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

too much constant OR damping causes spazzage. :eng101: gotta scale your shit to your weight.

I usually do a divisor between 30 and 50 for constant to damping ratio. spheres require more damping than normal wheels

[QUOTE=MrWhite;36490246]Honestly, setting the final drive to 0.22 and not changing the ratios works just fine. Fiddling with it any more will of course yield better results after a while, but the stock settings are pretty solid.[/quote] I've found otherwise in my gameplay. I built a test car that was just a plate with four wheels on it. Two thrusters to steer it. It weighed 200kg all up. Doing that just meant the engine gave up around 25-30 and just wouldn't pull more. It hit a wall. I could shift up and down, only thing that changed was the RPM. Adjusting the gearing puts me around 40-50 with that test bed, but I hit the same wall just the same. It's wierd. Engine size made no change, 1.5L I4 or 23L R7, same deal. Hit the wall, that's all it's got. [quote]I meant constant, as I've had horrid results with high-constant elastics and hydraulics. Setting damping high causes instability, too, or is it just damping?[/QUOTE] I've used as much as 300K constant on elastics before. It wasn't on an ACF powered vehicle but I have done it. It's a matter of weight and geometry, but generally, I find they're perfectly stable if they fit the weight of the props to which they are attached. [QUOTE=Amplar;36488059]why, then no one would use the old ones[/quote] Yes they would. A 3.8L Chevy V6 does not power a tank for shit, but by god will it power a sports car nicely. A turbocharged Mazda I4 is not going to be sending your bomber into the wild blue yonder but it will send an AWD family sedan everywhere sideways. But someone building a 40 ton battle tank wouldn't even consider these engines as they just simply would not be suitable. They'd be way too fragile, seeing as they were built light even a single hit from a 12.7mm would disable them. A large diesel V12 would be a far better choice for a tank. Tank engines and car engines can coexist nicely. There's a reason cars have engines designed the way they are and tanks have different types of engines. Different demands. You wouldn't use the engine out of a Sherman in a daily driver, and you wouldn't try to use your DD's engine to power that Sherman. [QUOTE=RedReaper;36485439]use petrol engines.[/quote] The only ones that don't bog down at the slightest hill are the radials, and they have the same powerbands the diesels do. Also, a lot of them are far far faaaaar too loud, as if I doubled my volume before revving them. The I6s are bad offenders, as are the small gas V12s. VERY loud. [quote] Or learn to gearbox.[/quote] Right, because I totally haven't figured out how to change the gear ratios despite changing the gear ratios literally five minutes after installing the mod in the first place. Nice assumption. [quote]Have you made sure your detial props are weighted 1?[/quote] It's not the detail props that drive the weight up. It's the stuff that has to be heavy in order for it to work at all. Chassis, axles, slave bar, ammo crate, fucking enormous cannons, that stuff. I can't make any of that stuff light and expect it to work, they're already as light as they can get. [quote] Or are you trolling? [/quote] I'm not but you sure seem to be. [quote] I mean... My ittybittyskankette does 50 easily with a fucking 100hp, and it's 2 tons. My carrier with a 3.7l absolutely flies, I can punch it over 100 with a good gearing.[/quote] Good for you. Let me just file that under the "I don't give a shit" category. [quote] But for cars? Your argument is invalid.[/QUOTE] My argument is perfectly valid. Some of us just enjoy overpowered shit and wouldn't mind some engines that don't weigh nine million tons to help this goal along. Part of why I have to make my shit so damn heavy is that the V8s and V12s, which I use because they sound good, are heavy as fucking hell. Some modern car engines that make good power but weigh half as much would be a godsend, as I could drop the chassis and suspension weights as well. [QUOTE=RedReaper;36485439]use petrol engines.[/quote] The only ones that don't bog down at the slightest hill are the radials, and they have the same powerbands the diesels do. Because the engines are tuned to WW2 levels the only engines with any sort of ability to accelerate without kicking down four gears are the engines that you're supposed to need a seven speed gearbox for! [quote] Or learn to gearbox.[/quote] Right, because I totally haven't figured out how to change the gear ratios despite changing the gear ratios literally five minutes after installing the mod in the first place. Nice assumption. [quote]Have you made sure your detial props are weighted 1?[/quote] It's not the detail props that drive the weight up. It's the stuff that has to be heavy. Chassis, axles, slave bar, ammo crate, fucking enormous cannons, that stuff. I can't make any of that stuff light and expect it to work. [quote] Or are you trolling? [/quote] I'm not but you sure seem to be. [quote] I mean... My ittybittyskankette does 50 easily with a fucking 100hp, and it's 2 tons. My carrier with a 3.7l absolutely flies, I can punch it over 100 with a good gearing.[/quote] Good for you. Let me just file that under the "I don't give a shit" category. [quote] But for cars? Your argument is invalid.[/QUOTE] My argument is perfectly valid. Some of us just enjoy overpowered shit and wouldn't mind some engines that don't weigh nine million tons to help this goal along.

[QUOTE=MrWhite;36490246]Honestly, setting the final drive to 0.22 and not changing the ratios works just fine. Fiddling with it any more will of course yield better results after a while, but the stock settings are pretty solid.[/QUOTE] Setting final drive that low while keeping stock ratios easily hits redline at first 2 gears. 0.5 final drive works fine but if I want to squeeze out more speed I would at most drop it down to 0.4.

[QUOTE=TestECull;36495384] It's not the detail props that drive the weight up. [/QUOTE] False. If you have lets say 100 detail props that you never weighted, causing them to way for example 30 KGs each. That means you have added 3 tons of unnecessary weight to your vehicle. So lets say without these detail props your car weighs in at a sensible 1.5 tons, now instead your engine is trying to pull 4.5 tons. By setting the weight of all these detail props to 1 it would only be 100 extra KGs, which could vastly improve your performance. So instead of trying to use a vastly overpowered engine you can instead make a very light car with a normal engine, which would act in he same manner.

Mini Moke. 1.5L I4, 6 speed gearbox, front wheel drive. Handles like a go kart [IMG]http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee172/Kustom-Kill3R/FF919415B59F980B3D376AA7E3615EFE1B7C01D9.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee172/Kustom-Kill3R/4000_screenshots_2012-06-27_00002.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Complicated;36496126]Setting final drive that low while keeping stock ratios easily hits redline at first 2 gears. 0.5 final drive works fine but if I want to squeeze out more speed I would at most drop it down to 0.4.[/QUOTE] Not enless your wheels are the diameter of a human hair or your engine is the same size as the parking lot you'd drive your vehicle into. [editline]26th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=TestECull;36495384]Good for you. Let me just file that under the "I don't give a shit" category.[/QUOTE] "Tell me how you do this. Wait no, that's bullshit, this is how you do this." Look, if you want to know how to build light, listen to us. If you don't, stop arguing with us about how it's done. If you want to build 3 ton box cars that can move land masses around with the power, feel free to. The rest of us prefer building cars that work like real cars do. Oh, and don't think that you're getting an ACF engine that weighs as much as a bagel and has more power than a freight-liner. ACF is about realism, and that's not realistic. If you want that much power, you're going to have to do it yourself, unless Karbine has no sense to him and actually adds such a thing :v:

the "black hole cache" of engines. that's really odd though, if you just want unrestricted, ridiculous power out of an engine, can't you do that using applytorque/applyoffsetforce/whatever? The ACF engines are a convoluted way of doing what those functions do, designed to create a reasonably balanced power train.

My first attempt on a humvee, bad quality pic (STILL WIP, as you can see) - [img]http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w479/neolite112/gm_buttes0022.jpg[/img] [img]http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w479/neolite112/gm_buttes0024.jpg[/img] 137 props atm We'll see how this goes. Mostly looking forward to put all kind of fun weapons on it.

[QUOTE=neolite;36501162]Mostly looking forward to put all kind of fun weapons on it.[/QUOTE] [img]http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/542930855919621949/2FE87E411A952466134FBDA074015B055921E860/[/img] Especially since now (at least for me) rotaries weigh an absolutely ungodly amount. I don't know how a 30mm rotary can weigh 14,750kg in gmod, while the real GAU-8 is 1,800kg including a load of over 1100 rounds of uranium ammo. Realism fail.

[QUOTE=TestECull;36495384] My argument is perfectly valid. Some of us just enjoy overpowered shit and wouldn't mind some engines that don't weigh nine million tons to help this goal along.[/QUOTE] You realize that ACF engines were made to balance tanks. There is literally nothing stopping you from using applyTorque. If you don't know how to do this, go look it up; it's not that hard. If you can't be assed, you don't deserve to argue. [editline]26th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=RedReaper;36502994][img]http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/542930855919621949/2FE87E411A952466134FBDA074015B055921E860/[/img] Especially since now (at least for me) rotaries weigh an absolutely ungodly amount. I don't know how a 30mm rotary can weigh 14,750kg in gmod, while the real GAU-8 is 1,800kg including a load of over 1100 rounds of uranium ammo. Realism fail.[/QUOTE] You've been out of the idiomatic loop. And failed to realize that ACF was meant as means of balance instead of realism, and it always will be. RACs have been really overpowered due to the brute force of the rounds and rate of fire, and they also have issues with occlusion. The change was made with due reason to balance it. [editline]26th June 2012[/editline] Sure, sure. For no reason, we'll make the RACs weigh 5x more just because we feel like it. That makes perfect sense!!!

[QUOTE=One Ear Ninja;36504478]Sure, sure. For no reason, we'll make the RACs weigh 5x more just because we feel like it. That makes perfect sense!!![/QUOTE] Your rotary autocannon weighs more than what it would be mounted on. That's excessive. Drop your ROF or your shell damage, maybe, or increase the recoil or dispersal a bit, but 15 tons doesn't make it balanced, 15 tons makes it useless. When people were spamming machineguns, we didn't make the .50 weigh a half ton. Now nothing which would traditionally use a rotary can mount it, in addition to breaking everything which used to use one; furthermore nothing which IS capable of mounting it would have any use for it. This type of weapon is usually used in airborne and antiaircraft mounts. It weighs more than an aircraft and would flatten a realistic SPAAG; furthermore the same effect it had can be with a laggier multigun mounting weighing half as much. So, to sum it up, not trying to be a dick or something, but your solution was much worse than the problem.

Yeah, I have to agree with RedReaper. If RAC is considered overpowered, just refuse using them, or fighting someone who does. Big fucking deal. Making it useless by making it weigh almost as much as stuff it would be put onto makes no sense whatsoever.

I've been thinking about it, and I think a possible alternative would be to (greatly) increase the dispersion. That would help it as a close-range AA, and let it keep its ultra-close-range firepower, while significantly reducing its effectiveness at long range

[QUOTE=One Ear Ninja;36504478] [editline]26th June 2012[/editline] You've been out of the idiomatic loop. And failed to realize that ACF was meant as means of balance instead of realism, and it always will be. RACs have been really overpowered due to the brute force of the rounds and rate of fire, and they also have issues with occlusion. The change was made with due reason to balance it. [editline]26th June 2012[/editline] Sure, sure. For no reason, we'll make the RACs weigh 5x more just because we feel like it. That makes perfect sense!!![/QUOTE] trying to balance stuff in gmod lollol u4real?

Firerates for most weapons in ACF have dropped, especially since ACs/HMGs got hit with magazines. The RAC didn't have a very restrictive magazine limit, and is the fastest shell-spitter in the entire addon. Add to that the overall increase in ammunition per-crate, and RACs were incredibly efficient for their weight class. Spread or no spread, spraying a constant stream of 30mm AC ammunition was ridiculously effective. Driving towards a tank or turret that has a RAC allowed occlusion bugs to happen due to the frequency of the RAC APHE/HE/HEAT impacts. I did my best to adjust the behavior of explosions (especially so it moved the shell explosion back one "frame", which made space between the explosion and the armor plating itself), but it didn't eliminate that problem entirely. ACF is not a "damage/health" system. It has armor, it has health, but the bullet damage itself is modeled in the rest of the system. Just saying "tone down the damage" is stupid because doing any sort of tweaks to the damage part will tweak how the other weapons operate. Other suggestions I had received regarding the RAC were an overheating mechanic that progressively damaged the barrel and degraded it's accuracy (meaningless if you're fighting a single target or can duplicate additional vehicles at will), a jamming mechanic and the current idea of just whacking up the weight to restrict it's usage to heavier vehicle classes. The heat and jamming mechanic would be coded and used only for the RAC, no other weapons would use it. I'd find myself coding around the RAC, always aware of the effect it has in combat. The weight increase was the simplest solution. If you want to be a part of the balancing process for ACF weapons, feel free to go play on the GGG BnK. If you're doing something "cheap", I'll hear someone bitch about it eventually and take a look at it. The trend on that server was defending a small courtyard with as many RACs as you could reasonably field, and it became pretty obvious to me that the RAC was out of hand. By the way, can anyone find me an example of a tank or other combat vehicle that has something like a GAU-8 in it's turret? Just any tank or armored vehicle that has a 20mm+ rotary in the turret. I'm wondering if that's a thing.

[IMG]http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/1210/gmbluehillstest30008.jpg[/IMG] I just need to finish the back and the interior and im good

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/M163_VADS.JPEG/300px-M163_VADS.JPEG[/IMG] [IMG]http://piratenews.org/gatling-gun-little-schoolgirl400.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://olive-drab.com/images/id_m163_prototype_aberdeen_axilbund_700.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/-images/2010/10/20/89213/army.mil-89213-2010-10-21-071021.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://bogieworks.blogs.com/treppenwitz/images/2007/06/04/cram_3.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/news/11220501.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.arcus-bg.com/images/products/ammunition/3_30mm_ao_18/2_30_b.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg177/scaled.php?server=177&filename=dasc8513327ke8.jpg&res=landing[/IMG] They're not usually used as a ground weapon. However, against infantry and light armor they're extremely effective, and they're pretty standard for AA use. Israel uses them a lot against mortars and katyushas. In nam we used to throw salvaged ones from downed planes and helis onto trucks and base pintle mounts, they'd end human wave attacks [I]real [/I]quick. Very much a "fuck everything" gun. Also the last picture should be note, that's a very clear Christie suspension. Like, textbook christie. lol. [editline]I try to be useful.[/editline] Most vulcans are restricted by doctrine to firing like 2-3 seconds for barrel life, why don't you just make them have a really tiny clip? I know that the vads had a thing where it'd fire 50 rounds at a time, so you get a really-intense one-second burst of fire; the A-10 usually pops 2-3 seconds at a time tops, and the Mig-27 variant with the GSh-30-6 expends all 300 rounds it carries in two seconds. [editline]26th June 2012[/editline] really vulcans should be maybe 2x the weight of a regular autocannon, with like 5x the ROF but fire a very very short and kind of inaccurate burst only

The only issue I have with the RAC weight increase is aircraft. Traditionally they make fantastic antitank weapons from the air, but with that much weight, they cannot be mounted on any ACF powered aircraft. This is somewhat nitpicky though, as I can't imagine there's anything you can do about it. As it stands the overwhelming majority of ACF weapons are impractical on ACF powered aircraft, which are limited to base weights of 1-2 tons unless we can design an even more efficient propeller than Phoenix's current high aspect ratio prop (which is fielded on the DH-88 Comet, Marlin, and Declination). This balance works very well for air to air combat with, say, biplanes, which makes me quite happy. Unfortunately it also eliminates the potential of aircraft to serve as a strike weapon, which is why I suggested the addition of dumbfire rocket pods earlier in the thread. Dumb bombs are also relatively high on my list. I'm a little more hesitant towards guided missiles though. I've made a number of ammo crate missiles under intense boredom, including a few fully dependent on fin for guidance, and spent a lot of time trying to get them to a point where they were functional but evadable. I was never fully successful in that endeavor. I was never able to strike a functionality between always hitting and never hitting, and I worry integrated missiles would be just as difficult to balance. One potential solution that occurs to me is semi-active missiles dependent on a seeking cone projected from the parent aircraft. Thus far, the largest weapons I've fielded on an ACF powered aircraft was a 105 Howitzer on the Honeybadger, the AC-130-ish aircraft Phoenix and I coop'd. That was well less than practical though and was never used in proper combat. The largest gun I've fielded practically was a 75mm AL on the Declination. It has proved semi-practical in strike combat, but not to any terrific extent. The aircraft also preformed quite poorly in flight relative to the Marlin and Comet.

[QUOTE=RedReaper;36506379]IMAGES IMAGES IMAGES[/QUOTE] Hey, that's some good inspiration right there, good reference material, you got any links to websites with just alot of military vehicle images?

Seems reasonable, I can reduce the mag size/weight back to where it was, and reduce the magazine size significantly. edit: Done.

like sestze said, racs are stupid powerful. but making them overheat and jam would be silly; the whole design of a multi barrel gun is to eliminate that problem.

Done! End prop-result went a bit high though - 160 props. All it needs is some guns! [img]http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w479/neolite112/gm_bigcity0026.jpg[/img] [img]http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w479/neolite112/gm_bigcity0029.jpg[/img] [img]http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w479/neolite112/gm_bigcity0028.jpg[/img] Cheers! Edit: Skeligan rated me dumb, why? help

i'm doing stuff in ACF, starting with a bit of categorization: [img]http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/560945815684349578/69EC5417B280439CFEF483CA04CD293F4595C048/[/img]

[QUOTE=Sestze;36506925]Seems reasonable, I can reduce the mag size/weight back to where it was, and reduce the magazine size significantly. edit: Done.[/QUOTE] You just took a bad and made it into a good. Also categorizing would be nice. Thanks mate. Also neolite taht humvee is very very nice. Your doors are grade-A.

[QUOTE=Sestze;36507999]i'm doing stuff in ACF, starting with a bit of categorization: [img]http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/560945815684349578/69EC5417B280439CFEF483CA04CD293F4595C048/[/img][/QUOTE] I like that filestructure so much better, thanks Sestze :v:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf8W5zVuMfI&feature=youtu.be[/media] Weird.

comic sans

Top level laundry cart engineering [IMG]http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee172/Kustom-Kill3R/365109984B940D7ADDD2947953EB20C10629CDE5.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee172/Kustom-Kill3R/E14A5F93B7BE3407F70F04EFA0C281715DC50EDC.jpg[/IMG]

trying to get in more small motors for shit like that, i've got winston modelling a vtwin motor and shit. i'll probably bring back the 1l or something too.