You have to use xml. A mod called overload is great for this. In the rotator set the max degrees to 180, then using overload go to the inputs section. Here you should see a Max variable, default at 1. Set this to a very high number, however somewhere around 1e+30 I think it might stop working. Technically it will stop sometime, though you'd probably not live to see it stop.
@klm747klm747 This isn't relevant to this post, however to set drag to 0 using overload, set the dragScale to 0. Make sure you press the tick to confirm your change . Also, you may need to turn the drag indicator off and on again, to recalculate the drag properly and show the correct readings. I'm looking forward to the finished plane!
You get points via posting forum posts, planes and mods and having people upvote them. Mods get more points per upvote than planes which get more than forum posts. Honestly though, you shouldn't worry about points, they really don't matter...
Ok so I did a bit of testing and I have to say: the wings look really nice! I especially like the window view. I have to pick out some things that bugged me though:
I assume you will add windows to the cockpit area, though I feel the shape is slightly off.
The elevators seem slightly too large, could use being a little more swept back too?
Moving onto the flight characteristics... There are a couple noticeable issues:
The acceleration is very poor. I believe this is due to the aircraft's insanely high drag of 42000 points! This makes reaching cruising speed extremely long if not impossible. Reducing the drag beneath 20000 should remedy this...
The plane is very tail heavy. On takeoff, which takes a considerable amount of time, the plane is inclined to pitch upward. This makes tail strikes very easy. The gap between the CoL and CoM seems rather far, though the plane flies rather fine.
The brakes are quite ineffective, stopping on Yeager's runway after landing is to say the least, nearly impossible. Reverse thrust seems to be quite weak?
Very high wing loading! 64.7ft/lb, I'm not sure if this is an accurate figure but in SP this means that a speed in excess of 190mph is required to simply maintain level flight. To reference, some sources cite the approach speed of the 757 at around 160mph.
For all these, I found the flap system to be very nicely done. Slats are also very smooth.
Well that's essentially my summary on all the things I think could be improved. Sorry if some criticisms seem unfair or unjust, these are just what I thought needed some adjustment: overall, really enjoy the plane you've got here!
I like the sound of the Oerlikon, other than that it's really old but still in use today. I found it ironic it was made in Switzerland, famously know for being neutral in both world wars, then was used by the Axis and Allies in WW2.
You could make a challenge involving performance: time in a race, smoothest landing, shortest takeoff.
Of course, these aren't always the best option though seeing as most challenges judge off looks, a challenge based entirely on performance could be unique...
Well you have to consider the other games that people play too, for example Red Dead Redemption 2 came out yesterday. Not that the website hasn't been quiet recently, it is a bit sad... Hopefully when 1.8 finally does arrive everyone will check out SP again.
I have a book on the RAF's major advancements, I take some sources from it in this, though these might not be 100% reliable:
It could have been fitted to Mk 1a Spitfires. The Hispano cannon was fitted in late 1940, where Spitfires and Hurricanes were the RAF's main fighters. My source doesn't specify which variant of spitfire it was though it does say Spitfires took 2 cannon in the wing in 1941. In tests in using Hispanos for Spitfires is not completely unreasonable to assume they used Mk1a Spitfires as they would have been the dominant variant at the time.
For your second question, yes the Spitfire Mk1a had flaps. I actually think all variants of spitfire had flaps, save perhaps the early prototypes. The flaps were split wing design, extending nearly 90 degrees judging by the look, used only for landing. There was only 1 flap setting on spitfires, controlled by a single switch.
E is the 5th letter of the English alphabet. It is also the most commonly used letter in the language. E is a vowel. Ethylenediaminetetraacetate, a material used in manufacture, has 7 'e's in it, making it the word with the most Es.
@Minecraftpoweer I haven't heard the greatest things about the X, is it really that good? I'd recommend a Samsung, mainly because the interface and screen are clearer and larger, I own an Iphone though so who am I to say? :P
Due to how SP physics works, you can literally spam airbrakes all over your plane and it will stop very quickly...
The simplest way though is probably just to use 1 or 2 large parachutes deployed on landing.
You could also go overcomplicated and try and design a thrust reverser system, really it's up to you.
It's its own class as far as I know. Classes seem to be based upon a ship's role and technology. That's how I see it at least, there doesn't seem to be much information regarding how ship classes are assigned.
I generally see bush planes as rugged and affordable. Most don't have retractable landing gear, and many mount floats and skis. Landing gear is also generally big to accommodate for rough runways. Try a yellow and black or red and white paint job, these seem to be popular choices...
@Tully2001 The Su 35 is basically a direct upgrade to the Su 27, in fact wikipedia says that the first variants of these aircraft were designated Su 27M. So technically your guess of Su 27 was right...
I'd happily help, despite having little experience building cars.
I guess I can try :P
Yesss... Yessssss... Yesssssssss...
Early spits (Spitfire Mk1) had a round trigger.
wat.avi
You have to use xml. A mod called overload is great for this. In the rotator set the max degrees to 180, then using overload go to the inputs section. Here you should see a Max variable, default at 1. Set this to a very high number, however somewhere around 1e+30 I think it might stop working. Technically it will stop sometime, though you'd probably not live to see it stop.
Great from a distance! How does it look close up?
@klm747klm747 This isn't relevant to this post, however to set drag to 0 using overload, set the dragScale to 0. Make sure you press the tick to confirm your change . Also, you may need to turn the drag indicator off and on again, to recalculate the drag properly and show the correct readings. I'm looking forward to the finished plane!
Surely this is fictional? Nope, just WW2 German engineering I suppose...
+2Very nice work!
This might not be a bad fit either...
It's like a hybrid between a Ho 229 and a XP 55...
Reminds me of my first build...
I have to say, you definitely beat me :P
You get points via posting forum posts, planes and mods and having people upvote them. Mods get more points per upvote than planes which get more than forum posts. Honestly though, you shouldn't worry about points, they really don't matter...
+1Damn there's some real gold stuff in here that I missed :P
Ok so I did a bit of testing and I have to say: the wings look really nice! I especially like the window view. I have to pick out some things that bugged me though:
I assume you will add windows to the cockpit area, though I feel the shape is slightly off.
The elevators seem slightly too large, could use being a little more swept back too?
Moving onto the flight characteristics... There are a couple noticeable issues:
The acceleration is very poor. I believe this is due to the aircraft's insanely high drag of 42000 points! This makes reaching cruising speed extremely long if not impossible. Reducing the drag beneath 20000 should remedy this...
The plane is very tail heavy. On takeoff, which takes a considerable amount of time, the plane is inclined to pitch upward. This makes tail strikes very easy. The gap between the CoL and CoM seems rather far, though the plane flies rather fine.
The brakes are quite ineffective, stopping on Yeager's runway after landing is to say the least, nearly impossible. Reverse thrust seems to be quite weak?
Very high wing loading! 64.7ft/lb, I'm not sure if this is an accurate figure but in SP this means that a speed in excess of 190mph is required to simply maintain level flight. To reference, some sources cite the approach speed of the 757 at around 160mph.
For all these, I found the flap system to be very nicely done. Slats are also very smooth.
+2Well that's essentially my summary on all the things I think could be improved. Sorry if some criticisms seem unfair or unjust, these are just what I thought needed some adjustment: overall, really enjoy the plane you've got here!
1.5 years and still going :D
Granted, I don't build much but I'm here...
I like the sound of the Oerlikon, other than that it's really old but still in use today. I found it ironic it was made in Switzerland, famously know for being neutral in both world wars, then was used by the Axis and Allies in WW2.
Should you? Shouldn't you? You should!
thx Stalin
Cool! Is there a reason you couldn't finish it?
You could make a challenge involving performance: time in a race, smoothest landing, shortest takeoff.
+1Of course, these aren't always the best option though seeing as most challenges judge off looks, a challenge based entirely on performance could be unique...
Well you have to consider the other games that people play too, for example Red Dead Redemption 2 came out yesterday. Not that the website hasn't been quiet recently, it is a bit sad... Hopefully when 1.8 finally does arrive everyone will check out SP again.
+5I have a book on the RAF's major advancements, I take some sources from it in this, though these might not be 100% reliable:
It could have been fitted to Mk 1a Spitfires. The Hispano cannon was fitted in late 1940, where Spitfires and Hurricanes were the RAF's main fighters. My source doesn't specify which variant of spitfire it was though it does say Spitfires took 2 cannon in the wing in 1941. In tests in using Hispanos for Spitfires is not completely unreasonable to assume they used Mk1a Spitfires as they would have been the dominant variant at the time.
For your second question, yes the Spitfire Mk1a had flaps. I actually think all variants of spitfire had flaps, save perhaps the early prototypes. The flaps were split wing design, extending nearly 90 degrees judging by the look, used only for landing. There was only 1 flap setting on spitfires, controlled by a single switch.
My unpopular opinion:
I actually dislike the B 17 and Lancaster nose designs, they just look really stubby and messy to me.
@MAHADI Oh thanks! I am working on a new spitfire which should incorporate a full airfoil design.
How does this thing fly so slow with those tiny wings?!
+1It's DRY!
Toast? Wait that's rhyming...
Well spectre would be my guess...
Teeeeeeeeeeels
@BlackhattAircraft I was thinking of the Ki 61, I've got a bad memory...
Anyway, looking at the Ki 84 I would definitely like to see one of these!
EGG B29 vs Normal B29
XF-85 Goblin vs F86 Sabre
@BlackhattAircraft Well it's basically a Japanese Bf-109, but sure...
E is the 5th letter of the English alphabet. It is also the most commonly used letter in the language. E is a vowel. Ethylenediaminetetraacetate, a material used in manufacture, has 7 'e's in it, making it the word with the most Es.
+1I know there's the GPWS mod by Gestour but wouldn't GPWS be neat too?
+4''50... 40... 30... 20... 10... RETARD! RETARD! RETARD!''
@BlackhattAircraft You got it! I mean they even made a song about it...
I bet a WW2 joke could be made of this...
+1Ki 43 Hayabusa!
Everyone knows pinball is actually a secret ritual to summon Cthulhu.
+3@Minecraftpoweer I haven't heard the greatest things about the X, is it really that good? I'd recommend a Samsung, mainly because the interface and screen are clearer and larger, I own an Iphone though so who am I to say? :P
Hard to determine without looking at the plane:
Is the drag, CoM and CoL symmetrical, is the CoM clearly ahead of the CoL?
Are the elevators surfaces very large; I know large elevators can cause instability.
Is the rudder central and decently sized? Is it large enough to keep the plane stable?
There appears to be a few meanings for SP...
The worst part is SimplePlanes isn't on that list :(
Where's the tesla?
+1Due to how SP physics works, you can literally spam airbrakes all over your plane and it will stop very quickly...
+1The simplest way though is probably just to use 1 or 2 large parachutes deployed on landing.
You could also go overcomplicated and try and design a thrust reverser system, really it's up to you.
No influence by ATRs I'm sure... :)
+2@XjayIndustrys tbh it's a bit late to reply to this...
It's its own class as far as I know. Classes seem to be based upon a ship's role and technology. That's how I see it at least, there doesn't seem to be much information regarding how ship classes are assigned.
I generally see bush planes as rugged and affordable. Most don't have retractable landing gear, and many mount floats and skis. Landing gear is also generally big to accommodate for rough runways. Try a yellow and black or red and white paint job, these seem to be popular choices...
@Tully2001 The Su 35 is basically a direct upgrade to the Su 27, in fact wikipedia says that the first variants of these aircraft were designated Su 27M. So technically your guess of Su 27 was right...
@Tully2001 Su 35 doesn't have canards...?
@TheDerpingMemes I got the numbers right :P
I think the wings could be a bit more swept back and it's a bit short but good job! :D