Hi, should be the rudder, ailerons, and tail wing implemented through a mathematical model (using scripts, like in demo's prefabs) or it is possible to simulate such elements as separate rigid bodies? What is the right way?
top of page
bottom of page
The flow around control surfaces is quite difficult to model if you are using separate objects as the lifting surface will affect the flow the control surface experiences. I wouldn't advise having two aero objects to model a lifting surface and a control surface.
We are working on an aircraft specific update which includes models for trailing edge and leading edge control surfaces which will be released in the summer along with lots of other high level control tools!
For now I would suggest having a graphic representation of the control surface which can move and then having the deflection angle of the control surface converted into a control camber value on the main aero object for that section of the wing/tail. Note that you will need to divide up the aircraft so you have at least an aero object for each control surface. You can then use aero groups on objects in the wing and the tail to make sure the aspect ratio correction is appropriate.
Oh, pardon, I was thinking about aero objects of course, but wrote "rigid body".
So question is -
is it possible to detach for example ailerones from its wing surfaces and control angle of separated ailerones (not imitating that through portWing.ao.ControlCamber and starboardWing.ao.ControlCamber values) but really changing angle so that will be visualy recognized too. It will be the one rigid body for whole aircraft of course.
Hi Eugene,
It's better to have aero objects for each surface that are all connected to a single rigid body for the aircraft. It would still work having multiple rigid bodies, but you would need to join them together and you would risk the joints becoming unstable or adding/removing energy to the system