Yup, aside from the fact that the brown pupper guy have literal antigravity systems and energy shields inside his planes (read: standard sparking dieselpunk bull-* [Censored] *), not too much of an issue. Keep up the good work, RJ!
.
... Also, does anybody know why Treadmill103 fell off the internet?
The construction is impeccable - hell, I myself tested things like this a few years back, before the advent of 1.9 and Funky Trees, but abandoned it due to, well, FT coding not existing back then, plus the fact that you can't control the yield of missiles or bombs before 1.10. Now, here's a question: how the hell did you make the wings unfold by themselves? I didn't see any FT inputs on those rotators that would suggest they're only deployed when the missile is launched - so how? I really wanted to know.
... and here's some nitpicking that I really shouldn't be doing: the warhead is a bit too powerful: an explosionScale of 2.6 would mean the warhead contains around 3 metric tonnes of high explosive - yet an IRL JASSM only had 450kg in payload - so 1.8 or 1.9 would be nice. Another thing would be the gyroscope: disabling every controls and set all three rotational axis to zero would not cause any noticeable changes to the missile's flight model, yet ensures that the missile would not be accidentally steered by the launching plane.
@Sadboye12 I'm not trying to argue... And I'm not saying you're making poor quality builds - exactly the opposite: it's that there's still something that can be improved so the design (and subsequent designs) can be even greater than it already is. Why don't I publish a "fixed" version? I don't deserve even a tiny bit of credit for fixing a simple piece of code that everyone probably knows already when my construction skills and sense of aesthetics are still garbage-tier. More than half of my collections are builds I have modified for my personal use (a few for historical accuracy, a few for weapons training, a few for code testing, etc), but there's no point in uploading them - I don't deserve any upvotes for them anyway.
Anyways, the elevation code for energy weapons is more or less clamp((TargetElevation + (rate(TargetElevation) * (TargetDistance / muzzle velocity))) , max depression , max elevation) / 90
with both depression and elevation in degrees and muzzle velocity in m/s, assuming the range of the rotator is 90 degrees and both min and max are set to 1.
@Sadboye12 pray tell me, which part of the clamp((TargetElevation + rate(TargetElevation)(((800 * sin(asin((TargetDistance * 9.81)/(pow(800, 2)))/2))/9.81) * 2)) + (asin(((TargetDistance + rate(TargetDistance)(((800 * sin(asin((TargetDistance * 9.81)/(pow(800, 2)))/2))/9.81) * 2))* 9.81)/(pow(800, 2)))/2),-10,90)/90
elevation code is for convergence? Like, which part of the (largely horizontal, while we're at it) convergence would require the guns to aim up when the target is actually lower than you?
@Sadboye12 I'm not mad, I'm just grumpy. And I did say that you coded the projectile velocity correctly - the error's in the type of codes - the code is for cannons with bullet drop, not for (energy) guns which does not. You can see that as the guns aims up instead of down when targeting the USS Beast battle group.
@Sadboye12 Wait, are you meaning to tell me that you made the entire spaghetti code that compensates for bullet drop without thinking, and yet the simple "point and shoot" code didn't, for some reason, cross your mind even once?
.
.
... Anyways, it probably boils down to the fact that the rotators came from the same source and then people didn't bother to check what it's supposed to do. Hell, I've seen people making turrets that can't hit the broadside of a barn while inside of it because they didn't bother to change the muzzle velocity! So you're forgiven.
@Sadboye12
Well that's not how it goes on those battleships back in WWII so why should landships be any different?
Also, apparently someone forgot the fact that in-game machine guns don't have bullet drop, so the tertiary guns can't hit shit beyond one mile or so...
@AvalonIndustries The thing is that when the main turret turns, the flak turret turns with it - and that angle is added to the traverse angle of the flak turret. So when the turret is not pointing straight forward the flak cannon points to the wrong direction.
@CenturiVonKikie @GuyFolk
The in-game drag is still zero, but the fact that it's a wing surface (and thus generating backwards "lift") probably helped a bit. Has seen something similar on some @Greggory005's build.
@spefyjerbf Yeah on a second thought without fuel and delta-V concerns nobody's preventing you from thrusting straight up and then circularize... Oberth effect isn't that necessary when the ship have effectively infinite delta-V, right?
Would probably be a pain to land given the placement of the gears, but the general shape is good. Also, the bomb sight is SICK! In general, a textbook example of good dieselpunk design.
@spefyjerbf Exactly. That said, a high-spread, high-hitbox sort of weapon can lock down an entire airspace without fail - if perhaps a bit laggy for low-end devices. Basically, give the bullets the hitbox of the intercipias, and watch the fireworks. I might mention something about integrating the technology of this and the intercipias in a future CIWS build. Its code name? Grid Fire.
And that's only explosionScale ="1.8"
If we take the boom50's 500lb weight into account and assume it's a Mk.82 GP bomb with a filling weight of around 200lbs, and assume the Cleaver is based off the Tomahawk (notice the name, weight, and size of the weapon) with a 1000lb warhead, we'll get that a cleaver should have around 5 times the explosive power of a boom50, and then we plug the data into the Taylor's equation (using boom50's explosionScale = "1.6" as a basis), and we'll get that the Cleaver should have the an explosionScale of 2.25 or so! TL;DR: the Cleaver should be even more overpowered than it already is. That's how powerful a cruise missile is.
@RamboJutter IIRC the IRL Phantom have a rather... ahem, unique way of mounting the internal gun right beneath the droop nose...
+1Yup, aside from the fact that the brown pupper guy have literal antigravity systems and energy shields inside his planes (read: standard sparking dieselpunk bull-* [Censored] *), not too much of an issue. Keep up the good work, RJ!
+1.
... Also, does anybody know why Treadmill103 fell off the internet?
Yuuka, good to see you again!
+1Awesome as always, Centuri!
+1🎶~I look across the raging war and feel the steady beating of my heart~🎶
+1ROKKIT BARRAGE! WAAAAAGGGHHH!!!
+1@Darkhound Sorry, just an obligatory "cute dog" joke about the plane's name...
+1@Sergio666 Of course you could! Just give some credit for that post and you're all set!
+1The construction is impeccable - hell, I myself tested things like this a few years back, before the advent of 1.9 and Funky Trees, but abandoned it due to, well, FT coding not existing back then, plus the fact that you can't control the yield of missiles or bombs before 1.10. Now, here's a question: how the hell did you make the wings unfold by themselves? I didn't see any FT inputs on those rotators that would suggest they're only deployed when the missile is launched - so how? I really wanted to know.
+1... and here's some nitpicking that I really shouldn't be doing: the warhead is a bit too powerful: an explosionScale of 2.6 would mean the warhead contains around 3 metric tonnes of high explosive - yet an IRL JASSM only had 450kg in payload - so 1.8 or 1.9 would be nice. Another thing would be the gyroscope: disabling every controls and set all three rotational axis to zero would not cause any noticeable changes to the missile's flight model, yet ensures that the missile would not be accidentally steered by the launching plane.
f i r s t
+1Nice as always, Kako!
+1Welcome to the impulse club, pal!
+1.
...My position on gyroscopes and high muzzle velocities (plus zero spread) still stands, though.
@Sadboye12
+1[sheepishly] Thanks for having my back... And my uploads are only as good as the ones I haven't deleted yet...
@Sadboye12 I'm not trying to argue... And I'm not saying you're making poor quality builds - exactly the opposite: it's that there's still something that can be improved so the design (and subsequent designs) can be even greater than it already is. Why don't I publish a "fixed" version? I don't deserve even a tiny bit of credit for fixing a simple piece of code that everyone probably knows already when my construction skills and sense of aesthetics are still garbage-tier. More than half of my collections are builds I have modified for my personal use (a few for historical accuracy, a few for weapons training, a few for code testing, etc), but there's no point in uploading them - I don't deserve any upvotes for them anyway.
+1Anyways, the elevation code for energy weapons is more or less
clamp((TargetElevation + (rate(TargetElevation) * (TargetDistance /
muzzle velocity))) ,max depression,max elevation) / 90with both depression and elevation in degrees and muzzle velocity in m/s, assuming the range of the rotator is 90 degrees and both min and max are set to 1.
@Sadboye12 pray tell me, which part of the
+1clamp((TargetElevation + rate(TargetElevation)(((800 * sin(asin((TargetDistance * 9.81)/(pow(800, 2)))/2))/9.81) * 2)) + (asin(((TargetDistance + rate(TargetDistance)(((800 * sin(asin((TargetDistance * 9.81)/(pow(800, 2)))/2))/9.81) * 2))* 9.81)/(pow(800, 2)))/2),-10,90)/90
elevation code is for convergence? Like, which part of the (largely horizontal, while we're at it) convergence would require the guns to aim up when the target is actually lower than you?
@Sadboye12 I'm not mad, I'm just grumpy. And I did say that you coded the projectile velocity correctly - the error's in the type of codes - the code is for cannons with bullet drop, not for (energy) guns which does not. You can see that as the guns aims up instead of down when targeting the USS Beast battle group.
+1@Sadboye12 The bullets can fly 5 miles, the accuracy goes to hell after 1 from the faulty algorithm.
+1@Sadboye12 Wait, are you meaning to tell me that you made the entire spaghetti code that compensates for bullet drop without thinking, and yet the simple "point and shoot" code didn't, for some reason, cross your mind even once?
+1.
.
... Anyways, it probably boils down to the fact that the rotators came from the same source and then people didn't bother to check what it's supposed to do. Hell, I've seen people making turrets that can't hit the broadside of a barn while inside of it because they didn't bother to change the muzzle velocity! So you're forgiven.
@Sadboye12 Deleting a plane that's 4 feet away from you sounds decidedly much less impressive than, say, 4 miles away...
+1@Sadboye12
+1Well that's not how it goes on those battleships back in WWII so why should landships be any different?
Also, apparently someone forgot the fact that in-game machine guns don't have bullet drop, so the tertiary guns can't hit shit beyond one mile or so...
@Sadboye12 Well I guess that's not too efficient when you're both bombarding a target 20 miles away and under attack from enemy bombers...
+1@AvalonIndustries The thing is that when the main turret turns, the flak turret turns with it - and that angle is added to the traverse angle of the flak turret. So when the turret is not pointing straight forward the flak cannon points to the wrong direction.
+1What the hell is the harmonic glitter...
+1For a second I thought you are using Wright Cyclone engines...
+1@Tang0five The biggest question is why I haven't upvoted them yet or why I haven't followed you when they came out...
+1THAT turret, eh?
+1Keep up the good work, Kako!
+1@CenturiVonKikie @GuyFolk
+1The in-game drag is still zero, but the fact that it's a wing surface (and thus generating backwards "lift") probably helped a bit. Has seen something similar on some @Greggory005's build.
Are those... Yamato's guns?
+1To think that even your joke can be such a dieselpunk masterpiece...
+1@wonsang802 WE'Z DA ORKZ AN' WE'Z MOIDE FER LOOTIN' AN' WINNIN'!!! WAAAAGGGHHH!!!
+1@spefyjerbf Yeah on a second thought without fuel and delta-V concerns nobody's preventing you from thrusting straight up and then circularize... Oberth effect isn't that necessary when the ship have effectively infinite delta-V, right?
+1Would probably be a pain to land given the placement of the gears, but the general shape is good. Also, the bomb sight is SICK! In general, a textbook example of good dieselpunk design.
+1Itano circus much?
+1duck
+1Vode An.
+1@spefyjerbf Exactly. That said, a high-spread, high-hitbox sort of weapon can lock down an entire airspace without fail - if perhaps a bit laggy for low-end devices. Basically, give the bullets the hitbox of the intercipias, and watch the fireworks. I might mention something about integrating the technology of this and the intercipias in a future CIWS build. Its code name? Grid Fire.
+1@Grroro Bonus point for both of you guys are hafus, read his bio.
+1@Grroro True. This guy's so underrated.
+1'Grats Greggios!
+1@Macrophage Yes, according to the taylor equation your cleaver would have a yield of around 0.5 kt...
+1@Macrophage Yup, w/ the explosion scale of 9 you're getting a sub-kiloton nuke...
+1And that's only
+1explosionScale ="1.8"If we take the boom50's 500lb weight into account and assume it's a Mk.82 GP bomb with a filling weight of around 200lbs, and assume the Cleaver is based off the Tomahawk (notice the name, weight, and size of the weapon) with a 1000lb warhead, we'll get that a cleaver should have around 5 times the explosive power of a boom50, and then we plug the data into the Taylor's equation (using boom50's explosionScale = "1.6" as a basis), and we'll get that the Cleaver should have the an explosionScale of 2.25 or so!
TL;DR: the Cleaver should be even more overpowered than it already is. That's how powerful a cruise missile is.
@CenturiVonKikie Tag me when it's done.
+1Your desperate pleas only made upvoting this even more pleasurable...
+1Of course not an Ju-52. Different gear and different flight deck.
+1@WolfSpark Yup, the literal point is that it's a bit too short to have the same proportions as the Wildcat...
+1Blood for the Blood God! Skull for the Skull Throne!
+1@Greggory005
+1This hack is gonna be pretty useful!Finally...
@IceCraft IIRC there's a mission called the convoy assault...
+1