QQ Scheme for the Pitts Python?
- Thread starter 3D-Seth
- Start date
Steppenwolf
New member
Sweet! 
inky00
New member
I will look at fixing the texture flashing as i believe it must be the fuselage interior flashing through the fuselage outer,should be easy to fix but i dont get any flashing on my computer at all.As for only having 2 cylinders instead of 4 it is because i am short of polygons but i will have a look and see what i can do.
0xdeadbeef
New member
Is it just me or is the rudder quite a bit too effective (well, the elevator too)?
Indeed one of the latest fixes after the original 3.5 release made the control surfaces much more effective. Probably partly because the rework of the stall behaviour. Maybe also because the fuselage drag was changed.
Indeed I think a couple planes now turn too easily, but on the QQ Pitts Python (and the scale Python as well) this is especially pronounced.
I also feel the control surfaces stall too late and too little. Also the drag of the stalled surfaces seems to be too low.
This might be the main reason why the rudder efficiency is so visible on the Pitts. On other planes, the rudder is also very effective, but the stall of the control surface and the drag of the stalled surface stops the quick turning and slows the plane down. This is not the case on the Pitts however.
Anyway, the 3D model is great as all of Inky's. Though I personally like the scale version better
BTW: not texture flashing for me
Indeed one of the latest fixes after the original 3.5 release made the control surfaces much more effective. Probably partly because the rework of the stall behaviour. Maybe also because the fuselage drag was changed.
Indeed I think a couple planes now turn too easily, but on the QQ Pitts Python (and the scale Python as well) this is especially pronounced.
I also feel the control surfaces stall too late and too little. Also the drag of the stalled surfaces seems to be too low.
This might be the main reason why the rudder efficiency is so visible on the Pitts. On other planes, the rudder is also very effective, but the stall of the control surface and the drag of the stalled surface stops the quick turning and slows the plane down. This is not the case on the Pitts however.
Anyway, the 3D model is great as all of Inky's. Though I personally like the scale version better
BTW: not texture flashing for me
inky00
New member
No disrespect taken from your comments.I was going to try and put a 4 cylinder in it anyway but i was running short of polygons as the limit is only 20000.I have now updated the model to have a 4 cylinder da-200 and i am posting it now.I have tried to fix the flashing aswell but as i got no flashing in the first place i am relying on others to let me know if its fixed or not.rocketodd said:
inky00
New member
Hi Oxdeadbeef,Glad you like the model and is there any chance you could tweak the flight model as you seem to know what needs fixing in order to get it to fly properly.If you could it would be great as i am no good at physics modelling and have done the best i can.0xdeadbeef said:Is it just me or is the rudder quite a bit too effective (well, the elevator too)?
Indeed one of the latest fixes after the original 3.5 release made the control surfaces much more effective. Probably partly because the rework of the stall behaviour. Maybe also because the fuselage drag was changed.
Indeed I think a couple planes now turn too easily, but on the QQ Pitts Python (and the scale Python as well) this is especially pronounced.
I also feel the control surfaces stall too late and too little. Also the drag of the stalled surfaces seems to be too low.
This might be the main reason why the rudder efficiency is so visible on the Pitts. On other planes, the rudder is also very effective, but the stall of the control surface and the drag of the stalled surface stops the quick turning and slows the plane down. This is not the case on the Pitts however.
Anyway, the 3D model is great as all of Inky's. Though I personally like the scale version better
BTW: not texture flashing for me
0xdeadbeef
New member
Well, my understanding is (and Opjose seems to have affirmed) that the effectiveness of the control surfaces (at least rudder and elevator) is derived from the whole wing area instead of using only the moving part.
That's why I edited the "small electric" Pitts to use the whole vertical tail as rudder and the whole horizontal tail as elevator and added the fixed parts as separate wings. This dramatically reduces the effectiveness of control surfaces (and also the overall wing lift) though ... sometimes to a value which is definitively too low. This can be compensated by increasing the wing lift.
I could give the large Pitts' flight model a try, but then again I've never flown such a large bird and I can only guess how it should behave exactly.
That's why I edited the "small electric" Pitts to use the whole vertical tail as rudder and the whole horizontal tail as elevator and added the fixed parts as separate wings. This dramatically reduces the effectiveness of control surfaces (and also the overall wing lift) though ... sometimes to a value which is definitively too low. This can be compensated by increasing the wing lift.
I could give the large Pitts' flight model a try, but then again I've never flown such a large bird and I can only guess how it should behave exactly.
0xdeadbeef
New member
Ok, just for the fun of it, I changed the scale Pitts Python a bit to reflect what I mean:
Pitts Python variant with changed flight model
It's not even close to perfect, especially the stalling of control surfaces doesn't real work as I would expect. That's also the reason why I didn't upload it to the swap pages.
Still, it behaves much more like a large 14kg biplane IMHO.
This also goes to show that the rudder/elevator effectiveness calculation really should be fixed.
Pitts Python variant with changed flight model
It's not even close to perfect, especially the stalling of control surfaces doesn't real work as I would expect. That's also the reason why I didn't upload it to the swap pages.
Still, it behaves much more like a large 14kg biplane IMHO.
This also goes to show that the rudder/elevator effectiveness calculation really should be fixed.
skiman21632
Active member
Flashing textures on Fuse
I Just downloaded the updated QQ Pitts Python, and Inky00 i no longer am having the flashing texture issues on this particular model seems to be fixed for me. Thank You Skiman <><
I Just downloaded the updated QQ Pitts Python, and Inky00 i no longer am having the flashing texture issues on this particular model seems to be fixed for me. Thank You Skiman <><
Last edited:
rjmanzuk
Active member
Will the real Python please stand up?
I'd appreciate an evaluation by someone that owns a RL version of this bird to let us know whether 0xdeadbeef's edition, or inky00's is the more realistic performer of the two? If it's Ox's, then I'm still more a fan of the Ultimate for feel and performance, notwithstanding the Python's definite curb appeal, with or without QQ's CS.
Thx,
I'd appreciate an evaluation by someone that owns a RL version of this bird to let us know whether 0xdeadbeef's edition, or inky00's is the more realistic performer of the two? If it's Ox's, then I'm still more a fan of the Ultimate for feel and performance, notwithstanding the Python's definite curb appeal, with or without QQ's CS.
Thx,
CanCanCase
New member
There are several of the bigairplanes.com versions of the Python out there IRL, but if you want flight characteristics of the QQ, you'll have to ask Mr. Somenzini himself, as I understand the QQ Python is a one-of-a-kind aircraft at the moment.rjmanzuk said:
There were some folks over at RCU or RCG (I forget which) prying at Kimball Enterprises and QQ's product rep for info. All anyone got was something about: (I'm paraphrasing) "QQ modified the python design - with the help of Kimball Enterprises - to produce a better flying plane for competition purposes."
-Case
rjmanzuk
Active member
Diverging?
). So what should us non-flashers expect in our imagery now that you've made these changes? the only acceptable answer, of course, is "... nothing".
Hmmmm, will this further increase the performance differences between your EA and Oxdeadbeef's variant? Or, will this only impact imagery? Yours truly never experienced the texture flashing (whew! too old to recall how to deal with flashersinky00 said:
). So what should us non-flashers expect in our imagery now that you've made these changes? the only acceptable answer, of course, is "... nothing".
inky00
New member
The answer is nothing.Only people experiencing texture flashing should see any difference from the one on the swap pages.rjmanzuk said:Hmmmm, will this further increase the performance differences between your EA and Oxdeadbeef's variant? Or, will this only impact imagery? Yours truly never experienced the texture flashing (whew! too old to recall how to deal with flashers