@MrSilverWolf I built the entire assembly away from the fuselage so it couldn't get stuck to anything, then I calculated the nudge interval to get it in place, and finally I used fine-tuner to nudge each part that exact distance. The steps are just rotated blocks. All the parts have collision disabled.
I used a similar technique on most of the moving parts of this plane.
@Magiccuber33 Thanks!
What is the exact power multiplication you used on the engines?
Also, C-5 empty weight is 380,000 lbs, and fuel capacity is 332,500 lbs.
Also, what did you judge "realistic" flight characteristics by?
@SHCow The drag calculator is just a mess of bad math to begin with. If anything needs a serious overhaul in this game, it's everything drag-related. Calculation, simulation... It's all messed. I'd mention it in the User Voice, but I wasted all my points on superfluous suggestions.
@SHCow The thing with real planes is you can trim the ailerons to smooth everything up. Real wings are actually quite asymmetric. There's tolerances on dimensioning, and no two sheet-metal jobs come out the same. Test pilots would tell you how the plane flies, and mechanics on the ground would calibrate the ailerons accordingly. The simplest form of trim is really quite graceful. It's just a single piece of metal bent to a specific angle. As airflow speeds up, it adds more pressure to the control surface itself, keeping it right where it needs to be for level flight at ALL airspeeds. PIC
But yeah, if SP had a slider across the top of the screen for aileron trim, that would make my day!
@SHCow That particular one.
It's a very old plane. It used to belong to FedEx. When they retired their fleet of 727s, they donated most of them to aviation maintenance schools across the country. The school I go to was one of the recipients.
As a training aid, it's fantastic. The 727 has a multitude of systems not unlike the systems still in use today for transport-category aircraft today. The design philosophy remains pretty much unchanged aside from improvements to safety and efficiency.
@SHCow Yeah, It's the 727-100. You can tell the -100 from the -200 by the length of the fuselage. -100s are shorter. I chose the -100 because I'm actually working on a real one at school. Valuable learning experience, but the airframe is rife with problems. Particularly the hydraulic system. Leaks Skydrol like you wouldn't believe. Nasty stuff.
@FennVectorCWA Sure thing.
@SHCow I've got a new technique for rigging up complex moving assemblies with clipping parts. It's working pretty great so far. But, I'm going to actually do slats this time, so who knows how long the fine-tuning will take.
Anyway, can you guess the exact model of plane I'm building?
Use structural wings. They do not flex. Within the code for the part, there is the line "allowControlSurfaces=". It defaults to "false" on the structural wing, but if you set it to "true", the editor will let you add surfaces.
allowControlSurfaces="True"
Looks like what you'd see if you took all the aluminum skin off of a semi-monocoque hull structure, and took out all the systems and guts. Nothing but stringers, formers, longerons, and bulkheads.
@BaconEggs @JoddyFubuki788 Thanks.
@CjrLdy I wasn't about to attempt a full interior. That would be a huge complicated project. Fiddle around with dead weight if you want to simulate higher gross weight flights. If you want to see a FULLY modeled cargo jet, check out Johndfg's C-17. It's a marvel to behold, but clocks in at 1498 parts.
@AdrianFlyingAce @Mostly @Liquidfox @Stickman @Insertname Thanks!
@cats @ChaMikey @Liquidfox thanks for spotlighting.
And wow! Didn't expect a feature! Thanks everyone for all the support! I honestly didn't expect this to be so popular.
@vonhubert Yes. I was going to include a tailplane trim actuator like the real one has, but I must have forgotten. Feel free to make any improvements to it. I'd like to see it be even better!
@vonhubert Also, the maximum payload of a C-5 is documented as such as there is a safety factor. The C-5 is actually capable of MUCH higher maximum gross. The limitations of the cargo deck's load-bearing permits it. And fuel weight is no concern because the C-5 can just refuel en-route via tanker. The Air Force flies them on the safe side, but I know for a fact C-5s often left warzones much heavier than they were allowed to be. And the C-5M is even stronger!
@AdrianFlyingAce Don't get me started on the Antonov Design Bureau. A design philosophy of "take someone else's design, and make it better" is a valid strategy sure, but I just don't like it. Also, there is only 1 An-225, which itself is just a modified Ruslan, which, following the Galaxy by more than a decade is very obviously just a case of typical Soviet "we can make it bigger" mentality. C-5 is the OG. Lifting tanks before the An-124 was even a twinkle in Antonov's eye.
@MAHADI @vonhubert @SHCow Thanks guys!
@SHCow Right you are!
Though, I won't be modelling a detailed interior or loading ramps. I'm keeping things simple to keep the part-count from getting unwieldy.
@t8erh8er No way. The design of the An-124, and the one-off modification of it, the An-225 are inspired by the great American plane that preceded them. Think of a plane first built in the late 60s.
A decent Falcon. The size is about right, but the shape is off.
An F-16's wings have a very slight anhedral, and the stabilators (emphasis on stabilator) have a more pronounced anhedral. The inlet is also supposed to be more pronounced, and the nose has more of a dip. You also forgot the ventral fins located near the arrestor hook. The tailroot should be thicker and more pronounced as well.
But ignore my nitpicking. Your plane is great regardless!
@Iamsilverdahedgie Thanks.
@MAHADI Thanks.
@Treadmill103 Wow thanks! Honestly, this was a 15-minute build.
@JoddyFubuki788 She's just big-boned.
I'm in! Good luck to all you blind bats!
@Liquidfox Thanks!
@MonexAircraft Thanks!
@MrSilverWolf I built the entire assembly away from the fuselage so it couldn't get stuck to anything, then I calculated the nudge interval to get it in place, and finally I used fine-tuner to nudge each part that exact distance. The steps are just rotated blocks. All the parts have collision disabled.
I used a similar technique on most of the moving parts of this plane.
@Magiccuber33 Thanks!
@Thomasj041 It is. You have to arm it with AG7. It's in the instructions!
@Planefun MVCC
@ForeverPie @Ryn176 @MAHADI @ChiChiWerx Thanks all!
@MrSilverWolf @BrianAircraftsNew Thanks!
@FennVectorCWA
@SHCow
It's done!
What is the exact power multiplication you used on the engines?
Also, C-5 empty weight is 380,000 lbs, and fuel capacity is 332,500 lbs.
Also, what did you judge "realistic" flight characteristics by?
@SHCow The User Voice site runs on a point system.
https://jundroo.uservoice.com/forums/221664-jundroo-games/category/84492-simpleplanes
@SHCow The drag calculator is just a mess of bad math to begin with. If anything needs a serious overhaul in this game, it's everything drag-related. Calculation, simulation... It's all messed. I'd mention it in the User Voice, but I wasted all my points on superfluous suggestions.
Amen to that.
I like building planes, not egos.
@SHCow The thing with real planes is you can trim the ailerons to smooth everything up. Real wings are actually quite asymmetric. There's tolerances on dimensioning, and no two sheet-metal jobs come out the same. Test pilots would tell you how the plane flies, and mechanics on the ground would calibrate the ailerons accordingly. The simplest form of trim is really quite graceful. It's just a single piece of metal bent to a specific angle. As airflow speeds up, it adds more pressure to the control surface itself, keeping it right where it needs to be for level flight at ALL airspeeds. PIC
But yeah, if SP had a slider across the top of the screen for aileron trim, that would make my day!
@SHCow That particular one.
It's a very old plane. It used to belong to FedEx. When they retired their fleet of 727s, they donated most of them to aviation maintenance schools across the country. The school I go to was one of the recipients.
As a training aid, it's fantastic. The 727 has a multitude of systems not unlike the systems still in use today for transport-category aircraft today. The design philosophy remains pretty much unchanged aside from improvements to safety and efficiency.
@SHCow Yeah, It's the 727-100. You can tell the -100 from the -200 by the length of the fuselage. -100s are shorter. I chose the -100 because I'm actually working on a real one at school. Valuable learning experience, but the airframe is rife with problems. Particularly the hydraulic system. Leaks Skydrol like you wouldn't believe. Nasty stuff.
@FennVectorCWA Sure thing.
@SHCow I've got a new technique for rigging up complex moving assemblies with clipping parts. It's working pretty great so far. But, I'm going to actually do slats this time, so who knows how long the fine-tuning will take.
Anyway, can you guess the exact model of plane I'm building?
@AdrianFlyingAce It would certainly make marking out parking positions on the apron easier.
Use structural wings. They do not flex. Within the code for the part, there is the line "allowControlSurfaces=". It defaults to "false" on the structural wing, but if you set it to "true", the editor will let you add surfaces.
allowControlSurfaces="True"
@JetWondy Awesome!
Looks like what you'd see if you took all the aluminum skin off of a semi-monocoque hull structure, and took out all the systems and guts. Nothing but stringers, formers, longerons, and bulkheads.
Lots of wings. It's very stylish. And fast too!
Looks great!
@AnonyMoose @XxGETREKTEDxX Thanks. I always aim for a balance of quality and low part-counts.
I'm so happy about spheres.
I can't even count the number of times I needed a spherical part.
No more sticking fuselage cones together like a loser!
@AdrianFlyingAce hehehe. Same thing with CH-53s.
@BaconEggs @JoddyFubuki788 Thanks.
@CjrLdy I wasn't about to attempt a full interior. That would be a huge complicated project. Fiddle around with dead weight if you want to simulate higher gross weight flights. If you want to see a FULLY modeled cargo jet, check out Johndfg's C-17. It's a marvel to behold, but clocks in at 1498 parts.
@Redstreak45 Hey, thanks! I'm glad you like it.
I'd like to enter my Mitsubishi-F1M-Type-Zero-Observation-Seaplane.
@AdrianFlyingAce @Mostly @Liquidfox @Stickman @Insertname Thanks!
@cats @ChaMikey @Liquidfox thanks for spotlighting.
And wow! Didn't expect a feature! Thanks everyone for all the support! I honestly didn't expect this to be so popular.
Pretty cool.
@Potkuri Nice. I had them all snap off when I attempted it.
@vonhubert Yes. I was going to include a tailplane trim actuator like the real one has, but I must have forgotten. Feel free to make any improvements to it. I'd like to see it be even better!
@vonhubert Also, the maximum payload of a C-5 is documented as such as there is a safety factor. The C-5 is actually capable of MUCH higher maximum gross. The limitations of the cargo deck's load-bearing permits it. And fuel weight is no concern because the C-5 can just refuel en-route via tanker. The Air Force flies them on the safe side, but I know for a fact C-5s often left warzones much heavier than they were allowed to be. And the C-5M is even stronger!
@Awsomur Thanks!
@Viper28
@TrainDude
@MAHADI
Thanks for the spotlight.
@AdrianFlyingAce Don't get me started on the Antonov Design Bureau. A design philosophy of "take someone else's design, and make it better" is a valid strategy sure, but I just don't like it. Also, there is only 1 An-225, which itself is just a modified Ruslan, which, following the Galaxy by more than a decade is very obviously just a case of typical Soviet "we can make it bigger" mentality. C-5 is the OG. Lifting tanks before the An-124 was even a twinkle in Antonov's eye.
@MAHADI @vonhubert @SHCow Thanks guys!
@Dimkal Thanks!
@Treadmill103 Thanks! It was a real chore getting everything to work right and conceal itself once retracted.
@SHCow It's here!
@Racrandall It's 14 last I counted. And most of them are just upgrades to an older outdated version. I love the plane a lot.
@Racrandall You can also bypass the reload by letting off the trigger momentarily. Kind of rendering the reload timer pointless.
+1@Racrandall 👍
@Racrandall Mine is pretty good too.
Aw yes! This is a pretty good one.
@SHCow Right you are!
Though, I won't be modelling a detailed interior or loading ramps. I'm keeping things simple to keep the part-count from getting unwieldy.
@t8erh8er No way. The design of the An-124, and the one-off modification of it, the An-225 are inspired by the great American plane that preceded them. Think of a plane first built in the late 60s.
Nice to see someone else who appreciates this lovely seaplane.
I made one of these too.
A decent Falcon. The size is about right, but the shape is off.
An F-16's wings have a very slight anhedral, and the stabilators (emphasis on stabilator) have a more pronounced anhedral. The inlet is also supposed to be more pronounced, and the nose has more of a dip. You also forgot the ventral fins located near the arrestor hook. The tailroot should be thicker and more pronounced as well.
But ignore my nitpicking. Your plane is great regardless!