@LTHank
Unfortunately they won't come anytime soon, as I had mistakenly deleted my SimplePlanes data and will have to redo the changes made, which likely is going to take a bit of time.
I'm sorry to dissapoint.
@deutschFELLA
for the records
this is not miku
there is a distinction between miku and fubuki, please do not group them into the same category (out of respect)
@PhantomBoltSP
I will not automatically tag you in future builds. I don't do that.
If you want to be notified, leave a notice on the Teaser posts continuing forward. A simple "T" will notify you.
give it a break, this game's practically 10 years old, it's physics engine is bound to be outdated
like bacon said, this game's just kinda like this and if you want to build something, you'll have to find a way to work with SP, not force SP to work with you
the correct terminology for this isn't EOTS, it's Off-Boresight, or alternatively HMCS (Helmet Mounted Cueing System/Sight).
EOTS, short for Electro-Optical Targeting System is a system that basically functions as like a radar, but instead of relying on radar waves, they're reliant on Optical Sensors, like cameras of various sorts. The most common examples being IRST and TV Cameras.
also there's a better way to do this than having to sacrifice the 1st cockpit part, so your instruments don't have to fumble around, but it does require a bit more technicality and complicated funky trees.
the way you do it is almost the same way as you do in this tutorial, but replace the 1st cockpit part with the 2nd cockpit part, and copy-paste the same TGT_POS_Local variables on PlanariaLab's 1 Part Hud, with slightly changed content on the code, and then use that variable to essentially activate and deactivate a missile's activation group. You can find it on a couple of people's builds including, though I doubt limited to my T/F-44B, and PUMPKINSIDD's J-36.
I don't want to bother typing out the entire tutorial here, so if you want to learn how you can probably go ahead and ask me on Discord, it's where I'm most active in.
@Kikikokikomarumaru15000
thanks, but I've found a better console command and I've been using it ever since
and, no, there can be only so much jetfuel sniffing creature in one community that the rest refuses to delve into because they've got other people to do it
@TheCommentaryGuy
if we're going there, I might as well say that the whole landing gear assembly is innacurate
but I won't, landing gears are a pain in the arse to figure out anyway and it's like a really slight oversight so I won't bother to mention it
I'm doing this again
buh (I'm sorry in advance)
intake doesn't appear to be moveable
no camber, understandably
the antennae on top of the vertical stabilizer is supposed to not be symmetrical on the mudhen, with the right one being the smaller one
missing an antenna on the right side of the elevator mount (minute detail, understandable)
the LANTIRN pod has an incomplete set
while the AN/AAQ-14 is present, the AN/AAQ-13 isn't
engine looks a bit too spaced out, is it just me?
regardless, tis' epiq
if I may, I'm going to add a little bit of input on details you may have missed for the F-15J, just because I'm a little goober that can't go a little away without the urge to judge the accuracy of an f15 modelling so uh, I'm sorry in advance
the F-15J had a symmetrical antenna on both of the tail, this one didn't (understandably so)
no wing camber but understandable
front antenna close to the radome actually needed to be taller
bit of a wrong nozzle model but good lord I can understand why you wouldn't want to model it
otherwise this aircraft is very epique this one actually made me realize the protrusion at the back of the F-15 was actually longer for the J than the C
One issue I particularly have over mirroring is connections. When a part is mirrored, it sets it's connections to Auto-Reconnect. But oddly enough, if you just attach the part and nudge it away then mirror it, it stays connected to the same part.
It feels incredibly inconsistent, and completely frustrating.
@RB107
I was trying to figure out whether you mean example of a song, or an artist but eh I suppose I thought too much about it
as @froge said, the artist is Yon. YonKaGor is his full username. My most favorite example of his song is one called "Linger in the Rain", his latest single. Take a listen to it, it's pretty good.
got question, do mobile players get a chance?
I'm not expecting it, but it would be nice for mobile players to have a bit of look at how the game would perform.
@RestlessGalaxies
see, past me would love a challenge like this
but the me right now can't last more than a week continuing to grind an sp build, especially with how much expectation I build upon myself, but remind me of this challenge when it's out, in case I'm interested.
make the track by yourself. including the suspension, roadwheels, idlers, and the track itself.
though this does require a lot of effort and understanding of the game's physics. potentially a lot of your device's processing power.
I personally wouldn't bother, so I'd just put a lot of wheels on the vehicle.
After the whole ordeal of trying to make this godforsaken MBT work, and finally uploading it to the website, I took a pretty long break. And came back today to try finishing the SPAA I had made from the same hull a while back.
One of the inspirations, well, more like the whole inspiration was from the Type 87, so yeah.
@MartennLockkenn
Thanks for understanding.
I'm sorry if I sounded so arrogant, I can be such a person if I didn't try to control my own emotions. Though your input is very appreciated and will likely be considered.
@MartennLockkenn
I didn't really have any problems with making a custom-built track, I've seen how people do it and I originally thought that I could do my own spin of it.
I couldn't bother with the thought of dealing with too many parts. And no, I do not like using stretched tire parts, so I had to compensate.
While I'm at it, I'm going to touch up on your "improvement", a bit. I'm having a minor superiority issue, so bear with me on this one. Or even just outright ignore it.
There's a couple of reasons why I didn't do the things that you've mentioned in your improvements. First, armor.
This is a largely German based armor vehicle, and germany isn't known for using ERAs. This is ultimately my own preference, but I don't like putting ERAs on my own tank. It looks dirtier on 2nd generations since they weren't initially built with ERAs in mind (duh).
Second, engine input. There's a reason why I did it, and that is to both accomodate for mobile and PC play. Though I'm aware that some mobile players do play with Pitch+Roll on ground vehicles, sometimes one or two person like me will use Throttle+Yaw. So I made it with that in mind.
Third, weight. I wanted this vehicle to be as accurate as possible and I'm aware that it causes issues with SP's physics, mainly with the tires. I found a workaround of this by just increasing the mass of the tires and working around the traction value. I also artificially boosted it to 400% because I wanted it to have more traction to simulate it being a tank track, though that ultimately failed. Was it necessary for SP? No. Was it necessary for accuracy? Yeah.
@LTHank
Mention it in the Teaser forum.
@LTHank
Unfortunately they won't come anytime soon, as I had mistakenly deleted my SimplePlanes data and will have to redo the changes made, which likely is going to take a bit of time.
I'm sorry to dissapoint.
@deutschFELLA
+3for the records
this is not miku
there is a distinction between miku and fubuki, please do not group them into the same category (out of respect)
@PhantomBoltSP
I will not automatically tag you in future builds. I don't do that.
If you want to be notified, leave a notice on the Teaser posts continuing forward. A simple "T" will notify you.
@SuperSuperTheSylph
+1@froge
give it a break, this game's practically 10 years old, it's physics engine is bound to be outdated
like bacon said, this game's just kinda like this and if you want to build something, you'll have to find a way to work with SP, not force SP to work with you
the correct terminology for this isn't EOTS, it's Off-Boresight, or alternatively HMCS (Helmet Mounted Cueing System/Sight).
+11EOTS, short for Electro-Optical Targeting System is a system that basically functions as like a radar, but instead of relying on radar waves, they're reliant on Optical Sensors, like cameras of various sorts. The most common examples being IRST and TV Cameras.
also there's a better way to do this than having to sacrifice the 1st cockpit part, so your instruments don't have to fumble around, but it does require a bit more technicality and complicated funky trees.
the way you do it is almost the same way as you do in this tutorial, but replace the 1st cockpit part with the 2nd cockpit part, and copy-paste the same
TGT_POS_Localvariables on PlanariaLab's 1 Part Hud, with slightly changed content on the code, and then use that variable to essentially activate and deactivate a missile's activation group. You can find it on a couple of people's builds including, though I doubt limited to my T/F-44B, and PUMPKINSIDD's J-36.I don't want to bother typing out the entire tutorial here, so if you want to learn how you can probably go ahead and ask me on Discord, it's where I'm most active in.
@Kikikokikomarumaru15000
>>guiscript.set_uienabled true | falseit works perfectly
@Kikikokikomarumaru15000
thanks, but I've found a better console command and I've been using it ever since
and, no, there can be only so much jetfuel sniffing creature in one community that the rest refuses to delve into because they've got other people to do it
peak
+1ap deflector? let's see how you deflect this tungsten 105 subcaliber round
@TheCommentaryGuy
+1if we're going there, I might as well say that the whole landing gear assembly is innacurate
but I won't, landing gears are a pain in the arse to figure out anyway and it's like a really slight oversight so I won't bother to mention it
@PUMPKINSIDD
noooo
I'm doing this again
buh (I'm sorry in advance)
intake doesn't appear to be moveable
no camber, understandably
the antennae on top of the vertical stabilizer is supposed to not be symmetrical on the mudhen, with the right one being the smaller one
missing an antenna on the right side of the elevator mount (minute detail, understandable)
the LANTIRN pod has an incomplete set
while the AN/AAQ-14 is present, the AN/AAQ-13 isn't
engine looks a bit too spaced out, is it just me?
regardless, tis' epiq
@PUMPKINSIDD
wah?
@PaperPlaneHasDream
I'm here to yap
also I'm not sure about the longer protrusion thing, I'll look more into it later I suppose
if I may, I'm going to add a little bit of input on details you may have missed for the F-15J, just because I'm a little goober that can't go a little away without the urge to judge the accuracy of an f15 modelling so uh, I'm sorry in advance
+1the F-15J had a symmetrical antenna on both of the tail, this one didn't (understandably so)
no wing camber but understandable
front antenna close to the radome actually needed to be taller
bit of a wrong nozzle model but good lord I can understand why you wouldn't want to model it
otherwise this aircraft is very epique
this one actually made me realize the protrusion at the back of the F-15 was actually longer for the J than the C
@dabestsock
looks like someone didn't pay attention to the description.
@dabestsock
how dare what
@Object775blyat
I don't remember myself.
One issue I particularly have over mirroring is connections. When a part is mirrored, it sets it's connections to Auto-Reconnect. But oddly enough, if you just attach the part and nudge it away then mirror it, it stays connected to the same part.
+2It feels incredibly inconsistent, and completely frustrating.
–non-aircraft is allowed
+2–but has to make it flyable
in other words, has to be an aircraft.
@IMCI
+1dm gw, kirim link invit di dm gw.
@RB107
I was trying to figure out whether you mean example of a song, or an artist but eh I suppose I thought too much about it
as @froge said, the artist is Yon. YonKaGor is his full username. My most favorite example of his song is one called "Linger in the Rain", his latest single. Take a listen to it, it's pretty good.
@RB107
what example?
@IMCI
+1beuh
punya discord kg? gw males suruh nyebarin nomor disini
mostly jpop and a rather obscure Indonesian artist
+3@IMCI
+1masuk grup spid gk?
nomr w dsitu
got question, do mobile players get a chance?
+1I'm not expecting it, but it would be nice for mobile players to have a bit of look at how the game would perform.
@RestlessGalaxies
+2see, past me would love a challenge like this
but the me right now can't last more than a week continuing to grind an sp build, especially with how much expectation I build upon myself, but remind me of this challenge when it's out, in case I'm interested.
I'd like a challenge
+1but I'm busy with another thing and I can't be bothered with making a project that is months due of work
@IFVuser
seems unnecessary.
@IFVuser
+1that's not almost that's half
one gripe I have about this is the wing
+1way too small
but aside from that, great concept
this would've been twice as big if it was to scale
"the rdf lt is good
+1but we like this"
-us army, 1980s
should've went with XM274
+1make the track by yourself. including the suspension, roadwheels, idlers, and the track itself.
+1though this does require a lot of effort and understanding of the game's physics. potentially a lot of your device's processing power.
I personally wouldn't bother, so I'd just put a lot of wheels on the vehicle.
@IFVuser
close, but like I said:
One of the inspirations, well, more like the whole inspiration was from the Type 87, so yeah.
+1@AndrewGarrison
@WNP78
@PhilipTarpley
Thought to let you guys know.
Might Be Relevant Cannon Settings:
Diameter: 7% (35mm)
Velocity: 1150m/s
Reload Rate: 0.0545 seconds
Tracer Spacing: 2
Tracer Length: 0.4
Tracer Color: #FFFFA0FF
goofy ahh car
@AirNK
I'm not saying it isn't one, what I'm really saying is that it's a semi-PEA type of thing.
still, incredible work
quite awesome how this still manages to technically qualify as a PEA.
the ironic thing is that it's actually made somewhat accurately
@MTFUE11
you set both the length and height to the same value.
@SilexPT
sure, go ahead
@MartennLockkenn
Thanks for understanding.
I'm sorry if I sounded so arrogant, I can be such a person if I didn't try to control my own emotions. Though your input is very appreciated and will likely be considered.
@MartennLockkenn
I didn't really have any problems with making a custom-built track, I've seen how people do it and I originally thought that I could do my own spin of it.
I couldn't bother with the thought of dealing with too many parts. And no, I do not like using stretched tire parts, so I had to compensate.
While I'm at it, I'm going to touch up on your "improvement", a bit. I'm having a minor superiority issue, so bear with me on this one. Or even just outright ignore it.
There's a couple of reasons why I didn't do the things that you've mentioned in your improvements. First, armor.
This is a largely German based armor vehicle, and germany isn't known for using ERAs. This is ultimately my own preference, but I don't like putting ERAs on my own tank. It looks dirtier on 2nd generations since they weren't initially built with ERAs in mind (duh).
Second, engine input. There's a reason why I did it, and that is to both accomodate for mobile and PC play. Though I'm aware that some mobile players do play with Pitch+Roll on ground vehicles, sometimes one or two person like me will use Throttle+Yaw. So I made it with that in mind.
Third, weight. I wanted this vehicle to be as accurate as possible and I'm aware that it causes issues with SP's physics, mainly with the tires. I found a workaround of this by just increasing the mass of the tires and working around the traction value. I also artificially boosted it to 400% because I wanted it to have more traction to simulate it being a tank track, though that ultimately failed. Was it necessary for SP? No. Was it necessary for accuracy? Yeah.
@SPsidearm
I see
I mean, truth be told I could make one myself
just didn't bother with it.