Need a modeler?

[TrashMan]

Look at the size and configuration of those engine mounts. For one they're not mounted square on paper-thin wings. The Blackbird is by no means comparable to what you produced, and just because you don't have a basic grasp of physics and material stresses doesn't mean everyone else doesn't either.

They're not paper-thin (altough I can make em thicker easily). Not to mention they're made out of that awesome alien material you're so fond of.

Wingtip-mounted engines on the F-117? No. They're inside the fuselage, where they can be hidden and where the structure of the craft is strongest.

In fact, let me just run this whole thing by my friend who is an actual aeroplane engineer. See what he says, eh?

I was referring to it's aerodynamic properties, not it's engine placement. It's a well know fact no pilot can keep the think in air without computer support.

And sure, go right ahead. While you at it, run also the designs you currenlty use for PHALANX and alien ships.
I'm interested how feasable they are...if at all.

[Mattn]

even if winter won't accept this for the game, please submit your model sources - it would be a pity if you would collect dust.

[Falion]

Hey guys, only thing I can say, is why does everything that have to go into the game ( or any game ) be absolutely 100% feasible in the real world. It is after all just a game right? Not some type of real world simulation type thing with aliens invading us right? I can see trying to keep things somewhat realistic, so as to be "remotely" feasible, but don't know why it has to be worried about so emphatically. Most every computer game I've ever played has had much that could be "questioned" or looked upon with a raised eyebrow as to it's actual real feasibility.

And this isn't an attack on you Winter, it's just this is a game right? So what's the harm in having a little bit of things that make it look "cool" or just puts some zing / fun into it...it doesn't have to be 100% totally reliable and feasible...does it? Playing a game is supposedly about "escaping" from realism and having fun after all...which is why most of us do it...not to have a real life simulation...we get that without playing games From what I understand RL has awesome graphics, but in many ways other than that... it can really suck at times.

BTW, can't wait for the next stable version of AI, I'm sure that you Dev's are really going to be making it awesome.

[TrashMan]

why does everything that have to go into the game ( or any game ) be absolutely 100% feasible in the real world.

What makes you think everything is?
Sometimes I'm not even sure what the criteria are...they seem to shift like the mood swings of a woman during PMS.

[Falion]

Well it sure seems, that if if isn't at least possible for something to work in the real world, then it hasn't got a snowballs chance at getting into AI. Perhaps I am wrong in that assumption on my part, just from the many posts that I've read, that is the impression I get. Which is why I was on the soap box, about it just being a game and being more relaxed creatively. The heck with it, I'm just an observer on the side-lines, I'll just be glad whenever the next stable release comes out...I'm sure it will be a bang-up job however it ends up.

[Sean_E]

Winter, you are so wrong about the aircraft proposed.
The design of the aircraft is completely feasible.  Your idea of 'the engines are on the weakest part of the wings' will not hold up to squat as well as the flat boxed nose of the model.

and here is my proof...
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/recon/sr71/sr71_schem_01.gif

The main wings has a reinforced titanium boxframe spar in the wing that holds those two huge engines to the main body.  And they are on the 'thinnest' part of aircraft  Oh, and did I mention that the aircraft has an unclassified speed of MACH 3+.  And it is still considered one of the most advanced designed aircraft of this century.

As for your boxed nose idea.... all you have to do is look at the F-117.  It is a faceted aircraft.  There are no 'soft edges' on that aircraft anywhere.

So, before you start denying the idea of 'futuristic' designs, take a look at modern and development aircraft before judging what is feasible and isn't.

I can tell you all the things that your Stilleto class interceptor is incapable of doing in real life which would render it a useless interceptor of anything over MACH 0.9

Regards....

[Winter]

Winter, you are so wrong about the aircraft proposed.
The design of the aircraft is completely feasible.  Your idea of 'the engines are on the weakest part of the wings' will not hold up to squat as well as the flat boxed nose of the model.

and here is my proof...
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/recon/sr71/sr71_schem_01.gif

The main wings has a reinforced titanium boxframe spar in the wing that holds those two huge engines to the main body.  And they are on the 'thinnest' part of aircraft  Oh, and did I mention that the aircraft has an unclassified speed of MACH 3+.  And it is still considered one of the most advanced designed aircraft of this century.

As for your boxed nose idea.... all you have to do is look at the F-117.  It is a faceted aircraft.  There are no 'soft edges' on that aircraft anywhere.

So, before you start denying the idea of 'futuristic' designs, take a look at modern and development aircraft before judging what is feasible and isn't.

I can tell you all the things that your Stilleto class interceptor is incapable of doing in real life which would render it a useless interceptor of anything over MACH 0.9

Regards....

Bollocks. What is it with people on this forum and handwaving up 'proof'? Here are some actual facts.

1. The Blackbird is 6-7 times as large as this proposed fighter. The 'thinnest' part of the SR-71 is about as thick as the entire fuselage on this craft. It's also a hell of a lot more aerodynamic, and even with that ultra-aerodynamic design, the sharp edges of the Blackbird (tail, leading edge of wing, etc.) reach temperatures upwards of 1000 Fahrenheit. This is just an indication of the forces you have to deal with at hypersonic speeds.

If you had actually bothered to look at that drawing you posted so proudly, the engine mounts are vastly larger -- they connect to several metres worth of titanium wing at the near side of the fuselage -- with swooshes out to the weaker part of the wing to reinforce and create a more aerodynamic surface. NOT COMPARABLE WITH BOXES SLAPPED ONTO A WEAKER FORWARD-SWEEPING PART OF A WING.

2. The nose is not 'faceted'. It's a bloody drag trap. It creates a pocket where air can't flow over the craft but is forced to bash directly into it, totally unlike the F-117 and its very pointy nose. If this thing were to catch a bad piece of wind at Mach 3, that's like running the whole craft into a mountainside. (Direct quote from my engineer friend.)

3. The poor use of angles on this thing makes it about as radar-stealthy as a brick with a jet engine.

4. Where's the landing gear going to go? You want to include three metres worth of telescoping landing gear to handwave the useless spiky bits underneath the engines?

You can stop wanking over the Blackbird now, please. I'd also appreciate if you refrain from any further accusations and start using real science.

Regards,
Winter

[TrashMan]

I find your own arguments laughable.

1. What do I care what temperatures are reached on the edges of a Balckbird? What is blackbird made of? Last I heard, there are some pretty impressive alloys out there regarding heat and stress tolerance. Even moreso by 2080.
Speaking of thicknes, being smaller also means less mass.

Oh, another thing - where do you get the engine connected to the forward sweeping part of the wing? the engines are on a backward sweeping part. You blind?

2. That was supposed to be a intake of a sorts..see the grid on it? The air flows trough. But I suppose I could remove the lower part.

3. Who said it was a stealth fighter?

4. Ever heard of foldable wings? I know, it's a shockingly impossible concept.
You know - the lower fins folding up to the engine level, thus making it easy to land with a perfectly normal landing gear.


Speaking of which, did your engineer fried go over the other PHALANX and alien craft? Cause just by looking at them I can tell you that half of them wouldn't get far after takeoff...assuming they manage to get off the ground in the first place.

[Sean_E]

1. The Blackbird is 6-7 times as large as this proposed fighter. The 'thinnest' part of the SR-71 is about as thick as the entire fuselage on this craft. It's also a hell of a lot more aerodynamic, and even with that ultra-aerodynamic design, the sharp edges of the Blackbird (tail, leading edge of wing, etc.) reach temperatures upwards of 1000 Fahrenheit. This is just an indication of the forces you have to deal with at hypersonic speeds.

So, based on your response, what size aircraft are you looking for?  Single seat? Dual seat....in tandem or abreast?  What are the necessary speed requirements that you are wanting?  Altitude requirements?  Armament requirements? Other abilities that need to be designed into the aircraft itself?  Once again, you are spitting out all these requirements but you aren't putting anything specific out there for designers to build upon.  You are just ripping apart others work when they submit something because it doesn't fit "your" design facts which you have not clearly or effectively conveyed to the ones who want to try and add.
And to correct your information.....the aircraft normally came back from missions with an average ambient temperature of 300

[Winter]

So, based on your response, what size aircraft are you looking for?  Single seat? Dual seat....in tandem or abreast?  What are the necessary speed requirements that you are wanting?  Altitude requirements?  Armament requirements? Other abilities that need to be designed into the aircraft itself?  Once again, you are spitting out all these requirements but you aren't putting anything specific out there for designers to build upon.  You are just ripping apart others work when they submit something because it doesn't fit "your" design facts which you have not clearly or effectively conveyed to the ones who want to try and add.

. . . The craft was submitted out of the blue to no design specs of mine. If anyone had bothered to ask, we're not in fact looking for more interceptors, excepting one particular craft to fill the gap between the Dragon and the Stingray. What we do need quite badly is UAVs, which are being coded in by stevenjackson at the moment.

And to correct your information.....the aircraft normally came back from missions with an average ambient temperature of 300

Yes, that was the temperature measured AFTER LANDING. Not in-flight. You just keep proving me right here.

Let me remind everyone that this game is not a democracy. Just because we rely on volunteer effort doesn't mean we have to accept everything that gets thrown at us, we're a professional team and we're not going to try to crowbar something in just because it's got a pretty model. The model can be uploaded to SVN but we won't be using it for the single-player campaign.

Regards,
Winter

[TrashMan]

The only reason I made this craft is because I wanted to experiment...and because the "best" human fighter sucks IMHO. Well, most humans fighters suck.


EDIT: Compiled the trunk, everything seemed OK. Games doesn't start with the new exe.

[BTAxis]

You should make a new thread about that in Coding.

[Sean_E]

and my last 2 cents worth....
for an open source project, it is pretty closed minded.

Regards...

[TrashMan]

and my last 2 cents worth....
for an open source project, it is pretty closed minded.

open SOURCE...nothing else should be assumed.

[BTAxis]

The old debate about design decisions and rejecting/accepting ideas. Made my pitch on that a number of times before. Let's pretend I did so here and move on with more important things.