I'm from a chopstick-using culture as well, but my family had been using them to stir drinks (and to pour liquids) along with their intended role since, well, forever. As the saying goes, "if it can only be used in the intended fashion, it's defective", afterall.
@JessaLeih Yet for combustion engines the added engines simply create more complexity and decreases the P/W ratio; electric engines are lightweight and simple in construction but IIRC don't scale nearly as nicely as piston/turbine engines do.
Electric aircraft? Yes. Traditional combustion-powered aircraft? Most definitely not. IIRC the improved efficiency came from the massive total propeller area... as well as the fact that limiting the prop blades to three or less meant props aren't travelling behind each other's wake nearly as much.
I'm not sure if you can add back custom variables via this method, though.
Yes. Near the top of the xml file the first section there's a <Variables> </Variables> section, in which the format goes as follows:
<Variables>
<Setter variable="VariableName1" function="VariableFunction1" priority="0" />
<Setter variable="VariableName2" function="VariableFunction2" priority="0" />
... etc
<Setter variable="LastVariableName" function="LastVariableFunction" priority="0" />
</Variables>
.
.
Just copy the <Setter variable="... /> parts and you should be all set. Do remember that the variable setter hates any undefined inputs with a passion, so do make sure all parts of the function use inputs that either show up in the variable setter, are vanilla inputs, are outputs from other parts, or are defined by cockpit controls.
@griges
The input should be " inverselerp(110,80,IAS) /180 ", and the Current Angle should be " flap ".
Setting the input on the actual flaps to " flap/180 " (instead of dividing the rotator input by 180) would also work, yes, but it'd be more of a hassle, costs more time to set up and more performance to run, and adds another possible point for failure.
@LunarEclipseSP Given it's based on the Mi-24 platform, I'd assume it can still perform the role of an "aerial IFV" designed to support its passengers once they disembark... or to help create landing zones for S&R or medivac.
@blt Oh, you meant starting procedures... and here I thought @MisterT had it down a while before this one, and some PlaneFlightX guy was building a modern jetliner down to the last detail, but yeah... as far as "performance efficient plane with startup" goes this one is probably one of the earliest ones... if not still the only one to-date.
.
..
... Edit: apparently there's a forum post dedicated to planes with startup procedures, but as far as planes with less than 500 parts go this seems to be one of the very few.
....
.....
...... note to self: include starting procedures in my own builds.... and see if it's possible to make one that actually distinguishes between airspawn and groundspawn (airspawn = start in the air so logically the starting procedures had already been finished some nondescript amount of time ago, groundspawn = start on the ground so startup's necessary, or even a hybrid system where landing and shutting down means going through startup again)....
@StraitAircraft ... yet somehow you still managed to mess up the image.
Remember, for simple images, , and for images with embedded links, [](embedded link).
@Seeras Sorry for the wording then.... turns out I'm still bad at NOT committing faux pas left and right, I see.... (So should I refer to you as a former mod then? And are curators mods?)
... and how much deeper did I just dig my own grave?
Also, the proper name of the ex-mod was @Seeras, and for the number of active mods check this page. For added efficiency check the most recent comment from all of them then decide on whom to ping.
@StraitAircraft
Start with shit replicas and improve upon yourself, then one day you'll make good replicas, nay? Also, it's not called "determination", but rather somewhere between "autistic hyperfocus", "blatant insanity", and "uncontrollable urge to tutor someone else".
@StraitAircraft Nah, let's just chalk it up to SP not knowing a thing about real-life weapon dimensions and call it a day. Still, let's see..... the Hawker Horsley was in service between 1927 and 1935, and the most likely air-dropped torpedo of that era would be an 18" Mark VIII, which had an explosive charge of about 320lb and a total weight of about 3,280lb.
.
An in-game torp is about 250lb heavy, so the massScale need to be set to 3280/250=13.12.
.
Through the use of a fuselage block with both width and height set to 0.9 (remember that one "block unit" in game equals to 0.5m so the fuselage would now have the same diameter as an 18" or 450mm torpedo), we can determine the first two values of its scale equals to 1.8 (which also meant that one vanilla in-game torpedo is about 10" or 250mm in diameter, good to know and I'll take note of that for my own future designs).
.
And though the use of a reference image of a Blackburn Ripon, we can estimate the length of the torpedo using the in-game "blueprint" function; note that some foreshortening exist in the photo, so it needs to compensated for through some trigonometry (aka match the length of the torpedo in the picture then divide by the cosine of the foreshortening angle which is somewhere around 15 degrees), but the last value of its scale should be somewhere around 2.75.
.
Now, for explosive scales.... @ReinMcDeer had an awesome chart for explosionScale of aerial bombs, and taking into the account that an average aerial bomb have about half its weight in the explosive filler, the 320lb TNT filler of our torpedo would have an equivalent explosive mass somewhere slightly larger than that of a 500lb bomb, so for simplicity's sake let's just put it somewhere about 1.06: the chart used a 500lb bomb as the "1" number which is about right given an IRL 500lb bomb have a lethal radius of about 80m, and by linear extrapolation between 500lb bombs and 1000lb bombs we get something like 1.056 for the explosionScalar value.
.
..
...
So ultimately this is what I've got, and preemptive apologies for the word vomit.
Given the M3 halftrack originated from the M2 halftrack, which itself was based on the M3 scout car.... should this be called "M3 scout truck" instead?
@RamboJutter
.... and here I thought it's because a few weightless and zero-drag parts are a lot less performance hungry than a label showing the same roundel, but labels are a lot more suitable for complex images and fonts (e.g. noseart, or more complex roundels like the East German one) and usually don't mess up connection points nearly as much. But yeah, labels do have a hard time on any surface with changing curvatures.
.
..
... also, IIRC Nagi/Planaria made a modified converter so the output isn't faded anymore, but I'd hate to think about the performance cost of a full-resolution image.....
@LunarEclipseSP More or less. Still not quite sure if it fits the "tiltrotor" definition given the rotors are never supposed to go full forward... or if the design even makes sense from an engineering standpoint because it's combining the downsides of both a tiltrotor and a helicopter without any of the upsides.
Pretty sure we can't set health or fuel to infinity anymore. Arbitrarily large numbers are still okay, though. Glass parts have an actual health of about 1% of the nominal value (aka if you want a glass part to function like a normal part with 300hp you need to set its health to 30000).
Cleaver missiles also make use of the explosionScale attribute; other missiles use the explosionScalar attribute. A missile part with explosionScalar set to "1" is about equivalent to a 350mm cannon part with explosionScalar set to "1".
For gyros, when the autoOrient attribute is set to "true", redefines the "up" direction for the gyro to the "up" direction of the main cockpit. Otherwise the gyro would try to orient the craft to the gyro's own "up" direction.
For cameras, when the autoOrient attribute is set to "true", redefines the "up" direction for the camera to the craft's "positive" direction (up and/or forward), generally useless. not the same as autoCenterCamera, which is a lot more useful.
@Ku
Yes, parasitic drag is proportional to the wetted area (IIRC skin friction drag is proportional to the total skin area, while form drag is proportional to the frontal cross-section); however, last time I checked the aerospace industry defines the drag coefficient of an aircraft as the parasitic drag force divided by the wing area, not the wetted area, nor the frontal cross-section.
@WritersCrusadersAirCo2
True. IIRC even for IRL railways trains hauling produce and related products are oftentimes slow, heavy trains. So... more like "Strawberry Special" then, I guess?
I'm from a chopstick-using culture as well, but my family had been using them to stir drinks (and to pour liquids) along with their intended role since, well, forever. As the saying goes, "if it can only be used in the intended fashion, it's defective", afterall.
+1Welcome back my guy!
+1@Erionh ... or a vacuum cleaner.
+1.... pretty sure when the Mafia said someone will be "sleeping with the fishes" they didn't meat it this literally...
+1++THE SPICE MUST FLOW++
+1@JessaLeih Yet for combustion engines the added engines simply create more complexity and decreases the P/W ratio; electric engines are lightweight and simple in construction but IIRC don't scale nearly as nicely as piston/turbine engines do.
+1Electric aircraft? Yes. Traditional combustion-powered aircraft? Most definitely not. IIRC the improved efficiency came from the massive total propeller area... as well as the fact that limiting the prop blades to three or less meant props aren't travelling behind each other's wake nearly as much.
+1Common concept of spring:
+1.
Not depicted: allergies, so many fookin' alergies.
@MosquitowithaMachineGun
+1Why sudden spotlight now... thx anyways.
++ LAW ENFORCED BY TANK ++
+1@Rb2h
+1The saved backup: here
Publishing...
+1Right, almost forgot it's your birthday. 'Appy Cake Day Juan!
+1@Kendog84
@griges
Yes. Near the top of the xml file the first section there's a <Variables> </Variables> section, in which the format goes as follows:
<Variables>
+1<Setter variable="VariableName1" function="VariableFunction1" priority="0" />
<Setter variable="VariableName2" function="VariableFunction2" priority="0" />
... etc
<Setter variable="LastVariableName" function="LastVariableFunction" priority="0" />
</Variables>
.
.
Just copy the <Setter variable="... /> parts and you should be all set. Do remember that the variable setter hates any undefined inputs with a passion, so do make sure all parts of the function use inputs that either show up in the variable setter, are vanilla inputs, are outputs from other parts, or are defined by cockpit controls.
@griges
+1The
inputshould be " inverselerp(110,80,IAS)/180", and theCurrent Angleshould be " flap ".Setting the input on the actual flaps to " flap/180 " (instead of dividing the rotator input by 180) would also work, yes, but it'd be more of a hassle, costs more time to set up and more performance to run, and adds another possible point for failure.
@griges
+1Not really unless you want to use a text editor, I'm afraid....
@griges
+1Next time the auto-crediting system bugs out, try contacting the mods or good ol' Seeras to fix it.
@MrSilverWolf
@Seeras
@crazyplaness
Could you please make this a successor to this? Thanks!
+1CONGRATS ! ! !
🥳🎉🥳🎉🥳🎉🥳🎉🥳🎉🥳🎉
+1@LunarEclipseSP Given it's based on the Mi-24 platform, I'd assume it can still perform the role of an "aerial IFV" designed to support its passengers once they disembark... or to help create landing zones for S&R or medivac.
+1Holy hells, HOW?
+1Back in my days when people said "pillow fort" they usually didn't mean a literal one with cannons..... how time has changed....
+1Gratz on silver Straity!
+1@blt Oh, you meant starting procedures... and here I thought @MisterT had it down a while before this one, and some PlaneFlightX guy was building a modern jetliner down to the last detail, but yeah... as far as "performance efficient plane with startup" goes this one is probably one of the earliest ones... if not still the only one to-date.
+1.
..
... Edit: apparently there's a forum post dedicated to planes with startup procedures, but as far as planes with less than 500 parts go this seems to be one of the very few.
....
.....
...... note to self: include starting procedures in my own builds.... and see if it's possible to make one that actually distinguishes between airspawn and groundspawn (airspawn = start in the air so logically the starting procedures had already been finished some nondescript amount of time ago, groundspawn = start on the ground so startup's necessary, or even a hybrid system where landing and shutting down means going through startup again)....
@StraitAircraft 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
+1@StraitAircraft ... yet somehow you still managed to mess up the image.
+1Remember, for simple images,
, and for images with embedded links,[](embedded link).@Seeras Sorry for the wording then.... turns out I'm still bad at NOT committing faux pas left and right, I see.... (So should I refer to you as a former mod then? And are curators mods?)
+1... and how much deeper did I just dig my own grave?
Also, the proper name of the ex-mod was @Seeras, and for the number of active mods check this page. For added efficiency check the most recent comment from all of them then decide on whom to ping.
+1@StraitAircraft
+1Start with shit replicas and improve upon yourself, then one day you'll make good replicas, nay? Also, it's not called "determination", but rather somewhere between "autistic hyperfocus", "blatant insanity", and "uncontrollable urge to tutor someone else".
@StraitAircraft Nah, let's just chalk it up to SP not knowing a thing about real-life weapon dimensions and call it a day. Still, let's see..... the Hawker Horsley was in service between 1927 and 1935, and the most likely air-dropped torpedo of that era would be an 18" Mark VIII, which had an explosive charge of about 320lb and a total weight of about 3,280lb.
+1.
An in-game torp is about 250lb heavy, so the
massScaleneed to be set to 3280/250=13.12..
Through the use of a fuselage block with both width and height set to 0.9 (remember that one "block unit" in game equals to 0.5m so the fuselage would now have the same diameter as an 18" or 450mm torpedo), we can determine the first two values of its
scaleequals to 1.8 (which also meant that one vanilla in-game torpedo is about 10" or 250mm in diameter, good to know and I'll take note of that for my own future designs)..
And though the use of a reference image of a Blackburn Ripon, we can estimate the length of the torpedo using the in-game "blueprint" function; note that some foreshortening exist in the photo, so it needs to compensated for through some trigonometry (aka match the length of the torpedo in the picture then divide by the cosine of the foreshortening angle which is somewhere around 15 degrees), but the last value of its
scaleshould be somewhere around 2.75..
Now, for explosive scales.... @ReinMcDeer had an awesome chart for
explosionScaleof aerial bombs, and taking into the account that an average aerial bomb have about half its weight in the explosive filler, the 320lb TNT filler of our torpedo would have an equivalent explosive mass somewhere slightly larger than that of a 500lb bomb, so for simplicity's sake let's just put it somewhere about 1.06: the chart used a 500lb bomb as the "1" number which is about right given an IRL 500lb bomb have a lethal radius of about 80m, and by linear extrapolation between 500lb bombs and 1000lb bombs we get something like 1.056 for theexplosionScalarvalue..
..
...
So ultimately this is what I've got, and preemptive apologies for the word vomit.
Given the M3 halftrack originated from the M2 halftrack, which itself was based on the M3 scout car.... should this be called "M3 scout truck" instead?
+1@MrCOPTY
+1Well.... it's slowly getting less and less simple over time....
@MrCOPTY
+1Thanks!
@RamboJutter
+1.... and here I thought it's because a few weightless and zero-drag parts are a lot less performance hungry than a label showing the same roundel, but labels are a lot more suitable for complex images and fonts (e.g. noseart, or more complex roundels like the East German one) and usually don't mess up connection points nearly as much. But yeah, labels do have a hard time on any surface with changing curvatures.
.
..
... also, IIRC Nagi/Planaria made a modified converter so the output isn't faded anymore, but I'd hate to think about the performance cost of a full-resolution image.....
Y'sure it's a worm and not a tsuchinoko? Noko Noko Bocchinok- uh oops.
+1As the saying goes, "Never worry about the bullet with your name on it; instead, worry about shrapnel addressed to 'occupant'"....
+1Once again the torpedo was rather underpowered (ofc it's designed to go against player ships so it's understandable). Also, why not vanilla torps?
+1Great build; not enough "oomph" per bomb - understandable given it's designed to go against the much more fragile player ships.
+1@LunarEclipseSP More or less. Still not quite sure if it fits the "tiltrotor" definition given the rotors are never supposed to go full forward... or if the design even makes sense from an engineering standpoint because it's combining the downsides of both a tiltrotor and a helicopter without any of the upsides.
+1Mortar carrier?
+1@L1nus
How? Can I learn this forbidden art?
+1BALLER
+1@PlaneFlightX
- Pretty sure we can't set
- Cleaver missiles also make use of the
- For gyros, when the
- For cameras, when the
+1healthorfuelto infinity anymore. Arbitrarily large numbers are still okay, though. Glass parts have an actual health of about 1% of the nominal value (aka if you want a glass part to function like a normal part with 300hp you need to set its health to 30000).explosionScaleattribute; other missiles use theexplosionScalarattribute. A missile part withexplosionScalarset to "1" is about equivalent to a 350mm cannon part withexplosionScalarset to "1".autoOrientattribute is set to "true", redefines the "up" direction for the gyro to the "up" direction of the main cockpit. Otherwise the gyro would try to orient the craft to the gyro's own "up" direction.autoOrientattribute is set to "true", redefines the "up" direction for the camera to the craft's "positive" direction (up and/or forward), generally useless. not the same asautoCenterCamera, which is a lot more useful.... and here's me, with a monstrosity like this....
+1
+1FIRST!GuP Saunders insignia?
+1f i r s t
+1Quick question: what does "R:TN" stand for?
+1.
..
... and which map did you use for the cityscape screenshot?
@Ku
+1Yes, parasitic drag is proportional to the wetted area (IIRC skin friction drag is proportional to the total skin area, while form drag is proportional to the frontal cross-section); however, last time I checked the aerospace industry defines the drag coefficient of an aircraft as the parasitic drag force divided by the wing area, not the wetted area, nor the frontal cross-section.
@WritersCrusadersAirCo2
+1True. IIRC even for IRL railways trains hauling produce and related products are oftentimes slow, heavy trains. So... more like "Strawberry Special" then, I guess?