It honestly depends what you are going for. If you want sleeker aerodynamics, you should go for a retracting sort of deal. You can also have the guns integrated into the hull (the barrel barely pokes out of the ship).
.
However, if you want to show off your cool guns, then leave them outside of the hull!
Nice video, with a good build! That said, the issue of police reform is more complex than many believe. I personally am not a fan of the statement, "back the blue", as it often implies that legitimate calls for police reform are inherently anti-law-enforcement. Of course, this simplification of police reform arguments is misleading.
.
I know that there is political context surrounding the build. I am not personally opposed to the build. I actually respect and freely chat with the creator of the build despite our ideological differences.
.
Sorry if I'm out of line here. I do not want SP to be an echo chamber, which is why I feel obligated to leave this comment. If you want to talk more, reach out to me via unlisted post or discord: spefyjerbf#8985
Ah. A misunderstanding on my part. I will certainly mention it in the case that I use your throttleability logic (which I probably will if I build a voidframe). I will probably use a cannon approach, but the throttle logic will definitely be appropriated (Trig thrust isn't good on warp-capable ships, so your version of throttleability is MUCH better for space travel).
@ThomasRoderick That fits very well with my understanding of the lore, with some good individuality on your part too. Definitely, a warp drive that just imparted a massive force on a ship would kill the entire crew - your explanation of a warp drive makes more sense.
.
Orbitas had some extra lore related to everything breaking (I think the term was "The Grounding", but "Flashout" sounds better tbh.
.
Man. I should make a new voidframe sometime!
True, though I am just not sure how the code works. The way that numerical integration works with Funky Trees is counterintuitive for me, and may be buggy too. I'm not sure how to fix your code, but I can provide a substitute that uses some nice trig arithmetic. Each cycle stays the same length, but amount of time that the light is on can vary with throttle.
@ThomasRoderick I cant test it at the moment because work is being really demanding these days. If you want flash rates to change with throttle, you can also use a sine function that has a throttle-dependent frequency.
@ThomasRoderick If you are within your part budget, then I don’t see why it would hurt to have those thrust levels. The nice part is that the control scheme will be intuitive, too!
@ThomasRoderick Thanks for the understanding. I had some old code that used cosine instead of sine. The new code that I pasted in my previous comment fixes it!
Referencing my recent comment, this code should work: asin(throttle) / 90
For your rotator. Check if a throttle of 50% makes the angle 60 from the horizontal, and 30 from the vertical.
Trig thrust is certainly applicable to a space situation. Corvidae’s (I’m a little dense, so I can’t follow the hint) solution was pretty much to use a small angle to produce approximately linear throttability. In other words, simply rotating your thrusters doesn’t give them perfect throttlability (50% throttle actually yields about 70% of thrust if you just rotate) because of how trigonometry works. So, to make the behavior more linear, I used small angles to the point where I could use small angle approximation.
.
Of course, Corvidae’s approach was very inefficient. Instead, we can use funky trees to give us the correct angle for “linear” throttlability (I.e 50% throttle = 50% thrust). Some inverse trig will help us here. I did some experimentation a while ago, and produced some decent code. The problem with the code was that it didn’t use the proper assumptions, so it isn’t useful, yet. Though I am certain that this approach would work.
.
We can validate this approach by checking if the angle between the horizontal and the engine is 60 degrees at 50% throttle. After all, the cosine of 60 degrees is 0.5. We can also check if the angle between the vertical and the engine is 30 for the same reasons.
.
Sorry if so rambled. Feel free to ask for more info. I can also create the rotator that will use arctrig to give you the behavior that I am describing, if you want.
Only if you want to! More features is usually good, until the control scheme gets too complicated. Also only add features that you want! That said - a shield sounds cool.
Just tried it, and its excellent! The way that you generate torque is actually quite similar to a system that is in my next upload. However, you figured out how to apply torques at an angles besides the yaw axis, which I couldn't figure out how to do. I did notice that the gyro torques were quite small at extra-high altitudes (space). I'm not sure if that was designed or not, but I think the build could benefit from having larger torques in space.
@ThomasRoderick Good point - Orbitas had a low beam velocity. Also, thank you! You made my day right there. It’s been a wild 4 years, and I’m glad that you have joined me. I’m at work rn, but I’ll test ASAP. Probably later this evening (I’m on pacific time).
Man, it’s been a long time since I heard that word. Nostalgia. In theory, yes - though in my experience it always was a little more random. Maybe my plane wasn’t shaped right though.
Ooh. Nice. Those old drives that I used back in the day are really buggy (the one with guns and armor), but a cannon-based drive should work perfectly!
When in doubt, check for parenthesis - I have finished builds that have still had parenthesis errors.
.
If everything has proper syntax, then my guess would be that the sum function works different on mobile. Perhaps it uses a different time step to integrate over?
Just finished downloading - good job! Lots of nice little details. Those hinges have some nice funky trees too :). Of course, my political opinions still stand, and I mentioned them once again because this comments section would be an echo chamber otherwise. I hope I wasn't too inappropriate. Anyway, take care man - great build!
Not sure why I didn’t get the notification, but this looks awesome! Thanks for tagging me even if the site hid it from me. Did you get these concept art images from any online source in particular? I just use google images (most of the designs are trash), so if there is a better source for good art I am listening.
@TheSavageManZ @Renamed71220
I wouldn’t call it a debate, but sure. Unlisted posts should work, but discord PMs are better. Maybe I can PM both of you on discord (i.e. group chat with the three of us)? I’d really like to get your perspectives, and see how your data backs up your conclusion. Of course, I will refute what I see as incorrect. I will return home from some traveling tonight, so I’ll PM you then.
.
As a disclaimer that I would like to make public, I respect both of you quite a bit. I will not be mudslinging or namecalling. Cancel culture is dumb so let’s not engage in it. I want to have a productive conversation and see where the facts take us.
@MercuryCorporation Sounds good, and ty! Building from scratch is definitely more satisfying, so you’re right on that point. When talking to people about this engine, I assume that they aren’t familiar with calculus (or diffeq), so I default to having them take the engine as a subassembly.
@Gluck Ty! This was a pretty ambitious project.
+1@Alta2809 I started building this about two months ago. I took plenty of breaks though!
+1@TomekHellFire Ty! Thankfully this heli has some automatic flight systems that make it much easier to fly.
+1Congrats!
+1It honestly depends what you are going for. If you want sleeker aerodynamics, you should go for a retracting sort of deal. You can also have the guns integrated into the hull (the barrel barely pokes out of the ship).
+1.
However, if you want to show off your cool guns, then leave them outside of the hull!
Nice video, with a good build! That said, the issue of police reform is more complex than many believe. I personally am not a fan of the statement, "back the blue", as it often implies that legitimate calls for police reform are inherently anti-law-enforcement. Of course, this simplification of police reform arguments is misleading.
+1.
I know that there is political context surrounding the build. I am not personally opposed to the build. I actually respect and freely chat with the creator of the build despite our ideological differences.
.
Sorry if I'm out of line here. I do not want SP to be an echo chamber, which is why I feel obligated to leave this comment. If you want to talk more, reach out to me via unlisted post or discord: spefyjerbf#8985
I suppose that’s true. Thankfully there is no drag in space!
+1Good observation. That’s ok though - just some extra parts.
+1@ThomasRoderick Something like that. I'll probably use some different terminology, but yeah, that would be the gist of it.
+1Ah. A misunderstanding on my part. I will certainly mention it in the case that I use your throttleability logic (which I probably will if I build a voidframe). I will probably use a cannon approach, but the throttle logic will definitely be appropriated (Trig thrust isn't good on warp-capable ships, so your version of throttleability is MUCH better for space travel).
+1@ThomasRoderick That would be a pretty fun crossover! I’ll consider making one.
+1@ThomasRoderick That fits very well with my understanding of the lore, with some good individuality on your part too. Definitely, a warp drive that just imparted a massive force on a ship would kill the entire crew - your explanation of a warp drive makes more sense.
+1.
Orbitas had some extra lore related to everything breaking (I think the term was "The Grounding", but "Flashout" sounds better tbh.
.
Man. I should make a new voidframe sometime!
@ThomasRoderick Sounds good! The old parachute systems are now really buggy. Think RIDs but 100x worse.
+1Awesome! I enjoy a bit of SPEcorp lore :)
+1Exactly that logic! Pretty much using the “peaks” as light pulses.
+1True, though I am just not sure how the code works. The way that numerical integration works with Funky Trees is counterintuitive for me, and may be buggy too. I'm not sure how to fix your code, but I can provide a substitute that uses some nice trig arithmetic. Each cycle stays the same length, but amount of time that the light is on can vary with throttle.
+1@ThomasRoderick ah. Yeah, I’m not sure how to do that. Maybe superimposing a sine wave over a value of 1-Throttle would work.
+1@ThomasRoderick I cant test it at the moment because work is being really demanding these days. If you want flash rates to change with throttle, you can also use a sine function that has a throttle-dependent frequency.
+1@ThomasRoderick If you are within your part budget, then I don’t see why it would hurt to have those thrust levels. The nice part is that the control scheme will be intuitive, too!
+1@ThomasRoderick Thanks for the understanding. I had some old code that used cosine instead of sine. The new code that I pasted in my previous comment fixes it!
+1Referencing my recent comment, this code should work:
+1asin(throttle) / 90
For your rotator. Check if a throttle of 50% makes the angle 60 from the horizontal, and 30 from the vertical.
Trig thrust is certainly applicable to a space situation. Corvidae’s (I’m a little dense, so I can’t follow the hint) solution was pretty much to use a small angle to produce approximately linear throttability. In other words, simply rotating your thrusters doesn’t give them perfect throttlability (50% throttle actually yields about 70% of thrust if you just rotate) because of how trigonometry works. So, to make the behavior more linear, I used small angles to the point where I could use small angle approximation.
+1.
Of course, Corvidae’s approach was very inefficient. Instead, we can use funky trees to give us the correct angle for “linear” throttlability (I.e 50% throttle = 50% thrust). Some inverse trig will help us here. I did some experimentation a while ago, and produced some decent code. The problem with the code was that it didn’t use the proper assumptions, so it isn’t useful, yet. Though I am certain that this approach would work.
.
We can validate this approach by checking if the angle between the horizontal and the engine is 60 degrees at 50% throttle. After all, the cosine of 60 degrees is 0.5. We can also check if the angle between the vertical and the engine is 30 for the same reasons.
.
Sorry if so rambled. Feel free to ask for more info. I can also create the rotator that will use arctrig to give you the behavior that I am describing, if you want.
@KnightOfRen Are you trying for a VTOL System, or a standard flight system?
+1.
VTOL is actually easier on large spaceships tbh.
Only if you want to! More features is usually good, until the control scheme gets too complicated. Also only add features that you want! That said - a shield sounds cool.
+1Around 200,000 feet of altitude and 4,000 mph. Might have been operator error though.
+1Just tried it, and its excellent! The way that you generate torque is actually quite similar to a system that is in my next upload. However, you figured out how to apply torques at an angles besides the yaw axis, which I couldn't figure out how to do. I did notice that the gyro torques were quite small at extra-high altitudes (space). I'm not sure if that was designed or not, but I think the build could benefit from having larger torques in space.
+1No problem! Your walker builds are unique and very well-done. I appreciate that.
+1@ThomasRoderick Good point - Orbitas had a low beam velocity. Also, thank you! You made my day right there. It’s been a wild 4 years, and I’m glad that you have joined me. I’m at work rn, but I’ll test ASAP. Probably later this evening (I’m on pacific time).
+1Man, it’s been a long time since I heard that word. Nostalgia. In theory, yes - though in my experience it always was a little more random. Maybe my plane wasn’t shaped right though.
+1Nice! Guns still work in a majority of situations, so you should be fine.
+1Ooh. Nice. Those old drives that I used back in the day are really buggy (the one with guns and armor), but a cannon-based drive should work perfectly!
+1No worries! I mean some minor details that add color or accentuate some features.
+1@ThomasRoderick Ah, yeah. Then some accents would be pretty nice. I don’t have any specifics, though it seems like you have that down!
+1Looks nice. Maybe add some minor accents to bring out the saucer shape.
+1Oh, ok my understanding was completely wrong lol. I would have to do a lot of testing to get the right code.
+1When in doubt, check for parenthesis - I have finished builds that have still had parenthesis errors.
+1.
If everything has proper syntax, then my guess would be that the sum function works different on mobile. Perhaps it uses a different time step to integrate over?
A warm and dark place helps prevent shock. At least it helps birds that have hit windows.
+1Just finished downloading - good job! Lots of nice little details. Those hinges have some nice funky trees too :). Of course, my political opinions still stand, and I mentioned them once again because this comments section would be an echo chamber otherwise. I hope I wasn't too inappropriate. Anyway, take care man - great build!
+1@TheSavageManZ I definitely will. I’m telecommuting rn so I will have to later tonight.
+1Ah. Scarab is a good name for that then!
+1@Baldeagle086 A little common for spaceships - perhaps a variant of that name would be nice. Maybe the part of the Latin name?
+1I love that engine section! It almost looks buglike (which is a good thing). Perhaps an arthropod/insect/arachnid inspired name would fit.
+1When in doubt, assume metric. Newtons probably.
+1ty! Feel free to use any flight systems that I have developed. Just be sure to mention me in the desc for credit. Thanks for the links!
+1Not sure why I didn’t get the notification, but this looks awesome! Thanks for tagging me even if the site hid it from me. Did you get these concept art images from any online source in particular? I just use google images (most of the designs are trash), so if there is a better source for good art I am listening.
+1No problem! Good build.
+1@ThomasRoderick Its definitely got some nice colors. Great build, 5318008!
+1@TheSavageManZ @Renamed71220
+1I wouldn’t call it a debate, but sure. Unlisted posts should work, but discord PMs are better. Maybe I can PM both of you on discord (i.e. group chat with the three of us)? I’d really like to get your perspectives, and see how your data backs up your conclusion. Of course, I will refute what I see as incorrect. I will return home from some traveling tonight, so I’ll PM you then.
.
As a disclaimer that I would like to make public, I respect both of you quite a bit. I will not be mudslinging or namecalling. Cancel culture is dumb so let’s not engage in it. I want to have a productive conversation and see where the facts take us.
Efficiently allocate resources, personnel, and time to serve the public the best :)
+1.
Great looking build!
@MercuryCorporation Sounds good, and ty! Building from scratch is definitely more satisfying, so you’re right on that point. When talking to people about this engine, I assume that they aren’t familiar with calculus (or diffeq), so I default to having them take the engine as a subassembly.
+1