@DCSplanepro12 If you wish to use the 037, you might want to increase the grip to 70% both forward and sideways to mimic the tire improvement in the group B era. I decided to make this change after I found that my Stratos was faster due to increased grip.
@Jmplane678 I admit my laziness got the best of me. I thought that since the default HUD element is right where the screen sits, it would just be covered up.
@SimpleDynamincs I think they are in the rear wing that connects the main body and the wheels. The arms are either tucked in near the body or shoved into the front wing.
But of course, the only people that have answers to this are Chevrolet Chaparral team.
I am kinda curious about what you are looking for. From the driver's perspective, the only interior he can see are 3 enhanced reality screens, which are easy to add. However, the whole clam shell opening and closing to let people in is too complicated to build since there are no good references.
@JP11 Unfortunately, to get the sound you hear in the video, you have to edit the hidden jet engine (which I used for the sound effect) input upper limit according to the instruction I posted because I messed up. I do not wish to make another post without major updates.
@Gastonplanes A quick Google should tell you that it is a Vision Gran Turismo car from Chevrolet Chaparral. This car is inspired by wingsuit flying. It is basically a car wrapped around the driver. The driver drives in a prone position. The power source is a laser that ionizes the air and produces thrust. Click the hmmmm... link of ThomasRoderick to see more details.
I added too much shine to the main color of the car. Change the first color (white) to the following stats for better results: Metallic: 50%, Smoothness: 80%.
Also, change the upper limit of the input from 1 to 2 in the InputController XML editing tab of the jet engine hidden inside the car if you wish for a sound that is closer to that of Gran Turismo.
7.5 years ago, I have tried to build a transformable VF-25. That plane took me 3 months. Due to the lack of XML modding and funky trees, the build was barely functioning and it looked terrible. That plane also killed my enthusiasm for variable fighters due to the terrible outcome and burnout.
Now seeing this build. I have complicated feelings. Perhaps it is the best example of the power of time and dedication from Jundroo. Without the integration of funky trees and fuselage slicing, creating accurate geometries without sacrificing the transformation capability will be impossible.
I am not sure if I should try to get back into building variable fighters since I have other things to do. But I am dang sure that if I do, I will do much better than what I have achieved 7 years ago. See you around in SP2.
I am not sure if my suggestion from the last post went through or not. I guess it did not. Therefore, I think I will make some modifications trying to make the front of the car look less flat. Also, for the name, I think Velox is better since it is more modern. Ventus is just too latin and feels ancient.
The middle section is a bit too flat which consequently makes the front end flat. I will make sure to make modifications early this time so that the end product turns out better. I think I will post a modified unlisted version so you can see it better.
@Hanahany To be frank, everywhere is not right for me. The basic outline is correct but every detail is wrong. The wing has the wrong shape and size, the fuselage is too short. The tail is too short. The cockpit is too sort. etc. The moment I tried to make a detailed comparison, the moment I found those modeling errors that can be avoided. Although my previous comment contained the link to my fix. I think I will explicitly put it here
@Rb2h For me, it is just a part limit. I was basically trying to push below 100 parts. I think a better metric should be performance cost since that determines how hard it is to run a vehicle.
@BYardley The rear suspension is just a common suspension component I made a while ago. It works well enough so if a car has a space to hide it, I use it. Although each car will have the suspension modified to accommodate for the behavior I desire. The front suspension is a great way to make an open-wheel suspension after you are done modeling it. I added hinges at places that need rotation and hid the spring within a fuselage block to imitate a push rod design (Pull rod does not work well here, unfortunately). This design is what I use for my Allundra F5 Evo.
@DCSplanepro12 If you wish to use the 037, you might want to increase the grip to 70% both forward and sideways to mimic the tire improvement in the group B era. I decided to make this change after I found that my Stratos was faster due to increased grip.
@DCSplanepro12 You seems to forgot about my potato cars.
BMW with syphilis
+3忘记说了，你的用的HUD零件有一些变量需要粘贴到飞机的变量栏里连接在这https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/0dH9ML/1Parts-HUD
@mmmmmmmkl 可以参考我做的Mig-25
@mmmmmmmkl 阻力有问题，我看了看你飞机的阻力分布，非常的不对称。一般自行建模的导弹都会把所有上面的零件的calculateDrag参数改成false。除导弹本体之外所有的外观零件必须把质量massScale设为0才能保证导弹的精准。飞机本体的阻力也要改动，我个人喜欢把dragScale改成0因为比较省事，但该calculateDrag参数是比较节省计算资源的。
@mmmmmmmkl 能具体说一下Su-27的问题吗？我测试的时候没发现什么特别严重的问题。
@mmmmmmmkl 啊搞错了，应该是true
@mmmmmmmkl 水平尾翼所有的可动部件
@mmmmmmmkl 你的Su-27的问题就是零件碰撞。在模组界面激活Overload模组，然后你就可以在编辑界面找到一个属性DisableAircraftCollision。把这个属性改成false。
What is the language you are comfortable with? I can speak Chinese.
你说中文吗？如果你有问题我可以来修一下。
Make it longer so the proportions feel better.
@V Because this car is powered by bullet impact. I do not know how to remap the firing gun control with funky trees.
+1@Jmplane678 I admit my laziness got the best of me. I thought that since the default HUD element is right where the screen sits, it would just be covered up.
+1@SimpleDynamincs I think they are in the rear wing that connects the main body and the wheels. The arms are either tucked in near the body or shoved into the front wing.
But of course, the only people that have answers to this are Chevrolet Chaparral team.
+2@Jmplane678
I am kinda curious about what you are looking for. From the driver's perspective, the only interior he can see are 3 enhanced reality screens, which are easy to add. However, the whole clam shell opening and closing to let people in is too complicated to build since there are no good references.
+1@JP11 Unfortunately, to get the sound you hear in the video, you have to edit the hidden jet engine (which I used for the sound effect) input upper limit according to the instruction I posted because I messed up. I do not wish to make another post without major updates.
+2@keiyronelleavgeek566 No. The farthest Chevrolet Chaparral got is a rolling chassis model displayed during 2014 LA auto show.
+1Build, post, refuse to elaborate, leave. That about sums up this builder.
+4@CaptainBrayden Thx
Link to car
@Gastonplanes A quick Google should tell you that it is a Vision Gran Turismo car from Chevrolet Chaparral. This car is inspired by wingsuit flying. It is basically a car wrapped around the driver. The driver drives in a prone position. The power source is a laser that ionizes the air and produces thrust. Click the hmmmm... link of ThomasRoderick to see more details.
+2I added too much shine to the main color of the car. Change the first color (white) to the following stats for better results: Metallic: 50%, Smoothness: 80%.
Also, change the upper limit of the input from 1 to 2 in the InputController XML editing tab of the jet engine hidden inside the car if you wish for a sound that is closer to that of Gran Turismo.
@AirNK Propulsion. This thing is powered by bullet impact.
+1@ThomasRoderick @SuperSuperTheSylph Does this thing run well on mobile?
+2@Rjenteissussy @ConvoyPerson @BYardley
Gun propelled car and floppy hinge suspension.
+2@Tingly06822 @KSB24 @dussts
I think you will find this build interesting
+17.5 years ago, I have tried to build a transformable VF-25. That plane took me 3 months. Due to the lack of XML modding and funky trees, the build was barely functioning and it looked terrible. That plane also killed my enthusiasm for variable fighters due to the terrible outcome and burnout.
Now seeing this build. I have complicated feelings. Perhaps it is the best example of the power of time and dedication from Jundroo. Without the integration of funky trees and fuselage slicing, creating accurate geometries without sacrificing the transformation capability will be impossible.
I am not sure if I should try to get back into building variable fighters since I have other things to do. But I am dang sure that if I do, I will do much better than what I have achieved 7 years ago. See you around in SP2.
@AbdulRivai I think my Rivelta Solaire should be a good example.
Why not funky tree steering? The car would behave more realistically.
@dussts Magical. Somehow works really nicely.
+2@F1Fan8910 I am not saying it does not work, the structure is not correct and therefore the dynamics are compromised.
The suspension... Am I going to fix it again?
+1@JA311M I just expect better screenshot for the final release.
This one looks much less cursed. Keep up the good work!
@JA311M Sounds more modern.
Here is the link to the modified car
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/xlAAnt/Vigilant-M4-concept-Modified
I hope it is helpful. Trying to describe what is wrong is less effective than fixing it.
I am not sure if my suggestion from the last post went through or not. I guess it did not. Therefore, I think I will make some modifications trying to make the front of the car look less flat. Also, for the name, I think Velox is better since it is more modern. Ventus is just too latin and feels ancient.
@JA311M This post contains the modified sections I was talking about. They are color-coded for clarity.
Explicit link:
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/9BAbzR/Vigilant-M4-concept-Modified
The middle section is a bit too flat which consequently makes the front end flat. I will make sure to make modifications early this time so that the end product turns out better. I think I will post a modified unlisted version so you can see it better.
Is this a double wishbone or Mcpherson strut design because I cannot figure it out myself.
@Hanahany To be frank, everywhere is not right for me. The basic outline is correct but every detail is wrong. The wing has the wrong shape and size, the fuselage is too short. The tail is too short. The cockpit is too sort. etc. The moment I tried to make a detailed comparison, the moment I found those modeling errors that can be avoided. Although my previous comment contained the link to my fix. I think I will explicitly put it here
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/q3FL88/sbd-fix
+1@Chazsaviation I seriously don't know because I sketched the plane before building it.
+1@Rjenteissussy Make it six.
+1I tried to fix your SBD to a degree but could not make it perfect as there are many inherent modeling errors.
+1@Rb2h For me, it is just a part limit. I was basically trying to push below 100 parts. I think a better metric should be performance cost since that determines how hard it is to run a vehicle.
@BYardley The rear suspension is just a common suspension component I made a while ago. It works well enough so if a car has a space to hide it, I use it. Although each car will have the suspension modified to accommodate for the behavior I desire. The front suspension is a great way to make an open-wheel suspension after you are done modeling it. I added hinges at places that need rotation and hid the spring within a fuselage block to imitate a push rod design (Pull rod does not work well here, unfortunately). This design is what I use for my Allundra F5 Evo.
+1I just took the lazy approach and locked the pitch and roll in landing mode in my TIE fighter.
+1Looks like you made Soviet T-35 tank into a helicopter.
I think you need a funky tree based flight system to make it more like how it is portrayed in the anime.