Red920 That would work much better.
+1You would also need a way to set up a server. On PC it's an executable that you can download. I'm not sure exactly how that would work on mobile but it could be possible.
The question of "Is it reasonable to add as a default feature?" also comes into play. This sort of feature is for a more specific audience.
However, it would still be neat (and might be possible).
Alternatively, you could go through the trigonometry-nightmare task of creating your own functional rotor system with working rotor brakes.
+1Or you could use the "cheat method" and make a fake rotor system (with rotor brakes) with a hidden engine somewhere (I wouldn't recommend this method though).
Other than that, the previous comment explains it.
@MrCOPTY I'll be busy for several hours. I will likely be on later.
+1Hopefully this helps a bit. I am by no means an expert on the matter.
+1My NOVA robot is a good start for walking on uneven terrain. Its feet have a set cycle that allow it to walk both up and down slopes.
+1Traction? No idea. I think if the legs move too fast it causes issues.
I use gyros for bipedal walkers. They take a bit of tuning, but they work fine. Adding FT inputs to the gyro helps a lot as well.
Size can be adjusted with Fine Tuner. See what works best, and then go with that.
I'm sure rolling is entirely possible, but I have no idea how that would function on a bipedal walker.
How to make the walker go faster is really dependent on what code you're using. Higher speed can also be achieved by giving the walker a longer stride with each step (though settings this too high may cause balance issues).
@XAircraftManufacturer I think it's a great idea, and a logical one at that (given the additions in 1.11).
+1A part with preset noises would be neat. Since we already have gauges/buttons/switches I don't see why adding alarm sounds would be a bad idea.
+1As far as imported sounds go, refer to the previous comment.
@MrCOPTY Just be careful not to accidentally send a report. I'm not sure what it would do, but it could lead to trouble.
+1@MrCOPTY View this. Click on the image in the description.
+1@MrCOPTY I noticed that. Happens occasionally. I'm not concerned about it.
+1@MrCOPTY Actually, I've already made plans for a teaser video featuring my upcoming stealth helicopter.
+1Sorry, but I won't have the time.
@alexJgameYTukraine000000 Ціную!
+1Didn't know some of these (removing water, light, yourself, and the sky).
+1Nice find!
@MrCOPTY Hmm... It would be useful for splitting wings into sections automatically instead of manual wing calculation.
+1It would also be nice for landing gear/weapon bays, especially on aircraft that use paneling.
@MrCOPTY Thanks!
+1@jamesPLANESii Ahh.
+1Yeah, that's just the lighting of the underwater camera mod. It's rather annoying.
@ShinyGemsBro postimages.org
+1It hasn't had issues up to this point, and I believe temporaryplanetester was able to see them.
It might be a server error with postimages.org, as those have happened before.
@jamesPLANESii Do the images not appear for you?
+1@ReturnOfJeffChandler Redirect the power supply, plug-in a small cooktop, and you'll have the basis for cooking an exquisite grilled-cheese sandwich!
+1You can't. Only the moderators have that capability.
+1@GrandPrix
+1disableBaseMeshtrueI believe is what works.@GabrielSatori That's a problem I attempted to fix (and mostly did) while I was designing the landing gear.
+1Landing should go decently as long as the aircraft is landing at the correct speed (listed above) and the correct rate of descent, and the user isn't trying a Ryanair landing.
Though, you can almost always expect a small bounce upon landing. This is something I hope to learn how to solve in the future (likely with actual suspension).
@Belloaka No problem! The server is generally more populated at night (or morning, depending on your time zone).
+1@Belloaka As of right now there's only one public server that is functional:
+1160.251.58.131.@F8boa Theoretically yes. With the right speed, timing, and altitude it's likely possible. Removing the vertical stabilizer might help if you intend to yaw the aircraft backwards.
+1@IceCraftGaming Thanks! I'm glad you like it!
+1@Red920 In that case, disable collisions of the parts that the probe gets stuck inside of.
+1