@Grob0s0VBRa ... and here I thought it looked closer to a BattleMech.
Hell, the size meant it's probably a ProtoMech, and the 2 × A/C2 loadout checks out.
@IceCraftGaming Yeah, definitely, "Fastest updoot in the southeast boii".
I'm still working on that plane, in case anybody's wondering, and here's my latest version. Yeah, I made an unholy amalgamation between a F6F Hellcat, an Fw-190 Würger, a Bf109, and a P-47 Jug. Don't judge.
@Kendog84 From my tests (and pile o' bombs), bomb mass doesn't affect bomb speed either. The plane's performance, on the other hand, is indeed affected by the mass of the bombs... for obvious reasons. Just not the drag.
Also, when combined with the result of this, in which we discovered the explosive radius of a cannon shell is also scalar, plus a rocket = 250mm shell (5 × 50mm) and a missile = 350mm (7 × 50mm) shell, we can basically make everything out of everything!
Hurrah for the innovative, hurrah for the inquisitive, and hurrah for the persevering!
Two quick questions:
First, does the impactDamageScalar scale with caliber? (Scalar of 50mm × 1 = Scalar of 25mm × 2, for example)
Second, does the same system also work with explosives?
@Kendog84 See that "puff" of fire? That's the "explody" part. It somehow functions differently than when the shell is set to "explosive", but it does still have a small blast radius and can still unravel planes. That said, given the whole "unraveling" process is caused by a part receiving too much damage instead of any inherent process...
@Astro12 Just ran another test, turns out the best way to use cannons as aircraft weapon (aside from "just say no") is that... make it explosive and then nerf both the impactDamageScalar and the explosionScalar.
@Astro12 Yeah, that "crack" sound is an explosion as you can first, damage yourself with it; and second, make smaller by literally making the round explosive and reduce the explosionScalar. I have managed to (somehow) unravel a ship with a .50cal "shell" with both impactDamageScalar and explosionScalar at zero, and after that I just quitted using cannons altogether. My rule of thumb? If the ammo explodes and destroys a part then something's getting unraveled. But retarded bouncyballs are really unfun so I just switched to guns.
@Kendog84 What I have also seen is that sometime rockets/bombs/torps/missiles would not damage something it could clearly destroy if that thing was formerly separated from a cockpit. Say, My first bomb destroyed a target and the target's parts (checked to have 100 health) are scattered on the ground. When I drop my bombs again on the scattered parts sometimes literally nothing happened. Does the broken chain also prevent a part from being damaged by explosions?
@Astro12 Yeah... from what I have gleamed from my (only) design with actual glass I can attest to that: my glass canopy was shot out; not a scratch on the frames it's connected to. Does connecting a part with multiple other parts help prevent the chain from affecting the block?
@Astro12 If one pane of glass breaks the "chain of unraveling" would still happen under some circumstances, so... I guess it could also be used to gauge if the radius of the "chain" have a finite radius or connections?
@Kendog84 Probably yes if the AOE is large enough to cover multiple load (read: connection) paths, or perhaps the number of parts between the cockpit and the damaged one could also be a factor.
Still, I pretty much stopped using cannons after I managed to disintegrate a battleship using a .50cal HMG with a single "explosive" (in quotation marks as the explosionScalar is literally set to zero) round.
@11qazxc Guns have a distinctive issue of "shooting at ghosts", aka for (quite) a few frames a block you've already destroyed would still absorb the shots.
@Kendog84 Also, this is a good test on what an internal detonation does: when the front with a direct chain to the cockpit got hit with even the smallest AP rocket (my not-HVARs which requires all but a direct hit to kill a truck), the entire thing just... unravels.
@Kendog84 The thing is... from what I've seen from gun tests, say we have a cockpit - wing - wing chain or a cockpit - block - block chain, and the second the end of the chain gets destroyed/blows up (which seems to have its own AOE effect) it would sometimes detonate the surrounding parts until it reaches the cockpit. My personal creations usually have locked rotators (range of motion = 0, speed = floppy) to break up the chain.
@Kendog84 From what I got, no it doesn't. Cannon shells and (older, non-cleaver) missiles are probably coded the same way, and so does the Cleaver and bombs. explosiveScalar is the sole determining factor of the damaging effect, while the size of the bomb only determines the visual effects. On rockets... I don't think either the visual effects or the damage effects can be changed.
These are the only insights I've managed to gain from this whole "explosive shell" thing, so... not much. Hell, the only rule-of-thumb I've got is that if a bomb/rocket/missile/shell detonates inside a block the whole thing disintegrates... without much understanding on the "proper" damage models. There's a reason I'm pretty much the foremost researcher in bullet-type weapons - no one else can be bothered to do much research on them once they managed to get those sweet high-explosives flying.
@SimplePilot28465 Well, self-sealing tanks are indeed useful at absorbing machine gun bullets (especially for the smaller calibers), but much less useful when the enemies start using high-caliber shells. As for the survivability of a pusher aircraft... as long as the plane is properly armored at the cockpit and engines it should be okay, given the Il-2 used a water-cooled engine protected by heavy armor and was known to be extremely hard to take down with anti-aircraft guns of the era. Still, the biggest issue about all pusher aircrafts is the fact that the propeller would be in the way if the pilot ever need to parachute out of the plane, necessitating the use of ejection seats, which would still be a relatively new and unproven technology back in WWII.
.
..
... and sorry for rambling.
@SimplePilot28465
Also, "tough" and "indestructible" are two very different things IRL. Just because something can survive an incredible amount of damage (the Il-2, the P-47, or the A-10, for example) doesn't mean the designers don't need to make contingencies for the inevitability that someone got lucky and managed to hit something important. Its push-prop configuration would have probably helped its survivability against groundfire or head-on attacks, but I highly doubt a pusher plane would survive long against attacks from behind, the engine in the direct line of fire and all.
@Kendog84 Sorry for the late reply; as it's written, the calculations performed by the lead-predictor is based on the wing gun/gatling gun with the highest muzzle velocity. Placement in the designer does not seem to have ay effects other than which gun is fired first.
@Bryan5 Probably the wings then. Yeah, gyros wouldn't be too help when the plane's basically disintegrating under the stress. So... was the issue solved after changing the wings?
"DONT TREAD ON ME"
+2c y b e r t o n k
+1When the engineers took the term "Airbus" a bit too literally...
f I r S t
+4... and welcome back, my diesel/decopunk-loving feline friend.
Welcome back Centuri! How's it going?
+2@Anomalocaris "A little bit of parts" sounds "a little bit" unconvincing when the plane is literally one part short of one full thousand...
Always good seeing another one from ya, RJ!
@Grob0s0VBRa ... and here I thought it looked closer to a BattleMech.
+1Hell, the size meant it's probably a ProtoMech, and the 2 × A/C2 loadout checks out.
ZOGGIN' BOOTIFUL, BOSS!
+1@EasternPatrick Thanks. I'll try to incorporate that into my next upload.
+1Quick question: how did you manage to upload three screenshots from an Android platform?
+1Welcome to the gold club, sister. And congrats.
+2Holy. Hell.
+1@IceCraftGaming Yeah, definitely, "Fastest updoot in the southeast boii".
I'm still working on that plane, in case anybody's wondering, and here's my latest version. Yeah, I made an unholy amalgamation between a F6F Hellcat, an Fw-190 Würger, a Bf109, and a P-47 Jug. Don't judge.
@IceCraftGaming Whom?
+1@IceCraftGaming Thanks!
+1Saab 35 Draken?
@GuyFolk Well, better late than never! Plus, I ain't the dude who invented this thing - I'm but a humble amateur chronicler, afterall.
@Kendog84 From my tests (and pile o' bombs), bomb mass doesn't affect bomb speed either. The plane's performance, on the other hand, is indeed affected by the mass of the bombs... for obvious reasons. Just not the drag.
+2Also, when combined with the result of this, in which we discovered the explosive radius of a cannon shell is also scalar, plus a rocket = 250mm shell (5 × 50mm) and a missile = 350mm (7 × 50mm) shell, we can basically make everything out of everything!
Hurrah for the innovative, hurrah for the inquisitive, and hurrah for the persevering!
+1ZOGGIN BOOTIFUL, BOSS!@OPaiTaOn
Yeah, the Gsh-2-23 don't have flash hiders and are way smaller than the ones shown in the GIF.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryPorn/comments/3hps61/gsh302fire400x225_gif/
https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryGfys/comments/33p5if/mi24pfiringitsimpressivefixed_gryazevshipunov/
https://youtu.be/7fX3t5bg7N4
+1Errr... I thought the guns shown in the GIF is the Gsh-30-2?
Tom here, patiently waiting for Meko's return.
+1@SimplePilot28465 Thanks! Feel free to use them in your designs as long as you give credit.
+2Two quick questions:
First, does the impactDamageScalar scale with caliber? (
Scalarof 50mm × 1 =Scalarof 25mm × 2, for example)Second, does the same system also work with explosives?
@Kendog84 See that "puff" of fire? That's the "explody" part. It somehow functions differently than when the shell is set to "explosive", but it does still have a small blast radius and can still unravel planes. That said, given the whole "unraveling" process is caused by a part receiving too much damage instead of any inherent process...
+1@Astro12 Just ran another test, turns out the best way to use cannons as aircraft weapon (aside from "just say no") is that... make it explosive and then nerf both the impactDamageScalar and the explosionScalar.
@Astro12 Yeah, that "crack" sound is an explosion as you can first, damage yourself with it; and second, make smaller by literally making the round explosive and reduce the explosionScalar. I have managed to (somehow) unravel a ship with a .50cal "shell" with both impactDamageScalar and explosionScalar at zero, and after that I just quitted using cannons altogether. My rule of thumb? If the ammo explodes and destroys a part then something's getting unraveled. But retarded bouncyballs are really unfun so I just switched to guns.
@Kendog84 What I have also seen is that sometime rockets/bombs/torps/missiles would not damage something it could clearly destroy if that thing was formerly separated from a cockpit. Say, My first bomb destroyed a target and the target's parts (checked to have 100 health) are scattered on the ground. When I drop my bombs again on the scattered parts sometimes literally nothing happened. Does the broken chain also prevent a part from being damaged by explosions?
+1@Astro12 Yeah... from what I have gleamed from my (only) design with actual glass I can attest to that: my glass canopy was shot out; not a scratch on the frames it's connected to. Does connecting a part with multiple other parts help prevent the chain from affecting the block?
@Astro12 If one pane of glass breaks the "chain of unraveling" would still happen under some circumstances, so... I guess it could also be used to gauge if the radius of the "chain" have a finite radius or connections?
@Kendog84 Probably yes if the AOE is large enough to cover multiple load (read: connection) paths, or perhaps the number of parts between the cockpit and the damaged one could also be a factor.
Still, I pretty much stopped using cannons after I managed to disintegrate a battleship using a .50cal HMG with a single "explosive" (in quotation marks as the explosionScalar is literally set to zero) round.
@Kendog84 Say, this for example, if your weapons hit the parts on a roatator, the rotator would snap but the remaining parts would be fine.
+1@11qazxc Guns have a distinctive issue of "shooting at ghosts", aka for (quite) a few frames a block you've already destroyed would still absorb the shots.
+1@Kendog84 Also, this is a good test on what an internal detonation does: when the front with a direct chain to the cockpit got hit with even the smallest AP rocket (my not-HVARs which requires all but a direct hit to kill a truck), the entire thing just... unravels.
@Kendog84 The thing is... from what I've seen from gun tests, say we have a
+1cockpit - wing - wingchain or acockpit - block - blockchain, and the second the end of the chain gets destroyed/blows up (which seems to have its own AOE effect) it would sometimes detonate the surrounding parts until it reaches the cockpit. My personal creations usually have locked rotators (range of motion = 0, speed = floppy) to break up the chain.@Kendog84 From what I got, no it doesn't. Cannon shells and (older, non-cleaver) missiles are probably coded the same way, and so does the Cleaver and bombs.
+1explosiveScalaris the sole determining factor of the damaging effect, while the size of the bomb only determines the visual effects. On rockets... I don't think either the visual effects or the damage effects can be changed.@Kendog84 Thanks!
+1These are the only insights I've managed to gain from this whole "explosive shell" thing, so... not much. Hell, the only rule-of-thumb I've got is that if a bomb/rocket/missile/shell detonates inside a block the whole thing disintegrates... without much understanding on the "proper" damage models. There's a reason I'm pretty much the foremost researcher in bullet-type weapons - no one else can be bothered to do much research on them once they managed to get those sweet high-explosives flying.
+1@SimplePilot28465 Well, self-sealing tanks are indeed useful at absorbing machine gun bullets (especially for the smaller calibers), but much less useful when the enemies start using high-caliber shells. As for the survivability of a pusher aircraft... as long as the plane is properly armored at the cockpit and engines it should be okay, given the Il-2 used a water-cooled engine protected by heavy armor and was known to be extremely hard to take down with anti-aircraft guns of the era. Still, the biggest issue about all pusher aircrafts is the fact that the propeller would be in the way if the pilot ever need to parachute out of the plane, necessitating the use of ejection seats, which would still be a relatively new and unproven technology back in WWII.
+1.
..
... and sorry for rambling.
@SimplePilot28465
+1Also, "tough" and "indestructible" are two very different things IRL. Just because something can survive an incredible amount of damage (the Il-2, the P-47, or the A-10, for example) doesn't mean the designers don't need to make contingencies for the inevitability that someone got lucky and managed to hit something important. Its push-prop configuration would have probably helped its survivability against groundfire or head-on attacks, but I highly doubt a pusher plane would survive long against attacks from behind, the engine in the direct line of fire and all.
I thought unguided missiles are called "rockets"? Also, let's sincerely hope the plane have ejection seats if the plane's ever shot down...
+1@Kendog84 Sorry for the late reply; as it's written, the calculations performed by the lead-predictor is based on the wing gun/gatling gun with the highest muzzle velocity. Placement in the designer does not seem to have ay effects other than which gun is fired first.
+2@Kendog84 Thanks!
+1@SimplePilot28465 You're in ninth grade? Bro you're awesome! Keep up the good work matey!
+1@Bryan5 Probably the wings then. Yeah, gyros wouldn't be too help when the plane's basically disintegrating under the stress. So... was the issue solved after changing the wings?
+2@Bryan5 What is the current mass of the build? Aside from the use of structural wings, it's likely that having higher mass would help as well.
+1@MatthiasFan863 Well, what can I say, but... keep up the good work!
Tom here, waiting to see this masterpiece.
+1@ZanliV2 Good to know. Best of luck on your ventures and good hunting.
+1