Project Dornier Do-17z2

[No Dice]

Aleatorylamp.

Is it possible for you to change your text to white,
or is it just on my end...I can not read your posts.

Dave

[smilo]

that's strange, Dave.
are you saying that the background is dark?
are you using the CFC page style?
if so, try SOH Default.
can you post a screen shot?

[smilo]

thanks, Stephan..i got it.

[No Dice]

smilo,
I emailed a copy of what I see to you

Dave

[aleatorylamp]

Hello NoDice,
I´m afraid it has nothing to do with my settings.
Logged in, my text is black on white, and unlogged-in, it´s white on dark-grey.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
I got the fin notches back in at a minor 4 parts per fin cost, and parts count is now at 149.4%.
Here are some pics, and it looks more correct. I can´t make the notches more exact for lack of parts.
It´s good you pointed it out as I´d completely forgotten that I´d simplified that quite at the beginning.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[smilo]

hello Stephan and Dave.
i just went back to earlier posts
and looked at them both in
CombatFs/CFC and SOH page styles.
for some reason, Stephan, in CombatFS/CFC,
your earlier posts are dark gray on gray
and are very hard to read,
but, now they are white on gray.
oddly, one of mine and a few of yours are a combination.
i have no idea why this is happening.
i always use SOH Default,
so, i didn't even notice.

maybe, one of the senior admins upstairs
has an answer and solution.

hmmm, i just noticed
the Reply With Quote button
isn't working either.
oh well, so it goes

[Ivan]

hmmm, i just noticed
the Reply With Quote button
isn't working either.
oh well, so it goes

Hello Smilo,

For once, this feature is working here.... It usually doesn't.


Hello Aleatorylamp,

I currently am unable to do anything with an AFX; My development computer simply is not working.
I was very surprised when it ran without any issues the evening that I got my screenshots.
After that, it simply has had pretty much endless problems.
The latest is a video problem in which the screen shrinks horizontally.
My best bet is to do pretty much like you did and get an XP virtual machine running on my laptop, but I have not found where to download the software yet.
It seems like many folks use it on Windows 7 or Windows 10, but not many on Windows 8.1.

Regarding the model, I am constantly amazed by the way you use Structures in your builds.
I find them to be generally unsuitable for what I want, but you manage to put them in places with minimal compromises to the shapes.
Have you thought about whether the resources consumed by the crew could be better used elsewhere?

I am still very curious as to how you handle the DP file.
I started a relevant discussion back at another (now defunct) site about how overly effective bomber guns generally were but perhaps you have already addressed the issue with your Baltimores. (I haven't had a chance to install any of them yet.)
The Dornier 17 / 215 is one of those aeroplanes that has lots of guns but not enough crew to actually man them all so there is really no good way to simulate the effect.
A couple simple turrets would have be a much more effective than all the flexible guns in my opinion.

- Ivan.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Pity about your development computer! I have a number of old towers with sundry old accellerator cards here. Too bad It´s difficult to get one to you.

However,VMPlayer is a good solution: There is a free version for private use which goes great!
http://www.vmware.com/products/playe...valuation.html
The computer itself runs VMPlayer with all 4 cores at (in my case) at between 1.6 and 3.2 Mhz, as need be, but Windows XP inside the VMPlayer only uses 1 core running at 1800 Mhz - speed enough to run AF99, AA and CFS1, including a photo editor for the textures, simultaneously.
BTW, low-end Quadcores at 4x1 Ghz are not enough to run VMPlayer, but your laptop is a super one, so there you should have no problem whatsoever! So, Virtual Machine Player works fine on Windows 8.1 for building aircraft, and also for Combat Flight Simulator 1 (in my case without Hardware Accelleration), so you would use the VMPlayer to build and test-fly or check planes.Most Windows 8.1 Machines should however be able to handle CFS1 directly with Hubbabubba´s joystick fix.

Re. Dornier Do-17:
I thought the crew was necessary!
Maybe I should only put heads in, as I need a minimum of three here, and use the resources to improve something else.

I find using structures rather fun! The more of them I use, the more components are free for more difficult things.
I thought the diamond bulkhead was good for rudders when these are on tailplane ends. I managed to get the front part more rounded by including a point right at the front, with only a parts-cost increase of 2.
Normally, for fuselage mounted fins I´d use the triangle bulkhead marked "top only".

Then, for the strangely shaped belly, the keystone bulkhead marked "bottom only" helps out nicely too, with a "top only" dome bulkhead for above, and it´s not too parts-hungry.

One thing I forgot, is that for nacelles it is really better to use a 10 sided circle instead of a 12 sided one: It not only has fewer parts, but its vertical sides are better to fit when continuing the nacelle as components on the wing. However, altering that now will be too complicated.

Anyway, with the guns, at the moment physically there are only 4, but the DP files have 6, each with 1000 rounds.
The model has 4: 2 in the nose firing forward, upwards and downwards (I still have to check the Dp files, as at the beginning I had two firing horizontally, I think). Then, 1 dorsal one firing upwards-backwards, and 1 ventral one firing downwards-backwards. The two last ones are correctly angled in the Dp files.

To make sideways-firing guns I have no components or parts left over, but in the Dp file I had placed two firing sideways, which may have to be eliminated.

The Dp editor options require strange angle numbers to fire backwards, 180 degrees , plus or minus the inclination desired!
I believe sideways firing requires + or - 90 degrees, depending on the side... not easy...

Well, now I´ll have to start making the markings for the textures. There´s no hurry for the Do-17 perusal or appraisal, as it were, so we can wait for that and the possible "corrections list" for when you have managed to get your CFS1 building/testing centre going again.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

The development computer isn't dead; It is just not working well enough to use effectively.
The timing of this discussion is actually rather amusing.
Before the kids came along, I had one of the upstairs bedrooms as a computer assembly and test area.
When that bedroom was needed for the second child, I moved everything to the basement which also offered more space for storage of spares.
THAT is the room that was flooded when the pipe joint failed.
When it was cleared out in preparation for demolition, I lost a lot of spares and even a lot of completely functional computers.
Anna Honey with my son's help did most of the clearing and neither of them knows much about what was valuable and what was not.
The reason the timing is interesting is that TODAY, there are folks in the basement who ripped out what was left of the walls and are installing insulation and drywall and eventually a tile floor in that same room. I can hear their power tools running even now....

As for spares, I have a couple extra CPUs floating around. None of them are all that powerful, but all are better than a Pentium 233 MMX.
One is actually configured as a development machine already but the problem is finding a monitor or a KVM switch. I don't think I have all my tools on the second development box. I will need both running for a month or two while I pull data off the older machine.
(I don't think I even have SCASM on the second machine!)

On the professional side, I have used VMWare before so hopefully I can figure things out. My understanding though was that it was possible to set up a virtual XP machine with just a download from Microsoft so that is the direction I will go for now.
My laptop computer isn't greatly different from yours: Core i7 4710MQ quad core running at a maximum of 3.5 GHz.

As I depend more on this laptop, I am finding that there are lots of tools I do not have here. I needed a Hex Editor for something this morning and found that I do not have one here, so time to go searching for the best one. (On the dev machines, I was using FrHed.)

Regarding Dornier 17Z:
Whether to have a crew is your decision. I wasn't planning on a crew for my own version of this aeroplane.
You do pretty well with Structures, but I don't like the choices. Since I already have decided on a SCASM project, I really don't have to use them at all. (Even my Wheels will be done as Components; Imagine a non-blocky wheel!)

In the case of the DP file, keep in mind that the upper three or four MGs on beam and aft positions are all handled by ONE gunner.
He certainly cannot fire more than one at a time (which should be simulated by the DP) and because of the limited fields of fire for each gun, he also has no great ability to track a target.
The Ventral gunner has even less ability to track because of his limited field of view AND because of the arrangement of the swivel mount has nearly zero ability to track on a crossing shot.
The two forward firing guns are both handled by the Bombardier who obviously can't be in both places and can't even man the guns during the bomb run....
All of the guns have a simple ring and bead sight which is not great for precision.

Quick summary of CFS AI Marksmanship Discussion from way back:
CFS AI gunners are incredibly accurate and by default, all the flex mounts and turrets range out to 1000 yards.
A fixed mount with a reflector sight as on a fighter only ranges to 500 yards.
I believe the flex guns should have a much shorter range because of their lack of stability and because of their very primitive sights.
I have my own ideas, but I believe this discussion is worthy of yet another thread.

For the reasons listed, I believe the CFS DP armament for this aeroplane should be only 4 guns;
One fixed forward firing and
One Aft and High with a wide field of fire and moderate range
One Aft and Low with a narrow field and short range
and One Flexible Forward with a medium field and moderate range

Let me know what you think.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
I hope your computer adventure takes you to a happy ending, and that the chain of coincidences that caused the problem will be followed by another with more positive results!

You will see that it is actually quite simple to set up VMWare. After deciding on the size of the virtual hard disk and the RAM allocated - I did 10 Gb HDD and 1 Gb RAM - you format the virtual HDD and install Windows XP from its CD. The CD was why I got a laptop with a DVD reader/writer (there was a faster one with 2.0-3.3 Ghz speed for 75 Euros more, but no DVD reader/writer). I understand there´s also a way of setting up from a USB stick with Windows XP CD image, but I didn´t bother.

Anyway, the Dornier:
I´ll go with your proposal for the 4 guns in the Dp files. The chin gun would probably be the fixed forward one with longer range?

On the real aeroplane, with 6 or 7 guns like on a gunship, they should have had at least 3 more gunners, but they just had them jumping around. Not effective at all, as you say!

Then, you are completely right about the limited choices of bulkheads for structures - a lot of them are useless anyway, and stupidly, a couple of more obviously useful ones like a) a keystone with a rounded top, or b) a trapeze or c) a flat-based pentagon have stupidly been omited, but anyway...

About the crew: Without one, you wouldn´t really need transparent windows, so those could be just grey-graded shading, saving lots of trouble and resources... Or possibly you mean leave just the pilot, and imagine the rest of the crew are bent down or something... The resources I used up with the extra crew members could perhaps come in quite handy for a couple of other things... Although these will not free any components - they are all structures.

For the moment, the result is quite satisfactory, but I am open to any additional ideas you may have.
I know your version of the aeroplane is going to rely on SCASM, but you know that will not be so in my case.

Great fun anyway!
Cheers, and thanks for your input.
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
We mentioned resources... and I have just found out that I have one free component left! Now it´s bugging me to increase resource efficiency, and how to go about it.

I can increase this even more by taking away the bomber´s torso and have him crouching like the dorsal gunner with only his head visible, which looks quite plausible (see screenshot) and including the glue, actually frees 47 parts (5.9%). Then, changing a structure to components elsewhere will free even more parts.
Now I have to have a look where is best to use these parts for an improvement.

One place could perhaps be the tail-fuselage, whose cross section in reality starts getting round just after the tailwheel.
At the moment I have two structures here with dome and keystone bulkheads. I could put in a 10-sided circular one and use the component to make the transition piece. Perhaps this would be good (see other screenshot).

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

New Found Wealth! How Wonderful!

Since you asked, here is what I would do if I were in your place:
Keep in mind that there are only 4 crewmen for this aeroplane.
The Pilot is probably going to be visible on the left side of the Cockpit.
The Dorsal Gunner is probably going to be visible at the back of the Kanzel.
The other two, Bombardier and Ventral Gunner are probably NOT going to be visible.
Note that they have multiple places they can be.
The Ventral Gunner is probably lying on his belly just forward of the Ventral Gun.
The Bombardier is either sighting in the Nose for a bombing run OR operating the Swivel Gun in the Nose.
This seems a touch weird, but I would just have the gun next to the Pilot as fixed forward firing (the one fixed gun I described earlier)

Now comes the tricky part:
For the Pilot and Dorsal One-Armed Wallpaper Hanger, put them in as only a single profile Part each and make sure there are no bleeds.
That should save a LOT of resources.
Since I am sure you will be using SCASM in any case for the Virtual Cockpit, Design Component Pilot and Gunner in addition to he Cockpit Interior.
You can then add the Component Aircrew along with the V-Cockpit.
If you know enough to do one, you can certainly do the other; It isn't much different.
Where there are calls to the Profile Pilot and Gunner, you just change the call to your Component Aircrew added at the very end of your SCASM source as you would for the V-Cockpit.

With the new found Parts, you might consider putting in some Insignia Windows on the sides of the Nose.
There was a lot of Glazing there that your model is missing at the moment.
It also might be a good idea to put in the very goofy looking Pitot Tube on the Port Wing.
Perhaps a functional Bomb Bay (attached to Spoilers) might be in order.

Let me know how it goes.
- Ivan.

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

One further note:
If you want to save resources, use your remaining Component in a place that you are currently building with Top Only or Bottom Only Structures.
The Component will give you better control as you already know and should significantly lower the Parts count and even more so if you can replace both Structures.

Oh by the way, the drywall was mostly done as of last night and I expect the gentlemen will be painting today.
When this room is done, perhaps I can put up a small Computer assembly / testing table to see if I can find some workable equipment to repair my development machine.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Good luck with your hardware in the new basement as soon as possible!

For the moment, the rounded rear-fuselage rounding went well and is looking much better (see screenshots). I used the free component as a transition part and then a 10-sided structure. Should this, however, be unnecessary, I can easily revert to what it was before as I´ve saved that.

I´ll study your latest suggestions more closely and see what I can do! Thanks! ...although putting in the crew components with SCASM will be a bit difficult...

Now parts count is 148.8%, but if I take away the bombardier´s head (your reasoning on the crew´s behaviour is quite sound) and glue then it will go down to 144.6%, and your suggestion of adding insignia window parts to where there are cabin bleeds, sounds great! - and I´ll do the guns in the DP files as you said.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan, hello Smilo,
I´ve finally found a way of eliminating the annoying bleeds from the retractable engine-nacelle section through the flap when seen from below. Glue and insignia wouldn´t work, (the parts are in wing-low so as not to interfere with the wing seen from above), but I luckily found a solution - duplicating the flaps into the landing gear and marking them as insignia seemed to do the trick, and there´s no interference from the front.

Well, with no bombardier now, and with the rear-fuselage shape correction, parts count is now at 144.4%.

Now come Markings and Virtual Cockpit.

I´ll see if I am capable of following Ivan´s instructions to put in the Bombardier again with SCASM.
If I gather correctly, a mere textured silhouette in AF99 would be enough to position and identify the part in SCASM, and then it would be substituted in the listing by the SCASM text belonging to the 2 separately made and SCASMed Bombardier components -head and body.

Can they be structures or do they have to be components?

I´ll try! The alternative is that the Bombardier is unseen, crouching down, looking into the bombsight or something...

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Just a quick note:
I don't believe it is worthwhile to include the Bombardier at all because I believe if he is sitting in the glazed Nose section, you would not see him anyway and two of his three jobs are in that area.

I was suggesting putting profile Pilot and Upper Rear Gunner to replace your current structures and put them back in via SCASM at the same time (though not the same place) as your SCASM Cockpit.

I take it that your Insignia Flap is facing Upper Rear?

Regarding the VMWare Windows XP.... I do not believe that will work for me. I do have Windows XP installation disks and they are legitimate, but not a generic install that I can use for my laptop.

Need to get to a meeting at the school.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
I would have thought any legitimate Windows XP CD would be fine to install into VMWare... unless of course it is one that asks for supplementary license payment after three installations!
The one I have is a SP2 version, and doesn´t ask for validation. If need be I could mail it to you.

Thanks for your clarifications on the Bombardier.
At the moment there´s no real point in doing the pilot and dorsal gunner in SCASM as I´m only on 144.4% parts, and the plane is looking fine.

I´ll see what happens with the Virtual Cockpit, and I think I´ll have to block out the engines like we did on the Baltimores by putting in a call to the cabinfloor.

Yes, the Flap insignia is facing upper-rear, and nicely stops the bleed from the nacelle section when seen from below-rear.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[smilo]

hello Stephan, by chance, could you send me
the new, updated, no bleed model?
without markings is fine.
i've had a quick look,
but, will need to change monitors
if i want to get serious.
(a long story, there)
anyway, i plan on taking a closer look this weekend,
but, don't want to comment on something
that may have already been corrected.
thanks in advance

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Smilo, and hello Ivan,
I was thinking exactly the same thing, and was about to ask if I should send the new model! Thanks for your request.

Here´s the model in its present state - Version 2, as it were!
I´m also posting the source files just in case Ivan wants to have a look and the hardware allows it.

In a nutshell, impprovements on this version are:
-It now has the round tail-fuselage cross section,
-Fins have a better shaped front end, as well as the correct notches for the rudder-balance part.
-Nacelle-ends don´t bleed through flaps seen from behind-low-rear,
-To save on parts, the bombardier is not visible because he´s bent down, poring over a map.
-Parts count is now at 144.4%, so there are 45 parts left for other niceties I´m trying to think of. Ivan mentioned some extra windows in the front, and I´m researching...

Thanks for your inspection!
Cheers, and have a nice weekend!
Aleatorylamp

[smilo]

thanks Stephan, got it.
as i said before,
i don't like nitpicking,
but, here goes....
just looking at the image,
-the inside landing gear strut
is bleeding through the wheel.
-what are the two black pieces
on top of each nacelle?

are you sure, you want me to do this?
am i sure, i want to do this?

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Smilo,
Thanks for your initial comments! I appreciate them very much. I wouldn´t call it nitpicking, as, if things can be fixed and improved, all the better!

The landing gear struts, on each side of the wheel, have an inner part glued to the wheel facing sideways, and another facing forwards, and I thought I could save some glue on the second one... I didn´t notice the momentary bleed from the rear angle.
I could fix it easily with some extra glue, and it worked!

The black things on the engines are two exhaust nozzles, and to be honest, I am not very satisfied with them yet...
Maybe they are superfluous, or perhaps I should try making them dark grey instead of black. Another possibility would be just two black circles with insignia upwards. Perhaps that will be best. What do you think of the screenshots?

They do actually look much better, don´t they? If we were to leave them as black circles, parts count is only 137.9% - I could really put the bombardier back in... just to keep company...

On the photos, the pipes only portrude a little. Making them more accurate would be very parts-consuming, so at the moment they are black wedge structures. There must be a better way, as they are a bit irritating...

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[smilo]

i wouldn't go so far as irritating,
...more like, distracting.
even though accuracy is important,
it wouldn't hurt my feelings if they disappeared.
then again, maybe dark gray circles or ovals.
we shall see.

in level flight, spot view from 45* left aft,
press the number pad 4 key.
the view will slowly move forward.
as it does, look at the wing leading edge and nacelle.
the root momentarily bleeds through the nacelle.
one more thing...actually several,
press key pad 2 for aft view.
there are flashing spots at inner wing joints,
aft fuselage after the wings
and where the fuselage joins the tail section.
also, some around the nacelles.
i believe these string of pearl like joints
are an indication of sightly misaligned vertices.

still think i'm not nitpicking?

[smilo]

ps...
have i told you lately(?)
i love this model.
at last, a decent cfs Do17z2
thank you for your efforts.
they have certainly paid off.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Smilo,
Thanks for your information, and your good words!

I´m afraid the wing-root bleeds through the forward engine nacelle won´t disappear even with templates.
Actually, there are only wing/fuselage and nose/wing templates, not nose/fuselage ones... The problem is that the wing-root is grouped with the fuselage. Anyway, I´ll try grouping them in a different way and see what happens.

The string of pearl gaps at the places you mention are divisions between components and structures, and I have been working on that for some time trying to improve it. The alignment between these two types of parts always creates some difficulty.
I´ll see if I can improve them a little more.

Thanks again for your feedback!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp