Wings need nerf

[Pds314]

Cl*S is 165 m^2?

So what's S?

Looking at the plane, it appears that the answer is about 2*5*2, plus a small amount of body lift. That's something like 20 m^2.

Which means... it is getting a cl of around 8.3. What?

This plane should NOT be getting a Cl of anything close to that. NO plane should get a Cl anything close to that. The best Cl I've ever heard of is in biological, deformable membrane wings that get a Cl of 2.4 or something in a speculative model of azhdarchid pterosaur wings. Real planes can't really go much above 1.0. Maybe 2.0 with the wing stalled like that. I think the lift multiplier needs to be reduced by about a factor of 4.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Pds314

[Guest]

FAR is love, FAR is life.

[Pds314]

16 minutes ago, Aperture Science said:

FAR is love, FAR is life.

Agreed. But the funny thing is that even the stock settings can be adjusted to be sane, if not realistic. All squad needs to do to fix is to put out an update where GlobalDragmultiplier is reduced to 2, GlobalLiftMultiplier is reduced to 0.009, and bodyLiftMultiplier is reduced to 4 or 5. Angular drag multiplier should probably be cut down to like 0.5 as well. Those numbers make planes feel like they do in War Thunder, FAR, or flight simulators, and they make math work.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Pds314

[Alshain]

Your screenshot disagrees with your description

Cd*S is 94.014 m^2

so using your approximation Cd is 4.

[Pds314]

7 minutes ago, Alshain said:

Your screenshot disagrees with your description

Cd*S is 94.014 m^2

so using your approximation Cd is 4.

Oops. Meant Cl*S.

Fixed.

Like, the plane I was flying resembles a sleeker Me-262, and indeed, at half throttle to match the 262's thrust, it gets a marginally higher top speed of about 950 kph vs. 890 kph. Also like a 262, it needs to loiter around a bit if it's at half throttle to pick up speed.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Pds314

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Pds314 said:

Agreed. But the funny thing is that even the stock settings can be adjusted to be sane, if not realistic. All squad needs to do to fix is to put out an update where GlobalDragmultiplier is reduced to 2, GlobalLiftMultiplier is reduced to 0.009, and bodyLiftMultiplier is reduced to 4 or 5. Angular drag multiplier should probably be cut down to like 0.5 as well. Those numbers make planes feel like they do in War Thunder, FAR, or flight simulators, and they make math work.

Oh. Well...

I don't know then. Nuke wings? Make it so that they have lots of little holes on them?

Edited October 24, 2016 by Guest

[Pds314]

Just now, Aperture Science said:

Oh. Well...

I don't know then. Nuke wings?

That's basically what I did, and it FEELS like FAR.

[Alshain]

It's a game not a simulator.  They didn't want it to be like FAR.  This was done on purpose.

[Pds314]

24 minutes ago, Alshain said:

It's a game not a simulator.  They didn't want it to be like FAR.  This was done on purpose.

It seems to attempt simulation on a lot of levels though. Why not lift and drag?

Anyhow, my F-16 replica under these settings gets a top speed at sea level of 390 m/s vs. 410 m/s IRL. I'd say that's pretty good for its value as a simulator, although obviously top speeds at high altitudes will be unrealistically high because of the way KSP deals with jet engines and in particular intakes. Unsurprisingly, the stall speed is about right as well, or maybe a tiny bit slower than it should be.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Pds314