@Minecraftpoweer The physics get confused when it happens. I originally did this to try to "catch" the momentum of the flares to propel my aircraft, but this happened instead. It made for a fun gif though!
@CoolPeach Ouch. The dimensions are a perfect match. This is probably a copy. Looks like it was too good to be true. Unfortunately I cannot un-spotlight a build...
@SledDriver I wanted to clearly demonstrate my logic. Obviously that was ineffective, and this conversation will only result in petty mudslinging. I have said my stance too. Refer to my conclusion for more information. Take care.
.
Oh, and it looks like my preface got cut off. Here's the rest of the text:
... in the inclusion of two extra AGs. Also, please refer to your replies to Eternal for more information about how your system is different.
Conclusion:
It seems like this conversation has screeched to a halt by a neutral party, EternalDarkness. You do not own a simple concept, and neither do I. If you have any other (small) concerns, I am happy to entertain them, but I have more than adequately defended myself, and my time is more valuable than this. My work was my own, and so was yours. There is more than enough evidence to support this, and all replies after this will be much, much more brief.
@SledDriver A preface with some clarifications
First, your tone and responses indicate a mindset that pre-determines me as guilty, regardless of my rebuttals and evidence. I will ignore this for now, but I kindly request that you take my responses seriously, as I am with yours.
Your quote here, for example, demonstrates your current attitude: ”It was flawed because at that point I hadn't explained my system.”
Let’s be honest here. I had about 1.5 years of SP experience before I uploaded my system. If I had a template to follow, would I be foolish enough to fail in implementing it seamlessly? I sincerely hope that my profile at least demonstrates that I am not that incompetent.
.
Second, and most importantly, your response(s) completely ignored the core to my defense of my position. If I am acting like the guilty one, then why did you fail to address the section of my response, titled “Now, lets get into the meat.”? I have only seen you address the weak parts of my argument – you have only peripherally addressed my position. Once again, I kindly request that you take my responses seriously. As a refresher, here is a list of the critical elements of my stance that you have failed to respond to:
- The flight systems are not identical in concept and implementation (You most likely disagree with this one, understandably, so I elaborated on this in the “Addressing your core argument” section.)
- Your statement of me having no concept of 2D-VTOL flight before you uploaded your flight system is demonstrably false.
- The timing of the flight systems can be explained by plagiarism, yes, but it is more feasible that the nature of the 1.6 update was responsible for the unfortunate timing.
.
Third, I must address the following quote: ”The core idea is not the inputs. Claiming that yours is original because you use the VTOL input to change altitude while I use pitch, for instance, is just laughably disingenuous.”
Tone aside, your comment is false by the description of your aircraft. Based on my understanding of your flight system (which is, I admit, is not perfect, as I have never downloaded any of your builds), it provides an upward force to match the weight of the aircraft, then uses top-mounted and bottom-mounted thrusters to control altitude. My system uses one thruster to control altitude in a much more… conventional fashion. In my opinion, that is a significant functional difference between the two systems, that is reflected in the inclusion of two e
CONTINUING FROM THE BELOW COMMENT... Now, lets get into the meat.
I asked you for evidence, because your evidence is insufficient. You have failed to elaborate your points, so I am forced to make assumptions about your evidence. It looks like you are accusing me of plagiarism based on two points of interest:
- The timing of our uploads
- The conceptual similarity of the uploads
Therefore, I must assume that your logic operates on the following statements:
- The flight systems are identical in concept and implementation
- I had no concept of 2D-VTOL flight before you uploaded your flight system
- Gyro-VTOL flight systems cannot be developed simultaneously without plagiarism occurring. All three of the above statements are demonstrably false. For brevity’s sake, I will only elaborate if you ask me to do so. I should state though, that my evidence, which I have yet to reveal, is much more solid than anything that I have presented to you.
.
Once again, the timing of the uploads simply doesn’t matter. I can confidently say that, when gyros were released, many players, including both of us, worked to develop a gyro-VTOL flight system.
.
I must also ask:
If I did, indeed, take your flight system, then why does mine differ so much in aspects such as installation, altitude control, etc.? What did I steal from your system? An answer involving my use of thrusters and gyros is insufficient. That kind of flight system can be, and was, developed without any outside influence.
@SledDriver Thank you for taking the initiative to move this conversation to a more suitable place. Looks like I have a lot to unpack here, so let’s start with the little things. ”I intended a certain meaning, but that's how you and others interpreted it? If I and you interpreted it the same way, what's the "but" for?”
Looks like we have a semantic misunderstanding here. The comment that I referred to implied that I installed your spaceship-like flight system directly into one of my aircraft, when I have not.
. ”That was my mistake, but are you saying that just because I didn't call you out on it right away, it makes it ok?”
Plagiarism is never ok. It simply seems suspicious that you remained silent until another user credited me for a flight system that I helped with, almost two years later. That is an awkward time frame, as almost all of the facts have been forgotten since then - only your allegations remain in recent memory. Seems very convenient for you, doesn’t it? It almost seems like you wanted to start drama, but based on your comment history, you are adamant against instigating drama. Therefore, this timing confuses me, and makes me question your motives.
. ”All the builds you link are 1.8 years old -- so what does that prove?”
The builds (and teaser) that I linked were evidence of me iteratively improving a flight system that I was designing. The flaws present in the earlier build (the drone) were improved on in the later build (Volitus). I then presented a conclusion stating that the improvements between my two designs were evidence of me using an iterative design process to improve my flight system. If my flight system is not my own work, then why was it flawed when I first implemented it on the drone? If I stole the system from you, it would have been perfect on my first try. Your accusation then, seems unlikely to me. Instead, my perception of the situation, which you wholly ignored, seems more likely.
Continuing the older comment...
I'm not done yet though. I have a few more questions:
1. How does the teaser for Volitus align with your interpretation of my alleged plagiarism?
2. Why did you not contact me, or anyone else, about such plagiarism?
.
Therefore, it seems like your accusation is demonstrably false. Your evidence is shoddy at best, and relies on me being guilty until proven innocent. Your statements imply causality based on a pre-concieved notion of my character.
. As for the original poster of this build, feel free to tell me to move this conversation elsewhere. I don't want to pollute your comments, but it looks like our dear friend already has.
@SledDriver The misinformation lies in the following statement: "And just so you know, the so-called "2-D VTOL system" is based off my hover-flight chassis as well."
This quote implies that I directly took your flight module that you linked, and rebranded it as my own. That is, even by your understanding of it, an inaccurate representation of what happened. I am sure that you did intend that meaning, but unfortunately, that is how I (and a few others) interpreted it. Therefore, I linked my evidence.
.
Additionally, I must address your accusation, which you have elaborated on in your reply: "However, I definitely remember mine being first, because I took note of how you immediately rebranded it as your "2D VTOL system."
Please provide evidence. You cannot make baseless accusations of plagiarism, even if your intuition tells you otherwise. Simple timing (of a rather simple concept) is not enough. After all, gyros were introduced into SP 1.8 years ago. Because of how SP updates work, all gyro-based flight systems would be timed fairly close together, as you have observed. Therefore, mere coincidence does not strengthen your position.
But, since I am requesting that you provide evidence to support your otherwise baseless claims, I might as well provide evidence of my own. While I coined the term, 2D VTOL, with Volitus, it was not the first build of mine to use a gyro-thruster flight system. In fact, Volitus was actually a refinement of an earlier flight system that I tested on an earlier build (which is a small drone) as my first 1.6 build. Therefore, your accusation simply doesn't make sense to me. Based on the functional congruence of Volitus and the drone, it appears to be more likely that Volitus was simply the successor of Helios Security Drone's flight system, which I obviously developed myself.
.
If the timing of Volitus was perfect, then can you explain the conceptually identical flight system of the earlier build, the Helios Security Drone?
@ThePilotDude Thanks! The drone’s landing skids are actually re-sized magnets, so it locks itself back onto any platform. Also it can haul cargo with the skids, too. The current part count is 670, with the drone and turret accounting for 200.
@Minecraftpoweer Ah, sorry about the misunderstanding. It only has one gyro. Its modded airbrakes were engaged before it sped off, away from the main vehicle, though.
@4Dimensional Most likely not. I am encountering a bug in which the workshop rejects my file. I might try the workshop this summer, with the updated SP mod tools.
@Destroyerz117 That shaking is probably because the gyro is too powerful. Try bringing the gyro speed and stability down. Also, with gyros, a low stability and high gyro speed seems to work the best. For example, I would guess that, for your ship, a stability of around 1.5, and a speed of about 15, would be a good place to start.
I haven’t printed something in a while, so sorry if I’m wrong. It might be because of the way that people create shapes in SP. Many of the parts overlap, which can cause errors. Is there some sort of option in your software that will optimize your .obj/.stl file?
@belugasub Ha, I gotta avoid over-studying though!
@Minecraftpoweer The physics get confused when it happens. I originally did this to try to "catch" the momentum of the flares to propel my aircraft, but this happened instead. It made for a fun gif though!
Looks pretty cool. I don’t have enough time to download it, so I guess I’ll compensate with a follow!
@CoolPeach Ouch. The dimensions are a perfect match. This is probably a copy. Looks like it was too good to be true. Unfortunately I cannot un-spotlight a build...
@Bacondoggie No problem!
Beautiful! I love the sharp design.
@PlaneMan21 Odd. Are you in android or PC? What steps have you taken to install the mod?
@PlaneMan21 Are you having issues running the mod?
@SledDriver I wanted to clearly demonstrate my logic. Obviously that was ineffective, and this conversation will only result in petty mudslinging. I have said my stance too. Refer to my conclusion for more information. Take care.
.
Oh, and it looks like my preface got cut off. Here's the rest of the text:
... in the inclusion of two extra AGs. Also, please refer to your replies to Eternal for more information about how your system is different.
Conclusion:
It seems like this conversation has screeched to a halt by a neutral party, EternalDarkness. You do not own a simple concept, and neither do I. If you have any other (small) concerns, I am happy to entertain them, but I have more than adequately defended myself, and my time is more valuable than this. My work was my own, and so was yours. There is more than enough evidence to support this, and all replies after this will be much, much more brief.
@SledDriver
A preface with some clarifications
First, your tone and responses indicate a mindset that pre-determines me as guilty, regardless of my rebuttals and evidence. I will ignore this for now, but I kindly request that you take my responses seriously, as I am with yours.
Your quote here, for example, demonstrates your current attitude:
”It was flawed because at that point I hadn't explained my system.”
Let’s be honest here. I had about 1.5 years of SP experience before I uploaded my system. If I had a template to follow, would I be foolish enough to fail in implementing it seamlessly? I sincerely hope that my profile at least demonstrates that I am not that incompetent.
.
Second, and most importantly, your response(s) completely ignored the core to my defense of my position. If I am acting like the guilty one, then why did you fail to address the section of my response, titled “Now, lets get into the meat.”? I have only seen you address the weak parts of my argument – you have only peripherally addressed my position. Once again, I kindly request that you take my responses seriously. As a refresher, here is a list of the critical elements of my stance that you have failed to respond to:
- The flight systems are not identical in concept and implementation (You most likely disagree with this one, understandably, so I elaborated on this in the “Addressing your core argument” section.)
- Your statement of me having no concept of 2D-VTOL flight before you uploaded your flight system is demonstrably false.
- The timing of the flight systems can be explained by plagiarism, yes, but it is more feasible that the nature of the 1.6 update was responsible for the unfortunate timing.
.
Third, I must address the following quote:
”The core idea is not the inputs. Claiming that yours is original because you use the VTOL input to change altitude while I use pitch, for instance, is just laughably disingenuous.”
Tone aside, your comment is false by the description of your aircraft. Based on my understanding of your flight system (which is, I admit, is not perfect, as I have never downloaded any of your builds), it provides an upward force to match the weight of the aircraft, then uses top-mounted and bottom-mounted thrusters to control altitude. My system uses one thruster to control altitude in a much more… conventional fashion. In my opinion, that is a significant functional difference between the two systems, that is reflected in the inclusion of two e
The conversation has been moved. Sorry for cluttering your build’s comments section, OP.
CONTINUING FROM THE BELOW COMMENT... Now, lets get into the meat.
I asked you for evidence, because your evidence is insufficient. You have failed to elaborate your points, so I am forced to make assumptions about your evidence. It looks like you are accusing me of plagiarism based on two points of interest:
- The timing of our uploads
- The conceptual similarity of the uploads
Therefore, I must assume that your logic operates on the following statements:
- The flight systems are identical in concept and implementation
- I had no concept of 2D-VTOL flight before you uploaded your flight system
- Gyro-VTOL flight systems cannot be developed simultaneously without plagiarism occurring.
All three of the above statements are demonstrably false. For brevity’s sake, I will only elaborate if you ask me to do so. I should state though, that my evidence, which I have yet to reveal, is much more solid than anything that I have presented to you.
.
Once again, the timing of the uploads simply doesn’t matter. I can confidently say that, when gyros were released, many players, including both of us, worked to develop a gyro-VTOL flight system.
.
I must also ask:
If I did, indeed, take your flight system, then why does mine differ so much in aspects such as installation, altitude control, etc.? What did I steal from your system? An answer involving my use of thrusters and gyros is insufficient. That kind of flight system can be, and was, developed without any outside influence.
@SledDriver Thank you for taking the initiative to move this conversation to a more suitable place. Looks like I have a lot to unpack here, so let’s start with the little things.
”I intended a certain meaning, but that's how you and others interpreted it? If I and you interpreted it the same way, what's the "but" for?”
Looks like we have a semantic misunderstanding here. The comment that I referred to implied that I installed your spaceship-like flight system directly into one of my aircraft, when I have not.
.
”That was my mistake, but are you saying that just because I didn't call you out on it right away, it makes it ok?”
Plagiarism is never ok. It simply seems suspicious that you remained silent until another user credited me for a flight system that I helped with, almost two years later. That is an awkward time frame, as almost all of the facts have been forgotten since then - only your allegations remain in recent memory. Seems very convenient for you, doesn’t it? It almost seems like you wanted to start drama, but based on your comment history, you are adamant against instigating drama. Therefore, this timing confuses me, and makes me question your motives.
.
”All the builds you link are 1.8 years old -- so what does that prove?”
The builds (and teaser) that I linked were evidence of me iteratively improving a flight system that I was designing. The flaws present in the earlier build (the drone) were improved on in the later build (Volitus). I then presented a conclusion stating that the improvements between my two designs were evidence of me using an iterative design process to improve my flight system. If my flight system is not my own work, then why was it flawed when I first implemented it on the drone? If I stole the system from you, it would have been perfect on my first try. Your accusation then, seems unlikely to me. Instead, my perception of the situation, which you wholly ignored, seems more likely.
Not sure how I missed this, but it looks great!
@CptJacobson Thanks! I’ll be sure to tag you.
@Nerfenthusiast I will be sure to do so!
Continuing the older comment...
I'm not done yet though. I have a few more questions:
1. How does the teaser for Volitus align with your interpretation of my alleged plagiarism?
2. Why did you not contact me, or anyone else, about such plagiarism?
.
Therefore, it seems like your accusation is demonstrably false. Your evidence is shoddy at best, and relies on me being guilty until proven innocent. Your statements imply causality based on a pre-concieved notion of my character.
.
As for the original poster of this build, feel free to tell me to move this conversation elsewhere. I don't want to pollute your comments, but it looks like our dear friend already has.
@SledDriver The misinformation lies in the following statement:
"And just so you know, the so-called "2-D VTOL system" is based off my hover-flight chassis as well."
This quote implies that I directly took your flight module that you linked, and rebranded it as my own. That is, even by your understanding of it, an inaccurate representation of what happened. I am sure that you did intend that meaning, but unfortunately, that is how I (and a few others) interpreted it. Therefore, I linked my evidence.
.
Additionally, I must address your accusation, which you have elaborated on in your reply:
"However, I definitely remember mine being first, because I took note of how you immediately rebranded it as your "2D VTOL system."
Please provide evidence. You cannot make baseless accusations of plagiarism, even if your intuition tells you otherwise. Simple timing (of a rather simple concept) is not enough. After all, gyros were introduced into SP 1.8 years ago. Because of how SP updates work, all gyro-based flight systems would be timed fairly close together, as you have observed. Therefore, mere coincidence does not strengthen your position.
But, since I am requesting that you provide evidence to support your otherwise baseless claims, I might as well provide evidence of my own. While I coined the term, 2D VTOL, with Volitus, it was not the first build of mine to use a gyro-thruster flight system. In fact, Volitus was actually a refinement of an earlier flight system that I tested on an earlier build (which is a small drone) as my first 1.6 build. Therefore, your accusation simply doesn't make sense to me. Based on the functional congruence of Volitus and the drone, it appears to be more likely that Volitus was simply the successor of Helios Security Drone's flight system, which I obviously developed myself.
.
If the timing of Volitus was perfect, then can you explain the conceptually identical flight system of the earlier build, the Helios Security Drone?
@CrashFighter05 Of course! Will do.
@AWESOMENESS360 Thanks! The part count is around 670, with 200 of those parts in the drone and turret.
@Roswell Will do!
@ThePilotDude Thanks! The drone’s landing skids are actually re-sized magnets, so it locks itself back onto any platform. Also it can haul cargo with the skids, too. The current part count is 670, with the drone and turret accounting for 200.
@BlackhattAircraft @Stormfur Thank you! I’ll be sure to tag you.
@Awsomur Of course! Will do.
@Stormfur Close, but it’s only 670! Removing the turret or drone will shave off 100 parts each, too.
@Minecraftpoweer Ah, sorry about the misunderstanding. It only has one gyro. Its modded airbrakes were engaged before it sped off, away from the main vehicle, though.
@Minecraftpoweer Yes, it uses gyros to remain stable. The tilting in the gif is actually in the main vehicle though. The ground wasn't entirely level.
@Minecraftpoweer Thank you! I am proud of this build, especially that launch sequence.
Ah, dang. Y’all already beat me to it! Reverse image search on google is a neat tool.
@4Dimensional Most likely not. I am encountering a bug in which the workshop rejects my file. I might try the workshop this summer, with the updated SP mod tools.
@Destroyerz117 Make sure that the engines responsible for lateral motion are perfectly aligned with the CoM
Nice. Can’t wait to dissect this!
@Destroyerz117 No problem! Feel free to notify me when you post the ship. It looks like it coming along very nicely.
@CrashFighter05 No worries. Feel free to search (with the website’s search feature) for how to unblock yourself too. Might come up with something.
@Destroyerz117 That shaking is probably because the gyro is too powerful. Try bringing the gyro speed and stability down. Also, with gyros, a low stability and high gyro speed seems to work the best. For example, I would guess that, for your ship, a stability of around 1.5, and a speed of about 15, would be a good place to start.
@ArcturusAerospace Antigravity engines? Not sure what you mean. As in how slow the fighter falls?
Nice. This will be helpful in the future.
Hm, Schrodinger’s RP.
@ThomasRoderick Hmm, I suppose the styling is similar. Didn’t notice that.
I haven’t printed something in a while, so sorry if I’m wrong. It might be because of the way that people create shapes in SP. Many of the parts overlap, which can cause errors. Is there some sort of option in your software that will optimize your .obj/.stl file?
No problem! The due date is also very convenient for me, so thanks!
Ah, is there a deadline to this challenge? If the deadline is about a month, I might enter, but no promises!
No external mods, or no XML? The key to challenges like these is XML part scaling.
Good detail without an excessive amount of parts. Well done!
I usually don’t upvote these types of builds, but the dog’s face is really well done. Nice job!
@Katagiri550 Some others in the comments seem to agree, so you are in good company!
3 days without posting does not qualify as inactivity.
Here’s a helpful forum post about markdown text formatting that I refer to every once-in-a-while.
A picture of the syntax might be good to include.