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

[RedReaper]

CDF-40

[IMG]http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/542930855823622150/7F6474F734AA7D0E59FC2FCFC5D7127F53B44759/[/IMG]
[IMG]http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/542930855823623227/635AFE21AB8594F1A37C2BD581D11FCE1AD6930D/[/IMG]
[IMG]http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/542930855823623962/A71A2AC95F5AF266102B2F0B6E75B318968F9AC9/[/IMG]

I'm not sure if it's worth finishing or not.

[editline]23rd June 2012[/editline]

[QUOTE=BBOOBBYY!;36453427]Ditched the helicopter project, since I can't make shit fly properly.

[img]http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/2296/gmcarconstructb180006.jpg[/img]

Because there's nothing wrong with 140mm AL tank destroyers.[/QUOTE]

puttputtputtboomputtputtputt?

[editline]23rd June 2012[/editline]

[QUOTE=Amplar;36434079]said many times that multi engine doesnt work lol[/QUOTE]

we need higher horsepower engines. Like the largest engine caps out at what, 760hp? That's like mid-cold-war medium tank engine, and the model is massive. We need engines that put out twice that.:words:

[FokkerBoombass]

Two words: Ship engines.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFhKCHbMP4g[/media]

[skeligandrew]

[img]http://i.imgur.com/bd1dg.jpg[/img]

Anyone got any advice on how to make this submarine work? I'm clueless... the only thing I could think of is set buoyancy so it JUST floats and then wire weights to control ballast

[Uzkanda]

[QUOTE=Amplar;36434079]said many times that multi engine doesnt work lol[/QUOTE]

Somehow for me they are working fine lol
[IMG]http://i475.photobucket.com/albums/rr111/Uzkanda/2012-06-23_00001.jpg[/IMG]
4 engines from 0 to 60 Km/h 7 seconds (with armors and stuff)
2 ----//---- 13 seconds
1 ----//---- more than 30 seconds.

[Psygo]

[QUOTE=RedReaper;36457169]
we need higher horsepower engines. Like the largest engine caps out at what, 760hp? That's like mid-cold-war medium tank engine, and the model is massive. We need engines that put out twice that.:words:[/QUOTE]

I want this too very much, even proper performance engines for cars too.

[Unslinga]

Just wanted to say I will not be able to make any new videos for a while in the time before I
reformat my computer. My fraps installer have by some means become unable to install fraps
at all and so I'm unable to record anything.

My plans for when I reformat are a suspension tut, some contraptions and other stuff.

[Slithers]

[QUOTE=Psygo;36459353][QUOTE=RedReaper;36457169]
we need higher horsepower engines. Like the largest engine caps out at what, 760hp? That's like mid-cold-war medium tank engine, and the model is massive. We need engines that put out twice that.:words:[/QUOTE]I want this too very much, even proper performance engines for cars too.[/QUOTE]

ACF has a mobility list, its a easy file to edit, if you want you can add the engines you want to it. I agree ACF needs much more capable engines than the current engines which are better off being used as stovetops....but with the right gearing they work kinda well depending on the engine. 7 Liter V12 is probably the best motor in ACF and the 4.6L V12, 3.7L I4, 23L V12, and the 9.2L V12 diesel are probably the best of the engines if you have an unedited mobility list.

[JennyC6]

I use the 9.2L V12 an awful lot. I've slightly tweaked it in SP, basically just adjusted the revband a bit. Idle down to 500RPM, powerband starts at 750RPM now, and the redline is 4,000RPM instead of just 3500 with the powerband shifted accordingly. I made some pretty large changes to the 5.7L gas V8 though. It's now a pure-bred race engine putting out the equivalent of about 650FT LBs and revving to 9500RPM.

I haven't been able to test it out though, given my edits don't work on GME Build. :v:

[Cinnamon]

Am I the only one that doesn't find pleasure in using a fucking massive engine in cars that would, realistically, have <5l engines?

If you can't get the 2.2l engine to work, you're doing something wrong. I've gotten 0-60 times with that engine of around 8 seconds, and it seems that, where ever I go, I see people throwing massive V8s and V12s at cars the size of the HL2 jeep. I mean, if your vehicle weighs enough to constitute an engine that large, I don't want to know how you're dealing with it at the suspension. Damn.

And what's this about edited engine values? Christ.

[RedReaper]

[QUOTE=Slithers;36461882]ACF has a mobility list, its a easy file to edit, if you want you can add the engines you want to it. I agree ACF needs much more capable engines than the current engines which are better off being used as stovetops....but with the right gearing they work kinda well depending on the engine. 7 Liter V12 is probably the best motor in ACF and the 4.6L V12, 3.7L I4, 23L V12, and the 9.2L V12 diesel are probably the best of the engines if you have an unedited mobility list.[/QUOTE]

I don't think most of the engines are bad; I didn't like them at first but recent updates have made the balance actually pretty good. Some have massive models, some have no real advantage over others (like the 2.2l puts out far less oomph than the 3.7l for the same rough size and same weight), but most seem to be fairly balanced. The problem is just that we need a wider selection--this is the same issue as with all acf stuff; we have very good things but a limited selection (like, why do we have no bombs/missiles/C4/infantry weapons/flamethrowers/large turbines?) Why not have a split-twin 50hp bike motor? or an X-16 train engine? Or regenerative steering gearbox, like an allison crossdrive?

I find making cars to be fun as is, and I actually weight the car body to realistic acf values. usually like 3-4mm over the body, to add some more realistic drain on the engine, and with even a four speed I usually get very good performance.

[Joey Skylynx]

I really would love to see an ACF update that would solely be made for Aircraft mobility. Aircraft propellers, piston engines, wing tip to wing tip flap systems, and elevator pieces. Making aircraft would be so much nicer.

[Sir Lulzalot]

[QUOTE=RedReaper;36462622] or an X-16 train engine?[/QUOTE]

Wat. Trains definitely don't use X-16 engines. Try a V10 or V12 genset or a V16 if its a big one.

[harrycarry250]

[QUOTE=MrWhite;36462376]Am I the only one that doesn't find pleasure in using a fucking massive engine in cars that would, realistically, have <5l engines?

If you can't get the 2.2l engine to work, you're doing something wrong. I've gotten 0-60 times with that engine of around 8 seconds, and it seems that, where ever I go, I see people throwing massive V8s and V12s at cars the size of the HL2 jeep. I mean, if your vehicle weighs enough to constitute an engine that large, I don't want to know how you're dealing with it at the suspension. Damn.

And what's this about edited engine values? Christ.[/QUOTE]

I do agree with what you're saying here but I also like to remain era specific or model specific when choosing engines.
For example, my Land Rover Series II has an 2.4 inline and a 4 speed inline. While a Mustang may have a I6 or a V8. I have never built a super car but the only car I could imagine using the V12 for is a Jaguar. If only the developers could replicate the reliability of a Jaguar V12...

[Slithers]

My new WIP
The Burlesque luxury sedan:

[IMG]http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/2748/rpevocityv2d0021.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/9125/rpevocityv2d0015o.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/9168/rpevocityv2d0016copy.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/8775/rpevocityv2d0012i.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/8216/rpevocityv2d0022.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/1783/rpevocityv2d0028.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/6116/rpevocityv2d0027.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/9850/rpevocityv2d0026.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/3279/rpevocityv2d0025.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/8858/rpevocityv2d0024.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/4097/rpevocityv2d0023.jpg[/IMG]

Probably image spam but whatever. What do you guys think.
This car is just over half way done, as you can see there is an E2 on the dash for what will be a holo gauge cluster with a display for my blind spot indication system which will use rangers for park assist and indicate if someone or something is in the cars blind spots.

Features as of now besides basic stuff like the key turns when the car turns on, brakes, daytime running lights, 5 seats, and an anti theft system.
- A MP3 player (11 songs loaded currently, will have more later)
- 9.2 liter ACF diesel V12(for those of you who think diesel and luxury don't mix, you are wrong, the car is silent...and still gets from 0-60 in 4 seconds or less so being late to the business confrence is impossible unless your not taking the car...
- 7 speed automatic transmission with quiet mode( auto-manual may be in the finished car)
- Permanent all wheel drive with traction control( still mostly WIP)

Features that are WIP or due to be in the finished car:
-Triple mode nighttime and fog lights
- Traction control
- Auto-manual shift mode?
- Anti flood(keeps car from driving into water)
- Front and rear park assist with blind spot indication system, possible toggle-able auto-brake?
- Anti lock brakes?
- Possibly more, IDK yet...

Feedback appreciated

[Whitesinner0]

[IMG]http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/8117/gmbluehillstest30004.jpg[/IMG]
ummm yeah. WIP

[karbine]

you all are forgetting that ACF engines are supposed be centered around the 1940s- they're not super powered because they make force you to choose what side of the mobility-firepower-protection you want to stress, quite aggressively. you want speed? you'll need more engine space, which means less armor and less firepower, like real life. it's very easy to combine engines though, even if multi doesn't work correctly at the moment. two 16l engines is around 800-900hp for not a lot of space. I wouldn't go editing the engines either because not all servers will have those changes.

tanks are slow, and acf reflects this

[editline]24th June 2012[/editline]

also i'm not done with the engines, going to work on them more. i might increase power overall, not sure just yet.

[Balto-the-Wolf-]

[QUOTE=Amplar;36465783]you all are forgetting that ACF engines are supposed be centered around the 1940s- they're not super powered because they make force you to choose what side of the mobility-firepower-protection you want to stress, quite aggressively. you want speed? you'll need more engine space, which means less armor and less firepower, like real life. it's very easy to combine engines though, even if multi doesn't work correctly at the moment. two 16l engines is around 800-900hp for not a lot of space. I wouldn't go editing the engines either because not all servers will have those changes.

tanks are slow, and acf reflects this

[editline]24th June 2012[/editline]

also i'm not done with the engines, going to work on them more. i might increase power overall, not sure just yet.[/QUOTE]

On that token, ACF desperately needs missiles or at least proper dumbfire rockets. Unfortunately balancing ACF guns for tanks forces them out of usefulness on planes based on ACF and fin as apposed to applyForce, as these depend on bases that weigh a mere 1-2 tons. Mortars make decent rocket pods in theory, but are really under powered for the purpose. This severely limits the practicality of aircraft in ACF combat. My new tactic is using 50mm tank guns to snipe tanks, but I'd prefer a more realistic weapon. Seems to me dumbfire missilepods would fit the bill nicely. Something light, unguided, and decently inflicting. Guided missiles present a bit of a logistics problem, however, and will take some planning to implement nicely. On that note, I suggest that they be decently limited in ability. Nothing annoys me quite as much as Battlefield 3's un-evadable missiles. Outmaneuvering should be as much if not more of an option than dumping flares.

[karbine]

might see what i can do with making some cheap rockets. it'd basically be as simple as just editing the effect of a shell to the existing rocket motor pcf. might even be able to use the old rocket pod models and use a magazine for them- fire off 20 rockets or so, long reload.

[JennyC6]

[QUOTE=MrWhite;36462376]Am I the only one that doesn't find pleasure in using a fucking massive engine in cars that would, realistically, have <5l engines?[/quote]

POOOWWWWAARRRRRR, as my avatar would put it. I don't want realistic, I want to be able to cross any terrain by simply holding the throttle wide open. I got this by putting a 9.2L V12 diesel in a vehicle that would drive just fine with a 3.1L I4 diesel or a 5.7L V8. The big V12 means I just point it in a direction, floor it, and it goes over whatever happens to be in the way at ~50MPH.

Hell, for shits and giggles I actually did put a 5.7 in it once. Wrote a simple little torque converter E2 to go along with it since there wasn't enough off-idle torque to take off easily. Found the top speed was about what I geared it to be, but acceleration was understandably diminished. It will run and drive just fine with the smaller gas V8, it just feels a bit lethargic since I built it around a much stronger engine.

[quote]If you can't get the 2.2l engine to work, you're doing something wrong.[/quote] The 2.2L doesn't generate enough horsepower to send it careening across hills at 50MPH with reckless abandon and a distinct lack of giving a shit. It will move the vehicle around, sure, but it doesn't do what I want it to do. So I use larger engines. I design my vehicles around the engine I wish to use. They're there because I want them there, not because they won't move with anything smaller.

Funnily enough I built a gokart around the 2.2L i6 diesel. That weighed about 2500 pounds, any lighter and the wheels just fold under it when you try to turn, and I geared it to do about 30-35MPH. It does this wonderfully and leaps up to top speed in about three seconds.

[quote] I mean, if your vehicle weighs enough to constitute an engine that large, I don't want to know how you're dealing with it at the suspension. Damn.[/quote]

Elastic settings:
Constant: 75,000
Damping: 5,000
Relative Damping: 500

My cars only weigh between 5K and 7.5K, they aren't that heavy. Those settings have them quite stiff, I could go down to 50K constant if I want them to ride like a Rolls Royce...at the sacrifice of some ground clearance anyway.

[quote]And what's this about edited engine values? Christ.[/QUOTE] Yeah, what's with people customizing their engines? Nobody [i]ever[/i] does that in real life. I mean, things like [url=http://www.bulletcars.com/images/hot-rod.jpg]this[/url], they're totally off the shelf right?

I modified my engines for two reasons. One: I like to customize my shit. I do this to real world engines too. Two: I want more balls out of them. So instead of bitching and whinging in the ACF megathread I just tuned 'em myself. It wasn't exactly difficult, it took me longer to find the file that controls their stats than it did to actually make the adjustments.

[Balto-the-Wolf-]

[QUOTE=Amplar;36466581]might see what i can do with making some cheap rockets. it'd basically be as simple as just editing the effect of a shell to the existing rocket motor pcf. might even be able to use the old rocket pod models and use a magazine for them- fire off 20 rockets or so, long reload.[/QUOTE]

I'd say that's exactly right. I actually have a dumbfire rocket model on hand if you want it, though it was made in solidworks so you'll want to decimate the fuck out of it to get the faces low. I also have models prepared for the Mark 48, Mark 50, Shkval, and type 70 torpedoes if you're interested.

[img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/61950362/rocket.JPG[/img]
[img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/61950362/gm_flatgrass0008.jpg[/img]
Compiled with test texture^

[JennyC6]

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;36462989]I really would love to see an ACF update that would solely be made for Aircraft mobility. Aircraft propellers, piston engines, wing tip to wing tip flap systems, and elevator pieces. Making aircraft would be so much nicer.[/QUOTE]

I'd love that, and on that note, I'd also like to see a wider smattering of engines. Small little 1-pots from 50CC to 250CC(Gokarts, bikes, things like that), V6s and V10s alongside some more modern V8s and I4s, and a couple of really fucking large diesels typical of what would be found in a container ship or something that size. Something that only revs to 200RPM but makes six figure torque and is the size of a small cottage.

[editline]24th June 2012[/editline]

[QUOTE=Amplar;36466581]might see what i can do with making some cheap rockets. it'd basically be as simple as just editing the effect of a shell to the existing rocket motor pcf. might even be able to use the old rocket pod models and use a magazine for them- fire off 20 rockets or so, long reload.[/QUOTE]

Do eet! Dumbfire rockets would be perfect for my desert dune buggy thing.

[karbine]

that rocket looks like it's made from stone

acf already has a ton of rocket shit, not like it'd matter much, you'd never see anything but the back of the rocket and a ton of smoke

[Balto-the-Wolf-]

[QUOTE=Amplar;36466991]that rocket looks like it's made from stone

acf already has a ton of rocket shit, not like it'd matter much, you'd never see anything but the back of the rocket and a ton of smoke[/QUOTE]

Use the baby model and see how long it takes for people to notice

[Bubbus]

Hey Balto, I still have the big bucket of rockets from that time we were modelling them. Looking back, most of mine were pretty much detailless but these ones look decent imo.

You'd see guided rockets mounted on rails so here's a few, pm me or balto if you want them for acf I guess;
[img_thumb]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/902553/Pictures/Renders/Munitions%20Pack/TRIGAT_render2_LODS_captions.jpg[/img_thumb][img_thumb]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/902553/Pictures/Renders/Munitions%20Pack/Maverick_render_clay_captions.png[/img_thumb]

Also aircraft aren't fun unless you have bombs :v:
[img_thumb]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/902553/Pictures/Renders/Munitions%20Pack/RockeyeClay_captions.png[/img_thumb][img_thumb]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/902553/Pictures/Renders/Munitions%20Pack/hurrbomb_render_clay_captions.png[/img_thumb]

[karbine]

don't tempt me balto

also nice models

[Cinnamon]

[QUOTE=TestECull;36466808]POOOWWWWAARRRRRR, as my avatar would put it. I don't want realistic, I want to be able to cross any terrain by simply holding the throttle wide open. I got this by putting a 9.2L V12 diesel in a vehicle that would drive just fine with a 3.1L I4 diesel or a 5.7L V8. The big V12 means I just point it in a direction, floor it, and it goes over whatever happens to be in the way at ~50MPH.

Hell, for shits and giggles I actually did put a 5.7 in it once. Wrote a simple little torque converter E2 to go along with it since there wasn't enough off-idle torque to take off easily. Found the top speed was about what I geared it to be, but acceleration was understandably diminished. It will run and drive just fine with the smaller gas V8, it just feels a bit lethargic since I built it around a much stronger engine.

The 2.2L doesn't generate enough horsepower to send it careening across hills at 50MPH with reckless abandon and a distinct lack of giving a shit. It will move the vehicle around, sure, but it doesn't do what I want it to do. So I use larger engines. I design my vehicles around the engine I wish to use. They're there because I want them there, not because they won't move with anything smaller.

Funnily enough I built a gokart around the 2.2L i6 diesel. That weighed about 2500 pounds, any lighter and the wheels just fold under it when you try to turn, and I geared it to do about 30-35MPH. It does this wonderfully and leaps up to top speed in about three seconds.

Elastic settings:
Constant: 75,000
Damping: 5,000
Relative Damping: 500

My cars only weigh between 5K and 7.5K, they aren't that heavy. Those settings have them quite stiff, I could go down to 50K constant if I want them to ride like a Rolls Royce...at the sacrifice of some ground clearance anyway.

Yeah, what's with people customizing their engines? Nobody [i]ever[/i] does that in real life. I mean, things like [url=http://www.bulletcars.com/images/hot-rod.jpg]this[/url], they're totally off the shelf right?

I modified my engines for two reasons. One: I like to customize my shit. I do this to real world engines too. Two: I want more balls out of them. So instead of bitching and whinging in the ACF megathread I just tuned 'em myself. It wasn't exactly difficult, it took me longer to find the file that controls their stats than it did to actually make the adjustments.[/QUOTE]

yeah you completely missed my point.

ACF is about realism. If you don't want realism, you might as well use Applyforce. If you want to be able to point and drive, use Applyforce. ACF is for realism, not practicality.

Far be it for me to tell you want to do with the game, though. By all means, do what you want. Just realize that it isn't any sort of accomplishment to get an engine the size of an adult gorilla to hit 50mph uphill in a featherweight car.

[SUB][SUB][SUB]I'm just baffled that you have any fun at all, fankly[/SUB][/SUB][/SUB]

[shadowscion]

^ You can get just as much, if not more realism with e2 if you know what you are doing.

[JennyC6]

[QUOTE=MrWhite;36468226]yeah you completely missed my point.

ACF is about realism. If you don't want realism, you might as well use Applyforce. If you want to be able to point and drive, use Applyforce. ACF is for realism, not practicality.[/quote] ...yeeaaaah no. I tried applyforce once. It didnt work. Acf is easier for me and as a bonus i dont need to dick around with sound emitters to make v8 noises.

[Quote]Far be it for me to tell you want to do with the game, though. By all means, do what you want. Just realize that it isn't any sort of accomplishment to get an engine the size of an adult gorilla to hit 50mph uphill in a featherweight car.
[/quote] im not saying it is any sort of accomplishment. Im saying its fun to drive overpowered cars up walls. :v:

Besides my desert buggy weighs damn near as much as a 203mm howitzer. Its by no means featherweight. Last time i weighed it i weighed an unarmed early version. 7900kg. The armament, two fixed forward firing 40mm cannons, adds quite a bit more weight. Id guess around 9500-10500 but i dont have the total mass tool in sp.
[Quote]I'm just baffled that you have any fun at all, fankly[/QUOTE]
Its fun to take a massive engine and let it scream. I could use a 5.7l v8 in my desert truck, but why do that when its built around a 9.2l v12?

When i build a car the first thing i do is choose an engine. I then build the car around that engine. If i want to use a 1.5l gas four i can. Ive done so before.

[Uzkanda]

[QUOTE=TestECull;36469623]...yeeaaaah no. I tried applyforce once. It didnt work. Acf is easier for me and as a bonus i dont need to dick around with sound emitters to make v8 noises.
[/QUOTE]

Power = speed * torque, if you don't reduce torque power gets insane. Something like this should work fine

if ( Speed < 10 & W ) { Wheel:applytorque ( vec ( Torq , 0 , 0 ) ) }
elseif ( W ) { Wheel:applytorque ( vec ( Torq * 10 / Speed , 0 , 0 ) ) } 

[JennyC6]

[QUOTE=Uzkanda;36472498]Power = speed * torque, if you don't reduce torque power gets insane. Something like this should work fine

if ( Speed < 10 & W ) { Wheel:applytorque ( vec ( Torq , 0 , 0 ) ) }
elseif ( W ) { Wheel:applytorque ( vec ( Torq * 10 / Speed , 0 , 0 ) ) } 

[/QUOTE]
The wheel flipped sideways, rocked violently, and pulled the contraption into the air up, left and back at the source speed limit for approximately 10 or 15 seconds. My client then promptly crashed.

Im fine with acf, thanks.

The ApplyTorque code I used was sourced from someone I played with too. I mentioned wanting to learn it and they were all "lol here's an AT E2, go nuts". It worked fine for them, it glitched out for me, and even they were perplexed as the code was unchanged.