Fun fact: early straight-winged F9F Panthers are really slow compared to the swept wing fighters like the MiG-15 or the F-86. Later swept-wing F9F Cougars are faster but was outshone by the FJ-4 Fury, the navy version of the F-86 Sabre.
please explain more to me on what do you really mean
Well, yesterday you uploaded that not! F9F Panther of yours, so it's pretty clear in whichever AU your world's in, the "G" prefix means "fighter jet". "FJ-4B" was the U.S. Navy designation for their variant of the F-86 Sabrejet, and that specific model carried 4 20mm guns with an ROF at 1000 shots/min each. The guns mounted on the F9F Panther/Cougar (the IRL F9F Cougar was the swept-wing version of the Panther) was the AN/M3 20mm, which had an ROF at 750 shots/min, while the M39 Cannon carried by F-86F-2 and F-86H variants have an ROF at 1500 shots/min. The Navy never had a Sabre/Fury variant with M39 cannons though, but this being your AU so nitty-gritty details like that would be easily forgiven.
@LunarEclipseSP Nah you're more than forgiven - I'm just the ungrateful nitpicker who can't take a joke. Just like all older battleships predating those WWII fast battleships are commonly referred to as a "dreadnought" even though most are either super-dreadnoughts (standard-type battleships) or early fast battleships (Queen Elizabeth class) in their own right.
@LunarEclipseSP Errr.... sorry to nitpick, but... Ol' Ironsides is a heavy sailing frigate.... A galleon looks... ahem, curvier with a raised forecastle and higher aftcastle, whereas a fully-rigged ship-of-the-line have a straighter deck and a lower quarterdeck.
@Galaxees Marvelous job for a first-timer! That said.... here's Tom's Ungrateful Nitpicking Time™: the main gears are a bit too far back (and a tad bit too small), and the engine nozzle looks a bit small for a fourth-gen - especially a fighter meant for insane speeds. More speed means more drag, and more drag means more thrust would be needed - ergo, larger engine cross section.
My suggestion, as usual, would be to make a quick sketch on the aesthetics of any original project beforehand and see where different parts should go and how well they would fit with each other.
@Karzigg Yeah, it does give off the same vibes as a (partially) refitted super dreadnought/early fast battleship like the BritishR-class or the Japanese Nagato-class with casement guns and range clocks and whatnot... while also sporting seaplane catapults and late interwar gun directors/optics... that somehow featured no fire control radars whatsoever.
... and here I thought it's the concept that counts?
If you want to use a gun-based system, just use 13 miniguns, all with xml'ed bulletScale, muzzleVelocity, tracerColor, damage, lifetime and whatnot, just remember to keep timeBetweenBursts the same for all guns and burstCount to 1.
.
..
... That said, I myself would probably use a more complex system involving cannon-based intervalometers and detacher/pylon based launchers to lob bombs and rockets on various trajectories to better stimulate the line of explosions.
Is it possible to assign infinite number to the repeat function
Okay... how to explain...
First, my entire experiment is about "how to make sure the stored value only change when I want it to, nothing more and nothing less", and to be perfectly honest, if you just want something to not change after the first input then a simple if-else function works a lot better.
And second, what repeat(a, b) does... is to divide a by b and give out the remainder of the division as the output. I first saw the function being used by @Soldier289 on the IJN Kongō, in which the turrets used such a function to never travel beyond the hardstops while remaining unerringly controllable with just pitch and yaw inputs.
So if you mean "can I simply set the a in the repeat(a, b) function to some arbitrarily large number and call it a day", the answer is "why should you", but if you mean "can the a get too large for the game to register anymore", I guess so? Although I'd assume the game would bug/lag out or the numbers would loop back to negative by then.
@Sadboye12 Who's "we"?
Also, keep in mind that cannons can never truely "fire together" per se as there's always a delay between shots, no matter how minor, and if one gun's damaged/jammed the firing sequence would not adjust for the missing gun. However, if you meant "wing guns and miniguns" then... @AtlasAviation has been doing that "combined trace" for a few years now with just miniguns, no coding required. I'm currently working on a clip/mag fed cannon that can only start reloading after the entire "clip" was fired, though.
Oh also--did you know that rockets on a detacher can be fired remotely (when disconnected from the primary cockpit) by activating the detacher?
And so are missiles and straight-run torps. I've made a cluster bomb a few years back with that principle... and promptly deleted it after realizing how laggy the build is - daisychained detachers and modified weight result in floppy builds.
@Weisbrich Not really talking about how the design would affect people, more like the general serviceability of the plane and how reliable the design would be - the gearbox and fairing arrangement on this plane probably made it that lil' bit harder to service, while having two engines mated to the same driveshaft instead of, ya know, having an actual flat-12 engine (or whatever the actual number of cylinders the plane ended up with) there just meant more camshafts and oil pumps and whatnot to deal with. Most planes with contra-rotating props don't have different engines powering the different props, afterall: if one engine fails the dead prop instantaneously becomes dead weight - and it's harder to synchronize two engines to run at exactly the same RPM than just using a gearbox to make sure the two props turn at the same rate.
.
..
... and sorry for over-analyzing things - especially on someone else's very first plane. Just take it as the autistic rambling of the resident aspie, pay no heed.
@Grob0s0VBRa ... and here I thought it looked closer to a BattleMech.
Hell, the size meant it's probably a ProtoMech, and the 2 × A/C2 loadout checks out.
@Kendog84 See that "puff" of fire? That's the "explody" part. It somehow functions differently than when the shell is set to "explosive", but it does still have a small blast radius and can still unravel planes. That said, given the whole "unraveling" process is caused by a part receiving too much damage instead of any inherent process...
@Kendog84 What I have also seen is that sometime rockets/bombs/torps/missiles would not damage something it could clearly destroy if that thing was formerly separated from a cockpit. Say, My first bomb destroyed a target and the target's parts (checked to have 100 health) are scattered on the ground. When I drop my bombs again on the scattered parts sometimes literally nothing happened. Does the broken chain also prevent a part from being damaged by explosions?
@11qazxc Guns have a distinctive issue of "shooting at ghosts", aka for (quite) a few frames a block you've already destroyed would still absorb the shots.
@Kendog84 The thing is... from what I've seen from gun tests, say we have a cockpit - wing - wing chain or a cockpit - block - block chain, and the second the end of the chain gets destroyed/blows up (which seems to have its own AOE effect) it would sometimes detonate the surrounding parts until it reaches the cockpit. My personal creations usually have locked rotators (range of motion = 0, speed = floppy) to break up the chain.
@Kendog84 From what I got, no it doesn't. Cannon shells and (older, non-cleaver) missiles are probably coded the same way, and so does the Cleaver and bombs. explosiveScalar is the sole determining factor of the damaging effect, while the size of the bomb only determines the visual effects. On rockets... I don't think either the visual effects or the damage effects can be changed.
@14FanFlight NoTaR stands for No Tail Rotor.
+1Fun fact: early straight-winged F9F Panthers are really slow compared to the swept wing fighters like the MiG-15 or the F-86. Later swept-wing F9F Cougars are faster but was outshone by the FJ-4 Fury, the navy version of the F-86 Sabre.
+1@Adilan
Well, yesterday you uploaded that not! F9F Panther of yours, so it's pretty clear in whichever AU your world's in, the "G" prefix means "fighter jet". "FJ-4B" was the U.S. Navy designation for their variant of the F-86 Sabrejet, and that specific model carried 4 20mm guns with an ROF at 1000 shots/min each. The guns mounted on the F9F Panther/Cougar (the IRL F9F Cougar was the swept-wing version of the Panther) was the AN/M3 20mm, which had an ROF at 750 shots/min, while the M39 Cannon carried by F-86F-2 and F-86H variants have an ROF at 1500 shots/min. The Navy never had a Sabre/Fury variant with M39 cannons though, but this being your AU so nitty-gritty details like that would be easily forgiven.
+1Yup, the not! F-86 Sabre, the quartet of quick-firing 20-mils is a dead giveaway.
+1@LunarEclipseSP Nah you're more than forgiven - I'm just the ungrateful nitpicker who can't take a joke. Just like all older battleships predating those WWII fast battleships are commonly referred to as a "dreadnought" even though most are either super-dreadnoughts (standard-type battleships) or early fast battleships (Queen Elizabeth class) in their own right.
+1@LunarEclipseSP Errr.... sorry to nitpick, but... Ol' Ironsides is a heavy sailing frigate.... A galleon looks... ahem, curvier with a raised forecastle and higher aftcastle, whereas a fully-rigged ship-of-the-line have a straighter deck and a lower quarterdeck.
+1@Galaxees Marvelous job for a first-timer! That said.... here's Tom's Ungrateful Nitpicking Time™: the main gears are a bit too far back (and a tad bit too small), and the engine nozzle looks a bit small for a fourth-gen - especially a fighter meant for insane speeds. More speed means more drag, and more drag means more thrust would be needed - ergo, larger engine cross section.
+1My suggestion, as usual, would be to make a quick sketch on the aesthetics of any original project beforehand and see where different parts should go and how well they would fit with each other.
@LunarEclipseSP
What galleon?
+1Welcome back pal!
+1Congrats!
+1b a b y j u g
+1@Sadboye12 The clip-based cannon, as promised. I will try to write an educational post about how to make them later.
+1@Karzigg Yeah, it does give off the same vibes as a (partially) refitted super dreadnought/early fast battleship like the BritishR-class or the Japanese Nagato-class with casement guns and range clocks and whatnot... while also sporting seaplane catapults and late interwar gun directors/optics... that somehow featured no fire control radars whatsoever.
+1@XtarsAgency
... and here I thought it's the concept that counts?
+1If you want to use a gun-based system, just use 13 miniguns, all with xml'ed
bulletScale,muzzleVelocity,tracerColor,damage,lifetimeand whatnot, just remember to keeptimeBetweenBurststhe same for all guns andburstCountto1..
..
... That said, I myself would probably use a more complex system involving cannon-based intervalometers and detacher/pylon based launchers to lob bombs and rockets on various trajectories to better stimulate the line of explosions.
@Kendog84
Okay... how to explain...
+1First, my entire experiment is about "how to make sure the stored value only change when I want it to, nothing more and nothing less", and to be perfectly honest, if you just want something to not change after the first input then a simple
if-elsefunction works a lot better.And second, what
repeat(a, b)does... is to divideabyband give out the remainder of the division as the output. I first saw the function being used by @Soldier289 on the IJN Kongō, in which the turrets used such a function to never travel beyond the hardstops while remaining unerringly controllable with just pitch and yaw inputs.So if you mean "can I simply set the
ain therepeat(a, b)function to some arbitrarily large number and call it a day", the answer is "why should you", but if you mean "can theaget too large for the game to register anymore", I guess so? Although I'd assume the game would bug/lag out or the numbers would loop back to negative by then.@Kendog84 Thanks!
+1@Sadboye12 Who's "we"?
+1Also, keep in mind that cannons can never truely "fire together" per se as there's always a delay between shots, no matter how minor, and if one gun's damaged/jammed the firing sequence would not adjust for the missing gun. However, if you meant "wing guns and miniguns" then... @AtlasAviation has been doing that "combined trace" for a few years now with just miniguns, no coding required. I'm currently working on a clip/mag fed cannon that can only start reloading after the entire "clip" was fired, though.
@Gabriel747
... and I've yet to understand how I even managed to reach gold.
+1@Kendog84
And so are missiles and straight-run torps. I've made a cluster bomb a few years back with that principle... and promptly deleted it after realizing how laggy the build is - daisychained detachers and modified weight result in floppy builds.
+1@Kendog84
About 50ft or 15 meters.
+1Fallout Stingray, anyone?
+1@MANYU19 No? I haven't really grasped the method to build high-quality ships - plus, I don't build replicas.
+1Radial P-38, right?
+1Nice as always! And good to see ya again.
+1Congrats for silver my friend!
+1The (fictional) British version of the FJ-1 Fury, I'm assuming?
+1h o o p
+1@Weisbrich Not really talking about how the design would affect people, more like the general serviceability of the plane and how reliable the design would be - the gearbox and fairing arrangement on this plane probably made it that lil' bit harder to service, while having two engines mated to the same driveshaft instead of, ya know, having an actual flat-12 engine (or whatever the actual number of cylinders the plane ended up with) there just meant more camshafts and oil pumps and whatnot to deal with. Most planes with contra-rotating props don't have different engines powering the different props, afterall: if one engine fails the dead prop instantaneously becomes dead weight - and it's harder to synchronize two engines to run at exactly the same RPM than just using a gearbox to make sure the two props turn at the same rate.
+1.
..
... and sorry for over-analyzing things - especially on someone else's very first plane. Just take it as the autistic rambling of the resident aspie, pay no heed.
@LonelyAustrianUhlan The nose and the windshield looks pretty Douglas-ish to me... perhaps it's just me then.
+1f l o o f y b i r b
+1i'm loenin' it
+1F i R s T
+1You'll know a design have issues when it makes the F-35 look serviceable...
+1c y b e r t o n k
+1@Grob0s0VBRa ... and here I thought it looked closer to a BattleMech.
+1Hell, the size meant it's probably a ProtoMech, and the 2 × A/C2 loadout checks out.
ZOGGIN' BOOTIFUL, BOSS!
+1@EasternPatrick Thanks. I'll try to incorporate that into my next upload.
+1Quick question: how did you manage to upload three screenshots from an Android platform?
+1Holy. Hell.
+1@IceCraftGaming Whom?
+1@IceCraftGaming Thanks!
+1
+1ZOGGIN BOOTIFUL, BOSS!@OPaiTaOn
Yeah, the Gsh-2-23 don't have flash hiders and are way smaller than the ones shown in the GIF.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryPorn/comments/3hps61/gsh302fire400x225_gif/
https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryGfys/comments/33p5if/mi24pfiringitsimpressivefixed_gryazevshipunov/
https://youtu.be/7fX3t5bg7N4
+1Tom here, patiently waiting for Meko's return.
+1@Kendog84 See that "puff" of fire? That's the "explody" part. It somehow functions differently than when the shell is set to "explosive", but it does still have a small blast radius and can still unravel planes. That said, given the whole "unraveling" process is caused by a part receiving too much damage instead of any inherent process...
+1@Kendog84 What I have also seen is that sometime rockets/bombs/torps/missiles would not damage something it could clearly destroy if that thing was formerly separated from a cockpit. Say, My first bomb destroyed a target and the target's parts (checked to have 100 health) are scattered on the ground. When I drop my bombs again on the scattered parts sometimes literally nothing happened. Does the broken chain also prevent a part from being damaged by explosions?
+1@Kendog84 Say, this for example, if your weapons hit the parts on a roatator, the rotator would snap but the remaining parts would be fine.
+1@11qazxc Guns have a distinctive issue of "shooting at ghosts", aka for (quite) a few frames a block you've already destroyed would still absorb the shots.
+1@Kendog84 The thing is... from what I've seen from gun tests, say we have a
+1cockpit - wing - wingchain or acockpit - block - blockchain, and the second the end of the chain gets destroyed/blows up (which seems to have its own AOE effect) it would sometimes detonate the surrounding parts until it reaches the cockpit. My personal creations usually have locked rotators (range of motion = 0, speed = floppy) to break up the chain.@Kendog84 From what I got, no it doesn't. Cannon shells and (older, non-cleaver) missiles are probably coded the same way, and so does the Cleaver and bombs.
+1explosiveScalaris the sole determining factor of the damaging effect, while the size of the bomb only determines the visual effects. On rockets... I don't think either the visual effects or the damage effects can be changed.