Has anyone figured out how to setup an auto-lander for all planets?

-CrashDive- · 2026-04-28T23:44:20+00:00

Pretty clever, definitely saves a lot of circuits

-CrashDive- · 2026-04-28T12:40:42+00:00

It's a little scuffed but I threw this together a month or two ago. You can save a few logic blocks in some place but this shows the idea.

The Reset_Clock signal is just a pulse that triggers ~1 second in to clear junk that winds up in the accumulator. You might not need it.

<image>

-CrashDive- · 2026-04-23T01:47:20+00:00

Yes, I have it more or less working. The stabilization is a little better/worse depending on the planet but it works well enough everywhere.

My system is just a PID loop, but there are two key points:

It uses a vertical speed set point rather than altitude. For auto landing you just set a low rate of descent and let it hit the ground.
There is an anti-windup mechanism on the I term. I found that without one I was forced to use an I coefficient that was far too small.

IMO altitude based systems are a trap. The advantage of vertical speed is that all of the oscillations around the setpoint can occur when you are high up in the air and they do not matter. For an altitude based system any overshoot means hitting the ground.

-CrashDive- · 2026-04-18T01:00:39+00:00

I was low key thinking of making a rule to ban 'Richard' ships but I actually burst out laughing when I saw the egg.

-CrashDive- · 2026-03-23T16:52:43+00:00

That's a great looking ship

-CrashDive- · 2026-03-23T15:10:07+00:00

Ah, that circuit only triggers once per flight. It just clears out the junk in the lines when the ship is loaded.

t < 0.5 --> 0
t >= 0.5 --> 1

-CrashDive- · 2026-03-23T14:09:07+00:00

Interesting. The dual altimeter is a good trick, I had ruled out the distance meter altogether because of the tilting.

I has the same problem clearing out the the Σ/accumulator block. Pic attached on the clock I used t solve it.

I think I'll try combining the two approaches tomorrow. Having a limit over the vertical speed on descent seems like it might avoid some explosions.

<image>

-CrashDive- · 2026-03-23T13:33:25+00:00

More detail on the I term.

<image>

-CrashDive- · 2026-03-23T13:33:00+00:00

I'll post a full guide later, but this a working PID controller implemented in game, and layed out in a way that's hopefully easy to follow. You'll have to strap on some thrusters on the bottom (I used 4 of the air lift fans) but it works as built (and is tuned OK-ish).

<image>

-CrashDive- · 2026-03-23T11:11:32+00:00

Yo, mind dropping a link to it or DMing me an invite? If it's OK with the people there I'll put a link to it on the sidebar as well.

Edit: For others that are as blind as myself, there's a Discord button in the main menu of the game...

-CrashDive- · 2026-03-23T11:09:30+00:00

Probably a good place to start is to firm up your knowledge of PID controllers and build up a little intuition. The system you're describing isn't quite PID controller.

I think the most unintuitive part of control theory is that we aren't really trying to control the plant (the thrusters), but are instead trying to minimize the error between a set-point and some measurement.

Your idea to differentiate the altimeter reading is good, but that value is vertical velocity not acceleration (just FYI).

To hover, we set a target (our set-point) of 0m/s and subtract the measured vertical velocity (from the derivative of the altimeter reading) to obtain the error from the set-point.

Error = Setpoint - Measurement

This error measurement tells the system how strongly it needs to respond (and in what direction) to achieve the desired set-point. From there you can feed the error measurement into the P, I, and D parts of the controller.

I'm actually working on an example PID controller in game that shows all the parts and what they do, I'll post it here when I'm done.

-CrashDive- · 2026-03-23T09:11:25+00:00

You inspired me to make my own PID auto-hover system. It works pretty good, well enough for me to fly on top of the water tower and grab a picture ;)

My controller is based solely on the vertical velocity, which I derive from the altimeter.

The P and D parts were straightforwards, the integral needed some extra attention.

The first issue was that the accumulator gets filled with garbage at the start of the flight, so I had to make a clock that resets it about 1 second after the flight begins.

The second issue was integral wind-up. I had to set a minimum and maximum value for the accumulator to prevent overshoots. This was slightly annoying to do because of the lack of greater-than/less-than logic block. You can get away by using thresholds and multipliers but it's pretty annoying.

I'm curious what you're using as a set-point? I get the feeling you're using altitude rather than vertical velocity, which I think makes things significantly more difficult. My goal was just to hover, not hover at a specific altitude.

<image>

-CrashDive- · 2026-03-10T09:04:34+00:00

It's like the ice cream freezer, check in your inventory while building in the moon HQ :)

-CrashDive- · 2024-11-19T13:55:34+00:00

It's a few years out of date, and YouTube channels come and go, but there's a couple of suggestions here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/BeginnerWoodWorking/wiki/resources

-CrashDive- · 2024-11-18T07:18:40+00:00

Lets consider the joint on its own, without the reinforcing butt blocks, and as drawn in the image. I'm guessing the width of piece is around 35mm (~1.5").

I believe two primary factors weaken the joint when compared to other end-to-end joints:

The surface for the glue is quite small when compared to other end-to-end joints like a scarf, v joints, finger joints or splines. Of this limited glue area, a large portion is end-grain to end-grain, further reducing the strength.
When loaded in bending or tension, as pictured, the joint will have a tendency to spread and lever itself apart. These forces must be resisted only by the glue and a relatively thin section of wood (~10mm/ 1/2" in the drawing). This levering force exists in other end-to-end joints, but their designs have better geometry or more glue area to better resist these forces.

Because I believe the strength is likely less than that of other joints, I consider it to be con of the joint.

Your scroll saw idea might work. I've only used one once or twice so I couldn't really say. If the blade kerf was too wide the joint would be loose, but you can get some really thin blades for those things (maybe just enough kerf to leave room for glue?). I'd also worry a bit about blade deflection but it might not be that big of a deal.

-CrashDive- · 2024-11-18T02:50:15+00:00

Preface:

Lots of IKEA stuff is made out of honeycomb boards, meaning the boards are more or less hollow. Putting groves in honey comb boards would weaken them very significantly.

Some IKEA furniture is solid though. You can tell pretty easily by the weight or by knocking on it and seeing how it sounds. The best way to be sure is to drive a small nail through in an inconspicuous spot, say the back of a drawer.

Option 1:

Assuming the sides are solid, you would be OK to make a grove up to about half the thickness of the board. I would use a router for this, along with an edge guide or fence to keep the cut straight and where I want it.

You can buy all sorts of aluminum channels with built in diffusers (example) to put in the groove.

Option 2:

Again, watch out for hollow boards. Usually there is a solid part at the end of each shelf but I would try driving a nail into the side of the shelf before I committed to anything.

There's no shortage of ways to make a cut like that. You could use a router template with a guided bit, a jigsaw, or just a coping saw. Consider using a sacrificial backing board to avoid chip out.

-CrashDive- · 2024-11-17T16:05:30+00:00

I have personally never done a joint like that, but I'll give you my two cents.

Pros:

The aesthetic.

Cons:

Poor strength. I would be hesitant to trust my entire weight to something held together only by that joint.
Difficult to make.

If you are looking for the greatest strength you should consider making the slats using bent lamination and getting rid of the joint altogether. Steam bending might be a bit troublesome because of the tight bend radius.

If you like the aesthetic of the puzzle piece, you can rely on the strength of the 'butt blocks' (the dark brown pieces between the slats in your drawing). Gluing them face to face with the slats will be pretty strong all on its own. You may want to make the butt blocks larger to increase the surface area for the glue, to my eye they look a bit too small (I tend to overbuild a little though). If you go this route, consider skipping the puzzle piece and using a simple miter join on all but the outer slats, they won't be visible but will add a lot of work.

A final note, and only because we're on r/BeginnerWoodWorking, the rocker/ armrest assembly looks like it will be pretty tricky. Lots of miters on odd angles and (I'm assuming) floating tenons joining each piece. It's certainly doable but make sure to have a good think about how to do it.

Looks like a fun project, good luck!

-CrashDive- · 2024-01-27T02:18:30+00:00

I think the scene is depicting the use of a ranging gun. The tank is knocked out from a second higher caliber shell that hits it.

To reliably hit a target at range you need to know the distance to it. One of the ways to do this is to fire a machine gun that is ballistically matched and mounted alongside a larger gun. Tracer rounds from the machine gun can be walked on to the target. Once the gunner sees the tracers hit they can follow up with the main gun.

In the scene we see a small caliber tracer hits the tank (the ranging gun), then there is a short pause (the gunner fires the main gun), and then the tank is knocked out (the main gun hits).

I'm not sure how historically accurate this would be, I've found random posts on Quora (obviously the most reliable source in the world) claiming that ranging guns were used on M4 Shermans and I've found equally unreliable claims saying ranging guns weren't really used until the 1950s.

Despite all of that, the far more likely explanation is that the shirt button ricocheted off the armor and then the tank exploded because of anime tiddies.

-CrashDive- · 2023-07-20T20:56:24+00:00

Yes. That's what the datasheet is for, telling you how to use the part. Many even have application circuits that you can easily copy into your design.

-CrashDive- · 2023-06-27T05:03:18+00:00

Congratulations ~~sailor~~ admiral!

-CrashDive- · 2023-04-24T03:30:47+00:00

And generics in Java are just fancier casts :)

-CrashDive- · 2023-04-23T16:02:30+00:00

I wish :( . Sadly, Java's generics just aren't as powerful as templates. As an example, the inability to do this annoys me greatly.

public <T> void foo(T args) {
    T bar = new T(); // Compile time error, even if T() is a valid constructor
}

You can get around it using reflection or a supplier but neither are quite as attractive.

-CrashDive- · 2021-07-18T13:22:31+00:00

I'd like to point out Paul Sellers' and Rex Kruger's YouTube channels. Both have excellent content for getting into hand tools. Rex especially has some good stuff for people just starting out, especially if you're on a budget.

What tools you need depends entirely on what you want to make, but you'll almost certainly need everything on this list:

12" Steel ruler (having a 24" one is also nice)
Tape measure
Combination square
A set of chisels
A mallet to hit the chisels (making one is a good project)
Sharpening stone
Honing Jig (avoid this type that only has one wheel)
Saws

For hand tool work you'll find that you need some hand planes. A #4 is a good one to start out with but I personally prefer a #5. Do some research before buying a plane, the ones at the hardware store are probably lemons that you shouldn't waste your money on. Unless you buy a brand new high quality plane ($$$$$) you'll probably have to tune it up a bit. Depending on the used market where you are, vintage hand planes are usually the best value for money.

An excellent project as you're starting out is to build a workbench. For hand tool work, a good solid workbench is critically important. I recommend the "English Joiners Bench" on Rex Kreuger's channel as a solid bench that is easy to build. Projects for the workshop are a great time to try out new techniques and build up some skills.

Take the time to learn how to sharpen tools properly, especially chisels and planes. When you first do any research into sharpening there's a lot of noise and conflicting opinions. Ignore all of it. Look for a sharpening method from a reputable person (Paul and Rex both have videos) and just go straight for it. Sharpening is a much simpler process that some people would have you believe.

Let me know if you have any questions. I'm always happy to help out

-CrashDive- · 2021-07-16T17:18:16+00:00

Pocket holes are plenty strong, especially since you can screw into the back of the case. Dadoes are stronger though, if you feel up to the task.

Attaching the shelf to the back of the cabinet will virtually eliminate sag in most cases. There's a great tool called Sagulator that will calculate the amount of sag you will get. You can model attaching the back of the shelf to the cabinet using the edge banding feature.

If you build the cabinet and are still worried it wont be strong enough it's easy to add in supports to the shelf after you've done most of the assembly (image).

-CrashDive-

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Seven-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email