I can create the functional mechanism but I hope you can make it look pretty afterwards cos I don’t do looks very well. The previous time I tried to make it, I tried to replicate the actuator mechanism but it didn’t work. This time I’ll greatly simplify it to get it working
I had a look at that a long time ago but couldn’t get it working at the time. I haven’t opened simpleplanes for a very long time now so I may or may not get around to it. It’s a pretty cool vehicle though! @Shanethepain1
Normally I look at popular planes on this site and think about how incredibly poor the aerodynamic design is (not that it matters in SP so I don’t comment on it) but this thing is actually pretty damn good. The only potential issue I can think of is that pulling up hard at high speed could cut airflow to the engines but that isn’t too bad for a bomber.
Multiple people have demonstrated that the upvote system is incredibly easy to ‘hack’ (it doesn’t even deserve that term). The only reason that people don’t actually do it is that there’s no point (and they have the slightest sense of decency). The play-to-earn road is not something anyone should want to go down.
I can’t say I’m an expert but I’ve done a lot of reading about it for an RC design. My verdict was that actively controlled split ailerons can be more stabilising for less weight and drag. They have less effect than a fully-moving rudder but the inherent instability of the aircraft aids maneuverability. You’ll also notice that many (if not most) publicised 6th gen concepts use split ailerons and thrust vectoring instead of fins. It’s all a matter of trade offs really @BogdanX
I’m actually not sure why fighter aircraft are still being designed with vertical fins. Since they are all fly-by-wire with no mechanical backup, there’s no safety difference between active and passive stabilisers. I guess it’s a political 'low risk' thing @BogdanX
Actually, they are completely unnecessary thanks to fly-by-wire control. Designs such as the X-36 use split ailerons connected to a gyro-computer to control yaw actively. The B-2 also has split ailerons as well as downwashed wingtips which provide the same effect as a vertical fin. That being said, you’ll need to put hidden ones in everything in this game because there is no fly-by-wire computer with custom PID controls @BogdanX
Yep. There’s a reason civilian STOL sport jets don’t exist. It’s possible but requires advanced composite material and fancy, well-designed aerodynamic features @CustomAircraftMods
Just need to clarify it a little. Some biplanes have staggered wings similar to a tandem wing design. I guess you mean it needs to have two completely separated main wings plus a stabiliser? @Othawne
Kind of. It’s an E voucher for a specific game. It’s a code that tells steam “I own this game now.” For example, I buy a game online for a friend and send him the steam key. He then inputs that key into steam and then he owns that game and can download it. @TheEpicMOONHAWK
I just don’t see why you would bother complaining that it’s dead. What do you expect to happen to happen when you complain? I don’t think a game is dead until there’s only a handful of people playing it and there’s still thousands of simpleplanes players
You need hinges on the shocks. If you look at the shock as if it were a piston (which is exactly what the damper is), you would notice that the shock needs to rotate slightly throughout its travel and thus needs something to allow it to move more freely
Sounds alright if it’s meant to be leaf-sprung. Still a bit more fragile and less effective than 4-link but you make up for it with looks @jamesPLANESii
Extend the suspension. You've built the suspension to sit at ride height in the designer. It should be sitting at max extension in the designer. Trucks sag a long way into the suspension travel to get the suspension soft enough to absorb small bumps. You’ve got it with almost no sag so it is very stiff. This vehicle, good looking as it is, has 50% less suspension travel than it should and isn’t very good off-road. That being said, damn it looks good
It seems to work well. It would require heavy modification to be mechanically clean and theoretically effective. It works in simpleplanes pretty well though
This happens at about the same period after every update. Hype, normal activity, bored. New update, hype, normal, bored. It’s not a particularly new, feature packed, or realistic game so it’s getting less popular. That being said, a game isn’t dead until there is no activity. There’s still a lot of activity all things considered. Jundroo seems to have recognised this which is why they are making SR2
Try spending more time on your builds and upload around once every week or fortnight. If you spend that much time, you’ll be pleasantly surprised with the results @CptJacobson
@Shanethepain1 yes, but simpleplanes hates that. It just explodes basically
Haven’t started yet. Kinda busy. I wouldn’t count on it happening within a week @Shanethepain1
I can create the functional mechanism but I hope you can make it look pretty afterwards cos I don’t do looks very well. The previous time I tried to make it, I tried to replicate the actuator mechanism but it didn’t work. This time I’ll greatly simplify it to get it working
@Shanethepain1 This is more or less the final version of the gnasher
I had a look at that a long time ago but couldn’t get it working at the time. I haven’t opened simpleplanes for a very long time now so I may or may not get around to it. It’s a pretty cool vehicle though! @Shanethepain1
Just on time lol. I’ve already made upgraded versions of everything on this post from 1.6 years ago @Shanethepain1
@GreatHenry sure, whatever
Normally I look at popular planes on this site and think about how incredibly poor the aerodynamic design is (not that it matters in SP so I don’t comment on it) but this thing is actually pretty damn good. The only potential issue I can think of is that pulling up hard at high speed could cut airflow to the engines but that isn’t too bad for a bomber.
Multiple people have demonstrated that the upvote system is incredibly easy to ‘hack’ (it doesn’t even deserve that term). The only reason that people don’t actually do it is that there’s no point (and they have the slightest sense of decency). The play-to-earn road is not something anyone should want to go down.
+6I can’t say I’m an expert but I’ve done a lot of reading about it for an RC design. My verdict was that actively controlled split ailerons can be more stabilising for less weight and drag. They have less effect than a fully-moving rudder but the inherent instability of the aircraft aids maneuverability. You’ll also notice that many (if not most) publicised 6th gen concepts use split ailerons and thrust vectoring instead of fins. It’s all a matter of trade offs really @BogdanX
I’m actually not sure why fighter aircraft are still being designed with vertical fins. Since they are all fly-by-wire with no mechanical backup, there’s no safety difference between active and passive stabilisers. I guess it’s a political 'low risk' thing @BogdanX
Actually, they are completely unnecessary thanks to fly-by-wire control. Designs such as the X-36 use split ailerons connected to a gyro-computer to control yaw actively. The B-2 also has split ailerons as well as downwashed wingtips which provide the same effect as a vertical fin. That being said, you’ll need to put hidden ones in everything in this game because there is no fly-by-wire computer with custom PID controls @BogdanX
I shall not allow it as long as there is life in my body and strength in my fingers to type idiotic stuff like this comment
Yep. There’s a reason civilian STOL sport jets don’t exist. It’s possible but requires advanced composite material and fancy, well-designed aerodynamic features @CustomAircraftMods
Do something different and make a low-wing, single-seat, civilian STOL jet aircraft @CustomAircraftMods
Yes
Yes and yes. It might be tricky to get setup but you’ll be able to get workaround and adapter programs for it if it doesn’t initially work.
+1Just need to clarify it a little. Some biplanes have staggered wings similar to a tandem wing design. I guess you mean it needs to have two completely separated main wings plus a stabiliser? @Othawne
Kind of. It’s an E voucher for a specific game. It’s a code that tells steam “I own this game now.” For example, I buy a game online for a friend and send him the steam key. He then inputs that key into steam and then he owns that game and can download it. @TheEpicMOONHAWK
Would you class tandem wings or box wings as biplanes?
@DepressedTortoise If you were Australian I’d say it was a possum falling off a tree onto your roof
+1But you should probably check the PSU thoroughly
Check for blown light bulbs and books mysteriously lying on the floor next to a high place
Have you tried screaming incoherently?
L
+1Most beautiful feet I have ever seen. You must have been trained by a master artist
Mostest realisticalist stall I have ever seen in my entire life ever
+2I just don’t see why you would bother complaining that it’s dead. What do you expect to happen to happen when you complain? I don’t think a game is dead until there’s only a handful of people playing it and there’s still thousands of simpleplanes players
+1You need hinges on the shocks. If you look at the shock as if it were a piston (which is exactly what the damper is), you would notice that the shock needs to rotate slightly throughout its travel and thus needs something to allow it to move more freely
Sounds alright if it’s meant to be leaf-sprung. Still a bit more fragile and less effective than 4-link but you make up for it with looks @jamesPLANESii
I need to see if you used real suspension before I upvote. Did you use proper 4-link or the more commonly used lazy-no-link-mechanical-torture style?
Neat idea
v289
Over there
Reminiscent of a Burt Rutan creation. It's a bit like an agile, forward-swept version of a voyager
@RailfanEthan no problem. I'm glad you appreciate my scathing criticism lol
@SuperSix It certainly is possible but the effort wouldn't be worth it for someone on iOS
Extend the suspension. You've built the suspension to sit at ride height in the designer. It should be sitting at max extension in the designer. Trucks sag a long way into the suspension travel to get the suspension soft enough to absorb small bumps. You’ve got it with almost no sag so it is very stiff. This vehicle, good looking as it is, has 50% less suspension travel than it should and isn’t very good off-road. That being said, damn it looks good
+1Looks great but suspension is not very good
+1It seems to work well. It would require heavy modification to be mechanically clean and theoretically effective. It works in simpleplanes pretty well though
Cluster boom 50 will do the trick
This happens at about the same period after every update. Hype, normal activity, bored. New update, hype, normal, bored. It’s not a particularly new, feature packed, or realistic game so it’s getting less popular. That being said, a game isn’t dead until there is no activity. There’s still a lot of activity all things considered. Jundroo seems to have recognised this which is why they are making SR2
But James, it has... tricycle gear
I’m not sure. I get the same problem
! [useless text] (image URL) but don’t use spaces
eeeeeeeeeeels
I can’t do interiors sadly. I’m more focused on engineering. It sounds interesting though
Clickable link: [text] (URL) without the spaces @RYMA232Aeronautics
Try spending more time on your builds and upload around once every week or fortnight. If you spend that much time, you’ll be pleasantly surprised with the results @CptJacobson
@CptJacobson look at your posts. You have several creations uploaded as little as 9 days ago