@o2o For each Pitch, Roll, and Yaw PID, there is a multiplier before the Pitch, Roll, and Yaw control input. There are separate PIDs for leveling mode and acro mode. The first PID is for the leveling mode and the second PID is for the acro mode. Therefore, you need to change the multiplier of the second PID. The problem is, the current setting is the fastest rate I can achieve without severe snap back. This drone seems to have a low limit in terms of its rates. You may need to tune down I term in PID to achieve faster rates.
@Zaineman Thank you very much! The only build I would like a spotlight is my F-15ES High Mobility Strike Eagle. And since that plane is already PSM capable, I think you do not need to work on that. Unless you wish to convert it to project wingman physics and give it a Monarch paintjob.
@ThomasRoderick It actually does calculate the lead but the rotator cannot keep up. Or rather, I did not account for the dynamics of the turret which is a big problem. Also, it does not help when I forgot to calculate the error caused by the cockpit placement.
@o2o I am not sure though, the problem with creating a detailed build is that I have to compromise on flight characteristic. But I think I may give it a try.
To be honest, although it is a brilliant build, I was slightly disappointed that you did not use any funky trees to create special AI to make it more deadly. I may have missed your touch on AI but I cannot see the apparent changes. Perhaps use variable system if you did make any notable changes.
To test the combat proficiency of this plane (and its pilot), I pitted it against my F-15C AI enemy and AI enemy modified from F-16C made by @Tohu piloted by AI. And they seems to have similar combat effectiveness despite not having ace pilot in them (OP missiles I assume).
@JoshuaW I think your plane is still an F-15. But we just built with different philosophy. Your build is only a test bed for your fly-by-wire experiments. This means performance accuracy and detail is not the priority of your concern. A plane with very low wing loading and powerful engine is the natural result since these features make planes fly a lot better.
My build carried a lot more weight. It is a test of all the newer functions added into this game since I have been dormant for more than 3 years. These functions include fly-by-wire systems. It also served as a proof of concept for myself since I had this F-15ES concept for years. This is also the reason why I opt for accuracy in flight performance. In addition, a heavier plane with much less power is certainly more challenging to control. An adaptive flight control algorithm with learning capability is planned but I have yet to iron out some of the theoretical details. After the algorithm is finished, I may compare the results with the ones on real F-15 Active (Yes, a lot of paper reading).
I don't know why suddenly we have 2 F-15s with canards pops up. Here is my take on it though:
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/p1fDRi/F-15ES-High-Mobility-Strike-Eagle
I don't know why suddenly we have 2 F-15s with canards pops up. Here is my take on it though:
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/p1fDRi/F-15ES-High-Mobility-Strike-Eagle
@Tohu Variable system is just a good way to clean things up and make programming simplier using Funky Trees. Without variables, you have to go to each actuator with overload and program their control input which can be difficult. As you can see in my build. I preprogrammed the control input for each actuator into variables. In this way, everything is a lot simplier to implement. But I think the variable system is not the answer you are looking for.
The main idea of feedback control is to feed the state of the aircraft back into the control input (feedback). In this way, the control system will have better stability and better control accuracy. This allow us to design the base system (the airplane) with more relaxed stability margin which means it is slightly more unstable than usual but not completely unstable.
One of the key element of the feedback control is the feedback gain. It is the number that you multiply before the states. The larger the number, the more sensitive the controller is to the state. But at the same time, the more likely the controller will freak out due to noise. Therefore, we need to use as high gain as you can get away with. choosing an appropriate gain value need experience but I suggest 0.01for any states as a good starting value
PitchStablized, RollStablized, and YawStablized is the lines that demonstrate the idea. The main idea of PitchStablized is like this:
All those gain are usually small constants. ControlScaling is usually a bigger constant that has value close to 1. However, because the control surfaces are more powerful at higher speed, I use lerp() function to scale the gain according to intermediate airspeed (IAS). There are some additional features in the line which resulted in a large clutter but the main idea is that line above. Similar idea was also demonstrated in RollStablized and YawStablized.
I hope this comment can help you start learning feedback control. It is a very powerful tool that can give you a lot of freedom in airplane design. The only way you can learn to design feedback controller is to design feedback controllers.
It is the most well done F-16 in my opinion. However, I do not like the fact that you made the plane stable. F-16 is known to be a unstable plane that require proper fly by wire to fly. Some of my experiments with this plane showed that it can turn on a dime if the fly by wire system is tuned properly.
I have something in the works to submit to your open wheel challenge.
@o2o I used the variable system so that is where you should be looking.
+1@o2o For each Pitch, Roll, and Yaw PID, there is a multiplier before the Pitch, Roll, and Yaw control input. There are separate PIDs for leveling mode and acro mode. The first PID is for the leveling mode and the second PID is for the acro mode. Therefore, you need to change the multiplier of the second PID. The problem is, the current setting is the fastest rate I can achieve without severe snap back. This drone seems to have a low limit in terms of its rates. You may need to tune down I term in PID to achieve faster rates.
+1@o2o Can you make a freestyle video with this drone? I am more of a racing guy so my freestyle capability may be limited.
+1@Zaineman Thank you very much! The only build I would like a spotlight is my F-15ES High Mobility Strike Eagle. And since that plane is already PSM capable, I think you do not need to work on that. Unless you wish to convert it to project wingman physics and give it a Monarch paintjob.
@ThomasRoderick It actually does calculate the lead but the rotator cannot keep up. Or rather, I did not account for the dynamics of the turret which is a big problem. Also, it does not help when I forgot to calculate the error caused by the cockpit placement.
+1@JacksEpicGamingYT Thanks! This was meant to be a weird test but it just shows my incompetence.
顶上去
@o2o I am not sure though, the problem with creating a detailed build is that I have to compromise on flight characteristic. But I think I may give it a try.
+1To be honest, although it is a brilliant build, I was slightly disappointed that you did not use any funky trees to create special AI to make it more deadly. I may have missed your touch on AI but I cannot see the apparent changes. Perhaps use variable system if you did make any notable changes.
To test the combat proficiency of this plane (and its pilot), I pitted it against my F-15C AI enemy and AI enemy modified from F-16C made by @Tohu piloted by AI. And they seems to have similar combat effectiveness despite not having ace pilot in them (OP missiles I assume).
+2Maybe you should try make Demoman's bottle and put a label on it.
"Guns?"
"Yes"
@JoshuaW 忘记可以讲中文了。额
+1@JoshuaW I think your plane is still an F-15. But we just built with different philosophy. Your build is only a test bed for your fly-by-wire experiments. This means performance accuracy and detail is not the priority of your concern. A plane with very low wing loading and powerful engine is the natural result since these features make planes fly a lot better.
My build carried a lot more weight. It is a test of all the newer functions added into this game since I have been dormant for more than 3 years. These functions include fly-by-wire systems. It also served as a proof of concept for myself since I had this F-15ES concept for years. This is also the reason why I opt for accuracy in flight performance. In addition, a heavier plane with much less power is certainly more challenging to control. An adaptive flight control algorithm with learning capability is planned but I have yet to iron out some of the theoretical details. After the algorithm is finished, I may compare the results with the ones on real F-15 Active (Yes, a lot of paper reading).
+1I don't know why suddenly we have 2 F-15s with canards pops up. Here is my take on it though:
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/p1fDRi/F-15ES-High-Mobility-Strike-Eagle
I don't know why suddenly we have 2 F-15s with canards pops up. Here is my take on it though:
+1https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/p1fDRi/F-15ES-High-Mobility-Strike-Eagle
@WinsWings
+2This is not an entry. I do not know why the auto credit decided to link to your challenge.
@Tohu
+2Here it is.
@Tohu
+1I also made an AI enemy version of your F-16. I changed it to F-16C. Can I post it?
有些线条有点怪但总体非常好
@Zaineman
I built something I don't like, again.
@Zaineman
Brain Fart Sound
trrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrB
@Tohu Variable system is just a good way to clean things up and make programming simplier using Funky Trees. Without variables, you have to go to each actuator with overload and program their control input which can be difficult. As you can see in my build. I preprogrammed the control input for each actuator into variables. In this way, everything is a lot simplier to implement. But I think the variable system is not the answer you are looking for.
The main idea of feedback control is to feed the state of the aircraft back into the control input (feedback). In this way, the control system will have better stability and better control accuracy. This allow us to design the base system (the airplane) with more relaxed stability margin which means it is slightly more unstable than usual but not completely unstable.
One of the key element of the feedback control is the feedback gain. It is the number that you multiply before the states. The larger the number, the more sensitive the controller is to the state. But at the same time, the more likely the controller will freak out due to noise. Therefore, we need to use as high gain as you can get away with. choosing an appropriate gain value need experience but I suggest 0.01for any states as a good starting value
PitchStablized, RollStablized, and YawStablized is the lines that demonstrate the idea. The main idea of PitchStablized is like this:
PitchStablized=ControlScalingPitch-gain1PitchRate+gain2*AngleOfAttack
All those gain are usually small constants. ControlScaling is usually a bigger constant that has value close to 1. However, because the control surfaces are more powerful at higher speed, I use lerp() function to scale the gain according to intermediate airspeed (IAS). There are some additional features in the line which resulted in a large clutter but the main idea is that line above. Similar idea was also demonstrated in RollStablized and YawStablized.
I hope this comment can help you start learning feedback control. It is a very powerful tool that can give you a lot of freedom in airplane design. The only way you can learn to design feedback controller is to design feedback controllers.
+1@Tohu Just posted.
+1@Tohu I think I will post my modification to your F-16 so you can see what Fly by Wire system can do to your plane.
+2It is the most well done F-16 in my opinion. However, I do not like the fact that you made the plane stable. F-16 is known to be a unstable plane that require proper fly by wire to fly. Some of my experiments with this plane showed that it can turn on a dime if the fly by wire system is tuned properly.
+1@Freerider2142 Just verified, that problem only occurs when the frame rate is low.
+2Looks like aneurysm
+1@WinsWings
+1Something Funky
@WinsWings No worries
@WinsWings Welp, I guess they will not matter anymore since both are not getting upvotes. My trashbin, however, is getting more attention.
@WinsWings
+1I think you will be interested to see what I can do when there is no part limit.
More like no need for description.
+2@WolfHunter9111
+2Thanks for the support. I think General Resources would not hesitate to upgrade it with coffin system.
@WolfHunter9111
+1Shameless mentioning since I think you will be interested.
@ThomasRoderick
I got the plane out. It was a bit too much work. I believe this thing will kill your phone.
I am also building an F-15 but with a twist.
+2@ThomasRoderick Officially a PhD now. I am planning to build an F-15E with S/MTD modifications to test some of the adaptive algorithms I will develop.
+1I have made one a long time ago but it was no where close to this one. Thank you for not forgetting this weird plane.
+2It should rumble more. This version I believe used an LS3 engine.
THICC
+2Wow
Legitimately, you can drive this car upside down. That is just how huge the downforce is.
+1Look at the front intake and rear nozzle@ThomasRoderick
就是弹射器加零重量炸弹@QingyuZhou
Rocket is too weak
Why you don’t use vortex cannon as main cannon?
+1If you use vortex cannon as your main cannon it would be perfect. And more blyatiful.
+1Lol@ZeroHours