Stunt planes have CoL and CoM spheres that are really close together. Try balancing your plane to be right on the edge of instability while still retaining control. Also keep the wing loading nice and low. Lastly, larger tailplanes will be able to generate more torque on the pitch axis, so it's good to make them a little big.
I find adding a vertical stabilizer helps keep cars mostly straight, but it also makes it harder to turn without including a rudder as well (which causes different problems).
Problem is, if the AI thinks the car is even a fraction of a degree off its course, it will slam the wheel to correct, then get stuck in an oscillation of constant over-correction.
@JacobHardy64 @BaconEggs Searching through older planes, it seems most, if not all Mriyas on the site are smaller than the real thing. I believe in order to properly experience the majesty of the largest plane on the planet, you need to build it in all its 290-foot-spanning, 314-ton glory. It would be a test of skill. Great fame will come to one who builds a successful 1:1 replica.
Replace the nosecone with a fuselage inlet.
Shift your stabilizers farther back, and make them a little bigger.
Increase the area of your vertical stabilizer.
Add extra lifting layers to the primary wings to lower wing loading.
Shift weight forward so there isn't as much overlap on the mass and lift spheres.
Applying all 5 of these fixes will make your plane fly.
I like the idea of incendiary rounds. But as the damage is now, any part hit explodes with enough force to destroy the rest of the plane, so you'd never notice the effect.
Length is too long, height is too short, and wingspan is just a bit under. Shape is too sharp also. Gradual subtle curves are key in contouring the Galaxy fuselage. Also, I strongly recommend finding a way to lower the part count. As it is now, it is really high.
As far as I am aware, no such aircraft exist. The widest single engine is, I believe the U-2, at 31.4 meters. I believe the the widest twin-jet is the in-development Boeing 777X series, with wingspans reaching only 71.8 meters.
But my knowledge is mostly limited to mainstream planes. There might be some obscure experimental plane I'm unaware of that fits the criteria.
@Johndfg Good taste. The C-17 is very accommodating. Workflow on uploads and offloads is the smoothest out of all the AMC's cargo aircraft in my experience. And they don't break down nearly as often as the aging C-5s do. I know it's going to be an easy day when I hear word one is going to arrive.
By the way, what's your part count so far? Looks pretty complex.
@SHCow The drag calculation process is inherently flawed. And the effect of minor asymmetries on the aircraft's mass to total moment is very exaggerated. Not to pick on the devs or anything, but the core mechanics of the game itself need a lot of improvement.
@SHCow You're certainly deserving of the praise. The paintjob you did on the S/MTD was very stylish.
Not to sound sappy or anything, but I witnessed your growth as a builder from the moment you posted your first plane up to now. It was cool seeing you improve.
@SHCow I know. He's got skills. You seem to be pretty good at it too. Better than me. The fanciest I've done is either the Conroy Tri Turbo Three alternate livery, or the private jet with the tail logo.
It's tactical espionage action. The genre is action-adventure with a focus on stealth mechanics. It's also filled with gimmicky bosses, and is a very fun series overall. It's got a unique blend of serious story and self-aware humor, and never takes itself too seriously. It's one of my favorite game series. I highly recommend you play it from the beginning. It's hard to describe the plot without burying you in spoilers. Most would suggest you to start with Metal Gear Solid (PlayStation, 1998), but the true beginning to the series is Metal Gear (MSX2, 1987). Or you could play them in canon chronological order starting with Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater (PlayStation 2, 2004). The choice is yours.
@SHCow Redoing the pylons could be hit or miss. It's a coinflip. This game gets pretty stupid when it comes to calculating drag.
Yeah, setting the wingtips to a higher-lift setting will offset some of the torque, making the auto-roll much slower. It will still be there, but it will be less of an issue. I tested it, and it's not that bad. The plane is in releasable condition in my opinion. Your trim controls for pitch are inverted, btw.
@CRJ900Pilot The shape and scale needs improvement though. For a 3D print, you should try to get as close to the actual shape as possible. THIS is my favorite image of the P-38 for reference on size and shape. It's a very accurate drawing.
@SHCow I've determined the source of the roll is a very slight difference between the drag points on a piece of the weapons pylon on the wing. One side has a part that is pinker than the opposite.
I found you can counter most of the rolling by setting both layers of the right wingtip to semi-symmetric.
Very impressive work by the way.
@SHCow HAHA. Heavens no. I gave up on trying to fix auto-rolls after spending countless hours trying to get my P-38 to fly level. They are typically REALLY hard to fix, and seem to plague most complex builds.
However, I'm willing to take a look at it to see if I could alleviate some of the torque. It won't be perfect though.
@SHCow That would require editing each part individually, then using math to determine the correct coordinates of each part, and how much heavier they should be. That could take weeks!
@SHCow I really wish mirroring didn't automatically add a bunch of unnecessary part connections while deleting disjointed ones. It would be so much more convenient.
@SHCow That is a good idea. Seems difficult to implement though. Hinges and no-collision parts would do it best. The ramps' position is controlled by the flight computer when the switches on the left-hand panel are set to "AUTO". When the switches are flipped to "EMERG", the ramps are locked in the fully open position.
Also, you might even need 5 rotators for the stabilators, since the flight computer also automatically adjusts them to compensate for the pitching when the airbrake is deployed.
@SHCow I usually brute force things. I try several different approaches until one of them works. If that doesn't work, I start analyzing things very closely, deducing the source of the problem by process of elimination aided by the information in the XML file. I'm a problem solver by nature. Military mind, attention to detail, that sort of thing.
@Noval5 Because if I started omitting things, the list wouldn't be complete.
@ChiChiWerx It's a pretty impressive piece of engineering. P&W really did a sweet job on it.
Let's see that first plane.
Stunt planes have CoL and CoM spheres that are really close together. Try balancing your plane to be right on the edge of instability while still retaining control. Also keep the wing loading nice and low. Lastly, larger tailplanes will be able to generate more torque on the pitch axis, so it's good to make them a little big.
I find adding a vertical stabilizer helps keep cars mostly straight, but it also makes it harder to turn without including a rudder as well (which causes different problems).
Problem is, if the AI thinks the car is even a fraction of a degree off its course, it will slam the wheel to correct, then get stuck in an oscillation of constant over-correction.
@SergioGT Thanks
@JacobHardy64 @BaconEggs Searching through older planes, it seems most, if not all Mriyas on the site are smaller than the real thing. I believe in order to properly experience the majesty of the largest plane on the planet, you need to build it in all its 290-foot-spanning, 314-ton glory. It would be a test of skill. Great fame will come to one who builds a successful 1:1 replica.
Replace the nosecone with a fuselage inlet.
Shift your stabilizers farther back, and make them a little bigger.
Increase the area of your vertical stabilizer.
Add extra lifting layers to the primary wings to lower wing loading.
Shift weight forward so there isn't as much overlap on the mass and lift spheres.
Applying all 5 of these fixes will make your plane fly.
Pretty nice data! Must have been tough collecting it all.
@PLANS Well then you're good to go on memory. How is your GPU? That's what's most important.
I like the idea of incendiary rounds. But as the damage is now, any part hit explodes with enough force to destroy the rest of the plane, so you'd never notice the effect.
The AI has a nasty habit of randomly trying to cut corners and skip rings on this one. Time to cross my fingers and hope for the best!
Length is too long, height is too short, and wingspan is just a bit under. Shape is too sharp also. Gradual subtle curves are key in contouring the Galaxy fuselage. Also, I strongly recommend finding a way to lower the part count. As it is now, it is really high.
Wait, I found out the single-engine M-17 Stratosphera has a wingspan of 40.32 meters! Still too short though.
As far as I am aware, no such aircraft exist. The widest single engine is, I believe the U-2, at 31.4 meters. I believe the the widest twin-jet is the in-development Boeing 777X series, with wingspans reaching only 71.8 meters.
But my knowledge is mostly limited to mainstream planes. There might be some obscure experimental plane I'm unaware of that fits the criteria.
@Johndfg I would also like to test, and take a closer look at it.
@Johndfg Good taste. The C-17 is very accommodating. Workflow on uploads and offloads is the smoothest out of all the AMC's cargo aircraft in my experience. And they don't break down nearly as often as the aging C-5s do. I know it's going to be an easy day when I hear word one is going to arrive.
By the way, what's your part count so far? Looks pretty complex.
The C-17 is called Globemaster III.
The original Globemaster was the Douglas C-74.
Lovely work so far though. I've been inside the C-17 a few times. The roller system is much more easy to work cargo on than it is on the C-5.
@SHCow XML code does have a drag modifier, but the value is reset, recalculated, and overwritten automatically when the game loads.
@SHCow The drag calculation process is inherently flawed. And the effect of minor asymmetries on the aircraft's mass to total moment is very exaggerated. Not to pick on the devs or anything, but the core mechanics of the game itself need a lot of improvement.
@SHCow Careful with the decals. It's really easy for hard-edged pieces to produce undesired drag effects.
@SHCow You're certainly deserving of the praise. The paintjob you did on the S/MTD was very stylish.
Not to sound sappy or anything, but I witnessed your growth as a builder from the moment you posted your first plane up to now. It was cool seeing you improve.
@SHCow I know. He's got skills. You seem to be pretty good at it too. Better than me. The fanciest I've done is either the Conroy Tri Turbo Three alternate livery, or the private jet with the tail logo.
@SHCow Right? The part count is too high for my tastes, but you just can't fault that craftsmanship. Superb!
@Liquidfox I had way too much fun playing The Phantom Pain. Really good game.
@Liquidfox Oh, I forgot all about that. Now I wish I never sold my PS3!
@SHCow Pretty sure this is it. It's absolutely stunning visually. And the handling isn't bad either.
@Liquidfox Yeah! I think the only one I haven't played yet is Peace Walker. I lost my PSP ages ago.
@SHCow No prob. As it is now, I'd call it one of the better F-15s on the site. You should be proud of it.
@Smasher There's a thread on Reddit (LINK) that does a pretty good job of quickly describing the entire plot.
It's tactical espionage action. The genre is action-adventure with a focus on stealth mechanics. It's also filled with gimmicky bosses, and is a very fun series overall. It's got a unique blend of serious story and self-aware humor, and never takes itself too seriously. It's one of my favorite game series. I highly recommend you play it from the beginning. It's hard to describe the plot without burying you in spoilers. Most would suggest you to start with Metal Gear Solid (PlayStation, 1998), but the true beginning to the series is Metal Gear (MSX2, 1987). Or you could play them in canon chronological order starting with Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater (PlayStation 2, 2004). The choice is yours.
@SHCow Redoing the pylons could be hit or miss. It's a coinflip. This game gets pretty stupid when it comes to calculating drag.
Yeah, setting the wingtips to a higher-lift setting will offset some of the torque, making the auto-roll much slower. It will still be there, but it will be less of an issue. I tested it, and it's not that bad. The plane is in releasable condition in my opinion. Your trim controls for pitch are inverted, btw.
@CRJ900Pilot The shape and scale needs improvement though. For a 3D print, you should try to get as close to the actual shape as possible.
THIS is my favorite image of the P-38 for reference on size and shape. It's a very accurate drawing.
A whole day?
I really like the landing gear doors. No one has ever modeled them on the P-38 here.
By the way, the main gear has two doors each.
@SHCow I've determined the source of the roll is a very slight difference between the drag points on a piece of the weapons pylon on the wing. One side has a part that is pinker than the opposite.
I found you can counter most of the rolling by setting both layers of the right wingtip to semi-symmetric.
Very impressive work by the way.
@SHCow HAHA. Heavens no. I gave up on trying to fix auto-rolls after spending countless hours trying to get my P-38 to fly level. They are typically REALLY hard to fix, and seem to plague most complex builds.
However, I'm willing to take a look at it to see if I could alleviate some of the torque. It won't be perfect though.
Yes...
I see...
@SHCow There is an attribute in the second string of the XML file called "size=". I wonder what fiddling around with that does.
@SHCow That would require editing each part individually, then using math to determine the correct coordinates of each part, and how much heavier they should be. That could take weeks!
@SHCow Yeah, the F-15 is probably 2nd in planes I know the most about. Behind the P-38 of course. 3rd is probably the C-5.
@SHCow You don't have to give me that much credit. A mention in the description is good enough.
@SHCow I really wish mirroring didn't automatically add a bunch of unnecessary part connections while deleting disjointed ones. It would be so much more convenient.
@SHCow That is a good idea. Seems difficult to implement though. Hinges and no-collision parts would do it best. The ramps' position is controlled by the flight computer when the switches on the left-hand panel are set to "AUTO". When the switches are flipped to "EMERG", the ramps are locked in the fully open position.
Also, you might even need 5 rotators for the stabilators, since the flight computer also automatically adjusts them to compensate for the pitching when the airbrake is deployed.
Good job!
@SHCow OK. Good luck.
@MAHADI Interesting design.
@MAHADI Pretty good!
You're about to break platinum, and you still haven't updated your game.
Pretty amazing!
@SHCow I usually brute force things. I try several different approaches until one of them works. If that doesn't work, I start analyzing things very closely, deducing the source of the problem by process of elimination aided by the information in the XML file. I'm a problem solver by nature. Military mind, attention to detail, that sort of thing.
I already made a set of map images. HERE
You can use my images if you want. I still have the raws.