Calling it a "tender" would be a bit of a stretch, I'd say it's closer to a "scout destroyer" with about 3 recon planes in total.
Also, looooooooooooooooong mast.... on a platform that absolutely does NOT require masts to be any taller than the bare minimum, that is!
@LJh2
Not sure why you'd want a RARDEN cannon onboard any aircraft given its abysmal rate of fire, but of course you can as long as you mention where the codes came from.
Also thanks for the spotlight.
THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
and Grand Explorer... well, let your imagination run wild!! it could be what it says.. or maybe it's what they call cruisers in this world.. maybe it's just a fancy name..? many options really ;3
I mean, given its *YUGE* glass nose, exposed engines, and lack of traditional sensor masts it's rather clear the airframe is not designed to go toe-to-toe against enemy warships, with the glass nose seemingly designed to be a large panoramic window for either higher-class passengers or for geographers and cartographers to conduct aerial surveying and mapping. The lack of more windows (plus the Southern Airship News Gazette) do suggest the latter, though.
My verdict? The "Grand Explorers" are armed exploration/research ships with enough firepower to fend off potential attackers but not enough structural integrity to survive prolonged conflict. They're good at discovering new locations and plotting new skyroutes while fending off hostile wildlife and sometimes the odd pirate ship, but to send them into active conflict is plain old inadvisable.
I know I'm necro'ing, but.... I've got a similar code since a while ago that works on sum(abs(rate(Activate1)/2))... which should work with repeat function as well. Not sure about the performance cost though.
@SomeSPGuyWhoLikesLore
Nobody ever said dieselpunk and retro are mutually exclusive, and pre-war Fallout is more or less atompunk, which IIRC is a subgenre of dieselpunk.
(Reference: steampunk ≈ pre-WWI, dieselpunk ≈ interwar, atompunk ≈ post-WWII / early Cold-War)
TBPH, given your track record, if you felt your previous projects are still subpar, then... oh well, I'll be congratulating you when you reach Plat one day. Nothing warms my heart more than seeing someone reaching high through skill and dedication, instead of spamming the site with pointless drama or worthless trash, afterall.
@SchmooveBrain
Ah, nvm; on that note, how's the setup?
Also, for those weird cannons on Warrior IFVs, you're probably going to be interested in this as well.
Idle musings:
Older battleships oftentimes have multiple guns sharing the same elevation mechanism, so... perhaps this setup can be used to represent the individual turrets on those ships?
@BlackGearCompany
Turns out high-caliber cannons in-game have quite a bit of recoil, and springs in-game can output its current length.... So my FT code just records the last time the spring is compressed beyond a certain threshold and will only reactivate the cannon after a set amount of time has passed. The elevation code (plus simulated recoil) is also based on the same timer.
@BlackGearCompany
As of now I think I've cracked the code for the fire -> recoil -> loading position -> reload -> firing position cycle, and I think I just need to mangle a few @Blyatnov hulls to work out some of the last kinks...
@BlackGearCompany
Kinda both? But IIRC most modern naval guns fall under the "singular guns with autoloader" category so my autoloader/clip gun setups should already cover them.... but yeah, quite a few modern (or at least Cold-War era) ships still have multiple 76+mm guns in different firing arcs so.... hmmm... Now I'll try to make the FOURTH variation of my autoloader concept, a clip/autoloader-based naval gun setup that relies on recoil instead of ammunition counters.
My curret project is indeed focused on the historical ones (from the 4"+ guns on smaller destroyers all the way to Yamato's 18" guns) to give them the correct firing sequence.
Really tho... Seeing autcannon firing just turned me on if im being honest. Those firepower... Hehe.
Same 'ere, but for naval guns... which I'm currently testing a (somewhat) plug-and-play system for if just to make historically-accurate naval guns (and 8+ gun broadsides) a reality.
@BOSinitiate
1&3: Description updated to include construction guide.
2: Yes of course! All of my codes are free to use as long as you give credit somewhere in your build.
@Bogey Nah, that'd be my THIRD variation of the same concept - turns out the clip code really doesn't like one-round "clips"... but recoil spring works wonders esp. for high-caliber guns.
@VTPADELTA
Sorry for my late reply. Yup it's a lot simpler compared to the autoloader, and also yes, feel free to incorporate it into your next build as long as you give credit.
(Also make sure to have at least 0.05s delay between your cannons for the counter to work properly)
.
..
...
.... And thanks for the upvotes either way.
@LunarEclipseSP
Yes, given she *is* a Gripen-F, one of those "super-Gripens", yeah...
(Funny how she's correctly portrayed as a two-seater but the RF-4EJ Phantom is portrayed as a single-seater; also funny how both got wrong canopies - Gripen was erroneously portrayed with the shorter single-seater canopy, and Phantom's canopy was plain nonsensical.)
Necro'ing, but... any chance to change the damage model on control surfaces that they don't get stuck the second someone sneezed on them? Control surfaces disintegrating when damaged enough would've made sense, them getting stuck at the angle they were hit in not so much esp. when the incoming damage is miniscule compared to the health of the wings they're attached to.
... apparently nobody heard of the Vultee XP-54 Swoose Goose, Curtiss-Wright XP-55 Ascender, or the Northrop XP-56 Black Bullet....
.
Lemme guess, the fire's caused by an improperly connected oil line?
.
Also, a tail-heavy aircraft would threaten to flip over and stall, not bury it's nose into the ground; the reason why it refused to take off is because of the disproportionately short nose gear... and it's a darn miracle that it didn't collapse under the immense power of the Merlin.
.
The sluggish yaw control on takeoff is likely due to the lack of propwash.
.
..
...
The verdict:
Henry should've made the nose gear longer.
... could anybody please help me identify the ship in the background?
+4Calling it a "tender" would be a bit of a stretch, I'd say it's closer to a "scout destroyer" with about 3 recon planes in total.
Also, looooooooooooooooong mast.... on a platform that absolutely does NOT require masts to be any taller than the bare minimum, that is!
Always thought those flying battleships operate on some sort of antigrav or ersatz eezo, but okay...
@LJh2
+1Not sure why you'd want a RARDEN cannon onboard any aircraft given its abysmal rate of fire, but of course you can as long as you mention where the codes came from.
Also thanks for the spotlight.
@LJh2
Thanks for the upvotes!
... now, any comments on the setup?
THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
+2THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
@Monarchii
I mean, given its *YUGE* glass nose, exposed engines, and lack of traditional sensor masts it's rather clear the airframe is not designed to go toe-to-toe against enemy warships, with the glass nose seemingly designed to be a large panoramic window for either higher-class passengers or for geographers and cartographers to conduct aerial surveying and mapping. The lack of more windows (plus the Southern Airship News Gazette) do suggest the latter, though.
+1My verdict? The "Grand Explorers" are armed exploration/research ships with enough firepower to fend off potential attackers but not enough structural integrity to survive prolonged conflict. They're good at discovering new locations and plotting new skyroutes while fending off hostile wildlife and sometimes the odd pirate ship, but to send them into active conflict is plain old inadvisable.
May I talk to you about our lord and chonker, the Kawanishi KX-03?
Sound the foghorns; the airships are back!!!
* HONK *
* HOOOOOONNNNNNK *
+1I know I'm necro'ing, but.... I've got a similar code since a while ago that works on
+1sum(abs(rate(Activate1)/2))... which should work withrepeatfunction as well. Not sure about the performance cost though.@SomeSPGuyWhoLikesLore
+2Nobody ever said dieselpunk and retro are mutually exclusive, and pre-war Fallout is more or less atompunk, which IIRC is a subgenre of dieselpunk.
(Reference: steampunk ≈ pre-WWI, dieselpunk ≈ interwar, atompunk ≈ post-WWII / early Cold-War)
TBPH, given your track record, if you felt your previous projects are still subpar, then... oh well, I'll be congratulating you when you reach Plat one day. Nothing warms my heart more than seeing someone reaching high through skill and dedication, instead of spamming the site with pointless drama or worthless trash, afterall.
+2=^.^= Meow? :3
+1@SchmooveBrain
+1Ah, nvm; on that note, how's the setup?
Also, for those weird cannons on Warrior IFVs, you're probably going to be interested in this as well.
@SchmooveBrain @BOSSentinel
+1Errrrm.... anybody please explain to me what's going on again?
Which map(s) did you use for those screenshots?
Idle musings:
Older battleships oftentimes have multiple guns sharing the same elevation mechanism, so... perhaps this setup can be used to represent the individual turrets on those ships?
@SamuelHayden Thanks! How's the setup?
+1.
..
... Also, forgive me for my insolence but... "Mosquito with a RARDEN Gun", anyone?
@BlackGearCompany
+1Turns out high-caliber cannons in-game have quite a bit of recoil, and springs in-game can output its current length.... So my FT code just records the last time the spring is compressed beyond a certain threshold and will only reactivate the cannon after a set amount of time has passed. The elevation code (plus simulated recoil) is also based on the same timer.
@BlackGearCompany
+1As of now I think I've cracked the code for the fire -> recoil -> loading position -> reload -> firing position cycle, and I think I just need to mangle a few @Blyatnov hulls to work out some of the last kinks...
@BlackGearCompany
+1Kinda both? But IIRC most modern naval guns fall under the "singular guns with autoloader" category so my autoloader/clip gun setups should already cover them.... but yeah, quite a few modern (or at least Cold-War era) ships still have multiple 76+mm guns in different firing arcs so.... hmmm... Now I'll try to make the FOURTH variation of my autoloader concept, a clip/autoloader-based naval gun setup that relies on recoil instead of ammunition counters.
My curret project is indeed focused on the historical ones (from the 4"+ guns on smaller destroyers all the way to Yamato's 18" guns) to give them the correct firing sequence.
@BlackGearCompany
Same 'ere, but for naval guns... which I'm currently testing a (somewhat) plug-and-play system for if just to make historically-accurate naval guns (and 8+ gun broadsides) a reality.
+1@BlackGearCompany
+1I'm but a simple man, I see good builds, I upvote; I see good builder, I mass-upvote....
@BlackGearCompany
+1I guess the L21A1 RARDEN is indeed a bit obsolete for the BGC, I see...
@BlackGearCompany
+1Thanks! Feel free to use the setup(s) in your future projects!
@BlackGearCompany
+1Thanks! Feel free to use the setup in your future projects!
Welcome Back!
+1Grats on Silver!
+1@TRS051 Keks; thanks for the upvotes either way.
+1@Zerkk Thanks! How's the setup?
+1@BOSinitiate
+11&3: Description updated to include construction guide.
2: Yes of course! All of my codes are free to use as long as you give credit somewhere in your build.
Wait wait wait DON'T YOU FRIGGIN' DIE ON ME ! ! !
+4@BOSSentinel Thanks!
@TRS051
Thanks! Any comments on the setup?
@Bogey Nah, that'd be my THIRD variation of the same concept - turns out the clip code really doesn't like one-round "clips"... but recoil spring works wonders esp. for high-caliber guns.
@Seeras
Could you please make this the successor to this? Thank in advance.
@TheRealGoober Thanks!
+1@VTPADELTA
Sorry for my late reply. Yup it's a lot simpler compared to the autoloader, and also yes, feel free to incorporate it into your next build as long as you give credit.
(Also make sure to have at least 0.05s delay between your cannons for the counter to work properly)
.
..
...
.... And thanks for the upvotes either way.
My therapist: the Saberrier isn't real, it can't hurt you.
+11The Saberrier:
ZOGGIN' BOOTIFUL ME FELINE FRIEND !
@LunarEclipseSP
+2Yes, given she *is* a Gripen-F, one of those "super-Gripens", yeah...
(Funny how she's correctly portrayed as a two-seater but the RF-4EJ Phantom is portrayed as a single-seater; also funny how both got wrong canopies - Gripen was erroneously portrayed with the shorter single-seater canopy, and Phantom's canopy was plain nonsensical.)
@Hikikomori
+1Grats on silver!
Lemme guess, inspired by the F-302 from Stargate, only with a canard configuration?
Publishing yay!
+1Necro'ing, but... any chance to change the damage model on control surfaces that they don't get stuck the second someone sneezed on them? Control surfaces disintegrating when damaged enough would've made sense, them getting stuck at the angle they were hit in not so much esp. when the incoming damage is miniscule compared to the health of the wings they're attached to.
... apparently nobody heard of the Vultee XP-54 Swoose Goose, Curtiss-Wright XP-55 Ascender, or the Northrop XP-56 Black Bullet....
+1.
Lemme guess, the fire's caused by an improperly connected oil line?
.
Also, a tail-heavy aircraft would threaten to flip over and stall, not bury it's nose into the ground; the reason why it refused to take off is because of the disproportionately short nose gear... and it's a darn miracle that it didn't collapse under the immense power of the Merlin.
.
The sluggish yaw control on takeoff is likely due to the lack of propwash.
.
..
...
The verdict:
Henry should've made the nose gear longer.
@Subsere Yes, as the lines are actually straight now and there's no noise to speak of.
+1(also I've changed my PFP to the one you uploaded)
@PrussianAirWorks Some early jets do actually resemble propeller fighters, case in point: the Yak-15 plus Yak-17 and Yak-23 that descended from the Yak-3, the La-152 and La-160 that superficially resembles both the aforementioned Yak-15 family and piston-powered Lavochkins, the Ambrosini/Aerfer Sagittario and Aerfer Ariete that ultimately descended from the Ambrosini S.7, the Saab 21R that was literally a re-engined Saab 21, and even arguably the F-86D/K/L Sabredog that shared a few visual cues with its distant ancestor the P-51D/K Mustang.
+2Someone forgot to retract their landing gears?
+2The fixed gears do kinda stick out like a sore thumb, ngl...
+1