CH-47 Chinook [Archive]

Tako_Kichi

November 1st, 2011, 09:58

I dont think that I have ever seen a Chinook's rotors spinning at a blur like that.
The whole issue with rotating discs (rotor, prop, vehicle wheels etc.) is very subjective especially when using a recording as a reference. All recordings, whether they are on film, video or digitally captured, will exhibit the 'stroboscopic effect' to some degree. Probably the best example of this would be the wheels on a stage-coach in an old western movie, they appear to rotate forwards, backwards or even stop as the speed of the vehicle changes compared to the speed of the recording.

The only way to be sure what the Chinook's rotors look like when spinning is to observe them with the Mk.1 eyeball and unfortunately very few people (out of the almost 70 billion currently alive) have seen that and even less have made a report about what they saw.

Ferry_vO

November 1st, 2011, 10:05

Well I see Chinooks flying over here on a regular base, as their practice area is only a few miles away from where I live, and you can actually see the individual blades spinning.

Didn't know it was released btw, and even though it looks nice I'm still waiting for a D model..

Barnes

November 1st, 2011, 10:06

I agree. Perhaps someone will come out with a different texture for this one as even though the rest of the product looks great, the rotors are a somewhat major feature on a Chinook!

mal998

November 1st, 2011, 10:08

It is a 'D' model.

Barnes

November 1st, 2011, 10:11

Id be happier if the blades stood out more like on this...

http://i439.photobucket.com/albums/qq119/GAJIT/wip-159.jpg

Ferry_vO

November 1st, 2011, 10:14

Sorry, I meant the Dutch 'D' model (Or upcoming 'F') with glass cockpit. Oh well..

mal998

November 1st, 2011, 10:16

I've made an inquiry regarding the rotors, but I don't know that they'll be any changes made at this point. But hope does spring eternal.

Warrant

November 1st, 2011, 10:16

Looks great!
However, ive been spending some money on my other hobby, so i'll wait for a "D" model with a glass cockpit including a Dutch livery (though i can make that happen in a few hours:icon_lol:) and FN MAG (also known as the M240) machineguns instead of M-60's.

Glad to see the CH-47 is back on the scope :medals:

Barnes

November 1st, 2011, 10:25

I've made an inquiry regarding the rotors, but I don't know that they'll be any changes made at this point. But hope does spring eternal.

Thanks Mal - much apprechiated.

Roger

November 1st, 2011, 11:27

It maybe possible to use different rotor textures with a more blade specific alpha. Bob Rivera made plenty.

Roger

November 1st, 2011, 11:31

I just might have to:naturesm:

Gibbage

November 1st, 2011, 12:32

Im holding off till the Milviz/Nemeth CH-47 is out. This one's scale looks way off. CH-47 is a BIG bird. Im also not seeing any shaders like normal or specular mapping.

http://www.pics-site.com/wp-content/uploads/Boeing-CH-47-Chinook-Helicopter-21.jpg

Barnes

November 1st, 2011, 12:47

Milviz version - did not know - great to hear

Gibbage

November 1st, 2011, 12:54

Ya. Heard about it some time ago, but I havent seen any recent updates. If it has the same level of quality as the Huey, then its going to be killer!

krazycolin

November 1st, 2011, 12:57

Uh... without meaning to steal the thread here... The Huey was renowned for having bad frames on release. That WAS fixed in the first update (5 days after release).... (just FYI)

jeansy

November 1st, 2011, 15:06

Im also not seeing any shaders like normal or specular mapping.

i wonder why they didnt go with bump mapping or if they did why they didnt make it more define or is it just the screen shots

anyone who bought does it have self shadowing?

does it come with a unarmed version? for civil repaints

looking at some of the shots, one could pass judgement saying it looks like a port over,

normally i dont mind the AS/V product range, but im thinking i will pass beacuse of the rotors, bump mapping

dougal

November 1st, 2011, 15:17

Mmmm..... Been up close & personal to more than a couple o'these babies and, to be honest, I'm certainly not convinced about this one...bye, bye:running::running::running:

kilo delta

November 1st, 2011, 15:47

Ya. Heard about it some time ago, but I havent seen any recent updates. If it has the same level of quality as the Huey, then its going to be killer!

Uh... without meaning to steal the thread here... The Huey was renowned for having bad frames on release. That WAS fixed in the first update (5 days after release).... (just FYI)

Colin...my understanding of the above quote is that Kevin was complimenting the Huey ie Killer=Good!
:)

krazycolin

November 1st, 2011, 15:50

Yah, I know... I was just pre-empting the usual comments about the Huey... (perhaps I'm a tad paranoid?):173go1:

kilo delta

November 1st, 2011, 15:52

Yah, I know... I was just pre-empting the usual comments about the Huey... (perhaps I'm a tad paranoid?):173go1:

Hehe...no problem being paranoid...it is FS after all! :icon_lol:

michael davies

November 1st, 2011, 15:52

Im holding off till the Milviz/Nemeth CH-47 is out. This one's scale looks way off. CH-47 is a BIG bird. Im also not seeing any shaders like normal or specular mapping.

I think the scale issue is more down to the figures than the exterior model, certainly the mesh I saw was scaled correctly....at the time I saw it.

michael davies

November 1st, 2011, 15:55

i wonder why they didnt go with bump mapping or if they did why they didnt make it more define

anyone who bought does it have self shadowing?

does it come with a unarmed version? for civil repaints

looking at the shots, one could pass judgement saying it looks like a port over,

normally i dont mind the AS/V product range, but im thinking i will pass on this unless the rotors, bump mapping is dramaticly improved

Definately not a port over, but, perhaps not exploiting all of the FSx attributes to the full.

Not heard of any clean models in the mix, shooty bang bang only I think.

krazycolin

November 1st, 2011, 15:59

besides, I actually KNOW I have enemies... :monkies:

jeansy

November 1st, 2011, 16:16

Definately not a port over, but, perhaps not exploiting all of the FSx attributes to the full.

Not heard of any clean models in the mix, shooty bang bang only I think.

Yeah i know, its a shame they didnt go in that direction, after your revamped seaking and other models, it looks like a step backwards as bump mapping does wonders to an exterior

besides, I actually KNOW I have enemies... :monkies:

you cant please everyone, sure as #### i dont

michael davies

November 2nd, 2011, 01:11

Yeah i know, its a shame they didnt go in that direction, after your revamped seaking and other models, it looks like a step backwards as bump mapping does wonders to an exterior

I don't have the final shop copy, just a very very late beta to wring out the final wrinklies and I have to confess, I never noticed the lack of bump textures, until it was noted here, on checking my copy I cannot find them?, theres a specular texture but no bump, which is odd, as you say they've been present in all previous models so I wonder if they have slipped through the net somewhere?.

Addendum, just checked back through the beta models and found a few with bump textures in, so they've either been left out by accident, or for another reason, I'll try and find out why and also see if these old beta bumps work with the final product and then perhaps get this sorted.

fsafranek

November 3rd, 2011, 11:02

I have an accidental clean exterior model with no or minimal military extras. But the three models (US Army, RAF, Aussie Army) in the final package all have unique antenna arrays on the port side (and different weapons, etc.).

There has been a paint kit for this on at the Alphasim/Virtavia freeware site (http://www.easyfly.co.nz/Freeware/index.php?dir=/Paint%20Kits) for a while.

Maybe a clean exterior model could be added to the paint kit. I'll at least ask.
:ernae:

jeansy

November 3rd, 2011, 13:31

Frank

is there any bump mapping?

and the paint kit appears to be a "invaild.zip" ive tried it twice and its been mentioned at hovercontrol as well

michael davies

November 3rd, 2011, 14:47

Frank

is there any bump mapping?

and the paint kit appears to be a "invaild.zip" ive tried it twice and its been mentioned at hovercontrol as well

There is no bump mapping, they were taken out as it didn't look right on a matt surface.

Go figure :banghead:.

I have some here and think they will work on the final model, will check tomorrow, your welcome to them if you want, but they may need editing to get the result you want. I would, but a: I don't know/forgotten how too, b: I really can't be bothered to keep sweeping up post release.

I checked the paint kit too, its corrupt and fails to open.

Addendum, just checked the bump textures, 90% lines up, thats the good news, the bad news is, only on the old beta model, looks like the shop copy does not have the bump mapping added into the model material, you can throw all the bump textures you want at it, there just not going to show.

spatialpro

November 4th, 2011, 10:19

There is no bump mapping, they were taken out as it didn't look right on a matt surface.

Go figure :banghead:.

Indeed!!! It is a great shame they made such a judgement. At least if they'd left the possibility of bump maps in the model 1) they could've provided alternative textures with stronger/weaker bump maps; 2) users could've produced textures with stronger/weaker bump maps; or 3) users could've simply chosen to turn off bump mapping in FSX if they didn't like it. Choice is always best.

Also, did we get to the bottom of whether the VC is self shaded (i.e. DX10 compatible)? I like also their Sea King, but the lack of self-shading was a disapointment, especially as it is relatively easy to achieve.

Have a great weekend

Andy

jeansy

November 4th, 2011, 13:37

hmmmmm

very disappointing news for this workhorse

rivets, panels and dents give it character otherwise its very bland (as shown)

Barnes

November 4th, 2011, 14:37

I agree - thank goodness Milviz is on the case

Gibbage

November 4th, 2011, 16:19

Thats odd. Normal mapping does not only effect reflection and specular highlights, but also shadows. Even if the surface is matte, it can still greatly benifit from normal mapping as the shadows will highlight details such as panel lines, rivits, dents, vents, dings and scratches.

fsafranek

November 5th, 2011, 12:00

Yes, a not so good decision but (sigh) above my pay grade and not my project so c'est la vie. I've already posted my suggestions for an upgrade on y'alls behalf to management. :salute:

On a more positive note, spotted a nice repaint of an RAF Chinook HC2 in overall OD green at flightsim.com this morning. Adds a nice alternate to the mix. Someone has appearently been able to get beyond it.
:ernae:

jeansy

November 5th, 2011, 21:35

I took a bite of the bullet and thought i would have a go...

on the only positive note i can find at this moment its easy on the frame rates

Frank

you need to let phil know it really needs bump mapping, the exterior looks like a fs9 model and very very very bland

and i know he will tear his party dress, but where is the winch? i know the Australian models have winches and now have FLIRS, well they did last week when i was walking around the hard stand among them

as seen below and http://images.defence.gov.au/fotoweb/Grid.fwx?archiveId=5003&search=(IPTC025 contains(Chinook))

plus the paint kit is still corrupt

Barnes

November 5th, 2011, 23:38

Hi Jeansy

Are the rotor animations as bad as the screenshots look?

jeansy

November 5th, 2011, 23:51

Hi Jeansy

Are the rotor animations as bad as the screenshots look?

yes and no

its hard to say , i just cant look at it any longer,

theres so much i would like to say but i wont, its a huge step backwards from the seaking,

im sorry frank you have done a good job with the paints but you have been let down by the very very very very plain exterior

this guinea pig is flying something else from now on

michael davies

November 6th, 2011, 01:11

yes and no

its hard to say , i just cant look at it any longer,

theres so much i would like to say but i wont, its a huge step backwards from the seaking,

im sorry frank you have done a good job with the paints but you have been let down by the very very very very plain exterior

this guinea pig is flying something else from now on

I'm sure we can summise what you'd want to say. I was only involved in the FDE and have since found that the majority of the developed FSx FDE has not been used, thats a good four months work being used as a secondardy back up file, the primary one being a FS9 format based one. Whilst both perform pretty much the same there are differences, the reason stated is the sound files failed to work with the accel FDE, I think thats called the tail wagging the dog?, everyone a loser.

I was always dreading the day when I'd not want to be associated with a product, but that day has finally arrived, the double blow is this is my last piece of work, it'd been nice to go out on a high. Its a shame, because the changes/decisions/errors are actually quite small, however their impact is high.

Utterly frustraited by it all to be honest.

Thanks for reminding me about the Seaking, I'd recently shelved some ideas I had for that, perhaps now is the time to resurrect that little project, obviously for legal reasons it'd have to be almost all new from the ground up, some of that is already accomplished but the rest not beyond the bounds of possibility.

jeansy

November 6th, 2011, 01:19

sorry mate

Mick I loved your seaking, I have no idea what happened with this one, from frank and yourself, I can only guess the man who writes the pay checks did some over ruling

at the end of the day I cant retract what I feel about the exterior as it "looks like a FS9 model"

it a shame most developers only go forwards after each release, looks like upper management doesn't have that interest

I look forward to your SH3 plans and what they have to offer

michael davies

November 6th, 2011, 01:40

the man who writes the pay checks .........

Now theres a novel thought!!.

Say it how it is, don't feel you need to pull punches because we're here.

If I think your wrong I'll say so :), thus, my silence should tell you everything you need to know.

jeansy

November 6th, 2011, 01:48

im guessing he wont be getting xmas cards again this yr :icon_lol:

all i can say is, it will be interesting where it goes from here, and how much is taken on

I know what your going to say and what the majority are going to say, but i will give him the benefit of the doubt, saying that i wont hold my breath either

at least its not the stock EH 101 fde and passed off as complete like another payware helo developer did

michael davies

November 6th, 2011, 02:04

im guessing he wont be getting xmas cards again this yr :icon_lol:

I think we have arrived at a mutual point.

all i can say is, it will be interesting where it goes from here, and how much is taken on

I know what your going to say and what the majority are going to say, but i will give him the benefit of the doubt, saying that i wont hold my breath either

at least its not the stock EH 101 fde and passed off as complete like another payware helo developer did

I don't know where it'll go, I've know Phil for many years, some decisions seem strange but there's usually an explanation, but this time I fail to see the reasoning.

The primary FDE does follow the EH101 format where all of the data is in the cfg, ie accel format, the secondary (now primary) is FS9/pre accel format, I have to say that the FS9 format is probably better (with hindsight), it has more fidelity and parameters that can give a better feel, but only if the right engine type is choosen. The type of engine effects much more than just numbers, the best type is type 5 which is turbo prop, however that means you need turboprop gauges and a sound set to match, what generally happens is that sound sets and gauge sets are for type 3 (helo) or type 1 (jet), thats ok but you loose some fidelity and the type 5 if not set up correctly can present many challenges for the casual user.

The right way for most users is type 5, its hard work, requires more work on the sound set and gauges (so I'm led to believe), but gives the best fidelity and clickability, but as we've seen, hard work is often not the path of choice for some, and that is not exclusive to this particular conversation.

fsafranek

November 6th, 2011, 06:23

im sorry frank you have done a good job with the paints but you have been let down by the very very very very plain exterior
No worries Matt but I didn't paint this one. I just helped test it. Didn't really get much involved until the end with the flight model by Michael. All the things you (and I) feel are missing were mentioned by myself in the beta forum long ago.
:ernae:

fsafranek

January 1st, 2012, 11:03

Spotted a pretty thorough review of the CH-47 Chinook.

http://www.flightsim.com/main/review/chinook.htm
:ernae:

jeansy

January 1st, 2012, 11:29

did the paint kit ever get fixed?

Barnes

January 1st, 2012, 14:07

Glad I havent purchased - i see the reviewer says it dont sound like a Chinook!!

Bone

January 1st, 2012, 14:26

Glad I havent purchased - i see the reviewer says it dont sound like a Chinook!!

I've heard many chinooks fly overhead from a lifetime of being around aviation. Just like most people are able to tell the sound of an approaching Huey that still hasn't come within visual range, I can identify an approaching Chinook.

I think this model sounds pretty good, I quite like the model, and I have no reason to be for or against Virtavia.