@GorillaGuerrilla
Slow is smooth, smooth is fast right?
lol
Just like irl, they don't have that high thrust to work with so the engineer have to be creative to achieve psm.
And also yes, most of my planes have tvc and capable of psm but not all of them, I have some non-tvc planes too.
@Grroro
Based on education in my area, yes it is tough.
When I was 13, I was taught only basic logic like true&true=true, true&false=false, and nothing else, they occupy my brain but no application or usage beside doing exam.
Let's me breakdown something real quick.
In previous version, this plane have low wing loading but high thrust so it'll be able to overpowered it's stability to stall but this version has lower thrust it can't do that anymore, it can stall and do PSM but it just harder to do.
Also the rudder folding down add to the plane's overall stability so keep that in mind too.
A little more backward CoM will make the plane able to do PSM easier since you don't have high thrust to work with.
Also, the FT code need some tuning as I said in one of the previous version, the code move too little to affect the control.
I'd say this has a lot of potential hidden in it's hood.
@Grroro
True.
But I think making artificial stability require knowledge of flight and algebra which are somewhat limiting by itself.
Many young people in SP may not have learned algebra enough to understand Funky tree anyway lol.
@SkyJayTheFirst
It's necessary painful work if you ask me.
I was in this circumstance before, my nozzles made from wings part, it cause drag and unnecessary lag.
More stable than the previous version, good job.
Folding tail is good idea to get rid of yaw stability but the fact that you use wing piece as nozzle give the plane yaw stability, it might be your intention but I recommend removing nozzles or replace it with fuselage part and see for yourself it's true potential without yaw stability.
@LubenweiNiuB
Yeah.
I don't want to stack multiple of them in one place.
I want it to look somewhat realistic so I just have to go with the space it have.
@Kangy
I think I'll go watch some more landing footage.
Those info I've got was only from words not an actual footage so I think I might translate it wrong.
Funny how it still make sense when I shuffle the wire number around.
@AVERAGEAVIATIONENJOYER
Yeah.
Just make sure that control surfaces actually can keep the plane from stalling in the first place, no amount of FT can help if control surfaces aren't powerful enough.
...Pilots aim for the second wire for the three-wire configuration or third wire for the four-wire configuration to reduce the risk of landing short....
And they always catch the 3rd wire from the front so this conflicted with you.
I think wiki is no good here, it's conflicting within itself (it was a quick search anyway).
But you left why most people call it 3rd wire unexplained.
Your last 2 lines didn't help either.
This plane actually quite nice.
I suggest move CoM forward, the plane is too unstable the canard can't limit aoa.
The plane try to flip over and fly backward while I'm doing Cobra, that's the sign of the plane is so unstable it's better fly backward.
Apparently this plane doesn't need this over the top 30 degrees of tvc to do PSM, 10 is enough, it was tuned good enough so it'll not stall by normal flight but can stall if the pilot want to.
I think this leave yaw tvc to be desire, if the plane's layout not permitted you can use differential thrust instead of moving nozzle.
Also, I'm spoiled by those fancy FT control system so I suggest you to use code in tvc nozzles too, when you doing PSM the engines are most of the control you have, even you have super fancy FT but no code in tvc you'll have a hard time flying PSM regardless.
@babineko
it's ok.
My point is you solve one problem and create new problem in the process so that's not ideal isn't it.
Beside, if it was that easy I'd solve them long ago rather than stuck with this design choice.
There is no answer so I went for the least "terrible" solution.
@SkyJayTheFirst
That's the way aerodynamic work anyway, you can't PSM at high speed, not with wing loading this low anyway.
The flat bottom should still be there because it's unmatched (and probably no substitute) high aoa characteristic and you should workaround it instead.
If you use semi-symmetric, you can PSM at high speed but tumble horribly, I'd rather not PSM at all.
I know there are overwhelmingly many things to play around so I suggest you to pick the design choice base on it's unique capability that no other part can cover rather than how easy it is to make.
@SkyJayTheFirst
For pitch rate, you can test it by pull up and if the plane resist that's mean you are on the right direction but may be too much of *0.00x (pitch rate multiplier).
Most of the time if pitch rate is implemented correctly, the plane will stop pitching on it's own at some speed but if it's inverted it'll be amplifying the pitch all the time and once it pulled up it'll never stop.
For roll, have you use flat-bottom wings as I said before?
If not there will be problem with roll at high aoa and that'll hurt it's PSM capability.
Also, vertical stabilizers can induce roll at high angle of slip.
Fly much better.
I suggest you change wing airfoil to flat-bottom because it have the best high aoa and stall characteristic. (it eliminate roll inversion at high aoa which should not be present in modern jet)
And I have a good and/or bad news, the plane fly smooth not because FT code you use but the plane was nicely tuned before.
Because you multiply the rate by 0.00x so the actual value use to calculate in code will be so tiny it basically not affect the input.
@SkyJayTheFirst
To achieve 40g, the plane have to be very light (low wing loading) but light plane will be hard to stall so that is a problem, you can't have both.
Unless the plane is going at very high speed, just a slight turn can result in a very high g load.
@SkyJayTheFirst
You can do that combine the pitch and roll code by any mean but I have them separated in the video just for simplicity reason and for ease of access.
It can be confusing if the code is in one rotator because of inversion of value, even separated I still get those values inverted in the video.
Judging from what it seems to do, decrease max output the faster you go
Yeah, you're not wrong, as you go faster, the plane can turn faster with the same elevator deflection because there is more force acting on the plane.
That's why output is decreasing, to maintain the same turn rate.
Not using pitch rate, roll rate and yaw rate is like cutting your own legs tbh.
Pitch rate, roll rate, yaw rate are bread and butter of fly by wire if you ask me, not only they used to limit the movement rate but it can be used to eliminate unwanted movement too, like my plane that will try to stop any movement that isn't pilot's command. (If you pull up, you get pulled up not some random roll and/or some yaw.)
@SkyJayTheFirst
Since you asked for my opinion so I'll give mine, about flight model.
I think you going the right way to make basic PSM plane but there are issues.
- Static stability and psm don't mix together, to do psm you need to stall but static stability prevent that, what you need is artificial stability which can be activate at will.
- This plane have low wing loading and CoM in the front so this plane is quite stable by default so it'll be hard to stall and need more force to do psm. (Which explain why the plane have ridiculous tvc range of motion.)
- Code doesn't work, you put *0.002 behind pitchrate so it'll be so little it barely affect the control.
- Code should be more than pitchrate, it should be code for all axis of control in those part that control said axis.
That's all.
Total 🤔/10.
@Dragonflame26
When it is off you can turn with high aoa and not stall if you pull the stick just right.
It's not an optimum way to turn or anything but it is a quick way to make a turn by trading a lot of airspeed for nose position.
@MajorFubuki
clamp01(ammo("MSL") > 0 & clamp01(SelectedWeapon = "MSL") will work well in most situation but will not be perfect for my rotary magazine, thus my weapons bay will have that code with some add-on.
And you can find railGunDeploy in a rotator in the railgun, I use it to tell if the railgun is completely deployed, if not it'll not fire because there is a risk of hitting yourself.
Also, if the landing gear is deployed, weapons bay will not fully open but still functioning but railgun will be half deployed and will not fire.
@ShinyGemsBro
Hmm...
I think wing flutter is perfect for this wing configuration, it flutter a lot when speed is high but it reduce when wings are folded.
@BlinIndustry
+1lol
I don't think I will.
This is pretty cool.
+1I like how it can drive on water.
@GorillaGuerrilla
+1Slow is smooth, smooth is fast right?
lol
Just like irl, they don't have that high thrust to work with so the engineer have to be creative to achieve psm.
And also yes, most of my planes have tvc and capable of psm but not all of them, I have some non-tvc planes too.
@Dracul0Anderson
+1Not surprise, there are many ways that the code can go wrong lol.
But I guess you miss the variable setting.
@SkyJayTheFirst
+1Yeah, that's the point, they limit your engine thrust so you have to do something else to preserve the same degree of maneuverability.
@Grroro
+1Based on education in my area, yes it is tough.
When I was 13, I was taught only basic logic like true&true=true, true&false=false, and nothing else, they occupy my brain but no application or usage beside doing exam.
Let's me breakdown something real quick.
+1In previous version, this plane have low wing loading but high thrust so it'll be able to overpowered it's stability to stall but this version has lower thrust it can't do that anymore, it can stall and do PSM but it just harder to do.
Also the rudder folding down add to the plane's overall stability so keep that in mind too.
A little more backward CoM will make the plane able to do PSM easier since you don't have high thrust to work with.
Also, the FT code need some tuning as I said in one of the previous version, the code move too little to affect the control.
I'd say this has a lot of potential hidden in it's hood.
@Grroro
+1True.
But I think making artificial stability require knowledge of flight and algebra which are somewhat limiting by itself.
Many young people in SP may not have learned algebra enough to understand Funky tree anyway lol.
@Grroro
+1lol
Yeah.
Physic don't understand those people.
@LubenweiNiuB
+1idk can't remember.
It was default image on the Unity so this is all it has. (Take a look in the label code to know what I mean)
@SkyJayTheFirst
+1It's necessary painful work if you ask me.
I was in this circumstance before, my nozzles made from wings part, it cause drag and unnecessary lag.
More stable than the previous version, good job.
+1Folding tail is good idea to get rid of yaw stability but the fact that you use wing piece as nozzle give the plane yaw stability, it might be your intention but I recommend removing nozzles or replace it with fuselage part and see for yourself it's true potential without yaw stability.
@LubenweiNiuB
+1Yeah.
I don't want to stack multiple of them in one place.
I want it to look somewhat realistic so I just have to go with the space it have.
@Kangy
+1Yeah.
The fly testing part is more tedious imo.
@Kangy
+1Not English apparently.
No where near English.
lol.
@Kangy
+1I think I'll go watch some more landing footage.
Those info I've got was only from words not an actual footage so I think I might translate it wrong.
Funny how it still make sense when I shuffle the wire number around.
@AVERAGEAVIATIONENJOYER
+1Yeah.
Just make sure that control surfaces actually can keep the plane from stalling in the first place, no amount of FT can help if control surfaces aren't powerful enough.
@BaconEggs
Bro, just chill.
Wiki also have this.
And they always catch the 3rd wire from the front so this conflicted with you.
+1I think wiki is no good here, it's conflicting within itself (it was a quick search anyway).
But you left why most people call it 3rd wire unexplained.
Your last 2 lines didn't help either.
This plane actually quite nice.
+1I suggest move CoM forward, the plane is too unstable the canard can't limit aoa.
The plane try to flip over and fly backward while I'm doing Cobra, that's the sign of the plane is so unstable it's better fly backward.
@CallMeGen
+1It is a little wonky on low physic.
@SkyJayTheFirst
+1Good luck.
@SkyJayTheFirst
+1lol that's also possible imo.
No fully digital camo?
+1I'm sad now.
Hope some midnight espresso will heal me.
@SkyJayTheFirst
+1Interesting.
And the Raptor?
It'll be T-Rex I'm sure.
@SkyJayTheFirst
+1Yes.
You won't see this exact radar in any older post.
Apparently this plane doesn't need this over the top 30 degrees of tvc to do PSM, 10 is enough, it was tuned good enough so it'll not stall by normal flight but can stall if the pilot want to.
+1I think this leave yaw tvc to be desire, if the plane's layout not permitted you can use differential thrust instead of moving nozzle.
Also, I'm spoiled by those fancy FT control system so I suggest you to use code in tvc nozzles too, when you doing PSM the engines are most of the control you have, even you have super fancy FT but no code in tvc you'll have a hard time flying PSM regardless.
@babineko
+1it's ok.
My point is you solve one problem and create new problem in the process so that's not ideal isn't it.
Beside, if it was that easy I'd solve them long ago rather than stuck with this design choice.
There is no answer so I went for the least "terrible" solution.
@SkyJayTheFirst
+1That's the way aerodynamic work anyway, you can't PSM at high speed, not with wing loading this low anyway.
The flat bottom should still be there because it's unmatched (and probably no substitute) high aoa characteristic and you should workaround it instead.
If you use semi-symmetric, you can PSM at high speed but tumble horribly, I'd rather not PSM at all.
I know there are overwhelmingly many things to play around so I suggest you to pick the design choice base on it's unique capability that no other part can cover rather than how easy it is to make.
This create more issues than fix them tbh.
+1Landing gear is bending just by parking the plane and HUD is mess up.
@SkyJayTheFirst
For pitch rate, you can test it by pull up and if the plane resist that's mean you are on the right direction but may be too much of *0.00x (pitch rate multiplier).
Most of the time if pitch rate is implemented correctly, the plane will stop pitching on it's own at some speed but if it's inverted it'll be amplifying the pitch all the time and once it pulled up it'll never stop.
For roll, have you use flat-bottom wings as I said before?
If not there will be problem with roll at high aoa and that'll hurt it's PSM capability.
Also, vertical stabilizers can induce roll at high angle of slip.
+1@IceCraftGaming
+1Just put the rotor side way.
Problem solve.
And potentially introduced a lot more.
Mad respect for mobile pilot.
+1If you have mouse control or even joystick, I'm sure this would be done in no time.
Fly much better.
+1I suggest you change wing airfoil to flat-bottom because it have the best high aoa and stall characteristic. (it eliminate roll inversion at high aoa which should not be present in modern jet)
And I have a good and/or bad news, the plane fly smooth not because FT code you use but the plane was nicely tuned before.
Because you multiply the rate by 0.00x so the actual value use to calculate in code will be so tiny it basically not affect the input.
@RocketPal
+1It's the website problem perhaps?
Just keep trying.
Or just fly the my SU-57 ver 1.11 instead.
@SkyJayTheFirst
+1No problem.
Also, you can use this as reference to write FT code if you haven't already done it.
@SkyJayTheFirst
+1To achieve 40g, the plane have to be very light (low wing loading) but light plane will be hard to stall so that is a problem, you can't have both.
Unless the plane is going at very high speed, just a slight turn can result in a very high g load.
@SkyJayTheFirst
+1You can do that combine the pitch and roll code by any mean but I have them separated in the video just for simplicity reason and for ease of access.
It can be confusing if the code is in one rotator because of inversion of value, even separated I still get those values inverted in the video.
@BaconEggs
+1lol.
Good info btw.
@SkyJayTheFirst
Yeah, you're not wrong, as you go faster, the plane can turn faster with the same elevator deflection because there is more force acting on the plane.
That's why output is decreasing, to maintain the same turn rate.
Not using pitch rate, roll rate and yaw rate is like cutting your own legs tbh.
+1Pitch rate, roll rate, yaw rate are bread and butter of fly by wire if you ask me, not only they used to limit the movement rate but it can be used to eliminate unwanted movement too, like my plane that will try to stop any movement that isn't pilot's command. (If you pull up, you get pulled up not some random roll and/or some yaw.)
@SkyJayTheFirst
+1Since you asked for my opinion so I'll give mine, about flight model.
I think you going the right way to make basic PSM plane but there are issues.
- Static stability and psm don't mix together, to do psm you need to stall but static stability prevent that, what you need is artificial stability which can be activate at will.
- This plane have low wing loading and CoM in the front so this plane is quite stable by default so it'll be hard to stall and need more force to do psm. (Which explain why the plane have ridiculous tvc range of motion.)
- Code doesn't work, you put *0.002 behind pitchrate so it'll be so little it barely affect the control.
- Code should be more than pitchrate, it should be code for all axis of control in those part that control said axis.
That's all.
Total 🤔/10.
@OrderlyHippo
+1Interesting, I just don't feel like making F-35.
In fact, I have little experience in VTOL.
@jcrter14
+1Yes, there are total of 7 variables to add along with HUD, 4 from the original and 3 from my modification.
@Dragonflame26
+1When it is off you can turn with high aoa and not stall if you pull the stick just right.
It's not an optimum way to turn or anything but it is a quick way to make a turn by trading a lot of airspeed for nose position.
@SkyJayTheFirst
+1I'll see.
You using FT in the build?
@IceCraftGaming
+1lol
It's 70% plane 30% pilot, if you using my plane you are 70% complete.
@MajorFubuki
+1clamp01(ammo("MSL") > 0 & clamp01(SelectedWeapon = "MSL") will work well in most situation but will not be perfect for my rotary magazine, thus my weapons bay will have that code with some add-on.
And you can find railGunDeploy in a rotator in the railgun, I use it to tell if the railgun is completely deployed, if not it'll not fire because there is a risk of hitting yourself.
Also, if the landing gear is deployed, weapons bay will not fully open but still functioning but railgun will be half deployed and will not fire.
@Korzalerke
+1I think I'll just leave it there.
This plane is curated so I can't just edit my xml easily.
@ShinyGemsBro
+1Hmm...
I think wing flutter is perfect for this wing configuration, it flutter a lot when speed is high but it reduce when wings are folded.
@ALRX
+1lol
Thanks.
Those folding wings is what fascinate me.
@Pietro
+1I hope it worth the long wait.