Sorry about that. I’ve made it a habit whenever I’m done working for that day to post my build as an unlisted so that I can retrieve it and only lose a day’s work if I get the blue screen of death. It’s saved me a couple of times.
@PETG that's the second time you've mentioned "German Corsair"...I'm not following what you're trying to say, if it's for me, or for someone else. Care to explain?
This is actually very good for a newer builder, looks nice and flies not too badly. So, lots of good, but lots of things I would have done differently. I may tag you on an unlisted to discuss. Just to let it be known that I don’t blindly upvote and Spotlight without flying builds, it should be noted that my biggest complaint for this forum is the wing loading. The Voodoo had an insanely high wing loading of 124 lbs/sq ft on a thin (6-7%) symmetric airfoil...this causes a jet to fly fast, turn more slowly and land like a rocket (ask me how I know). Attempting to land a build with 14 lbs/sq ft, nearly 10 times less wing loading at realistic landing speeds 150-160 knots causes it to float like a Schweitzer 233 glider. The irony here is that you clearly care and worked hard on the flight model. As for the rest—well researched, stunning paint scheme, nice AIM-4s, nice shaping, particularly with the tough bits such as the transition between the engines, rear fuse and wings, good looking landing gear and good speed. And the intake work is great. The ejection seat, interesting, but frankly not really needed as the paint scheme alone makes this build beautiful enough on its own.
Here's a very simple formula to try, it limits the rotator's turn starting at 9 m/s (32 kph), so that the low speed handling is not decreased. It then decreases the steering to 40% at 22 m/s (79 kph), decreasing to 20% at 44 m/s (158 kph) and down to around 10% at 88 m/s (316 kph):
clamp01(Yaw * (1/(GS/9)))
Put that formula into the "input" field of the rotator that moves the steering wheel under the "InputController" dropdown menu using the Overload portion in the build screen. The total movement of that rotator will be dictated in the "range" field under the "JointRotator" dropdown menu. You can change "Yaw" to any input you're using for the steering wheel, whether it's yaw or roll. I would also use the same formula for the rotators which steer the steering wheels on your build. My only concern is that it will limit the steering too much at intermediate speeds (slower than 79 kph), but see how it works. If you would like to tag me on an unlisted build, we can tweak the formula.
I have a formula that disables rotators above a certain speed, but understand you need something that decreases the input as speed increases? Do you know how to change the input using the Overload embedded into the basic SP program?
I’m not sure I understand the question. Are you asking how to make a steering wheel be less effective with an increase of speed or for the actual wheel that’s driving the build to move less quickly as speed increases?
@BagelPlane no, I don’t care about the credit, really, I just know my segmented stars and bars insignia is more accurate than the one you built. Suggest you just use the one from my insignia pack or copy the proportions and star placement to make yours look better.
I have to agree with @asteroidbook345 ...clearly this is a joke forum post, but I’m sure the creator didn’t intend on his build being the butt of some stupid joke and may not even be back given the callous disregard with which he’s being treated. If you have a problem with what @Fairfirefight posted, suggest you confront directly and avoid bringing in some bystander who’s now just in the crossfire.
Has a couple of issues, but nothing terrible. But also has a built up, realistic wing, good, realistic performance and it looks pretty good as well. Deserves way more than a single upvote, nice!
What you’re mixing it up with is the build screen that will show the CoL moving aft when you increase the tail area. SP doesn’t really show the CoL correctly for conventional (tail aft) aircraft, it should only shows the main wing lift as the tail can be used in either capacity, nose up or nose down. But it doesn’t, it includes all the wing area, main wing and horizontal stab included, probably because there’s no way to designate a “main wing” vs. “horizontal tail”.
@CremosoMaster nope. By angling the leading edge down, the net lift will the down at the tail, which lifts the nose more and more with increasing speed. It’s exactly the same way it works when making a nose up pitch movement.
Well, I’m fairly certain all you have to do is nick a SAM with a single round, not cause a significant amount of damage which would require an explosive cannon shell. And using a cannon would be impossible as the physics model requires an individual round to physically make contact with the actual frame of a missile part to do anything. Normal gun rounds compute their hits differently and actually hit flying objects far, far, far more often than cannon rounds. Cannon rounds create damage much as a bomb does, by hitting the ground, exploding and creating damage in a surrounding area...if the round never hits (and they hardly ever hit flying objects), it never explodes and it never causes any damage. Try it...put cannons on a build and use them to shoot down a flying object. You won’t. Normal “Minigun” or “wing guns” are your best bet for a CIWS build.
Not bad...very fun, not crazily unrealistic, by any means. Cockpit view is great and armament is fun to use. Something that may help increase the fun factor next time is to add “damperMultiplier=5000” (use at least 5000, or increase to 10000 or 15000, as required) in the JointRotator field, which will help prevent the “bobbing” upon releasing back stick input.
Not gonna lie...I like this build. Impressively simple, yet fun and not ridiculously inaccurate by any means. It turns a bit fast and you could kill that swerving on takeoff by lowering the sideways traction on the nosewheels to .5 (that’s what I had to do to take off!), but I like it. Fun to attack the convoy with.
I really like the F-5, and appreciate your build, if you would like, I can test fly your next build and perhaps make some suggestions if you would like.
Move the CG forward so that it doesn’t sit on the tail to start; that would also help with the pitch stability, which is lacking after takeoff. I recommend having 1,000-2,000 drag points so that it can have accurate acceleration and performance without being overpowered. There’s only 219 parts, so using “calculateDrag=false” on all the details and scaling the drag on the main fuselage and wings will take some work, but not be impossible. Also, if done correctly, it should decelerate significantly in hard turns. For a 5 G 180 degree turn starting at 420 KIAS, it should lose at least 50 knots in a level turn. Also, it currently weighs as much as an F-4, the RL F-5 is a lightweight fighter, it weighs around 15,000-20,000 lbs IRL, it should weigh as much as it does, have the same wing area and about the same wing loading to give it accurate performance. If moving the CG farther forward reduces the turn rate too much, increase the area of the horizontal stab slightly to give it accurate turn. Also, the roll rate is pathetically slow, the RL jet can approach 720 degrees per second in roll, this one takes several seconds to do 360 degrees. The roll rate isn’t an inconsequential thing, the F-5 is known for having a great roll rate.
So, the code on your secondary parachutes is: ‘Activate2 * floor(smooth(clamp01(Activate2), Activate2 ? 1 / 7 : pow(10,10) ))’. I sort of understand the concept: AG2, when activates is “1” or “activate”. That value is multiplied by 1 or 0 by the second part of the equation, that value being controlled by the “smooth” function, which takes it’s time delay from the “1/7” value. Up to that point, it’s very similar to the LG and door code I use when I want a delay on parts of the landing gear. However: What’s the “?” value for and why use “pow”?
This is a nice surprise, flies well, fairly realistic in performance and turn capability (though it could be faster), it tracks straight, landing gear and doors are properly sequenced and takeoff and landing is not ridiculously difficult. Also, lo and behold: Sufficient trim authority—barely—but it’s enough and works throughout the flight envelope! Nice work. I have to agree, though, using the sectioned Hinomaru on the wings would have added an extra 15 parts per insignia, but would have matched the wings’ curvature nicely. With only 555 parts, you could have easily gotten away with the additional part count. Apparently, towards the end of the war, P-51 pilots used to scope watch for enemy aircraft and then scramble to get a kill. “Forget it, it’s a Frank” was apparently a common refrain as the Ki-84 was fairly faster than other Japanese types and even the Mustangs had trouble catching them. The Frank was an exemplary fighter, it’s a good thing for many an Allied pilot that Japan didn’t have more of them earlier in the war.
Arbitrary, completely arbitrary. Do you realize that since there’s no actual air in SP, just calculations which simulate the effects of a body or wing moving through air, that drag is produced by parts which are submerged into other parts or out of direct airflow behind other parts?
Flies nice and steady and slow, and would be totally mauled by any half-skilled Zero pilot out there. I like it...it’s emblematic of the U.S.’s early war effort before we got out crap together and I am sure there’s probably not a single surviving Buffalo pilot out there who has fond memories of this one.
@edensk The float type carburetors (such as the one which equipped early Spitfires) cut out when pulling negative Gs...which you can do regardless of bank angle. Bank angle has nothing to do with negative G and everything to do with whether or not you push forward on the stick. If you’re on PC, you can open the Dev console by hitting “ ‘ “ key, then type in “DebugExpression VerticalG”. You’ll see the real time G loading displayed in the upper left corner of the screen. I can easily pull a loop while maintaining 4 Gs, very much like you would fly if you were actually in a Spit and the engine would never, ever sputter. However, if I’m flying along straight and wings level at 1 G, then push forward to 0 G, yup, the engine would sputter. Try the following FT formula “input = Throttle * clamp01(ceil(VerticalG)”. When the G reaches zero, the value returned will be zero, i.e., no thrust.
@brians1209 well, think of it in the inverse of how I explained it to you: a fuse section, when hollow or empty, will weigh roughly the same whether it’s open (see through) or capped on the ends. When you add dead weight (components or systems) or fuel, that section will weigh more, but it will no longer be see through. If you build as I like to, with an adherence to the RL aircraft weights and fuel amounts, using the stock parts and their stock weights, the builds turn out to be fairly close to the RL weights. Details throw off the numbers, but only a little. Hollow—or empty—fuselage sections weigh almost exactly what they should weigh if constructed conventionally in real life. I would not be in favor of modifying any of the fuselage weights because they just work, whether I’d left hollow or filled with fuel or ballast (though I’d tweak the fuel volume, which I’m convinced is just slightly off).
No, not really. The reason why the Devs created the hollow fuse was to allow players to “see through” continuous sections of fuselages, this making it easier to get a nice view of an entire cabin or the compressor face down a long intake. The original fuse didn’t have this capability, but was modeled after RL fuselages, which are hollow and the weight of the legacy fuselage is about the same as a RL hollow fuselage section would be. Lightening the new hollow fuse would make it too light to be realistic. Besides, if you want to lighten any part, you can always just edit it’s mass scale using the Overload feature now incorporated into the basic game.
This is actually pretty good. I’d get into a longer, more detailed evaluation, but don’t have a huge amount of time right now and there’s not a lot to say bad on the build.
@ChiChiWerx it is, wow, you really worked on this one and I'm amazed at your build rate. My builds are a little more than half as many parts and it takes me months, not weeks to put them together!
Pretty good, simple enough to be fun, complex enough to be interesting. The biggest thing I’d change is the trim effectiveness...slower than about 230 knots/265 mph/427 kph with the flaps up and there’s not enough trim to keep the nose up. But if you lower the flaps, the nose balloons way up and you can’t even get the nose back down level until below about 180 knots/207 mph/333 kph. Very awkward. I don’t know why this keeps being a thing with otherwise great SP builds. Other than that, this is really good and fun.
Sorry about that. I’ve made it a habit whenever I’m done working for that day to post my build as an unlisted so that I can retrieve it and only lose a day’s work if I get the blue screen of death. It’s saved me a couple of times.
+2@PETG that's the second time you've mentioned "German Corsair"...I'm not following what you're trying to say, if it's for me, or for someone else. Care to explain?
This is actually very good for a newer builder, looks nice and flies not too badly. So, lots of good, but lots of things I would have done differently. I may tag you on an unlisted to discuss. Just to let it be known that I don’t blindly upvote and Spotlight without flying builds, it should be noted that my biggest complaint for this forum is the wing loading. The Voodoo had an insanely high wing loading of 124 lbs/sq ft on a thin (6-7%) symmetric airfoil...this causes a jet to fly fast, turn more slowly and land like a rocket (ask me how I know). Attempting to land a build with 14 lbs/sq ft, nearly 10 times less wing loading at realistic landing speeds 150-160 knots causes it to float like a Schweitzer 233 glider. The irony here is that you clearly care and worked hard on the flight model. As for the rest—well researched, stunning paint scheme, nice AIM-4s, nice shaping, particularly with the tough bits such as the transition between the engines, rear fuse and wings, good looking landing gear and good speed. And the intake work is great. The ejection seat, interesting, but frankly not really needed as the paint scheme alone makes this build beautiful enough on its own.
+5Here's a very simple formula to try, it limits the rotator's turn starting at 9 m/s (32 kph), so that the low speed handling is not decreased. It then decreases the steering to 40% at 22 m/s (79 kph), decreasing to 20% at 44 m/s (158 kph) and down to around 10% at 88 m/s (316 kph):
clamp01(Yaw * (1/(GS/9)))Put that formula into the "input" field of the rotator that moves the steering wheel under the "InputController" dropdown menu using the Overload portion in the build screen. The total movement of that rotator will be dictated in the "range" field under the "JointRotator" dropdown menu. You can change "Yaw" to any input you're using for the steering wheel, whether it's yaw or roll. I would also use the same formula for the rotators which steer the steering wheels on your build. My only concern is that it will limit the steering too much at intermediate speeds (slower than 79 kph), but see how it works. If you would like to tag me on an unlisted build, we can tweak the formula.
I have a formula that disables rotators above a certain speed, but understand you need something that decreases the input as speed increases? Do you know how to change the input using the Overload embedded into the basic SP program?
I’m not sure I understand the question. Are you asking how to make a steering wheel be less effective with an increase of speed or for the actual wheel that’s driving the build to move less quickly as speed increases?
@edensk close.
So @edensk thinks this is a MiG-21, what do you think this is @MrSilverWolf ?
Coming soon...
Otherwise your Voodoo looks like it’s coming along well.
@BagelPlane my segmented insignia have segmented stars as well.
@BagelPlane no, I don’t care about the credit, really, I just know my segmented stars and bars insignia is more accurate than the one you built. Suggest you just use the one from my insignia pack or copy the proportions and star placement to make yours look better.
Just use mine.
Teeny, tiny replica build.
I have to agree with @asteroidbook345 ...clearly this is a joke forum post, but I’m sure the creator didn’t intend on his build being the butt of some stupid joke and may not even be back given the callous disregard with which he’s being treated. If you have a problem with what @Fairfirefight posted, suggest you confront directly and avoid bringing in some bystander who’s now just in the crossfire.
+2Nah.
14,000 lbs? The real thing has an empty weight a little over 30,000 lbs and a more than 81,000 lb max takeoff weight.
+1Has a couple of issues, but nothing terrible. But also has a built up, realistic wing, good, realistic performance and it looks pretty good as well. Deserves way more than a single upvote, nice!
Fairly fun, to the point I ran it out of fuel while bombing. I managed to make a quick turn direct to the runway and make it!
What you’re mixing it up with is the build screen that will show the CoL moving aft when you increase the tail area. SP doesn’t really show the CoL correctly for conventional (tail aft) aircraft, it should only shows the main wing lift as the tail can be used in either capacity, nose up or nose down. But it doesn’t, it includes all the wing area, main wing and horizontal stab included, probably because there’s no way to designate a “main wing” vs. “horizontal tail”.
+1@CremosoMaster nope. By angling the leading edge down, the net lift will the down at the tail, which lifts the nose more and more with increasing speed. It’s exactly the same way it works when making a nose up pitch movement.
@CremosoMaster yes, another way of saying that, or angle the stabs with the leading edge slightly down a degree or two.
+1You can also reduce the area of your main wing. There are lots of ways of doing so.
Many ways: More tail (horizontal Stan) area, reduce the distance between CoL and CoM, you can cant your horizontal stabs slightly, a couple degrees.
@BroAeronautics that might work, actually.
+1Well, I’m fairly certain all you have to do is nick a SAM with a single round, not cause a significant amount of damage which would require an explosive cannon shell. And using a cannon would be impossible as the physics model requires an individual round to physically make contact with the actual frame of a missile part to do anything. Normal gun rounds compute their hits differently and actually hit flying objects far, far, far more often than cannon rounds. Cannon rounds create damage much as a bomb does, by hitting the ground, exploding and creating damage in a surrounding area...if the round never hits (and they hardly ever hit flying objects), it never explodes and it never causes any damage. Try it...put cannons on a build and use them to shoot down a flying object. You won’t. Normal “Minigun” or “wing guns” are your best bet for a CIWS build.
+1Good luck with those sloping fuse sides, that’s a tough one.
Not bad...very fun, not crazily unrealistic, by any means. Cockpit view is great and armament is fun to use. Something that may help increase the fun factor next time is to add “damperMultiplier=5000” (use at least 5000, or increase to 10000 or 15000, as required) in the JointRotator field, which will help prevent the “bobbing” upon releasing back stick input.
This is fantastically well done, just like the dozens of Airfix kits I assembled IRL!
@jamesPLANESii 👍
+1Not gonna lie...I like this build. Impressively simple, yet fun and not ridiculously inaccurate by any means. It turns a bit fast and you could kill that swerving on takeoff by lowering the sideways traction on the nosewheels to .5 (that’s what I had to do to take off!), but I like it. Fun to attack the convoy with.
What happened to Randomusername?
+1Interesting build, fairly realistic, though it really should have flaps. I like this design as well, all blunt and pugnacious.
+1I really like the F-5, and appreciate your build, if you would like, I can test fly your next build and perhaps make some suggestions if you would like.
@An2k you’re trying to do a hammerhead stall in SP? The problem is with SP, not you, rudder dynamics aren’t that accurate. Which build are you using?
+1Move the CG forward so that it doesn’t sit on the tail to start; that would also help with the pitch stability, which is lacking after takeoff. I recommend having 1,000-2,000 drag points so that it can have accurate acceleration and performance without being overpowered. There’s only 219 parts, so using “calculateDrag=false” on all the details and scaling the drag on the main fuselage and wings will take some work, but not be impossible. Also, if done correctly, it should decelerate significantly in hard turns. For a 5 G 180 degree turn starting at 420 KIAS, it should lose at least 50 knots in a level turn. Also, it currently weighs as much as an F-4, the RL F-5 is a lightweight fighter, it weighs around 15,000-20,000 lbs IRL, it should weigh as much as it does, have the same wing area and about the same wing loading to give it accurate performance. If moving the CG farther forward reduces the turn rate too much, increase the area of the horizontal stab slightly to give it accurate turn. Also, the roll rate is pathetically slow, the RL jet can approach 720 degrees per second in roll, this one takes several seconds to do 360 degrees. The roll rate isn’t an inconsequential thing, the F-5 is known for having a great roll rate.
So, the code on your secondary parachutes is: ‘Activate2 * floor(smooth(clamp01(Activate2), Activate2 ? 1 / 7 : pow(10,10) ))’. I sort of understand the concept: AG2, when activates is “1” or “activate”. That value is multiplied by 1 or 0 by the second part of the equation, that value being controlled by the “smooth” function, which takes it’s time delay from the “1/7” value. Up to that point, it’s very similar to the LG and door code I use when I want a delay on parts of the landing gear. However: What’s the “?” value for and why use “pow”?
What does “MA” stand for?
This is a nice surprise, flies well, fairly realistic in performance and turn capability (though it could be faster), it tracks straight, landing gear and doors are properly sequenced and takeoff and landing is not ridiculously difficult. Also, lo and behold: Sufficient trim authority—barely—but it’s enough and works throughout the flight envelope! Nice work. I have to agree, though, using the sectioned Hinomaru on the wings would have added an extra 15 parts per insignia, but would have matched the wings’ curvature nicely. With only 555 parts, you could have easily gotten away with the additional part count. Apparently, towards the end of the war, P-51 pilots used to scope watch for enemy aircraft and then scramble to get a kill. “Forget it, it’s a Frank” was apparently a common refrain as the Ki-84 was fairly faster than other Japanese types and even the Mustangs had trouble catching them. The Frank was an exemplary fighter, it’s a good thing for many an Allied pilot that Japan didn’t have more of them earlier in the war.
These look amazing @FairFireFight I’m going to test these out as soon as I get home.
Arbitrary, completely arbitrary. Do you realize that since there’s no actual air in SP, just calculations which simulate the effects of a body or wing moving through air, that drag is produced by parts which are submerged into other parts or out of direct airflow behind other parts?
+1Flies nice and steady and slow, and would be totally mauled by any half-skilled Zero pilot out there. I like it...it’s emblematic of the U.S.’s early war effort before we got out crap together and I am sure there’s probably not a single surviving Buffalo pilot out there who has fond memories of this one.
@edensk The float type carburetors (such as the one which equipped early Spitfires) cut out when pulling negative Gs...which you can do regardless of bank angle. Bank angle has nothing to do with negative G and everything to do with whether or not you push forward on the stick. If you’re on PC, you can open the Dev console by hitting “ ‘ “ key, then type in “DebugExpression VerticalG”. You’ll see the real time G loading displayed in the upper left corner of the screen. I can easily pull a loop while maintaining 4 Gs, very much like you would fly if you were actually in a Spit and the engine would never, ever sputter. However, if I’m flying along straight and wings level at 1 G, then push forward to 0 G, yup, the engine would sputter. Try the following FT formula “input = Throttle * clamp01(ceil(VerticalG)”. When the G reaches zero, the value returned will be zero, i.e., no thrust.
@brians1209 well, think of it in the inverse of how I explained it to you: a fuse section, when hollow or empty, will weigh roughly the same whether it’s open (see through) or capped on the ends. When you add dead weight (components or systems) or fuel, that section will weigh more, but it will no longer be see through. If you build as I like to, with an adherence to the RL aircraft weights and fuel amounts, using the stock parts and their stock weights, the builds turn out to be fairly close to the RL weights. Details throw off the numbers, but only a little. Hollow—or empty—fuselage sections weigh almost exactly what they should weigh if constructed conventionally in real life. I would not be in favor of modifying any of the fuselage weights because they just work, whether I’d left hollow or filled with fuel or ballast (though I’d tweak the fuel volume, which I’m convinced is just slightly off).
+2No, not really. The reason why the Devs created the hollow fuse was to allow players to “see through” continuous sections of fuselages, this making it easier to get a nice view of an entire cabin or the compressor face down a long intake. The original fuse didn’t have this capability, but was modeled after RL fuselages, which are hollow and the weight of the legacy fuselage is about the same as a RL hollow fuselage section would be. Lightening the new hollow fuse would make it too light to be realistic. Besides, if you want to lighten any part, you can always just edit it’s mass scale using the Overload feature now incorporated into the basic game.
Huh! Simple(ish) Eagle...not bad. I volunteer to test fly any of your upcoming builds, tag me the next time on an unlisted build.
+2This is actually pretty good. I’d get into a longer, more detailed evaluation, but don’t have a huge amount of time right now and there’s not a lot to say bad on the build.
@ChiChiWerx it is, wow, you really worked on this one and I'm amazed at your build rate. My builds are a little more than half as many parts and it takes me months, not weeks to put them together!
Geez, at 1,400 plus parts, I’m afraid to try and fly it.
Pretty good, simple enough to be fun, complex enough to be interesting. The biggest thing I’d change is the trim effectiveness...slower than about 230 knots/265 mph/427 kph with the flaps up and there’s not enough trim to keep the nose up. But if you lower the flaps, the nose balloons way up and you can’t even get the nose back down level until below about 180 knots/207 mph/333 kph. Very awkward. I don’t know why this keeps being a thing with otherwise great SP builds. Other than that, this is really good and fun.
+1