Looks are the least looked at thing when judging this. How it maneuvers the course is the main focus.
'sup just going to drop this 100% fin controlled omnicar test that i did right here
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq2dWG1hx-o[/media]
[editline]04:29AM[/editline]
(it's really slow in car/boat mode, fins are kinda shit for car movement)
Really nice so far. It looks like it could use some help in the driving department. The way the wheels turn just looks really flimsy.
Once you see the course coming up, you may want to rethink driving mode. =]. It will be released tomorrow.
The whole nacelle rotates for it. The only way I could think of of incorporating steering into this car setup.
I'll point out that I can't even use applyforce or applytorque to move my car forward with the fins present, the fins autorotate and slow me down. I'm fighting between fin efficiency for flight and fin efficiency to allow me to drive.
100% fins in this case isn't possible. Fuck it, I'll say it. I did extensive wire to get that shit to work, and it won't accept any sort of forward motion in the driving "stance". So unless I completely ignore the rotation of the nacelles and build an entire suspension and other bullshit underneath it (which would look retarded), it's not possible.
Each of you are going to fuckin' cheat that shit and use wire thrusters or applyforce, calling it now.
welp, i'm out, can't compete with that. no point
i was using hydraulics for everything
I've decided to change my design...7 fin motors in all. 1 for lift, 4 for balance, and 2 for steering and rotation. I hope ball wheels are allowed.
ok perhaps i am not going to quit so quickly, i had another idea
[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LXW3pHNn_U[/URL]
I don't know why, but I'm hoping this will help with peoples' building, including my own.
[QUOTE=Sestze;22296166]The whole nacelle rotates for it. The only way I could think of of incorporating steering into this car setup.
I'll point out that I can't even use applyforce or applytorque to move my car forward with the fins present, the fins autorotate and slow me down. I'm fighting between fin efficiency for flight and fin efficiency to allow me to drive.
100% fins in this case isn't possible. Fuck it, I'll say it. I did extensive wire to get that shit to work, and it won't accept any sort of forward motion in the driving "stance". So unless I completely ignore the rotation of the nacelles and build an entire suspension and other bullshit underneath it (which would look retarded), it's not possible.
Each of you are going to fuckin' cheat that shit and use wire thrusters or applyforce, calling it now.[/QUOTE]
Why not just set up another fin propeller to move it through water / land and leave the nacelles un a vertical position, minimising autorotation and drag?
Using fin requires an awesome balance of weight and efficiency and power. IT takes a long while to get it right, but when you do and your shit works, it feels sooo good.
[QUOTE=evan_madore;22303389]Using fin requires an awesome balance of weight and efficiency and power. IT takes a long while to get it right, but when you do and your shit works, it feels sooo good.[/QUOTE]
Welcome to the world of making aircraft. Think of this next time you get in a airplane.
[QUOTE=Hunta;22275794]I didn't know bridges need fin tool[/QUOTE]
OH SNAP... BURN............
[QUOTE=Sestze;22294696]fins are kinda shit for car movement)[/QUOTE]
lol [url]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6047777109339432770[/url]
[QUOTE=Cantido;22300497][URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LXW3pHNn_U[/URL]
I don't know why, but I'm hoping this will help with peoples' building, including my own.[/QUOTE]
Interesting... but I'm afriad the explanation of the origin of the lift- low pressure due to higher speed etc is complete rubbish.
or more simply, BULL SHIT
Bull shit in GMOD at least. Pretty much trial and error here.
[QUOTE=evan_madore;22337442]Bull shit in GMOD at least. Pretty much trial and error here.[/QUOTE]
No no, they way they described about how an airfoil obtains lift is bs in rl too
[QUOTE=Hunta;22339135]No no, they way they described about how an airfoil obtains lift is bs in rl too[/QUOTE]
I guess they didn't have science in 1968........lolz.
[QUOTE=Cantido;22342054]I guess they didn't have science in 1968........lolz.[/QUOTE]
No I think they knew then; People were just stupid, same as they are now.
Lift is actually generated through friction between the wing surface turning the air (downwards), Newton's 3rd law explains how this generates lift. <--- *
*this is in layman's terms, I cbf explaining it fully seeing as 1/50 of you will understand it that way.
The whole low/high pressure due to fast/slow moving air is bs and afaik was published by some fool a number of years ago, and somehow from there the idea caught on.
(the air does move faster over the top but this does not give lift)
[QUOTE=Hunta;22342467]
*this is in layman's terms, I cbf explaining it fully seeing as 1/50 of you will understand it that way.
[/QUOTE]
Which is exactly why the simplified or 'bullshit' explanations exist
The 'popular' explanations are for, as you said, the 98% of us that don't have degrees in aeronautical engineering :v:
That bastard bernouilli, it's all been a hoax all along!
You're wrong in this case Hunta. There's an easy way to show the bernouilli effect off, just take a piece of paper, hold it just beneath your lips and blow. The higher speed of the air will reduce the pressure, causing the page to lift up.
Another simple experiment is to take two dangling pieces of paper and blow between them, the pressure difference will suck the paper together.
Sorry, man. Bernouilli is alive and well - that's why we construct airfoils the way we do.
edit: Don't get me wrong, the angle of attack has a huge amount to do with how lift works, but stating that it's the only thing that generates lift is a silly idea.
[QUOTE=Sestze;22352027]That bastard bernouilli, it's all been a hoax all along!
You're wrong in this case Hunta. There's an easy way to show the bernouilli effect off, just take a piece of paper, hold it just beneath your lips and blow. The higher speed of the air will reduce the pressure, causing the page to lift up.
Another simple experiment is to take two dangling pieces of paper and blow between them, the pressure difference will suck the paper together.
Sorry, man. Bernouilli is alive and well - that's why we construct airfoils the way we do.
edit: Don't get me wrong, the angle of attack has a huge amount to do with how lift works, but stating that it's the only thing that generates lift is a silly idea.[/QUOTE]
This man speaks the truth. Look closely at the wings of a model glider and a model sport plane. (one of the foam ones) you will see the sport does not imploy brenulli's principle, it is designed to have no lift, only to resist falling out of the air, just like the fin setting. The glider however, needs to support itself as it is powerless and cannot maintain a constantly inclined angle of attack, thus it imploys brenulli's principle.
Also, on full sized aircraft, you will see that all of their wings are constructed to brenulli's principle. Wind tunnel tests proved this many times over. Also, it is rather intutive that it would. If the pressure is lower above and higher beneath, the object will be pushed (or sucked) up, whichever way you look at it.
This is what allows aircraft to fly perfectly level without loosing altitude.
To me it looks like a combination of the two theories, How when the low pressure causes lift and speeds up the air over the top of the wing then forces it down behind it creating upward thrust.
it is, the angle is a huge factor. But it is very far from the only factor.
No, you are wrong, the pressure difference does NOT give lift. It is common misconception and is called the "Equal Transit-Time Fallacy"
The friction between the air and the wing causes the air to flow over the airfoil and downwards, according to Newton's 3rd law the wing has applied a downwards force on the air and therefore the air has applied an upwards force on the wing eg Lift. <---- simpleton version (you can test this by putting the edge of a spoon in under a flowing tap, watch how the water moves around the spoon and exits at an angle, actually go try it now, a more rounded spoon should be easier to see) <-- apply 3rd law to that and it is easy to see how lift workds
don't get me wrong Bernoulli is still extremely relevant but just not in the way you are saying.
The "Equal Transit-Time Fallacy" does not explain how an aircraft can fly upsidedown.
[b]Edit: just to prove I'm right here is NASA for you - [url]http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong1.html[/url][/b]
More detailed explanation of lift for those who will understand it:
When a gas flows over an object, or when an object moves through a gas, the molecules of the gas are free to move about the object; they are not closely bound to one another as in a solid. Because the molecules move, there is a velocity associated with the gas. Within the gas, the velocity can have very different values at different places near the object. Bernoulli's equation, which was named for Daniel Bernoulli, relates the pressure in a gas to the local velocity; so as the velocity changes around the object, the pressure changes as well. Adding up (integrating) the pressure variation times the area around the entire body determines the aerodynamic force on the body. The lift is the component of the aerodynamic force which is perpendicular to the original flow direction of the gas. The drag is the component of the aerodynamic force which is parallel to the original flow direction of the gas. Now adding up the velocity variation around the object instead of the pressure variation also determines the aerodynamic force. The integrated velocity variation around the object produces a net turning of the gas flow. From Newton's third law of motion, a turning action of the flow will result in a re-action (aerodynamic force) on the object. So both "Bernoulli" and "Newton" are correct. Integrating the effects of either the pressure or the velocity determines the aerodynamic force on an object. We can use equations developed by each of them to determine the magnitude and direction of the aerodynamic force.
So in short Xro is kinda on the money.
Oh and sestze you are correct about the paper moving upwards when you blow on it, but that is the same as described above. Also paint sprayers work on the same principle as above, there are tiny 'airfoils' on the edges (more like the imperfect edges function as airfoils) of the paper and inner parts of the paint sprayers.
I'm probably not explaining this too well but I did do a paper on fluid mechanics and it was explained in detail.
LOL sounds like a damn 8th grade science fair in here. Shit, were in GMOD. Stop bickering and everyone get back to work.
[QUOTE=evan_madore;22357983]LOL sounds like a damn 8th grade science fair in here. Shit, were in GMOD. Stop bickering and everyone get back to work.[/QUOTE]
No 8th grade science fair would be building bridges out of toothpicks.
Gmod is all about physics, doesn't hurt to educate the masses.
[QUOTE=Hunta;22357728]No, you are wrong, the pressure difference does NOT give lift. It is common misconception and is called the "Equal Transit-Time Fallacy"
The friction between the air and the wing causes the air to flow over the airfoil and downwards, according to Newton's 3rd law the wing has applied a downwards force on the air and therefore the air has applied an upwards force on the wing eg Lift. <---- simpleton version (you can test this by putting the edge of a spoon in under a flowing tap, watch how the water moves around the spoon and exits at an angle, actually go try it now, a more rounded spoon should be easier to see) <-- apply 3rd law to that and it is easy to see how lift workds
don't get me wrong Bernoulli is still extremely relevant but just not in the way you are saying.
The "Equal Transit-Time Fallacy" does not explain how an aircraft can fly upsidedown.
[b]Edit: just to prove I'm right here is NASA for you - [url]http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong1.html[/url][/b]
More detailed explanation of lift for those who will understand it:
When a gas flows over an object, or when an object moves through a gas, the molecules of the gas are free to move about the object; they are not closely bound to one another as in a solid. Because the molecules move, there is a velocity associated with the gas. Within the gas, the velocity can have very different values at different places near the object. Bernoulli's equation, which was named for Daniel Bernoulli, relates the pressure in a gas to the local velocity; so as the velocity changes around the object, the pressure changes as well. Adding up (integrating) the pressure variation times the area around the entire body determines the aerodynamic force on the body. The lift is the component of the aerodynamic force which is perpendicular to the original flow direction of the gas. The drag is the component of the aerodynamic force which is parallel to the original flow direction of the gas. Now adding up the velocity variation around the object instead of the pressure variation also determines the aerodynamic force. The integrated velocity variation around the object produces a net turning of the gas flow. From Newton's third law of motion, a turning action of the flow will result in a re-action (aerodynamic force) on the object. So both "Bernoulli" and "Newton" are correct. Integrating the effects of either the pressure or the velocity determines the aerodynamic force on an object. We can use equations developed by each of them to determine the magnitude and direction of the aerodynamic force.
So in short Xro is kinda on the money.
Oh and sestze you are correct about the paper moving upwards when you blow on it, but that is the same as described above. Also paint sprayers work on the same principle as above, there are tiny 'airfoils' on the edges (more like the imperfect edges function as airfoils) of the paper and inner parts of the paint sprayers.
I'm probably not explaining this too well but I did do a paper on fluid mechanics and it was explained in detail.[/QUOTE]
alright, that sounds more like it. In your last post it sounded as if you stated the angle of the wing is alone creating lift by forcing air in a downwards direction, thus saying everything behaves as a no lift fin, and it didnt matter how fast you traveled, the wing would create no lift unless it was at an angle.
This one makes more sense. Thanks for clearing that up.
and agreed, nothing wrong with educating the masses
[QUOTE=Hunta;22358229]No 8th grade science fair would be building bridges out of toothpicks.
Gmod is all about physics, doesn't hurt to educate the masses.[/QUOTE]
=[ I hate you. =[
[QUOTE=Balto-the-Wolf-Dog;22358414]alright, that sounds more like it. In your last post it sounded as if you stated the angle of the wing is alone creating lift by forcing air in a downwards direction, thus saying everything behaves as a no lift fin, and it didnt matter how fast you traveled, the wing would create no lift unless it was at an angle.
This one makes more sense. Thanks for clearing that up.
and agreed, nothing wrong with educating the masses[/QUOTE]
Yeah, sorry it was late.
[QUOTE=evan_madore;22358585]=[ I hate you. =[[/QUOTE]
you love it
Maybe. I think it is just a deep desire for you though.
fact: fin is poorly coded
reality: deal w/ it
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
