Hello.
Im sorry for asking this question but i'v been making a really large, heavy bomber aircraft along with several other aircraft. And i was wondering if any of you knew of any public E2s that would be good for heavy, acf aircraft. iv already tried the three well known ones with little success:
Tribbles flight controller : Has far too many Holos, Variables are clamped, and doesnt seem to move the plane much (Aka: its not suitable for this sort of aircraft and i dont like it that much)
versus's Universal plane : Also does not work. Plane cant take off Also obliviously not suited for heavy acf aircraft.(I would like to add im aware upping the weight on chips alters its effectiveness)
MPFC (7): Cam issues, complex, meaning i cant modify it if i needed to. And just too overwhelming for my use. I haven't seemed of got it to work either.
You can tell this is my last resort prior to attempting to poorly code my own, simple chip.
Is there any other public chips out there. Just its name would do.
Cheers
Well if you're up for headaches and other nonsense you could try making it Fin. I made my TB3 using Fin and it seems to work well enough.
Fin is a good option if you know E2, as you can do mouse aim with it and works well (sometimes). E2s like MPFC are not well optimized but its really the only easily public chip you can get. If you wanna go super simple, make a fin glider frame and use thrusters for your control surfaces.
I made a plane chip once upon a time and gave it to a few people that wanted it around GGG and PS, called it NikPlane. There are a few versions out in the wild and I added functionality/features over time, so milage may vary. It will probably be unfamiliar at first but at its core it is pretty simple, and I have had some luck with fairly heavy aircraft so long as they are built right. The key has been to keep the center of mass as close as possible to the rotational axes of the aircraft.
At the very least you might be able to learn some of its operating principles which will help you in writing your own flight chip. Fixed wing aircraft can be impractical on certain maps and also in general in ACF, but one thing I have always liked about them is the efficiency. An old fighter with just machine guns and light cannons can pretty much be one physical prop which is hard to beat.
Cheers fellas, thats all i asked. I will keep my eyes peeled if not i can give my own chip a shot.
Hey there. I just made my first speed car and i'm having some problems with grip. After i reach 60 kmh the car becomes unstable. I tried rising the wheel weight up to 400 and still no difference. I'm using psyp jallopy tire but still , not much difference. Do you guys have any e2's that use downforce when i steer?
The problem you're encountering is sphere wobble. Reducing the grip of your wheels will reduce its effects. Use longer suspension ropes and try to keep all of the objects with mass attached to your chassis along a single longitudinal plane, as well as use setang for steering.
[QUOTE=CDU/flappy;52595720]Cheers fellas, thats all i asked. I will keep my eyes peeled if not i can give my own chip a shot.[/QUOTE]
If you cant get it from someone you can PM me and I can give you the latest one that works.
anybody know how to get the path for acf muzzle brakes on guns
the muzzlebrakes aren't separate, they're part of the model itself. they're bodygroups
[QUOTE=mastfire;52605568]anybody know how to get the path for acf muzzle brakes on guns[/QUOTE]
attachmentpos(1) should be the muzzle.
Red made some missile balance changes that we've been mulling over. I'm curious as to what people are looking for out of the missile types, so I set up a google spreadsheet with the old vs the new changes, explanations for each of the relevant data bits, and individual discussion threads for how to improve the missiles and bring them in line with what people want to see out them.
[url]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1evdll9NlqI6ZXbtlP78gl-mqRoBEIwe2AIAhAFQPmVU/edit?usp=sharing[/url]
try to be civil ;.;
edit: I'll work on expanding it to include the GBUs, and we can even extend it to other weapon classes as well from stock ACF.
[QUOTE=Sestze;52617489]Red made some missile balance changes that we've been mulling over. I'm curious as to what people are looking for out of the missile types, so I set up a google spreadsheet with the old vs the new changes, explanations for each of the relevant data bits, and individual discussion threads for how to improve the missiles and bring them in line with what people want to see out them.
[url]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1evdll9NlqI6ZXbtlP78gl-mqRoBEIwe2AIAhAFQPmVU/edit?usp=sharing[/url]
try to be civil ;.;
edit: I'll work on expanding it to include the GBUs, and we can even extend it to other weapon classes as well from stock ACF.[/QUOTE]
so.. a SAM nerf ?
not many people used them anyway in the first place i feel like
[QUOTE=Nesara;52618809]
not many people used them anyway in the first place i feel like[/QUOTE]
there is not really a reason to. I did some quick little test with the missiles and found out that if for some reason you want to do anti air with misisles from the ground, just use the air to air misisles they are a tiny bit bigger but they go so much farther and still yeild a bigger war head. You still get almost the same ammount of ammo in the boxes. Honestly though For anti air why even use missiles at this point when using auto cannons is so much easier adn theres less trade offs, Yes they would weigh alot more, but you are now capable of defeating tanks and air and infantry, with missiles all you can do is hope to hit a plane and rpay it goes down. i did quick test to see the rangers of how far each missiles would go, these are all using he war heads max propellant. A stinger missile went about 5700 source units, while an aim-9 went about 8000 source units. An aim-120 can go about 17000 units on the other hand the strella can on go about 10000 units. The speeds differ on the missiles not enough to make a difference they all can catch reasonable planes and helicopters. Also, I found out the pheonix missile or the AIM-54 for its lack in speed for a larger war head inst really worth it. You can almost no clip faster then it yet it only gets about a 5 mete bigger blast radius then a aim120 but it does have double the explsoive power. The way most people build planes and helis being armored pieces of micro garbage it wont matter what you hit it with. So yeah maybe as a missile get slower we get a war head buff. Maybe make the longer range missiles a bit faster with less agility. I dont know i need to try out more things. Thats my little tid bits of information i guess.
[QUOTE=Jack Kanoff;52619112]there is not really a reason to. I did some quick little test with the missiles and found out that if for some reason you want to do anti air with misisles from the ground, just use the air to air misisles they are a tiny bit bigger but they go so much farther and still yeild a bigger war head. You still get almost the same ammount of ammo in the boxes. Honestly though For anti air why even use missiles at this point when using auto cannons is so much easier adn theres less trade offs, Yes they would weigh alot more, but you are now capable of defeating tanks and air and infantry, with missiles all you can do is hope to hit a plane and rpay it goes down. i did quick test to see the rangers of how far each missiles would go, these are all using he war heads max propellant. A stinger missile went about 5700 source units, while an aim-9 went about 8000 source units. An aim-120 can go about 17000 units on the other hand the strella can on go about 10000 units. The speeds differ on the missiles not enough to make a difference they all can catch reasonable planes and helicopters. Also, I found out the pheonix missile or the AIM-54 for its lack in speed for a larger war head inst really worth it. You can almost no clip faster then it yet it only gets about a 5 mete bigger blast radius then a aim120 but it does have double the explsoive power. The way most people build planes and helis being armored pieces of micro garbage it wont matter what you hit it with. So yeah maybe as a missile get slower we get a war head buff. Maybe make the longer range missiles a bit faster with less agility. I dont know i need to try out more things. Thats my little tid bits of information i guess.[/QUOTE]
personally i think you can't beat autocannons at a AA role
also all those words cramed into that tiny space without spacing, my eyes hurt
Given the average engagement distances as limited by source maps, SAMs are a little redundant when autocannons and machine guns firing rounds with >900m/s MVs are a thing. Suppose their application might lie in blowing off the ton or two of armor some people stick on their planes, but it'd still be best to supplement them with an autocannon rather than try and use them standalone. Sure some might be able to do it with only missiles, just would take a lot more effort to have consistent results/kills than just adding a missile system onto an existing gun AA.
Well, hell, if your concern is the ton or two of armor on people's planes, some APHE in a 50 or 75mm short cannon with a good E2 would do the trick.
define "good e2"
[QUOTE=lintz;52627674]define "good e2"[/QUOTE]
I shouldn't have to define good E2 to someone who does this stuff regularly enough that they're one of the leaders in targeting solutions in Gmod. You know full well what a good E2 is in this context.
[QUOTE=TestECull;52629345]Let's fight the current meta with cheap tactics instead of think about how to fix it[/QUOTE]
do you think i'm an alt of steve or something? i don't code nearly enough to be of that caliber
also i asked because having a well optimised chip is supposed to be a given. i wanted to know if you meant an aim chip that had functionalities other than just providing rotation and elevation
[QUOTE=lintz;52629497]do you think i'm an alt of steve or something? i don't code nearly enough to be of that caliber
also i asked because having a well optimised chip is supposed to be a given. i wanted to know if you meant an aim chip that had functionalities other than just providing rotation and elevation[/QUOTE]
I had figured context alone would confirm that. I mean, what [i]else[/i] would a good E2 in the context of ACF SPAAG mean? I cant really think of anything else fitting except a chip that helps the gunner with leading the target and such, somethinv any SPAAG regardless of caliber of gun carried should have.
I figured it was obvious enough given the context. Guess it wasnt.
[editline]30th August 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=MrWhite;52629461]blablablathecheapshotdidntquotesotextisneededhere[/QUOTE]
Apparently its a cheap tactic to use an armament suitable to take out the target in question...maybe instead of going for cheap shots on me you could propose a change to ACF that negates the need for using an A/T gun on an aircraft in the first place.
The cheap tactic isnt using a larger gun and a good targeting chip on yohr SPAAG, the cheap tactic is flying an attacker so heavily armored that SPAAG units need guns that big in the first place.
TestECull - Target Leading usually implies that the person doing the targeting is going to need to get information from the enemy he's targeting, which isn't allowed by most servers ACF rules. If we can use targeting data that allows for automatic tracking and leading of targets, a high velocity 50mmC would definitely do the trick. Keep in mind that most planes/helicopters are hollow as well, so a penetration from AP/APHE will sail right through and do minimal damage.
If you miss the flying target with a 50mmC or 75mmC, you often don't have time for a second shot before they're in cover or out of range. Alternatively, they'll be hovering up near the top of the map pecking at you with something and bullet drag will make your shots ineffective.
SPAAG setups that you see are usually a set of two or four ACs, sometimes with missile backup.
Secondarily, just rangefind your target. You can get lead indication by just distance (and potentially velocity) based on your gun's muzzle velocity and caliber.
If it's a plane or tank, it can be assumed from the direction they're moving in how to adjust your aim. Otherwise if it's a more stationary helo, you can at least indicate how much you should lead on distance alone.
t. someone who literally can't find his way around generic gyro but understands how projectiles work in ACF
[editline]30th August 2017[/editline]
Has anyone ever tried using those world scanning E2's for combat purposes? Like the ones that output to a screen picture. Seems like that'd be a nice thing besides computational power needed. All it should need is range data, get a delta of that over time, and compare it to the scanned motion.
Give ACF aircraft propulsion, all 500t e2 aircraft woes disappear (And building them is more fun!)
E2 aircraft rely on a person's responsibility and almost no rules to not be overpowered, which never works. Because you see little micro planes and helis with crazy flight models and armor, similar to pancaking. Not against the rules but highly discouraged. Shit missiles doesn't help this as well both A2A and SAM. Giving ACF actual propulsion entities, more enforced E2 rules or unfucking missiles in general would help.
Auto cannons are good for SPAA, so are RACs when they don't have a mag, which on a side note I think non magazine RACs should be pushed to the main branch. It actually gives a reason why they are heavy and a good buff.
[QUOTE=Lufteh;52634399]E2 aircraft rely on a person's responsibility and almost no rules to not be overpowered, which never works. Because you see little micro planes and helis with crazy flight models and armor, similar to pancaking. Not against the rules but highly discouraged. Shit missiles doesn't help this as well both A2A and SAM. Giving ACF actual propulsion entities, more enforced E2 rules or unfucking missiles in general would help.
Auto cannons are good for SPAA, so are RACs when they don't have a mag, which on a side note I think non magazine RACs should be pushed to the main branch. It actually gives a reason why they are heavy and a good buff.[/QUOTE]
The caveat to this is for all the ACF/Fin-powered helicopters I've made within weight restrictions, they've all been extremely vulnerable to AAA
Honestly I feel as though ACF planes are basically worthless when actually powered by ACF because even with unrealistically good handling you still have to deal with:
- Low altitudes due to generally low map ceilings.
- Dying constantly from ground forces due to the above reasons.
- Low max speed due to source nonsense.
- Dying constantly from ground forces due to the above reasons.
- Potato handling depending on how you set up weaponry.
- Oh and prepare to hold your "turn left/right" equivalent control near damn constantly thanks to the magic of tiny maps.
I want planes to be useful but unless everyone agrees to go to mini-acf (ask sestze or other ggg peeps), there simply isn't enough room for acf fin planes to be useful.
The strength of aircraft in general is their speed, which you usually exploit with range. The map size of even the largest maps in source severely limits the potential to exploit this.
Did some preliminary tweaks to ACF missiles, check out the file above to see what's changed. Only got through Stingers, Strelas, Sidewinders, and AIM-120s.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
