I tested simmilar design out in KSP (although note that I don’t have the realistic flying mod installed) and added some RCS including vernier thrusters to keep it more stable.
Yes, similar in that it has no vertical stabilizers.
No, not similar in that the center of lift is actually close to the center of gravity. So it depends on which point we are discussing.
In the dart ship, it looks like the center of lift might even be behind the thrust. But if it’s flying like a dart, that would be ok. The wings are only there to drag the back end around in that case and all lift is provided by pure thrust, basically.
Strictly speaking, it looks like an atmospheric-capable ship just because it has intakes… but it will fly like a dart.
My bet is on “this looks cool” as the reason for everything.
Nah I’m too lazy for that, but they redid all the aerodynamics sometime after 1.0 so they aren’t as bad as they used to be. Still slightly arcady though.
My river control with decent physics. I corrected the buoyancy and angular motion so the cube doesn’t go flying into the air if it catches on a surface.
Yeah it’s mostly artistic license. I didn’t really go into modeling it with a plan, I opened Blender and after staring at the default cube for a few minutes I deleted it, added a cylinder and started pushing around vertices with no real end goal in mind.
The low res model pictured is only 686 triangles. The normals were baked down from a high res model that was a few hundred thousand triangles. The AO was also baked from high res, the paint job was done in GIMP.
@SimonBedard the ground texture is ass, really low res, it’s not really important at this stage. the blades do sway in the breeze.
@pspeed TBH I didn’t look into IsoSurface’s grass, I’m sorry I meant no offence to other grass solutions, it was more a reflection on my own knowledge of grass techniques. Anything I’ve used in the past wont work, I don’t think anything billboard related will meet my unrealistic set of goals.
@nehon - geometry shader, there is a mesh of points that cover the ground where the grass is, the geometry shader adds a ‘clump’ of around 8 random individual blades at each point on the mesh.
There is zero optimisations atm, as a result, each of the around 400k individual 3d blades in the scene above is unique … cool but not ideal.
More seriously, I’m really interested to know what’s your plan on this matter and how far you want to go ?
There is a solution to grass right now with the almighty @pspeed IsoSurface solution but it is not really integrated with TerraMonkey (If I’m not mistaken?)
It’s not impossible to do as my grass just plots on whatever mesh you want. I will never integrate it myself because I don’t like how JME terrain works. There are a handful of critical early decisions that I’d have picked the opposite approach and ran far in that direction. Not wrong in a general sense by definitely wrong to my own sensibilities. (starting right with the 2x2 loaded grid…)
But anyway, the raw part of the code should be possible to extract and point to any mesh. The grass plotter just looks for up-facing triangles and checks the density of a noise function before plotting a grass “tuft” triangle.