@TronicOrbital I know it does work, I made a mock up and even used a heavier weight on the end to make sure the joints wouldn't break, so I know it definitely works. The real devil is in the details (in a literal way) 😅
@TronicOrbital it's coming for sure, I will not be deterred 😂. I've been on this section of it for about a week and a half getting all the angles worked out (it starts folded up) and then making it not explode or just break apart. Since I made the gears I've tried to make whatever else functional in a realistic way, no cheating with hidden rotors, pistons, or motors, unless the game just flat out won't cooperate.
@TronicOrbital yeah, I've been doing collision mechanics almost entirely in here because unlike most other games, they're actually useful for realistic things. I've got it thought through and I can see a way I can ultimately link this up to the final step which does require control, and because of the linkable parts plus the damper (which after working I'll upload because holy crap it's useful for large heavy movements, IDK why we don't have one but I put about 10 parts together and it works perfectly), I can tie it all together and just make that the control point at the bottom instead of trying to control it at the top (where it makes sense, but, I can make it work after all in the end)
@TronicOrbital not quite. The entire process is mechanical, and uses collision as part of it being folded for transport. The collision of the piston isn't the issue, it's the other parts and joints. The piston pulls on a circular line around something else with a few joints that unfold an opposite way then continues to pull and lifts the rest of the sections upwards. Adding my custom damper I've been able to get it to unfold and almost completely recollapse without exploding, but I still have to use manual control in a couple places. It needs to start slow and then go full speed after a few seconds (after the pulling radius expands from .4 meter radius to 5.5 meter radius. Slow at the start keeps it from snapping the other joints apart but going slow at the end means ultimately the far side of what it's folding up will move about 5 meters in the course of 3 minutes while the piston finishes the last tiny bit of movements.
I can bypass this with vizzy, but then I also have to consider the return to 0 aspect. I can put this piston in step 3, make it expand, and then by the beginning of step 4, it's in a normal position to pull back to 0 and expand the design. Then after folding, do the same thing so that when the stage 3 is folded at 90° it's still at 0. Hard to explain but I've got it worked out. Just hate putting and "on or off" thing to a slider because we can't make more, but action groups just add it to xml
Maybe this isn't so much a wrong math issue so much as it's a positive or negative number issue in general.
Weight has to be 0 or any positive number...
Easiest way to do that is by using an "unsigned" variable, so it will always be positive weight. When you get a calculation and type cast as unsigned, even though 0.7 * e^-9 is a positive number, it has a sign in it, and typecast maybe literally removing the sign in the exponent....
And that's how you go from an output number of 0.000000007 to 700.000000, causing the physics to throw you from 2m/s to flaming 900m/s in half a second, and why collisions and movement are wonky when you alter mass scale.
Just some thoughts about it because I know it's been a long time issue
@TronicOrbital one other note, before I went to sleep last night I worked out a 7 meter long spring loaded damper, which greatly helps with the initial motions, so even the speed in general is ok, it's just the stinkin end part of the travel that's driving me nuts. I made a demo example to show what I mean
@TronicOrbital it's the way I'm deciding to figure out how to work that in. I did it before with my Donkey 5.5 k (pitch roll yaw and throttle move the hydraulics in that one.
I'm just trying to set pistons to action groups. What I'm making requires the sliders to be used as little as possible, because there will be about probably close to 40+ actions, about 90+ pistons I'm thinking, and two seats.
One benefit to using the action groups over the sliders, once you EVA, slider controlled items return to 0, whereas action groups parts won't move. So that's another reason I'd like it on an action group. The piston I'm fighting with is step 4 of like 9 unfolding, so if the slider isn't zero with build in a good way when you EVA.... Kablooie
@SamTheFox I just Uploaded "piston insanity demo" showing what I'm talking about if you want to take a look, maybe that will help explain what I mean and what I'm trying to do
I did get some of the things figured out, but advanced properties keep getting erased from the designer after launching and coming back, so I don't know if it's part of what I'm saying or not how I'm getting it working. I have to keep turning on the button for advanced properties, and sometimes reloading, my custom curve values are not there, sometimes they are, just the last value is missing for some reason. I type it back in, test, come back, third or 4th set of numbers are gone again. Still spending 40% of it's time in the last 5% of motion no matter what I set the tanget options for. using a linear, smooth, smooth clamped, or any LERP curve does not change the behavior either. It's like nothing will make the piston move just as fast at the end as it did when it first started. Real life hydraulics don't behave this way, so why do the game pistons behave this way? (Besides, ok, it looks cool folding fins out, but that's about it. Mechanically useless otherwise unless you map the input to vizzy and use direct input to with the sleep command to make it move at the right speeds. Only other option is wait forever)
@SamTheFox I'm referring to the actual movement of the piston itself in relation to an input. What is happening, I activate a piston. It takes about 1.5 seconds to reach full speed. So like the first 5% of the total travel, it's full speed. It then travels 90% of it's remaining distance at the same speed. Using a slow piston speed of like 10%, it would take the piston about 8 seconds to travel this 90%. The last 5% of travel, it takes another 8 seconds just to move, eh, barely noticeable, but moving along nonetheless. I am being driven nuts trying to make the last 5% move just as fast as the starting 5%, not spend 10 seconds in 95% of the range and 8 seconds in the last 5% of the range. 40% of the time spent in motion, is spent barely moving for way too long of a time.
Using slow piston speeds you notice it, and I have to use hidden edit and set it to about 3-4% speed in xml, otherwise it snatches itself apart, but then the last .02 M the piston moves out of 4 M, it takes about 2 minutes to complete, but the first part is over in about a minute, just zooms to speed, then it's like "are you ever going to be done? When? sheesh!!"
More thought leads me to a solution where I can work around this with using the input mapping with vizzy. Compound angles and changes of length on the way the model folds I can have a slider mapped to it and program it to extend when something else is moving and retract back to 0 in a controlled way, but also solve the issue of sliders going to 0 when you EVA. Action groups stay on or off, but sliders always 0, so in the case of this particular project, it will make a big boom going EVA either deployed or folded 😂. Be much better to just map the curve to behave in a way that works with the rest of it. Shouldn't move when you leave it, there's 8 sliders plus throttle, but it still isn't enough and the 0 things makes it not work well with pistons or rotors when you EVA and the craft is not how it was when it started out
Ok, I think I'm figuring some of it out.
(Input is?,output of piston will be|input is, output will be|tangent in, ?????|tangent out, ????)
Not sure what the ???? Is in all of it yet, still poking, and the curve output doesn't seem to make any difference to the way it moves, so still poking that too. I assume the tangent parts are what I'm really after, but still have forever and a day on time spent in the last 5% of the movement. I've worked around this in the past by mapping "input received then apply a value it should move to a slider to make the speed right, and piston speed maxed out, but I need the sliders for something else on this one, so more investigation is needed I think
So, for example, if I have a part that is 10kg, and I want it to be 1.3kg, now I have to make it 13% on mass scale, now the comp has to go 10*0.13= then move on, where it can just replace the "10" with 1.3 and move on
This... Sticking fuel tanks meaning they stick to the ground but they also stick to each other. So that makes friction 😊@YaMomzBox420 I just forgot to add the sticking part to the post sorry 😂 but yeah fuel tanks have different collisions and they stick to a lot of things, including each other
37 parts (64 mirrored) to go from mostly round to hexagon to square in a half meter 🙊 that's too many. So far I've got 281 parts instead of about 120 🙈 parts count limit for this one just went out the window 🙉
For sure. I'm working on something now where I have to use about 6 flat panels angled different to go from round to hexagon to square in a half meter 🙈 in the end it'll be about 30 parts instead of 4. Not to mention it's making the build a nightmare 😳@Starborn
Yeah I counted. It was either redo the 42 steps or rebuild an entire 384 part procedurally step built model 😞 it was the 192 tooth gear in its final steps 🙈 misclick the third to last making the connection and wham the whole gear is out of alignment forever.
Yes true, but still only half of the tank is rounded. That leaves you with hiding the rest of it. If you're trying to get a compound curve, or an arc type shape, you just can't do it with one because making the right arc leaves the square part sticking wayyyy out to the other side, unhideable. I've figured out a way to do it, it just requires 3 tanks instead of one. I needed a 1/4 of a round for my latest build. One 3/4 circle 1/4 round hollowed out is 18 parts by itself, for one thing 🙄. Simply slicing a torous would only be 1 part 🙊@AstroAerospace
I just had a thought. On your propellers, what airfoil are you using? Are you using a flat bottom airfoil with the top of the wing forward? Or symmetrical? Symmetrical airfoil may explain the spin but no go. Also if you mirrored the propellers, the airfoils may be "opposing" one forward and one back so it would force the plane to go forward and backwards, canceling it's self out. Turning on the lift vectors may help to see the airfoil direction. @YaMomzBox420
I'm almost done writing the last help bits and then it's on. This tool box of sorts enables you to do so many things the game does not easily allow without some serious math and hacking the XML to get the full float digits of position and rotation. I've solved something huge
So damn big it's 3 craft files for the tool 🙊, 2 individual sets that are different, then a help file alone by itself. All are about 300 parts a piece, even the help file, and my craptop was having fun at 600, so I have to make sure it's also mobile friendly 😏
Counterintuitive definitely, but I'm almost done with something that just might help everyone out a ton. Made it all in 2 hours. Taking forever and two days to make the help file explaining all the bazillions of things it's capable of doing @YaMomzBox420
Yeah this game is quite a bit "different". It can be tricky to only build in cylinders and cubes that only round 2/3 of the way, flat top and bottom. Lot of "microplacement" I call it to make illusions. Sometimes you just can't get what you need. Pulling wide makes the right curve, but then something else sticks out 😤 so close enough has to do. Made me mad on my f-15, lot of close curves but not "dead on"
Nice! Yes this is definitely something basic for building so I didn't think I was the only one thinking this 😂. I'm just so absorbed in my latest build that's actually a ton of building tools @Zenithspeed
@FelixFan1 it was aggravating for sure 😂 but I did get good at making changes to a model 😊. Kind of ironic if you consider the other game jundroo makes 🐒 about 5 hours and multiple set ups I eventually figured the less physics you use the more the game likes you and lets you go 🤷🏼♂️ So just do simple to get the vectors in the right places and hide it
@YaMomzBox420 I've already got the workaround pinned, and it works like a charm. Just wait. Few more details and it's dropping... Already matching flight characteristics like the dedicated sims for it as if you flip off the fly by wire. Near scale weight, flight time, service ceiling, and can even do the trademark takeoff pose. Had it at 580 m/s (about mach 2) 450 meters off the ground, and I believe the engine was about the only thing I've had to "tinker" since the old wing and control is out
@FriendlyFin, I got it, pinned comment is the solution 👍 now it's just tuning in the controls at just under what's real because I don't want to code the fly by wire right now. Pretty solid now with easy input to the controls, just have to dial it back a little because slamming it one way or another the angle of attack goes up fast and it's over
@ChalxAerospace @Zenithspeed I figured out the wobbly boom thing. My plane is close to scale speed at low altitude, so mach 1 ish. What's happening is the game does not like more than one set of wings, one set of tail fins, and one rudder fin. Unlock transparency, then just paint the whole wing and fin thing 100% transparent. Now make your control surfaces, attach to a rotor, and Vio'la pretty surfaces. Cosmetics only but this game doesn't like planes period I'm starting to notice. The more physics I remove, the faster I can go. Up to 500 m/s now and just getting white (vapor I'm guessing) but no boom and keeping control 👍🐒
One main thing I did do after the first flight was put the control surfaces to servos, the put wings inside the surfaces. Probably need to go back to making it look like poo because the base control surfaces suck visually 🙈
Other than the shake and boom thing it's actually done. Flew 800 m/s on a test flight, no problem, ok fine tune the details and added maybe 12 more parts and now every flight is this
@RikHar, I think you've got it. I was wrong about a few comments ago. You're already constrained by the right angle and the asl. Asl is going to be a continuouly moving constraint, so maybe stick on what you have and maybe adjust some other variables with the craft to get it closer to where you need it. Forward looking radar and calculation from the ground will turn out the same too so I'd check some other things. Sorry, mind has been on my latest I just finished. It was supposed to be simple 🙄 😂
@RikHar 🙈 I've been looking at rockets and the universe and you're talking about something in the atmosphere. In that case I may have come across the correct thing and past it all the things I tried. Gave me a headche because I ace Geo and trig, and I went through all I could think of 😂
I can get the angle off the nose but for some reason my roll axis is 32 degrees off. Don't know how but two different ways it's definitely 32 degrees off. One of the frustrating things about Vizzy. It should work but doesn't. Do it another way and it does. Like for example floor function and modulus. Do floor more than 2 times in a row it makes none stop garbage. Do modulus 100 times in a row and carry the remaining through with a temp variable works fine. Same thing but one works the other doesn't and there is no explainable reason why. I'm not done poking yet though I'll figure it out.
@RikHar, that's pretty solid, and I think I know where the inaccuracy is....
Triangles are flat/straight, astronomical bodies and orbits are not. To be dead on, and not change what you have, just disregard the first one that becomes true and wait for the second one. I can picture the geometry from my head but can't really explain it, it involves radius and constraints 🙈. Kinda like moving to (1,0,0) to (0,1,0) on a graph but pass through (0,0,0) first, But to simplify, literally ignore the first time the angle matches. You stay on prograde and keep going forward in orbit, that same angle should reappear again, very soon after it first appears. Locking prograde the craft will keep pitching forward to match orbit, so it will be on the opposite side of the graph (0,1,0) position but the angle should be there again.
Visually, the target angle will be greater, hit the angle, then less, then start to grow, hit the angle you want again, then rush up really high and fast as you fly by the target.
I was thinking the other way around for the new idea. Create a cone in front of the craft and when the target comes into the cone, then it's time. Relies on the altitude being assumed correct, but is not critical, as the radians will always be the same no matter the distance. Then if you have a flat spot on the planet it won't matter about altitude since the orbit us set from about asl.
@RikHar if you haven't had success yet, I think I may know how to solve this. Let me make sure I can access the right information about it first, because I'm at a point I have to start involving targets myself so I'm thinking on it 😂
More I think on it, the more I'm certain I kind of need the same solution you're after, so one way or another, one of us will figure it out 🐒
@plane918273645 thinking about how I managed to get JavaScript and PHP to talk to each other (so simple I'm shocked nobody else has figured it out, that I'm aware of. I used it to preserve settings in the JavaScript without cookies or refreshing the page) gives me another idea. I think I know what my first mod will be....
@plane918273645 or even another thought, when you exit a craft with a live script, convert the remaining script into an NPC sprite, like the heros that follow you in Skyrim. The Vizzy converts into a sprite routine with your Vizzy 🧐 ok I think I may know how make it... I can mod this in
@plane918273645 kind of an afterthought and meant to add something about distance for that reason. I've been fighting floating point precision for about 3 days so I know the pain 🙈. Although, we have so many processor threads these days, why not be able to say run it as if the player were there but minus the graphics. Return a single vector and render the still, if it's out of visible range and not in an atmosphere maybe, just update the map vector. Next delta frame, repeat, and run the second, third, and so on scripts the same way up to a point, each second is so long, and each run needs more than .001 seconds to run of course, so like 3 or 4 max maybe, kind of how vsync would run, but like an email chess game and each second is a whole game, so it would be like 20 turns total between 4 scripts, so it smooths things out. Ran from each point, not in relation to player craft (physics passed around, camera stays). 🤷🏼♂️ Maybe not even to the extent of craft in flight, like even a ground type use where a few vehicles or machines not connected can operate and do small whatever's, like trigger a fireworks show with a bunch explode after so long scripts in them lol. Simple stuff
The craft file link containing the rocket also contains a Vizzy Script. It will teach you the answer to this question by letting you know what to do so you can get there.... simply by launching it. You fly it, control it, do all the things, and if you are doing something that will make it so you can't get to orbit, the program tells you what you need to do to fix it.
Need a switch/case type statement too. Same effort to make the structure as using a bunch of ifs, but would greatly increase the speed at which it executes (it's looking for one specific case, not testing 100 if statements individually for a single condition, which takes a lot more processing time...)
Example:
My in-flight tutorial uses about 30 some odd ifs and because of the way it works it has to be nested, and it sometimes will be testing if this then that but no if this, then test again if that and this is over that but not this and less that, and maybe yes but then something is still missing that's not tested but display in case it isn't, and then it's caught with another test, another display is used and the process continues.... to determine 3-4 things every .5 seconds. If I had switch case, I could test maybe 4 levels, get a number, pass that to a function or another switch case to make 5 and display 1 message one time based on case and only use processing to look for specific case one two or so on. Without I'm having to test, retest, and use fall through messages stuck up ahead of time to account for a few simple case situations. 🧐 Maybe I can set it up that way with ifs, but for some reason trying it like that before I got a lot of wrong things out of it, usually backwards of what was expected (despite rearranging the order in the flow) 🙈. Small structure like this seems to be ok despite doing about 30 tests a second, but I would think something of a greater scale, testing for more conditions at once may be taxing to processing power 👍
@TronicOrbital had an "undisclosable incident" yesterday so never got the dampers done until now, but up and live finally :)
+1 1.9 years ago@TronicOrbital I know it does work, I made a mock up and even used a heavier weight on the end to make sure the joints wouldn't break, so I know it definitely works. The real devil is in the details (in a literal way) 😅
+1 1.9 years ago@TronicOrbital it's coming for sure, I will not be deterred 😂. I've been on this section of it for about a week and a half getting all the angles worked out (it starts folded up) and then making it not explode or just break apart. Since I made the gears I've tried to make whatever else functional in a realistic way, no cheating with hidden rotors, pistons, or motors, unless the game just flat out won't cooperate.
+1 1.9 years ago@TronicOrbital yeah, I've been doing collision mechanics almost entirely in here because unlike most other games, they're actually useful for realistic things. I've got it thought through and I can see a way I can ultimately link this up to the final step which does require control, and because of the linkable parts plus the damper (which after working I'll upload because holy crap it's useful for large heavy movements, IDK why we don't have one but I put about 10 parts together and it works perfectly), I can tie it all together and just make that the control point at the bottom instead of trying to control it at the top (where it makes sense, but, I can make it work after all in the end)
1.9 years agoWhat I'm making starts as a 3 * 4 * 16 m box and expands to 8 * 80 * 99m, and then folds back to the 3 * 4 * 16 to be able to move it.
If I had only a nickel for every time this thing exploded so far.... Let's just say I wouldn't need to work for a bit 😂
1.9 years ago@TronicOrbital not quite. The entire process is mechanical, and uses collision as part of it being folded for transport. The collision of the piston isn't the issue, it's the other parts and joints. The piston pulls on a circular line around something else with a few joints that unfold an opposite way then continues to pull and lifts the rest of the sections upwards. Adding my custom damper I've been able to get it to unfold and almost completely recollapse without exploding, but I still have to use manual control in a couple places. It needs to start slow and then go full speed after a few seconds (after the pulling radius expands from .4 meter radius to 5.5 meter radius. Slow at the start keeps it from snapping the other joints apart but going slow at the end means ultimately the far side of what it's folding up will move about 5 meters in the course of 3 minutes while the piston finishes the last tiny bit of movements.
I can bypass this with vizzy, but then I also have to consider the return to 0 aspect. I can put this piston in step 3, make it expand, and then by the beginning of step 4, it's in a normal position to pull back to 0 and expand the design. Then after folding, do the same thing so that when the stage 3 is folded at 90° it's still at 0. Hard to explain but I've got it worked out. Just hate putting and "on or off" thing to a slider because we can't make more, but action groups just add it to xml
1.9 years agoMaybe this isn't so much a wrong math issue so much as it's a positive or negative number issue in general.
Weight has to be 0 or any positive number...
Easiest way to do that is by using an "unsigned" variable, so it will always be positive weight. When you get a calculation and type cast as unsigned, even though 0.7 * e^-9 is a positive number, it has a sign in it, and typecast maybe literally removing the sign in the exponent....
And that's how you go from an output number of 0.000000007 to 700.000000, causing the physics to throw you from 2m/s to flaming 900m/s in half a second, and why collisions and movement are wonky when you alter mass scale.
Just some thoughts about it because I know it's been a long time issue
1.9 years ago@TronicOrbital one other note, before I went to sleep last night I worked out a 7 meter long spring loaded damper, which greatly helps with the initial motions, so even the speed in general is ok, it's just the stinkin end part of the travel that's driving me nuts. I made a demo example to show what I mean
1.9 years ago@TronicOrbital it's the way I'm deciding to figure out how to work that in. I did it before with my Donkey 5.5 k (pitch roll yaw and throttle move the hydraulics in that one.
I'm just trying to set pistons to action groups. What I'm making requires the sliders to be used as little as possible, because there will be about probably close to 40+ actions, about 90+ pistons I'm thinking, and two seats.
One benefit to using the action groups over the sliders, once you EVA, slider controlled items return to 0, whereas action groups parts won't move. So that's another reason I'd like it on an action group. The piston I'm fighting with is step 4 of like 9 unfolding, so if the slider isn't zero with build in a good way when you EVA.... Kablooie
1.9 years ago@SamTheFox I just Uploaded "piston insanity demo" showing what I'm talking about if you want to take a look, maybe that will help explain what I mean and what I'm trying to do
1.9 years agoI did get some of the things figured out, but advanced properties keep getting erased from the designer after launching and coming back, so I don't know if it's part of what I'm saying or not how I'm getting it working. I have to keep turning on the button for advanced properties, and sometimes reloading, my custom curve values are not there, sometimes they are, just the last value is missing for some reason. I type it back in, test, come back, third or 4th set of numbers are gone again. Still spending 40% of it's time in the last 5% of motion no matter what I set the tanget options for. using a linear, smooth, smooth clamped, or any LERP curve does not change the behavior either. It's like nothing will make the piston move just as fast at the end as it did when it first started. Real life hydraulics don't behave this way, so why do the game pistons behave this way? (Besides, ok, it looks cool folding fins out, but that's about it. Mechanically useless otherwise unless you map the input to vizzy and use direct input to with the sleep command to make it move at the right speeds. Only other option is wait forever)
1.9 years ago@SamTheFox I'm referring to the actual movement of the piston itself in relation to an input. What is happening, I activate a piston. It takes about 1.5 seconds to reach full speed. So like the first 5% of the total travel, it's full speed. It then travels 90% of it's remaining distance at the same speed. Using a slow piston speed of like 10%, it would take the piston about 8 seconds to travel this 90%. The last 5% of travel, it takes another 8 seconds just to move, eh, barely noticeable, but moving along nonetheless. I am being driven nuts trying to make the last 5% move just as fast as the starting 5%, not spend 10 seconds in 95% of the range and 8 seconds in the last 5% of the range. 40% of the time spent in motion, is spent barely moving for way too long of a time.
1.9 years agoUsing slow piston speeds you notice it, and I have to use hidden edit and set it to about 3-4% speed in xml, otherwise it snatches itself apart, but then the last .02 M the piston moves out of 4 M, it takes about 2 minutes to complete, but the first part is over in about a minute, just zooms to speed, then it's like "are you ever going to be done? When? sheesh!!"
More thought leads me to a solution where I can work around this with using the input mapping with vizzy. Compound angles and changes of length on the way the model folds I can have a slider mapped to it and program it to extend when something else is moving and retract back to 0 in a controlled way, but also solve the issue of sliders going to 0 when you EVA. Action groups stay on or off, but sliders always 0, so in the case of this particular project, it will make a big boom going EVA either deployed or folded 😂. Be much better to just map the curve to behave in a way that works with the rest of it. Shouldn't move when you leave it, there's 8 sliders plus throttle, but it still isn't enough and the 0 things makes it not work well with pistons or rotors when you EVA and the craft is not how it was when it started out
1.9 years agoOk, I think I'm figuring some of it out.
(Input is?,output of piston will be|input is, output will be|tangent in, ?????|tangent out, ????)
Not sure what the ???? Is in all of it yet, still poking, and the curve output doesn't seem to make any difference to the way it moves, so still poking that too. I assume the tangent parts are what I'm really after, but still have forever and a day on time spent in the last 5% of the movement. I've worked around this in the past by mapping "input received then apply a value it should move to a slider to make the speed right, and piston speed maxed out, but I need the sliders for something else on this one, so more investigation is needed I think
1.9 years agoSo, for example, if I have a part that is 10kg, and I want it to be 1.3kg, now I have to make it 13% on mass scale, now the comp has to go 10*0.13= then move on, where it can just replace the "10" with 1.3 and move on
1.9 years agoThis... Sticking fuel tanks meaning they stick to the ground but they also stick to each other. So that makes friction 😊@YaMomzBox420 I just forgot to add the sticking part to the post sorry 😂 but yeah fuel tanks have different collisions and they stick to a lot of things, including each other
3.0 years ago
3.0 years agoSquare Blocks37 parts (64 mirrored) to go from mostly round to hexagon to square in a half meter 🙊 that's too many. So far I've got 281 parts instead of about 120 🙈 parts count limit for this one just went out the window 🙉
It look guud doh 😊
3.0 years agoFor sure. I'm working on something now where I have to use about 6 flat panels angled different to go from round to hexagon to square in a half meter 🙈 in the end it'll be about 30 parts instead of 4. Not to mention it's making the build a nightmare 😳@Starborn
+1 3.0 years agoMy latest build I'm either getting 97% accurate or going to the asylum trying 🙊🤣
+1 3.0 years agoYeah I counted. It was either redo the 42 steps or rebuild an entire 384 part procedurally step built model 😞 it was the 192 tooth gear in its final steps 🙈 misclick the third to last making the connection and wham the whole gear is out of alignment forever.
3.0 years agoYes true, but still only half of the tank is rounded. That leaves you with hiding the rest of it. If you're trying to get a compound curve, or an arc type shape, you just can't do it with one because making the right arc leaves the square part sticking wayyyy out to the other side, unhideable. I've figured out a way to do it, it just requires 3 tanks instead of one. I needed a 1/4 of a round for my latest build. One 3/4 circle 1/4 round hollowed out is 18 parts by itself, for one thing 🙄. Simply slicing a torous would only be 1 part 🙊@AstroAerospace
+1 3.0 years agoI just had a thought. On your propellers, what airfoil are you using? Are you using a flat bottom airfoil with the top of the wing forward? Or symmetrical? Symmetrical airfoil may explain the spin but no go. Also if you mirrored the propellers, the airfoils may be "opposing" one forward and one back so it would force the plane to go forward and backwards, canceling it's self out. Turning on the lift vectors may help to see the airfoil direction. @YaMomzBox420
3.0 years agoI'm almost done writing the last help bits and then it's on. This tool box of sorts enables you to do so many things the game does not easily allow without some serious math and hacking the XML to get the full float digits of position and rotation. I've solved something huge
3.0 years agoSo damn big it's 3 craft files for the tool 🙊, 2 individual sets that are different, then a help file alone by itself. All are about 300 parts a piece, even the help file, and my craptop was having fun at 600, so I have to make sure it's also mobile friendly 😏
3.0 years agoCounterintuitive definitely, but I'm almost done with something that just might help everyone out a ton. Made it all in 2 hours. Taking forever and two days to make the help file explaining all the bazillions of things it's capable of doing @YaMomzBox420
3.0 years agoYeah this game is quite a bit "different". It can be tricky to only build in cylinders and cubes that only round 2/3 of the way, flat top and bottom. Lot of "microplacement" I call it to make illusions. Sometimes you just can't get what you need. Pulling wide makes the right curve, but then something else sticks out 😤 so close enough has to do. Made me mad on my f-15, lot of close curves but not "dead on"
3.0 years agoNice! Yes this is definitely something basic for building so I didn't think I was the only one thinking this 😂. I'm just so absorbed in my latest build that's actually a ton of building tools @Zenithspeed
3.0 years ago@Starborn too many physics 🙈 solution pinned 👍
3.0 years ago@FelixFan1 it was aggravating for sure 😂 but I did get good at making changes to a model 😊. Kind of ironic if you consider the other game jundroo makes 🐒 about 5 hours and multiple set ups I eventually figured the less physics you use the more the game likes you and lets you go 🤷🏼♂️ So just do simple to get the vectors in the right places and hide it
+2 3.0 years ago@YaMomzBox420 I've already got the workaround pinned, and it works like a charm. Just wait. Few more details and it's dropping... Already matching flight characteristics like the dedicated sims for it as if you flip off the fly by wire. Near scale weight, flight time, service ceiling, and can even do the trademark takeoff pose. Had it at 580 m/s (about mach 2) 450 meters off the ground, and I believe the engine was about the only thing I've had to "tinker" since the old wing and control is out
3.0 years agoNear scale ceiling, speed and performance, yeah be light on the physics use and heavy on transparency, thing flies like it's meant to now 👏🏼
3.0 years ago@FriendlyFin, I got it, pinned comment is the solution 👍 now it's just tuning in the controls at just under what's real because I don't want to code the fly by wire right now. Pretty solid now with easy input to the controls, just have to dial it back a little because slamming it one way or another the angle of attack goes up fast and it's over
3.0 years ago@ChalxAerospace @Zenithspeed I figured out the wobbly boom thing. My plane is close to scale speed at low altitude, so mach 1 ish. What's happening is the game does not like more than one set of wings, one set of tail fins, and one rudder fin. Unlock transparency, then just paint the whole wing and fin thing 100% transparent. Now make your control surfaces, attach to a rotor, and Vio'la pretty surfaces. Cosmetics only but this game doesn't like planes period I'm starting to notice. The more physics I remove, the faster I can go. Up to 500 m/s now and just getting white (vapor I'm guessing) but no boom and keeping control 👍🐒
3.0 years agoThat's what it was. Had to go back to the poo looking ones, too many wings, or you just can't rotate a control surface mount 🤷🏼♂️
3.0 years agoOne main thing I did do after the first flight was put the control surfaces to servos, the put wings inside the surfaces. Probably need to go back to making it look like poo because the base control surfaces suck visually 🙈
3.0 years agoOther than the shake and boom thing it's actually done. Flew 800 m/s on a test flight, no problem, ok fine tune the details and added maybe 12 more parts and now every flight is this
3.0 years agoPossible part drag? It's only 264 parts, but a lot of tinker adjustment to check
3.0 years ago@RikHar, I think you've got it. I was wrong about a few comments ago. You're already constrained by the right angle and the asl. Asl is going to be a continuouly moving constraint, so maybe stick on what you have and maybe adjust some other variables with the craft to get it closer to where you need it. Forward looking radar and calculation from the ground will turn out the same too so I'd check some other things. Sorry, mind has been on my latest I just finished. It was supposed to be simple 🙄 😂
3.1 years ago@RikHar 🙈 I've been looking at rockets and the universe and you're talking about something in the atmosphere. In that case I may have come across the correct thing and past it all the things I tried. Gave me a headche because I ace Geo and trig, and I went through all I could think of 😂
3.1 years agoI can get the angle off the nose but for some reason my roll axis is 32 degrees off. Don't know how but two different ways it's definitely 32 degrees off. One of the frustrating things about Vizzy. It should work but doesn't. Do it another way and it does. Like for example floor function and modulus. Do floor more than 2 times in a row it makes none stop garbage. Do modulus 100 times in a row and carry the remaining through with a temp variable works fine. Same thing but one works the other doesn't and there is no explainable reason why. I'm not done poking yet though I'll figure it out.
3.1 years ago@RikHar, that's pretty solid, and I think I know where the inaccuracy is....
Triangles are flat/straight, astronomical bodies and orbits are not. To be dead on, and not change what you have, just disregard the first one that becomes true and wait for the second one. I can picture the geometry from my head but can't really explain it, it involves radius and constraints 🙈. Kinda like moving to (1,0,0) to (0,1,0) on a graph but pass through (0,0,0) first, But to simplify, literally ignore the first time the angle matches. You stay on prograde and keep going forward in orbit, that same angle should reappear again, very soon after it first appears. Locking prograde the craft will keep pitching forward to match orbit, so it will be on the opposite side of the graph (0,1,0) position but the angle should be there again.
3.1 years agoVisually, the target angle will be greater, hit the angle, then less, then start to grow, hit the angle you want again, then rush up really high and fast as you fly by the target.
I was thinking the other way around for the new idea. Create a cone in front of the craft and when the target comes into the cone, then it's time. Relies on the altitude being assumed correct, but is not critical, as the radians will always be the same no matter the distance. Then if you have a flat spot on the planet it won't matter about altitude since the orbit us set from about asl.
@RikHar if you haven't had success yet, I think I may know how to solve this. Let me make sure I can access the right information about it first, because I'm at a point I have to start involving targets myself so I'm thinking on it 😂
More I think on it, the more I'm certain I kind of need the same solution you're after, so one way or another, one of us will figure it out 🐒
3.1 years ago@plane918273645 thinking about how I managed to get JavaScript and PHP to talk to each other (so simple I'm shocked nobody else has figured it out, that I'm aware of. I used it to preserve settings in the JavaScript without cookies or refreshing the page) gives me another idea. I think I know what my first mod will be....
3.1 years ago@plane918273645 🤷🏼♂️ push limits, make it better. It is a sim after all so it's already fairly complex. It's rocket science.
3.1 years ago@plane918273645 or even another thought, when you exit a craft with a live script, convert the remaining script into an NPC sprite, like the heros that follow you in Skyrim. The Vizzy converts into a sprite routine with your Vizzy 🧐 ok I think I may know how make it... I can mod this in
3.1 years ago@plane918273645 kind of an afterthought and meant to add something about distance for that reason. I've been fighting floating point precision for about 3 days so I know the pain 🙈. Although, we have so many processor threads these days, why not be able to say run it as if the player were there but minus the graphics. Return a single vector and render the still, if it's out of visible range and not in an atmosphere maybe, just update the map vector. Next delta frame, repeat, and run the second, third, and so on scripts the same way up to a point, each second is so long, and each run needs more than .001 seconds to run of course, so like 3 or 4 max maybe, kind of how vsync would run, but like an email chess game and each second is a whole game, so it would be like 20 turns total between 4 scripts, so it smooths things out. Ran from each point, not in relation to player craft (physics passed around, camera stays). 🤷🏼♂️ Maybe not even to the extent of craft in flight, like even a ground type use where a few vehicles or machines not connected can operate and do small whatever's, like trigger a fireworks show with a bunch explode after so long scripts in them lol. Simple stuff
3.1 years agoThe craft file link containing the rocket also contains a Vizzy Script. It will teach you the answer to this question by letting you know what to do so you can get there.... simply by launching it. You fly it, control it, do all the things, and if you are doing something that will make it so you can't get to orbit, the program tells you what you need to do to fix it.
How to fly a rocket 101.
3.1 years ago@Starborn Sorry? Not sure what you mean?
3.1 years agoNeed a switch/case type statement too. Same effort to make the structure as using a bunch of ifs, but would greatly increase the speed at which it executes (it's looking for one specific case, not testing 100 if statements individually for a single condition, which takes a lot more processing time...)
Example:
3.1 years agoMy in-flight tutorial uses about 30 some odd ifs and because of the way it works it has to be nested, and it sometimes will be testing if this then that but no if this, then test again if that and this is over that but not this and less that, and maybe yes but then something is still missing that's not tested but display in case it isn't, and then it's caught with another test, another display is used and the process continues.... to determine 3-4 things every .5 seconds. If I had switch case, I could test maybe 4 levels, get a number, pass that to a function or another switch case to make 5 and display 1 message one time based on case and only use processing to look for specific case one two or so on. Without I'm having to test, retest, and use fall through messages stuck up ahead of time to account for a few simple case situations. 🧐 Maybe I can set it up that way with ifs, but for some reason trying it like that before I got a lot of wrong things out of it, usually backwards of what was expected (despite rearranging the order in the flow) 🙈. Small structure like this seems to be ok despite doing about 30 tests a second, but I would think something of a greater scale, testing for more conditions at once may be taxing to processing power 👍