I built for quite awhile on mobile, one of my Highlighted planes is a mobile build. But, once I went PC, I never looked back. It’s not hard to make the transition.
@MobileFriendly you need to get the PC version, much easier to build. I know it’s an investment, but if you have access to a PC, I highly recommend you get the PC version of the game.
American...definitely. Build the USS Lexington (CV-2, the "Lady Lex") next. If you haven't read the book, make time to do so as it's a fantastic first-person account by a reporter who cruised on the USS Lexington during the Battle of the Coral Sea, where she was sunk. Stanley Johnston, the reporter, went into the water with the crew when she sunk.
@hRmm well, it’s a fighter sized airplane with more than 1,000 parts, not much more room to actually cram in any more details. Much of the work isn’t what you can see from the screenshots and not captured by the part count, that’s the flight model, which I spent a lot of time on and is what actually makes up the majority of the description. Just like a RL flight manual, the instructions are long and complex so that the prospective aviator knows all the ins and outs of flying the aircraft safely.
There were only 3 built, I believe, hence the “X” for experimental. If you have even one photo with trailing link LG, I would go with that. Also, you’ll find that building accurate LG from a “blueprint” (they’re not “blueprints”, they’re actually “3-views”) is very difficult as a static picture cannot show extension/compression, just one or the other. So, I suggest you work off photos, use a 3 view to make sure to get the length generally correct and make your best guess.
@CRJ900Pilot you don’t, at least there’s no great way to fix it. The autoroll starts because when a missile is fired, weight is removed from that side of the build and the heavier side causes the build to roll in that direction. The issue is that SP is way more sensitive to weight imbalances than IRL. I’ve flown airplanes that were imbalanced to the tune of 1,500 lbs and while it may have been a small handful on takeoff or landing, it wasn’t a big deal once airborne as you could trim it out. Likewise, when an F-15 fires an AIM-9 off one side, it absolutely doesn’t cause a noticeable rolling moment. You could try and add a way to adjust roll trim, but it doesn’t work that well. My F-20 actually has that feature on the VTOL slider for when one of the wingtip missiles are fired. Try it out, you’ll see it doesn’t work perfectly.
@CRJ900Pilot actually, much of that is classified, even though I’m pretty sure the AIM-9B is no longer in service anywhere. But other versions of the Sidewinder are in service, which explains why you might be having some trouble finding those numbers. The AIM-7D I don’t think is in service, being superseded by the AIM-120, so might be easier to find some declassified numbers. As far as ranges, I suggest you use the kinematic range of the missile as it greatly depends if the shot is fired head on or during a tail chase. Lock on time is also highly dependent on a number of factors, including the aircraft radar. Which build are you making?
@PETG that's the second time you've mentioned "German Corsair"...I'm not following what you're trying to say, if it's for me, or for someone else. Care to explain?
Here's a very simple formula to try, it limits the rotator's turn starting at 9 m/s (32 kph), so that the low speed handling is not decreased. It then decreases the steering to 40% at 22 m/s (79 kph), decreasing to 20% at 44 m/s (158 kph) and down to around 10% at 88 m/s (316 kph):
clamp01(Yaw * (1/(GS/9)))
Put that formula into the "input" field of the rotator that moves the steering wheel under the "InputController" dropdown menu using the Overload portion in the build screen. The total movement of that rotator will be dictated in the "range" field under the "JointRotator" dropdown menu. You can change "Yaw" to any input you're using for the steering wheel, whether it's yaw or roll. I would also use the same formula for the rotators which steer the steering wheels on your build. My only concern is that it will limit the steering too much at intermediate speeds (slower than 79 kph), but see how it works. If you would like to tag me on an unlisted build, we can tweak the formula.
I have a formula that disables rotators above a certain speed, but understand you need something that decreases the input as speed increases? Do you know how to change the input using the Overload embedded into the basic SP program?
I’m not sure I understand the question. Are you asking how to make a steering wheel be less effective with an increase of speed or for the actual wheel that’s driving the build to move less quickly as speed increases?
@BagelPlane no, I don’t care about the credit, really, I just know my segmented stars and bars insignia is more accurate than the one you built. Suggest you just use the one from my insignia pack or copy the proportions and star placement to make yours look better.
Has a couple of issues, but nothing terrible. But also has a built up, realistic wing, good, realistic performance and it looks pretty good as well. Deserves way more than a single upvote, nice!
@CremosoMaster nope. By angling the leading edge down, the net lift will the down at the tail, which lifts the nose more and more with increasing speed. It’s exactly the same way it works when making a nose up pitch movement.
Not bad...very fun, not crazily unrealistic, by any means. Cockpit view is great and armament is fun to use. Something that may help increase the fun factor next time is to add “damperMultiplier=5000” (use at least 5000, or increase to 10000 or 15000, as required) in the JointRotator field, which will help prevent the “bobbing” upon releasing back stick input.
Not gonna lie...I like this build. Impressively simple, yet fun and not ridiculously inaccurate by any means. It turns a bit fast and you could kill that swerving on takeoff by lowering the sideways traction on the nosewheels to .5 (that’s what I had to do to take off!), but I like it. Fun to attack the convoy with.
I really like the F-5, and appreciate your build, if you would like, I can test fly your next build and perhaps make some suggestions if you would like.
Move the CG forward so that it doesn’t sit on the tail to start; that would also help with the pitch stability, which is lacking after takeoff. I recommend having 1,000-2,000 drag points so that it can have accurate acceleration and performance without being overpowered. There’s only 219 parts, so using “calculateDrag=false” on all the details and scaling the drag on the main fuselage and wings will take some work, but not be impossible. Also, if done correctly, it should decelerate significantly in hard turns. For a 5 G 180 degree turn starting at 420 KIAS, it should lose at least 50 knots in a level turn. Also, it currently weighs as much as an F-4, the RL F-5 is a lightweight fighter, it weighs around 15,000-20,000 lbs IRL, it should weigh as much as it does, have the same wing area and about the same wing loading to give it accurate performance. If moving the CG farther forward reduces the turn rate too much, increase the area of the horizontal stab slightly to give it accurate turn. Also, the roll rate is pathetically slow, the RL jet can approach 720 degrees per second in roll, this one takes several seconds to do 360 degrees. The roll rate isn’t an inconsequential thing, the F-5 is known for having a great roll rate.
So, the code on your secondary parachutes is: ‘Activate2 * floor(smooth(clamp01(Activate2), Activate2 ? 1 / 7 : pow(10,10) ))’. I sort of understand the concept: AG2, when activates is “1” or “activate”. That value is multiplied by 1 or 0 by the second part of the equation, that value being controlled by the “smooth” function, which takes it’s time delay from the “1/7” value. Up to that point, it’s very similar to the LG and door code I use when I want a delay on parts of the landing gear. However: What’s the “?” value for and why use “pow”?
This is a nice surprise, flies well, fairly realistic in performance and turn capability (though it could be faster), it tracks straight, landing gear and doors are properly sequenced and takeoff and landing is not ridiculously difficult. Also, lo and behold: Sufficient trim authority—barely—but it’s enough and works throughout the flight envelope! Nice work. I have to agree, though, using the sectioned Hinomaru on the wings would have added an extra 15 parts per insignia, but would have matched the wings’ curvature nicely. With only 555 parts, you could have easily gotten away with the additional part count. Apparently, towards the end of the war, P-51 pilots used to scope watch for enemy aircraft and then scramble to get a kill. “Forget it, it’s a Frank” was apparently a common refrain as the Ki-84 was fairly faster than other Japanese types and even the Mustangs had trouble catching them. The Frank was an exemplary fighter, it’s a good thing for many an Allied pilot that Japan didn’t have more of them earlier in the war.
Flies nice and steady and slow, and would be totally mauled by any half-skilled Zero pilot out there. I like it...it’s emblematic of the U.S.’s early war effort before we got out crap together and I am sure there’s probably not a single surviving Buffalo pilot out there who has fond memories of this one.
@edensk The float type carburetors (such as the one which equipped early Spitfires) cut out when pulling negative Gs...which you can do regardless of bank angle. Bank angle has nothing to do with negative G and everything to do with whether or not you push forward on the stick. If you’re on PC, you can open the Dev console by hitting “ ‘ “ key, then type in “DebugExpression VerticalG”. You’ll see the real time G loading displayed in the upper left corner of the screen. I can easily pull a loop while maintaining 4 Gs, very much like you would fly if you were actually in a Spit and the engine would never, ever sputter. However, if I’m flying along straight and wings level at 1 G, then push forward to 0 G, yup, the engine would sputter. Try the following FT formula “input = Throttle * clamp01(ceil(VerticalG)”. When the G reaches zero, the value returned will be zero, i.e., no thrust.
I built for quite awhile on mobile, one of my Highlighted planes is a mobile build. But, once I went PC, I never looked back. It’s not hard to make the transition.
@MobileFriendly you need to get the PC version, much easier to build. I know it’s an investment, but if you have access to a PC, I highly recommend you get the PC version of the game.
American...definitely. Build the USS Lexington (CV-2, the "Lady Lex") next. If you haven't read the book, make time to do so as it's a fantastic first-person account by a reporter who cruised on the USS Lexington during the Battle of the Coral Sea, where she was sunk. Stanley Johnston, the reporter, went into the water with the crew when she sunk.
@MobileFriendly sorry, I don’t understand the question.
@TanksWorldwide close, but I see no one gets my reference.
Shokaku, Zuikaku, Hiryu, Soryu, Kaga, Akagi!
@asteroidbook345 they're not mine, @FairFireFight built them, credit him, please.
@SFNox 737
@SFNox still flying for now.
@SFNox a few different ones in the USAF and airlines. C-152/172, T-41, T-37, T-38, KC-135, U-2, CRJ-200, 737, mainly.
I hope you include the “BB” tail code!
@hRmm well, it’s a fighter sized airplane with more than 1,000 parts, not much more room to actually cram in any more details. Much of the work isn’t what you can see from the screenshots and not captured by the part count, that’s the flight model, which I spent a lot of time on and is what actually makes up the majority of the description. Just like a RL flight manual, the instructions are long and complex so that the prospective aviator knows all the ins and outs of flying the aircraft safely.
Classic yellow, always.
There were only 3 built, I believe, hence the “X” for experimental. If you have even one photo with trailing link LG, I would go with that. Also, you’ll find that building accurate LG from a “blueprint” (they’re not “blueprints”, they’re actually “3-views”) is very difficult as a static picture cannot show extension/compression, just one or the other. So, I suggest you work off photos, use a 3 view to make sure to get the length generally correct and make your best guess.
@Blue0Bull wait a minute...did I miss something, are you now a Mod?!?
I like the camo work.
@CRJ900Pilot ok, that is a bit strange.
@CRJ900Pilot you don’t, at least there’s no great way to fix it. The autoroll starts because when a missile is fired, weight is removed from that side of the build and the heavier side causes the build to roll in that direction. The issue is that SP is way more sensitive to weight imbalances than IRL. I’ve flown airplanes that were imbalanced to the tune of 1,500 lbs and while it may have been a small handful on takeoff or landing, it wasn’t a big deal once airborne as you could trim it out. Likewise, when an F-15 fires an AIM-9 off one side, it absolutely doesn’t cause a noticeable rolling moment. You could try and add a way to adjust roll trim, but it doesn’t work that well. My F-20 actually has that feature on the VTOL slider for when one of the wingtip missiles are fired. Try it out, you’ll see it doesn’t work perfectly.
@CRJ900Pilot actually, much of that is classified, even though I’m pretty sure the AIM-9B is no longer in service anywhere. But other versions of the Sidewinder are in service, which explains why you might be having some trouble finding those numbers. The AIM-7D I don’t think is in service, being superseded by the AIM-120, so might be easier to find some declassified numbers. As far as ranges, I suggest you use the kinematic range of the missile as it greatly depends if the shot is fired head on or during a tail chase. Lock on time is also highly dependent on a number of factors, including the aircraft radar. Which build are you making?
Great correlation here between SP and RL!
@PETG that's the second time you've mentioned "German Corsair"...I'm not following what you're trying to say, if it's for me, or for someone else. Care to explain?
Here's a very simple formula to try, it limits the rotator's turn starting at 9 m/s (32 kph), so that the low speed handling is not decreased. It then decreases the steering to 40% at 22 m/s (79 kph), decreasing to 20% at 44 m/s (158 kph) and down to around 10% at 88 m/s (316 kph):
clamp01(Yaw * (1/(GS/9)))Put that formula into the "input" field of the rotator that moves the steering wheel under the "InputController" dropdown menu using the Overload portion in the build screen. The total movement of that rotator will be dictated in the "range" field under the "JointRotator" dropdown menu. You can change "Yaw" to any input you're using for the steering wheel, whether it's yaw or roll. I would also use the same formula for the rotators which steer the steering wheels on your build. My only concern is that it will limit the steering too much at intermediate speeds (slower than 79 kph), but see how it works. If you would like to tag me on an unlisted build, we can tweak the formula.
I have a formula that disables rotators above a certain speed, but understand you need something that decreases the input as speed increases? Do you know how to change the input using the Overload embedded into the basic SP program?
I’m not sure I understand the question. Are you asking how to make a steering wheel be less effective with an increase of speed or for the actual wheel that’s driving the build to move less quickly as speed increases?
@edensk close.
So @edensk thinks this is a MiG-21, what do you think this is @MrSilverWolf ?
Coming soon...
Otherwise your Voodoo looks like it’s coming along well.
@BagelPlane my segmented insignia have segmented stars as well.
@BagelPlane no, I don’t care about the credit, really, I just know my segmented stars and bars insignia is more accurate than the one you built. Suggest you just use the one from my insignia pack or copy the proportions and star placement to make yours look better.
Just use mine.
Teeny, tiny replica build.
Nah.
Has a couple of issues, but nothing terrible. But also has a built up, realistic wing, good, realistic performance and it looks pretty good as well. Deserves way more than a single upvote, nice!
Fairly fun, to the point I ran it out of fuel while bombing. I managed to make a quick turn direct to the runway and make it!
@CremosoMaster nope. By angling the leading edge down, the net lift will the down at the tail, which lifts the nose more and more with increasing speed. It’s exactly the same way it works when making a nose up pitch movement.
You can also reduce the area of your main wing. There are lots of ways of doing so.
Many ways: More tail (horizontal Stan) area, reduce the distance between CoL and CoM, you can cant your horizontal stabs slightly, a couple degrees.
Good luck with those sloping fuse sides, that’s a tough one.
Not bad...very fun, not crazily unrealistic, by any means. Cockpit view is great and armament is fun to use. Something that may help increase the fun factor next time is to add “damperMultiplier=5000” (use at least 5000, or increase to 10000 or 15000, as required) in the JointRotator field, which will help prevent the “bobbing” upon releasing back stick input.
This is fantastically well done, just like the dozens of Airfix kits I assembled IRL!
Not gonna lie...I like this build. Impressively simple, yet fun and not ridiculously inaccurate by any means. It turns a bit fast and you could kill that swerving on takeoff by lowering the sideways traction on the nosewheels to .5 (that’s what I had to do to take off!), but I like it. Fun to attack the convoy with.
I really like the F-5, and appreciate your build, if you would like, I can test fly your next build and perhaps make some suggestions if you would like.
Move the CG forward so that it doesn’t sit on the tail to start; that would also help with the pitch stability, which is lacking after takeoff. I recommend having 1,000-2,000 drag points so that it can have accurate acceleration and performance without being overpowered. There’s only 219 parts, so using “calculateDrag=false” on all the details and scaling the drag on the main fuselage and wings will take some work, but not be impossible. Also, if done correctly, it should decelerate significantly in hard turns. For a 5 G 180 degree turn starting at 420 KIAS, it should lose at least 50 knots in a level turn. Also, it currently weighs as much as an F-4, the RL F-5 is a lightweight fighter, it weighs around 15,000-20,000 lbs IRL, it should weigh as much as it does, have the same wing area and about the same wing loading to give it accurate performance. If moving the CG farther forward reduces the turn rate too much, increase the area of the horizontal stab slightly to give it accurate turn. Also, the roll rate is pathetically slow, the RL jet can approach 720 degrees per second in roll, this one takes several seconds to do 360 degrees. The roll rate isn’t an inconsequential thing, the F-5 is known for having a great roll rate.
So, the code on your secondary parachutes is: ‘Activate2 * floor(smooth(clamp01(Activate2), Activate2 ? 1 / 7 : pow(10,10) ))’. I sort of understand the concept: AG2, when activates is “1” or “activate”. That value is multiplied by 1 or 0 by the second part of the equation, that value being controlled by the “smooth” function, which takes it’s time delay from the “1/7” value. Up to that point, it’s very similar to the LG and door code I use when I want a delay on parts of the landing gear. However: What’s the “?” value for and why use “pow”?
What does “MA” stand for?
This is a nice surprise, flies well, fairly realistic in performance and turn capability (though it could be faster), it tracks straight, landing gear and doors are properly sequenced and takeoff and landing is not ridiculously difficult. Also, lo and behold: Sufficient trim authority—barely—but it’s enough and works throughout the flight envelope! Nice work. I have to agree, though, using the sectioned Hinomaru on the wings would have added an extra 15 parts per insignia, but would have matched the wings’ curvature nicely. With only 555 parts, you could have easily gotten away with the additional part count. Apparently, towards the end of the war, P-51 pilots used to scope watch for enemy aircraft and then scramble to get a kill. “Forget it, it’s a Frank” was apparently a common refrain as the Ki-84 was fairly faster than other Japanese types and even the Mustangs had trouble catching them. The Frank was an exemplary fighter, it’s a good thing for many an Allied pilot that Japan didn’t have more of them earlier in the war.
These look amazing @FairFireFight I’m going to test these out as soon as I get home.
Flies nice and steady and slow, and would be totally mauled by any half-skilled Zero pilot out there. I like it...it’s emblematic of the U.S.’s early war effort before we got out crap together and I am sure there’s probably not a single surviving Buffalo pilot out there who has fond memories of this one.
@edensk The float type carburetors (such as the one which equipped early Spitfires) cut out when pulling negative Gs...which you can do regardless of bank angle. Bank angle has nothing to do with negative G and everything to do with whether or not you push forward on the stick. If you’re on PC, you can open the Dev console by hitting “ ‘ “ key, then type in “DebugExpression VerticalG”. You’ll see the real time G loading displayed in the upper left corner of the screen. I can easily pull a loop while maintaining 4 Gs, very much like you would fly if you were actually in a Spit and the engine would never, ever sputter. However, if I’m flying along straight and wings level at 1 G, then push forward to 0 G, yup, the engine would sputter. Try the following FT formula “input = Throttle * clamp01(ceil(VerticalG)”. When the G reaches zero, the value returned will be zero, i.e., no thrust.