@Graingy I think there will be a maximum, as every value in the game. Think about it. If the max is a very high value beyond what is useful, it will be a pain to align the slider on a specific small value.
@RicardoACE Ehh... Problem. Due to the fuselage modifications, the subassembly don't perfectly fit, as you can see on this image. For me, it's a lot of work, and to be honest I don't want to do it. If you want I can give you the project as it is now, and you can do the modifications. I kept the -5F cockpit btw. Also some fuselage modifications would be needed to clear the back seat space.
@RicardoACE I think I can do it, but idk when. I think I can done it relatively quickly by using the parts of this build on yours. If I do the thing before mid-december is it okay ?
@RicardoACE Hey, maybe the easiest way would be to start from this aircraft, instead of modifying again a single-seater into a two-seater, I don't really know. It depends if you made a lot of changes between the latest version and the 2000P... Which version are you making ?
@AndiTontrando Yes, as I said, reducing drag points is good to make the aircraft perform much realistically, but here you got too far I think. In the tutorial I will present a maneer to put a specific amount of drag depending on the irl craft performance.
This is a good looking build. Editing the drag is always a must, but I don't think it was necessary to make the total drag points so low. It barely doesn't loose any speed, which can be difficult for approach and landing...
Would you be interested in a flight model tutorial I'm making ?
@Graingy What I define as "basic" and "easy" are of course based on the range of possibilities. It's basic because SP has simple physics and mechanics compared to real life.
In the absolute, if you would learn how the pigpen systems works, you will have to study aerodynamics, flight computers, programming, continuous and automatic adjustment systems...
@Graingy Well, it's math. Again SP will not learn you everything from 0, it's just not possible. It needs personnal researchs and knowledge (and that's applicable to a lot of things in the game, not only FT). You can't accuse Jundroo that they can't learn you how basic math works, on how the XML language works, how an affine function works...
@Graingy Funky Trees requires minimal knowledge in coding and XML, and is not intended to new players ; FT are not required to build things in SP. Maybe they could be a sort of tutorial, but you can't go as far as describing the whole system of the PigPen, because at the same time it would need to much work for the devs, but also because it is... useless. If you understand the documentations or guides like snowflake0s one, it's enough to analyse how the systems are made. And if you don't understand, maybe it's not for you. That's how it works.
For me, the RS86 is based off a Nissan 180SX, but with a coupé rear end (like the Onevia modifications).
And the Competitor seems based off the Bombardier Challenger 604.
@dabestsock Ah. Punctuation is important. On his build he edited the scale to something smaller than 1,1,1 , but a better way is to edit the size value of the wheel (with XML).
A simple Il-76 when looking far away, but then.... I noticed it has a crane. I think it's a really great feature, and if I'm not wrong, I think there are only a very few helicopters or transport aircraft builds with a crane on the website.
One flaw, though ; it would have been nice to put an AG on the ramps, because when using the crane, you can't get very close to the object you want to take.
But otherwise well done.
Nice build ! I would say the only bad point is the ground handling ; looks like the rear landing gear is drifting or something. But overall everything is nice.
With this type of propulsion, there is almost no torque created by the main rotor. You could almost remove the tail rotor. The french did that in the 50s, with the SO.1221 Djinn ; The turbine was producing compressed air which was injected at the tip of the rotor blades, and for yaw control, they kept some residual thrust from the turbine which was directed on a rudder. A complicated system, which is why we don't see a lot of examples.
I appreciate the efforts to make it looks like a french aircraft :)
It's not a bad build but... tail strikes are hard to avoid... and maybe lower drag and lower thrust would have been even better.
Not a bad build, but it is well faster than it should be, and it is not very agile at low speeds... maybe your fuselage wings or control surfaces are causing too much drag, idk. Also, making it low drag, yes, but no drag is... a no.
@KSB24 Some people don't like AI because some people are using them because they are lazy to do things themselves, it kinda represents a lacks of effort on a product.
You did an amazing work with this livery !
However flying the aircraft is quite disappointing ; Roll rate is not proportionnal to the input, ground steering is reversed, wheels are braking too much, despite the presence of water paddles they don't steer the aircraft... And finally this aircraft could easily have 2 times less parts but that's not very important. Overall, you still have a lot to learn ; this still deserves an upvote.
We rarely see this version of the U2 with the bare aluminium, it was a good idea to make it.
+1I haven't tested it, but it looks sooo good ! Magnificient. I would prefer more effort to do a good description tho
@Graingy I think there will be a maximum, as every value in the game. Think about it. If the max is a very high value beyond what is useful, it will be a pain to align the slider on a specific small value.
@RicardoACE Ehh... Problem. Due to the fuselage modifications, the subassembly don't perfectly fit, as you can see on this image. For me, it's a lot of work, and to be honest I don't want to do it. If you want I can give you the project as it is now, and you can do the modifications. I kept the -5F cockpit btw. Also some fuselage modifications would be needed to clear the back seat space.
+1@RicardoACE I think I can do it, but idk when. I think I can done it relatively quickly by using the parts of this build on yours. If I do the thing before mid-december is it okay ?
+1@RicardoACE So what's the difference with my modification ?
@RicardoACE lol, I mean which two seater variant
@RicardoACE Hey, maybe the easiest way would be to start from this aircraft, instead of modifying again a single-seater into a two-seater, I don't really know. It depends if you made a lot of changes between the latest version and the 2000P... Which version are you making ?
@AndiTontrando Yes, as I said, reducing drag points is good to make the aircraft perform much realistically, but here you got too far I think. In the tutorial I will present a maneer to put a specific amount of drag depending on the irl craft performance.
+1This is a good looking build. Editing the drag is always a must, but I don't think it was necessary to make the total drag points so low. It barely doesn't loose any speed, which can be difficult for approach and landing...
Would you be interested in a flight model tutorial I'm making ?
I would have participated if more effort would have been put in the making of this post and the challenge rules, grading, overall.
@OverlordPrime The probability that it's involuntary is very small, to be honest.
+1C-130J-30 but with four-bladed propellers ??
+1Peak
@Graingy What I define as "basic" and "easy" are of course based on the range of possibilities. It's basic because SP has simple physics and mechanics compared to real life.
In the absolute, if you would learn how the pigpen systems works, you will have to study aerodynamics, flight computers, programming, continuous and automatic adjustment systems...
@Graingy Well, it's math. Again SP will not learn you everything from 0, it's just not possible. It needs personnal researchs and knowledge (and that's applicable to a lot of things in the game, not only FT). You can't accuse Jundroo that they can't learn you how basic math works, on how the XML language works, how an affine function works...
@Graingy Funky Trees requires minimal knowledge in coding and XML, and is not intended to new players ; FT are not required to build things in SP. Maybe they could be a sort of tutorial, but you can't go as far as describing the whole system of the PigPen, because at the same time it would need to much work for the devs, but also because it is... useless. If you understand the documentations or guides like snowflake0s one, it's enough to analyse how the systems are made. And if you don't understand, maybe it's not for you. That's how it works.
I like the story behind this
+1"Quite poor quality", to be honest it's not that bad. The aircraft is looking very good but it lacks some things on the flight model part.
+2For me, the RS86 is based off a Nissan 180SX, but with a coupé rear end (like the Onevia modifications).
And the Competitor seems based off the Bombardier Challenger 604.
Looks like a mini- super frelon
+1The end lmao
+1This looks quite an botched build... No instructions, the aircraft is hardly flyable...
Welcome back ! Great build ! The guns destroyed the propeller, but anyway I managed to land without it.
I'm sure someone will be interested to complete this...
car
+1A wind turbine in SimplePlanes... not a very popular type of build lol
+1@RGaming00 I see
+1Why especially him ? It's not one guy that will change how active is the website, it's the whole community.
+1The first part has nothing to do with PIDs though... Just FT knowledge
+1@dabestsock Ah. Punctuation is important. On his build he edited the scale to something smaller than 1,1,1 , but a better way is to edit the size value of the wheel (with XML).
@dabestsock No ?
+1A simple Il-76 when looking far away, but then.... I noticed it has a crane. I think it's a really great feature, and if I'm not wrong, I think there are only a very few helicopters or transport aircraft builds with a crane on the website.
+1One flaw, though ; it would have been nice to put an AG on the ramps, because when using the crane, you can't get very close to the object you want to take.
But otherwise well done.
I really like the "blocky" style. It doesn't have a very good handling but anyway... here is your upvote.
Great innovation
Nice build ! I would say the only bad point is the ground handling ; looks like the rear landing gear is drifting or something. But overall everything is nice.
Lufthansa
With this type of propulsion, there is almost no torque created by the main rotor. You could almost remove the tail rotor. The french did that in the 50s, with the SO.1221 Djinn ; The turbine was producing compressed air which was injected at the tip of the rotor blades, and for yaw control, they kept some residual thrust from the turbine which was directed on a rudder. A complicated system, which is why we don't see a lot of examples.
+1@dots For the tires
+1@dots You should use the part size attribute instead of the xml scale
+1@Berulacraft And PC-24
It's a good build but no shock absorbers ?
I appreciate the efforts to make it looks like a french aircraft :)
It's not a bad build but... tail strikes are hard to avoid... and maybe lower drag and lower thrust would have been even better.
Great design ! But I'm not sure about the intelligence of using airbrakes as flaps... as they don't have the same goal...
+1Not a bad build, but it is well faster than it should be, and it is not very agile at low speeds... maybe your fuselage wings or control surfaces are causing too much drag, idk. Also, making it low drag, yes, but no drag is... a no.
@KSB24 Some people don't like AI because some people are using them because they are lazy to do things themselves, it kinda represents a lacks of effort on a product.
At the same time, impressive and funny
@Austinowen Although the SP2 bugger will have SP2 parts
@HPFEngineering yeah I figured out
You did an amazing work with this livery !
+1However flying the aircraft is quite disappointing ; Roll rate is not proportionnal to the input, ground steering is reversed, wheels are braking too much, despite the presence of water paddles they don't steer the aircraft... And finally this aircraft could easily have 2 times less parts but that's not very important. Overall, you still have a lot to learn ; this still deserves an upvote.
@DTMF we can