There are a variety of answers below, but @BogdanX is correct: The roll is caused by attaching a fuselage block to one wing, NUDGING the block into the desired position, then mirroring the block to the opposite wing. My theory is that, when nudging, then mirroring, the mirrored block will attach to a different attachment point, the closest point, which is different from the original side. That throws off the balance and induces the roll. My technique for avoiding this is to attach the block to one side, then mirror without nudging first. Once created, THEN nudge both blocks into position. Be sure to check (with Fine Tuner) the final position of the blocks to ensure they are exactly symmetrical. You can also manually place blocks on both sides without resorting to mirroring, though it is tedious to ensure both sides are placed in exactly the opposite positions using the same attach points, it's not too terribly difficult.
Is it even possible to synchronize guns with the prop? I always thought the only way to fire through the prop arc was to put the guns right up close to it...
I like your builds...how about expanding beyond WWII aircraft into the '50s or '60s? I always find there are many interesting subjects during that time period.
The trig works, but did you reverse the two courses? KMYW lies approximately southeast from KSNT, so to go TO KSNT, you would have to fly NNW (335 degrees) and reverse to return (155 degrees) ;)
So...what's with the AG1/VTOL dance? Seems like you had to work a relatively complex work-around, it'll take awhile to learn the steps after I download this later, not impossible, just some work. Also, does one have to reverse the steps to land on water? Looks really realistic, though.
Gorgeous build. Very precise and detailed. Makes sense, though, that you couldn't find a paint scheme as this one never actually flew. We (the U.S.) captured a few uncompleted prototypes at the end of the war.
Nice build. May I offer?: You can simply attach the horizontal stab to one boom, then extend it so that it attaches on the other end to the second boom, check it out here...
While I agree nudge, Fine Tuner, Overload and XML makes things easier, many great builders use iOS exclusively, such as @DestinyAviation (platinum). Check out my profile page, a good number of my high rated builds are iOS, such as my XB-70.
This is a very nice build...how did you do the wingtips? I experimented with them, they're not nose cones (I think), but they're not fuselage pieces, either, so what are they?
I'm trying to make a resizeable fuselage more angled than what's possible in the default menu (max run is 2.5)...I'm trying to make it 2.75. When I highlight the part, open Overload, I then click "Part" at the top of the dialogue box. From the popup menu, I select "Fuselage", then I go down to "Offset" and set the first value, which is 0 (or whatever is set in the default menu) and I change it to 2.75. I then click the check mark at the bottom and...voila!..nothing happens. Any suggestions on how to get Overload to take the change?
@FlyingThings fair enough...I guess I wouldn't put it past plausible for this to be a Luft '46 project with afterburners.
@Botfinder many, many flying wings were designed, built and/or flown before and during WWII (XB-35, Horton Ho229, many glider designs, just to name a few), however, the first true afterburning turbojet engine was not designed or flown until after the war. One of the first USAF fighters with an afterburner was the 1950s-era F-94 Starfire. It's an anachronism, that's all. But, it's all cool beans to me and makes sense to me as a "Luft '46" creation!
Politely ask them to be quiet, once you've asked three times, raise your hand and inform your teacher (I assume this is in class). It's not "cool", but you won't get in trouble for doing it that way. If it's a girl, flirt with her to embarrass her ("Hey, beautiful, your voice is so melodious, I simply can't keep my mind on my work! 😎) and she'll shut up...
From what I can tell of this issue from my experience trying to make thrust-vectoring engines, there is logic in the program where attaching a rotator to an engine interrupts the flow of air to the engine. You're right, if you stick an engine onto a fuselage without an intake, if the front of the engine (compressor face) is exposed, it will still get air. Unfortunately, sticking it onto a rotator interrupts the flow.
@Spikerya yes, I had that on the mind when I threw it together, but this one is red and not blue, because I had never built anything using the default red paint scheme and I thought it would look nice. I wasn't even going to post it, but I hadn't posted anything in awhile, so I did it while waiting in line one cold morning for a Nintendo Switch...I just hope this thing doesn't devalue the ChiChiWerx brand.
Well, even though SP does not incorporate mach effects to simulate the difficulties of supersonic flight, I do not thing any of the prop engines have enough power to exceed Mach 2.0. Plus, why would you even want to? The fastest prop-driven aircraft, the Tu-95 Bear is subsonic...high subsonic, it can reach Mach .75 (575 mph) in level flight. And the Bear has 14,000 hp turboprop engines driving 20 ft props! The reason prop aircraft cannot break the sound barrier (Mach 1.0) is because, progressively from the tips, prop blades begin to exceed Mach and lose efficiency as they attempt to drive the aircraft to Mach 1.0. So, a prop-driven Mach 2.0 SP build, is, in my opinion, utterly unrealistic.
Very droney, very attackey, I like the shape. You know these things have landing gear, even though it looks good without the landing gear in the screenshot. Also, suggest you enter a description!
@Leehopard well, glad you're still here. Your build also flies excellently, very easy to take off and land. I tried to build an FW and it snap rolled when it stalled and was impossible to land!
Nice work, variable geometry with 3D wings, wonder how many realize this accomplishment. You say so in your description, but does anyone realize how tricky that could be?
There are a variety of answers below, but @BogdanX is correct: The roll is caused by attaching a fuselage block to one wing, NUDGING the block into the desired position, then mirroring the block to the opposite wing. My theory is that, when nudging, then mirroring, the mirrored block will attach to a different attachment point, the closest point, which is different from the original side. That throws off the balance and induces the roll. My technique for avoiding this is to attach the block to one side, then mirror without nudging first. Once created, THEN nudge both blocks into position. Be sure to check (with Fine Tuner) the final position of the blocks to ensure they are exactly symmetrical. You can also manually place blocks on both sides without resorting to mirroring, though it is tedious to ensure both sides are placed in exactly the opposite positions using the same attach points, it's not too terribly difficult.
Nice build.
Very attractive.
@Othawne really, did not realize you could do that, any further details or suggestions?
Wish I could Spotlight this creation, but I am unworthy to do so...
Is it even possible to synchronize guns with the prop? I always thought the only way to fire through the prop arc was to put the guns right up close to it...
I like your builds...how about expanding beyond WWII aircraft into the '50s or '60s? I always find there are many interesting subjects during that time period.
F-23 replica.
The trig works, but did you reverse the two courses? KMYW lies approximately southeast from KSNT, so to go TO KSNT, you would have to fly NNW (335 degrees) and reverse to return (155 degrees) ;)
@LordHKelvin very nice, KSNT and KMYW, navigation by dead reckoning, I like it!
Nice!
Ahhhaaa! The rudders! I get it now.
So...what's with the AG1/VTOL dance? Seems like you had to work a relatively complex work-around, it'll take awhile to learn the steps after I download this later, not impossible, just some work. Also, does one have to reverse the steps to land on water? Looks really realistic, though.
I really like the description, plus the fact you actually took the time (66+ mins) to fly the route.
@MrSilverWolf, huh! Though I take anything in Wikipedia with a grain of salt, looks like it DID actually fly several test flights!
Gorgeous build. Very precise and detailed. Makes sense, though, that you couldn't find a paint scheme as this one never actually flew. We (the U.S.) captured a few uncompleted prototypes at the end of the war.
Nice build. May I offer?: You can simply attach the horizontal stab to one boom, then extend it so that it attaches on the other end to the second boom, check it out here...
Spectacular!
VERY nice!
@ProKillaV12 apology accepted.
While I agree nudge, Fine Tuner, Overload and XML makes things easier, many great builders use iOS exclusively, such as @DestinyAviation (platinum). Check out my profile page, a good number of my high rated builds are iOS, such as my XB-70.
This is a very nice build...how did you do the wingtips? I experimented with them, they're not nose cones (I think), but they're not fuselage pieces, either, so what are they?
Thanks @EternalDarkness
Thanks! Worked perfectly @EliteIndustries1 @MechWARRIOR57 @Tully2001
I'm trying to make a resizeable fuselage more angled than what's possible in the default menu (max run is 2.5)...I'm trying to make it 2.75. When I highlight the part, open Overload, I then click "Part" at the top of the dialogue box. From the popup menu, I select "Fuselage", then I go down to "Offset" and set the first value, which is 0 (or whatever is set in the default menu) and I change it to 2.75. I then click the check mark at the bottom and...voila!..nothing happens. Any suggestions on how to get Overload to take the change?
@WNP78?
Nice build, nice colors, nice details.
Dunno why, I really like it, perhaps it's the Tu-114 landing gear...
@FlyingThings thanks, am checking it out!
@FlyingThings fair enough...I guess I wouldn't put it past plausible for this to be a Luft '46 project with afterburners.
@Botfinder many, many flying wings were designed, built and/or flown before and during WWII (XB-35, Horton Ho229, many glider designs, just to name a few), however, the first true afterburning turbojet engine was not designed or flown until after the war. One of the first USAF fighters with an afterburner was the 1950s-era F-94 Starfire. It's an anachronism, that's all. But, it's all cool beans to me and makes sense to me as a "Luft '46" creation!
Pretty cool, but after burning turbofans on a WWII era flying wing?
Must be the camo...
@PyroManiac hmmm...sorry for assuming. Well I guess that wouldn't work then...what's Springtrap plush?
Politely ask them to be quiet, once you've asked three times, raise your hand and inform your teacher (I assume this is in class). It's not "cool", but you won't get in trouble for doing it that way. If it's a girl, flirt with her to embarrass her ("Hey, beautiful, your voice is so melodious, I simply can't keep my mind on my work! 😎) and she'll shut up...
Cool
From what I can tell of this issue from my experience trying to make thrust-vectoring engines, there is logic in the program where attaching a rotator to an engine interrupts the flow of air to the engine. You're right, if you stick an engine onto a fuselage without an intake, if the front of the engine (compressor face) is exposed, it will still get air. Unfortunately, sticking it onto a rotator interrupts the flow.
Yup.
Original, I like this one as well. You, my friend, need to build more airplanes. I'm now following you.
Modern A-10, noice.
Almost missed this one, it's so grey!
@Spikerya yes, I had that on the mind when I threw it together, but this one is red and not blue, because I had never built anything using the default red paint scheme and I thought it would look nice. I wasn't even going to post it, but I hadn't posted anything in awhile, so I did it while waiting in line one cold morning for a Nintendo Switch...I just hope this thing doesn't devalue the ChiChiWerx brand.
Well, even though SP does not incorporate mach effects to simulate the difficulties of supersonic flight, I do not thing any of the prop engines have enough power to exceed Mach 2.0. Plus, why would you even want to? The fastest prop-driven aircraft, the Tu-95 Bear is subsonic...high subsonic, it can reach Mach .75 (575 mph) in level flight. And the Bear has 14,000 hp turboprop engines driving 20 ft props! The reason prop aircraft cannot break the sound barrier (Mach 1.0) is because, progressively from the tips, prop blades begin to exceed Mach and lose efficiency as they attempt to drive the aircraft to Mach 1.0. So, a prop-driven Mach 2.0 SP build, is, in my opinion, utterly unrealistic.
Very droney, very attackey, I like the shape. You know these things have landing gear, even though it looks good without the landing gear in the screenshot. Also, suggest you enter a description!
@ProKillaV12 kind of a missile, but more of a land-bound one!
@Leehopard well, glad you're still here. Your build also flies excellently, very easy to take off and land. I tried to build an FW and it snap rolled when it stalled and was impossible to land!
Nice work, variable geometry with 3D wings, wonder how many realize this accomplishment. You say so in your description, but does anyone realize how tricky that could be?
Here's another good Zero, my favorite one in a long time.
I've seen the occasional Mig-31 here, but never a Foxbat, much less such a great build...nice job!
Noice! My all-time favorite WWII fighter!
@ThePlaninatior, it's "beat it", like the Michael Jackson song. Yeah, the syntax doesn't make sense, but that's how you would say it!