Post Your Current WIP V.3!: Tutorials, Tools and Model Packs Galore (GM13 googogogo) - Garry's Mod

[QUOTE=lintz;39377637]I've got two chips that run at barely 10/20 ops if I set the interval to 10, at cost of slight strength. I can also clamp the depression and elevation and I have another set of chips for tank destroyers that clamp side to side motion as well. I also have a chip that visually shows a HUD for ammo, gears and an arbitrary crosshair/dispersion system.[/QUOTE] really should have kept the part in my post that said "cue people throwing about their chips" but yeah, that sounds like a great chip, it's just that not everyone uses chips like that (their own or otherwise) for various reasons. oh and I think you mean if you set the interval to 100. I'd love to see an entity (not entirely sure what it should look like) which has clamping and maybe speed/power settings on the spawn tool, and you link it to a target entity (gun most likely, but for multiple gun set-ups probably a prop in between) which it then flings around as per an angle and/or quaternion input at a rate which reflects the size (small, medium, large) of the driver entity using a neat lua implementation

[QUOTE=Em See;39377578]we need some kind of standardised turret aiming entity (just to aim and move the gun) that maybe uses ACF engine power (actually on second thought that isn't that good of an idea), I love what ACF engines did for locomotion, and it seems aiming has been/is the largest disparity between player solutions - I see all kinds of e2 aiming implementations of varying quality with equality varying ops loads probably have a couple of size/weight classes of it, and yeah probably not engine power but similar to ACF mobility; turning speed and such is related to the (physical and otherwise) mass of what it is moving around, sound effects and angle clamping[/QUOTE] Wait, that's fucking brilliant; have an entity that connects both to a turret and an engine and depending on the speed/power of the engine, the entity responds quicker.

[QUOTE=MrWhite;39378122]Wait, that's fucking brilliant; have an entity that connects both to a turret and an engine and depending on the speed/power of the engine, the entity responds quicker.[/QUOTE] yeah, that's what I thought originally - but how did ACF era tank turret mechanisms function? was it dependant on the engine? either way, surely just having the engine running is enough for electrical/hydraulic systems? though I was thinking that the turn speed would be dependant more on the mass of the entity it was driving and its own size - you could have small, medium and large turret actuators each being larger and heavier themselves (mounted on the hull, not turret, though) but can each drive larger loads easier. problem is I'm not sure about how these things work in real tanks of the era, hell having minimum engine torque requirements might work as well (large turret actuator needing at least XX Nm else it is weaker) you have to keep in mind that ACF isn't just about tnaks, so it has to be flexible

No. It'd damage flexibility. ACF has to work with mechs, has to work with tanks, has to work with armored cars, artillery, etc. Also in WW2 you see a massive disparity in turret actuation. Some tanks were controlled by handwheels only, some had hydraulics and handwheels, some tanks even had stabilizers ('murrica woot). But ACF also goes into the 60s and 70s, where turret rotation speed is much higher and often from an independent power supply. Meaning your revs have nothing to do with it. And yes people do build modern looking tanks, it's not JUST 1940s stuff. This ignores of course that not everyone wants to give up their aiming system. Some people [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCtM1alClBM]like their aim chips a lot[/url], having sunk a lot of time into them and given them special features. Not to mention that acf is not world of tanks, stop trying to make it world of tanks, and it isn't a great idea to add more things that will increase the disparity between mechs and tanks. If anything, let's find a way to limit mech mobility, to keep them on par with tanks. [editline]27th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=oakman26;39374743]These builds are all pretty cool and stuff but does anyone else just like to make simple prop light contraptions that use basic addons so they pretty much work on any server?[/QUOTE] that's all I make.

[QUOTE=RedReaper;39379270]No. It'd damage flexibility. ACF has to work with mechs, has to work with tanks, has to work with armored cars, artillery, etc. Also in WW2 you see a massive disparity in turret actuation. Some tanks were controlled by handwheels only, some had hydraulics and handwheels, some tanks even had stabilizers ('murrica woot). But ACF also goes into the 60s and 70s, where turret rotation speed is much higher and often from an independent power supply. Meaning your revs have nothing to do with it. And yes people do build modern looking tanks, it's not JUST 1940s stuff. This ignores of course that not everyone wants to give up their aiming system. Some people [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCtM1alClBM"]like their aim chips a lot[/URL], having sunk a lot of time into them and given them special features. Not to mention that acf is not world of tanks, stop trying to make it world of tanks, and it isn't a great idea to add more things that will increase the disparity between mechs and tanks. If anything, let's find a way to limit mech mobility, to keep them on par with tanks.[/QUOTE] as far as I can tell you're not seeing the idea the same as me I don't see this as a system where you drop an entity, link it to a gun and link it to a pod and it displays ammo and draws a cursor for you while aiming the gun using your eye angles or some shit it'd work fine for anything which mounted a gun on a free moving mount (limited or not), which pretty much covers mechs, gunships and ground vehicle mounts. yes [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEsXfuMZAR4"]I know[/URL][URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEsXfuMZAR4"] people love their fancypants aiming systems a lot[/URL], which is exactly why I didn't suggest replacing the entire pipeline - as I said before; you feed it an angle/quat and it complies with sounds and a rate dependent on its target entity's weight and the unit itself's size class. that leaves it up to you to either pass it direct angles direct from an eye pod, or process them in any which way you desire (yes, that includes churning the angles out of an rk4 predictor for a mobile mortar system or something) - it just handles moving the weapon for you but yeah mechs aren't reigned in by anything at the moment, though I can't really think of anything which would help with that that just leaves the era/speed kind of issue floating about, yeah speed could be managed by the realism loving player by underfitting an actuator, but that leaves sound as the issue. not sure, while a neat hydraulic/electric whine as you spin might be cool yeah it does kinda break down for applications which shouldn't have that kind of thing - I dunno, maybe some kind of general bearing sound could be used also world of tanks? sorry, I haven't played it before, I'm not sure what you're referring to

I think I've read some read some hostility to this idea. But I think it would be cool to include fuel tanks to acf. One thing people don't seem to take into consideration is the weight or size of a fuel tank. I see people throwing huge engines on their tanks, then packing it with ammo boxes, armour, and then the seat. But what about the fuel? A big enough tank of fuel to run that engine for any useful amount of time would take up a considerable amount of space and weight (I think, could be wrong, haven't done any research on it). It would also promote the idea of using the smallest engine possible. Since it would use less fuel. I think it would be cool. And put a stop to the whole, "Look at my car, it's so fast!", "But it has 4 gas turbines on it!", "So?".

[QUOTE=Labrasones;39379990]I think I've read some read some hostility to this idea. But I think it would be cool to include fuel tanks to acf. One thing people don't seem to take into consideration is the weight or size of a fuel tank. I see people throwing huge engines on their tanks, then packing it with ammo boxes, armour, and then the seat. But what about the fuel? A big enough tank of fuel to run that engine for any useful amount of time would take up a considerable amount of space and weight (I think, could be wrong, haven't done any research on it). It would also promote the idea of using the smallest engine possible. Since it would use less fuel. I think it would be cool. And put a stop to the whole, "Look at my car, it's so fast!", "But it has 4 gas turbines on it!", "So?".[/QUOTE] issue is Garry's Mod battles never last for long enough or over long enough distances for fuel amounts to really matter - everyone would just fit enough fuel to maybe last 10-20 minutes so the weight could be otherwise used can't say the issue it prevents is something I've seen, I mean I'd see that almost like someone spawning a jeep, sticking a bunch of thrusters on the back and saying the same

On the other hand, having a fuel tank to hit creates the possibility of conflagrations and knocking the engine dead in the water. Right now battles are entirely about the armour and munition. Once you introduce a new weak spot, battles become much more complex and in my mind, more fun.

[QUOTE=lintz;39380291]On the other hand, having a fuel tank to hit creates the possibility of conflagrations and knocking the engine dead in the water. Right now battles are entirely about the armour and munition. Once you introduce a new weak spot, battles become much more complex and in my mind, more fun.[/QUOTE] another reason why I'd love to see that turret actuator, as opposed to "hit wherever that e2 is hidden and everything shuts down" yeah, well engines are subject to destruction from ACF, but I'm sure they're much more fragile than the way they are handled (as solid blocks of armour only destroyable once they are completely compromised) - they are almost always the things left standing when a tank detonates haha instead of introducing fuel tank entities (you'd have to find a way to force people to use the right sizes when fuel itself isn't a problem, meaning per-engine requirements, limiting what a lot of people might do), maybe engines could fuck up under direct damage or even start fires etc

The problem WITH engines right now is that they don't do anything. When they take damage they still work. It's kind of silly that massive tank shells don't damage the engine.

Perhaps damage be represented as a percent of the health of the engine and affect power output.

Engines are already affected by damage--if they get blown off, you stop moving. If the gearbox is blown off, you stop moving. Not complicated! Problem with fuel, again, tank battles don't last long. Go research the weight and fuel consumption of engines. It's pretty clear cut. Problem with traverse is, it's just impractical. Watch a modern tank elevate and traverse its turret. It's fuckall fast. Circling, in real tank combat, doesn't work. Not unless it's an urban slugfest and it's 1942. We're really approaching modern tank technology, trying to limit it by 1940s standards is a futile effort. No amount of SENTs will fix that the average skilled tank builder is more sure of his expected opposition and has more flexibility with his technology than the guys who put together tanks in the 30s.

Engines and gearboxes are the last thing to go in a tank. If my ammo rack is hit, everything but the wheels and transmission is blown away.

[QUOTE=RedReaper;39382251]Engines are already affected by damage--if they get blown off, you stop moving. If the gearbox is blown off, you stop moving. Not complicated! Problem with fuel, again, tank battles don't last long. Go research the weight and fuel consumption of engines. It's pretty clear cut. Problem with traverse is, it's just impractical. Watch a modern tank elevate and traverse its turret. It's fuckall fast. Circling, in real tank combat, doesn't work. Not unless it's an urban slugfest and it's 1942. We're really approaching modern tank technology, trying to limit it by 1940s standards is a futile effort. No amount of SENTs will fix that the average skilled tank builder is more sure of his expected opposition and has more flexibility with his technology than the guys who put together tanks in the 30s.[/QUOTE] so yeah, if we're setting an upper limit on traverse speeds, don't limit it to the worst era (let players decide to do that if they want), and ensure that it is at least capable versus an e2 driven system. like, one of the main reasons I suggest this aiming sent is because I've seen everything from a tank which can propel itself faster using its applytorque turret than its engines alone and of course, the discrepancy about people using chips which chew ops (and refuse to change either from pride over their own solutions or just being ignorant to faster, more efficient methods) [editline]28th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=lintz;39382572]Engines and gearboxes are the last thing to go in a tank. If my ammo rack is hit, everything but the wheels and transmission is blown away.[/QUOTE] yeah, exactly what I said. they're treated like solid blocks of steel through and through, surely they deserve some kind of special treatment?

a tank engine basically is a solid block of steel lol A tank is M-killed if tracks or engine are blown apart in real life. But in gmod that's basically a total kill. Not quite the same.

Aaaaaand back on topic, here is my MT-25 and a WIP M4A4 Sherman, both ACF. The Sherman is the first attempt at emulating a real design, and I can't say I'm happy. I hate unfinished projects though, so I'll see it through to the end. [URL=http://imgur.com/rc3dZjt][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/rc3dZjt.jpg[/IMG][/URL] EDIT: Shit, that's a big picture... Sorry everyone.

[QUOTE=RedReaper;39383225]a tank engine basically is a solid block of steel lol.[/QUOTE] yeah but it won't like being hit with tank rounds, in ACF a block of steel of that size and mass is nigh indestructible - you'd be hard pressed to destroy it without destroying the rest of the tank first [editline]28th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=ted234521;39383329]Aaaaaand back on topic, here is my MT-25 and a WIP M4A4 Sherman, both ACF. The Sherman is the first attempt at emulating a real design, and I can't say I'm happy. I hate unfinished projects though, so I'll see it through to the end. [URL="http://imgur.com/rc3dZjt"][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/rc3dZjt.jpg[/IMG][/URL] EDIT: Shit, that's a big picture... Sorry everyone.[/QUOTE] wrap it in [ t ] [/ t ] tags

Em See, It didn't work? Oh well. Ban me for a giant pic :D Anyways, does anyone have a tut for making turret controls systems in ACF? I'm not sure of the video above by Red does (It won't load for me :/) and I'm sorry to bug you guys if it does, but I always had trouble making turrets with those big heavy guns.

Nah. See, heavier engines, normally a disadvantage, have the advantage of lasting longer. Therefore, less armor needed. I've shot off people's engines a few times, even had mine shot off once by a pair of 155s, but rarely target them specifically. Usually it's easier to just knock out roadwheels with a bit of derp. Ted my vid's just on construction. You can find free aim chips around pretty easily. Also big pic is best pic. [editline]27th January 2013[/editline] Same with engines goes with gearbox. Med gearbox on a 20 ton, it'll take a hit or two. Small box, gotta go under armor.

The more you say things the more I get convinced that you've never had a proper battle in a tank. Also I would like to point out that you said A FEW TIMES. Not all the time. Not a lot. A few times. Rarely. The transmission would probably be the FIRST thing to go on a hit.

Define "proper" tank battle. It's funny reading all this.

What kind of armour does an average 80t have on its front and sides? When I started armouring my 203mm tank wizard I figured out I could only get about 70mm on the front which doesn't seem right because stated values of superheavy tanks on wikipedia are between 150mm to 300mm.

I'd say 200mm on the front and 150mm on the sides.

[QUOTE=Metacore;39387290][QUOTE=Splambob;39386339]What kind of armour does an average 80t have on its front and sides? When I started armouring my 203mm tank wizard I figured out I could only get about 70mm on the front which doesn't seem right because stated values of superheavy tanks on wikipedia are between 150mm to 300mm.[/QUOTE] I'd say 200mm on the front and 150mm on the sides.[/QUOTE] Well damn. I figure if I attach a white flag to the radio mast and my opponent is not a bastard, I can improve armour thickness infinitely until I fire the first shot :v: Hull armouring advice, anyone? I've got 60 tons to play with. oh shitty pageking

[t] http://i.imgur.com/3sHfZpI.jpg[/t] 500cc heli :) goes alright. Can't lift much though

Depends on what era tank you have. Modern tanks have ridiculous armour to weight ratio, case in point being Abrams with approximately 800mm+ vs AP. But modern tanks also have composite armour with various different layers of things. If you're going for WWII->Early-mid Cold War era, then an 80t would have around 150-200mm armour max frontally. For comparison, the King Tiger weighs approximately 69t, with 150mm frontal sloped at 50 degrees and 80 mm on sides and rear. The production turret had 185mm on the front and 80mm on sides and rear. Taking that into account, I reckon you could push that armour to 200mm frontally and about 120-110mm on sides, with the same for the turret. This doesn't take into account spaced armour or composite armour. In addition, ACF shells stop after about 5 props, regardless of their armour value. You also have to take slope into account and the dimensions of the prop. Thin Sprop plates give more armour for weight than phx/regular sprops at cost of health. A piece of armour sloped at 60 degrees to the vertical effectively has its armour value doubled.

I would like to remind you all, that fuel tanks could be useful, considering there's other uses for acf engines, not just tanks. Cars for example?

[QUOTE=idontcare67;39388754]I would like to remind you all, that fuel tanks could be useful, considering there's other uses for acf engines, not just tanks. Cars for example?[/QUOTE] 24-minute endurance racing, anyone?

[QUOTE=RedReaper;39384008]Nah. See, heavier engines, normally a disadvantage, have the advantage of lasting longer. Therefore, less armor needed. I've shot off people's engines a few times, even had mine shot off once by a pair of 155s, but rarely target them specifically. Usually it's easier to just knock out roadwheels with a bit of derp. Ted my vid's just on construction. You can find free aim chips around pretty easily. Also big pic is best pic. [editline]27th January 2013[/editline] Same with engines goes with gearbox. Med gearbox on a 20 ton, it'll take a hit or two. Small box, gotta go under armor.[/QUOTE] What real engine is not going to have a shredded carburetor or broken fuel injector at minimum when hit by a MG round, forget the immense fragmentation and explosive power of a 120mm HE? Point is, engines cannot handle being shot by anything without suffering power loss, missfires, broken intake systems, broken anything, and dead cylinders. Engines are [U]NOT[U][/U][/U] armor and should be treated as engines, and not a block to stop rounds because someone cant armor their shit properly. Ive seen engines being used as armor, they are very hard to kill, and they are not armor. You are the last person on earth who should be giving opinions on how to build a tank, as you build pancakes on tracks. But I digress, engines are engines, armor is armor, engines are not armor, and there must be a punishment for using them for what they really cant do. This might be gmod but engines are not armor none the less.

[QUOTE=lintz;39388523]Depends on what era tank you have. Modern tanks have ridiculous armour to weight ratio, case in point being Abrams with approximately 800mm+ vs AP. But modern tanks also have composite armour with various different layers of things. If you're going for WWII->Early-mid Cold War era, then an 80t would have around 150-200mm armour max frontally. For comparison, the King Tiger weighs approximately 69t, with 150mm frontal sloped at 50 degrees and 80 mm on sides and rear. The production turret had 185mm on the front and 80mm on sides and rear. Taking that into account, I reckon you could push that armour to 200mm frontally and about 120-110mm on sides, with the same for the turret. This doesn't take into account spaced armour or composite armour. In addition, ACF shells stop after about 5 props, regardless of their armour value. You also have to take slope into account and the dimensions of the prop. Thin Sprop plates give more armour for weight than phx/regular sprops at cost of health. A piece of armour sloped at 60 degrees to the vertical effectively has its armour value doubled.[/QUOTE] tank you for the help [t]http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/921253081804192233/7958E534CC07A186FE2446759266FEEE9F9053F8/[/t] Turns out the chip I made to count the mass of the tank messed up. After fixing it I managed to put 200mm sloped on the front, 80 on the sides and 70 on the back. There's 30mm dividing walls in there too, because detonating 15 rounds of 203mm in the back seat = a tank crew lesson in astronautics.