Yeah. I found out that it's pretty much the best way to make them spaceworthy. Refer to commlog here.
I mean, given his (admittedly around as autistic as I am) settings, he is intending to use them as anti-starship torpedoes, and with data I've gathered with my (largely mothballed) Proxima project, I just did what I would consider to be the best course of action.
Errrr.... Whose auto-aim turrets are you trying to use? The @SenSkysh one (link) workes for me well enough...
.
..
... and granted, I don't even have an upload for like, 14 months or so, so I'm pretty sure I don't really have the right to tell a plat what to do or not...
@RamboJutter Moving the COG rearward is pretty much exactly the same as moving the COL forward? OFC then there's the the issue of visibility.... Also, I thought aside from the Imperial Japanese pretty much everyone else still somewhat value the pilots' lives? The Vultee XP-54 Swoose Goose had a downward ejection seat, while both the Curtiss XP-55 Ascender and the Northrop XP-56 Black Bullet were designed to jettison the props similar to the Do 335. Either way, all those things would probably make the plane heavier and slower than their traditional counterparts, and in the XP-56's case, make it too tail-heavy to be airworthy.
.
..
... Also, I thought the heaviest part of a plane is the engine? A front-engined pusher design also meant an engine shaft half a dozen meters long before we even get to the gearbox....
....
.....
...... And now, ungrateful nickpicking time®: I thought something called the anti-gravity system would always point against the direction of gravity? Would a gimbal system that always points the thrust down help a lil' bit?
@JeskoGoesVROOM
"absolutely hate going down to like 0.1cm fuselages so i use larger pieces instead and work around the size issue with slicing, rotating and other stuff"
Same.
@OrdinaryTankBuilder More like Ju 288, He 219, and Ju 287, plus a pinch of B-26's gun pods (Mitchell's are more flush with the fuselage) and the mangled remains of a de Havilland Mossie.
@RamboJutter Yeah, there's a reason why the interwar period was the golden age of aviation, right? Art deco lines and relatively low entry cost to still remain competitive. Also, on a side note, I have to say this plane looks like a German plane with British wings with her bubble-like stepless canopy that suggests a proud and noble Heinkel bloodline or even the warlike blood of a Junkers lady, which somehow made her even prettier just like those interwar movie sta- [record scratch] Tom, we've been through this. Stop. Simping. Over. Planes.
.
..
... But she looks so pretty... No, just... no. Stop. Please. Stop.
@Grob0s0VBRa ...And here I thought that a Baneblade analogue would resemble an even CHONK-ier Maus.... or perhaps the CNC3 MARV. Either way, if we wanted to make one using "only" historical parts.... the baneblade's coaxial turret just screams "Maus" with the main gun replaced with what's basically a 280mm howitzer (that somehow hits like a 150mm, so 15cm sFH18 or ML-20) and the coaxial nerfed (somehow) to a QF 2pdr or Borfors 40mm L/60, the Demolisher cannon is a dead ringer for Sturmtiger's RW61 rocket mortar (funny how the Leman Russ Demolisher could apparently fit one inside its smol turret while the Vindicator or even the Land Raider Ares needed to be emptied out just to fit one), plus six M19 grenade launchers and two 37mm guns (both based on their closest size equivalents) but apparently capable of punching through tanks because they're SuPEr aDVaNCed tEcHNOlOgY... Yeah, WH40k designs are weird, and a lot of the ordnance's firepower does not translate nearly as nicely to the tabletop as they're in the fluff. Hell, if anything, the closest equivalent to this particular Rampager in the WH40k universe would be the Leman Russ of all things, with a battle cannon (likely the Vanquisher variant) in the turret and two lascannons in the sponsons.
.
..
... Of course nobody's stopping ya from going hog-wild with Soviet tech by switching the demolisher cannon with a pair of RBT-5 rockets and the heavy bolters with DShK machine guns...
Errr... does anybody know if we can bring lead turret mode back? I mean, the 1.11 update allows for camera-aimed turrets but the lead indicator seems to be off... a lot.
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.
@xNotDumb Oh, the engines are straight cylinders that sits at an angle?
+1@xNotDumb ?
+1@Kendog84 IIRC for pretty much everything the attribute would only be hidden if the value matches the default of the specific part type.
+1Yeah. I found out that it's pretty much the best way to make them spaceworthy. Refer to commlog here.
+1I mean, given his (admittedly around as autistic as I am) settings, he is intending to use them as anti-starship torpedoes, and with data I've gathered with my (largely mothballed) Proxima project, I just did what I would consider to be the best course of action.
Genrich?
+1.
..
... So this is your way of saying "I'm back", interesting....
.
Welcome back anyways.
Always good to see another upload of yours, Kako!
+1Nice to see ya again, Polaris!
+1Errrr.... Whose auto-aim turrets are you trying to use? The @SenSkysh one (link) workes for me well enough...
+1.
..
... and granted, I don't even have an upload for like, 14 months or so, so I'm pretty sure I don't really have the right to tell a plat what to do or not...
@RamboJutter Moving the COG rearward is pretty much exactly the same as moving the COL forward? OFC then there's the the issue of visibility.... Also, I thought aside from the Imperial Japanese pretty much everyone else still somewhat value the pilots' lives? The Vultee XP-54 Swoose Goose had a downward ejection seat, while both the Curtiss XP-55 Ascender and the Northrop XP-56 Black Bullet were designed to jettison the props similar to the Do 335. Either way, all those things would probably make the plane heavier and slower than their traditional counterparts, and in the XP-56's case, make it too tail-heavy to be airworthy.
+1.
..
... Also, I thought the heaviest part of a plane is the engine? A front-engined pusher design also meant an engine shaft half a dozen meters long before we even get to the gearbox....
....
.....
...... And now, ungrateful nickpicking time®: I thought something called the anti-gravity system would always point against the direction of gravity? Would a gimbal system that always points the thrust down help a lil' bit?
Wish your a bright next chapter in life. Farewell, may fortunes favor and the winds to always be on your side.
+1Good to see ya again!
+1b o n i b i r b
+1@JeskoGoesVROOM
+1"absolutely hate going down to like 0.1cm fuselages so i use larger pieces instead and work around the size issue with slicing, rotating and other stuff"
Same.
@OrdinaryTankBuilder More like Ju 288, He 219, and Ju 287, plus a pinch of B-26's gun pods (Mitchell's are more flush with the fuselage) and the mangled remains of a de Havilland Mossie.
+1@RamboJutter Yeah, there's a reason why the interwar period was the golden age of aviation, right? Art deco lines and relatively low entry cost to still remain competitive. Also, on a side note, I have to say this plane looks like a German plane with British wings with her bubble-like stepless canopy that suggests a proud and noble Heinkel bloodline or even the warlike blood of a Junkers lady, which somehow made her even prettier just like those interwar movie sta- [record scratch]
+1Tom, we've been through this. Stop. Simping. Over. Planes.
.
..
... But she looks so pretty...
No, just... no. Stop. Please. Stop.
FiRsT
+1FiRsT
+1Good ta see ya again Sadboye!
+1F
+1@Gx
+1@Grob0s0VBRa ...And here I thought that a Baneblade analogue would resemble an even CHONK-ier Maus.... or perhaps the CNC3 MARV. Either way, if we wanted to make one using "only" historical parts.... the baneblade's coaxial turret just screams "Maus" with the main gun replaced with what's basically a 280mm howitzer (that somehow hits like a 150mm, so 15cm sFH18 or ML-20) and the coaxial nerfed (somehow) to a QF 2pdr or Borfors 40mm L/60, the Demolisher cannon is a dead ringer for Sturmtiger's RW61 rocket mortar (funny how the Leman Russ Demolisher could apparently fit one inside its smol turret while the Vindicator or even the Land Raider Ares needed to be emptied out just to fit one), plus six M19 grenade launchers and two 37mm guns (both based on their closest size equivalents) but apparently capable of punching through tanks because they're SuPEr aDVaNCed tEcHNOlOgY... Yeah, WH40k designs are weird, and a lot of the ordnance's firepower does not translate nearly as nicely to the tabletop as they're in the fluff. Hell, if anything, the closest equivalent to this particular Rampager in the WH40k universe would be the Leman Russ of all things, with a battle cannon (likely the Vanquisher variant) in the turret and two lascannons in the sponsons.
+1.
..
... Of course nobody's stopping ya from going hog-wild with Soviet tech by switching the demolisher cannon with a pair of RBT-5 rockets and the heavy bolters with DShK machine guns...
Eat your heart out, Malcador!
+1FiRsT
+1So... what's the difference between this and this?
+1"and yes I DID spell that right. screw you autocorrect"
+1.
..
... Commonwealth spelling, I assume?
'Grats on plat!
+1... Did you just put this under "racing"? Befitting....
+1"Now THIS is podracing!"
She's... Beautiful...
+1@Gx The answer to all three questions seems to be "yes".
+1One quick question: which vessel is this based on?
+1Is that... a flak Churchill?
+1... How did you land on Tiny Two?
+1I myself would go for unlisted, unless the paintjob/variants are distinctive enough that they'd be the main focus.
+1Zoggin' bootiful!
+1C H O N K
+1Errr... does anybody know if we can bring lead turret mode back? I mean, the 1.11 update allows for camera-aimed turrets but the lead indicator seems to be off... a lot.
+1@ZoaMiki Thanks, Zoa!
+1@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...