I feel like experimenting with all sorts of weird configurations of helicopter blades to see if I can make a 3D printed...

I don't see why it would be hard to simulate in a simulator.
Some tool for engineers where you specify the proportions of a wing? Yes, but what I'm looking for is something where I can import a 3D model, give it some motion, then let the computer crunch the numbers.

No such thing exists. You gotta convert the model into something reasonable, make a mesh out of it and its surroundings, assign boundary conditions, select appropriate mathematical models and then interpret the results, because program will output something, but it doesn't have to be even close to reality if you fucked up somewhere.

That is pretty much what I meant, sounds a lot like a smoke simulation in blender.

>>I don't see why it would be hard to simulate in a simulator.
it's fluid goddamn dynamics of course it's gonna be hard to simulate. Not only that it's fluid goddamn dynamics where turbulence matters and shit rotates.

>> I can import a 3D model, give it some motion, then let the computer crunch the numbers
no such tool exists. It is not as simple of a process to just import a 3d model and let the computer crunch the numbers.

there's a pretty big difference between making stuff that looks pretty and making stuff that's works in the real world.

Also, pure and simple aerodynamics are only a minor thing in helicopters, vibrations and elasticity are much more important and complex.

>a helicopter with frisbees for blades
>simulate in a simulator

Sorry dude computers don't work like they do in video games and movies, for an accurate simulation you would use something like MATLAB and program the geometry of the frisbee and compute the fluid dynamics your self.

>MATLAB for fluid simulations
Kek

Easy tools like blender that you are familiar with are for creating relatively fast cheats that look acceptable to a human. There isn't a standard tool with a default method that gives acceptable results for the majority models. It's highly specific to the exact engineering problems you are trying to solve, in the conditions you are working with.

Blender does actually work for turbluence simulations; if you put a big box in a smoke flow for example, you'll get the real-life result of a patch of turbluence directly behind the box with the laminar flow merging further behind.

So why can't I get something that does exactly the same thing but able to also calculate the force of the flow on the object?

Not so important for anything smallish made of extremely strong and light plastic.

Show me a simulation in which a laminar flow transitions to a turbulent one in blender. Not to mention in the real world we are more concerned with forces rath than the path fluid takes.

>Blender creates visually believable turbulence in some cases
That's what it's for. That doesn't make it a physically accurate simulation. It makes it believable in relatively simple cases.

But what aspects of the physics can't be captured through an only slightly more sophisticated form of the approach Blender uses?

who is this semen demon

Because "look believable" and "is correct" has a long gap between them.

No idea.

That didn't answer the question.

Try making it as efficient as a bumblebee

Long story short - Blender uses very simple equations that calculate the fluid motion at very low precision and nothing else. If you want to use that, be my guest - you'll get something out of it. But I doubt it will be better than nothing.

But what's missing from the calculations?

Pressure for example?

Rias Gremory from Highschool DxD, aka. unfulfilling porn

That's why I'm looking for something that's the same, but with such things included.

Nothing for helicopters, then.

What?

Damn, that's hypnotic.

What do these posts have to do with Veeky Forums?

Take your pedophile cartoons back to .

She's at least in high school. So, it's not pedophilia, it's hebephilia, which we've been doing forever.

And in my case, it's more jealousyposting than actual attraction since I'd rather have a girls body than a guys, and in turn date a guy rather than a girl.

>She's at least in high school. So, it's not pedophilia, it's hebephilia
I don't think you understand what either of those are.

>She's at least in high school
>high school
>cartoon

Dōshite anata wa ecchi autist, senpai?

>They weigh quite a bit yet are still able to hover for quite some time considering their speed.
Not nearly as much as a proper glider of the same weight and span. Unconstrain span and you can get WAAAAAY better performance yet.
Check it out: youtube.com/watch?v=y311gXQaHnw

>>Hebephila: Attraction to pubescent individuals (13-17 years old)
>>Pedophilia: Attraction to pre-pubescent individuals(>13 year olds)
>>The girl in the gif is in high school
>>Hence She is 15-18, and at worst it's hebephilia
Learn English, faggot.

It's a pretty straightforward definition.

Kill yourself.

>Hebephilia is the strong and persistent adult sexual interest in pubescent (early adolescent) individuals, typically ages 11–14 (see the Tanner stage). It differs from ephebophilia, which is the strong and persistent sexual interest to those in later adolescence, approximately 15–19 years old
Retard, does that devil look "early adolescent" to you?