@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.
These are the only insights I've managed to gain from this whole "explosive shell" thing, so... not much. Hell, the only rule-of-thumb I've got is that if a bomb/rocket/missile/shell detonates inside a block the whole thing disintegrates... without much understanding on the "proper" damage models. There's a reason I'm pretty much the foremost researcher in bullet-type weapons - no one else can be bothered to do much research on them once they managed to get those sweet high-explosives flying.
@SimplePilot28465 Well, self-sealing tanks are indeed useful at absorbing machine gun bullets (especially for the smaller calibers), but much less useful when the enemies start using high-caliber shells. As for the survivability of a pusher aircraft... as long as the plane is properly armored at the cockpit and engines it should be okay, given the Il-2 used a water-cooled engine protected by heavy armor and was known to be extremely hard to take down with anti-aircraft guns of the era. Still, the biggest issue about all pusher aircrafts is the fact that the propeller would be in the way if the pilot ever need to parachute out of the plane, necessitating the use of ejection seats, which would still be a relatively new and unproven technology back in WWII.
.
..
... and sorry for rambling.
@SimplePilot28465
Also, "tough" and "indestructible" are two very different things IRL. Just because something can survive an incredible amount of damage (the Il-2, the P-47, or the A-10, for example) doesn't mean the designers don't need to make contingencies for the inevitability that someone got lucky and managed to hit something important. Its push-prop configuration would have probably helped its survivability against groundfire or head-on attacks, but I highly doubt a pusher plane would survive long against attacks from behind, the engine in the direct line of fire and all.
@ZanliV2 Yeah... This page is probably long overdue for a rewrite and I really should've added screenshots to clarify a lot of the things here.
But basically as a rundown... if you want an air-to-ground missile with no lock time, take a detacher, connect the small "detach" side to a pylon, grab a rocket/bomb/torp/cannon/what-have-you and connect it to something on one of the "sticky" sides, name it something you like, set the AG to "Disabled" or "-1" or something of that nature to prevent it from activating, then attach an air-to-surface missile to the other "sticky" side of the detacher, name it the same thing you gave to the first weapon, and you're set. If you want to make missile pods or something as a subassembly, you can just grab a fuselage piece, name and deactivate the first (unguided) weapon, connect it to the aforementioned fuselage, and then load up as many missiles with the same name as the first weapon as you like. As long as both the deactivated first weapon and the missiles are both mirrored at the same time it's mirror-friendly as well.
@Sadboye12 Well, when a detacher and a missile loves each other very, very much... and given who I am, the gun would most likely be fired with an AG and have the target acquired by a specially modified missile... as seen on the proof-of-concept prototype here.
Now if I launch a dormant missile at high speeds using a detacher and only ignite it after both a lock is acquired and a specific amount of time has passed... Bam! Instant guided artillery.
.
..
... That, or simply make the missiles not require a lock using this method...
@Sadboye12 Thanks for your kind words my friend! Sorry this design ultimately went nowhere and got stuck in the pipelines - might as well try to revive it one day as well. Thanks to my collabs with @Gx (rest in peace, may his weary spirit be finally allowed rest and the powers that be forever watch over his immortal soul) I think I've managed to get most of the critical components (missile arrays and terminally-guided railgun shells, to be specific) done, so once I get the new aesthetics and lore done (which is to say "somewhere in my next reincarnation"-grade far away) I will get it right this time.
@Sadboye12 So... whichever company/design bureau your high-tech gadgets came form in-universe really ain't big on making civvie stuff, eh? And also, "Tier-1 wheeled vehicle that will be relatively similar to a car"... we're portée-bly getting a bit too technical here, aren't we?
.
..
... and sorry for the dad jokes. Along with being a compulsory upvoter and upvote-appreciator, I seem to be a compulsory bad pun maker as well...
@Sadboye12 Also, any plans on bringing back the Velocée (did I spell the name of that fancy cyberpunk sports car correctly?) That car was like the only sci-fi car I've seen on this site with integrated grav generators to keep it driving on surfaces that should never be driven on...
.
..
... Correction: the name of the car is "Velóce".
@Sadboye12 And you as well my friend. I'll keep my eyes peeled if you ever remaster one of your many gorgeous creations.
.
..
... and please bring back the Valiant MBT.
@Sadboye12 Well, as I have said, I'm just that weird kid who pays attention to details that nobody really cares about while taking zero heed in things everyone else do have an interest in, so people not understanding why my planes have very specific damage models and health points is quite forgivable. Also, wingtip beacon lights are a pain in the arse: if you notice the plane being ever so slightly off-center, I'm pretty sure it have something to do with the nudged lights there - the off-center issue's gone the second I removed the lights, eitherway.
@Sadboye12 Well... there * was * that twin-engine bomber I've made (and deleted) two years back with the same damage model... And well, given the framework of that design was literally older than my account, I'm not sure if I can save that thing even if I wanted to: for some reason bugs and file corruption just seem to creep up wherever I'm not looking, ultimately ending up with connection points that fail for no good reason and two mutually symmetrical pieces having different drag points. Still, that plane was fun while it lasted - learned a lot about dogfight there, too. Perhaps one day, just perhaps, I'll remaster some of my old designs - rebuild them from ground up, make them realistic-looking using new techniques granted by fuselage slicing and glass parts, the whole nine yards.
... just wait until you see the small bombs opening up and dropping even smaller bombs!
+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.@Kendog84 Thanks!
+1These are the only insights I've managed to gain from this whole "explosive shell" thing, so... not much. Hell, the only rule-of-thumb I've got is that if a bomb/rocket/missile/shell detonates inside a block the whole thing disintegrates... without much understanding on the "proper" damage models. There's a reason I'm pretty much the foremost researcher in bullet-type weapons - no one else can be bothered to do much research on them once they managed to get those sweet high-explosives flying.
+1@SimplePilot28465 Well, self-sealing tanks are indeed useful at absorbing machine gun bullets (especially for the smaller calibers), but much less useful when the enemies start using high-caliber shells. As for the survivability of a pusher aircraft... as long as the plane is properly armored at the cockpit and engines it should be okay, given the Il-2 used a water-cooled engine protected by heavy armor and was known to be extremely hard to take down with anti-aircraft guns of the era. Still, the biggest issue about all pusher aircrafts is the fact that the propeller would be in the way if the pilot ever need to parachute out of the plane, necessitating the use of ejection seats, which would still be a relatively new and unproven technology back in WWII.
+1.
..
... and sorry for rambling.
@SimplePilot28465
+1Also, "tough" and "indestructible" are two very different things IRL. Just because something can survive an incredible amount of damage (the Il-2, the P-47, or the A-10, for example) doesn't mean the designers don't need to make contingencies for the inevitability that someone got lucky and managed to hit something important. Its push-prop configuration would have probably helped its survivability against groundfire or head-on attacks, but I highly doubt a pusher plane would survive long against attacks from behind, the engine in the direct line of fire and all.
I thought unguided missiles are called "rockets"? Also, let's sincerely hope the plane have ejection seats if the plane's ever shot down...
+1@Kendog84 Thanks!
+1@SimplePilot28465 You're in ninth grade? Bro you're awesome! Keep up the good work matey!
+1@Bryan5 What is the current mass of the build? Aside from the use of structural wings, it's likely that having higher mass would help as well.
+1Tom here, waiting to see this masterpiece.
+1@ZanliV2 Good to know. Best of luck on your ventures and good hunting.
+1@ZanliV2 Yeah... This page is probably long overdue for a rewrite and I really should've added screenshots to clarify a lot of the things here.
+1But basically as a rundown... if you want an air-to-ground missile with no lock time, take a detacher, connect the small "detach" side to a pylon, grab a rocket/bomb/torp/cannon/what-have-you and connect it to something on one of the "sticky" sides, name it something you like, set the AG to "Disabled" or "-1" or something of that nature to prevent it from activating, then attach an air-to-surface missile to the other "sticky" side of the detacher, name it the same thing you gave to the first weapon, and you're set. If you want to make missile pods or something as a subassembly, you can just grab a fuselage piece, name and deactivate the first (unguided) weapon, connect it to the aforementioned fuselage, and then load up as many missiles with the same name as the first weapon as you like. As long as both the deactivated first weapon and the missiles are both mirrored at the same time it's mirror-friendly as well.
b a n a n a
+1@Sadboye12 Well, when a detacher and a missile loves each other very, very much... and given who I am, the gun would most likely be fired with an AG and have the target acquired by a specially modified missile... as seen on the proof-of-concept prototype here.
+1Now if I launch a dormant missile at high speeds using a detacher and only ignite it after both a lock is acquired and a specific amount of time has passed... Bam! Instant guided artillery.
.
..
... That, or simply make the missiles not require a lock using this method...
@Sadboye12 Thanks for your kind words my friend! Sorry this design ultimately went nowhere and got stuck in the pipelines - might as well try to revive it one day as well. Thanks to my collabs with @Gx (rest in peace, may his weary spirit be finally allowed rest and the powers that be forever watch over his immortal soul) I think I've managed to get most of the critical components (missile arrays and terminally-guided railgun shells, to be specific) done, so once I get the new aesthetics and lore done (which is to say "somewhere in my next reincarnation"-grade far away) I will get it right this time.
+1@Sadboye12 So... whichever company/design bureau your high-tech gadgets came form in-universe really ain't big on making civvie stuff, eh? And also, "Tier-1 wheeled vehicle that will be relatively similar to a car"... we're portée-bly getting a bit too technical here, aren't we?
+1.
..
... and sorry for the dad jokes. Along with being a compulsory upvoter and upvote-appreciator, I seem to be a compulsory bad pun maker as well...
@Sadboye12 Thanks!
+1@Sadboye12 Thanks!
+1@Sadboye12 Thanks!
+1@Sadboye12 Also, any plans on bringing back the Velocée (did I spell the name of that fancy cyberpunk sports car correctly?) That car was like the only sci-fi car I've seen on this site with integrated grav generators to keep it driving on surfaces that should never be driven on...
+1.
..
... Correction: the name of the car is "Velóce".
@Sadboye12 Thanks!
+1@Sadboye12 And you as well my friend. I'll keep my eyes peeled if you ever remaster one of your many gorgeous creations.
+1.
..
... and please bring back the Valiant MBT.
@Sadboye12 Well, as I have said, I'm just that weird kid who pays attention to details that nobody really cares about while taking zero heed in things everyone else do have an interest in, so people not understanding why my planes have very specific damage models and health points is quite forgivable. Also, wingtip beacon lights are a pain in the arse: if you notice the plane being ever so slightly off-center, I'm pretty sure it have something to do with the nudged lights there - the off-center issue's gone the second I removed the lights, eitherway.
+1@Sadboye12 Well... there * was * that twin-engine bomber I've made (and deleted) two years back with the same damage model... And well, given the framework of that design was literally older than my account, I'm not sure if I can save that thing even if I wanted to: for some reason bugs and file corruption just seem to creep up wherever I'm not looking, ultimately ending up with connection points that fail for no good reason and two mutually symmetrical pieces having different drag points. Still, that plane was fun while it lasted - learned a lot about dogfight there, too. Perhaps one day, just perhaps, I'll remaster some of my old designs - rebuild them from ground up, make them realistic-looking using new techniques granted by fuselage slicing and glass parts, the whole nine yards.
+1