Sweet you got it to fly. Looks like you added a gryo, some vertical stabilizers, a pair of jets, some landing gear, and allowed the front fans to move.
Oh, I messed with this a bit a got a version that flies (poorly).
I have, there is a difference. I took one plane and cut the fuel in the wings from full to 50% and did see a boost in speed. If I recall correctly it was around 15% for that particular airplane. I only noticed it because I was looking for it, and testing a plane that was flying at over 2000 mph, making the difference (300 mph) more noticeable.
In real life mass does factor into aircraft speed, I've used the real world equations. Basically the plane has to generate enough lift to counteract it's weight. If the wings aren't moving fast enough to do this on their own, then the aircraft has to use a steeper Angle o Attack (more drag) and the engines make up the difference (Less available power/thrust for speed) which results in a slower plane.
Yeah, I've see the deflection control effect, although if a plane has good trim it's not as much of a problem.
@CALVIN232
Well SP and making emblems don't require a lot, although playing GFA will. You can probably get away with an an old AMD as long as you got 8GB or RAM and a graphics card. A low end SSD is fairly cheap these days. If you go with an new intel machine, you can get away with an i5 processor and integrated grpahics.
What you might want to do is check out on-line stores such as Amazon, Dell and Newegg for PC deals, or a site like Dealnews, although there are lots of other sites and stores. Even if you end up going to a physical store like BestBuy or Staples, make sure you look online first so you can see what the current market price is for things.
Just make sure you deal with a company that you've heard of and that has good customer relations that you go back to if something goes wrong.
@Jetpackturtle "I build my own PC's it's cheaper that way"
No so much anymore. By the time you buy an OS it comes out to be about the same cost-but you get more say on what you end up with.
Is SP the primary reason for getting a PC? That makes a difference as to what to recommend. If It's just SP then you would need as much as if you were doing something more demanding. There are some sites I could post that have or track deals, and you could find something in your price range fairly quickly.
You could even get a small PC, smaller than your PS4. And most TVs could be used as a monitor by most computers-HDMI ports are standard, so you can almost certainly use your TV with your new computer.
Nice plane. You can get it to take off if you adjust the fuel load. Reduce the load in the back section to keep the tail from dropping, then reduce the front two sections to adjust the trim. Front to back 60%/60%/50% will get you off the ground with a slight pitch down.
It's a fun plane, and about as stable as they come, when the wings are deployed. I tried to make it spin and couldn't. The only risk was during TOs and landings.
You know, if you made the tail a little shorter, set it up in a cross , and rotated the tail section 45 degrees in X-mode, it would be stable all the time. But that's justa thought.
Thanks, that's very interesting. I'm building a couple of test craft with the same weight and give one two engines and try for twice the drag and see what results I get.
I think my booster sled was a surprise because my initial drag was so low that the increase affected it much harder than it would a more typical build. Going from 0 drag to 400 drag isn't the same as going from 400 to 800.
@randomusername
"M=1 T=2 D=1
The top speed should double."
What makes you believe that? it's not how it works in real life, and isn't how it works in SP either. Take a jet at full throttle and top speed. If you throttle back to 50%, your speed won't cut in half, but will probably be closer to 70%. The exceptions are either speed limited by altitude (where speed tops at at below 100% throttle) or very underpowered (and need most of their thrust to keep aloft).
In your examples you varied the mass . You varied the mass and drag, but not the thrust. What I need is an example with the same mass, but one that varies in drag and thrust.
For example:
M=1, T=1, D=1
M=1,T=2, D=1
M=1, T=1, D=2
I can do the first two in game. Take a jet that isn't speed limited by altitude, bring it up to full throttle and get it flying level at 5000 feet. Note the speed. Now cut the throttle back to 50%. It's speed won't drop in half, but to around 70%, probably a little less. And that's how it works in the real world too.
But what I can't test in game is to run a plane at 100% throttle but someone double the drag.
In the real world thrust and drag force are rated with the same terms, so I know that doubling the thrust or doubling the coefficient of drag cancel out as far as speed goes.
But do you know what the math is in game? From a builder's standpoint, is it worth adding a second J15 engine to a plane if it raises the drag from 100 to 200? 100 to 150? 200 to 500?
Without know the relationship between thrust and drag in the game we're stuck with trial and error?
Sorry but that isn't how it works. Drag points are not the same as coefficient of drag. I have a airplane with 0 Drag Points, and while fast it doesn't have an unlimited top speed-even when fitted with an "unlimited" fuel tank. In fact, it is partly responsible for my posting this question.
In the real world reducing the Cd (coefficient of drag) of a jet will increase speed by approximately 41% because drag force is proportional to the square of the speed. I said approximately because the second engine (and fuel for it) will increase the drag, as well as the weight of the aircraft (requiring more lift), which will reduce speed.
The upshot of this is that there are times when adding a second engine will actually slow a plane down and just make it use up more fuel. There are lots of builds out there will lots and lots of engines piled on top of each other that would be faster if you took off some of the engines and fuel.
In my own case, I have a 0 drag airplane that got slower when I added two detachable booster engines. The added thrust was more than offset by the added weight and drag.
I was just wondering if anybody knew what the in game relationship was.
Oh. What the autopilot does is keep moving the ailerons up and down, and the tail back and forth and it looks like it's swimming- especially if you are zoomed out a little.
@LiamW Thanks. The wings are almost perfect for one of my airframes. I see you still got some nose drop at low speeds too. BTW, I tried to swipe your carnards, but they just drop and do nothing unless I give them a angle and speed (then they work). What am I missing?
@LiamW -That's hard to do within the the zero drag constraint. Although it's not high speed that is a problem so much as low speed. When flying at high speed I'm either maneuvering or at high altitude, both of which minimize the problem.
But...
I think I can combine DerekSP's and F104Deathtraps ideas and downscale 'em to fit. I'm going to try to add airbrakes at strategic locations (top/front, top/aft, bottom/front, bottom/aft) and have them activated by Trim. I can invert the activations for the "down trim" brakes and use activation groups to set the brakes for low speed or high. If I've got a clue, I could also use the brakes much like flaps to assist in take-offs and landings.
The two control surfaces seems the most applicable to my tiny aircraft (one design is smaller than most cars), especially since one design already has canards so it would be easy to implement without actually changing the design.
The problem isn't that applying trim (1/4/7) won't counteract the nose dropping or lifting, but that it applies too much. Rotators on the horizontal stabilizers might do it. I tried rotators on the main wing with some success.
Unfortunately a gyro isn't an option. What I haven't mentioned yet is that I got some fuselage shapes down to 0 Drag Points, so I'm limiting myself to options that won't increase drag. I tried nudging a gyroscope into the airframe but could not do so without eliminating the drag (best results were in the 110-135 drag range). But I will definitely consider it for some other builds on the same airframes.
You mean you didn't design it that way? You lucky @#$%. It's one of the best big seaplanes I've flown in SP. It sits perfectly in the water, just the right depth to be stable and for the props to work. The tail stabilizers make great rudders, and the ailerons work in the water as well. It turns on a dime. Landing and even take off are like being on a runway. Try it.
I bet it's make a good submarine if you added something to allow it to stay submerged.
Look at your bird wings. You have two tiny bits of modded wings attached at the base on each wing that weight 360,000 pounds each. Your engine can't lift 720,000 pounds.
Nah, I'm just working on a high speed, high altitude aircraft and had to figure out the best way to get up there. If I use a steeper climb, the plane bleeds off all it's speed, if a use a shallower climb, the plane burns off too much fuel getting there. The actual best rate of climb should vary from plane to plane, and should be lower for a prop plane.
Really. What you do is go into a 10 degree climb at max speed, and keep climbing until you reach an altitude of 65000-70000 feet. Ten degrees lets you continue to build up speed while climbing. When you (finally) get there, you'll be traveling at around 1000 mph with about half a tank of fuel. If you level out and fly straight for a couple more minutes, you'll hit 1100 mph with more that a third of a tank left. That's good enough for about 10 minutes of fling at that altitude.
Fixing the launcher is easy, just increase the force of the detacher to around 70%. But you have a problem with your fighter, the weight (CoM) is too close to the Wings (CoL) so it will just flip end over end until it crashes.
I can tell you now that you don't need them. You can use them to turn, or to add ballast, or buoyancy or something, but none of that is needed. It's a nice boat.
Sweet you got it to fly. Looks like you added a gryo, some vertical stabilizers, a pair of jets, some landing gear, and allowed the front fans to move.
Oh, I messed with this a bit a got a version that flies (poorly).
@ChiChiWerx
But you right that mass isn't the major factor, drag is. I'm just trying to work out what that means in game.
@ChiChiWerx
I have, there is a difference. I took one plane and cut the fuel in the wings from full to 50% and did see a boost in speed. If I recall correctly it was around 15% for that particular airplane. I only noticed it because I was looking for it, and testing a plane that was flying at over 2000 mph, making the difference (300 mph) more noticeable.
In real life mass does factor into aircraft speed, I've used the real world equations. Basically the plane has to generate enough lift to counteract it's weight. If the wings aren't moving fast enough to do this on their own, then the aircraft has to use a steeper Angle o Attack (more drag) and the engines make up the difference (Less available power/thrust for speed) which results in a slower plane.
Yeah, I've see the deflection control effect, although if a plane has good trim it's not as much of a problem.
@CALVIN232
Well SP and making emblems don't require a lot, although playing GFA will. You can probably get away with an an old AMD as long as you got 8GB or RAM and a graphics card. A low end SSD is fairly cheap these days. If you go with an new intel machine, you can get away with an i5 processor and integrated grpahics.
What you might want to do is check out on-line stores such as Amazon, Dell and Newegg for PC deals, or a site like Dealnews, although there are lots of other sites and stores. Even if you end up going to a physical store like BestBuy or Staples, make sure you look online first so you can see what the current market price is for things.
Just make sure you deal with a company that you've heard of and that has good customer relations that you go back to if something goes wrong.
@Jetpackturtle "I build my own PC's it's cheaper that way"
No so much anymore. By the time you buy an OS it comes out to be about the same cost-but you get more say on what you end up with.
It's like a scaled down F-5/F-20.
Is SP the primary reason for getting a PC? That makes a difference as to what to recommend. If It's just SP then you would need as much as if you were doing something more demanding. There are some sites I could post that have or track deals, and you could find something in your price range fairly quickly.
You could even get a small PC, smaller than your PS4. And most TVs could be used as a monitor by most computers-HDMI ports are standard, so you can almost certainly use your TV with your new computer.
What are the guns on this thing. I took a snap shot and it looked like a swarm of fireflies! I sunk two destroyers with a couple of bursts.
Nice plane. You can get it to take off if you adjust the fuel load. Reduce the load in the back section to keep the tail from dropping, then reduce the front two sections to adjust the trim. Front to back 60%/60%/50% will get you off the ground with a slight pitch down.
It's a fun plane, and about as stable as they come, when the wings are deployed. I tried to make it spin and couldn't. The only risk was during TOs and landings.
You know, if you made the tail a little shorter, set it up in a cross , and rotated the tail section 45 degrees in X-mode, it would be stable all the time. But that's justa thought.
I don't believe it will -when the wings are open.The angle of the wings will have them act like vertical stabilizers.
LoL! Does the driver get "air breaks" during flight?
Thanks, that's very interesting. I'm building a couple of test craft with the same weight and give one two engines and try for twice the drag and see what results I get.
I think my booster sled was a surprise because my initial drag was so low that the increase affected it much harder than it would a more typical build. Going from 0 drag to 400 drag isn't the same as going from 400 to 800.
@randomusername
"M=1 T=2 D=1
The top speed should double."
What makes you believe that? it's not how it works in real life, and isn't how it works in SP either. Take a jet at full throttle and top speed. If you throttle back to 50%, your speed won't cut in half, but will probably be closer to 70%. The exceptions are either speed limited by altitude (where speed tops at at below 100% throttle) or very underpowered (and need most of their thrust to keep aloft).
@randomusername
In your examples you varied the mass . You varied the mass and drag, but not the thrust. What I need is an example with the same mass, but one that varies in drag and thrust.
For example:
M=1, T=1, D=1
M=1,T=2, D=1
M=1, T=1, D=2
I can do the first two in game. Take a jet that isn't speed limited by altitude, bring it up to full throttle and get it flying level at 5000 feet. Note the speed. Now cut the throttle back to 50%. It's speed won't drop in half, but to around 70%, probably a little less. And that's how it works in the real world too.
But what I can't test in game is to run a plane at 100% throttle but someone double the drag.
In the real world thrust and drag force are rated with the same terms, so I know that doubling the thrust or doubling the coefficient of drag cancel out as far as speed goes.
@randomusername
But do you know what the math is in game? From a builder's standpoint, is it worth adding a second J15 engine to a plane if it raises the drag from 100 to 200? 100 to 150? 200 to 500?
Without know the relationship between thrust and drag in the game we're stuck with trial and error?
@F104Deathtrap Thanks. I was just wondering if anybody knew how it works, so I can tell when adding more engines are worth it, and when they aren't.
+1Sorry but that isn't how it works. Drag points are not the same as coefficient of drag. I have a airplane with 0 Drag Points, and while fast it doesn't have an unlimited top speed-even when fitted with an "unlimited" fuel tank. In fact, it is partly responsible for my posting this question.
In the real world reducing the Cd (coefficient of drag) of a jet will increase speed by approximately 41% because drag force is proportional to the square of the speed. I said approximately because the second engine (and fuel for it) will increase the drag, as well as the weight of the aircraft (requiring more lift), which will reduce speed.
The upshot of this is that there are times when adding a second engine will actually slow a plane down and just make it use up more fuel. There are lots of builds out there will lots and lots of engines piled on top of each other that would be faster if you took off some of the engines and fuel.
In my own case, I have a 0 drag airplane that got slower when I added two detachable booster engines. The added thrust was more than offset by the added weight and drag.
I was just wondering if anybody knew what the in game relationship was.
We finally get to see SP underwater! Great!
+2While flying in game, you can go to Settings->Controls .
+1Exactly what I needed for small vehicles. Thanks!
Oh. What the autopilot does is keep moving the ailerons up and down, and the tail back and forth and it looks like it's swimming- especially if you are zoomed out a little.
@LiamW Thanks. The wings are almost perfect for one of my airframes. I see you still got some nose drop at low speeds too. BTW, I tried to swipe your carnards, but they just drop and do nothing unless I give them a angle and speed (then they work). What am I missing?
@LiamW -That's hard to do within the the zero drag constraint. Although it's not high speed that is a problem so much as low speed. When flying at high speed I'm either maneuvering or at high altitude, both of which minimize the problem.
But...
I think I can combine DerekSP's and F104Deathtraps ideas and downscale 'em to fit. I'm going to try to add airbrakes at strategic locations (top/front, top/aft, bottom/front, bottom/aft) and have them activated by Trim. I can invert the activations for the "down trim" brakes and use activation groups to set the brakes for low speed or high. If I've got a clue, I could also use the brakes much like flaps to assist in take-offs and landings.
Some interesting ideas, thanks.
The two control surfaces seems the most applicable to my tiny aircraft (one design is smaller than most cars), especially since one design already has canards so it would be easy to implement without actually changing the design.
The problem isn't that applying trim (1/4/7) won't counteract the nose dropping or lifting, but that it applies too much. Rotators on the horizontal stabilizers might do it. I tried rotators on the main wing with some success.
Unfortunately a gyro isn't an option. What I haven't mentioned yet is that I got some fuselage shapes down to 0 Drag Points, so I'm limiting myself to options that won't increase drag. I tried nudging a gyroscope into the airframe but could not do so without eliminating the drag (best results were in the 110-135 drag range). But I will definitely consider it for some other builds on the same airframes.
It's better than my seaplanes, too.
You mean you didn't design it that way? You lucky @#$%. It's one of the best big seaplanes I've flown in SP. It sits perfectly in the water, just the right depth to be stable and for the props to work. The tail stabilizers make great rudders, and the ailerons work in the water as well. It turns on a dime. Landing and even take off are like being on a runway. Try it.
I bet it's make a good submarine if you added something to allow it to stay submerged.
Happy Birthday! Thanks for the present. Very nice airplane, but an even better boat.
Sorry to hear that. I played around with it a bit more, but whenever I start it in flight the "feathers" on the wings rip it apart.
Nice plane. How do you keep the tail from flipping over the prop on landing?
Look at your bird wings. You have two tiny bits of modded wings attached at the base on each wing that weight 360,000 pounds each. Your engine can't lift 720,000 pounds.
Thanks.
You mean I just submit it and it stays a secret until after the tournament?
How do I submit an unlisted plane?
Nah, I'm just working on a high speed, high altitude aircraft and had to figure out the best way to get up there. If I use a steeper climb, the plane bleeds off all it's speed, if a use a shallower climb, the plane burns off too much fuel getting there. The actual best rate of climb should vary from plane to plane, and should be lower for a prop plane.
+1Really. What you do is go into a 10 degree climb at max speed, and keep climbing until you reach an altitude of 65000-70000 feet. Ten degrees lets you continue to build up speed while climbing. When you (finally) get there, you'll be traveling at around 1000 mph with about half a tank of fuel. If you level out and fly straight for a couple more minutes, you'll hit 1100 mph with more that a third of a tank left. That's good enough for about 10 minutes of fling at that altitude.
+1It's a nice design, and capable of speeds well over 1000 mph. I've gotten one up to 1107 mph.
+2It's a gorgeous plane, and that rudder is surprisingly responsive.
Is this challenge still active?
This is the Dassault Coll 9 concept airship, right?
It's fun and handles well
Nice, it makes a good glider, too. I almost fell out of my chair when the engine kicked in.
It's gorgeous and handles well. Too tail heavy for the water though.
Fixing the launcher is easy, just increase the force of the detacher to around 70%. But you have a problem with your fighter, the weight (CoM) is too close to the Wings (CoL) so it will just flip end over end until it crashes.
BTW, using wheels as rollers in ingenious.
Thank you. It would be a boring game were it not for all the fun designs that people post.
+1It's pretty to look at and flies gracefully.
Stick with the idea, it has potential. I adjusted the buoyancy to 40% and it seems to make a decent boat, too.
I like this. It's very well balaced.
Wee!
+1I can tell you now that you don't need them. You can use them to turn, or to add ballast, or buoyancy or something, but none of that is needed. It's a nice boat.
+1