it's nearing completion now. not sure exactly how long it will be before it's finished. a picture is attached here but the image in question has line effect turned on so the panel lines are darker than the will be upon completion. built a cockpit seat using a pilot model as a reference (found some very good ones by MAX GRUETER on the 3d warehouse), fitting controls now. then finish up in the rear and complete the boosters.
have been workign on the cockpit and redesigned the seat, now the thrust lever and a secondary purely rotational joystick(the other allows for curving flight paths in a very similar way to aircraft, by the use of steerable fins inside the engine exhausts, thrust vectoring and altering the power ratio between the engines) are on the left and the main(curving trajectories) joystick is on the right as in most current aircraft. fitting in the hyperspace lever will be quite a squeeze(i'm contemplating having a pedal the pilot can kick to enter hyperspace but am not sure if this would be a logical design choice, i know that aircraft do not have power pedals), but otherwise the cockpit is merely a matter of adding switches and dials. when viewing the image please note this is NOT an ejection seat and the pilot will not be wearing a full space suit(current pilot is a stand in downloaded so i can scale things correctly.), i made this decision because in my verse the only space suits available are big and bulky which would severely hinder a pilot's movement making it harder to fly the craft and increasing the chances of being destroyed. also even if a pilot had the necessary suit then ejecting would only slightly postpone their death, hitting any debris at even a fraction of the speeds this will reach with only a suit for protection will be fatal. if you have read the latest post on my thread in the writing section of this site you'll see thta i want to harden up my sci fi and reduce(though not entirely remove) handwavium, on account of this i set myself the rule of only allowing the following unrealistic tech:
1. bussard ramjets of unrealisitic efefctiveness
2. hyperspace travel
3. diracium metal(my supermaterial for high survivability hulls and other components)
4.acceleration damping through graviton like particle interaction(it's that or ignore the size of g forces produced otherwise)
5. shielding
everything else goes!!!
as a result i must alter my landing gear to something more realistic, my thoughts were a wheeled system like current aircraft but with limited vtol provided by specialised thrusters. i have hit a snag of how and where to site the rear landing gear.
issue comes down to the fact that there seems very little space to put it.
i would be interested to hear suggestions for landing gear but they would have to look fairly cool!
overall shot, taken whilst old landing gear was still attached Attachment not found.
finally if you can think of things that would give it a more hard sci fi appearance i may be interested but only if i personally think it improves the design rather than spoils it.
thanks
p.s. for model's like this what is a reasonable final poly cont? if you had modelled this in your software what sort of size(polys and megabytes) would you expect upon completion? just so i know if really ought to be reducing the complexity. want the model to render fairly quickly when animating. old hellhound was 188369 verts, 275137 faces in blender and 276303 edges, 112695 faces in sketchup.
id aim for 1.5 to 2 mill in polys if it is just for imagry and possibly very short animiations altho the less you can get the better but yeah 2 mill is usually the limit i try to stay in
id aim for 1.5 to 2 mill in polys if it is just for imagry and possibly very short animiations altho the less you can get the better but yeah 2 mill is usually the limit i try to stay in
thanks for the tip
fortunately i'm well below that limit for now. i hardly believe it but my new model is currently less polys than the old one(by a tiny margin) despite the extra detail. the boosters and switches may add on 10000 polys(unsure exactly but that's my estimate), should be around 110,000 to 130,000 upon completion.
what are your thoughts on landing gear and plausibility of pedal for hyperspace entry(as opposed to old lever doing same purpose)?
In regards to your control scheme, consider the following. In space you have true six degrees of freedom so you should consider that with your controls. A traditional aircrafts controls are as follows. The control stick controls pitch and roll (rotation about the lateral and longitudinal axis'), the throttle controls forward thrust (linear movement along the longitudinal axis), and the rudder pedals control yaw (rotation about the vertical axis). Note all these axis are aircraft relative. In space you now also have linear movement along the lateral and veritcal axis'. There are various ways to accomplish this, but seeing how you have redesigned the cockpit I would make the following recommendation.
Keep the right stick traditional, controlling pitch and roll. Keep the rudder pedals for yaw. Now the left stick, there are two options.
1) If the fighter has reverse thrust, which it does appear to have. Make the right stick control forward and reverse acceleration along with lateral movement. Then add a rocker paddle to the front of the stick for vertical thrust control. Now your throttle lever can be your hyperspace lever.
2) If the fighter does not have reverse thrust: I would put the left stick on a movement track. Sliding the stick back and forth will now adjust forward thrust, and the stick can now be used to control lateral and vertical movement. In that case however I would add a pinky lever for unlocking the vertical thrust control, otherwise pilots might accidentally apply downward thrust when adjusting the throttle open, and upward thrust when pulling the throttle back. Again that leves the current throttle lever open to use for hyperspace.
mostly though, some of it seemed to get a bit tangled, you appear to have mixed the sticks(you talk of options for left stick but then only mention right one in description). my thoughts had been the left stick as thruster rotation control, translation would be controlled from a minor lever on the control panel because during flight and combat it would rarely be used, it's main purpose being docking and landing though i can envision some maneuvers it would help with. i wanted to have a lever for thrust separate from the sticks as it allows for thrust control without running into any problems with direction(and can be more precise than the sticks for this) . the fighter certainly has reverse thrust, but i haven't factored this into my controls yet, would a small switch on the power/thrust lever allowing it to be altered for reverse thrust make sense? i don't get so much chance to work on the model nowadays so i've got probably 48 hrs odd before i get a chance to work on it, 48 hrs to work out decent controls and landing gear. right stick staying traditional makes sense, i would have thought yaw would be controlled from the left stick which acts as a rotational hand controller http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/controldeck.php .
as for key flight systems (all the reactor and ramjet stuff should not be needed for maneuvering) does "traditional right stick", "rotational left stick", "small panel mounted translation control", "thrust lever" and hyperspace cover it or are there an yother obvious systems?
thanks
targeting system,radar,lifesupport,landing gear,communications,GPS well SPS i guess since its in space ahha, coolent release system,back up system,blackbox thats all i can think of for key systems but yeha im sure there are more
targeting system,radar,lifesupport,landing gear,communications,GPS well SPS i guess since its in space ahha, coolent release system,back up system,blackbox thats all i can think of for key systems but yeha im sure there are more
comms is tough, it can have radio for short range but there's no ftl radio equivalent in my verse now. ftl messaging is done by sending a comm drone from the sender through hyperspace to the recipient where it transmits the data recorded onto it's colossal storage units by the sender. obviously only works if you know where the recipient is. comm drones would be almost half the size of this fighter so i can't really attach one by which it can send data, for some missions it's conceivable the drone could fly close to the fighter then enter hyperpsace to carry a message. some radar details fitted, no controls for it as yet. positioning done with a radio device that aligns various sensors with pulsars of known frequency(computers can adjust this knwoing ships speed to account for relativity), with the bearings( in 3d space) of the pulsars the system can calculate position of the fighter. coolant release? wouldn't that just run overheating from bad to worse. back ups, what can be backed up will be, what can't will be made as reliable as possible. blackbox, that would be tucked away where it can be best protected so you wouldn't see it anyway(so it's already in there).
what of landing gear ideas, front is easy but can't work out how to fit the rear stuff in.
thanks
Now using that and this image below I will explain how to arrange your flight controls:
In a traditional aircraft the pitch and roll are controlled by the center or side stick, usually set on the right side. Yaw is controlled by the rudder pedals at the pilot's feet. These are your rotational controls. I recommend that you keep this arrangement, changing it will lead to training issues with your pilots.
Now, given you current control scheme I recommend the following for the translational controls:
For forward and reverse flight: Set your left stick on a track, the track need not be overly long, six inches would be more than sufficient. Sliding the stick forward and back would make it act much like a traditional throttle. Set a stop at the rear that the pilot can override for reverse thrust, much like the pinky switch on an F-16s throttle that allows engagement of the afterburner.
For vertical control: Use the forward and back motion of the left stick, must like on the right stick, pulling back on the stick forces the craft to ascend, pushing foward, descend.
For Lateral control (side to side): Pushing the stick left or right will cause the craft to "slide" left or right.
Now, much like how NASA did on the Space Shuttle robotic arm, and the LEM, do not place the rotation joint for the left stick at the base. Instead, place it up the stick at the midpoint, this will help prevent accidental activation of the vertical thrusters when adjusting the throttle. EIther that, or have a lock out on the stick that prevents it moving inadvertantly.
Now I say this because you don't want to make your pilot release their controls for any reason when they are manuevering, whether dogfighting, docking, or just changing course. This is known as Hand On Throttle and Stick (HOTAS). You want to make all the most critical controls for flight and combat especially accessable without releaseing the controls because the split second it takes to move the hand away and back to the control can spell disaster very quickly.
yeah, HOTAS. that's the hard thing about designing controls trying to have everything so the pilot need never move his hands off one control onto another. some of that stuff strikes me as trying to put too many functions in each part, remember of course that the throttle for thrusting along forward reverse connects to the hugely powerful main engines while x and z axis translations will be done by some pretty feeble thrusters. from what i can see having the right hand stick controlling yaw/pitch in a "sweeping curve fashion" while left hand stick controls yaw/pitch/roll about CofM appears logical the severe issue being the need to remove the left hand from the CoM rotation control to change thrust. this must be corrected. side to side/up down translation is going to be less used so can i get away with siting this where the pilot must move a hand to use it? alternatively multifunction sticks, a small switch on each to flip between mode? obviously there's still space for pedals but using your foot to control the power does not strike me as being as precise as using your hand, would a pedal for thrust control as well as the lever make sense. that way the pilot could use the pedal when both hands were on the sticks but in less urgent situations get mote precise control from the lever. a second pedal could be for hyperspace entry, but given the nature of hyperspace taking a hand of other controls wouldn't matter for this as after you've entered you won't hit anything and changing trajectory in hyperspace is impossible(in a pre planned jump you rotate the nose to point at your destination with computers aiding precision, in an emergency escape jump: enter wait a few minutes and drop out several light years from the trouble after which you can plot a course. i may or may to have mentioned here, but did on my blog, that larger ships can't pull off these escape jumps because entry for larger masses takes far longer).
once again: landing gear tips would also be really useful because i cannot design the switches on my control panel until i know ALL the systems in the craft!
thanks
For someone who likes to lecture other folks here on physics you sure have a horrid understanding of it.
First off in space, craft to not make maneuvers in a "Sweeping curve fashion" that is how aircraft operate in an atmosphere because maneuvering is based on airflow interacting with control surfaces. In space, it is a vacuum, so all maneuvering so done with internal propellant. Firing a thruster in the nose makes the craft rotate about its center of mass, period.
Now, if one were to continue applying engine thrust then the craft will alter its thrust vector as well, but first it must fight its previous momentum. NuBSG and B5 got that almost right, if fighter maneuvered around, without killing their previous momentum first the made something analogous to a J turn, skidding backwards or belly down until the other thrusters killed their inertia.
Your control scheme therefore is just stupid. You might as well then just rid of the left hand stick and move the throttle into place there. You also need to learn to trust your pilots and consider their needs. Pilots do not want to release their controls, this is not a car.
Now as to your landing gear. I would suggest blending the underside of your wing into the engine more, increase the volume there then install an F-5/T-38 style landing gear. Like these:
thanks for the gear tips, however with maneuvering can't you run one of the engines at higher power than the other to cause a curving motion? also that stick does have a use because in atmosphere it is needed for the ion ailerons. with physics i am good with the maths but not so much the practicalities.
p.s. attempted a test conversion to blender last night, the model obviously needs refining and some of the normals need some work but it looks like this at present(edges will be smoothed later!)
had to use the collada method which works on the new computer but not the old, when i transfer on the old machine using my preferred kerkythea obj method it should look better Attachment not found.
also blender acting a bit weird on new machine, i think the units of scale are a bit messed up by the collada import
thanks for the gear tips, however with maneuvering can't you run one of the engines at higher power than the other to cause a curving motion?
But, apart from Rule of Cool why would you want to? Asymmetric engine-thrust is going to make it harder to control the vector when you decide to stop with the "curve." Your flight path may curve with asymmetric thrust, but the VECTOR that results from it will gradually drift further and further away from your center-axis.
Worse, this asymmetric thing ONLY works in the horizontal. Since you have only two main engines, you can make the curve bend right or left, but NOT up nor down. So, unless you want to reconfigure this thing for four engines or add another pair of those wonky "boosters" to the bottom and redefine them as Atmospheric Flight Dynamics In Space Thrusters you're still not going to get the effect you want.
And, as I said, why would you want to? Curves are slow and, ultimately, predictable ways of varying a vector. They are necessary in atmospheric flight but in zero-g all they're going to do is make it EASIER to hit your fighters. After all, there's only so much asymmetry you can use for those curving arcs before it becomes the radical vector shifts zero-g makes possible (and that ruins the effect).
Ultimately, what keeps lurking like the spectre of doom over this project is your insistence in combining unrealistic (often wildly so, I'm still stuck on the unobtanium hatch-covers for your ACS thrusters) elements with a declaration of realism. If they're going to move like B5 (at least the human fighters) or NuBSG then just let them. If they're going to move like Star Wars, just let them. Stop trying to mix the two and you'll have less hassles.
Make it easier on yourself ... pick one. Science Fiction or Science Fantasy.
thanks,
will post more pics when possible but at moment having bit of a nightmare trying to reshape the undersides of the wing and blend them into the fuselage so the gear can fit in.
no pics of gear yet as that is on the old machine, which isn't connected to the internet. ignore the wing root areas on the underside pics, this is the model before i started the landing gear, the underside of the fuselage and wing tips are still the same as shown here, but perhaps not for long. Attachment not found. Attachment not found. Attachment not found. Attachment not found.
I don' t know if you can do it in SketchUp, but modeling the fuselage and wings as one piece might have been the way to go.
i could have modelled them as one piece but it would have made other stuff i needed to MUCH harder. i can "stretch" the wings so they are thicker but when i stretch them to the thickness needed for encasing the landing gear they become ridiculously bulky. have also tried creating a bulge in the wing undersides just around where the gear folds in, this too is overly thick. in many ways i wish i had sorted the gear before everything else!
i don't get a chance to do 3d work during the week any more, will post some stuff over weekend. key things i intend to deal with are the landing gear i also had another idea here that i shall test(think i may have found a way to fit the gear into the fuselage rather than the wings) and the intakes(seeing it in blender alerted me to how angular and oversimplified they are, i shall make them a bit smoother and more rounded). currently cleaning up old files on my old machine so it will run slightly faster.
two new pics, first shows new intakes, second shows new underside, notice the position of the new landing gear, it is not yet complete. several panel lines areas have been removed while i work on the gear and will be repaired after the gear is fully fitted.
DAMN!! i can't seem to find any way to give this craft a good set of landing gear. whatever i try either doesn't fit at all or looks awful. i could really use a list of all the possible suggestions for the gear on this, key problem is that there do not seem to many fighters with this middle height wing arrangement, most have the wing at the top of the fuselage or at it's bottom rather than half way up it. there is a severe lack of space and gear jutting straight down from part way along the wing looks terrible. this appears to be a problem wheer nothing works!
i think i have found a workable solution to the gear problem. it's double wheeled like a sukhoi su 34 or a saab viggen or a mig 31, but although it's unusual to have that on such a small and comparatively lightweight fighter it can be justified by the fact most of the mass is towards the rear not the nose(nose only contains hyperspace drive and some avionics, rear contains 4 reactors, 2 ramjets and more). also ,wonder of wonders, got the xml to obj script working on the windows 8 machine, i can now see that it should render pretty well upon completion. i have recommended http://www.nicetuna.com/kt2obj before, but this time i'll mention they have a non java version(about 5 times slower but runs on my new machine, i think i have some sort of .net framework installed somewhere that it uses(i bought the laptop set up, so did not install everything that's on it myself) so the KT2OBJ (.NET) file works on here. anyway, some renders: test render1png.jpg testrender2png.png
remember these are not completed models, just a test for how the materials and basic geometry behave in blender.
what do you think to the material effects and colouring, are the panel lines looking plausible now?
the basis of the new gear is shown, but there will be alterations as i continue to work on it.
1 more good thing: model is only 27 megabytes in blend format, less than the original hellhound despite the extra detail.
enjoy! Attachment not found.
Unless the angle is deceiving me, those nose pop-out RCS thrusters have an issue. The horizontal thrust nozzles seem to direct the output directly into your forward-sweep wings. At best this is going to make the RCS thrust weaker. At worst, it's going to damage the wings.
Unless the angle is deceiving me, those nose pop-out RCS thrusters have an issue. The horizontal thrust nozzles seem to direct the output directly into your forward-sweep wings. At best this is going to make the RCS thrust weaker. At worst, it's going to damage the wings.
Just another form over function issue.
yeah, that's a problem. the wings are diracium(my unobtanium wonder metal) but the thrust produced will certainly be diminished, unfortunately there's not really very much i can do about it moving the thruster assemblies up or down would put them above or below the centre of mass so an attempt at yaw would result in some inconvenient spins. the only other way to remove the wing from the line of fire of the thruster would be delete(not going to happen) or radically reshape the wing. as it is i already have a CoM problem when the boosters fire so shifting thrusters around would just complicate things further.
more updates will follow when i get chance to work on the craft.
p.s. looking at the latest renders would you say it is a better style of craft than my older models? dirt and scuffs will be added in blender after modelling is complete.
SF, I know you're not going to heed this advice. It's going to sound like I'm howling in a vacuum to everyone but you, and to you it might sound like an attack. It is neither, but I think it's something you need to hear.
Your fighter is, as you've designed it, fatally flawed on several respects.
1) Just stated above you have significant Center of Mass problems with the boosters--boosters pretty much everyone has told you SPOIL the look of the fighter.
2) Your RCS thrusters won't work because a significant portion of their thrust will vent ONTO the hull they're trying to move.
3) You keep talking about realism, yet your hull is made of an unobtanium wonder metal simply to justify the pop-open doors for the RCS thrusters (that don't work) to allow the hull to remain streamlined in atmosphere ... despite the fact it's ALSO intended for VERY long duration space missions. Durations hardly realistic for a single-crew fighter.
4) Your hull-frame is woefully inadequate to its landing gear, resulting in the only landing gear you're willing to use being massively over-built.
5) Your main hull is built with inefficient dead-space within to allow the PILOT to perform maintenance on the fighter during deep-space missions. Pilots fly, technicians and engineers maintain. If it needs in-flight maintenance, it should have a second crewman--which there's no room for.
6) You're putting two main engines, two boosters, FOUR power plants, anti-grav, a hyper-drive, and flex-form wings into an effectively disposable asset. Considering how under-armed this thing is for all that equipment, it's a severe waste of resources.
7) Your panel lines, while MUCH improved over previous iterations, still seem more cosmetic than realistic (a problem shared by most science-fiction vessels, I might add, not just yours--I'm looking at you, Star Trek Federation ships with your endless supply of different sized hull-panels!!).
In reality, no military would build this thing. I know, I know, "in reality" when talking about a far-future space fighter, heh! But, unless it's PURELY a modelling exercise, there has to be some rules governing behind it. You've put a fair bit of effort into the back-story for the fighter itself and the world in which it exists. But, put aside your own ego and investment of time and ask yourself--does this thing MAKE SENSE for what you've said it can do? From the perspective of efficiency of construction, durability (unobtanium hull aside), crew endurance, cost effectiveness, or simple realism in form and maintenance, you'll answer--no, it doesn't.
I could go on, but I won't. I don't want to seem like I'm bashing you because I'm not. Really, that's not the intention.
Considering the above, I suggest a new approach.
START FRESH.
Keep elements of this fighter that you like (design elements, not actual modelling ones). Chuck all the stuff that doesn't work conceptually and start over. You've been flogging this horse LONG since its passage. To quote a famous doctor, "It's dead, Jim."
Seriously. You have modelling talent I do not have. You CLEARLY have perseverance--especially considering the responses many (including myself, unfortunately) have had to your work and your expectations. But, it's time to toss out the baby, the bathwater, and the whole darned tub and start over.
Don't look at it as a failure. Don't look at it as excessive criticism. Look at it as a learning experience.
Ask anyone who models or contributes on this site. I've been working on several different short-story and novel projects for YEARS, and they're getting better each time (even if none of them are complete). Ask Tobiasrichter, Chris2005, Madman, the redoubtable Howard Day, or any of the other long-term contributors to this site. ALL of them started off with projects that just didn't work, but they LEARNED from each of those projects. They became better--and they're learning still. I doubt any of them would even consider claiming they're done learning and have "perfected" their craft. And many of them are PAID for it.
Take out a blank sheet of paper (or a blank file) and start scribbling. Keep what you like. Keep the boosters if they make you happy. Keep the flex-wing. I suggest you do NEITHER, but, hey, it's your model. But, redo the hull form and start over.
You've shown growth and improvement since you started this thread. Now, do the "mature" thing and wipe the slate clean.
things are a bit complicated at the moment so i haven't worked on (or decided to stop working on) this yet. your arguments mostly make sense sanderlee. where would you suggest i start from, problem is i really like the overall shape i've been using for the hellhounds and i'm not sure if i'll ever manage to create another design i like as much(because in as a modeller you always want to create something you like as a design and shape as well as being proud of as an accurate and well built model). in many ways it's harder to find an idea for the general basis of a fighter than that of a large capital ship because even in soft sci fi there are obvious constraints of getting things to fit into a certain area. it'll be a tough decision to make, one of the things i'd like to try is something with similarities to the x37b(the american military spaceplane prototype) but considerably more capable physically(still ftl, ssto, ramjet) but i'm not sure what i could do with that sort of form. you may notice i rather like forward swept wings, i can't see an obvious way of fitting them effectively onto a fuselage like it's. if people want to post some ideas or inspirations of where to start from i'd be glad.
thanks
angle the wing part at the fusalage at a 30-45 degree angle and then angle the wept wing part down slightly that would also solve your engine hitting the wing part
Posts
Attachment not found.
1. bussard ramjets of unrealisitic efefctiveness
2. hyperspace travel
3. diracium metal(my supermaterial for high survivability hulls and other components)
4.acceleration damping through graviton like particle interaction(it's that or ignore the size of g forces produced otherwise)
5. shielding
everything else goes!!!
as a result i must alter my landing gear to something more realistic, my thoughts were a wheeled system like current aircraft but with limited vtol provided by specialised thrusters. i have hit a snag of how and where to site the rear landing gear.
issue comes down to the fact that there seems very little space to put it.
i would be interested to hear suggestions for landing gear but they would have to look fairly cool!
the new seat and beginning of the cockpit
Attachment not found.
overall shot, taken whilst old landing gear was still attached
Attachment not found.
finally if you can think of things that would give it a more hard sci fi appearance i may be interested but only if i personally think it improves the design rather than spoils it.
thanks
p.s. for model's like this what is a reasonable final poly cont? if you had modelled this in your software what sort of size(polys and megabytes) would you expect upon completion? just so i know if really ought to be reducing the complexity. want the model to render fairly quickly when animating. old hellhound was 188369 verts, 275137 faces in blender and 276303 edges, 112695 faces in sketchup.
fortunately i'm well below that limit for now. i hardly believe it but my new model is currently less polys than the old one(by a tiny margin) despite the extra detail. the boosters and switches may add on 10000 polys(unsure exactly but that's my estimate), should be around 110,000 to 130,000 upon completion.
what are your thoughts on landing gear and plausibility of pedal for hyperspace entry(as opposed to old lever doing same purpose)?
Keep the right stick traditional, controlling pitch and roll. Keep the rudder pedals for yaw. Now the left stick, there are two options.
1) If the fighter has reverse thrust, which it does appear to have. Make the right stick control forward and reverse acceleration along with lateral movement. Then add a rocker paddle to the front of the stick for vertical thrust control. Now your throttle lever can be your hyperspace lever.
2) If the fighter does not have reverse thrust: I would put the left stick on a movement track. Sliding the stick back and forth will now adjust forward thrust, and the stick can now be used to control lateral and vertical movement. In that case however I would add a pinky lever for unlocking the vertical thrust control, otherwise pilots might accidentally apply downward thrust when adjusting the throttle open, and upward thrust when pulling the throttle back. Again that leves the current throttle lever open to use for hyperspace.
Does that all make sense?
mostly though, some of it seemed to get a bit tangled, you appear to have mixed the sticks(you talk of options for left stick but then only mention right one in description). my thoughts had been the left stick as thruster rotation control, translation would be controlled from a minor lever on the control panel because during flight and combat it would rarely be used, it's main purpose being docking and landing though i can envision some maneuvers it would help with. i wanted to have a lever for thrust separate from the sticks as it allows for thrust control without running into any problems with direction(and can be more precise than the sticks for this) . the fighter certainly has reverse thrust, but i haven't factored this into my controls yet, would a small switch on the power/thrust lever allowing it to be altered for reverse thrust make sense? i don't get so much chance to work on the model nowadays so i've got probably 48 hrs odd before i get a chance to work on it, 48 hrs to work out decent controls and landing gear. right stick staying traditional makes sense, i would have thought yaw would be controlled from the left stick which acts as a rotational hand controller http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/controldeck.php .
as for key flight systems (all the reactor and ramjet stuff should not be needed for maneuvering) does "traditional right stick", "rotational left stick", "small panel mounted translation control", "thrust lever" and hyperspace cover it or are there an yother obvious systems?
thanks
comms is tough, it can have radio for short range but there's no ftl radio equivalent in my verse now. ftl messaging is done by sending a comm drone from the sender through hyperspace to the recipient where it transmits the data recorded onto it's colossal storage units by the sender. obviously only works if you know where the recipient is. comm drones would be almost half the size of this fighter so i can't really attach one by which it can send data, for some missions it's conceivable the drone could fly close to the fighter then enter hyperpsace to carry a message. some radar details fitted, no controls for it as yet. positioning done with a radio device that aligns various sensors with pulsars of known frequency(computers can adjust this knwoing ships speed to account for relativity), with the bearings( in 3d space) of the pulsars the system can calculate position of the fighter. coolant release? wouldn't that just run overheating from bad to worse. back ups, what can be backed up will be, what can't will be made as reliable as possible. blackbox, that would be tucked away where it can be best protected so you wouldn't see it anyway(so it's already in there).
what of landing gear ideas, front is easy but can't work out how to fit the rear stuff in.
thanks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_freedom
Now using that and this image below I will explain how to arrange your flight controls:
In a traditional aircraft the pitch and roll are controlled by the center or side stick, usually set on the right side. Yaw is controlled by the rudder pedals at the pilot's feet. These are your rotational controls. I recommend that you keep this arrangement, changing it will lead to training issues with your pilots.
Now, given you current control scheme I recommend the following for the translational controls:
For forward and reverse flight: Set your left stick on a track, the track need not be overly long, six inches would be more than sufficient. Sliding the stick forward and back would make it act much like a traditional throttle. Set a stop at the rear that the pilot can override for reverse thrust, much like the pinky switch on an F-16s throttle that allows engagement of the afterburner.
For vertical control: Use the forward and back motion of the left stick, must like on the right stick, pulling back on the stick forces the craft to ascend, pushing foward, descend.
For Lateral control (side to side): Pushing the stick left or right will cause the craft to "slide" left or right.
Now, much like how NASA did on the Space Shuttle robotic arm, and the LEM, do not place the rotation joint for the left stick at the base. Instead, place it up the stick at the midpoint, this will help prevent accidental activation of the vertical thrusters when adjusting the throttle. EIther that, or have a lock out on the stick that prevents it moving inadvertantly.
Now I say this because you don't want to make your pilot release their controls for any reason when they are manuevering, whether dogfighting, docking, or just changing course. This is known as Hand On Throttle and Stick (HOTAS). You want to make all the most critical controls for flight and combat especially accessable without releaseing the controls because the split second it takes to move the hand away and back to the control can spell disaster very quickly.
once again: landing gear tips would also be really useful because i cannot design the switches on my control panel until i know ALL the systems in the craft!
thanks
First off in space, craft to not make maneuvers in a "Sweeping curve fashion" that is how aircraft operate in an atmosphere because maneuvering is based on airflow interacting with control surfaces. In space, it is a vacuum, so all maneuvering so done with internal propellant. Firing a thruster in the nose makes the craft rotate about its center of mass, period.
Now, if one were to continue applying engine thrust then the craft will alter its thrust vector as well, but first it must fight its previous momentum. NuBSG and B5 got that almost right, if fighter maneuvered around, without killing their previous momentum first the made something analogous to a J turn, skidding backwards or belly down until the other thrusters killed their inertia.
Your control scheme therefore is just stupid. You might as well then just rid of the left hand stick and move the throttle into place there. You also need to learn to trust your pilots and consider their needs. Pilots do not want to release their controls, this is not a car.
Now as to your landing gear. I would suggest blending the underside of your wing into the engine more, increase the volume there then install an F-5/T-38 style landing gear. Like these:
p.s. attempted a test conversion to blender last night, the model obviously needs refining and some of the normals need some work but it looks like this at present(edges will be smoothed later!)
had to use the collada method which works on the new computer but not the old, when i transfer on the old machine using my preferred kerkythea obj method it should look better
Attachment not found.
also blender acting a bit weird on new machine, i think the units of scale are a bit messed up by the collada import
here it is in somewhat better quality
Attachment not found.
But, apart from Rule of Cool why would you want to? Asymmetric engine-thrust is going to make it harder to control the vector when you decide to stop with the "curve." Your flight path may curve with asymmetric thrust, but the VECTOR that results from it will gradually drift further and further away from your center-axis.
Worse, this asymmetric thing ONLY works in the horizontal. Since you have only two main engines, you can make the curve bend right or left, but NOT up nor down. So, unless you want to reconfigure this thing for four engines or add another pair of those wonky "boosters" to the bottom and redefine them as Atmospheric Flight Dynamics In Space Thrusters you're still not going to get the effect you want.
And, as I said, why would you want to? Curves are slow and, ultimately, predictable ways of varying a vector. They are necessary in atmospheric flight but in zero-g all they're going to do is make it EASIER to hit your fighters. After all, there's only so much asymmetry you can use for those curving arcs before it becomes the radical vector shifts zero-g makes possible (and that ruins the effect).
Ultimately, what keeps lurking like the spectre of doom over this project is your insistence in combining unrealistic (often wildly so, I'm still stuck on the unobtanium hatch-covers for your ACS thrusters) elements with a declaration of realism. If they're going to move like B5 (at least the human fighters) or NuBSG then just let them. If they're going to move like Star Wars, just let them. Stop trying to mix the two and you'll have less hassles.
Make it easier on yourself ... pick one. Science Fiction or Science Fantasy.
will post more pics when possible but at moment having bit of a nightmare trying to reshape the undersides of the wing and blend them into the fuselage so the gear can fit in.
no pics of gear yet as that is on the old machine, which isn't connected to the internet. ignore the wing root areas on the underside pics, this is the model before i started the landing gear, the underside of the fuselage and wing tips are still the same as shown here, but perhaps not for long.
Attachment not found.
Attachment not found.
Attachment not found.
Attachment not found.
Attachment not found.
Attachment not found.
test render1png.jpg
testrender2png.png
remember these are not completed models, just a test for how the materials and basic geometry behave in blender.
what do you think to the material effects and colouring, are the panel lines looking plausible now?
the basis of the new gear is shown, but there will be alterations as i continue to work on it.
1 more good thing: model is only 27 megabytes in blend format, less than the original hellhound despite the extra detail.
enjoy!
Attachment not found.
Just another form over function issue.
more updates will follow when i get chance to work on the craft.
p.s. looking at the latest renders would you say it is a better style of craft than my older models? dirt and scuffs will be added in blender after modelling is complete.
Your fighter is, as you've designed it, fatally flawed on several respects.
1) Just stated above you have significant Center of Mass problems with the boosters--boosters pretty much everyone has told you SPOIL the look of the fighter.
2) Your RCS thrusters won't work because a significant portion of their thrust will vent ONTO the hull they're trying to move.
3) You keep talking about realism, yet your hull is made of an unobtanium wonder metal simply to justify the pop-open doors for the RCS thrusters (that don't work) to allow the hull to remain streamlined in atmosphere ... despite the fact it's ALSO intended for VERY long duration space missions. Durations hardly realistic for a single-crew fighter.
4) Your hull-frame is woefully inadequate to its landing gear, resulting in the only landing gear you're willing to use being massively over-built.
5) Your main hull is built with inefficient dead-space within to allow the PILOT to perform maintenance on the fighter during deep-space missions. Pilots fly, technicians and engineers maintain. If it needs in-flight maintenance, it should have a second crewman--which there's no room for.
6) You're putting two main engines, two boosters, FOUR power plants, anti-grav, a hyper-drive, and flex-form wings into an effectively disposable asset. Considering how under-armed this thing is for all that equipment, it's a severe waste of resources.
7) Your panel lines, while MUCH improved over previous iterations, still seem more cosmetic than realistic (a problem shared by most science-fiction vessels, I might add, not just yours--I'm looking at you, Star Trek Federation ships with your endless supply of different sized hull-panels!!).
In reality, no military would build this thing. I know, I know, "in reality" when talking about a far-future space fighter, heh! But, unless it's PURELY a modelling exercise, there has to be some rules governing behind it. You've put a fair bit of effort into the back-story for the fighter itself and the world in which it exists. But, put aside your own ego and investment of time and ask yourself--does this thing MAKE SENSE for what you've said it can do? From the perspective of efficiency of construction, durability (unobtanium hull aside), crew endurance, cost effectiveness, or simple realism in form and maintenance, you'll answer--no, it doesn't.
I could go on, but I won't. I don't want to seem like I'm bashing you because I'm not. Really, that's not the intention.
Considering the above, I suggest a new approach.
START FRESH.
Keep elements of this fighter that you like (design elements, not actual modelling ones). Chuck all the stuff that doesn't work conceptually and start over. You've been flogging this horse LONG since its passage. To quote a famous doctor, "It's dead, Jim."
Seriously. You have modelling talent I do not have. You CLEARLY have perseverance--especially considering the responses many (including myself, unfortunately) have had to your work and your expectations. But, it's time to toss out the baby, the bathwater, and the whole darned tub and start over.
Don't look at it as a failure. Don't look at it as excessive criticism. Look at it as a learning experience.
Ask anyone who models or contributes on this site. I've been working on several different short-story and novel projects for YEARS, and they're getting better each time (even if none of them are complete). Ask Tobiasrichter, Chris2005, Madman, the redoubtable Howard Day, or any of the other long-term contributors to this site. ALL of them started off with projects that just didn't work, but they LEARNED from each of those projects. They became better--and they're learning still. I doubt any of them would even consider claiming they're done learning and have "perfected" their craft. And many of them are PAID for it.
Take out a blank sheet of paper (or a blank file) and start scribbling. Keep what you like. Keep the boosters if they make you happy. Keep the flex-wing. I suggest you do NEITHER, but, hey, it's your model. But, redo the hull form and start over.
You've shown growth and improvement since you started this thread. Now, do the "mature" thing and wipe the slate clean.
'nuff said.
thanks