@F8boa Yeah ill try look up ways to edit and create custom HuDs, that way I could make them as accurate as possible, but that might have a steep learning curve.
@CaptainNoble Yeah if only I had a sense of photography, took an hour to decide the screenshot I'd use. and it seems thumbnails really attract players to check out builds.
@F8boa OH yeah and I forgot to mention, I probably should put it on the description often, SP physics setting also affects when oscillations start I make my builds in High physics settings that might be the issue.
@F8boa Suggestions are reviews are pretty helpful since builder bias is a thing i might just be having a placebo effect on my own improvements, so when someone reviews it helps get an external perspective on builds.
As for the F-16, SP has an issue with PIDs in general like plugging in a PID value higher than 0 will guarantee oscillation at certain speeds since control inputs become more sensitive at higher speeds. You actually have to reduce the PID value by quite a lot to reduce the oscillations which in my case it goes down to 0.2 times past 800km/h.
Though I did make improvements on the 16C already, im just looking for a time to release it, ill probably release a v1.2 after the Su-30sm.
@F8boa Thanks for the suggestion, ill try see what I can do, it's primarily because of SP's wing physics really, options are too limited and unrealistic. I'll keep working on the FMs and drag models, and release newer versions as I learn.
Im contemplating whether to place a G-limiter on the builds, they pull really hard at high speed, that's because the flight performance is extracted from warthunder i could easily implement a 9G limiter on the FT, unless yall are fine with it.
@SDmak Algorithm is tough since the front page is only for builds with more upvotes, new builders dont get many upvotes since they dont have many followers thus they cant get on the front page, it just takes time I guess.
There are 2 things that make using a symmetrical airfoil for fighters iffy.
Vortex lift is not simulated in SP, symmetrical airfoils basically stall at 20° and you start departing if there aren't any semi-symmetrical or flat bottoms on the build,
Flaps and Slats are considered completely separate wings in SP so you dont get the irl benefits of changing the wing camber and directing airflow same with implementing canards.
The benefits however are as you mentioned it's just that simpleplanes is "simple" on physics, hence why most notable fighter builds use flat bottom or the mysterious NACAPROP.
I'll be taking sometime off to learn and experiment more PID (wanna make a better FBW), so don't expect any new post for a while (3 weeks if not a month),
Next project will probably be between the F-15 and a MiG-29 or both XD, cheers
@Pakdaaircraftindustries your centre of thrust is too far above the CoG, it doesn't matter how far back what matters with CoT is how far above or bellow it is.
Think I need to rework this one, both this and the deleted jas39 will be reworked the FM feels weird at the moment so I'll rework them and make a better FT for control surfaces. While I'm at it I'll be putting up a Eurofighter ive been working on to complete the eurocanards club.
Having trouble replicating the issue if you don't mind, at what speeds does it start and is it during maneuvers or does it just occur when flying straight.
I know there's an issue with where the plane starts pitching up the faster you go, if you are referring to this, im gonna try and fix it.
I'll be working on an Su-27sm with PSM as well, will take a while since the plane I found has no cockpit, and ofcourse since it has no Thrust vectoring doing the FT for it will be a pain but it's going along just fine for now.
T
Kismit cooking, and I'm at the table ready to eat.
+2Lebron-James
this thing is freaking beautiful.
+1@F8boa Yeah ill try look up ways to edit and create custom HuDs, that way I could make them as accurate as possible, but that might have a steep learning curve.
+1@RealBLIP93 thats actually what im aiming for XD
+1@SumateraIndustries he's back
+1@CaptainNoble Yeah if only I had a sense of photography, took an hour to decide the screenshot I'd use. and it seems thumbnails really attract players to check out builds.
+1@F8boa i put em last since they have the most complex shapes, imagine building the Rafale's front section and intakes.
+1@F8boa It's here
+1@F8boa OH yeah and I forgot to mention, I probably should put it on the description often, SP physics setting also affects when oscillations start I make my builds in High physics settings that might be the issue.
+1@F8boa Suggestions are reviews are pretty helpful since builder bias is a thing i might just be having a placebo effect on my own improvements, so when someone reviews it helps get an external perspective on builds.
As for the F-16, SP has an issue with PIDs in general like plugging in a PID value higher than 0 will guarantee oscillation at certain speeds since control inputs become more sensitive at higher speeds. You actually have to reduce the PID value by quite a lot to reduce the oscillations which in my case it goes down to 0.2 times past 800km/h.
Though I did make improvements on the 16C already, im just looking for a time to release it, ill probably release a v1.2 after the Su-30sm.
+1@F8boa Thanks for the suggestion, ill try see what I can do, it's primarily because of SP's wing physics really, options are too limited and unrealistic. I'll keep working on the FMs and drag models, and release newer versions as I learn.
+1@F8boa there's a start up procedure, in the cockpit on the bottom right panel just toggle all the switches on.
+1@LunarEclipseSP I was still writing up a description as well 😆
+1It's here Kismit has done it again, and damn is it outstanding.
+1Im contemplating whether to place a G-limiter on the builds, they pull really hard at high speed, that's because the flight performance is extracted from warthunder i could easily implement a 9G limiter on the FT, unless yall are fine with it.
Nvm I just unlocked the feature, cant believe its locked behind silver points.
Most unique build I've seen, lmao.
Also feels weird how the wings just move around like elevators, but its damn cool.
@SPWithLizzie I'll get there in time, i think
@SPWithLizzie "I have no enemy he is merely a pilot of a conflicting side"
@SPWithLizzie oh dang I didnt see the comment, I understand now
@SPWithLizzie I just arrived XD
@SPWithLizzie (Su-30SM Black) It had to be done lmao
Finally got to silver, Thanks
Would've been a cool feature if you could edit builds you already posted, then I wouldn't need to release so many fixes.
@F8boa I tested for any oscillations in all physics settings this time, lemme know if you find any issues:
Flanker project will be on hold for a while ill be doing NATO fighters for now.
@SDmak more like a rhetorical loop of: Need followers? get upvotes.
Need upvotes? Get followers.
@SDmak Algorithm is tough since the front page is only for builds with more upvotes, new builders dont get many upvotes since they dont have many followers thus they cant get on the front page, it just takes time I guess.
@CarGuy32SP Thanks
@CarGuy32SP Based
@SuperFlanker best looking fighter out there
There are 2 things that make using a symmetrical airfoil for fighters iffy.
Vortex lift is not simulated in SP, symmetrical airfoils basically stall at 20° and you start departing if there aren't any semi-symmetrical or flat bottoms on the build,
Flaps and Slats are considered completely separate wings in SP so you dont get the irl benefits of changing the wing camber and directing airflow same with implementing canards.
The benefits however are as you mentioned it's just that simpleplanes is "simple" on physics, hence why most notable fighter builds use flat bottom or the mysterious NACAPROP.
Dang really hope this didnt come of as arrogant
@SuperFlanker thanks, I'll be making a v1.1 for this soon.
This is shaping up to be the best of its kind, can't wait
I'll be taking sometime off to learn and experiment more PID (wanna make a better FBW), so don't expect any new post for a while (3 weeks if not a month),
Next project will probably be between the F-15 and a MiG-29 or both XD, cheers
What do you mean by "make your own" like do I need to make Kp,Ki,Kd variables that depend on the flight condition?
I can see a lot of people have taken interest in the lower part version please visit the main version for the description on controls .
@PrussianAirWorks Thank you, need to learn paneling and more FT.
Move the engine down closer to the CoG and that should do the trick,
@Pakdaaircraftindustries your centre of thrust is too far above the CoG, it doesn't matter how far back what matters with CoT is how far above or bellow it is.
@SumateraIndustries what bias your missiles just didn't proxy or somthn😂
This hit off way more than I expected thanks for the upvotes.
Think I need to rework this one, both this and the deleted jas39 will be reworked the FM feels weird at the moment so I'll rework them and make a better FT for control surfaces. While I'm at it I'll be putting up a Eurofighter ive been working on to complete the eurocanards club.
Having trouble replicating the issue if you don't mind, at what speeds does it start and is it during maneuvers or does it just occur when flying straight.
I know there's an issue with where the plane starts pitching up the faster you go, if you are referring to this, im gonna try and fix it.
Looking forward to the F/A-18 Kismit 🙌.
I'll be working on an Su-27sm with PSM as well, will take a while since the plane I found has no cockpit, and ofcourse since it has no Thrust vectoring doing the FT for it will be a pain but it's going along just fine for now.