@Phenex Guess I'll use your bomber for now then. I suppose I'll give the Overload mod a try sometime, seems it's just way easier with it.
Thanks again. Upvotes incoming...
@Phenex Thanks! It does help, but I have a question: Is downloading a mod really necessary? I'm a purist, so I like to keep my games vanilla whenever possible. The peace of mind when you know you don't have to deal with updating the mod whenever the game updates or having to deal with any potential bugs is something I'm not really willing to give up.
Would using parts with these properties applied off of other aircraft as sub-assemblies work for that?
Takes me back to Euro Truck Simulator 2.
The amount of detail here is amazing. Windshield wipers that work? What kind of sorcery is this!
Great job, man. Great. Flippin'. Job.
@DragoRanger98
Quick heads-up, you could enter your car for this challenge (not my creation). I'm positive it'll give everyone a run for their money, if not outright win. That's just how good it is, in my opinion.
Also, have a spotlight I forgot to make since the upvote, lol.
@Carguyfromriga Here you go, mate. The solution to most stability issues was way simpler than I thought - lowering the horizontal stabilizers alone did the trick. Literally nothing else (save for the nose landing gear) was modified, lol.
It still doesn't like to pitch down, but it's way better than before in my opinion.
@Carguyfromriga Thanks for the feedback! Actually, I think it's more of a competitor with Wasp or Pigpen, since Hellkeska is an attack aircraft by design (and thus is not agile at all compared to this. Get within close range and the Hellkeska is done.), but I still believe it is generally superior to either aircraft, and can defeat them in dogfights with human pilots and countermeasure dispensers equipped, just not as easily as Hellkeska. (Although Wasp can definitely out-sprint it)
Anyway, the stability issues are simply part of the aircraft design. Yeah, it's unfortunate that this plane doesn't really like to pitch down, but to be this agile at low speed without thrust-vectoring, you need to be a little unstable ("little..." Cough The note in the aircraft description). These issues are only persistant at really high altitude with lots of fuel on board, though, so there's that.
As for the landing gear, yeah, it's bothered me a lot, too, but I figured it was a necessity to make sure the angle of attack of the wings isn't too low for efficient takeoff from short runways. I think it can be solved by changing the fuselage corners a bit, at the potential cost of slightly ruining other aesthetics. I'll experiment and see what I can do for it.
For the drag, it was actually the biggest issue for me - reducing the intake size compromises high altitude operations, which I figured can be used as a combat advantage against other aircraft by, for example, baiting the opponent plane into climbing to an altitude too high for its engines to function effeciently and thus gaining the kinetic energy advantage. Speed wasn't of much importance to me while designing it, since the DMJ-14 had that covered and served as a great interceptor anyway.
As for part count, well, I'll admit it's probably just because of all of them missiles. :)
Try removing the lights and a few missiles. This should help a bit. Other than that, glad you liked it!
@Carguyfromriga Thanks! Yeah, I noticed this, too. The landing gear was brought over straight from the Mk.II with zero modification. Try setting it at 120%/130% strength/damper on the front and 110%/140% strength/damper on the rear. Should help.
Edit: I just noticed the max speed I had written (1680) was a huuuge understatement after giving it another test. Corrected it now.
@Carguyfromriga Would love to hear your thoughts on this one. It falls only 1 second short of your version in most races (2 seconds on The Dragon), which I'm highly satisfied with.
@Carguyfromriga Yeah, it seems indeed that two 2x1 inlets are better than one 2x2 inlet, even though they should probably be the same. I'm almost fully satisfied with my next prototype of the Mk.III DMJ-14, and indeed your tips have helped me a lot, not only for this plane, but for every plane I could build from now on! :)
I also have a new design in mind, still putting it together on a basic level in my head, and I think it can make use of your little rocket box. ;)
@Carguyfromriga Aside from 1 issue - the ailerons are a bit too small and the aircraft is a bit too slow to roll - I'm loving it so far! Great job!
Been thoroughly testing the planes on several courses, too. Note that I've enlarged the ailerons on the Seagull 2 notches here, as it struggled to keep up with turns in some courses.
Typhoon Circuit
Seagull - 1:57
My modified DMJ-14 - 2:01
Original DMJ-14 - 2:00
Daredevil
Seagull - 1:28
Modified DMJ-14 - 1:33
Original DMJ-14 - 1:33 (crashed into the bridge near the finish once for 1 'DNF')
Sandsift Drift
Seagull - 1:16
Modified DMJ-14 - 1:20
Original DMJ-14 - 1:18 (2 DNF's)
The Dragon
Seagull - 1:44
Modified DMJ-14 - 1:52
Original DMJ-14 - 1:48
We have a clear winner. :)
I'm not sure I really like the way the intakes look if I just slap them onto my version, so I still need to get innovative.
It also seems there's something other than drag slowing my version down. Likely insufficient air supply. Back to the drawing board!
In the end, though, you did a great job! I'm loving it!
@Carguyfromriga Thanks! I'd love to see your version in action, go ahead and upload it.
Indeed, the aircraft is wobbly when initiating the autopilot, and it's indeed due to oversized control surfaces. I figured it was because the autopilot couldn't exactly enter commands smoothly enough, which was required for such big control surfaces, so I didn't pay much attention to it and instead used pitch trim to make the aircraft level off a bit before initiating autopilot. I'd love to see it resolved without compromising agility too much.
@Carguyfromriga Thanks a lot! This is actually my all-time favourite design right now.
Thanks for the feedback, too, although could you please clarify what you mean by 'less nudging'? If you are referring to the front end and how the air intakes are placed, this is actually intentional to reduce drag by making the air a bit turbulent as it runs along the rest of the fuselage. I know it's a little blocky and unrealistic, but that's the best I could do at the time to offer high performance as well as decent looks - you usually have to compromise on one or the other without the help of XML modding. If this plane is to be constructed IRL, there'd be a lot of changes to that section.
@Mustang51 Glad you liked it!
It is designed to be dual-purpose, so when it's not a trainer it is indeed an attacker. It is specifically designed for air-to-ground training with secondary air-to-air training, so in a way it is one.
@SimpleJoe No problem, you deserve it!
Also have a spotlight so my lone follower can also check it out. At least I can help get you the recognition you deserve. xD
@EternalDarkness Well then. I don't have time to design and perfect a new aircraft before the deadline unfortunately, so I guess I'll just put that design in the stockpile.
(I should mention the base aircraft was a purpose-built fighter with training in mind. Something dual purpose, but I never built an actual 2-seater version, although I think that still wouldn't qualify that conversion for the challenge after re-reading the rules.)
@EternalDarkness Well that was to be expected. It's converted off of a purpose-built fighter without much alteration to performance, but I personally found it very stable and easy to fly compared to my previous entry, so I don't think this was part of the reason. It really is because I forgot to make the cockpit bigger I guess.
I'll just go ahead and see if I can fix that up.
@EternalDarkness Well...what makes a trainer a trainer in that case? I thought there were training aircraft that could fulfill the attacker/fighter roles when required to and vice versa.
...or is it just because the cockpit is too small to be a 2-seater? Because in that case, silly me.
@EternalDarkness Well, I've been working on improving my entry for the whole month now, without much progress, but also ended up converting a previous design of mine into a trainer fulfilling the challenge's criteria. It ended up flying better, looking better (from a realistic point of view that is - my previous entry had no warning signs, only one antenna, etc... but I prefer the sillhouette of the existing entry. I would have loved to give it a registration number as well, but I can't really find a way that wouldn't be either unreadable or extremely weird-looking, cause I'm a n00b), and is generally better.
Is it okay to submit a new entry as a replacement for a previous entry? Especially since it's a conversion from an old design (it's still mine, so I believe it fulfills the originality criteria).
Kinda wish I could edit an already uploaded plane and replace it, so I don't have to create a whole new aircraft and reupload it as a successor just for a minor change or delete the old version and lose all comments and upvotes it had even if they aren't too important...
How ironic.
The DMJ-14 would serve better as a fighter than a racer, yet it's more popular in the sports configuration...
And the DMJ-10 would serve better as a racer than a fighter, yet it's more popular in the fighter configuration!
I'm confused.
@DuckMintnewprofile Actually, DMV would be for VTOL aircraft.
If I'm to build a vehicle, I'll probably use different designations.
Rest are correct, but I don't plan on only uploading planes under a DM designation - I have civil utility and cargo/passenger aircraft in stock, which I'm planning to give the DU, for utility, and DT, for transport, designations. The DM family is designed to be multipurpose, and easy to convert to different roles from combat to racing, other aircraft will be mostly dedicated to their purpose.
I still don't have a dedicated fighter or racer in stock, though, but I'll probably use the DMF (multirole fighter), DA (attack aircraft), DSF (air superiority fighter) and DR (racer) designations, when I eventually build any of them.
Okay, that's quite a lot of designations, isn't it? And many are fairly similar!
@DuckMintnewprofile Well, dang. Well, it's a good thing names of this family of aircraft will always end with either the letters S or F, so there's that.
Thanks for letting me keep the name, though. I couldn't find any better alternatives so far, but will rename future aircraft when I figure out a designation.
Maybe simply add a J, for 'jet', duh...
I'm not very creative, lol.
EDIT: Yep, I'm going for it. This will also help distinguish prop planes when I inevitably make one.
@Phenex Guess I'll use your bomber for now then. I suppose I'll give the Overload mod a try sometime, seems it's just way easier with it.
Thanks again. Upvotes incoming...
@Phenex Thanks! It does help, but I have a question: Is downloading a mod really necessary? I'm a purist, so I like to keep my games vanilla whenever possible. The peace of mind when you know you don't have to deal with updating the mod whenever the game updates or having to deal with any potential bugs is something I'm not really willing to give up.
Would using parts with these properties applied off of other aircraft as sub-assemblies work for that?
Takes me back to Euro Truck Simulator 2.
+1The amount of detail here is amazing. Windshield wipers that work? What kind of sorcery is this!
Great job, man. Great. Flippin'. Job.
@DragoRanger98
Quick heads-up, you could enter your car for this challenge (not my creation). I'm positive it'll give everyone a run for their money, if not outright win. That's just how good it is, in my opinion.
Also, have a spotlight I forgot to make since the upvote, lol.
@Carguyfromriga Here you go, mate. The solution to most stability issues was way simpler than I thought - lowering the horizontal stabilizers alone did the trick. Literally nothing else (save for the nose landing gear) was modified, lol.
It still doesn't like to pitch down, but it's way better than before in my opinion.
@Carguyfromriga Thanks for the feedback! Actually, I think it's more of a competitor with Wasp or Pigpen, since Hellkeska is an attack aircraft by design (and thus is not agile at all compared to this. Get within close range and the Hellkeska is done.), but I still believe it is generally superior to either aircraft, and can defeat them in dogfights with human pilots and countermeasure dispensers equipped, just not as easily as Hellkeska. (Although Wasp can definitely out-sprint it)
Anyway, the stability issues are simply part of the aircraft design. Yeah, it's unfortunate that this plane doesn't really like to pitch down, but to be this agile at low speed without thrust-vectoring, you need to be a little unstable ("little..." Cough The note in the aircraft description). These issues are only persistant at really high altitude with lots of fuel on board, though, so there's that.
+1As for the landing gear, yeah, it's bothered me a lot, too, but I figured it was a necessity to make sure the angle of attack of the wings isn't too low for efficient takeoff from short runways. I think it can be solved by changing the fuselage corners a bit, at the potential cost of slightly ruining other aesthetics. I'll experiment and see what I can do for it.
For the drag, it was actually the biggest issue for me - reducing the intake size compromises high altitude operations, which I figured can be used as a combat advantage against other aircraft by, for example, baiting the opponent plane into climbing to an altitude too high for its engines to function effeciently and thus gaining the kinetic energy advantage. Speed wasn't of much importance to me while designing it, since the DMJ-14 had that covered and served as a great interceptor anyway.
As for part count, well, I'll admit it's probably just because of all of them missiles. :)
Try removing the lights and a few missiles. This should help a bit. Other than that, glad you liked it!
@LuciferOfPoland You've seen nothing yet, mate. ;)
@Carguyfromriga I'd love to hear your thoughts on this one.
@Carguyfromriga Thanks! Yeah, I noticed this, too. The landing gear was brought over straight from the Mk.II with zero modification. Try setting it at 120%/130% strength/damper on the front and 110%/140% strength/damper on the rear. Should help.
+1Edit: I just noticed the max speed I had written (1680) was a huuuge understatement after giving it another test. Corrected it now.
@Carguyfromriga Would love to hear your thoughts on this one. It falls only 1 second short of your version in most races (2 seconds on The Dragon), which I'm highly satisfied with.
@Carguyfromriga Yeah, it seems indeed that two 2x1 inlets are better than one 2x2 inlet, even though they should probably be the same. I'm almost fully satisfied with my next prototype of the Mk.III DMJ-14, and indeed your tips have helped me a lot, not only for this plane, but for every plane I could build from now on! :)
I also have a new design in mind, still putting it together on a basic level in my head, and I think it can make use of your little rocket box. ;)
@Carguyfromriga Aside from 1 issue - the ailerons are a bit too small and the aircraft is a bit too slow to roll - I'm loving it so far! Great job!
Been thoroughly testing the planes on several courses, too. Note that I've enlarged the ailerons on the Seagull 2 notches here, as it struggled to keep up with turns in some courses.
Typhoon Circuit
Daredevil
Sandsift Drift
The Dragon
We have a clear winner. :)
+1I'm not sure I really like the way the intakes look if I just slap them onto my version, so I still need to get innovative.
It also seems there's something other than drag slowing my version down. Likely insufficient air supply. Back to the drawing board!
In the end, though, you did a great job! I'm loving it!
Reminds me of the MiG-29 Fulcrum.
Nice job!
@Carguyfromriga No worries, I can take weeks to build something! I can wait. :)
@Carguyfromriga Thanks! I'd love to see your version in action, go ahead and upload it.
Indeed, the aircraft is wobbly when initiating the autopilot, and it's indeed due to oversized control surfaces. I figured it was because the autopilot couldn't exactly enter commands smoothly enough, which was required for such big control surfaces, so I didn't pay much attention to it and instead used pitch trim to make the aircraft level off a bit before initiating autopilot. I'd love to see it resolved without compromising agility too much.
@Carguyfromriga Thanks a lot! This is actually my all-time favourite design right now.
Thanks for the feedback, too, although could you please clarify what you mean by 'less nudging'? If you are referring to the front end and how the air intakes are placed, this is actually intentional to reduce drag by making the air a bit turbulent as it runs along the rest of the fuselage. I know it's a little blocky and unrealistic, but that's the best I could do at the time to offer high performance as well as decent looks - you usually have to compromise on one or the other without the help of XML modding. If this plane is to be constructed IRL, there'd be a lot of changes to that section.
@CeeToTheZee Anytime, mate!
@Tully2001
Tagging a mod is my best bet here...
@Benderisgreta123 Thanks!
@FlakBus Thanks! I forgot the nudge controls even existed. I've reuploaded both variants of the plane with the wing placement fixed.
+1@Mustang51 Glad you liked it!
It is designed to be dual-purpose, so when it's not a trainer it is indeed an attacker. It is specifically designed for air-to-ground training with secondary air-to-air training, so in a way it is one.
@SimpleJoe @CRJ900Pilot Glad you liked it!
@SimpleJoe No problem, you deserve it!
Also have a spotlight so my lone follower can also check it out. At least I can help get you the recognition you deserve. xD
@EternalDarkness Well then. I don't have time to design and perfect a new aircraft before the deadline unfortunately, so I guess I'll just put that design in the stockpile.
(I should mention the base aircraft was a purpose-built fighter with training in mind. Something dual purpose, but I never built an actual 2-seater version, although I think that still wouldn't qualify that conversion for the challenge after re-reading the rules.)
@EternalDarkness Hopefully this will do
@EternalDarkness Well that was to be expected. It's converted off of a purpose-built fighter without much alteration to performance, but I personally found it very stable and easy to fly compared to my previous entry, so I don't think this was part of the reason. It really is because I forgot to make the cockpit bigger I guess.
I'll just go ahead and see if I can fix that up.
@EternalDarkness Well...what makes a trainer a trainer in that case? I thought there were training aircraft that could fulfill the attacker/fighter roles when required to and vice versa.
...or is it just because the cockpit is too small to be a 2-seater? Because in that case, silly me.
@EternalDarkness Well, I've been working on improving my entry for the whole month now, without much progress, but also ended up converting a previous design of mine into a trainer fulfilling the challenge's criteria. It ended up flying better, looking better (from a realistic point of view that is - my previous entry had no warning signs, only one antenna, etc... but I prefer the sillhouette of the existing entry. I would have loved to give it a registration number as well, but I can't really find a way that wouldn't be either unreadable or extremely weird-looking, cause I'm a n00b), and is generally better.
Is it okay to submit a new entry as a replacement for a previous entry? Especially since it's a conversion from an old design (it's still mine, so I believe it fulfills the originality criteria).
You can check it out here
@DragoRanger98 Thanks!
Laps Gold Prix in 1 minute flat. Steers sharply and maintains lots of speed in corners. I love it. Nice job!
Apparently AG2 and 3 ended up being unassigned. Reuploaded to fix. Sorry for the inconvenience.
@EternalDarkness
Handles and drives great with a bit of wheel traction adjustment. I love it. Great build!
@chancey21 Maybe cause they have similar bubble canopy cockpit designs.
@TMach5 Thanks!
Dear God.
Kinda wish I could edit an already uploaded plane and replace it, so I don't have to create a whole new aircraft and reupload it as a successor just for a minor change or delete the old version and lose all comments and upvotes it had even if they aren't too important...
@Franticmatty Thanks!
How ironic.
The DMJ-14 would serve better as a fighter than a racer, yet it's more popular in the sports configuration...
And the DMJ-10 would serve better as a racer than a fighter, yet it's more popular in the fighter configuration!
I'm confused.
@DuckMintnewprofile Actually, DMV would be for VTOL aircraft.
If I'm to build a vehicle, I'll probably use different designations.
Rest are correct, but I don't plan on only uploading planes under a DM designation - I have civil utility and cargo/passenger aircraft in stock, which I'm planning to give the DU, for utility, and DT, for transport, designations. The DM family is designed to be multipurpose, and easy to convert to different roles from combat to racing, other aircraft will be mostly dedicated to their purpose.
I still don't have a dedicated fighter or racer in stock, though, but I'll probably use the DMF (multirole fighter), DA (attack aircraft), DSF (air superiority fighter) and DR (racer) designations, when I eventually build any of them.
Okay, that's quite a lot of designations, isn't it? And many are fairly similar!
@DuckMintnewprofile Well, dang. Well, it's a good thing names of this family of aircraft will always end with either the letters S or F, so there's that.
Thanks for letting me keep the name, though. I couldn't find any better alternatives so far, but will rename future aircraft when I figure out a designation.
Maybe simply add a J, for 'jet', duh...
I'm not very creative, lol.
EDIT: Yep, I'm going for it. This will also help distinguish prop planes when I inevitably make one.