I have no idea what the numbers might be, but if SP returns values close to the RL values, probably somewhere in the 3-10 degree range for on speed AoA. It’s going to take trial and error on your part to figure out which AoA works.
Well, first, I’d use a “LandingGear” activation group for all three lights. The red light would have “input=abs(AngleOfAttack)>x”. The green light would have “input=x>abs(AngleOfAttack)>y” and the yellow light would be “input=abs(AngleOfAttack)>y” where x is the AoA is too high (slow) and y is the AoA is too low (fast). Bear in mind, this is all from memory, you’ll have to play around with it to make sure the statements and syntax are correct.
Thinking about this a bit, if you fly your jet at the correct approach speed and angle, the correct approach AoA might be, say, 5 degrees nose up to the relative wind, using a +/- 2 degree range (3 to 7 degrees), anything more than 7 degrees AoA would be red and anything less than 3 degrees would be yellow. For this purpose, I’d just use the absolute value of the AoA and use that in your funky tree calculation.
@CRJ900Pilot Green is on speed/AoA, red is too slow/high AoA and yellow is too fast/AoA lower than approach AoA. Bear in mind being too fast is almost as bad as being too slow. Also, here’s another tip: in SP high AoA, which is thought of as a positive number in RL, actually has a NEGATIVE value in the game and vice versa for low AoA angles, which are negative values in SP.
This is a little known and little built subject...and a pretty good job. It looks good and though you could have used inlets for your control surfaces, you’ve incorporated a very accurate shape and appropriate detail. The flight model isn’t half bad, either. I’ve noticed there are many, many great looking builds that fly horribly and this one flies decently well. It accelerates not inappropriately, though it turns a bit too well, but one doesn’t have to pull back all the way to turn. My biggest gripe is that the flap controls are reversed. Also, don’t forget to credit thealban for the markings. Nice.
Helis are tough...difficult to fly, so I think many players don’t even bother. This one isn’t particularly easy, as it is. But this is good work from a new builder and I appreciate that...keep building and here’s a Spotlight!
The flight model is not as unrealistic as the description would lead one to believe...it does turn a little too quickly, but not unbelievably so. It might be a bit too slow, but I can chalk that up to this being a well knackered example that’s been put thorough the wringer during its time fighting the Japanese at Rangoon, so it’s going to be bent and old and slower than a factory fresh example. It actually looks like a Hurri, and it’s simple and fun to play around with. The only thing I would do differently next time is to improve the roll rate which is on the slower side. Nice work.
Nice heli...I don’t normally fly them in SP, but this one is fun. You don’t need the “thrusters”, though, I can take off, (kind of) hover, accelerate to 150 mph, slow, turn around and attempt a landing without them. I’m going to keep working at this, it’s difficult, but not impossible to fly, like a real helicopter.
Well researched, well thought out and well built. In reminds me of a real aircraft in that there are operating restrictions. It’s great you left the throttle and pitch controls intact, many builders don’t have the guts to do that as users tend to complain...but I really like the extra bit of challenge to spice things up, nice work!
Well, it looks good...and we don’t see many/any Fury’s on the site. If I may suggest: next time make the flaps move down when you move the flap handle (VTOL slider) down, no airplane in the world (there may be exceptions, but I know of none) has flap controls reversed as they are here.
@XJ4B Now that I actually have a few quiet minutes to compose some thoughts, I’ll attempt to explain this again. I apologize as I have not yet been successful in communicating clearly in a way you understand my intent. First, I have a lot of life experience and significantly more years on this earth, so my feedback is that using the term “you’re overrated” and then, even if it’s the next words, “I like your builds” is condescending. Especially coming from someone whose expertise is still coming along. I myself wouldn’t even use that phrase because it would deflate any ego out there, deserving or not. It’s called tact...there are other polite ways of providing feedback, especially in a public forum. And in this case, it’s not deserved. He’s not overrated, he’s been at this awhile, he produces quality builds that combine functionality, realism and fun. Lastly, I took these comments, as you perhaps should have, to another post because they were meant for you to consider privately, my intent is not to thrash anyone in public. It’s called “tact” and it’s an art many don’t know. If, after this, you still disagree, that’s fine, but please take it for what it’s worth.
@X4JB too much trouble to post something unlisted for this convo...just wanted a quick opp to provide a little feedback, then conversation goes away. And I read your original comment. But, anyway, you miss my point, simply saying “you’re overrated” is fairly insulting in itself, no matter the other comments surrounding...kind of like a s* sandwich. As for my HO, he’s not overrated, he has dozens and dozens of fine builds and improves with each new one. Some take the route of hundreds of crappy builds...he Isn’t one of them. We all have to make compromises with the build system here and I must fundamentally disagree with your assessment, his compromises strike a good balance between realism, functionality and fun.
@X4JB, concerning Boggy’s IAR 80, your comments are way off base and, for the sake of avoiding a big tit for tat exchange and public argument between the two of you, let me offer some friendly advice: You may have a couple of valid criticisms, but we all have to make a few compromises because the SP build template has its limitations we all need to deal with. But to say, “I don’t mean any disrespect, but you’re the most overrated builder on the site”...that’s not constructive criticism by any means and it’s essentially “dude, you shouldn’t be ranked so highly because your builds suck because they have the following problems.” Stick with the facts, be blunt if you would like with “these are the things you might do differently next time”, but for someone who used stock LG on his last airplane build, made a lot of sacrifices in the RL outline to integrate a hollow canopy area, whose flaps are not functional and whose flight model is so limited that even, I, a RL airline pilot and former military pilot with 4,500 hrs of flight time can’t even take off, I’d reconsider your approach to criticism and perhaps soften it a bit.
Just to make sure I’m not being unfair, your Bf isn’t bad, there are some very good bits there and you have a nice eye for shape and detail, but your approach to Boggy’s build is way off base for an airplane that actually mimics the RL thing pretty well. If you object, tell me how I’m wrong; for you, as with every enthusiastic builder on the site, I want to see all of us succeed. I think that if you soften your approach, choose not to come off the top rope, you’ll get a lot further, faster. Anyway, I’ll give you a chance to read this, perhaps respond, then I’ll delete it, no harm, no foul.
Looks accurate, but are you sure that the horizontal stab moves differentially for roll? This is a mistake so many builders make...differential movement of the stabs or other than “normal” flight control movements simply wasn’t a thing until the F-16 and computerized flight controls came along, and really wasn’t present when this jet was initially designed (Etendard) in the ‘50s.
@Mercyaircraftcorporation the big problem with making full frame like this is probably weight. If you construct a 1:1 build using standard fuselage sections and techniques, the resultant weight is pretty close to the real thing. Adding a bunch of internal parts will multiply the weight for a section of your build. You’ll probably have to mass scale (and drag scale) all your parts to make sure your builds don’t tip the scales—if you care about such things. I see you’re using those modded fuel cells—which I hate, generally—but even with that, your A-20 still weighs in at +52,000 lbs., more than twice the real thing.
“A” for effort here, nice concept, though I personally like to see more attention devoted to nailing the shape and dimensions of a replica build. Do you have the DesignerSuite mod yet?
Flies well, very fun. I especially like the livery, a bit more fantastical, which is fun. Great details, such as the wheel wells, though I would have named the post “early USAAF (U.S. Army Air Forces) version”.
@Mustang51 me thinks you misunderstand...there was a comment a bit lower down in which a player commented that he had seen a twin engine B-24...I think they had mixed up the B-24 with the B-25.
And this actually flies really, really well. Very realistically, don’t know if you did that intentionally or not, but this is how these type of builds ought to fly.
Here’s what @WNP78 tells me regarding increasing gun range: “Well, decreasing the fire rate, increasing velocity, increasing lifetime.
The bullets use a "pool" system where an old bullet is reincarnated instead of making a new object, which helps performance.
And if the pool runs out, the oldest bullet gets killed and immediately reused.”
@WIZARD2017 you have it right, try setting the bullet’s last time a little longer, even though I agree that 6 seconds should be plenty. I’ll ask in my Discord chat to see if anyone has any further ideas on this issue. SP seems to restrict gun range to a mile, which is a problem.
Well, it certainly is an impressive bit of work, a lot of detail without totally overdoing the part count. It flies and handles relatively realistically, though acceleration is a tad on the swift side and it can climb out too steeply for a heavily loaded battle wagon—reducing the drag still further (there are still plenty of drag points) might have allowed you to lower the engine power and thus allowed a top speed while reducing the climb capability. Anyway, the armament is the biggest departure from RL, IMHO. The gun aiming controls are opposite from what they ought to be. The plane nose moves up when you pull back on the stick, as does sliding the trim slider down...all as in RL...but the gun aiming works opposite, making aiming almost impossible, though I just prefer adjusting the pylon turn to aim anyhow. Also, I wonder if increasing the life of the shells it fires would increase the range. The RL gunships can employs from around 7,000’ AGL making the slant range to the target about 3 miles. SP rounds die out beyond a mile, making a gunship build really difficult to use unless the shell lifetime is increased beyond that. I tried flying at 5,000’ above the target and spraying the convoy at 1.5 - 2 miles, but it didn’t work. Works pretty well down low, though—the destruction was impressive! Nice work.
Love the smooth controls, the mostly all-moving tailplane, retro-ness and looks. Don’t like the unlimited fuel and it desperately needs trim, but I think your later builds fix the worse of these issues.
An interesting build, similar to the original F-4 in concept and borrowing more than a little from the Lightning. Could use trim to help in general and with landing on the boat. Fun to fly.
Pretty good. I dislike the gyro greatly, though, never a fan of that technique. But it flies well, looks great and is pretty realistic for an SP build. Nice work.
I have no idea what the numbers might be, but if SP returns values close to the RL values, probably somewhere in the 3-10 degree range for on speed AoA. It’s going to take trial and error on your part to figure out which AoA works.
Well, first, I’d use a “LandingGear” activation group for all three lights. The red light would have “input=abs(AngleOfAttack)>x”. The green light would have “input=x>abs(AngleOfAttack)>y” and the yellow light would be “input=abs(AngleOfAttack)>y” where x is the AoA is too high (slow) and y is the AoA is too low (fast). Bear in mind, this is all from memory, you’ll have to play around with it to make sure the statements and syntax are correct.
Thinking about this a bit, if you fly your jet at the correct approach speed and angle, the correct approach AoA might be, say, 5 degrees nose up to the relative wind, using a +/- 2 degree range (3 to 7 degrees), anything more than 7 degrees AoA would be red and anything less than 3 degrees would be yellow. For this purpose, I’d just use the absolute value of the AoA and use that in your funky tree calculation.
@CRJ900Pilot Green is on speed/AoA, red is too slow/high AoA and yellow is too fast/AoA lower than approach AoA. Bear in mind being too fast is almost as bad as being too slow. Also, here’s another tip: in SP high AoA, which is thought of as a positive number in RL, actually has a NEGATIVE value in the game and vice versa for low AoA angles, which are negative values in SP.
No, this looks powerful, mean and aggressive.
This is a little known and little built subject...and a pretty good job. It looks good and though you could have used inlets for your control surfaces, you’ve incorporated a very accurate shape and appropriate detail. The flight model isn’t half bad, either. I’ve noticed there are many, many great looking builds that fly horribly and this one flies decently well. It accelerates not inappropriately, though it turns a bit too well, but one doesn’t have to pull back all the way to turn. My biggest gripe is that the flap controls are reversed. Also, don’t forget to credit thealban for the markings. Nice.
Wow, you really like 727s, don’t you?
Helis are tough...difficult to fly, so I think many players don’t even bother. This one isn’t particularly easy, as it is. But this is good work from a new builder and I appreciate that...keep building and here’s a Spotlight!
The flight model is not as unrealistic as the description would lead one to believe...it does turn a little too quickly, but not unbelievably so. It might be a bit too slow, but I can chalk that up to this being a well knackered example that’s been put thorough the wringer during its time fighting the Japanese at Rangoon, so it’s going to be bent and old and slower than a factory fresh example. It actually looks like a Hurri, and it’s simple and fun to play around with. The only thing I would do differently next time is to improve the roll rate which is on the slower side. Nice work.
A fun to fly build.
@SimplyPlain thanks, yours is good with many details most miss, like that speedbrake.
@SimplyPlain have you seen my attempt at this subject?
Nice heli...I don’t normally fly them in SP, but this one is fun. You don’t need the “thrusters”, though, I can take off, (kind of) hover, accelerate to 150 mph, slow, turn around and attempt a landing without them. I’m going to keep working at this, it’s difficult, but not impossible to fly, like a real helicopter.
Well researched, well thought out and well built. In reminds me of a real aircraft in that there are operating restrictions. It’s great you left the throttle and pitch controls intact, many builders don’t have the guts to do that as users tend to complain...but I really like the extra bit of challenge to spice things up, nice work!
Well, it looks good...and we don’t see many/any Fury’s on the site. If I may suggest: next time make the flaps move down when you move the flap handle (VTOL slider) down, no airplane in the world (there may be exceptions, but I know of none) has flap controls reversed as they are here.
Javelin...I like it.
This is actually very good. Doesn’t accelerate too ridiculously fast, correct speed, looks good. Nice work!
Very stable on the torp run and like all great Brit aviation projects, severely under ranged!
Nice looking Folgore.
@X4JB my point exactly, I avoided thrashing you, I avoid thrashing anyone, it’s simply not polite.
@XJ4B Now that I actually have a few quiet minutes to compose some thoughts, I’ll attempt to explain this again. I apologize as I have not yet been successful in communicating clearly in a way you understand my intent. First, I have a lot of life experience and significantly more years on this earth, so my feedback is that using the term “you’re overrated” and then, even if it’s the next words, “I like your builds” is condescending. Especially coming from someone whose expertise is still coming along. I myself wouldn’t even use that phrase because it would deflate any ego out there, deserving or not. It’s called tact...there are other polite ways of providing feedback, especially in a public forum. And in this case, it’s not deserved. He’s not overrated, he’s been at this awhile, he produces quality builds that combine functionality, realism and fun. Lastly, I took these comments, as you perhaps should have, to another post because they were meant for you to consider privately, my intent is not to thrash anyone in public. It’s called “tact” and it’s an art many don’t know. If, after this, you still disagree, that’s fine, but please take it for what it’s worth.
@X4JB too much trouble to post something unlisted for this convo...just wanted a quick opp to provide a little feedback, then conversation goes away. And I read your original comment. But, anyway, you miss my point, simply saying “you’re overrated” is fairly insulting in itself, no matter the other comments surrounding...kind of like a s* sandwich. As for my HO, he’s not overrated, he has dozens and dozens of fine builds and improves with each new one. Some take the route of hundreds of crappy builds...he Isn’t one of them. We all have to make compromises with the build system here and I must fundamentally disagree with your assessment, his compromises strike a good balance between realism, functionality and fun.
Thanks, @Simpleplaner1945 ! This is quite an old build, but nice to see the occasional upvote for it. I see you’re newish around here, welcome.
@X4JB, concerning Boggy’s IAR 80, your comments are way off base and, for the sake of avoiding a big tit for tat exchange and public argument between the two of you, let me offer some friendly advice: You may have a couple of valid criticisms, but we all have to make a few compromises because the SP build template has its limitations we all need to deal with. But to say, “I don’t mean any disrespect, but you’re the most overrated builder on the site”...that’s not constructive criticism by any means and it’s essentially “dude, you shouldn’t be ranked so highly because your builds suck because they have the following problems.” Stick with the facts, be blunt if you would like with “these are the things you might do differently next time”, but for someone who used stock LG on his last airplane build, made a lot of sacrifices in the RL outline to integrate a hollow canopy area, whose flaps are not functional and whose flight model is so limited that even, I, a RL airline pilot and former military pilot with 4,500 hrs of flight time can’t even take off, I’d reconsider your approach to criticism and perhaps soften it a bit.
Just to make sure I’m not being unfair, your Bf isn’t bad, there are some very good bits there and you have a nice eye for shape and detail, but your approach to Boggy’s build is way off base for an airplane that actually mimics the RL thing pretty well. If you object, tell me how I’m wrong; for you, as with every enthusiastic builder on the site, I want to see all of us succeed. I think that if you soften your approach, choose not to come off the top rope, you’ll get a lot further, faster. Anyway, I’ll give you a chance to read this, perhaps respond, then I’ll delete it, no harm, no foul.
Two thumbs up!
Looks accurate, but are you sure that the horizontal stab moves differentially for roll? This is a mistake so many builders make...differential movement of the stabs or other than “normal” flight control movements simply wasn’t a thing until the F-16 and computerized flight controls came along, and really wasn’t present when this jet was initially designed (Etendard) in the ‘50s.
@Mercyaircraftcorporation the big problem with making full frame like this is probably weight. If you construct a 1:1 build using standard fuselage sections and techniques, the resultant weight is pretty close to the real thing. Adding a bunch of internal parts will multiply the weight for a section of your build. You’ll probably have to mass scale (and drag scale) all your parts to make sure your builds don’t tip the scales—if you care about such things. I see you’re using those modded fuel cells—which I hate, generally—but even with that, your A-20 still weighs in at +52,000 lbs., more than twice the real thing.
@Mercyaircraftcorporation sure...why not? I’m game, what are your long term plans?
Gracias, mi amigo, @RicardoAs1515
“A” for effort here, nice concept, though I personally like to see more attention devoted to nailing the shape and dimensions of a replica build. Do you have the DesignerSuite mod yet?
VERY clever use of the light that comes on when supersonic representing the shockwave.
Larger and lighter than the real thing, but a pretty decent representation of the Hun, nice work.
Wow, incredibly easy to land on the boat.
Flies well, very fun. I especially like the livery, a bit more fantastical, which is fun. Great details, such as the wheel wells, though I would have named the post “early USAAF (U.S. Army Air Forces) version”.
@Mustang51 me thinks you misunderstand...there was a comment a bit lower down in which a player commented that he had seen a twin engine B-24...I think they had mixed up the B-24 with the B-25.
@bjac0 are you trying to publish the “maximum gross weight”, or the “maximum takeoff weight”?
What is “outboard loaded weight”?
Fun build, I like it. Seems to be modeled after the Super Sabre’s history and fuselage, with the F-102’s wing.
And this actually flies really, really well. Very realistically, don’t know if you did that intentionally or not, but this is how these type of builds ought to fly.
Pretty build, reminds me of a Connie crossed with a DH Dove...?
I like it, nice flight model.
@WIZARD2017 think so.
Here’s what @WNP78 tells me regarding increasing gun range: “Well, decreasing the fire rate, increasing velocity, increasing lifetime.
The bullets use a "pool" system where an old bullet is reincarnated instead of making a new object, which helps performance.
And if the pool runs out, the oldest bullet gets killed and immediately reused.”
@WIZARD2017 you’re in SPMC? What’s your username? You have to excuse me, I don’t think we’ve actually talked in that forum.
@WIZARD2017 you have it right, try setting the bullet’s last time a little longer, even though I agree that 6 seconds should be plenty. I’ll ask in my Discord chat to see if anyone has any further ideas on this issue. SP seems to restrict gun range to a mile, which is a problem.
Well, it certainly is an impressive bit of work, a lot of detail without totally overdoing the part count. It flies and handles relatively realistically, though acceleration is a tad on the swift side and it can climb out too steeply for a heavily loaded battle wagon—reducing the drag still further (there are still plenty of drag points) might have allowed you to lower the engine power and thus allowed a top speed while reducing the climb capability. Anyway, the armament is the biggest departure from RL, IMHO. The gun aiming controls are opposite from what they ought to be. The plane nose moves up when you pull back on the stick, as does sliding the trim slider down...all as in RL...but the gun aiming works opposite, making aiming almost impossible, though I just prefer adjusting the pylon turn to aim anyhow. Also, I wonder if increasing the life of the shells it fires would increase the range. The RL gunships can employs from around 7,000’ AGL making the slant range to the target about 3 miles. SP rounds die out beyond a mile, making a gunship build really difficult to use unless the shell lifetime is increased beyond that. I tried flying at 5,000’ above the target and spraying the convoy at 1.5 - 2 miles, but it didn’t work. Works pretty well down low, though—the destruction was impressive! Nice work.
Love the smooth controls, the mostly all-moving tailplane, retro-ness and looks. Don’t like the unlimited fuel and it desperately needs trim, but I think your later builds fix the worse of these issues.
I like your build style retro-futuristic cool inspired by the great 1950s jets...B-47 crossed with A-3/B-61 in this case. I’m following now.
An interesting build, similar to the original F-4 in concept and borrowing more than a little from the Lightning. Could use trim to help in general and with landing on the boat. Fun to fly.
Pretty good. I dislike the gyro greatly, though, never a fan of that technique. But it flies well, looks great and is pretty realistic for an SP build. Nice work.