Well, firstly...Strategia wrote:No, they shouldn't. Well, in all fairness, the ability to mod both (i.e. surface and ocean floor) would be the best, but IMO that pic is the best alternative. After all, real-world seaplanes land on the surface of the water too, right? And despite cool sci-fi submaplanes, a plane that floats on the surface of the water would be a lot easier engineering-wise than a submaplane. From this article:NOiZE wrote:that's better then now, but they should land on the oceanfloor.
And yes, I know it's about helicopters, but a lot of the design issues mentioned here also apply to planes.Following a particularly depressing scene, the main character, a robot boy, casts himself into the sea in the middle of what was once Manhattan. Fortunately, a robot friend is watching and pilots a helicopter which miraculously turns into a submarine and dives under the water to rescue the robot boy.
Needless to say, design parameters for helicopters are almost complete opposites of design parameters for submarines. Helicopters require light-weight construction to be able to fly. Subs need heavy-weight construction to sink and resist pressure. Helicopters rise using complex aerodynamic principles, while subs rise primarily using Archimedes' principle. Helicopters use air-breathing engines. Subs use electric motors. Subs must resist extreme external pressure differentials├óÔé¼ÔÇØat least 10 atmospheres greater than the pressure inside (generally more)├óÔé¼ÔÇØwhile helicopters must withstand only modest internal pressure differentials├óÔé¼ÔÇØless than 1 atmosphere greater than the external pressure├óÔé¼ÔÇØif any pressure differential at all.
The difference between internal and external pressure differentials is a major design issue in itself. Soda pop bottles can resist around 5 atmospheres of internal pressure differential. Yet, an empty soda bottle can be crushed with light external finger pressure thanks to a nasty little detail called elastic instability. It takes far more wall thickness and/or material strength to protect against an external pressure differential than the same internal pressure differential.
In theory, a mechanism could be designed to equalize pressure on both sides of a sub's walls by altering the internal air pressure as the sub changed depths. Since a sub can go up and down rapidly, this would require a large air supply with high flow rates. When the sub ascended, it would have to expel large quantities of air. People in the sub would also have to remember to exhale or risk having their lungs pop from overpressure. Such a system would add complexity and safety problems without any real weight advantage.
We could go on at length, but suffice it to say that designing a dual-purpose helicopter/submarine would be an engineering nightmare and is not likely to happen anytime in the foreseeable future.
I think that isnt a plane movement, but a group..is it included in the tags above??In all cases I agreed that it deserves a fix.we need a way to specify aircraft to move in a formation and not bunch up like morons and much better response from the aircraft..
Id also love to see seaplanes waiting in the bottom of the sea to attackAnd seaplanes dont land in the water >_<
About hull pressure...its only to LIMIT the deep of the seaplane "hydrolanding" and apply some new material...Please, we are in the future
Since WW2 some designs of subplanes appeared(the first was a soviet one ), at least in paper, but the concept ,along with a LOT of new gameplay options, still exist and we need only to browse Google to find new projects like a scout plane launched from a submerged sub.
Also the SPRING interface doesnt have any trouble with planes (all of them
)below the water level...Ive tested amphibious pads for my Limited Fuel & Ammo mutation and planes are replenished when the pads are very deep in the water...what led me to remove the "amphibious" tag from pads for while.. VonGratz
Soviet... http://www.tauniverse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=34002
New...http://images.google.com.br/imgres?imgu ... D%26sa%3DN and....http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/02/2 ... index.html
that were amphibious, and, during the sea travel, received visits of a lot of amphi planes( that have the tag you had cited amphibious=1;) ) and NOT amphi planes below the water 
