@Zal777
Limiting the Gs of an aircraft is quite common in SimplePlanes, in order to achieve realistic performance.
.
You are a relatively new player, so I understand, but many people put great effort to limit the Gs of their aircraft with funky tree codes or other many methods.
.
But of course, it is a preference whether you want a realistic performance or not.
.
Some may enjoy having realistic flight models, some may prefer to not. Totally understandable, have a great day.
@Zal777
Your plane that you sent me exceeds 20Gs of pull in a barrel roll.
I don't think that is realistic.
.
Also, it seems that you are here to judge my build and advertise your own stuff. Please don't.
@Zal777
.
Arcade styled flight simulators represent flight characteristics in a comfortable and simple way. I would say this is more of the 'correct' representation.
.
But sure, you might not like it.
.
But I hope you understood that this is a fully intentional feature that I put in with quite some effort.
@Zal777
I think you have a misunderstanding of how flight characteristics of such aircrafts in real life perform.
Also, this build reaches around 1,400~1,500km/h at sea level, matching the specifications of the MiG-29.
.
I also have to thank edensk for the flight model, he is considered one of the best realistic flight model builders in SP, has great knowledge in funky trees.
He has put great effort into the flight model.
About the instabilities:
.
Let me explain again. Similar complaints have been received before. Also, the SAAB J-35 Draken does not have flaps, just as most other double delta/delta wing aircrafts.
.
The J-35D Draken is unstable by its very nature.
.
The CoM of the Draken is shifted to the rear of the aircraft (not to exclude most of the body being a massive LERX), making it unstable, and prone to unrecoverable flat spins (Some Drakens were equipped with chutes to deploy at air when caught in a flat spin)
The cobra maneuver of the Draken wasn't on purpose, it was rather considered as a flaw. But with these intentional instabilities and 'flaws' the Draken came with excellent maneuverability.
.
The Draken in reality is even more unstable, much easier to stall and fall into a flatspin. Most modern fighters are intentionally built to be unstable (relaxed instability), but controlled by a flight computer to be stable in flight. The Draken does not have such technology. (At least the Draken's CoL is behind the CoM, the F-16 for example has the CoM behind the CoL).
.
To put it another way, Draken pilots had to 'trim' the aircraft to do the same maneuvers in which other aircraft required the whole flight stick to be involved.
.
TL;DR I would go as far to say that my Draken isn't unstable enough, and I wouldn't try controlling this with a keyboard.
.
Even aircrafts that are more stable than the Draken in real life does not control like you would imagine in real life.
.
It took some effort to make it purposefully unstable whilst flyable in SP.
I hope you understood.
The fuel consumption is based on the Volvo RM6C / RollsRoyce Avon 300 series, which burns about ~30Ls of fuel per minute.
It will decrease by ~3% together with the amount of thrust every 1000 meters.
And yes I was lazy about the landing gears lol (I didn't even add anything in the landing gear bay too, not to mention missing details in the cockpit), and as I mentioned, please consider it a WiP build.
As a double delta wing aircraft, landing should be done at very low speeds, and the overall landing experience is bollocks as it was in real life, actually, a bit more shittier since I was also lazy with balancing the landing gear shocks. Best solution would be to release the drogue shoot as soon as possible. Sorry about that, too much laziness.
It is supposed to be that way, the CoM of the Draken is shifted to the rear of the aircraft (not to exclude most of the body being a massive LERX), making it unstable, and prone to unrecoverable flat spins (Some Drakens were equipped with chutes to deploy at air when caught in a flat spin)
The cobra maneuver of the Draken wasn't on purpose, it was rather considered as a flaw. But with these intentional instabilities and 'flaws' the Draken came with excellent maneuverability.
.
The Draken in reality is even more unstable, much easier to stall and fall into a flatspin. Most modern fighters are intentionally built to be unstable (relaxed instability), but controlled by a flight computer to be stable in flight. The Draken does not have such technology. (At least the Draken's CoL is behind the CoM, the F-16 for example has the CoM behind the CoL).
.
To put it another way, Draken pilots had to 'trim' the aircraft to do the same maneuvers in which other aircraft required the whole flight stick to be involved.
.
TL;DR I would go as far to say that my Draken isn't unstable enough, and I wouldn't try controlling this with a keyboard.
@teddyone02 I accidentally uploaded it in public instead of unlisted, I immediately deleted (took me like 2 minutes) it in panic lol, and hey, thanks for remembering me. I returned back to building very recently!
@LieutenantSOT
@ZeroWithSlashedO
The closest thing you can get in SP is SelectedTarget.
Not exactly a missile lock, but you can make stuff work when you select a target.
@Formula350
If you have read the previous comments, MAHADI did not expect these type of aircrafts,
therefore he did not mention it in the rules.
We did not add wings on purpose, the concept of the aircraft we were basing it off was 'wingless', that's the concept.
If we were so desperate about the challenge, we would have done it already by ourselves.
@MAHADI
Yeah, I have agreed with the fact that you disqualified me.
But haven't you thought about the confusion you would bring with your vague 'rules'?
And if Pointless and I were the 'first' to be confused and disqualified with your rule, are you going to ignore it because you think that nobody will, and ever had been confused with your rules?
How could have we known that our build was not realistic enough by your standards in your head when you never mentioned it in the description?
Seems like the rule changes every second.
@MAHADI
what you have said from all the comments
'I would have' / 'I don't think this looks like'
you don't have specific standard. how are players supposed to build aircrafts that fulfill your 'rules' in your head?
@MAHADI now that I'm disqualified, I just want to ask stuff about what you think, I mean, if you allowed fictional builds, doesn't it mean we have a 'alternate timeline'?
Fictional builds will never come alive.
Anything can happen inside that alternate timeline, I don't really understand why this is such a big deal.
@MAHADI
Stipa-Carponi, for it has wings, it does not mean the fusealge does not produce lift. You're saying as if a monoplane and a biplane works differently. Its a matter of choice to implement a technology if it is possible. In the Stipa-Carponi, they used both lift produced from a conventional wing and from the fusealge.
We have sent the pic of the duck to tell you that you have not told the standards of what a WWI aircraft for your challenge should look like.
@MAHADI
What is your standard of 'Oh it looks like a WWI aircraft'?
You have not mentioned any of those in your challenge description.
Also, speaking of '14' years after WWI, try thinking differently, it flew '40'years before the Dornier Aerodyne, what you call as 'Modern Technology' worked quite well.
@MAHADI
Would you please read my comments again?
To conclude them,
First, physics does not depend on time. Physics in 1910's worked the same as in 1972.
Second, this is no modern technology, a similar aircraft was built in 1932, the Stipa-Caproni.
The Dornier Aerodyne does not have high, modern performances like the 'F-16' you mentioned.
Third, the components are from WWI, the RollsRoyce Areo Eagle/Falcon (Both are very similar engines).
Floats are also based on a aircraft around the 1910's.
Same with the armament, it has two Vickers Machine Gun, standard RFC armament at the time.
@OPwindu @MAHADI
If you have read the description, this build is based on an actual aircraft, no need to question how it works, no alien technology envolved.
@QuiteInactiveWhiteBread
Yup, especially the wing designs. They're so tiny and I loved them.
@Zal777
Limiting the Gs of an aircraft is quite common in SimplePlanes, in order to achieve realistic performance.
.
You are a relatively new player, so I understand, but many people put great effort to limit the Gs of their aircraft with funky tree codes or other many methods.
.
But of course, it is a preference whether you want a realistic performance or not.
.
Some may enjoy having realistic flight models, some may prefer to not. Totally understandable, have a great day.
@Zal777
Your plane that you sent me exceeds 20Gs of pull in a barrel roll.
I don't think that is realistic.
.
Also, it seems that you are here to judge my build and advertise your own stuff. Please don't.
@Zal777
.
Arcade styled flight simulators represent flight characteristics in a comfortable and simple way. I would say this is more of the 'correct' representation.
.
But sure, you might not like it.
.
But I hope you understood that this is a fully intentional feature that I put in with quite some effort.
@Zal777
I think you have a misunderstanding of how flight characteristics of such aircrafts in real life perform.
Also, this build reaches around 1,400~1,500km/h at sea level, matching the specifications of the MiG-29.
.
I also have to thank edensk for the flight model, he is considered one of the best realistic flight model builders in SP, has great knowledge in funky trees.
He has put great effort into the flight model.
@Zal777
It seems you have a misunderstanding of the unstable nature of the Draken.
.
Please read the pinned comment, and also, it does have trim.
@Zal777
About the instabilities:
.
Let me explain again. Similar complaints have been received before. Also, the SAAB J-35 Draken does not have flaps, just as most other double delta/delta wing aircrafts.
.
The J-35D Draken is unstable by its very nature.
.
The CoM of the Draken is shifted to the rear of the aircraft (not to exclude most of the body being a massive LERX), making it unstable, and prone to unrecoverable flat spins (Some Drakens were equipped with chutes to deploy at air when caught in a flat spin)
The cobra maneuver of the Draken wasn't on purpose, it was rather considered as a flaw. But with these intentional instabilities and 'flaws' the Draken came with excellent maneuverability.
.
The Draken in reality is even more unstable, much easier to stall and fall into a flatspin. Most modern fighters are intentionally built to be unstable (relaxed instability), but controlled by a flight computer to be stable in flight. The Draken does not have such technology. (At least the Draken's CoL is behind the CoM, the F-16 for example has the CoM behind the CoL).
.
To put it another way, Draken pilots had to 'trim' the aircraft to do the same maneuvers in which other aircraft required the whole flight stick to be involved.
.
TL;DR I would go as far to say that my Draken isn't unstable enough, and I wouldn't try controlling this with a keyboard.
.
Even aircrafts that are more stable than the Draken in real life does not control like you would imagine in real life.
.
It took some effort to make it purposefully unstable whilst flyable in SP.
I hope you understood.
@BagelPlane
The fuel consumption is based on the Volvo RM6C / RollsRoyce Avon 300 series, which burns about ~30Ls of fuel per minute.
It will decrease by ~3% together with the amount of thrust every 1000 meters.
And yes I was lazy about the landing gears lol (I didn't even add anything in the landing gear bay too, not to mention missing details in the cockpit), and as I mentioned, please consider it a WiP build.
As a double delta wing aircraft, landing should be done at very low speeds, and the overall landing experience is bollocks as it was in real life, actually, a bit more shittier since I was also lazy with balancing the landing gear shocks. Best solution would be to release the drogue shoot as soon as possible. Sorry about that, too much laziness.
Thanks for the detailed review!
@Baoligao
It is supposed to be that way, the CoM of the Draken is shifted to the rear of the aircraft (not to exclude most of the body being a massive LERX), making it unstable, and prone to unrecoverable flat spins (Some Drakens were equipped with chutes to deploy at air when caught in a flat spin)
The cobra maneuver of the Draken wasn't on purpose, it was rather considered as a flaw. But with these intentional instabilities and 'flaws' the Draken came with excellent maneuverability.
.
The Draken in reality is even more unstable, much easier to stall and fall into a flatspin. Most modern fighters are intentionally built to be unstable (relaxed instability), but controlled by a flight computer to be stable in flight. The Draken does not have such technology. (At least the Draken's CoL is behind the CoM, the F-16 for example has the CoM behind the CoL).
.
To put it another way, Draken pilots had to 'trim' the aircraft to do the same maneuvers in which other aircraft required the whole flight stick to be involved.
.
TL;DR I would go as far to say that my Draken isn't unstable enough, and I wouldn't try controlling this with a keyboard.
@SourDoughBread
Thanks, I've actually thought of abandoning this build many times. Glad I finished it to hear you enjoy it.
@Mousewithamachinegun123
Thanks!
@thatsjustmidofficial Roll is inverted? Which version did you download?
@HOPKINS234 I'll take that as a compliment thanks lol
@Trainzo Thanks. There's definitely more to add though. Consider it as a WiP never to be finished lol
Requested Tags:
@ToeTips
@DatTrainGuy19
@Randomplayer
Requested Tags:
@Pan
@HanakoSan
@RepublicOfCursedPlanes
@ToeTips
@DatTrainGuy19
@Randomplayer
@Pan
@HanakoSan
@RepublicOfCursedPlanes
@florky Around 1200?
@florky I'll just let you test, I'll tag you in a unlisted build someday
@teddyone02 I accidentally uploaded it in public instead of unlisted, I immediately deleted (took me like 2 minutes) it in panic lol, and hey, thanks for remembering me. I returned back to building very recently!
Blue
@Kiangoat
Forgot about this build for 9 months.
I'm back, working on it.
Same thing for me, I used to have them not very much before the update, but now it's very frequent in 1.11.
@MisterT
Yes
@ReturnOfJeffChandler
Why not
@ReturnOfJeffChandler
well then, can I ask both?
@ReturnOfJeffChandler
Why did you leave
@ReturnOfJeffChandler
I mean, are you Jeff?
Jeff?
@LieutenantSOT
@ZeroWithSlashedO
The closest thing you can get in SP is
SelectedTarget.Not exactly a missile lock, but you can make stuff work when you select a target.
@Formula350
If you have read the previous comments, MAHADI did not expect these type of aircrafts,
therefore he did not mention it in the rules.
We did not add wings on purpose, the concept of the aircraft we were basing it off was 'wingless', that's the concept.
If we were so desperate about the challenge, we would have done it already by ourselves.
@rexzion lol, new laptop, soon.
@rexzion oh nice, but what I've been talking about here is still quite ridiculous.
@rexzion yeah I've realised how stupid this was
@MAHADI
Yeah, I have agreed with the fact that you disqualified me.
But haven't you thought about the confusion you would bring with your vague 'rules'?
And if Pointless and I were the 'first' to be confused and disqualified with your rule, are you going to ignore it because you think that nobody will, and ever had been confused with your rules?
@MAHADI
your 'rule'
How could have we known that our build was not realistic enough by your standards in your head when you never mentioned it in the description?
Seems like the rule changes every second.
@MAHADI
what you have said from all the comments
'I would have' / 'I don't think this looks like'
you don't have specific standard. how are players supposed to build aircrafts that fulfill your 'rules' in your head?
@MAHADI now that I'm disqualified, I just want to ask stuff about what you think, I mean, if you allowed fictional builds, doesn't it mean we have a 'alternate timeline'?
Fictional builds will never come alive.
Anything can happen inside that alternate timeline, I don't really understand why this is such a big deal.
@Vincent Could you please remove this post from the challenge please? Sorry to ask this twice.
@MAHADI Speaking of wings, the elevator, and the vertical stabilizer are also 'wings'.
Just telling, they do produce lift!!!11!!!!!1
@MAHADI
Stipa-Carponi, for it has wings, it does not mean the fusealge does not produce lift. You're saying as if a monoplane and a biplane works differently. Its a matter of choice to implement a technology if it is possible. In the Stipa-Carponi, they used both lift produced from a conventional wing and from the fusealge.
We have sent the pic of the duck to tell you that you have not told the standards of what a WWI aircraft for your challenge should look like.
@MAHADI
What is your standard of 'Oh it looks like a WWI aircraft'?
You have not mentioned any of those in your challenge description.
Also, speaking of '14' years after WWI, try thinking differently, it flew '40'years before the Dornier Aerodyne, what you call as 'Modern Technology' worked quite well.
@MAHADI
Would you please read my comments again?
To conclude them,
First, physics does not depend on time. Physics in 1910's worked the same as in 1972.
Second, this is no modern technology, a similar aircraft was built in 1932, the Stipa-Caproni.
The Dornier Aerodyne does not have high, modern performances like the 'F-16' you mentioned.
Third, the components are from WWI, the RollsRoyce Areo Eagle/Falcon (Both are very similar engines).
Floats are also based on a aircraft around the 1910's.
Same with the armament, it has two Vickers Machine Gun, standard RFC armament at the time.
@MAHADI For example, the Stipa-Caproni works similarly, and it was designed in 1932.
Time doesn't really matter here.
@MAHADI that doesn't mean physics worked different back in 1910's.
@OPwindu @MAHADI
If you have read the description, this build is based on an actual aircraft, no need to question how it works, no alien technology envolved.
Fixed version here
Requested Tags:
@LieutenantSOT
@V
@BeastHunter
@Vincent Could I please have this build a successor to this challenge please?