I feel like alvaro is gonna end up getting doom running entirely on TM logic

frfr

trailmakers leaderboards moment

Ah I see, well maybe you should give Robocraft a try again. Depends if you feel like it tbh. Well if you aren't the person I thought you were, thats okay. Wonderful profile too, really nice.

@rycochu i doubt it, i haven't used names other than my current one. I played robocraft mostly until lootboxes were added and stopped playing shortly after that. I played again a bit several years later, but dropped it again

no way, you're not THE Alvar from Robocraft are you? When was the last time you played Robocraft?

@timtkdb basically, have 2 different gates with the toggle keybind on them, and connect both of them to the XOR gate. If you don't want to toggle that keybind, you can remove one of those gates and add the toggle keybind directly to the XOR gate

connect the angle sensors to an XOR gate and to whatever you want, then on the XOR gate set the output value to -1, connect to it another input twice and connect it to the other outputs of the angle sensor, while that other input is on the angle sensor will be on. There are other simpler methods to toggle logic, but they add a bit of delay to the signal which in the case of stabilization with angle sensors results in the vehicle wobbling a ton. when I try this I don't know what you mean by connect the input twice so if you can explain it simpler that be great.

Very impressive build for, the Ocelot rally mode track.





ha haa I guess I can't leave without adding something to complain about. So... Ummmm, hmmmm. AH RIGHT, so my race ethics are more excepted then yours (race ethics). : )
I hope we can stay enemy's lol...

Are you using a separate system for each axis? If you are, send me the blueprint so i can take a look at it

Heyo! I'm trying to use your XOR gate solution to toggle angle sensors, and it works fine with the pitch stabilizers, however when I connect it to the roll stabilizers, the whole thing gets locked in the "On" mode

Btw, i have improved my thruster based vehicles by removing the chrome bumpers as i found a lighter solution, so you now have nothing to complain about them. The new times (for the same races/leagues as before) are 27.75s for valley ( https://imgur.com/a/RMpLjfx ) and 24.73s for three bridges ( https://imgur.com/a/19698tY ). This is to show how little difference using cosmetics or not really makes, due to how much chrome bumpers weight

You can use glitches if you want, if they really are that easy to use you should be able to beat me with ease. You can also go to rally races where, as i have already explained, ufo engines aren't a thing, if that's what you enjoy. Trying to make race island races use the same techniques as rally races at the competitive level would just remove variety, which would make racing more repetitive and boring.

Just because a technique is better than another doesn't mean it's unfair. If it was, then thrusters are unfair because they are way faster than engines, so everyone should use engines. Aerodynamics would also be unfair as they can also increase your speed by a lot, so drag should be the same for all vehicles. Weight also is because the difference in acceleration is also an advantage if both vehicles have the same top speed, so all vehicles must weight the same. Controllability differences are also an advantage, since if everything else is equal better controllability allows you to take better lines, so all vehicles should behave the same. If you accept that a technique being better than another is unfair, you must also accept all of that, which implies that everyone should use the exact same vehicle. Now remember that this is first and foremost a building game, so having to use a predefined vehicle on races doesn't make any sense, and thus the original argument doesn't make any sense

so in your ethical view the crushing time difference between glitch vehicles and vehicles is, demanded because of supernumerary of variables. yeah just look down on the normal users.

could you do something for when you get done with measuring all of the additional variables, could you share the data on how superior you are (as a glitch user).

"just add a asterisk to a leader bored record when a ufo-engine or ect.. is detected." Because the problem is detecting them, not fixing them. If you can't detect any of those, you can't mark the times which used them. As i already explained, the only way to truly achieve that is through human moderators, which take a huge amount of resources and aren't going to happen from the devs. If you want to try to make a community leaderboard and moderate it yourself you can try, but with an in game leaderboard and how few people take racing competitivelly hardly anybody is going to consider it official, which removes the point of making it.
"and though's who trick that system would have used so much skill or it was so difficult, that there allowed. right." That's would be no different than what we already have, the new tricks would get figured out quickly and you would just be arbitrarily baning some of them based solely on when they were figured out, which makes no sense

"you keep on arguing skill/difficulty as the reason why you get to use glitches and parts that have surprising advantages. which is non-measurable data". It is measurable. All of the glitches and tricks i use have the same requirements of minimising drag and weight as normal thruster based creations, and add even more things that need to be considered to make an optimal vehicle. As the amount of variables on a function increases (in this case the function is the design of a vehicle), finding the most optimal point (highest speed in this case) becomes harder. In the case of ufo engine/bionic propellers you have to make and optimise the engine yourself, which is obviously way harder than just sticking a block to your vehicle. In the case of chrome bumpers you need to know when and how to use them. Removing possibilities almost never makes a task harder, and it can only do so if that possibility allowed to remove variables

"It's a bumper not a structural component" This is a creative game, the type of blocks doesn't matter at all. Using blocks in untintended ways is part of the game, and the blocks are intentionally made by the devs in a way that allows that. I can't count the amount of times i have seen people use cosmetic eyes as balls, or cosmetic teeths as bones, for example. It's a part of the game, and being able to think outside the box and use blocks for unintended purposes adds depth to the game.

why fix any of the problems, just add a asterisk to a leader bored record when a ufo-engine or ect.. is detected. a mark of pride or other, it would set a system. and though's who trick that system would have used so much skill or it was so difficult, that there allowed. right.

It's a bumper not a structural component. how do you not under stand that?

"the part were talking about is a car bumper, meant to be placed as protection not structure (chassis). "


first of all, aerodynamics have more effect on speed than weight. skill and difficulty is different for every one. you keep on arguing skill/difficulty as the reason why you get to use glitches and parts that have surprising advantages. which is non-measurable data. I mean I could say that to make a really go 0-core glitch system, takes soooo much skill and is realllllly difficult so it is allowed. not so it should be allowed, that it IS allowed. I hope you can see the fault in that.

I still believe that you could make a nice non-exploit vehicle.

when I make a racing server I state the rules which keep the races clean, unless the rule breaker is a total nood of course.

I am sorry were not on the same ethical level.

As for using cosmetic blocks: they still keep races fair. Everyone can use them (they are extremely cheap, so you will have enough money to purchase them by the time you need to use them) and it's intentional how they work, so they still keep races fair. They aren't OP since they don't remove the drag from other blocks and add a lot of weight, which makes them extremely situational. There is a reason why i still use a lot of other blocks and not just use them for everything. Knowing how and when to use them adds skill to the design of vehicles

There is no way to make the leaderboards show the fastest non-ufo vehicles without manual moderation by the devs, which is not going to happen as the resources needed for that aren't worth it for them (there are very few people who care about competitive races, most people who play them do so casualy). Even if you completely removed ufo engine, people would just use other exploits, such as tilted wheels (physics glitch which makes the game think you are always going downhill), 0 drag, or even multi vehicle creations (a small and simple vehicle which controls a separate vehicle through sensors, that second vehicle then carries the original vehicle the player is in through the race. Since the game only takes into account the creation the player is in, it allows to bypass any limits you might set). Even if all of those were fixed, new ones would be found. This is a sandbox game where there is an endless amount of vehicles you can make, fixing all physics glitches is impossible

and yet then we could see the fastest non-ufo vehicle and not just ufo-engines.

I guess we just don't have the same ethics, and I bet you could do great with out the over look aerodynamic-less structural blocks. the part were talking about is a car bumper, meant to be placed as protection not structure (chassis). All cosmetic blocks counter there aerodynamic-less physics, with limited connective area. except the for the Chrome bumper, Chrome bumper rounded end, Chrome bumper detail, and less so the Off-road grill. your are entitled to your particular ethics just like all ufo-engine users. I will stick to my ethics, that keep the races fair.

As for the use of cosmetic blocks, it's perfectly ethical as everyone can use them and it's an intentional mechanic. A long time ago they did have drag, but the devs choose to make them not have aerodynamics, it's not an oversight. Fun fact, one of the reasons they choose to do that was so people could use them on races without being put at a massive disadvantage. Also, it's not just that they don't have drag, it's that they aren't taken into account at all when calculating aerodynamics. That means that they don't remove drag from the blocks behind, which makes them much less useful.

It's not that i don't see the need for a ufo engine league. It's that it's technically impossible to add it. There is no way to make the game be able to tell if a blueprint is using ufo engine or not (without a ton of false positives, or methods which don't even work at all on some races), and even if it was somehow achieved people would simply use other glitches. The only way to prevent glitches from being used would be with human moderators, which would take a ton of resources (since they would have to be devs to have access to the leaderboards database. You could try to make a community leaderboard, but very few people would use it nor consider it official)

I have made my point clear on the chrome bumpers and your defense of a ornamental block that has building uses and still is exempt form aerodynamics. this is disappointing, as a fellow ethical racer I thought you would see the error.

yet I should have expected this from a ufo user who doesn't even see the need for a ufo-engine league. I host racing servers pretty regularly, but I put a anti ufo/glitches rule in the description. a nice regulated race sever.

from how I just spoke I don't really expect our conversation to continue. if it dose great, but I also under stand.

and if this is my last words to you, kinematics is the reasion why stacking servos dose not work and it was fun talking to you.

Now why can't a external force that is acting on the mount of the servo exert all it's force on the mount. again draw a free body diagram.


the game is poorly programmed for such physics.

yet if you had a single bionic propeller and a wide and heavy body the rotational force would be there acting on the body. yet would not show it do to the width and weight. the force imparted on the first servo by the second servo is a rotational force on to a rotating surface. so the force of the second servo must first impart it's rotational force on the rotating part of the first servo. slowing it down, draw a free body diagram it will show how the stacked system dose not work. to impart force though a object to another object, the first object must have a method of transferring the force. without interfering with it's self, if the objects porpoise is to transfer forces good. but if the object is a motor (or servo) it needs a system to transfer the force while not interfering the motor. if all the servos were on a single drive shaft they would work.

As for the servo stack: the second servo does impart its force on the first one. However, since outside forces can't change much the rotation speed of a servo, the force imparted on the first servo by the second one is mostly transmitted to the body, where it can change the rotation speed. The reason why the body doesn't show the rotation is not the weight/width, it's another propeller rotating on the opposite direction, which through the same reasoning imparts a force on the body with a direction opposite to the one created by the first propeller and same strength (which is why bionic propeller based vehicles always have an even amount of propellers)

For spoilers: yes, that's how they work (i have tested them). The game doesn't simulate real fluid dynamics since they require a lot of resources, but rather approximates their effects. That means they can't behave exactly like real fluid dynamics work. As for tailfins the same issue of uncovered points apply, only difference is that it affects their flat sides (covering the front doesn't change anything) and makes more sense (the game calculates the total drag in each direction. Since covered points don't add drag to the total, by covering the sides of tailfins you are replacing their high drag on that direction with a lower one, resulting in less total sideways drag and thus less stabilization)

. I mean blocks in front

. so you think that the game dose not care about the on coming air. while at the same time it cares about a air flowing a block above/below the spoiler body. that doesn't make scene, but then again this is the game were spoilers work with out on coming air. so what dose that say.

. and I know for a fact that tailfins work better when uncovered. they still work when covered.

if I post to much I get band form the comments.

the first servo in the stack imparts a rotational force on to the chassis. the chassis has enough weight and width to not show the force acting on it. while the second servo is imparting it's force on to the first servo not the chassis. so for the second servo to impart it's force on to the chassis it must go through the first servo. doing that it would effect the first servo not the chassis. now for the forces, because servos are not on a single drive shaft each servo must impart it's forces on the objects directly attached to it. I mean draw a free body diagram of each servo and a diagram of the servo stack and you will see, what I am saying.

As for stacked servos: first, if one rotational force is canceled, the servo doesn't stop. If that was true, it would be completely impossible to use them without the body of your vehicle rotating (assuming a single servo), which we know it's not the case. As for the forces on stacked servos being applied to eachother that's true, but servos aren't free floating bearings (unless you the strength is low): the only thing that can rotate them are themselves. That means that when you apply a force on a servo, that force is in fact transmitted through it to whatever is connected to it. If they were free floating bearings (like heli engines/spinning servos) that wouldn't happen and the speed wouldn't increase (which is what happens with heli engines/spinning servos), but they aren't. Also, at no point forces are disappearing on bionic propellers: when the force gets to the body, it is canceled by the force created by another propeller (rotating in the opposite direction)

For spoilers: what you saw when you covered it up (which i assume you mean putting blocks directly above/below them), is also known (mostly for wings, but spoilers and wings work in the same way in game). Basically the way spoilers work is they take the speed in the direction perpendicular to them and the amount of uncovered points in its top and bottom surfaces. Uncovered points are defined as the points which don't have another block which removes drag directly next to them (blocks which remove drag are all blocks except tailfins, heli blades, sails, propellers, flat connectors and cosmetic blocks). The downforce then is proportional to that speed (higher speed=more downforce) and the minimun of the amount of uncovered points on either the top or bottom surfaces of the spoiler (higher amount=more downforce). No other factors seem to be considered, and this calculation seems to be used on all cases

Both forces (counter rotational and rotational) come from one motor (power source). If one of the rotational forces, is canceled out the motor stops.Additionally for a servo to work the counter rotational force and rotational force should be equal. Forces just don't disappear, and only one servo can impart it's force directly on to the chassis.The others impart on each other.

I saw your spoiler test, very nice. It showed good results. I did my own more visual test. I don't understand it how could they mess up a spoiler, the in game spoiler works backwards, behind objects, only flipping it over makes a difference. I do see a difference, if the spoiler in covered it doesn't work as well. The way I see the spoiler working. Is in two systems one is the stranded wedge downforce (when the spoiler is not covered). Two is when the spoiler is any were on the chassis, and the downforce comes just from your speed. your thoughts?

As for the rotors of bionic propellers they do make sense physically. Imagine we only had the innermost servo in place, when we rotate it the propellers rotate (as they are lighter than the base and have less drag, making it easier to rotate them than the base). We then replace blocks from the base with a servo. If we don't spin this servo, the behaviour doesn't change (as it's not free floating, it's static). If we do spin this servo, since it's still easier to spin the propellers+the initial servo than the base, this servo rotates the whole assembly. At the same time, the initial servo will have also rotated the propellers, resulting in a higher rotation than what a single servo alone would have given (and thus higher rotation speed). Obviously this process can't be repeated indefinitelly (as you do, it becomes easier to rotate the base rather than the propellers, resulting in less extra speed), but you can stack a couple before that happens. This is why only 6-7 are used at most

As for sideways spoilers that's not exactly true. At first, the vehicle tries to move on a circular trayectory. That means that the speed is perpendicular to the radius of the circle, and thus sideways spoilers only have speed in the direction perpendicular to them. It's not until the back of the vehicle whips out that they start creating downforce. But for that to happen there needs to be a difference before that. But if you still aren't convinced, here is proof: https://imgur.com/a/NdvFRIG . The mass is different on both vehicles, but the mass added only moves the center of downforce backwards while the removed spoilers move it forwards. Since the extra mass is low and spoilers are strong, the effect of removing spoilers should be stronger than the one of the added weight, and so we should expect the center of downforce to move forwards, which is exactly what we see on the test (the back has very little grip and ends up drifting, same as in the previous video about this)

While irl spoilers are directional, in game spoilers are not : https://imgur.com/a/9s7UuY3 . As you can see, behaviour doesn't change when rotating them 180 degrees, which means the downforce must be the same. If the spoilers had stopped creating downforce, you would expect the back to whip out on turns due to very low grip compared to the front. Fun fact, this applies to wings as well, and it's a known behaviour in the community.

ah ha ha, I seem to be bad at explaining bionic propeller problem (servo base/mount). So here goes another try. There are two parts to the servo the base and the mount, which is attached to the base and spins. For the servo to work you need the base to be attached to a object that will not move due to the counter rotating force from the mount (An example of this is A helicopter). Now the problem of the bionic propeller is the propeller but the stack of servos. The first servo works as it should but the second, third, forth, etc will exert a rotational force on the servos behind them. Locking the power (train) up, and that is why the bionic propellers are not Physically sensical. If more explanation is say so.

a spoiler is one directional, capturing air flow and redirecting it to get down force. if you rotate a spoiler it no longer works. I do think, that do to the property's given to the spoiler (by the game) it may catch/slow you in the vertical. any thoughts, I will be doing some testing on it.

I guess I was just making a statement on your very effective race platform, but thanks any ways for the explanation. same for the videos, just a heads up but again thanks any ways for the explanation.

Nice test, but when you put the spoilers sideways they gain downforce when angling for/in the turn. so what is being show in your video, is the slowing/downforce holding your rear in place. Try rotating the spoilers 180degs
I use a spoiler tail on some of my vehicles, that tend to burn out in the rear.

And yet if the servo didn't move something else would. the shock has to go/end somewhere.

you do not need to get back to me so quickly, I hope I am not messing up you day. If I am, sorry.

lol I got this message: Sorry, some kind of error has occurred: You've been posting too frequently, and can't make another post right now.

As for the front servo, it's not used as suspension. It's main purpose it's turning the vehicle, the suspension effect doesn't really help much and can hurt in some cases if the wheels hit the ground in the wrong way

if you cover servos with 1x4 wedges, they don't add any extra drag over having just the wedges. As for covered spoilers creating downforce, here is the proof: https://imgur.com/a/5A8JbSV

As you can see, the back spoilers are completely covered with either thrusters or 1x4 wedges. At first, all spoilers point forwards, i gain a bit of speed (for them to create downforce) and try to turn. Since there is around the same amount of spoilers on the front and back, the center of downforce is on the middle and thus it quickly gets in a stable turning radious. When i rotate the back spoilers and try to do the same, the back drifts a ton and is unable to stay on a stable turning radious at high speeds. This would be expected if the center of downforce had been moved to the front of the vehicle, which is what has happened if we assume the back spoilers were creating downforce when pointing forwards but no longer do when sideways

The base of the servos on bionic propellers it's the base of the vehicle. The tailfins are angled with hinges, which are attached to a small base which is spinned with servos, which are attached to the base of the vehicle

ah you miss understand me when I talk about the bionic propellers. it's not the vehicle base,it's the base of the servo. sorry for the miss understanding, I hope it makes scene now.

Rotating a spoiler 180 degrees doesn't change anything as they don't care for which direction you are going. If you meant 90 degrees which is what makes more sense (as sideways spoilers don't create downforce) i haven't tested it on this specific design, but i use sideways wedges as light structural blocks in a lot of other designs (as they are the least dense block) and i can confirm there is a difference between 2 covered sideways spoilers put side by side (for the size to be the same) and 2 normal spoilers put one behind the other. I can post a video of that if you want when i get home

you do know that spoilers have extra drag. I have show this in my old test data.

Oh getting away form the debates, the use of the servo as front suspension is very nice good move.

is there any evidence your clam (spoiler covering)? have you ever done a test were you rotate the spoilers 180degs?