@SkyJayTheFirst
Nice.
Might as well try to fly backward with 0 throttle to really confirm that FT code work correctly.
Because in my USS Tiny landing video, I haven't add control for backward flight yet so the control power is purely from the sheer force of tvc.
@SkyJayTheFirst
Oh, I forgot to mention that fixed vertical stabilizer will always try to point the plane to the oncoming air stream which will hamper some flying backward stunts.
@SkyJayTheFirst
I think I have an answer for this.
I assume AG2 is PSM mode but the condition in canards is inversed, when AG2 is active the canard will correct for aoa which is counterproductive for PSM.
As a rule of thumb, you stall when certain aoa is exceed.
Also, (abs(AngleOfSlip) > 90 ? -1 : 1) can be final multiplier to have every commands work while fly backward.
like (abs(AngleOfSlip) > 90 ? -1 : 1)*(AG2 ? {aoa command} + {pitch rate command} : {pitch rate command})
@AVERAGEAVIATIONENJOYER
You need this.
It work until your heading exceed certain value.
TargetHeading and Heading just don't mix together well because one go (0 to 360) and other go (-180 to 180) I can't remember which one but it's in the guide.
Convert them to be both in one of those range will solve the problem.
@Gx
Comes to think about it, I have no idea lol.
For my F-22, I still had engine activated even throttle is 0 (AG1 activated only) because my plane is heavy, thrust spike won't do much in term of speed.
@Gx
That might work.
But I have an alternative, when increasing thrust to one side, just lower the thrust of the other by the same amount, that way net thrust stay the same but distributed differently.
And how to make in equal?
idk
But I assume thrust is in linear relationship with throttle so lower the same % of throttle as you increasing it to the other side.
@Zaineman
That's how I learn FT too, just make changes to other people code and observe until I can do it on my own.
And Snowflakes's FT guide do clarified a lot in term of code syntax.
@Zaineman
Hey, I've noticed that you tagged me on some sort of "need help" posts but those posts were deleted, am I missing something cool?
lol
I was away at the moment.
@SkyJayTheFirst
No no no.
It's just little things people not noticed but will make a difference if they are missing.
For example, inverting control surfaces control when the plane fly backward, when your plane fly backward the airflow reversed and pulling up will result in nose down, you'll find this useful at high aoa and it'll make some certain maneuver seamless.
Comparing how high g the plane can pull is not something I looking for anyway, it's just too easy to make 100g capable plane.
@SkyJayTheFirst
lol
To be honest, no.
There are a lot of "quality of life" code that you didn't have but if comparing just basic PSM, I think it's really good.
@ZoaMiki
Use both control surface and differential thrust, I'd say but if you can only have one, go with control surface.
Control surface is useless at low speed and tvc is useless at low engine power so they complete each other.
@ZoaMiki
So it's differential thrust then, it behave like gyro so no wonder why my first though was gyro.
And I think control surface will be more useful because when landing, the power setting will be low and differential thrust can potentially be less effective.
For me I'd use AngleOfSlip code for wing tips airbrake.
If I were to make this version, I'd change code in the weapons bay to open with AG2 and maybe add dummy missiles instead, also replacing COPRO device with disco ball.
Not bad.
For yaw, I suggest you play with AngleOfSlip Funky tree, I assume you using gyro for yaw and if the gyro have AngleOfSlip correction code the plane will act like it actually have rudder.
And you can disable AngleOfSlip by AG1 to go completely yaw unstable like it is of now.
Constantly have to adjust for angle of slip manually is not a nice thing to have in fighter this high-tech anyway.
@SnoWFLakE0s
That's make sense, trapezoidal method without clearing integral value was my first prototype lol, went well until the flight data change dramatically (which will required very difference trim setting for example) and it take a while fir integral to catch up.
Now I'm using variable activators to clear integral, it work for now but still need more tuning to be really work with the rest of my code.
Speaking of which, why and how using integral clearing excessively has negative effect, I have little experience in this kind of stuff.
And thanks again for tips.
@CptLiar
By reduced I really mean the time that input still stuck lol, guess we really mean the same thing anyway lol.
For now I just use very sensitive pitch rate to make up for the lack of "I", it's effective but just a workaround.
I'll see what I can do.
Try using mass scale 1 and drag scale 0 instead so the camera won't slow down and fly formation with it will be easier. (Newton saids that mass keep things that's in motion, in motion, so mass is a must have. And things in motion won't stop until they meet an opposite force so drag is a no no.)
Also, using smaller wing will not affect the host plane's CoL that much.
Fly by wire was built with love and care.
Not to mention all those details found all over the plane.
The plane fly super smooth, I'm very impressed.
Good job.
Also, I've noticed you using PID control, "I" in PID is a bit tricky, there is a rare case when pilot keep pulling the stick but the plane can't pull up anymore (like on takeoff or at very low speed), the "I" will accumulate the pitch command and the elevons will stuck in pitch up until the plane actually pull up and only then the accumulated "I" will disappear. (hope that make sense lol)
I personally not using "I" in PID, at least not until I can figure it out how to use it properly but hey... your fbw is already a top-tier if you ask me.
@TRD6932
It's actually detached camera but with wings and gyro.
I tried just detached camera once, it drop like a rock and the shot was terrible.
I guess I just left out the detached part lol.
@Gro
+1lol
I might as well fly heli.
@Grob0s0VBRa
+1He beat the cellulite out of me.
@SkyJayTheFirst
+1Nice.
Might as well try to fly backward with 0 throttle to really confirm that FT code work correctly.
Because in my USS Tiny landing video, I haven't add control for backward flight yet so the control power is purely from the sheer force of tvc.
@SkyJayTheFirst
+1lol
+ and - can have devastating effect when it's wrong.
@IceCraftGaming
+1Guess I'll be using Challenge accepted™.
@SkyJayTheFirst
+1Tuning is the hard part lol.
Keep at it, you'll always find something new.
@SkyJayTheFirst
+1It took 2 years for me, let's see how long it will take for you.
@BlackThuNDR
+1I ain't gonna watch no jet.
@SkyJayTheFirst
+1np!
@SkyJayTheFirst
+1Oh, I forgot to mention that fixed vertical stabilizer will always try to point the plane to the oncoming air stream which will hamper some flying backward stunts.
@SkyJayTheFirst
+1I think I have an answer for this.
I assume AG2 is PSM mode but the condition in canards is inversed, when AG2 is active the canard will correct for aoa which is counterproductive for PSM.
As a rule of thumb, you stall when certain aoa is exceed.
Also, (abs(AngleOfSlip) > 90 ? -1 : 1) can be final multiplier to have every commands work while fly backward.
like (abs(AngleOfSlip) > 90 ? -1 : 1)*(AG2 ? {aoa command} + {pitch rate command} : {pitch rate command})
@Thunderbolt916
+1How should it slow down while turning then?
It's performance is based on assumption because I can't get my hand on any document.
@AVERAGEAVIATIONENJOYER
+1You need this.
It work until your heading exceed certain value.
TargetHeading and Heading just don't mix together well because one go (0 to 360) and other go (-180 to 180) I can't remember which one but it's in the guide.
Convert them to be both in one of those range will solve the problem.
@Gx
+1Comes to think about it, I have no idea lol.
For my F-22, I still had engine activated even throttle is 0 (AG1 activated only) because my plane is heavy, thrust spike won't do much in term of speed.
@Gx
+1That might work.
But I have an alternative, when increasing thrust to one side, just lower the thrust of the other by the same amount, that way net thrust stay the same but distributed differently.
And how to make in equal?
idk
But I assume thrust is in linear relationship with throttle so lower the same % of throttle as you increasing it to the other side.
@Zaineman
+1lol
I'm one with the force.
This is in-Zaine man.
+1Also R2 would be so mad after being used as landing gear.
@Zaineman
+1Same go for me but the difference is the game itself lol.
By the time you playing those game, I guess I'm still learning how to walk.
@Zaineman
+1I think you might want to see this.
Such a unique concept.
Does this bring back some memory to you?
@TRD6932
+1lol
I really don't mind any of that.
@Zaineman
+1Combination of the two I guess.
Looking back to it, my replies was all over the place lol.
@Zaineman
+1That's how I learn FT too, just make changes to other people code and observe until I can do it on my own.
And Snowflakes's FT guide do clarified a lot in term of code syntax.
@Zaineman
+1I see.
You improve really fast.
@Zaineman
+1Hey, I've noticed that you tagged me on some sort of "need help" posts but those posts were deleted, am I missing something cool?
lol
I was away at the moment.
@TRD6932
+1lol
Thanks.
AI will make good shot if you fly often enough.
@LaughingMissile
+1I think you need to start with this.
I think it is the first of a kind.
My auto aim is a modified version.
@SkyJayTheFirst
+1There is no exact input but you can use something like this.
@Blitzgamer334
+1idk
I guess it's low fps or low physic.
@Quichenic
+1No, not now.
@SkyJayTheFirst
+1No no no.
It's just little things people not noticed but will make a difference if they are missing.
For example, inverting control surfaces control when the plane fly backward, when your plane fly backward the airflow reversed and pulling up will result in nose down, you'll find this useful at high aoa and it'll make some certain maneuver seamless.
Comparing how high g the plane can pull is not something I looking for anyway, it's just too easy to make 100g capable plane.
@SkyJayTheFirst
+1lol
To be honest, no.
There are a lot of "quality of life" code that you didn't have but if comparing just basic PSM, I think it's really good.
@ZoaMiki
+1Use both control surface and differential thrust, I'd say but if you can only have one, go with control surface.
Control surface is useless at low speed and tvc is useless at low engine power so they complete each other.
@ZoaMiki
+1So it's differential thrust then, it behave like gyro so no wonder why my first though was gyro.
And I think control surface will be more useful because when landing, the power setting will be low and differential thrust can potentially be less effective.
For me I'd use AngleOfSlip code for wing tips airbrake.
@TRD6932
+1lol
Do it nowwww.
If I were to make this version, I'd change code in the weapons bay to open with AG2 and maybe add dummy missiles instead, also replacing COPRO device with disco ball.
+1@Beifenglenglong
+1They just work, I don't know why lol.
@IceCraftGaming
+1lol
I don't blame you.
Lets keep the magic number.
Not bad.
+1For yaw, I suggest you play with AngleOfSlip Funky tree, I assume you using gyro for yaw and if the gyro have AngleOfSlip correction code the plane will act like it actually have rudder.
And you can disable AngleOfSlip by AG1 to go completely yaw unstable like it is of now.
Constantly have to adjust for angle of slip manually is not a nice thing to have in fighter this high-tech anyway.
@Gro
+1That's good enough I think.
@SnoWFLakE0s
+1That's make sense, trapezoidal method without clearing integral value was my first prototype lol, went well until the flight data change dramatically (which will required very difference trim setting for example) and it take a while fir integral to catch up.
Now I'm using variable activators to clear integral, it work for now but still need more tuning to be really work with the rest of my code.
Speaking of which, why and how using integral clearing excessively has negative effect, I have little experience in this kind of stuff.
And thanks again for tips.
You really push the limit of the plane.
+1Nice job.
@TRD6932
+1Nice.
@CptLiar
+1By reduced I really mean the time that input still stuck lol, guess we really mean the same thing anyway lol.
For now I just use very sensitive pitch rate to make up for the lack of "I", it's effective but just a workaround.
I'll see what I can do.
@SkullKid25
+1You flare too much.... pilot with tail strike.
@TRD6932
+1Nice reverse engineering btw.
Just missing a little bit of physics really.
Try using mass scale 1 and drag scale 0 instead so the camera won't slow down and fly formation with it will be easier. (Newton saids that mass keep things that's in motion, in motion, so mass is a must have. And things in motion won't stop until they meet an opposite force so drag is a no no.)
+1Also, using smaller wing will not affect the host plane's CoL that much.
Fly by wire was built with love and care.
+1Not to mention all those details found all over the plane.
The plane fly super smooth, I'm very impressed.
Good job.
Also, I've noticed you using PID control, "I" in PID is a bit tricky, there is a rare case when pilot keep pulling the stick but the plane can't pull up anymore (like on takeoff or at very low speed), the "I" will accumulate the pitch command and the elevons will stuck in pitch up until the plane actually pull up and only then the accumulated "I" will disappear. (hope that make sense lol)
I personally not using "I" in PID, at least not until I can figure it out how to use it properly but hey... your fbw is already a top-tier if you ask me.
@ANIMESHNIKONE
+1Thanks.
Check out the 1.11 version too, this plane is a bit outdated. (link is at the top of this page.)
@Hazerz
+1That's the question that I still have no answer.
@TRD6932
+1It's actually detached camera but with wings and gyro.
I tried just detached camera once, it drop like a rock and the shot was terrible.
I guess I just left out the detached part lol.