No, I do not think the AF (not the government) made a mistake with the F-22. Don't forget the F-22A is a significantly different fighter than the YF-22 prototype. If you haven't see this, compare the outlines of the two aircraft, here. Who knows just how different the internals are? Second, there are plenty of classified information the public isn't aware of which goes into these types of decisions; that, more than public information on speed and maneuverability, probably informed the decision on which aircraft to select. Lastly, I don't think the AF would have made a mistake with either aircraft, the F-23 would probably have evolved into a fantastic fighter, but we KNOW the F-22 has evolved into a fighter which can fly with near-impunity against today's adversaries. But it's all academic, as we'll never get to compare the definitive version of the F-22 with what would have been the definitive version of the F-23, which is how a better comparison might be made.
Good thing to point out, but I don't think the actual scale is the problem here, the conversion is easy for anyone who's considered making a 1:1 replica. The bigger issue is the size of certain stock parts, especially the engines. Most of the larger engines (BFE150, large piston engine) have a diameter of 2 units, which makes them 3.3 ft wide. For the F-15 or other modern fighters, this is way too small. In order to make a realistic build, you either have to scale up the engines first or build using the correct proportions, then scale up using Fine Tuner.
Rudder induced roll does occur in SP, but I fly on high physics, so you might want to check that. Agree with other points, though. Additional gripe: lack of supersonic effects! Straight and swept wings fly the same way provided they're of the same area 🤔
Nice airplane, more of an MD-11 as it seems to be a bit longer than a DC-10...however: The screenshot does NOT does not display this build as it should. Next time, recommend you "zoom in" more so the plane fills the entire screen...
@jamesPLANESii agreed; however, I was flying around on full power on the "good" engine. The key to this is to maintain your airspeed, just as it is in real life. You generally would expect that Vmc would be slower than your approach speed, so that if you did have an engine failure, the aircraft wouldn't spiral out of control until you reduce power on the good engine. But, as I said below, it's really difficult to compare your build against an actual C-46, so I cannot say, for certain, the degree of control is similar to real life or not. I just know that, generally, in SP, the yaw encountered in a single-engine situation acts as it does in real life (pulls the aircraft away from the side of the good engine). Also, the yaw can be counteracted by full rudder and bank into the good engine and, also, getting slow in a single-engine situation is BAD. Real life multi-engine pilots practice single-engine situations all the time because they're difficult emergency scenarios. I don't really think there's a "bug" here, more of a degree of how much yaw is introduced. Or, it could be, how much effect the airflow has (or doesn't have) on the airplane and control surfaces. The physics model is an approximation, not exact and there are many things not quite right in the simulation (flaps, supersonic effects), but I (and you) find it close enough to be engaging. Otherwise, you wouldn't be practicing single-engine failures on final approach! ;)
So, I did a little engine-out work on your C-46 myself. I put the left (critical) engine on AG1. I then took off and climbed to 5,500', where I shut down the left engine at 150 mph. Full right rudder and around 5 - 10 degrees of right bank maintained directional control without much difficulty. However, I could not maintain 150 mph and 5,500' on one engine. I then slowed at a controllable rate (1 - 5 mph per second) while losing airspeed and the aircraft began an uncontrollable left roll below 120 mph; I was able to regain control by letting the nose forward and accelerating or, alternatively, pulling power on the good engine (which led to more altitude loss). Lowering flaps only made the Vmc much higher, above 130 mph in fact and really exacerbated the thrust deficiency as even partial (as opposed to full) flaps here add a lot of drag, but not much lift (plus, pitch the nose UP, which is not what I would expect). Restarted the dead engine for approach and landing. Overall impression: Flies very nicely on two engines and very easy to land; in single-engine situations, this C-46 doesn't have a controllability problem, but does have a power deficiency at higher gross weights. As far as SP modeling is concerned, the single-engine physics seem realistic, though I cannot verify the DEGREE of accuracy (i.e., whether a 27,000 lb C-46 with 1700 hp each engine and 108 ft wingspan would react the same way). The flaps, however, are another story. I use flaps in some of my builds, but unfortunately, SP flaps do not do the same things flaps do in real life, which would be to change the camber of the wing, increase lift, pitch the nose DOWN (generally), add little/some drag initially and more drag at increased extension.
Take off from Murphy/Yeager Airfield and fly on a heading of 345 degrees (the heading indicator is in the attitude indicator/artificial horizon) for about 50 miles. Watch out for the fortress defenses as you get close. Friendly airfield is on the north side of Snowstone.
Yes, @RandyAndSonsAircraft is correct, the KS-1 Kennel was a Mig-15 which was converted to a cruise missile (drone, in today's parlance, but with the difference that it was intended to kamikaze into its target and blow up).
Also, open up the CG tool, and shift fuel around in the fuselage to change the CG. Click on a fuse piece, hit the gear icon to open part options. Adjust fuel in there. The red line (CG) should be ahead of the blue line (Center of Lift)...
Interesting. If you move the main gear back towards the middle of the fuselage, make the wings much longer and straighter, as well as the horizontal stab, it might make a closer repro of the real thing... Also, try some color, use the "Custom" palette, make the main color for the gear black, "Trim 1" (tires) black as well, "Trim 2" white, which is the gear struts, I think.
Oh, the gear is close enough. Nice detail, looks like a lot of effort went into this one. Just wish it was mobile-friendly. Check my P-38 out, much simpler, less accurate, so kudos to you!
Hi. I have just over 1,000 hrs of flight time in the 756 family…757-200/300 and 767-300/400. Want me to give you some feedback on this build? I have some suggestions that you could apply to not only this build, but any airliner build in general.
Rambojutter Gravedigger Test Report by RAF Group Captain Nigel V.S. Brentprop, DSO. Having test flown my share of unique aircraft, more than 137 at last count (considerably more than my distinguished brother, Sir Thomas), I can say that this ship violates the Yank truism, “if it looks right, it’ll fly right!” That is to say this creation has far superior flying qualities than its jarring visage would imply. Its ground handling characteristics, however, are no better than a chap staggering out of a pub after downing 8 pints…not that us Brits can’t hold our liquor! Perhaps a more conventional empennage in place of the stinger-type tail would tame the worst behaviors…however, this would be highly detrimental to the “angry bumblebee” looks this one currently possesses. Suffering through the takeoff and barely safely away, the landing gear retraction was effectuated through a mechanism more agonizing than an Indian fakir contorting himself into unattainable postures. After being gobsmacked by this operation, the ship proceeded to soar into the firmament, quickly accelerating to approximately 400 M.P.H. indicated, quite a turn of speed for an army cooperation aircraft. At speed, there was a distinct pitch up tendency, with trim authority insufficient to arrest the motion, requiring the pilot to apply a slight forward column pressure in order to maintain level flight. This may prove fatiguing to the average chap, especially if a cross-Channel dash to the target area is required. However, visually acquiring targets was facilitated by the phenomenal amount of glazing…rolling in on the unfortunate Jerries I unleashed the four quite effective rockets and followed up with the four M.G.s and twin cannon rendering an entire convoy into a smoking wreckage. I did spare a single lorrie, as I felt it unsporting to savage a single vehicle and its trembling crew. Returning to base, this ship’s landing qualities were just as bad as its takeoff behaviors. However, I was able to safely effectuate a landing…as for the crews soon to be assigned to this fine attacker, I say happy hunting!
Thirteenth! So, the F-100 (in)famously had a symmetric airfoil which led to this type of behavior: Sabre Dance. Not that SP really replicates that behavior that well, but why use the flat bottom wing?
@PannerTerkins gee, I wish I had more time to build. But as I've gotten into other hobbies and pastimes to occupy what little time I do have, so not sure when I'll resume. Thanks for asking, though.
Wow, the more I fly this, the more I'm impressed. It's very smooth, very similar to real life. That might be attributed to some of your formulas for the stab, though I would have made the trim much more effective. But it rolls nicely, pitches nicely, it's fairly easy to fly level, unlike every other build, even mine.
@FalconDynamics Ok, thanks. Flies well enough, actually the flight model is pretty good...well, the fact that the trim doesn't really do anything isn't a unique issue, seems quite prevalent in SP builds. But it's very smooth overall, doesn't fly at ridiculous speeds (though so many weapons would make the jet much more sluggish IRL), pulls a realistic amount of G. Again, just a quick first look, but it seems you were trying to emulate the real thing. How did you build the altimeter, if I may ask?
The biggest issue is that the build's vertical stabs start oscillating around 250 KIAS, sometimes quite severely, to the point that it's pulling .5 - 2 Gs up and down. Seems to vary with altitude and eventually goes away at higher airspeed (400 KIAS or so). Haven't had a chance to dive into the stab formula to see why it might be doing this. It may have something to do with auto-trim...? The F-5 didn't have auto-trim, though it did have an auto/manual flap setting option. Is the oscillation related to the 20 FPS issue?
Fun video, but including a dev console window at the top with the “VerticalG” readout would be informative. I, for one, am doubtful that the RL MiG-19 could fly an Immelmann starting at 270 KIAS without falling out of the sky. I’d also like to see an engagement from the Mirage’s POV, to see if that build has the delta wing’s characteristic “bat turn” capability with the accompanying energy loss leaving it slow at the end of the first turn. I’ll check out both your builds as I’m intrigued enough after watching this.
@LegendaryPilot yes, he is! Shot down over the Soviet Union on 1 May 1960 by an S-75 Dvina (SA-2 Guideline) missile while cruising above 65,000’. After his bailout and subsequent imprisonment for espionage in the USSR, he was repatriated in 1962 in exchange for Rudolf Abel, a British-born KGB spy who was captured in the U.S. After repatriation and testimony before Congress and much criticism for not having taking his issued “suicide pill”, Powers left the CIA, worked for Lockheed and finally wound up piloting a news helicopter in Los Angeles in the 1970s. In 1977, Powers and his cameraman were killed when his helicopter ran out of fuel short of Burbank airport. So, yes, same Francis Gary Powers.
@GorillaGuerrilla the link is incomplete and doesn’t take me anywhere when I paste it into the browser. Can you repost and I’ll take a look? To create links in comments or posts, use the following format: [whatever text you want to use for your link] (https//webpagelink.com). Be sure to delete the space between the “]” and “(“ and the link will be created when you post your comment.
@GorillaGuerrilla yes, IMHO, just to make a WAG, SP physics is around 80% accurate, but only 65% of the time. Don’t bother with the area rule test as there aren’t any supersonic effects in game, which is why swept wings make no performance difference. One of the biggest shortfalls, in my opinion. I’d love to see the rapid increase in drag in the transonic range, but as there isn’t even real “airflow” in game, so it’s not unexpected. The way drag and lift increase in game is because the SP environment simply increases drag and lift as a part or wing moves “faster”. It’s a calculation, not actual airflow, which is why putting one part behind another doesn’t block the “airflow”. Sadly, no way to fix it either.
@GorillaGuerrilla yes, I am well aware of burying wings to simulate lifting body effects. Useful for emulating builds such as F-14, F-16 or Space Shuttle. Also useful in simply using a built up wing instead of the stock block wings available. But this post doesn’t really have much to do with that, it’s really about the different characteristics between the flat, semi-symmetrical and symmetrical wings in SP; my point being there is much more modeled in game than people realize in those options. However, to your point: You’re not the first to maintain that there are brilliant builders who can defy the in game physics model. I say you can’t really do so, though you can exploit the characteristics and gaps of the in game modeling to achieve some interesting and unexpected characteristics. Burying a wing in a fuse and having it still able to produce lift is a perfect example of a gap in the SP physics model that can be exploited—that’s not something that happens IRL. IRL, lifting bodies don’t conceal a wing inside, their very shape produces left as they move through the air at an angle (AoA). FT and good old fashioned XML editing gives the ability to manipulate attributes of individual parts, but it doesn’t allow anyone to alter the basic code of the physics engine. All the code is there and all the variables are being crunched to produce a rational result. A good example of this is drag reduction/deletion—the builder may be causing the physics engine to use “0” as the drag value on that part, but the physics engine is always there in the background, working as expected. So, I’m not sure what you mean by “brilliant” people defying SP physics because you can’t—the SP physics code will always be operational in game.
@GorillaGuerrilla do you understand how that happens in real life and how would you propose to replicate that behavior? If you’d like an explanation, I can answer any questions you might have.
No, I do not think the AF (not the government) made a mistake with the F-22. Don't forget the F-22A is a significantly different fighter than the YF-22 prototype. If you haven't see this, compare the outlines of the two aircraft, here. Who knows just how different the internals are? Second, there are plenty of classified information the public isn't aware of which goes into these types of decisions; that, more than public information on speed and maneuverability, probably informed the decision on which aircraft to select. Lastly, I don't think the AF would have made a mistake with either aircraft, the F-23 would probably have evolved into a fantastic fighter, but we KNOW the F-22 has evolved into a fighter which can fly with near-impunity against today's adversaries. But it's all academic, as we'll never get to compare the definitive version of the F-22 with what would have been the definitive version of the F-23, which is how a better comparison might be made.
+1I don't think I've ever seen a Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 on the site before, nice build, keep it up!
+1Good thing to point out, but I don't think the actual scale is the problem here, the conversion is easy for anyone who's considered making a 1:1 replica. The bigger issue is the size of certain stock parts, especially the engines. Most of the larger engines (BFE150, large piston engine) have a diameter of 2 units, which makes them 3.3 ft wide. For the F-15 or other modern fighters, this is way too small. In order to make a realistic build, you either have to scale up the engines first or build using the correct proportions, then scale up using Fine Tuner.
+1Rudder induced roll does occur in SP, but I fly on high physics, so you might want to check that. Agree with other points, though. Additional gripe: lack of supersonic effects! Straight and swept wings fly the same way provided they're of the same area 🤔
+1Nice airplane, more of an MD-11 as it seems to be a bit longer than a DC-10...however: The screenshot does NOT does not display this build as it should. Next time, recommend you "zoom in" more so the plane fills the entire screen...
+1@jamesPLANESii agreed; however, I was flying around on full power on the "good" engine. The key to this is to maintain your airspeed, just as it is in real life. You generally would expect that Vmc would be slower than your approach speed, so that if you did have an engine failure, the aircraft wouldn't spiral out of control until you reduce power on the good engine. But, as I said below, it's really difficult to compare your build against an actual C-46, so I cannot say, for certain, the degree of control is similar to real life or not. I just know that, generally, in SP, the yaw encountered in a single-engine situation acts as it does in real life (pulls the aircraft away from the side of the good engine). Also, the yaw can be counteracted by full rudder and bank into the good engine and, also, getting slow in a single-engine situation is BAD. Real life multi-engine pilots practice single-engine situations all the time because they're difficult emergency scenarios. I don't really think there's a "bug" here, more of a degree of how much yaw is introduced. Or, it could be, how much effect the airflow has (or doesn't have) on the airplane and control surfaces. The physics model is an approximation, not exact and there are many things not quite right in the simulation (flaps, supersonic effects), but I (and you) find it close enough to be engaging. Otherwise, you wouldn't be practicing single-engine failures on final approach! ;)
+1So, I did a little engine-out work on your C-46 myself. I put the left (critical) engine on AG1. I then took off and climbed to 5,500', where I shut down the left engine at 150 mph. Full right rudder and around 5 - 10 degrees of right bank maintained directional control without much difficulty. However, I could not maintain 150 mph and 5,500' on one engine. I then slowed at a controllable rate (1 - 5 mph per second) while losing airspeed and the aircraft began an uncontrollable left roll below 120 mph; I was able to regain control by letting the nose forward and accelerating or, alternatively, pulling power on the good engine (which led to more altitude loss). Lowering flaps only made the Vmc much higher, above 130 mph in fact and really exacerbated the thrust deficiency as even partial (as opposed to full) flaps here add a lot of drag, but not much lift (plus, pitch the nose UP, which is not what I would expect). Restarted the dead engine for approach and landing. Overall impression: Flies very nicely on two engines and very easy to land; in single-engine situations, this C-46 doesn't have a controllability problem, but does have a power deficiency at higher gross weights. As far as SP modeling is concerned, the single-engine physics seem realistic, though I cannot verify the DEGREE of accuracy (i.e., whether a 27,000 lb C-46 with 1700 hp each engine and 108 ft wingspan would react the same way). The flaps, however, are another story. I use flaps in some of my builds, but unfortunately, SP flaps do not do the same things flaps do in real life, which would be to change the camber of the wing, increase lift, pitch the nose DOWN (generally), add little/some drag initially and more drag at increased extension.
+1Did you just remove your P-51??? I was literally in the middle of posting a comment on it and hadn't even upvoted it yet!
+1Take off from Murphy/Yeager Airfield and fly on a heading of 345 degrees (the heading indicator is in the attitude indicator/artificial horizon) for about 50 miles. Watch out for the fortress defenses as you get close. Friendly airfield is on the north side of Snowstone.
+1Yes, @RandyAndSonsAircraft is correct, the KS-1 Kennel was a Mig-15 which was converted to a cruise missile (drone, in today's parlance, but with the difference that it was intended to kamikaze into its target and blow up).
+1Well, let's just say my avatar is a self portrait. I have just over 1,500 hrs in that plane.
+1Sorry, I'm going to ask the stupid question: have you tried more blades, longer and broader blades?
+1That should change the stability.
+1Also, open up the CG tool, and shift fuel around in the fuselage to change the CG. Click on a fuse piece, hit the gear icon to open part options. Adjust fuel in there. The red line (CG) should be ahead of the blue line (Center of Lift)...
+1Interesting. If you move the main gear back towards the middle of the fuselage, make the wings much longer and straighter, as well as the horizontal stab, it might make a closer repro of the real thing... Also, try some color, use the "Custom" palette, make the main color for the gear black, "Trim 1" (tires) black as well, "Trim 2" white, which is the gear struts, I think.
+1Oh, the gear is close enough. Nice detail, looks like a lot of effort went into this one. Just wish it was mobile-friendly. Check my P-38 out, much simpler, less accurate, so kudos to you!
+1Hi. I have just over 1,000 hrs of flight time in the 756 family…757-200/300 and 767-300/400. Want me to give you some feedback on this build? I have some suggestions that you could apply to not only this build, but any airliner build in general.
Nice!
Rambojutter Gravedigger Test Report by RAF Group Captain Nigel V.S. Brentprop, DSO. Having test flown my share of unique aircraft, more than 137 at last count (considerably more than my distinguished brother, Sir Thomas), I can say that this ship violates the Yank truism, “if it looks right, it’ll fly right!” That is to say this creation has far superior flying qualities than its jarring visage would imply. Its ground handling characteristics, however, are no better than a chap staggering out of a pub after downing 8 pints…not that us Brits can’t hold our liquor! Perhaps a more conventional empennage in place of the stinger-type tail would tame the worst behaviors…however, this would be highly detrimental to the “angry bumblebee” looks this one currently possesses. Suffering through the takeoff and barely safely away, the landing gear retraction was effectuated through a mechanism more agonizing than an Indian fakir contorting himself into unattainable postures. After being gobsmacked by this operation, the ship proceeded to soar into the firmament, quickly accelerating to approximately 400 M.P.H. indicated, quite a turn of speed for an army cooperation aircraft. At speed, there was a distinct pitch up tendency, with trim authority insufficient to arrest the motion, requiring the pilot to apply a slight forward column pressure in order to maintain level flight. This may prove fatiguing to the average chap, especially if a cross-Channel dash to the target area is required. However, visually acquiring targets was facilitated by the phenomenal amount of glazing…rolling in on the unfortunate Jerries I unleashed the four quite effective rockets and followed up with the four M.G.s and twin cannon rendering an entire convoy into a smoking wreckage. I did spare a single lorrie, as I felt it unsporting to savage a single vehicle and its trembling crew. Returning to base, this ship’s landing qualities were just as bad as its takeoff behaviors. However, I was able to safely effectuate a landing…as for the crews soon to be assigned to this fine attacker, I say happy hunting!
Looks great, but how come the power indicator doesn’t work, permanently at 0%?
Thirteenth! So, the F-100 (in)famously had a symmetric airfoil which led to this type of behavior: Sabre Dance. Not that SP really replicates that behavior that well, but why use the flat bottom wing?
@Trainzo thank you.
The build is very good, but the flight model isn’t s outstanding! Realistic performance, but easy enough to fly, much like the real thing.
@kasachstanball as long as it’s posted as a successor build (which is usually automatic), I have no problem with you using it for your build.
@MAHADI of course!
@WEEB you’ll have to tag me in a private post so that I can take a look. And, yes, the bobbing is an issue with most builds.
@PannerTerkins gee, I wish I had more time to build. But as I've gotten into other hobbies and pastimes to occupy what little time I do have, so not sure when I'll resume. Thanks for asking, though.
Seems like a great build, but, unfortunately, I can’t fly it from the pilot’s seat!
@Graingy I’m still here. But very low-key.
Wow, the more I fly this, the more I'm impressed. It's very smooth, very similar to real life. That might be attributed to some of your formulas for the stab, though I would have made the trim much more effective. But it rolls nicely, pitches nicely, it's fairly easy to fly level, unlike every other build, even mine.
@FalconDynamics Ok, thanks. Flies well enough, actually the flight model is pretty good...well, the fact that the trim doesn't really do anything isn't a unique issue, seems quite prevalent in SP builds. But it's very smooth overall, doesn't fly at ridiculous speeds (though so many weapons would make the jet much more sluggish IRL), pulls a realistic amount of G. Again, just a quick first look, but it seems you were trying to emulate the real thing. How did you build the altimeter, if I may ask?
The biggest issue is that the build's vertical stabs start oscillating around 250 KIAS, sometimes quite severely, to the point that it's pulling .5 - 2 Gs up and down. Seems to vary with altitude and eventually goes away at higher airspeed (400 KIAS or so). Haven't had a chance to dive into the stab formula to see why it might be doing this. It may have something to do with auto-trim...? The F-5 didn't have auto-trim, though it did have an auto/manual flap setting option. Is the oscillation related to the 20 FPS issue?
@Planebuilder2123 you did? Where is it?
ChiChiWerx #7355
@ollielebananiaCFSP sure, why not?
Fun video, but including a dev console window at the top with the “VerticalG” readout would be informative. I, for one, am doubtful that the RL MiG-19 could fly an Immelmann starting at 270 KIAS without falling out of the sky. I’d also like to see an engagement from the Mirage’s POV, to see if that build has the delta wing’s characteristic “bat turn” capability with the accompanying energy loss leaving it slow at the end of the first turn. I’ll check out both your builds as I’m intrigued enough after watching this.
@SirLoafsAlot it’s ChiChiWerx #7355
Nice build, fun to fly. I like that you used the symmetric wing and kept the performance numbers fairly close.
@Emirates380 I’m not a mod…
@LegendaryPilot yes, he is! Shot down over the Soviet Union on 1 May 1960 by an S-75 Dvina (SA-2 Guideline) missile while cruising above 65,000’. After his bailout and subsequent imprisonment for espionage in the USSR, he was repatriated in 1962 in exchange for Rudolf Abel, a British-born KGB spy who was captured in the U.S. After repatriation and testimony before Congress and much criticism for not having taking his issued “suicide pill”, Powers left the CIA, worked for Lockheed and finally wound up piloting a news helicopter in Los Angeles in the 1970s. In 1977, Powers and his cameraman were killed when his helicopter ran out of fuel short of Burbank airport. So, yes, same Francis Gary Powers.
@Yudha hello, yes, very old post. “CollisionsOff=True”.
@MrShenanigansSP link?
@MrShenanigansSP sure, what are you building?
Mach Calculator
@GorillaGuerrilla the link is incomplete and doesn’t take me anywhere when I paste it into the browser. Can you repost and I’ll take a look? To create links in comments or posts, use the following format: [whatever text you want to use for your link] (https//webpagelink.com). Be sure to delete the space between the “]” and “(“ and the link will be created when you post your comment.
@GorillaGuerrilla yes, IMHO, just to make a WAG, SP physics is around 80% accurate, but only 65% of the time. Don’t bother with the area rule test as there aren’t any supersonic effects in game, which is why swept wings make no performance difference. One of the biggest shortfalls, in my opinion. I’d love to see the rapid increase in drag in the transonic range, but as there isn’t even real “airflow” in game, so it’s not unexpected. The way drag and lift increase in game is because the SP environment simply increases drag and lift as a part or wing moves “faster”. It’s a calculation, not actual airflow, which is why putting one part behind another doesn’t block the “airflow”. Sadly, no way to fix it either.
@GorillaGuerrilla yes, I am well aware of burying wings to simulate lifting body effects. Useful for emulating builds such as F-14, F-16 or Space Shuttle. Also useful in simply using a built up wing instead of the stock block wings available. But this post doesn’t really have much to do with that, it’s really about the different characteristics between the flat, semi-symmetrical and symmetrical wings in SP; my point being there is much more modeled in game than people realize in those options. However, to your point: You’re not the first to maintain that there are brilliant builders who can defy the in game physics model. I say you can’t really do so, though you can exploit the characteristics and gaps of the in game modeling to achieve some interesting and unexpected characteristics. Burying a wing in a fuse and having it still able to produce lift is a perfect example of a gap in the SP physics model that can be exploited—that’s not something that happens IRL. IRL, lifting bodies don’t conceal a wing inside, their very shape produces left as they move through the air at an angle (AoA). FT and good old fashioned XML editing gives the ability to manipulate attributes of individual parts, but it doesn’t allow anyone to alter the basic code of the physics engine. All the code is there and all the variables are being crunched to produce a rational result. A good example of this is drag reduction/deletion—the builder may be causing the physics engine to use “0” as the drag value on that part, but the physics engine is always there in the background, working as expected. So, I’m not sure what you mean by “brilliant” people defying SP physics because you can’t—the SP physics code will always be operational in game.
@GorillaGuerrilla do you understand how that happens in real life and how would you propose to replicate that behavior? If you’d like an explanation, I can answer any questions you might have.
@SkyJayTheFirst ah, ok, got it, thanks. I really should try War Thunder again.
@SkyJayTheFirst what does “SUCC” mean?