Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
I don't even understand how you managed to get it stable with moving in the same dirrection! Assuming we aren't using different descriptions... is one moving "Clockwise" and the other "Counter clckwise"? IN that case, the sterring is the only main issue. If not... well, who knows!
check Here [en.wikipedia.org]
With enough different viewpoints...
Perhaps the physics engine isn't advanced enough, or you just are off by a little bit. If you need to, you can cheat by using pistons to move a weight. That weight causes it to lean, turning it...
hm, that could work...
hope that helped.
To use 2 rotors, they have to move in oppisite directions. Then you have to have more controll, and it has to be elongated. But, then the force is more balenced around the center of mass, making it slightly more stable.
Here [en.wikipedia.org] is a much better explanation.
and, incase people didin't realize it, that "slightly better looking" was directed at you. As in mine would be worse. I mean, in SE, for a contest, it was a fast attack craft (FAC). Mine? The "Sloth" A slow moving cube with 9 missile launchers...
yeah
and, since it's been used in survival (Carrer), that guarntees it's functional!