Define "specialist". Although I guess an autonomous "taxi" service can probably replace individual cars in the (distant) long run. Individual air vehicles are definitely a niche market though if just due to the energy consumption involved in getting things airborne without a runway.
Additionally, it's better to have a grocery system that doesn't require long distance travel to begin with.
Arguably yes, but economies of scale that benefits larger shopping malls and supermarkets still exists, and unless everyone enjoys buying groceries everyday from a convince store a block away I doubt large grocery trips is going away any time soon.
Also, larger (read: wider) rail cars could alleviate much of the space issues to begin with. Additionally, if stations can be made wheelchair accessible I see no reason they couldn't accommodate something akin to a wagon.
The width of a train car is limited by the rail gauge itself, and unless once again you liver quite close to a station, dollies would not help you that much beyond getting your luggage off the train. (Non-accessible stations are shit for even the first suitcase so it's rather beside the point.)
Once again, I'm all for more public transport doing what they're good at (getting large amount of lightly-loaded people between pre-planned points), but to assume they're end-all-be-all solutions is somewhere between "unrealistic" and "naïveté" for most use cases. The good thing though, is that as more people have the option of taking public transit for commute and bicycles/scooters for inner-city travel it actually makes the road safer and faster for those who actually need to drive, so it's a win-win situation, no?
@Graingy
Trains are pretty much the most efficient form of mass transit (plus bulk cargo transport over land), but they inherently restrict the amount of luggage/cargo a person can carry per trip (unless you're doing checked luggage and have a car waiting for you at the destination) and are terrible at moving people from point A to point B especially when there's more luggage involved, so I really don't think cars are going away any time soon from highways or city streets any time soon. What trains (and public transit in general) are very good at though, is alleviating traffic on highways and city streets during rush hours, as people going to / returning from work/school don't tend to carry much luggage or groceries regardless.
Remember, there's no such thing as "too many options" when it comes to solving real-life problems, what we can and should though, is to diversify options so the comparative advantages of the various solutions can be maximized while their comparative disadvantages can be minimized. Diversity is strength as far as engineering solutions are concerned.
. TL;DR: Trains and buses for daily commute, cars for visiting friends and bulk grocery trips, bicycles/scooters for leisure + small grocery trips + covering small distances quickly, and VTOLs for luxury transport and urban first responders (plus flood relief if possible). Q.E.D.
The legacy engines Engine-Prop-1 and Engine-Prop-2 are not affected by the powerMultiplier attribute even though they have the setting in the xml editor.
@Graingy
I do agree that aviation and automobile-like numbers wouldn't mix well for now, and until non-networked AIs and LiDARs are advanced enough for near-flawless crash avoidance on an air-gapped craft it would remain a poor combination for the foreseeable future. (Yes, I know Tesla's less-than-stellar safety record but IIRC it's largely down to Elon being an abysmal engineer who refused LiDARs or even binocular vision on his car AIs; turns out automobile and rocketry are two VERY different fields with completely different design requirements and use cases afterall...)
Autonomous networked vehicles are every-closer to maturity right now, but anything that relies on a central server for crash avoidance is about one dedicated attack / serious bug / power outage away from a mass-casualty event.
.
Hey at least those craft are much smaller than a fully-fueled widebody jetliner (~50 metric tons of Jet-A for a 767) so thank the small mercies for that, eh?
@Graingy
Personally I'd wait for the aviation industry to give the verdict on the feasibility of EVTOL vehicles in general, but helicopters do have the inherent problem of the large main rotor making it noisy and dangerous for intra-city flying, so I do think EVTOLs with a large combined rotor area might find a market/niche as urban luxury transport or first responder vehicle.
"Don't reinvent the wheel" argument only works when the purported new product doesn't solve any problems of the existing system, so I'm not really sure whether it would still apply here. EVTOLs do add new problems of lower energy efficiency due to the higher disk loading (unless it's a tiltwing/tiltrotor design then the wings might add some efficiency back in level flight at the trade-off of higher mechanical complexity), lacking true autorotation/gliding capabilities (once again unless they're tiltrotors or tiltwings), and all the additional challenges posed by the low energy density of batteries itself....
Hmmmm.... hybrid electric VTOLs, anyone?
@Monarchii
I mean, IRL torpedo boats often carried rockets for more close-in "screw you", so.... Why not combine both?
.
(Also, the second proposal sounds vaguely similar to the Japanese torpedo cruisers, or conversely the Yank carriers with Regulus missiles. Seriously, in the world of aerostats the difference between missiles and torpedoes might well be whether they rely solely on aerodynamic lift or not.)
@Monarchii
Yeah, given the gyro only kicks in at terminal guidance range it really wasn't helping much.... Also, no need for the pitch code to include current pitch angle, the pitch input for gyros means "desired pitch angle" already.
.
.
.
Vanilla gyros tend to spaz out when they cannot counter the aerodynamic forces, so... most of them don't actually need aerodynamic control surfaces esp. when they're meant to be target drones.
The Izmails don't have enough aerodynamic control to countermand the gyros either way, and they fly just fine without control surfaces.
.
.
.
Either way, here's my ten-minute-fix to this mine/torpille aérienne. The gyro strength is actually pretty good for a slow-moving aerostat-torpedo.
.
.
.
and somehow your screenshot is missing.
Have to say those massive unprotected bombs are the Type-IB's greatest weakness. Somehow a random burst of machinegun fire from more than a mile away is all it takes to detonate the entire squadron.
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!
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?
@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.
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.
@Subsere
Yurp! Actually b/c I can't find the legacy pic on the SP site I had to get a low-res pic from google then use every tool under the sun to enhance it back into what it should look like...
@Rob119
Given I have the tendency to use a pair of toothpicks (of all things) as both makeshift forks and makeshift chopsticks, who am I to judge...
Yup, I'm pretty sure we're gonna get burned on the same pyre... made of chopsticks.
@Graingy
Define "specialist". Although I guess an autonomous "taxi" service can probably replace individual cars in the (distant) long run. Individual air vehicles are definitely a niche market though if just due to the energy consumption involved in getting things airborne without a runway.
Arguably yes, but economies of scale that benefits larger shopping malls and supermarkets still exists, and unless everyone enjoys buying groceries everyday from a convince store a block away I doubt large grocery trips is going away any time soon.
The width of a train car is limited by the rail gauge itself, and unless once again you liver quite close to a station, dollies would not help you that much beyond getting your luggage off the train. (Non-accessible stations are shit for even the first suitcase so it's rather beside the point.)
Once again, I'm all for more public transport doing what they're good at (getting large amount of lightly-loaded people between pre-planned points), but to assume they're end-all-be-all solutions is somewhere between "unrealistic" and "naïveté" for most use cases. The good thing though, is that as more people have the option of taking public transit for commute and bicycles/scooters for inner-city travel it actually makes the road safer and faster for those who actually need to drive, so it's a win-win situation, no?
@Graingy
Trains are pretty much the most efficient form of mass transit (plus bulk cargo transport over land), but they inherently restrict the amount of luggage/cargo a person can carry per trip (unless you're doing checked luggage and have a car waiting for you at the destination) and are terrible at moving people from point A to point B especially when there's more luggage involved, so I really don't think cars are going away any time soon from highways or city streets any time soon. What trains (and public transit in general) are very good at though, is alleviating traffic on highways and city streets during rush hours, as people going to / returning from work/school don't tend to carry much luggage or groceries regardless.
Remember, there's no such thing as "too many options" when it comes to solving real-life problems, what we can and should though, is to diversify options so the comparative advantages of the various solutions can be maximized while their comparative disadvantages can be minimized. Diversity is strength as far as engineering solutions are concerned.
.
TL;DR: Trains and buses for daily commute, cars for visiting friends and bulk grocery trips, bicycles/scooters for leisure + small grocery trips + covering small distances quickly, and VTOLs for luxury transport and urban first responders (plus flood relief if possible). Q.E.D.
The legacy engines
Engine-Prop-1andEngine-Prop-2are not affected by thepowerMultiplierattribute even though they have the setting in the xml editor.@Graingy
I do agree that aviation and automobile-like numbers wouldn't mix well for now, and until non-networked AIs and LiDARs are advanced enough for near-flawless crash avoidance on an air-gapped craft it would remain a poor combination for the foreseeable future. (Yes, I know Tesla's less-than-stellar safety record but IIRC it's largely down to Elon being an abysmal engineer who refused LiDARs or even binocular vision on his car AIs; turns out automobile and rocketry are two VERY different fields with completely different design requirements and use cases afterall...)
Autonomous networked vehicles are every-closer to maturity right now, but anything that relies on a central server for crash avoidance is about one dedicated attack / serious bug / power outage away from a mass-casualty event.
.
Hey at least those craft are much smaller than a fully-fueled widebody jetliner (~50 metric tons of Jet-A for a 767) so thank the small mercies for that, eh?
@Graingy
Personally I'd wait for the aviation industry to give the verdict on the feasibility of EVTOL vehicles in general, but helicopters do have the inherent problem of the large main rotor making it noisy and dangerous for intra-city flying, so I do think EVTOLs with a large combined rotor area might find a market/niche as urban luxury transport or first responder vehicle.
"Don't reinvent the wheel" argument only works when the purported new product doesn't solve any problems of the existing system, so I'm not really sure whether it would still apply here. EVTOLs do add new problems of lower energy efficiency due to the higher disk loading (unless it's a tiltwing/tiltrotor design then the wings might add some efficiency back in level flight at the trade-off of higher mechanical complexity), lacking true autorotation/gliding capabilities (once again unless they're tiltrotors or tiltwings), and all the additional challenges posed by the low energy density of batteries itself....
Hmmmm.... hybrid electric VTOLs, anyone?
Viewing from the front/nose, left-to-right:
not!-Lockheed P-38 Lightning, not!-Junkers Ju 87 Stuka, not!-Mitsubishi A7M Reppū, and not!-de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito?
Quick question: where does the stairs in 3:23 lead to?
... different hairstyle?
@LegoGuyUAL184 Thanks!
Vultee Swoose Goose?
@Monarchii
@RB107
Or the poster.
@Monarchii
Whimsy?
@Monarchii
I mean, IRL torpedo boats often carried rockets for more close-in "screw you", so.... Why not combine both?
.
(Also, the second proposal sounds vaguely similar to the Japanese torpedo cruisers, or conversely the Yank carriers with Regulus missiles. Seriously, in the world of aerostats the difference between missiles and torpedoes might well be whether they rely solely on aerodynamic lift or not.)
@Monarchii
Yeah, given the gyro only kicks in at terminal guidance range it really wasn't helping much.... Also, no need for the pitch code to include current pitch angle, the pitch input for gyros means "desired pitch angle" already.
.
.
.
Vanilla gyros tend to spaz out when they cannot counter the aerodynamic forces, so... most of them don't actually need aerodynamic control surfaces esp. when they're meant to be target drones.
The Izmails don't have enough aerodynamic control to countermand the gyros either way, and they fly just fine without control surfaces.
.
.
.
Either way, here's my ten-minute-fix to this mine/torpille aérienne. The gyro strength is actually pretty good for a slow-moving aerostat-torpedo.
.
.
.
and somehow your screenshot is missing.
Have to say those massive unprotected bombs are the Type-IB's greatest weakness. Somehow a random burst of machinegun fire from more than a mile away is all it takes to detonate the entire squadron.
@Monarchii *meow* :3
The Brits, "there's more than one way to skin a cat".
The AU equivalent to the interwar/1920-1930s?
++KIROV REPORTING ! ! ! ++
VAN Hursoye W H E N
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!
Always thought those flying battleships operate on some sort of antigrav or ersatz eezo, but okay...
@LJh2
Thanks for the upvotes!
... now, any comments on the setup?
May I talk to you about our lord and chonker, the Kawanishi KX-03?
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?
@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.
@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.
ZOGGIN' BOOTIFUL ME FELINE FRIEND !
Lemme guess, inspired by the F-302 from Stargate, only with a canard configuration?
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.
@Subsere
THANKS
@AtlasMilitaryIndustries
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN >_< !
Jokes aside, I'm assuming the craft is controlled pitch-and-roll only?
Right, the 3-view diagram of the Aviatik B.I:
here
@Halcyon215 @Michiganstatepolicethe2nd
Eh, given the JT3D is a derivative of the JT3C (aka the J57) it's probably possible... just not recommended.
2×20mm and 2×12.7mm?
@Subsere
Yurp! Actually b/c I can't find the legacy pic on the SP site I had to get a low-res pic from google then use every tool under the sun to enhance it back into what it should look like...
... right, quick question, I'm pretty sure I've seen a plat called WizNick before...
.... nvm, found the thread.
@Rob119
Given I have the tendency to use a pair of toothpicks (of all things) as both makeshift forks and makeshift chopsticks, who am I to judge...
Yup, I'm pretty sure we're gonna get burned on the same pyre... made of chopsticks.
Found a chart specifically meanr for this job: @ReinMcDeer's WEAPONS BALANCING DATABASE.
@Rob119
It's a skewer.
@32
I just used the engine's innate "Thrust" output.
@Graingy
Refer to SIMPLECHEATS II.
Yes. a label with {-rate(Fuel) * your total amount of fuel} .
@Ku
... N/m, right?
@Subsere The area of the aircraft exposed to the airstream. Or, basically, the total external area of the aircraft.
@Jaspy190
Keks, any later I'd be congratulating you on plat!
Grats on Gold me pal!