its thrust is modeled based on altitude and throttle (i think?), it has multiple animations and a lighting effect that changes based on a function of throttle, and it has a comparatively complex model so tbh I'd say probably accurate

@jamesPLANESii oh, I though the whole performance cost oh sorry didn't realise the arrow pointing at 60

@MrShenanigansSP The performance cost of this individual part is 60

Hmm, maybe because of that part count right there?

It's all based on experimental data. If I had to guess it could be that there's 24 individually moving nozzle flaps that aren't combined into the part group mesh like most parts are.

@jamesPLANESii I just checked and the T2000 only has 40 even though it's a customizable prop, my only guess is that the individual nozzle parts each have a certain performance cost and together with the afterburner and animated fan add up to that gigantic number you see here.

@jamesPLANESii Might be because of the afterburner and the moving parts, does the ww2 prop also have a high performance cost?

@DeveloperKorzalerke Nah not really. The only extra physics calculation engines have is "apply this much force in this direction". Also the other engine's performance costs are nearly 1/10 of this one's.

You mean the 60? I guess engines just have a lot of physics calculations.

@rexzion no idk what u talkin abouttttttt

j ames arent u supposed to leave

The most painful thing to see when you just want a low performance cost craft

yeah i was wandering too
might just be the moving bits though, there's a lot