@Gameboi14 Exactly. I've found that people tend to treat you differently based on how you communicate, so I try to talk like I'm smart. Sometimes I manage to fool people.
@TitanIncorporated Funny you mention that, the Dauntless has moving parts like fleas on a dog. All those silly little dials and cockpit stuff, the tailgun, I didn't know how to make wings properly so it's got like 20 little wings hidden all over the place. lol People always say moving parts cause lag, but maybe it's something else?
@jamesPLANESii I know some people can only run like 50 parts but each missile is almost that many. I can strip off the white belly paint (which will require rebuilding the entire plane) and maybe use only one Kh-22 missile, but even then it's going to be around 450-500 parts.
@Jetliner101 What I'm learning from this is that I will probably need to make a third "potato" grade version. It's not going to be easy because I'll have to reattach all the moving parts, but it'll give me plenty of time to complete the full-count version.
@AWESOMENESS360 That's very strange. I guess cars are less taxing on the CPU on account of not having wings. Thanks for your input, I'm not sure how to cut the part count in half. :(
@randomusername The TU-22M doesn't have thrust vectoring. It was originally designed 20 years before thrust vectoring became useful for jet aircraft. I'm unsure if you're trolling or not.
Spefy's right. The thing about experimental tech is that most of the time it doesn't work. All it has to do is work one time in a lab while someone is watching in order to be considered a success. Is it portable? Is it reliable? Does it break if you shake it? Does it break after you use it more than one time? Nobody cares, it's only an experiment, relax.
This was one of the problems Germany faced in WW2. Because the people in power had very little experience with how to run a government, they wasted staggeringly huge resources on bringing experimental tech onto the battlefield. The result? Planes that could only fly 10 hours before their engines melted, tanks too heavy to bring to the battlefront, and frontline fighters that never had enough good old fashioned ammunition.
@QingyuZhou That's the genius of it. Assuming the yaw is caused by aerodynamic imbalance, the fin works on the same priciple as whatever is causing the problem. In other words, the solution scales with speed at the same rate as the problem, assuming you keep the fin close to the vertical center of the plane and you select the correct angle.
I get this problem from time to time. The easiest way to fix it is to ignore the cause completely. I just make a small vertical fin and hide it inside the vertical tail, then I rotate it by very small amounts until it cancels out the yaw problem. It creates a little extra drag, but nothing bad.
You don't need to make the fin very big, only like 1×1 block depending on the size of the plane and the size of the problem. As for rotation, it's usually very fine: 0.72° 1.45° etc.
@ThePilotDude I like to think of the Corsair as an advanced fighter. The biggest US aces flew Corsairs. I think if you could survive long enough to learn how to really fly her, she was the most lethal navy fighter of the 1940's for sure.
@HistoricBirds @ThePilotDude While I am just messing with you, I do feel that way. The Corsair was a true monster of the skies. Anazing speed, agility and climb. Even good at ground attack. But she was also a moster to her own crews. Vought always sacrificed safety to make the fastest plane possible, qnd the pilots paid for it in blood. Simply gunning the throttle was enough to send a Corsair into a spin, combined with non-existant forward visibility and terrible low speed handling the Navy had to refuse her.
Then look at the Hellcat. She couldn't crack 400mph and was even sluggish in a turn at first. Slow, stubby, nobody ever says "My favorite is the Hellcat." But she was the backbone of the whole US Navy! More pilots became aces flying a Hellcat than any other plane in the war! Not Messerschmitts, not even P-51's, but the Hellcat. Why? Because she was tough to kill and easy to fly. Leroy Grumman was a Navy pilot, and he cared deeply about them. He invited top aviators to help him design the Hellcat. He had 200 pounds of armor protecting the pilot, and raised the cockpit up rediculously high to see over the nose. In short, Grumman designed the Hellcat to bring her pilots back alive.
Do not get me wrong, I love the Corsair but I'd rather live in a F6F than die in a F4U.
It looks like a Klingon Bird of Prey, but in a good way :)
@Spectre2520 Thanks for saying so
@Gameboi14 Exactly. I've found that people tend to treat you differently based on how you communicate, so I try to talk like I'm smart. Sometimes I manage to fool people.
+2@Gameboi14 New Vegas was a great game, I can understand your desire to roleplay. It's just not my thing.
@Gameboi14 I'm sorry, I can't play along.
@Gameboi14 Please communicate more clearly.
@TitanIncorporated Funny you mention that, the Dauntless has moving parts like fleas on a dog. All those silly little dials and cockpit stuff, the tailgun, I didn't know how to make wings properly so it's got like 20 little wings hidden all over the place. lol People always say moving parts cause lag, but maybe it's something else?
This is so cool. Like a cross between a Hawker Hunter and a Republic Thunderjet
@GritAerospaceSolutionsLTD Noted, thank you
@GeneralOliverVonBismarck @CRJ900Pilot @aplayer Thanks guys
@jamesPLANESii I know some people can only run like 50 parts but each missile is almost that many. I can strip off the white belly paint (which will require rebuilding the entire plane) and maybe use only one Kh-22 missile, but even then it's going to be around 450-500 parts.
@kbarnett2008 Good eye
Seems legit.
+1@Jetliner101 What I'm learning from this is that I will probably need to make a third "potato" grade version. It's not going to be easy because I'll have to reattach all the moving parts, but it'll give me plenty of time to complete the full-count version.
@Jetliner101 I hear you
@Chancey21 @ChiChiWerx @Nerfenthusiast Thanks guys, I'll keep this in mind.
@BlackhattAircraft Thanks!
@SledDriver might have some advice regarding this endeavor. Assuming he deigns to communicate with puny mortals on this matter.
Let the bias... begin!
@EliteArsenals24 Thanks!
@Gravity Yeah, 400 was closer to what I was hoping for. I'd probably have to rebuild most of the plane to get it that low.
@Rub3n213 @RailfanEthan @GreatHenry Thanks guys.
Jeeze, you made that turret fast!
@Strikefighter04 Thanks Strikey
+1@AWESOMENESS360 That's very strange. I guess cars are less taxing on the CPU on account of not having wings. Thanks for your input, I'm not sure how to cut the part count in half. :(
+2@randomusername The TU-22M doesn't have thrust vectoring. It was originally designed 20 years before thrust vectoring became useful for jet aircraft. I'm unsure if you're trolling or not.
+1@randomusername Understood, thanks again.
+1@randomusername Thanks for your thoughts, does this 150 count apply to your mobile device?
@Rub3n213 I have a suspicion your 6s can probably run quite a bit more than that. Thanks for your input!
+1@Ariathe Thank you very much.
It's ok if your plane does it a little bit, but if you have to straighten it out every single minute then you have a problem.
+1No one will be upset. Can you do me a favor and edit in more info about the cell towers, that's really interesting.
+1Spefy's right. The thing about experimental tech is that most of the time it doesn't work. All it has to do is work one time in a lab while someone is watching in order to be considered a success. Is it portable? Is it reliable? Does it break if you shake it? Does it break after you use it more than one time? Nobody cares, it's only an experiment, relax.
This was one of the problems Germany faced in WW2. Because the people in power had very little experience with how to run a government, they wasted staggeringly huge resources on bringing experimental tech onto the battlefield. The result? Planes that could only fly 10 hours before their engines melted, tanks too heavy to bring to the battlefront, and frontline fighters that never had enough good old fashioned ammunition.
+3Apple = Evil
Or not.
Kind of small, isn't it?
+1@Phoza You da real mvp!
+1Sovtastic
Think about planes you're interested in, stuff you like. You'll be more motivated to do a good job if it's somethung you personally care about.
+1Please give it a v stab, or at least a diagonal stabilizer.
+2@spefyjerbf Sure thing
+1Here you go
Be sure to share this with your friends
@QingyuZhou That's the genius of it. Assuming the yaw is caused by aerodynamic imbalance, the fin works on the same priciple as whatever is causing the problem. In other words, the solution scales with speed at the same rate as the problem, assuming you keep the fin close to the vertical center of the plane and you select the correct angle.
@SledDriver The Legend of Sled continues to grow!
@BACconcordepilot Oh! Thanks
@CoolPeach It's always better to get the problem at its root, but if the root can't be found, this solution should prevent hairloss or aneurisms.
+2I get this problem from time to time. The easiest way to fix it is to ignore the cause completely. I just make a small vertical fin and hide it inside the vertical tail, then I rotate it by very small amounts until it cancels out the yaw problem. It creates a little extra drag, but nothing bad.
You don't need to make the fin very big, only like 1×1 block depending on the size of the plane and the size of the problem. As for rotation, it's usually very fine: 0.72° 1.45° etc.
+2@T8flightcrafts No, not IOS Apple is the devil.
I remember you. You were very active back then. Welcome back
@ThePilotDude I like to think of the Corsair as an advanced fighter. The biggest US aces flew Corsairs. I think if you could survive long enough to learn how to really fly her, she was the most lethal navy fighter of the 1940's for sure.
@HistoricBirds @ThePilotDude While I am just messing with you, I do feel that way. The Corsair was a true monster of the skies. Anazing speed, agility and climb. Even good at ground attack. But she was also a moster to her own crews. Vought always sacrificed safety to make the fastest plane possible, qnd the pilots paid for it in blood. Simply gunning the throttle was enough to send a Corsair into a spin, combined with non-existant forward visibility and terrible low speed handling the Navy had to refuse her.
Then look at the Hellcat. She couldn't crack 400mph and was even sluggish in a turn at first. Slow, stubby, nobody ever says "My favorite is the Hellcat." But she was the backbone of the whole US Navy! More pilots became aces flying a Hellcat than any other plane in the war! Not Messerschmitts, not even P-51's, but the Hellcat. Why? Because she was tough to kill and easy to fly. Leroy Grumman was a Navy pilot, and he cared deeply about them. He invited top aviators to help him design the Hellcat. He had 200 pounds of armor protecting the pilot, and raised the cockpit up rediculously high to see over the nose. In short, Grumman designed the Hellcat to bring her pilots back alive.
Do not get me wrong, I love the Corsair but I'd rather live in a F6F than die in a F4U.