@Graingy Kek. Although here I thought the Yanks had it worse back during the years HMS Agamemnon was active? IIRC the Brits were pretty unionized during the 1910s and 1920s, the Yanks - especially the miners - not so much.
FDR have the right idea on how to run a state, shame about the state of affairs after Richard Nixon though.
@V Cannons. Whereas projectileLifetime is a fixed value, fuseInput supports funky trees and alows for timed detonation - something invaluable for making flak guns.
@TheAviator77
They detect missile lock alright - and that's why I said such a weapon might be pointless in the first place! The difference, though, is that IIRC the target only detect missile lock after the missile ignites, and you don't need to worry about actually "locking" onto the target as the missile automatically counts as locked.
The only way to make a truly undetectable missile in SP is through tons upon tons of FT-based XML'ing - something I have problems doing myself due to both hardware (phone is already as crispy as-is, laptop cannot funky tree) and personal skill (read: me dumb) issues.
@RamboJutter
First thing first, a Mustang isn't a British design either - it's an American one that just happen to function better with British engines than their homegrown counterparts. Plus, a P-51 fin flares out at its base at the leading edge, while the Halocene's flares out at the trailing edge... and TBPH the Supermarine Attacker looks much closer to a British-built "jet P-51".
.
Plus, a trapezoidal fin (or a triangular tailplane) does not as readily identify an airframe's lineage (especially because the Ju 287 had a very similar fin) as the shape of its engine nacelles and the canopy - and both are all German.
.
Seriously, this plane is a dead ringer for the Junkers/OKB-1 EF-131 sans the third pair of engines (preemptive apologies for not being able to find a good English source), which, given that IRL British post-war designs usually take a drastically different approach with a cylindrical cross-section, cigar-shaped outline, sharp nose, bubble canopy, and trapezoidal wings (see: de Havilland Vampire, Gloster Meteor, EE Canberra, Hawker Sea Hawk, and the aforementioned Supermarine Attacker; incidentally the Canberra looks like an overgrown Meteor) compared to their WWII counterparts, still look really out of place.
.
..
... and sorry for hogging the channel.
TL;DR: Incorporating elements from captured enemy planes is all well and fine, but a British designer building something without any British features but rather a mish-mash of Junkers, Heinkel, and Arado would probably be a bit out of place.
Beautiful as always! ... although... why does a supposedly British design have a Junkers' cockpit and an Arado's engine arrangement? Did RJ Ltd. collab with those two aircraft manufacturers after German surrender?
@SILVERPANZER
...Does Cylindrical count? I splitted the TargetDistance and TargetElevation into Target_phi, Target_rho, and Target_z, and solved the rest with simpler trigonometry. Turrets are pretty polar by nature (traverse based on azimuth angle Phi, elevation based on either the complement of the polar angle Theta or the axial coordinate Z), so it's only natural for Polar systems to require less calculation than Cartesian when it comes to computing firing solutions.
.
Of course, I know, that polar might not work nearly as nicely with the rotation matrix compared to Cartesian, and any polar coordinate system with the Z-axis not pointing straight up will absolutely *NOT* work with projectile motion which cannons rely upon. But still, for what it's worth, polar coordinates does allow much simpler calculation within its niche - and guess what? Naval CIWS (and land-based C-RAM emplacements) just happen to fall into that narrow purview. Plus, I can always use a dedicated "fire director" actually controlled by Cartesian coordinates and then translate those two particular outputs into the Cylindrical coordinates my other turrets use, so once again, the codes are designed within a specific niche for that specific niche, and it has, so far, worked flawlessly within that niche.
@MonarchiiwithastolenMG
NVM then. I thought I've seen a setup w/ localized FCs somewhere, probably one of PlanariaLab's or hpgbproductions' deleted posts on a second thought...
@Mousewithamachinegun122
I mean, @Gs is alive, the person behind @Gx is dead, the Gx account is under @ZoaMiki's control, and ZoaMiki is also no longer posting.
@Mousewithamachinegun122
COVID happened, project handed to Zoa;
Zoa lost heart, project handed to me;
My phone's a potato and my computer's worse, testing and screenshots handed to Gs.
.
..
... and thus, somehow, Gs became the one uploading it.
I'Z 'ERE 'FORE DAT MOUSEY! WAAAAGGGHHH! ! !
+4@LunarEclipseSP
+2Freefoot? Frogfighter?
Nose of a frog, tail of a tiger, F r u g f i t e.
S T Ü R M T O O G E R
Looks like a twin-tailed B-32... or a pressurized B-24.
@Graingy Kek. Although here I thought the Yanks had it worse back during the years HMS Agamemnon was active? IIRC the Brits were pretty unionized during the 1910s and 1920s, the Yanks - especially the miners - not so much.
FDR have the right idea on how to run a state, shame about the state of affairs after Richard Nixon though.
@Graingy
+1🎵 This was the charter, the charter of the laaaaand! 🎶
🎵 Britons never ever ever shall be slaves! 🎶
Is this... the ol' Monarchii with Iowa's 1980s modernization?
+2f r u g f u t
+2... where did you get the GIF...
+2I'Z 'ERE FOIST! VROOM VROOM! ! WAAAGGGHHH! ! !
I'm here!
+2@AluminiumFX No worries, drywall isn't normally made out of aluminum anyways....
+2@upperflat Thanks!
f r u g
@UseGooglePlay Thanks!
+1Which maps did you use for the two screenshots?
OI! I'Z 'ERE FOIST! ! WAAAGGGHHH! ! !
+1@UseGooglePlay Thanks for the upvotes!
@V Sorry, wrong guy.
Thanks anyways for keeping the XML sheet up and running either way.
@SKLV95 Thanks!
@TheMouse Thanks!
@V Cannons. Whereas projectileLifetime is a fixed value, fuseInput supports funky trees and alows for timed detonation - something invaluable for making flak guns.
@V You missed
fuseInputNorrköping-class?
Based on the shape.... a scaled-down Panzer IV but the size of a Panzer II Luchs?
... is your reflections on?
@TheAviator77
They detect missile lock alright - and that's why I said such a weapon might be pointless in the first place! The difference, though, is that IIRC the target only detect missile lock after the missile ignites, and you don't need to worry about actually "locking" onto the target as the missile automatically counts as locked.
The only way to make a truly undetectable missile in SP is through tons upon tons of FT-based XML'ing - something I have problems doing myself due to both hardware (phone is already as crispy as-is, laptop cannot funky tree) and personal skill (read: me dumb) issues.
Oh gods... are those... are those what I think they are?
+1Nonononononodontopenitnononono....
S Q U I D
+1@RamboJutter
First thing first, a Mustang isn't a British design either - it's an American one that just happen to function better with British engines than their homegrown counterparts. Plus, a P-51 fin flares out at its base at the leading edge, while the Halocene's flares out at the trailing edge... and TBPH the Supermarine Attacker looks much closer to a British-built "jet P-51".
.
Plus, a trapezoidal fin (or a triangular tailplane) does not as readily identify an airframe's lineage (especially because the Ju 287 had a very similar fin) as the shape of its engine nacelles and the canopy - and both are all German.
.
Seriously, this plane is a dead ringer for the Junkers/OKB-1 EF-131 sans the third pair of engines (preemptive apologies for not being able to find a good English source), which, given that IRL British post-war designs usually take a drastically different approach with a cylindrical cross-section, cigar-shaped outline, sharp nose, bubble canopy, and trapezoidal wings (see: de Havilland Vampire, Gloster Meteor, EE Canberra, Hawker Sea Hawk, and the aforementioned Supermarine Attacker; incidentally the Canberra looks like an overgrown Meteor) compared to their WWII counterparts, still look really out of place.
.
..
... and sorry for hogging the channel.
@RichardScepton @SenSkysh
Here is my personal backup of table 1.
To make sure the table would not get damaged again through either accident or vandalism, the sheet is protected this time.
@Hahahahaahahshs
True, presumably just like how the XP-72 was a P-47 Jug with elements from captured Fw-190s, and the the F-86 Sabre was a jet-powered P-51D Mustang (aka the FJ-1 Fury) with thing wings of an Me 262, the OG Halocene B1 9.8 was probably a Mossie with a lot of elements from captured Ju 287 and Ju 288s... then the Halocene A2 11.6 variant incorporated some elements from both an He 219 and a B-26, and now apparently an Arado Ar 234C as well...
TL;DR: Incorporating elements from captured enemy planes is all well and fine, but a British designer building something without any British features but rather a mish-mash of Junkers, Heinkel, and Arado would probably be a bit out of place.
Where did the original biplane go?
Beautiful as always! ... although... why does a supposedly British design have a Junkers' cockpit and an Arado's engine arrangement? Did RJ Ltd. collab with those two aircraft manufacturers after German surrender?
Pantsir?
@SILVERPANZER
+1...Does Cylindrical count? I splitted the
TargetDistanceandTargetElevationintoTarget_phi,Target_rho, andTarget_z, and solved the rest with simpler trigonometry. Turrets are pretty polar by nature (traverse based on azimuth anglePhi, elevation based on either the complement of the polar angleThetaor the axial coordinateZ), so it's only natural for Polar systems to require less calculation than Cartesian when it comes to computing firing solutions..
Of course, I know, that polar might not work nearly as nicely with the rotation matrix compared to Cartesian, and any polar coordinate system with the Z-axis not pointing straight up will absolutely *NOT* work with projectile motion which cannons rely upon. But still, for what it's worth, polar coordinates does allow much simpler calculation within its niche - and guess what? Naval CIWS (and land-based C-RAM emplacements) just happen to fall into that narrow purview. Plus, I can always use a dedicated "fire director" actually controlled by Cartesian coordinates and then translate those two particular outputs into the Cylindrical coordinates my other turrets use, so once again, the codes are designed within a specific niche for that specific niche, and it has, so far, worked flawlessly within that niche.
Chii's catapults, eh?
+1f i d d l e r j e t
+1J E T S T U K A
+1Wright Flyer but on super-steroids, eh?
+1@MonarchiiwithastolenMG
NVM then. I thought I've seen a setup w/ localized FCs somewhere, probably one of PlanariaLab's or hpgbproductions' deleted posts on a second thought...
@MonarchiiwithastolenMG
Ever heard of localized Fire Control systems? (aka use inputs from flight computers located right in the middle of the turret)
Also, that's why I'm using wing guns for my turrets, XML-ed bullet sizes work just as nicely as far as proximity-fused autocannons goes.
+1Or just an accurate enough turret with high enough damage; or a weapon with a good enough proximity fuse. Or both.
+1@Mousewithamachinegun122
I mean, @Gs is alive, the person behind @Gx is dead, the Gx account is under @ZoaMiki's control, and ZoaMiki is also no longer posting.
@Mousewithamachinegun122
+1Hopefully still alive and active?
@Mousewithamachinegun122
+1COVID happened, project handed to Zoa;
Zoa lost heart, project handed to me;
My phone's a potato and my computer's worse, testing and screenshots handed to Gs.
.
..
... and thus, somehow, Gs became the one uploading it.
S H O R K
+1I'Z DA FOIST! ! WAAAAAAGGGHHH! ! !
+1@Graingy
+1Yeah, chose that picture specifically because I'm constantly behaving like an old grouch even though I'm actually Gen Z by birth....
@Graingy @Gs
I'm right 'ere, y'know!