since I made the racks with reusability/adaptability in mind
... I thought using the pylons is exactly how you make the pylons universal? No matter what's on those pylons, when you press the fire button something gets dropped/launched. This would be especially true on WWII planes with their electromechanical intervalometers that really doesn't care about what they're dropping.
@Kendog84 I'd say the biggest challenge is to always drop the bombs on the bottom hardpoint first before dropping the others... perhaps a cannon can be used to help sequence the bomb release?
@Kendog84
Yes on both accounts, depending on what you mean. A lynx-type torpedo is a custom-built projectile powered by either a rocket or infinite rotator, and connected to the launching sub with a winch (similar to wire-guided torps IRL) so that the cannon wouldn't be disconnected with the launching vessel.
@Kendog84 Once again, waterproof doesn't help you with missile despawning - it just meant it wouldn't automatically become a dud upon contacting with water.
@RamboJutter My personal revised model, here. The prop coding was all mine, but feel free to include them in your future creations as long as credit is given. Everything else is just common knowledge.
@RamboJutter Found out the hard way that setting the anti-gravs at 90mph was the hard limit on a full-throttle takeoff - if they kick in before that it would end up with the plane slamming back into the ground... and somehow when that plane is at 50% throttle the antigravs can be set to activate at 60mph and the planes gently kicks off the ground.
@RamboJutter Tried to mimic the effect of a constant-speed prop... and promptly realized that somehow pushing the engine anywhere beyond 75% before reaching 60mph would cause an automatic propstrike now.
@RamboJutter Also, what, exactly, is "V"? I didn't see anything resembling that in the variable setter. And when I tried to use it as-is, the game said I need to define "V" first.
@RamboJutter
So basically, given Bogdan and you were talking about having the antigravs/repulsors/techno-babble-lifting-engines kicking in at lower speeds on takeoff and shutting down at higher speeds on landing, what I said is basically to revise the coding to use different inputs under different conditions: when the throttle is wide open, the wing stuff (I still refuse to call it antigrav) kicks in at over 60mph, while when the throttle is lower than a select setting, the antigrav would only kick in at 90mph.
TL;DR: what I tried (and utterly failed) to convey is... does the function
Beautiful as ever my pal! Although... pray tell me, why isn't something called "anti-grav" always pointing against the direction of gravity again?
.
..
... Yeah, I know, that lil' brown pupper probably meant "something that functions like wings/thrusters but different", but seriously, whenever people say "antigravity" in sci-fi it functions like a thruster - and things that actually goes against gravity are usually not called as such: in Star Wars it's called "repulsorlift", in Mass Effect it's "mass effect field" and "element zero", in Star Trek it's "inertial dampeners", and in Star Blazers it's "gravity anchor"... and yet somehow the massive honkin' rocket engines that lifted an entire city in Age of Ultron was called "anti-grav".
.
..
... I myself would imagine a "true" anti-gravity vehicle to function like a flying submarine or an oddly sleek dirigible - with all the advantages and challenges that entails. They would probably be better at S/VTOL flight than a conventional craft, but would probably be worse at cross-wind landing assuming no other traditional lifting engines/fans/nozzles are present. Trim and ballast becomes crucial for attitude and altitude control - sometimes even more so than whatever vestigial fins they have, and they would probably have distinctive tendencies to "right" themselves in a certain direction as there's another force at play unless carefully balanced... which sounds rather hard as combat planes tend to carry external stores under their wings and fuselage... while civilian planes tend to cram fuel into every available nook and cranny in their wings and fuselage.
.
..
...
....
.....
...... and sorry for rambling.
@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.
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?
@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.
@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 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.
@Farewellntchii Well, thanks for listening to all my rambling without going "my way or highyway"! I'm just that weird kid who spent way too much time online and somehow managed to know a lil' bit of everything, afterall.
@Farewellntchii
Pretty sure all three of the heavy weapons you mentioned were on dedicated ground attackers - and you forgot the de Havilland Mozzie tankhunters equipped with 57mm guns. And the German recoilless gun was 356(!)mm. Mounting cannons on attackers is nothing new, and on interceptors and heavy fighters (esp. the twin-engine ones) cannons were common even in early war (Bell Airacuda, * cough cough *). The dynamic back then was pretty much rock-paper-scissors, with interceptors shredding bombers, bombers shrugging off dogfighters, and dogfighters killing interceptors... which the Germans somehow failed to grasp: while everyone's busy building their twin-engine monsters into perfect bomberhunters, the German Zerstörer fighters (e.g. Bf-110) were designed to tangle with dogfighters while leaving single-engine fighters to hunt the big bois. It didn't end well. Twin-engine fighters (except the P-38, and even then it's just barely capable of) just cannot tangle with single-engine dogfighters and still expect to come out on top.
As for the cockpit rear armor... I myself would simply make the parts behind the pilot (rear canopy, upper rear fuselage, etc) tougher. Pretty sure Robert S. Johnson's armored seat stopped a few 20mm shells, so guess those parts need 250+ HP.
@Farewellntchii You do understand that the design of this thing have literally nothing to do with me, right? Herearethree of my original designs (hereby defined as "not a platform recycled from an old design with a different name", and let's face it, no amount of renaming changes the fact that a turd is a turd) that have once gained a mediocum of success and would be much more representative of what my construction style looks like.
@ZoaMiki ... oops. And thanks.
@spefyjerbf Thanks!
@ZoaMiki
@Gx
@Bryan5 Thanks! How's the system?
@AtlasMilitaryIndustries
@EliteArsenals24
@Whills
@Spefyjerbf
@Sadboye12
@Kendog84
Good seeing ya again!
@Kendog84
... I thought using the pylons is exactly how you make the pylons universal? No matter what's on those pylons, when you press the fire button something gets dropped/launched. This would be especially true on WWII planes with their electromechanical intervalometers that really doesn't care about what they're dropping.
@Kendog84 I'd say the biggest challenge is to always drop the bombs on the bottom hardpoint first before dropping the others... perhaps a cannon can be used to help sequence the bomb release?
@Kendog84 Also I just have to say Potato21's "Napalm" looks awfully close to Willy-Pete but not that much to actual napalm, white smoke and all...
@Kendog84
What type of ejector rack? Consider me interested.
@Kendog84
Yes on both accounts, depending on what you mean. A lynx-type torpedo is a custom-built projectile powered by either a rocket or infinite rotator, and connected to the launching sub with a winch (similar to wire-guided torps IRL) so that the cannon wouldn't be disconnected with the launching vessel.
@Kendog84 Once again,
waterproofdoesn't help you with missile despawning - it just meant it wouldn't automatically become a dud upon contacting with water.Hey, good t' see a fine an' proper aerostat from ya, RJ!
@KingOfTypos Simpleplanes in simpleplanes when
@RamboJutter Mine was 1.12.128.0.
@RamboJutter Which version are you using again?
@RamboJutter
.
..
... you know where the variable setter is, right? Here are two screenshots on what it's supposed to look like.
@RamboJutter My personal revised model, here. The prop coding was all mine, but feel free to include them in your future creations as long as credit is given. Everything else is just common knowledge.
@RamboJutter Found out the hard way that setting the anti-gravs at 90mph was the hard limit on a full-throttle takeoff - if they kick in before that it would end up with the plane slamming back into the ground... and somehow when that plane is at 50% throttle the antigravs can be set to activate at 60mph and the planes gently kicks off the ground.
@RamboJutter Tried to mimic the effect of a constant-speed prop... and promptly realized that somehow pushing the engine anywhere beyond 75% before reaching 60mph would cause an automatic propstrike now.
@RamboJutter Yeah, V felt pretty buggy as of now... I'm testing with a revised code using IAS, and the results are pretty promising.
@RamboJutter Also, what, exactly, is "V"? I didn't see anything resembling that in the variable setter. And when I tried to use it as-is, the game said I need to define "V" first.
@RamboJutter Just checked the code, forgot to capitalize the "t" in "Throttle". Fixed now.
Gratz on platz!
@RamboJutter
So basically, given Bogdan and you were talking about having the antigravs/repulsors/techno-babble-lifting-engines kicking in at lower speeds on takeoff and shutting down at higher speeds on landing, what I said is basically to revise the coding to use different inputs under different conditions: when the throttle is wide open, the wing stuff (I still refuse to call it antigrav) kicks in at over 60mph, while when the throttle is lower than a select setting, the antigrav would only kick in at 90mph.
TL;DR: what I tried (and utterly failed) to convey is... does the function
work?
@RamboJutter
essentially its a compromise
So apparently "if throttle >
SetValuethen (bool V > 60) else (bool V > 90)" isn't the way to go?Beautiful as ever my pal! Although... pray tell me, why isn't something called "anti-grav" always pointing against the direction of gravity again?
.
..
... Yeah, I know, that lil' brown pupper probably meant "something that functions like wings/thrusters but different", but seriously, whenever people say "antigravity" in sci-fi it functions like a thruster - and things that actually goes against gravity are usually not called as such: in Star Wars it's called "repulsorlift", in Mass Effect it's "mass effect field" and "element zero", in Star Trek it's "inertial dampeners", and in Star Blazers it's "gravity anchor"... and yet somehow the massive honkin' rocket engines that lifted an entire city in Age of Ultron was called "anti-grav".
.
..
... I myself would imagine a "true" anti-gravity vehicle to function like a flying submarine or an oddly sleek dirigible - with all the advantages and challenges that entails. They would probably be better at S/VTOL flight than a conventional craft, but would probably be worse at cross-wind landing assuming no other traditional lifting engines/fans/nozzles are present. Trim and ballast becomes crucial for attitude and altitude control - sometimes even more so than whatever vestigial fins they have, and they would probably have distinctive tendencies to "right" themselves in a certain direction as there's another force at play unless carefully balanced... which sounds rather hard as combat planes tend to carry external stores under their wings and fuselage... while civilian planes tend to cram fuel into every available nook and cranny in their wings and fuselage.
.
..
...
....
.....
...... and sorry for rambling.
Cursed DC-3
@Aditiaa Thanks!
When the engineers took the term "Airbus" a bit too literally...
@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!
@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.
Saab 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.
Errr... I thought the guns shown in the GIF is the Gsh-30-2?
Two 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?
@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.
@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 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.
@MatthiasFan863 Well, what can I say, but... keep up the good work!
Finally managed to put this lil' bugger back together, eh?
@Farewellntchii Well, thanks for listening to all my rambling without going "my way or highyway"! I'm just that weird kid who spent way too much time online and somehow managed to know a lil' bit of everything, afterall.
@Farewellntchii
Pretty sure all three of the heavy weapons you mentioned were on dedicated ground attackers - and you forgot the de Havilland Mozzie tankhunters equipped with 57mm guns. And the German recoilless gun was 356(!)mm.
Mounting cannons on attackers is nothing new, and on interceptors and heavy fighters (esp. the twin-engine ones) cannons were common even in early war (Bell Airacuda, * cough cough *). The dynamic back then was pretty much rock-paper-scissors, with interceptors shredding bombers, bombers shrugging off dogfighters, and dogfighters killing interceptors... which the Germans somehow failed to grasp: while everyone's busy building their twin-engine monsters into perfect bomberhunters, the German Zerstörer fighters (e.g. Bf-110) were designed to tangle with dogfighters while leaving single-engine fighters to hunt the big bois. It didn't end well. Twin-engine fighters (except the P-38, and even then it's just barely capable of) just cannot tangle with single-engine dogfighters and still expect to come out on top.
As for the cockpit rear armor... I myself would simply make the parts behind the pilot (rear canopy, upper rear fuselage, etc) tougher. Pretty sure Robert S. Johnson's armored seat stopped a few 20mm shells, so guess those parts need 250+ HP.
@Farewellntchii You do understand that the design of this thing have literally nothing to do with me, right? Here are three of my original designs (hereby defined as "not a platform recycled from an old design with a different name", and let's face it, no amount of renaming changes the fact that a turd is a turd) that have once gained a mediocum of success and would be much more representative of what my construction style looks like.
@IceCraftGaming Fastest updoot in the...