@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 through 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?
Smooth surfaces without unnecessary bumps and/or depressions, no flat surfaces pointing into the wind, generally teardrop/cigar-shaped outlines, and cover any non-smooth part with smooth fairings wherever possible.
Just remember the target drag value should be somewhere around 0.02 * [wing area] / 0.0010145 and you should be all set.
area rule?
This.
A transonic aircraft should have a near-constant cross-sectional area excluding the nose and the tail. Or, basically, make sure your wingtips are located where your fuselage is the thinnest, or conversely "tuck in" your fuselage near the wingtips.
For super/hypersonic aircraft, it's "make sure all your parts are tucked behind the shockwave cone created by your nose".
Look at, say, the F-15. Are the curves over the engines important?
As in...? If you meant the LERX then it's for maneuverability at high AOA.
Are flat surfaces on the sides of an aircraft bad?
I'd say.... not necessarily, but likely to be yes. Granted, I'm a mechie undergrad so my understanding about aerodynamics is still rather limited, but IIRC it's more about the part where flat surfaces don't tend to transition smoothly into and out of other shapes so more chance for influence drag.
@GalaxiesDontSlleep
.... no wonder why you tend to describe what would normally be considered "horror" and/or "tragedy" as "Lovecraftian".....
For me most of those are called somewhere between "Tuesday" and "it's more efficient to just [insert a realistic solution] for [insert a plot-specific problem], y'know....".
Removed by Mod. Looks like they can't handle the heat...
I just hope it wasn't my comment that caused the mods' attention.... (in case anyone's wondering the historical nosearts I presented were decidedly NOT PG-13 because there's nothing really PG-13 in WWII).
.... That said, reporting someone else's comment without a good reason might also anger the mods... unless that guy was lying and his comment was taken down for something else, ofc.
His pals from the Jolly Wrenches might feel differently though... Granted, they're built and raised for war, regardless if they were Corsairs or Rhinos; Dusty, decidedly, is NOT.
... if I recall, going by Hisotenku spellcards, would the "Shanghai" variant be an early "proof of concept" model with a massive TLS pod, and the "Hourai" variant a newer model that carried a medium-sized TLS pod but better autonomous capabilities? Also, I'll just assume the "Holland" variant carries miniaturized microwave APS domes, and Alicebird is probably providing her drones energy via microwave transmission either way... (If Seeker Wire and Seeker Dolls skill/spell cards are of any indication all of her dolls/drones carry TLS pods but require external power, on land her dolls are probably controlled via wire guidance)
.
..
... and if Chireiden taught me anything, the drones she lends to Marisa use chemical lasers instead of solid-state ones due to the lack of wireless transmission.
....
.....
...... and preemptive apologies for the word vomit.
@Solent19
First thing first: it's not my first time doing mass-upvoting some random strangers 'ere, nor would it be my last.
Second: please, for the love of all that's sacred and cherished please try to sketch how the plane would look like before you start the construction process - your construction style is good, but your aesthetics is really hit-and-miss.
... and preemptive apologies for nitpicking.
@USAMustang
Didn't even think that far when I first made it (was aiming for a mix between a Bf-109 and a La-7)... then I rechecked my saved technical drawings for the Wildcat. Yup, that's a Grumman canopy alright!
And, yeah, the rear fuselage (sans the fin) is also closer to a Wildcat than a Jug.
@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 through 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?
@WritersCrusadersAirCo2
+1Something something DeviantArt? IIRC your first account also had a post or two about her.
Amy strawberry express w h e n
+1@Graingy
Smooth surfaces without unnecessary bumps and/or depressions, no flat surfaces pointing into the wind, generally teardrop/cigar-shaped outlines, and cover any non-smooth part with smooth fairings wherever possible.
+1@Graingy
Just remember the target drag value should be somewhere around
0.02 * [wing area] / 0.0010145and you should be all set.This.
A transonic aircraft should have a near-constant cross-sectional area excluding the nose and the tail. Or, basically, make sure your wingtips are located where your fuselage is the thinnest, or conversely "tuck in" your fuselage near the wingtips.
For super/hypersonic aircraft, it's "make sure all your parts are tucked behind the shockwave cone created by your nose".
As in...? If you meant the LERX then it's for maneuverability at high AOA.
I'd say.... not necessarily, but likely to be yes. Granted, I'm a mechie undergrad so my understanding about aerodynamics is still rather limited, but IIRC it's more about the part where flat surfaces don't tend to transition smoothly into and out of other shapes so more chance for influence drag.
+1++DISCIPLINE ENFORCED BY TANK++
+1Quick question though: how does the depth charge work?
+1ZOGGIN' BOOTIFUL, BOSS!
+1Armored Core?
+1@GalaxiesDontSlleep
+1.... no wonder why you tend to describe what would normally be considered "horror" and/or "tragedy" as "Lovecraftian".....
For me most of those are called somewhere between "Tuesday" and "it's more efficient to just [insert a realistic solution] for [insert a plot-specific problem], y'know....".
WITNESSED ! ! !
+1@USAMustang
+1.... how come are those X-rated? No full nudity, no intimate parts, no substance abuse nor strong language either.
NO STEP ON SNEK !
+1Ah, the greatest, handsomest mix between the P-51 and the Me-262. Great job!
+1.... and here I thought it was because it revolutionized air combat and brought forth the jet age.....
+1@WritersCrusadersAirCo2
I just hope it wasn't my comment that caused the mods' attention.... (in case anyone's wondering the historical nosearts I presented were decidedly NOT PG-13 because there's nothing really PG-13 in WWII).
+1.... That said, reporting someone else's comment without a good reason might also anger the mods... unless that guy was lying and his comment was taken down for something else, ofc.
@Graingy Yeah. Bonus point for a turbojet is nought but a ramjet with a compressor powered by its own exhaust gasses.
+1His pals from the Jolly Wrenches might feel differently though... Granted, they're built and raised for war, regardless if they were Corsairs or Rhinos; Dusty, decidedly, is NOT.
+1@Mosquitowithagun Oh. Apologies for not remembering your name then! Also.... here's my most recent Skylance, so... enjoy!
+1@Mosquitowithagun Yeah, thanks for all those upvotes and thanks again for pushing me to 10k! But... how did you even find me?
+1... if I recall, going by Hisotenku spellcards, would the "Shanghai" variant be an early "proof of concept" model with a massive TLS pod, and the "Hourai" variant a newer model that carried a medium-sized TLS pod but better autonomous capabilities? Also, I'll just assume the "Holland" variant carries miniaturized microwave APS domes, and Alicebird is probably providing her drones energy via microwave transmission either way... (If Seeker Wire and Seeker Dolls skill/spell cards are of any indication all of her dolls/drones carry TLS pods but require external power, on land her dolls are probably controlled via wire guidance)
+1.
..
... and if Chireiden taught me anything, the drones she lends to Marisa use chemical lasers instead of solid-state ones due to the lack of wireless transmission.
....
.....
...... and preemptive apologies for the word vomit.
@Solent19
+1First thing first: it's not my first time doing mass-upvoting some random strangers 'ere, nor would it be my last.
Second: please, for the love of all that's sacred and cherished please try to sketch how the plane would look like before you start the construction process - your construction style is good, but your aesthetics is really hit-and-miss.
... and preemptive apologies for nitpicking.
++ ATTENTION TO THE MAP ! ++
+1@ChaseRacliot
+1Thanks.Cursed fishbed
+1@USAMustang
+1Didn't even think that far when I first made it (was aiming for a mix between a Bf-109 and a La-7)... then I rechecked my saved technical drawings for the Wildcat. Yup, that's a Grumman canopy alright!
And, yeah, the rear fuselage (sans the fin) is also closer to a Wildcat than a Jug.
Kek. I'm a simple man: I see good build, I upvote; I see good builder, I mass-upvote. Probably why I never host challenges on a second thought....
+1