@CharlesDeGaulle I'm not sure you can compare Rafale's 1-meter cross-section to the f-35s .005-meter RCS. Yes, it's not invisible but you would need a very powerful ground radar to actually get a detect and even if you do you still won't be able to get a track until the F-35 is in visual range and by that point, he has already fired 6 AMRAAMS at you. Yes, Rafael clearly wins in a dogfight but head to head at BVR the F-35 is going to win.
The helicopter carriers are much more adaptable than a supercarrier and you can get more for your money on the helicopter carriers than with supercarriers. That's why the US is trying to transition to an overwhelming number of small carriers which are lighter, faster, and more adaptable than regular carriers. The US will probably keep 3-4 of the big ones but they are just too expensive for the navy at this point.
Yeah, the F-15 is pretty awesome, when I head to flight school I'm gunning for an F-15EX or some other fast strike aircraft. The F-22 is cool but it certainly needs some work and a better HMCS. The F-35 is currently a mess so I wouldnt want to fly it at least until the fix its current engine problem.
Boeing creates the recommended timetable for maintenance. Also the plane was built in 1995 so only 25 years. I believe they are supposed to operate for 30-35 before they need a complete overhaul. If Boeing did not compensate for accelerated degradation it’s their fault. If the airline didn’t follow the correct plan it’s the airlines fault. But I think Boeing does maintenance for some airlines.
@asteroidbook345
Bc they didn’t check the engines often enough. Maintenance is a Boeing problem not a P&W problem. Even if it broke before the scheduled service time that just means Boeing didn’t do enough testing when they slapped it on. It’s funny though that Lockheed is digging Boeing’s grave. (Lockheed owns P&W)
No normally it’s just the feel. Go into dcs and see how long it takes you to get to 400knts from takeoff and then you can try to replicate that in your build@Falkenwut
By the way I really do admire your airplanes you have there like the rafaeles and the typhoons which are some of my favorite fighters. So when I say you air power is inferior I’m not necessarily talking about development because Dassault is pretty much on the same page as other US contractors.@CharlesDeGaulle
Once again I will say that nuculear armament means almost nothing. This is because of mutually assured destruction. So nuclear weapons have little bearing on a modern conflict even one between Russia and the US. I am completely aware that Stalin was terrible but comparing Putin to him doesn’t make Putin any better. As for your comment about him stealing and it doesn’t hurt someone, he stole close to a billion dollars to build his Putin mansion. I’m sure someone else has to pay the price and somehow you are ok with that. Also, have you not seen the riots in Russia’s streets lately? These are all against Putin who does things like changing the constitution so when he leaves office he has immunity allowing him to be exempt from all laws. The man is a crime lord who has his best interests first. For the aircraft carrier incident I read from multiple places that the saphir only launched one salvo. One salvo would not be enough to take out the carrier and escorts but it would damage the aircraft carrier and serenely damage and frigate. So I’m not sure “sunk” is the correct word for that. Although, I’m sure we’ve learned our lesson after that one.
Another misconception you have is that ground vehicles are everything which is false as everyone knows you can’t have ground troops without air support. In the air support category France and Russia are sorely lacking. A single F-35 can take out 4 tanks a trip and not be shot down by air defenses because of its stealth coating. Get 15 F-35s and you can take out platoons at a time.
Yes you have one aircraft carrier. One. 😂
The reason why I’m recommending history sources is because your narrative widely strays from the actual history. That is the only reason. It is not ad-hominem I am honestly trying to help you. Even if you don’t think I’m correct at least read some of it.
As for complete capability I stand by those rankings as nuclear weapons are nothing in an actual war there are just fake threats used to push policy around the globe. They aren’t much more than that.
Here’s a great thesis paper which describes [this a bit] (https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/doe/younger.htm)
May I remind you that I have refuted most of your points earlier and that is why you are bringing up new arguments if you felt you were winning there would be no need for that. So you know when you say that I’m not creating a logical argument you know you are lying. It’s that simple.
@CharlesDeGaulle
Erm your ok. I advise that you build some replicas from blueprints to create a more realistic look on your fictional builds. Make sure you focus on details and that you don’t simplify lines
There are some serious problems in your history narratives. Such as painting Putin as the savior of Russia even though the people of his country hate him and his policies and why he is currently being investigated by the FBK for corruption and bribery. So I think you should go back and check your facts. On the military ranking nuclear weapons mean almost nothing as in a real life conflict they most likely will never be used due to the principle of mutually assured destruction. The rankings i pulled from statista and it is based on fact not speculation as they use index numbers. You can see the formula they use which is comprehensive. Here
Your logic behind this copying principle honestly makes no sense and I fail to see how thinking one thing is a copy means thinking everything is a copy.
Your historical narrative on American intervention is also incorrect and I advise you to buy a history book on the age of terrorism.
Quite frankly a lot of your argument is lost in translation so if I am missing something or misinterpreting I apologize.
I am tired of arguing so I will just say I agree to disagree. I also would not like to continue this argument and get mods involved I’m sure both you and I don’t want to get strikes for a simple argument.
I really would recommend that you get an independent history textbook from an unbiased source.
For American history I would recommend: American History by Thomas S Kidd
For world history I would just recommend watching lots of documentaries. This way I feel you get the most viewpoints and gain the most information on details.
@CharlesDeGaulle
So if you wanted to use a blasto J 90 for the engines on this plane.
The engines thrust in SimplePlanes is 20233lbf
The engine thrust of a su-24s engine is 24700lbf
So the power multiplier would be 1.22
The equation I use is M=RT/SPT
M being the multiplier, RT being real thrust of the airplanes engine, and SPT being SimplePlanes engine thrust
Yes so when you go into the part selector you have all of the engines. Click on the engine you want to use and you find it’s thrust force. Real life thrust is the actual engines thrust in real life. The power multiplier can be used to manipulate the engines thrust to match one from real life.@Falkenwut
I’m not very patient so that’s why I take forever to do projects so I completely understand. But those 2 things should probably only take you an hour at most. I can show you the way to do it if you want me to @Falkenwut
Good shape and good job on the custom wings. It looks really good. There are a few things though that would make it better.
Engines: The end of the engines should look like this
Also, this accelerates way too fast make sure your power multiplier multiplies sp power by the multiplier to equal the real life engine power.
Ex:
SP thrust 4000
RL thrust 3000
then your power multiplier should be .75
then you adjust drag points to get your top speed at 30-35k ft.
Realistic turn performance but your speed or acceleration is too high. Try adjusting the power multiplier to match up with real-life engine specs, then add or remove drag points to get your max speed at around 35000 ft. You do it like this:
I have a 5000lbs of force sp stock engine
The real-life counterpart has 4000lbs
So, your multiplier in this engine should be .8
You can figure out the SP stock thrust by clicking on the engine you are using in the part selector.
Good job, keep it up!
@CharlesDeGaulle As for changing comments to make them look better, I am only changing small grammatical errors. You however have gone back and changed your original argument in your first comment, indicating that even you do not believe in your own thesis. You believe in something that you haven't even proven yet which is called circular reasoning. And as for logical accidents, you have a lot of the following, ad hominem, hasty generalization, tu quoque, equivocation, and finally the Fallacy of Sunk costs, as you try to string this argument out to find one area where you can win.
@CharlesDeGaulle
Sixth, if you really want to talk about destabilization in the Middle East look no further than the French who let Syria spiral out of control and placate the French into many concessions. They have been extremely cunning in their dealings with the French and you have not even noticed it. On their policy in Iran, of still trying to enforce the nuclear deal even though they are clearly violating it and every time they are caught somehow they get fewer restrictions every time. Also, the reason why we had to get involved in the Gulf War is that French and British colonial powers had destabilized the region ever since they were introduced. We also can't risk bombarding Russia's positions as we have been locked in hostile negotiations for years and such intervention is a blunder as it would endanger the US and others. But France seems to have no concept of this as you say that you blatantly strike Russia's positions making bad relations worse.
Seventh, if you really want to say, which you seem to imply, that the French army is better than everyone I advise you to look at who are the countries with the most armaments and best equipment. You would find that France is not even in the top 5 and is actually superseded by both India and South Korea.
If you look back on our comments here you will see that you are the only one calling me an idiot and various other childish insults. The only thing I seemed to imply was that you were unqualified to talk about this, which becomes more apparent as you are missing key facts in historical events. My arguments against your personage are logical and backed by fact, they are not personal and unfounded like your attacks are, which seem to be very infantile.
@CharlesDeGaulle
First, I will address your statement of the Blackhawk "copying" the Dauphin. Yes, the Dauphin might have been released 2 years prior but if you look at the two helicopters side by side, there is almost no resemblance or resemblance in any sort of configuration. Also, helicopters take years to develop so they were most likely being developed at the same time. If you look at the airframe of the NH-90 and Blackhawk side by side you can see the same windshield layout, same landing gear layout, same general shape, and almost the same rotor layout and sensor layout and loadout. It's like the designers weren't even trying to hide it when they built it. 2 years is not enough time for the US to scrap an entire airframe and start from the beginning. The bureaucracy here simply doesn't allow for it, it's actually quite funny.
Secondly, my response to your first comment was completely warranted, "Moreover, the name seems arrogant, since our canon is called Caesar, a bad pun, in any case, without France, the USA would not exist, I say it like that ..." Calling the whole US arrogant and suggesting that we owe you in some way is not a good way to make friends, just a tip for you.
Third, America has bought Aerospatiale's devices for mostly small branches like the coast guard or mostly use them for transport because they didn't want to build another helicopter for such a small role it plays, so there is not much of an argument there.
Fourth, describing France as an imperialist power who got involved where she shouldn't is actually a correct characterization. Look at the 19th and 20th-century colonies which she held and then tell me all of those areas arent completely destabilized. West Africa is a nightmare as they entirely depend on European goods, if they had not been colonized in the way France did they would probably be much more prosperous today. Let us not forget that the French also owned Syria and Vietnam, the sites of terrible tragedies that were brought on by the destabilizing French control in the region. If you don't want to talk about French colonial rule we can always talk about domestic and foreign policy. The French are actually the site of most pagan rituals stemming from right after the French revolution and most domestic policies cripple her infrastructure and role on the world stage. For foreign policy, we have the many wars with Germany and most notably the Treaty of Paris in 1919, where the US called for less harsh repercussions to not send the country spiraling into nothing. However, the French government refused and pushed forward with its crippling terms effectively giving Hitler his stage to rise.
Btw I understand a bit of French as I know 3 Latin languages, so if anyone is pretentious it’s you, in thinking everyone else in the world is insignificant and stupid. Don’t underestimate me or anyone else here, we know a lot more than you, you just clearly don’t know it yet. You still haven’t refuted my arguments with sufficient evidence so I think it’s funny that you “put me in my place” because that obviously did not occur. I also find it funny that you think France has never done any wrong, if you cannot see your own countries faults don’t go talking about other peoples countries.
@CharlesDeGaulle
I’m not gonna bother to argue with you because you clearly don’t get the point. It was a copy and that is all, I never insulted you yet you felt like you needed to do that to me. I wasn’t even talking to you in the first place so why concern yourself with this, unless arguing on peoples posts is all you have time to do.
@CharlesDeGaulle
@JoshuaW I haven't seen PID yet on one of those. Especially on FBW most players don't use PID. Ive been trying to figure it out for some time and i still don't fully understand it
(Continued) You are certainly in the grey area as I solicited no attack from you and yet you decided you wanted to get into an argument. So my best advice is, don’t get into an argument that no one asked for and don’t get into an argument you cannot win.
@CharlesDeGaulle I'm not sure you can compare Rafale's 1-meter cross-section to the f-35s .005-meter RCS. Yes, it's not invisible but you would need a very powerful ground radar to actually get a detect and even if you do you still won't be able to get a track until the F-35 is in visual range and by that point, he has already fired 6 AMRAAMS at you. Yes, Rafael clearly wins in a dogfight but head to head at BVR the F-35 is going to win.
The helicopter carriers are much more adaptable than a supercarrier and you can get more for your money on the helicopter carriers than with supercarriers. That's why the US is trying to transition to an overwhelming number of small carriers which are lighter, faster, and more adaptable than regular carriers. The US will probably keep 3-4 of the big ones but they are just too expensive for the navy at this point.
Yeah, the F-15 is pretty awesome, when I head to flight school I'm gunning for an F-15EX or some other fast strike aircraft. The F-22 is cool but it certainly needs some work and a better HMCS. The F-35 is currently a mess so I wouldnt want to fly it at least until the fix its current engine problem.
clean and simple
+1i agree
@asteroidbook345 I know southwest works with Boeing and American might too
@asteroidbook345 i think maintenance is their own then
Yeah there are a lot of factors in this one. Was it an American Airlines or southwest? I can’t remember @FeiWu
Boeing creates the recommended timetable for maintenance. Also the plane was built in 1995 so only 25 years. I believe they are supposed to operate for 30-35 before they need a complete overhaul. If Boeing did not compensate for accelerated degradation it’s their fault. If the airline didn’t follow the correct plan it’s the airlines fault. But I think Boeing does maintenance for some airlines.
@asteroidbook345
Oh yeah sorry lol but Boeing is at fault for not doing more rigorous testing@asteroidbook345
Bc they didn’t check the engines often enough. Maintenance is a Boeing problem not a P&W problem. Even if it broke before the scheduled service time that just means Boeing didn’t do enough testing when they slapped it on. It’s funny though that Lockheed is digging Boeing’s grave. (Lockheed owns P&W)
Yerp it looks good@FasterThanLight
No normally it’s just the feel. Go into dcs and see how long it takes you to get to 400knts from takeoff and then you can try to replicate that in your build@Falkenwut
+1I would up drag to probably 1k or 1.3k
+1Most of the time you will never reach your max speed and that’s actually ok
+1Drag points are a bit too low you want your top speed only at high altitude and your speedometer needs to be set to TAS
+1By the way I really do admire your airplanes you have there like the rafaeles and the typhoons which are some of my favorite fighters. So when I say you air power is inferior I’m not necessarily talking about development because Dassault is pretty much on the same page as other US contractors.@CharlesDeGaulle
Once again I will say that nuculear armament means almost nothing. This is because of mutually assured destruction. So nuclear weapons have little bearing on a modern conflict even one between Russia and the US. I am completely aware that Stalin was terrible but comparing Putin to him doesn’t make Putin any better. As for your comment about him stealing and it doesn’t hurt someone, he stole close to a billion dollars to build his Putin mansion. I’m sure someone else has to pay the price and somehow you are ok with that. Also, have you not seen the riots in Russia’s streets lately? These are all against Putin who does things like changing the constitution so when he leaves office he has immunity allowing him to be exempt from all laws. The man is a crime lord who has his best interests first. For the aircraft carrier incident I read from multiple places that the saphir only launched one salvo. One salvo would not be enough to take out the carrier and escorts but it would damage the aircraft carrier and serenely damage and frigate. So I’m not sure “sunk” is the correct word for that. Although, I’m sure we’ve learned our lesson after that one.
Another misconception you have is that ground vehicles are everything which is false as everyone knows you can’t have ground troops without air support. In the air support category France and Russia are sorely lacking. A single F-35 can take out 4 tanks a trip and not be shot down by air defenses because of its stealth coating. Get 15 F-35s and you can take out platoons at a time.
Yes you have one aircraft carrier. One. 😂
The reason why I’m recommending history sources is because your narrative widely strays from the actual history. That is the only reason. It is not ad-hominem I am honestly trying to help you. Even if you don’t think I’m correct at least read some of it.
As for complete capability I stand by those rankings as nuclear weapons are nothing in an actual war there are just fake threats used to push policy around the globe. They aren’t much more than that.
Here’s a great thesis paper which describes [this a bit] (https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/doe/younger.htm)
May I remind you that I have refuted most of your points earlier and that is why you are bringing up new arguments if you felt you were winning there would be no need for that. So you know when you say that I’m not creating a logical argument you know you are lying. It’s that simple.
@CharlesDeGaulle
Erm your ok. I advise that you build some replicas from blueprints to create a more realistic look on your fictional builds. Make sure you focus on details and that you don’t simplify lines
Other than that she looks good
+1Power multiplier shoul be .593 on the engines then adjust drag points for max speed at 30-35k feet
Oh please make a realistic flight model!
There are some serious problems in your history narratives. Such as painting Putin as the savior of Russia even though the people of his country hate him and his policies and why he is currently being investigated by the FBK for corruption and bribery. So I think you should go back and check your facts. On the military ranking nuclear weapons mean almost nothing as in a real life conflict they most likely will never be used due to the principle of mutually assured destruction. The rankings i pulled from statista and it is based on fact not speculation as they use index numbers. You can see the formula they use which is comprehensive. Here
Your logic behind this copying principle honestly makes no sense and I fail to see how thinking one thing is a copy means thinking everything is a copy.
Your historical narrative on American intervention is also incorrect and I advise you to buy a history book on the age of terrorism.
Quite frankly a lot of your argument is lost in translation so if I am missing something or misinterpreting I apologize.
I am tired of arguing so I will just say I agree to disagree. I also would not like to continue this argument and get mods involved I’m sure both you and I don’t want to get strikes for a simple argument.
I really would recommend that you get an independent history textbook from an unbiased source.
For American history I would recommend: American History by Thomas S Kidd
For world history I would just recommend watching lots of documentaries. This way I feel you get the most viewpoints and gain the most information on details.
@CharlesDeGaulle
So if you wanted to use a blasto J 90 for the engines on this plane.
+2The engines thrust in SimplePlanes is 20233lbf
The engine thrust of a su-24s engine is 24700lbf
So the power multiplier would be 1.22
The equation I use is M=RT/SPT
M being the multiplier, RT being real thrust of the airplanes engine, and SPT being SimplePlanes engine thrust
Those numbers were just examples
Yes so when you go into the part selector you have all of the engines. Click on the engine you want to use and you find it’s thrust force. Real life thrust is the actual engines thrust in real life. The power multiplier can be used to manipulate the engines thrust to match one from real life.@Falkenwut
+1I’m not very patient so that’s why I take forever to do projects so I completely understand. But those 2 things should probably only take you an hour at most. I can show you the way to do it if you want me to @Falkenwut
I really like your improvement though. BTW more detailed projects like this end up getting more upvotes although they do take longer.
+1Good shape and good job on the custom wings. It looks really good. There are a few things though that would make it better.
+1Engines: The end of the engines should look like this
Also, this accelerates way too fast make sure your power multiplier multiplies sp power by the multiplier to equal the real life engine power.
Ex:
SP thrust 4000
RL thrust 3000
then your power multiplier should be .75
then you adjust drag points to get your top speed at 30-35k ft.
Also, most afterburners automatically engage around 95% RPM so i would get rid of the activation group
Realistic turn performance but your speed or acceleration is too high. Try adjusting the power multiplier to match up with real-life engine specs, then add or remove drag points to get your max speed at around 35000 ft. You do it like this:
I have a 5000lbs of force sp stock engine
The real-life counterpart has 4000lbs
So, your multiplier in this engine should be .8
You can figure out the SP stock thrust by clicking on the engine you are using in the part selector.
Good job, keep it up!
@CharlesDeGaulle As for changing comments to make them look better, I am only changing small grammatical errors. You however have gone back and changed your original argument in your first comment, indicating that even you do not believe in your own thesis. You believe in something that you haven't even proven yet which is called circular reasoning. And as for logical accidents, you have a lot of the following, ad hominem, hasty generalization, tu quoque, equivocation, and finally the Fallacy of Sunk costs, as you try to string this argument out to find one area where you can win.
@CharlesDeGaulle
Sixth, if you really want to talk about destabilization in the Middle East look no further than the French who let Syria spiral out of control and placate the French into many concessions. They have been extremely cunning in their dealings with the French and you have not even noticed it. On their policy in Iran, of still trying to enforce the nuclear deal even though they are clearly violating it and every time they are caught somehow they get fewer restrictions every time. Also, the reason why we had to get involved in the Gulf War is that French and British colonial powers had destabilized the region ever since they were introduced. We also can't risk bombarding Russia's positions as we have been locked in hostile negotiations for years and such intervention is a blunder as it would endanger the US and others. But France seems to have no concept of this as you say that you blatantly strike Russia's positions making bad relations worse.
Seventh, if you really want to say, which you seem to imply, that the French army is better than everyone I advise you to look at who are the countries with the most armaments and best equipment. You would find that France is not even in the top 5 and is actually superseded by both India and South Korea.
If you look back on our comments here you will see that you are the only one calling me an idiot and various other childish insults. The only thing I seemed to imply was that you were unqualified to talk about this, which becomes more apparent as you are missing key facts in historical events. My arguments against your personage are logical and backed by fact, they are not personal and unfounded like your attacks are, which seem to be very infantile.
@CharlesDeGaulle
First, I will address your statement of the Blackhawk "copying" the Dauphin. Yes, the Dauphin might have been released 2 years prior but if you look at the two helicopters side by side, there is almost no resemblance or resemblance in any sort of configuration. Also, helicopters take years to develop so they were most likely being developed at the same time. If you look at the airframe of the NH-90 and Blackhawk side by side you can see the same windshield layout, same landing gear layout, same general shape, and almost the same rotor layout and sensor layout and loadout. It's like the designers weren't even trying to hide it when they built it. 2 years is not enough time for the US to scrap an entire airframe and start from the beginning. The bureaucracy here simply doesn't allow for it, it's actually quite funny.
Secondly, my response to your first comment was completely warranted, "Moreover, the name seems arrogant, since our canon is called Caesar, a bad pun, in any case, without France, the USA would not exist, I say it like that ..." Calling the whole US arrogant and suggesting that we owe you in some way is not a good way to make friends, just a tip for you.
Third, America has bought Aerospatiale's devices for mostly small branches like the coast guard or mostly use them for transport because they didn't want to build another helicopter for such a small role it plays, so there is not much of an argument there.
Fourth, describing France as an imperialist power who got involved where she shouldn't is actually a correct characterization. Look at the 19th and 20th-century colonies which she held and then tell me all of those areas arent completely destabilized. West Africa is a nightmare as they entirely depend on European goods, if they had not been colonized in the way France did they would probably be much more prosperous today. Let us not forget that the French also owned Syria and Vietnam, the sites of terrible tragedies that were brought on by the destabilizing French control in the region. If you don't want to talk about French colonial rule we can always talk about domestic and foreign policy. The French are actually the site of most pagan rituals stemming from right after the French revolution and most domestic policies cripple her infrastructure and role on the world stage. For foreign policy, we have the many wars with Germany and most notably the Treaty of Paris in 1919, where the US called for less harsh repercussions to not send the country spiraling into nothing. However, the French government refused and pushed forward with its crippling terms effectively giving Hitler his stage to rise.
Actually, the US is energy-independent now :)
Awesome!
Btw I understand a bit of French as I know 3 Latin languages, so if anyone is pretentious it’s you, in thinking everyone else in the world is insignificant and stupid. Don’t underestimate me or anyone else here, we know a lot more than you, you just clearly don’t know it yet. You still haven’t refuted my arguments with sufficient evidence so I think it’s funny that you “put me in my place” because that obviously did not occur. I also find it funny that you think France has never done any wrong, if you cannot see your own countries faults don’t go talking about other peoples countries.
@CharlesDeGaulle
I’m not gonna bother to argue with you because you clearly don’t get the point. It was a copy and that is all, I never insulted you yet you felt like you needed to do that to me. I wasn’t even talking to you in the first place so why concern yourself with this, unless arguing on peoples posts is all you have time to do.
@CharlesDeGaulle
@JoshuaW I haven't seen PID yet on one of those. Especially on FBW most players don't use PID. Ive been trying to figure it out for some time and i still don't fully understand it
It's actually my least favorite city it's very dirty there. Its got some cool stuff but its more of a novelty than anything else to me
@GabeGabeTheFangster7
Ugh New York
@shipster nice Monty Python reference
+1btw you can't really fix this game. It's a closed architecture code so its very hard to make big changes
@realSavageMan is your profile pic, Chiang Kai Shek lol
I think you are the first person to successfully use a PID code
looks good btw. I would use a nose cone tho it makes it look a bit wierd. just do 6-8 fuselage pieces. Cockpit looks epic btw
when ppl actually listen to me, ChiChiWerx, BogdanX, and Eternal Darkness. lol
YEE YEE
R u from texas 2??????!!!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
man i would hate to see the be-HIND of that lmfao
Wow really good job this makes f-16s and SUs really easy to make now. Thank you!
(Continued) You are certainly in the grey area as I solicited no attack from you and yet you decided you wanted to get into an argument. So my best advice is, don’t get into an argument that no one asked for and don’t get into an argument you cannot win.