Not bad, actually pretty good...and I can say that having built a Hun myself. Certainly looks the part and have to agree, like the clean look myself, though I prefer those two drop tanks, which were almost always present on the bird.
@thebanbehindtheslaughter no, I suppose you won’t. Too bad, because I was excited to be able to use the cannons as air to air weaponry. Guess I’ll try the prox fusing trick.
@thebanbehindtheslaughter wow, just when I thought you might have had me and figured out something I didn’t already know. BTW, an unlisted won’t get removed by the Mods. Only public posts. So, pass me the unlisted link.
@thebanbehindtheslaughter it’s not. And I’m platinum, I’ve tried to do so countless times, so trust my experience. I had this exact same conversation with another player who asked me to eval his P-51 (unfortunately can’t remember whom). He had cannons on it and when I told him the cannon issue, he changed back to the normal wing guns when he figured out I was correct. It’s a game limitation on how the cannon round works in game. Still don’t believe me? I invoke @BogdanX to weigh in on this.
@thebanbehindtheslaughter well, what you stated earlier was that “explosive rounds and armor penetration rounds should not be available on wing guns”. Explosive rounds are exactly what makes a cannon a cannon, as opposed to a machine gun, which has non-explosive rounds. As for the aiming reticle, you’re correct, it’s adequate, especially with the lead computation incorporated into the game within the past year. But, I guarantee that, no matter the sight you’re using, you will never be able to hit an airborne target using the SP cannon. Guaranteed...try it. First, take a machine gun, either the wing gun or “mini gun”, try and hit an airborne target. Can be done with a little practice, but tough. Then try to do the same with the stock cannon (no proximity fuse). Impossible. This may all be OBE, given the proximity fuse modification, so why are we even arguing the point?
@thebanbehindtheslaughter sorry, unclear as to what you mean by “ruin the purpose of cannons”. As for the proximity fuse, haven’t tried it yet, perhaps I should.
@thebanbehindtheslaughter why not? The German MG151/15, MG151/20 were both wing mounted cannons and armed the FW-190 among others, as was the Hispano 20 mm cannon, which was wing mounted and armed a number of RAF fighters, including the Spitfire and Hurricane, among others. The Japanese also widely employed 20 mm wing mounted cannons. The USAAF notably skewed towards .50 cal M.G.s, but most other combatants used a number of wing mounted cannons, with explosive shells, due to the fact that a single cannon round could bring down an aircraft, while a single machine gun round didn’t have as much effect. So much so, that nearly every airborne gun these days is a true cannon, including the U.S. M61, the Soviet/Russian GSh-23 and the German/Euro Mauser. As for armor piercing rounds, I cannot think of a single type of aircraft ammo that ISN’T armor piercing to various extents. They’re not sabot rounds, as an MBT would carry, but aircraft rounds, cannon and even the famed .50 cal, are not generally frangible and are generally optimized for armor penetration. SP’s problem with cannon is that it is almost impossible to hit an airborne target, the individual shell needs to actually contact the frame of the build in order to explode and cause damage. Against land targets, the cannon is very effective as the round will contact the “ground”, explode and create damage to objects within a certain radius, much the same way as a bomb works. It is way, way, way easier to hit an airborne target in SP with M.G. rounds. Try it, you’ll see.
@UsernameTH5 hey, nice Canberra, looks great, except your stars and bars insignia is off: incorrect proportions with lopsided stars. I built these for players like you, use what you want, credit not necessary.
@MrEarth I’ll have to try your speed brakes with G trick; I’ve used speed brakes with AoA, but your technique works really well. I also forgot to say that this build certainly looks great, nice aesthetics, I can see you had to make some tough choices wrt the livery, making it presentable without adding another hundred parts. Have to say, nice work with this.
@ReinMcDeer yeah, I get it, that’s why I build for joystick players, more control. So, my explanation would be the opposite of yours...”yeah, the roll is twitchy, but it’s easily controlled with a joystick.” But I understand the rotator mod to give it better roll. I can tune nearly any build to fly differently, which is one cool thing about this game, but I do judge on what the builder presents to the community and this isn’t at all bad, in fact, it’s fairly fun. Unfortunately, building for keyboards tends to “dumbs down” builds, but a builder does have to pick his poison, doesn’t he?
FT is fairly easy, I’m sure you could figure out a good stability equation. It could be something as easy as a rotator with a movement associated with an output =“-angle of attack*pitchrate” or something similar may work.
Post an unlisted build with a link and tag someone else to take a look at it. I’d probably be able to tell you what’s happening in about 3 mins if I could test fly it.
Well, that’s easy, just change the input on the stock rudder surface to “Roll” and invert, if required, so that the rudder deflects whenever you initiate a turn with the aileron. However, IRL, the rudder typically is a separate control surface, the Ercoupe being a notable exception, manipulated by the pilot as required. For most turns, the pilot will input rudder in the direction of the turn due to an effect known as “adverse yaw”, in which the aileron which deflects down to lift the wing for the turn will produce more drag due to the increased lift produced and will attempt to yaw the aircraft away from the direction of the turn. To counteract this, the pilot will typically input pro-turn rudder when deflecting the ailerons to turn. Even in WT, if operating in the most realistic mode, aircraft will fly this way. You’re probably flying in an arcade or simplified mode, designed for non-flyers or mouse and keyboard gamers, who don’t know how to fly.
@rexrexThezion here, it’s a combination of the relatively high wing loading and the symmetric airfoil. You can emulate the idea, but it’s tricky to do it consistently in SP. In this case, it’s just the flight dynamics, in other cases I’ve wanted to replicate the effect, I’ve had to resort to mounting the two wings on rotators which act counter aileron input when exceeding a certain AoA.
Ah...a Brit Draken! Very fast at altitude, just as fast as an F-106, the “Ultimate Interceptor”, easy enough to land on the boat, though it does help to have the speedbrakes locked out in on approach as it really likes to accelerate given the least bit power input.
@AzureCorp did I mention 1,000 hrs somewhere? I looked everywhere on this post and I didn’t see where I said that. I have more than 4,000 hrs TT, not sim time, real life flying time in a variety of real aircraft.
@Wallaby sure, it’s more than 2,000, but not unreasonable. Though, at that threshold, I’m probably the only one here that falls into the “experienced” category.
Just checked with a fellow pilot friend of mine who I am guessing has the most hours of anyone I know...he’s been flying for around 40 years. He has around 9,800 hrs. There certainly are lifelong airline pilots I know of who have 25,000 hrs, but certainly any pilot who’s spent an extended time flying in the military, even if they’d flown airlines after they retired from the military (as I have), 10,000 hrs is a fairly high threshold.
Hmmm. I’d lower the threshold for the “experienced” category to anyone with more than 2,000 hrs TT. Ten thousand hours is A LOT. It would take an airline pilot about 15 yrs to get that many hours (FAA limit is 1,000 hrs a year) and I could probably count the number of USAF pilots with more than 10,000 hrs on one hand and none of those guys are flying fighters.
Fairly faithful recreation of the real thing. These fighters, along with some Caproni bombers, actually participated in some raids on Britain during the WWII...ya know, fascists helping fascists, back when we truly knew what “fascist” meant...any way Wing Commander Robert Stanford Tuck participated in that aerial engagement flying (as I remember) a Hurricane. You can find a contemporary account of the battle if you search “Italian Raiders Hurricaned!” on YouTube. I didn’t post the direct link here because the video is definitely not PC. But it’s an interesting look into the mind of the wartime British populace who were fighting for their lives against an evil movement. The Fiats were highly maneuverable, but not fast and didn’t absorb damage that well and quite a few were shot down. An odd little battle in a huge war. Though I might have done a couple of things differently here, I like this build a lot and am surprised it’s been posted for over an hour with no upvotes until I came along. I’d Spotlight you, but you have twice the points that I do!
@MotorManiac no, not the Voodoo, all the guys who flew that one are OLD...but I do have plenty of experience in airplanes with high wing loading that were designed to fly like the Voodoo.
Eleventh! I like it, I like it a lot, very engaging and fun to fly. Quite realistic for a fictional build. The cockpit view is great and the performance is spot on. Also, it’s quite easy to land, can’t wait for a navalized version of this bomber, I think the USS Beast could handle it quite easily.
I don’t think the formula pasted correctly. I can copy and paste it to you on my PC via Discord, if you can wait a couple of days as I’m on the road right now. Until then, what parameters would you like for your control surfaces?
Nice build. Flight model is actually very good. Realistic fuel quantity and weights, good acceleration. The roll rate is a bit too fast, IMHO, I usually will benchmark the roll rate at 500 KIAS, beyond which most airplanes will not often fly, even if a fighter aircraft. This one seems to be benchmarked at a much slower speed, 250-300 knots. But, besides that, it is very good. Simple and engaging, looks like the T-4 and gets most of the major characteristics correct...nice work!
@DeezDucks take a look at this one again. I made a big effort to incorporate accurate Mach effects into this build. There’s a Mach meter in the cockpit, decreased effectiveness on the horizontal tail above Mach 1.0 and the shock cone extends between Mach 1.5 and 2.2. Your build, the RL jet being optimized for high Mach numbers, in fact every high Mach jet, would benefit from incorporating Mach effects into your design. Take a look at my formulas and use what you would like.
While the numbers aren’t perfectly RL, they’re close and, hence, the jet really feels like a RL fighter jet of this era. It pulls appropriately hard, slows down in high speed turns, roll rate is realistic and it has a great cockpit that doesn’t sacrifice the fuselage outline, beautiful work. Great build and great flight model.
@RamboJutter just doing the FT formula on a single rotator wold be much simpler. The trick to FT is to think of any rotator’s output as a range of -1 to 1. An unmodified rotator will simply translate an input from say, pitch, as 1 for full aft stick, 0 for neutral and -1 for full forward stick. If you would like to modify this output based on your aircraft’s speed, you can write a formula that takes your speed and decreases the output to the rotator. You can visualize the new output the same way you would graph a geometry formula. Here’s a formula that I’ve used in the past to half the output of a rotator to make it less effective beyond a certain speed, in this case, 33% less effective beyond 335 m/s: clamp(Pitch+Trim,-1,1)(1-clamp01(floor(TAS/335))0.33)),-1,1). The hardest part, TBH, is usually the syntax; you know what you want to do, but getting the phrasing right is sometimes a bit tricky.
You know, I’ve actually started a remaster of my most popular build and reading up on that jet, the F-100, there was a limiting system to prevent over controlling at high speeds. I’m wondering if some clever coding in FT might enable us to rotate and takeoff at lower speeds, but prevent unrealistic maneuverability at higher speeds.
Your builds are so much fun. Also, those Skybolts are fantastic! Little known fact: The EE Thunder was overshadowed by its Lightning stable mate, only a single squadron of 12 aircraft was ever fielded, but during initial ops at RAF Akrotiri, the type’s extremely high takeoff speed led to a number of takeoff incidents and rapid withdrawal after only 2 years.
Not bad, actually pretty good...and I can say that having built a Hun myself. Certainly looks the part and have to agree, like the clean look myself, though I prefer those two drop tanks, which were almost always present on the bird.
Flies very nicely!
This is one of my favorite flying builds of all time.
It’s an F-84F.
Easy to fly, probably too easy, but fun nonetheless.
@thebanbehindtheslaughter no, I suppose you won’t. Too bad, because I was excited to be able to use the cannons as air to air weaponry. Guess I’ll try the prox fusing trick.
@thebanbehindtheslaughter wow, just when I thought you might have had me and figured out something I didn’t already know. BTW, an unlisted won’t get removed by the Mods. Only public posts. So, pass me the unlisted link.
@thebanbehindtheslaughter you do??? Really? Give me a link to the build you’re using and I’ll evaluate it.
@thebanbehindtheslaughter it’s not. And I’m platinum, I’ve tried to do so countless times, so trust my experience. I had this exact same conversation with another player who asked me to eval his P-51 (unfortunately can’t remember whom). He had cannons on it and when I told him the cannon issue, he changed back to the normal wing guns when he figured out I was correct. It’s a game limitation on how the cannon round works in game. Still don’t believe me? I invoke @BogdanX to weigh in on this.
@thebanbehindtheslaughter it’s not. And I know you haven’t tried to do it because you don’t believe me. Try it.
@thebanbehindtheslaughter well, what you stated earlier was that “explosive rounds and armor penetration rounds should not be available on wing guns”. Explosive rounds are exactly what makes a cannon a cannon, as opposed to a machine gun, which has non-explosive rounds. As for the aiming reticle, you’re correct, it’s adequate, especially with the lead computation incorporated into the game within the past year. But, I guarantee that, no matter the sight you’re using, you will never be able to hit an airborne target using the SP cannon. Guaranteed...try it. First, take a machine gun, either the wing gun or “mini gun”, try and hit an airborne target. Can be done with a little practice, but tough. Then try to do the same with the stock cannon (no proximity fuse). Impossible. This may all be OBE, given the proximity fuse modification, so why are we even arguing the point?
@thebanbehindtheslaughter sorry, unclear as to what you mean by “ruin the purpose of cannons”. As for the proximity fuse, haven’t tried it yet, perhaps I should.
@thebanbehindtheslaughter why not? The German MG151/15, MG151/20 were both wing mounted cannons and armed the FW-190 among others, as was the Hispano 20 mm cannon, which was wing mounted and armed a number of RAF fighters, including the Spitfire and Hurricane, among others. The Japanese also widely employed 20 mm wing mounted cannons. The USAAF notably skewed towards .50 cal M.G.s, but most other combatants used a number of wing mounted cannons, with explosive shells, due to the fact that a single cannon round could bring down an aircraft, while a single machine gun round didn’t have as much effect. So much so, that nearly every airborne gun these days is a true cannon, including the U.S. M61, the Soviet/Russian GSh-23 and the German/Euro Mauser. As for armor piercing rounds, I cannot think of a single type of aircraft ammo that ISN’T armor piercing to various extents. They’re not sabot rounds, as an MBT would carry, but aircraft rounds, cannon and even the famed .50 cal, are not generally frangible and are generally optimized for armor penetration. SP’s problem with cannon is that it is almost impossible to hit an airborne target, the individual shell needs to actually contact the frame of the build in order to explode and cause damage. Against land targets, the cannon is very effective as the round will contact the “ground”, explode and create damage to objects within a certain radius, much the same way as a bomb works. It is way, way, way easier to hit an airborne target in SP with M.G. rounds. Try it, you’ll see.
@UsernameTH5 hey, nice Canberra, looks great, except your stars and bars insignia is off: incorrect proportions with lopsided stars. I built these for players like you, use what you want, credit not necessary.
@MrEarth I’ll have to try your speed brakes with G trick; I’ve used speed brakes with AoA, but your technique works really well. I also forgot to say that this build certainly looks great, nice aesthetics, I can see you had to make some tough choices wrt the livery, making it presentable without adding another hundred parts. Have to say, nice work with this.
@EngineerOtaku hah, you’re right! Not sure what the nickname was for the AIM-7s, but they work here really well!
@ReinMcDeer yeah, I get it, that’s why I build for joystick players, more control. So, my explanation would be the opposite of yours...”yeah, the roll is twitchy, but it’s easily controlled with a joystick.” But I understand the rotator mod to give it better roll. I can tune nearly any build to fly differently, which is one cool thing about this game, but I do judge on what the builder presents to the community and this isn’t at all bad, in fact, it’s fairly fun. Unfortunately, building for keyboards tends to “dumbs down” builds, but a builder does have to pick his poison, doesn’t he?
FT is fairly easy, I’m sure you could figure out a good stability equation. It could be something as easy as a rotator with a movement associated with an output =“-angle of attack*pitchrate” or something similar may work.
Gee...should we create an “Anime” tag???
@KnightOfRen a bit exuberant in your praise?
Post an unlisted build with a link and tag someone else to take a look at it. I’d probably be able to tell you what’s happening in about 3 mins if I could test fly it.
@KipoLover123 yup.
Well, that’s easy, just change the input on the stock rudder surface to “Roll” and invert, if required, so that the rudder deflects whenever you initiate a turn with the aileron. However, IRL, the rudder typically is a separate control surface, the Ercoupe being a notable exception, manipulated by the pilot as required. For most turns, the pilot will input rudder in the direction of the turn due to an effect known as “adverse yaw”, in which the aileron which deflects down to lift the wing for the turn will produce more drag due to the increased lift produced and will attempt to yaw the aircraft away from the direction of the turn. To counteract this, the pilot will typically input pro-turn rudder when deflecting the ailerons to turn. Even in WT, if operating in the most realistic mode, aircraft will fly this way. You’re probably flying in an arcade or simplified mode, designed for non-flyers or mouse and keyboard gamers, who don’t know how to fly.
@rexrexThezion here, it’s a combination of the relatively high wing loading and the symmetric airfoil. You can emulate the idea, but it’s tricky to do it consistently in SP. In this case, it’s just the flight dynamics, in other cases I’ve wanted to replicate the effect, I’ve had to resort to mounting the two wings on rotators which act counter aileron input when exceeding a certain AoA.
Deserves twice the upvotes. Hyper-realistic build, decent flight model, great work.
Ah...a Brit Draken! Very fast at altitude, just as fast as an F-106, the “Ultimate Interceptor”, easy enough to land on the boat, though it does help to have the speedbrakes locked out in on approach as it really likes to accelerate given the least bit power input.
@AzureCorp did I mention 1,000 hrs somewhere? I looked everywhere on this post and I didn’t see where I said that. I have more than 4,000 hrs TT, not sim time, real life flying time in a variety of real aircraft.
@Wallaby I’ve flown many different aircraft, but my current one is the 737.
@Wallaby sure thing, thanks!
@Wallaby sure, it’s more than 2,000, but not unreasonable. Though, at that threshold, I’m probably the only one here that falls into the “experienced” category.
Just checked with a fellow pilot friend of mine who I am guessing has the most hours of anyone I know...he’s been flying for around 40 years. He has around 9,800 hrs. There certainly are lifelong airline pilots I know of who have 25,000 hrs, but certainly any pilot who’s spent an extended time flying in the military, even if they’d flown airlines after they retired from the military (as I have), 10,000 hrs is a fairly high threshold.
Hmmm. I’d lower the threshold for the “experienced” category to anyone with more than 2,000 hrs TT. Ten thousand hours is A LOT. It would take an airline pilot about 15 yrs to get that many hours (FAA limit is 1,000 hrs a year) and I could probably count the number of USAF pilots with more than 10,000 hrs on one hand and none of those guys are flying fighters.
Fairly faithful recreation of the real thing. These fighters, along with some Caproni bombers, actually participated in some raids on Britain during the WWII...ya know, fascists helping fascists, back when we truly knew what “fascist” meant...any way Wing Commander Robert Stanford Tuck participated in that aerial engagement flying (as I remember) a Hurricane. You can find a contemporary account of the battle if you search “Italian Raiders Hurricaned!” on YouTube. I didn’t post the direct link here because the video is definitely not PC. But it’s an interesting look into the mind of the wartime British populace who were fighting for their lives against an evil movement. The Fiats were highly maneuverable, but not fast and didn’t absorb damage that well and quite a few were shot down. An odd little battle in a huge war. Though I might have done a couple of things differently here, I like this build a lot and am surprised it’s been posted for over an hour with no upvotes until I came along. I’d Spotlight you, but you have twice the points that I do!
@MotorManiac no, not the Voodoo, all the guys who flew that one are OLD...but I do have plenty of experience in airplanes with high wing loading that were designed to fly like the Voodoo.
@Nash11 yeah, mirroring complex builds tends to form extra connections and freezes parts which are attached to rotators.
You deleted the rudder and painted the landing gear struts red???
This thing is a blast to drive!
GLASS!!!!
Dang it, someone else guessed first. Oh, well.
That’s a CRJ 200...or as I like to call it, the “Super 2”. I have more than 500 hrs in the right seat of that plane.
Eleventh! I like it, I like it a lot, very engaging and fun to fly. Quite realistic for a fictional build. The cockpit view is great and the performance is spot on. Also, it’s quite easy to land, can’t wait for a navalized version of this bomber, I think the USS Beast could handle it quite easily.
I don’t think the formula pasted correctly. I can copy and paste it to you on my PC via Discord, if you can wait a couple of days as I’m on the road right now. Until then, what parameters would you like for your control surfaces?
Nice build. Flight model is actually very good. Realistic fuel quantity and weights, good acceleration. The roll rate is a bit too fast, IMHO, I usually will benchmark the roll rate at 500 KIAS, beyond which most airplanes will not often fly, even if a fighter aircraft. This one seems to be benchmarked at a much slower speed, 250-300 knots. But, besides that, it is very good. Simple and engaging, looks like the T-4 and gets most of the major characteristics correct...nice work!
@Diloph nope. Free to use.
@DeezDucks take a look at this one again. I made a big effort to incorporate accurate Mach effects into this build. There’s a Mach meter in the cockpit, decreased effectiveness on the horizontal tail above Mach 1.0 and the shock cone extends between Mach 1.5 and 2.2. Your build, the RL jet being optimized for high Mach numbers, in fact every high Mach jet, would benefit from incorporating Mach effects into your design. Take a look at my formulas and use what you would like.
While the numbers aren’t perfectly RL, they’re close and, hence, the jet really feels like a RL fighter jet of this era. It pulls appropriately hard, slows down in high speed turns, roll rate is realistic and it has a great cockpit that doesn’t sacrifice the fuselage outline, beautiful work. Great build and great flight model.
I really like the details here. Also, the cockpit work is great...plus, it doesn’t sacrifice the fuselage outlines. Nice work.
@RamboJutter just doing the FT formula on a single rotator wold be much simpler. The trick to FT is to think of any rotator’s output as a range of -1 to 1. An unmodified rotator will simply translate an input from say, pitch, as 1 for full aft stick, 0 for neutral and -1 for full forward stick. If you would like to modify this output based on your aircraft’s speed, you can write a formula that takes your speed and decreases the output to the rotator. You can visualize the new output the same way you would graph a geometry formula. Here’s a formula that I’ve used in the past to half the output of a rotator to make it less effective beyond a certain speed, in this case, 33% less effective beyond 335 m/s: clamp(Pitch+Trim,-1,1)(1-clamp01(floor(TAS/335))0.33)),-1,1). The hardest part, TBH, is usually the syntax; you know what you want to do, but getting the phrasing right is sometimes a bit tricky.
You know, I’ve actually started a remaster of my most popular build and reading up on that jet, the F-100, there was a limiting system to prevent over controlling at high speeds. I’m wondering if some clever coding in FT might enable us to rotate and takeoff at lower speeds, but prevent unrealistic maneuverability at higher speeds.
Your builds are so much fun. Also, those Skybolts are fantastic! Little known fact: The EE Thunder was overshadowed by its Lightning stable mate, only a single squadron of 12 aircraft was ever fielded, but during initial ops at RAF Akrotiri, the type’s extremely high takeoff speed led to a number of takeoff incidents and rapid withdrawal after only 2 years.