@Rocketguy2079 Wow this is pretty. I think I will judge it according using original rules. But expect the scoring coming a bit later after I have received enough submission.
I have just made a sketch of a car using your design language. I think I will make that car just to prove that your design works but the proportions are what prevents you from reaching perfection.
@FluffyWaffle45 There was a certain period of time when there are speed limit on certain sections of the Nordschleife after the crash of that Koenigsegg one 1. But then that limit is removed and now manufacturers are getting new records. The Koenigsegg was never banned in any sense but that speed limit was applied for quite a while. And I guess they do not wish to lose another million dollar car to green hell. After all, the ease of driving is also important when challenging green hell.
This is undoubtedly a great lap. It may seems easy but since people tends to forget how these cars tends to snap on you, driving them fast is quite difficult. I know because I have tested the LCC Rocket. The only thing I want to know is how you make the suspension nearly indestructable. Every time I crash my LCC Rocket I will end up in stratosphere.
@TakicraftCorporation The choice of language is homage to professional car reviews which I think your build deserves. The car I have built using this kit is still running laps on Norschleife. I have yet to get a perfect lap in but recent imperfect records have shown great potentials of the platform. Once the lap is done, I will link the car in the video.
@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.
@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.
@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
@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.
For anyone who is annoyed by this thing. I can make it into a magical plane. But now I am turned off by that. I want to sense a real plane which needs caution to fly when flying this thing. Not the dumb feather in ace combat. Even though I have to admit that ace combat is a good game.
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.
@GrFrog Maybe I would figure out what I can do with it.
+1@FluffyWaffle45 This is the car I was talking about. I hope it can help you improve on your future builds.
+1@Rocketguy2079 Wow this is pretty. I think I will judge it according using original rules. But expect the scoring coming a bit later after I have received enough submission.
+1@ShiroNyan My advice is instead of trying to alter the shape of the car, you should focus on iconic decals that defines the car.
+1I have just made a sketch of a car using your design language. I think I will make that car just to prove that your design works but the proportions are what prevents you from reaching perfection.
+1@FluffyWaffle45 There was a certain period of time when there are speed limit on certain sections of the Nordschleife after the crash of that Koenigsegg one 1. But then that limit is removed and now manufacturers are getting new records. The Koenigsegg was never banned in any sense but that speed limit was applied for quite a while. And I guess they do not wish to lose another million dollar car to green hell. After all, the ease of driving is also important when challenging green hell.
+1@Zaineman I guess it is about time I turn my F-15ES into a Prez mobile.
+1@LunarEclipseSP Fair, I would post the car after the challenge then.
+1@LunarEclipseSP I think you will like how it handles on Nordschleife.
+1I think I have to join after driving this thing. I would like to improve its driving dynamics with custom suspension.
+1Ame bee when?
+1飞机外形很好，但飞控不太给力，座舱细节太少。可以在这基础上加点东西，把涂装做得更炫酷一些
+1This is undoubtedly a great lap. It may seems easy but since people tends to forget how these cars tends to snap on you, driving them fast is quite difficult. I know because I have tested the LCC Rocket. The only thing I want to know is how you make the suspension nearly indestructable. Every time I crash my LCC Rocket I will end up in stratosphere.
+1@o2o That is totally fine.
+1@ReinMcDeer I might try steering wheel and see what happens.
+1@TakicraftCorporation The choice of language is homage to professional car reviews which I think your build deserves. The car I have built using this kit is still running laps on Norschleife. I have yet to get a perfect lap in but recent imperfect records have shown great potentials of the platform. Once the lap is done, I will link the car in the video.
+1@FlyingPatriot
+1@MikeWallace 以前没有mod和位移工具的时候做得那叫一个蛋疼。我最后花了三个月做了一架VF-25之后就彻底收手了。那个变形机构是很帅，但是做起来太恶心了。
+1想起以前在IOS上做超时空要塞里的飞机的那段时间了
+1@WolfHunter9111 Are you okay with me using your character like this?
+1@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@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@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.
+1@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:
+1https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/p1fDRi/F-15ES-High-Mobility-Strike-Eagle
@Tohu
+1I also made an AI enemy version of your F-16. I changed it to F-16C. Can I post it?
@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.
+1It 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.
+1Looks like aneurysm
+1@WinsWings
+1Something Funky
@WinsWings
+1I think you will be interested to see what I can do when there is no part limit.
@WolfHunter9111
+1Shameless mentioning since I think you will be interested.
@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.
+1Legitimately, you can drive this car upside down. That is just how huge the downforce is.
+1Why 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.
+1你觉得没必要描述，我在玩的时候就不知道VTOL下拉是减速板。@2411181496
+1The scale is a bit off. The wing is too small and the tail is too big, making this plane a brick to fly.
+1@ThomasRoderick It is done. Try it. Only 222 parts.
+1For anyone who is annoyed by this thing. I can make it into a magical plane. But now I am turned off by that. I want to sense a real plane which needs caution to fly when flying this thing. Not the dumb feather in ace combat. Even though I have to admit that ace combat is a good game.
+1I think this thing may break your phone @ThomasRoderick
+1Thx mate@ThomasRoderick
+1挂架最好还是自己做，简飞提供的是西方挂架，不准确，我自己的空战测试也表明自己做的挂架是可行的，你可以去看看我的飞机上的挂架，那是我自己做的。
+1Thx man. I think it deserves more attention @ThomasRoderick
+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.