I see a lot of salt over rotator driven planes. The way I see it, the rules are clearly stated, and anything else are rules you've made up in your head. I had submitted a prop engine design, but then I got curious at how people are breaking the speed limit for a even faster time. I took the time and effort to learn about my competition and rotator propulsion so that I can create my own. I took advantage of the time given to me to build a competitive racer. If you didn't because of arbitrary reasons, or was too lazy to submit a competitive design, then that was entirely your choice. At the end of the day, it is a matter of how much you really want to win the tournament. Plus, don't think that having additional rules and restriction is going to help you. There's always a better builder out there.
I think there's enough features wish-listed in user voice for a Simple Planes 2 and Simple Planes 2: Episode 1 and beyond. Though I would totally pay for a game that combines the best of SP and the best of SR2
In 1.11.101, the propeller looked ugly, but at least the off-centered visual glitch was fixed for the Blade T2000 engine. That change seems to have been reverted and the visual glitch is back. Is this only a temporary thing while the new propeller is being refined?
Dammit, I've just corrected my habit of checking the website 10 times a day for update. Y u do dis!?!?! Seriously though, the hollowed fuselage is finally given a real purpose. With all these new features, I hope there will be QoL improvement on parts selection. Anyone noticed the excellent hull forming glass on the WIP Lynx?
Ah yes. Finally, I can induce vomitting in a painless manner by performing a virtual 69 g backflip following by a 420 degree per second flatspin to the ground. In all seriousness, I do hope that the game component receives some love as well, seeing that this new VR mode is all about the flying.
The great MOPCKOEDNISHE hath blessed us with a gift on this merry holiday. Set your plane up with functional rudders for the best mouse control experience.
The sole advantage of regular, non-structural wings (Wing-3) is its better damage model. When it is destroyed by bullets, it does not take out adjacent wings or other wings it is linked to. Meanwhile, the destruction of a single structural wing can potentially take out other structural wings that is attached to it, and possibly even the fuselage it is attached to - all depending on how the game internally groups the parts together.
.
Last thing I found while I was figuring out SP's damage model system. It turns out that you can manipulate the center of rotation of a build by placing the primary cockpit on a non-structural part (Wing-3, any gizmos). Note that this only affects how the plane flies in external view, namely: chase, orbit, and fly-by. In 1st person view such as the cockpit or custom camera, the center of rotation is always where the camera is located at. I have a twin fuselage build that demonstrates this.
.
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/gGP2kg/X28-Robust-Tester
.
Anyways, its weird that the center of rotation is not located at the center of mass. You can fix the external view problem by placing the primary cockpit on a structural part that is connected to other structural parts, but you're SOL if you prefers flying in 1st person view.
@rexrexThezion Have you tried flying it in cockpit view only? This is the most consistent way of seeing the effect of this bug. Alternatively, you can use a camera part. For the external views (chase cam, orbit cam) to be bugged, the main cockpit needs to be attached to a non-structural part (gizmos and Wing-3).
@Mostly hmm, may you show us how you attached the glass fuselage? You may have found another way of cheating the system. For now, the most reliable way I know of is to attach glass to "Wing-3".
I may have found a temporary fix for this problem. Attach the glass fuselage to a "Wing-3" part (use overload to check). If you have a series of glass pieces forming a canopy, only a single, designated piece should be attached to "Wing-3". Make sure that the rest of the glass pieces are attached to nothing else but each other. This should stop the plane from going haywire when glasses are broken.
@Mostly Yea, I stated that its a rare thing that can happen when fuselage pieces are shot off. Yes the plane do become unbalanced when pieces of it is missing, but this is something else entirely.
.
As I said before, when the glass breaks the plane assumes a critically damaged state. Wings lose an arbitrary amount of lift, engines lose power. Depending on the build, it can become completely unflyable all because of broken glass.
@YourWife I've tried this and even bumped the health to a ridiculous value. Unfortunately, it didn't work. The game assumes the plane is broken as soon as the glass breaks. Also, I discovered that raising the health does nothing to increase durability of the glass. Perhaps you have done something else differently as well?
If you're unwilling to fiddle with outboard spoilers to control the slip of the plane, then hidden stabilizer maybe your best option. Northrop's older flying wing designs used pusher prop engine nacelle as impromptu stabilizer. Those would be great references on how to hide your stabilizers (Note that fuselage pieces don't offer any type of stability in SP).
There's always a vocal few that feels entitled to every attention, upvotes, and points. They are simply envious of the joke builds that brought everyone laughs and thus the attention. No need to pay these vocal few any heeds, just move on - this is the internet after all.
But because the physics is simple, we can play our 1000+ parts build. If complex physics are to be implemented, then we need to have the tools to build planes with complex shapes and functions using 20 parts or less. This is how other flight sims are coded so that they don't nuke our computer. Take Il-2 BoS for example - the crashes are beautiful to look at, but it is obvious that the planes themselves are comprised of few large sections.
@OrangeConnor I have no idea how to send you a private message. Regardless, thank you for the comments on my simple builds. These are built with AI auto-spawn in mind, so understandably, they are too simple to be noticed by the community at large.
@Warbirdnation It's a prompt for you to enter all sorts of commands. press the ~ key if you're on PC. Don't know how to do it on mobile. Perhaps someone else can help you with that.
Ah yes, I had no idea today is Christmas. Since VerticalG is implemented in Funky Tree, may we have an UI display of it as well? Also, is it possible to use apply Funky Tree onto control surfaces?
@vcharng You raise a few fair points about creating more stable landing gears. However, the main issue here is how releasing/firing ordnance causes the re-sizable wheels to basically bug out. Try landing the plane without releasing ordnance and landing it once more after releasing ordnance. You should notice a more distinct swerve between the two conditions.
@vcharng This is the plane I am working on:
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/et8jRb/GD-01-Aegis-IV
.
There's no problem with loading the ordnance. The plane will land and take-off normally. However, the problem occurs once the ordnance are released. The plane will swerve violently after landing. This also happens in other builds, besides my own, with similar custom tricycle landing gears.
@asteroidbook345 This sounds plausible. I wonder when is the next time a bug report could be submitted. This bug is seriously impeding with the way I play this game. I just wanted to take-off drop bombs/fire missiles, and land normally.
@vcharng Enabling suspension on the wheels does even weirder things. My custom gears use shocks for suspension. The landing gears work fine under all conditions, even when there's cross-wind. It also works as intended when my build sustains battle damage, causing asymmetric drag and weight distribution. However, the problem occurs when I fire/release things like rockets, missiles, and bombs.
@TheFantasticTyphoon @asteroidbook345 You guys might be on to something. However, my build has detachable fuselage parts (300~ Ib each) that when detached, does not affect the landing gears' performance. Detaching a pair of Boom 25, however, causes the swerve.
I'm all for features that reduces the number of parts needed to make a functional, yet good looking plane. After all, I play SP because I want to have fun building, testing, and playing my builds. If I just wanted to build a high quality sculpture to look at, I'd use a 3D modeling tool.
@vcharng Yeah, I interpreted GS wrong. I kept thinking it was the horizontal speed component of the velocity vector. Though this is something else the dev and add to the list of variables we can use
It would be nice to have calculus functions. But from a coding perspective, it is more efficient to implement more variables for us to use. For example:
.
Vertical Speed (Rate of Climb): simply get the scalar, y-component (I think its y-axis) of the aircraft's velocity vector. This just made me realize... Vertical Speed = TAS - GS
.
Instantaneous Rate of Turn: get the difference between aircraft's current direction and its direction in the previous frame (May need to separate this into both a horizontal and vertical component).
.
Edit: Disregard that whole vertical speed = TAS - GS, I interpreted GS wrong
@Nickr Indeed, but for some, points and upvotes are numeric measurement of abstract ideas like skill, quality, seniority on this site, popularity, authority, self-worth, and E-peen size. Basically, your mileage may vary.
@asteroidbook345 I simply wish for an ability to adjust the parameters for AI spawning, so the AI can spawn aircraft that exceed part limits. Turning AI spawning off is the opposite of what I want.
@AndrewGarrison Ah, that is a shame. I was testing a cannon embedded within the fuselage and wondering why the projectile seems to do nothing against other airplanes.
Curiously, setting disableAircraftCollisions to true on cannon allows the fired projectile to bypass collision with other aircraft besides my own. Is this working as intended? (In other words, you can now recreate the infamous hisparko cannon from War Thunder)
It is required by law that you must play "Daredevil" while flying this build. Here, I'll provide the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kVdCaczLE8
+1I see you have created the most ultimate creation of them all... an extractor of sodium chloride from SP players.
+1One of these days, you young'uns will learn to appreciate the finer things in life rather than vying for upvotes and downloads. Now get off my lawn.
+1I see a lot of salt over rotator driven planes. The way I see it, the rules are clearly stated, and anything else are rules you've made up in your head. I had submitted a prop engine design, but then I got curious at how people are breaking the speed limit for a even faster time. I took the time and effort to learn about my competition and rotator propulsion so that I can create my own. I took advantage of the time given to me to build a competitive racer. If you didn't because of arbitrary reasons, or was too lazy to submit a competitive design, then that was entirely your choice. At the end of the day, it is a matter of how much you really want to win the tournament. Plus, don't think that having additional rules and restriction is going to help you. There's always a better builder out there.
+1I think there's enough features wish-listed in user voice for a Simple Planes 2 and Simple Planes 2: Episode 1 and beyond. Though I would totally pay for a game that combines the best of SP and the best of SR2
+1Good Game
+1@DickBrazen Prepare for a world of pain. For reasons I can't fathom, you can't just attach wheels to your custom gears and call it a day.
+1Take me higher! Any chance of the three ships from Ultraman Dyna as well?
Making the AI fly the race course a little better would also be nice
In 1.11.101, the propeller looked ugly, but at least the off-centered visual glitch was fixed for the Blade T2000 engine. That change seems to have been reverted and the visual glitch is back. Is this only a temporary thing while the new propeller is being refined?
Speaking of AI spawning, is there some ways to control how the AI chooses which vehicle to automatically spawn as traffic?
Dammit, I've just corrected my habit of checking the website 10 times a day for update. Y u do dis!?!?! Seriously though, the hollowed fuselage is finally given a real purpose. With all these new features, I hope there will be QoL improvement on parts selection. Anyone noticed the excellent hull forming glass on the WIP Lynx?
Ah yes. Finally, I can induce vomitting in a painless manner by performing a virtual 69 g backflip following by a 420 degree per second flatspin to the ground. In all seriousness, I do hope that the game component receives some love as well, seeing that this new VR mode is all about the flying.
"Write that down... WRITE THAT DOWN!" - Jundroo, hopefully
Soon™
The great MOPCKOEDNISHE hath blessed us with a gift on this merry holiday. Set your plane up with functional rudders for the best mouse control experience.
Fix the traction bug that occurs whenever there's a large shift in mass (i.e. dropping bombs, firing missiles)
This madlad. Take notes folks, this is how you make a goodbye post.
For those curious about what FlyOut is about, check out this youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRCNVzCVrRC4yY2Nyd4_BWA
The sole advantage of regular, non-structural wings (Wing-3) is its better damage model. When it is destroyed by bullets, it does not take out adjacent wings or other wings it is linked to. Meanwhile, the destruction of a single structural wing can potentially take out other structural wings that is attached to it, and possibly even the fuselage it is attached to - all depending on how the game internally groups the parts together.
You can avoid drama in one simple step: play SP or or spend time developing a technical skill. Arguing on the internet? please, who has time for that.
bug
.
Last thing I found while I was figuring out SP's damage model system. It turns out that you can manipulate the center of rotation of a build by placing the primary cockpit on a non-structural part (Wing-3, any gizmos). Note that this only affects how the plane flies in external view, namely: chase, orbit, and fly-by. In 1st person view such as the cockpit or custom camera, the center of rotation is always where the camera is located at. I have a twin fuselage build that demonstrates this.
.
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/gGP2kg/X28-Robust-Tester
.
Anyways, its weird that the center of rotation is not located at the center of mass. You can fix the external view problem by placing the primary cockpit on a structural part that is connected to other structural parts, but you're SOL if you prefers flying in 1st person view.
@rexrexThezion Have you tried flying it in cockpit view only? This is the most consistent way of seeing the effect of this bug. Alternatively, you can use a camera part. For the external views (chase cam, orbit cam) to be bugged, the main cockpit needs to be attached to a non-structural part (gizmos and Wing-3).
@Mostly hmm, may you show us how you attached the glass fuselage? You may have found another way of cheating the system. For now, the most reliable way I know of is to attach glass to "Wing-3".
I may have found a temporary fix for this problem. Attach the glass fuselage to a "Wing-3" part (use overload to check). If you have a series of glass pieces forming a canopy, only a single, designated piece should be attached to "Wing-3". Make sure that the rest of the glass pieces are attached to nothing else but each other. This should stop the plane from going haywire when glasses are broken.
@Mostly Yea, I stated that its a rare thing that can happen when fuselage pieces are shot off. Yes the plane do become unbalanced when pieces of it is missing, but this is something else entirely.
.
As I said before, when the glass breaks the plane assumes a critically damaged state. Wings lose an arbitrary amount of lift, engines lose power. Depending on the build, it can become completely unflyable all because of broken glass.
@YourWife I've tried this and even bumped the health to a ridiculous value. Unfortunately, it didn't work. The game assumes the plane is broken as soon as the glass breaks. Also, I discovered that raising the health does nothing to increase durability of the glass. Perhaps you have done something else differently as well?
If you're unwilling to fiddle with outboard spoilers to control the slip of the plane, then hidden stabilizer maybe your best option. Northrop's older flying wing designs used pusher prop engine nacelle as impromptu stabilizer. Those would be great references on how to hide your stabilizers (Note that fuselage pieces don't offer any type of stability in SP).
@Sanaba An SP user's making a joke. Laugh already.
I heard from a health expert on the internet that too much sodium intake is bad for your health.
There's always a vocal few that feels entitled to every attention, upvotes, and points. They are simply envious of the joke builds that brought everyone laughs and thus the attention. No need to pay these vocal few any heeds, just move on - this is the internet after all.
But because the physics is simple, we can play our 1000+ parts build. If complex physics are to be implemented, then we need to have the tools to build planes with complex shapes and functions using 20 parts or less. This is how other flight sims are coded so that they don't nuke our computer. Take Il-2 BoS for example - the crashes are beautiful to look at, but it is obvious that the planes themselves are comprised of few large sections.
It would be fun to fly for sure, but not so fun to chase down a rogue AI flying this :p.
@OrangeConnor I have no idea how to send you a private message. Regardless, thank you for the comments on my simple builds. These are built with AI auto-spawn in mind, so understandably, they are too simple to be noticed by the community at large.
@MrR0botinatoR I saw that match, nice plane
@Warbirdnation It's a prompt for you to enter all sorts of commands. press the ~ key if you're on PC. Don't know how to do it on mobile. Perhaps someone else can help you with that.
@Warbirdnation Technically, both, as long as you have access to 1.9.202 Beta and console command
Ah yes, I had no idea today is Christmas. Since VerticalG is implemented in Funky Tree, may we have an UI display of it as well? Also, is it possible to use apply Funky Tree onto control surfaces?
@vcharng You raise a few fair points about creating more stable landing gears. However, the main issue here is how releasing/firing ordnance causes the re-sizable wheels to basically bug out. Try landing the plane without releasing ordnance and landing it once more after releasing ordnance. You should notice a more distinct swerve between the two conditions.
@vcharng This is the plane I am working on:
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/et8jRb/GD-01-Aegis-IV
.
There's no problem with loading the ordnance. The plane will land and take-off normally. However, the problem occurs once the ordnance are released. The plane will swerve violently after landing. This also happens in other builds, besides my own, with similar custom tricycle landing gears.
@asteroidbook345 This sounds plausible. I wonder when is the next time a bug report could be submitted. This bug is seriously impeding with the way I play this game. I just wanted to take-off drop bombs/fire missiles, and land normally.
@vcharng Enabling suspension on the wheels does even weirder things. My custom gears use shocks for suspension. The landing gears work fine under all conditions, even when there's cross-wind. It also works as intended when my build sustains battle damage, causing asymmetric drag and weight distribution. However, the problem occurs when I fire/release things like rockets, missiles, and bombs.
@TheFantasticTyphoon @asteroidbook345 You guys might be on to something. However, my build has detachable fuselage parts (300~ Ib each) that when detached, does not affect the landing gears' performance. Detaching a pair of Boom 25, however, causes the swerve.
I'm all for features that reduces the number of parts needed to make a functional, yet good looking plane. After all, I play SP because I want to have fun building, testing, and playing my builds. If I just wanted to build a high quality sculpture to look at, I'd use a 3D modeling tool.
@vcharng Yeah, I interpreted GS wrong. I kept thinking it was the horizontal speed component of the velocity vector. Though this is something else the dev and add to the list of variables we can use
It would be nice to have calculus functions. But from a coding perspective, it is more efficient to implement more variables for us to use. For example:
.
Vertical Speed (Rate of Climb): simply get the scalar, y-component (I think its y-axis) of the aircraft's velocity vector. This just made me realize... Vertical Speed = TAS - GS
.
Instantaneous Rate of Turn: get the difference between aircraft's current direction and its direction in the previous frame (May need to separate this into both a horizontal and vertical component).
.
Edit: Disregard that whole vertical speed = TAS - GS, I interpreted GS wrong
At this point, might as well implement a completely malleable fuselage block that can be molded to fit all shape and size
@Nickr Indeed, but for some, points and upvotes are numeric measurement of abstract ideas like skill, quality, seniority on this site, popularity, authority, self-worth, and E-peen size. Basically, your mileage may vary.
@asteroidbook345 I simply wish for an ability to adjust the parameters for AI spawning, so the AI can spawn aircraft that exceed part limits. Turning AI spawning off is the opposite of what I want.
@AndrewGarrison Ah, that is a shame. I was testing a cannon embedded within the fuselage and wondering why the projectile seems to do nothing against other airplanes.
Just tested, no more sudden yaws or weirdness
Curiously, setting disableAircraftCollisions to true on cannon allows the fired projectile to bypass collision with other aircraft besides my own. Is this working as intended? (In other words, you can now recreate the infamous hisparko cannon from War Thunder)