ooops....sorry,
the parts need to be compiled into an AFX file
before ad2k can import them.
ooops....sorry,
the parts need to be compiled into an AFX file
before ad2k can import them.
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
Hello Smilo,
Sorry - I thought you needed the individual parts to import. Then I tried importing the parts, but it doesnīt!
Anyway, hereīs the AFX, which has to be loaded into an empty AD2K file - or it will erase any previous parts.
One thing: I forgot to cut out the aileron... but I suppose that can be done later.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
"Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"
nicely done, Stephan.
she's a beauty.
several of the panels
had to be flipped, but,
that's par for the course.
...no problem at all.
now, she's got a fresh coat of paint,
compiled and is floating out in space,
happily rotating in slew mode.
it's almost a shame
to chop her up into sections.
but, one's gotta do
what one's gotta do.
i'll get to work on the nacelle later.
i have to run into town shortly.
once again, nicely done
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
Hello Smilo,
Well, thanks for the good words, and for the good work you are doing!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
"Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"
am up for a for hours.
we shall see how it goes.
have a good day
and stay cool.
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
Hello Smilo,
What a wierd summer weīre having here! The weather got cooler
and cloudy yesterday, thank goodness, and will hopefully stay so
for a couple of days. Strange for August...
I was rather expecting that the wing had to be chopped up into
parts, and I am very much intrigued by the way in which you are
going about the fuselage-wing-nacelle build! Good luck!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
"Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"
it's been dry here as well,
but, fortunately, not blazingly hot.
a couple mornings ago, i noticed a little fog
and some condensation on the car windows
and the leaves are starting to dry
and fall off the trees....seems a little early,
but, we're getting the first hints of fall.
i sure hope it's not a harbinger
of a harsh winter to come...yuck.
okay, about the wing/nacelle build process,
first, to the chop shop.
i've made copies of the complete wing
and placed them in separate sub assemblies.
next, i've removed the upper and lower halves, respectively.
as i've said before, too many lines
make things confusing and i don't need that.
it should be a relatively easy task
to crop the interior and exterior wings,
leaving just the nacelle area chopped wings.
IF the wing was constructed with tied templates.
BUT...it is not.
as it turns out, there are minor discrepancies
with some of the wing bulkhead profile vertices.
some of the wing panel lines don't match up
with vertices in the profiles, which in turn
gives a straight panel line
a bit of a dog leg at the bulkhead junctions.
i'm sure, no one would be the wiser
if i didn't point it out, but, i would.
so, it's back to some hand work.
i've decided to find the intersecting points
for each panel line with the 9.91 bulkhead.
then, adjust the bulkhead vertices to match.
whether i mess with the 3.5, 4.0 and 6.9,
remains to be seen...first things first.
as the saying goes,
it's always somethin'
so...what to do?
deal with it later.
let's crop the outer wing.
go to the upper wing assembly.
select the first chain (polygon)
open the chain editor.
notice the sequence of the verticies.
find a pair that goes from the center 00
and the next, out to 27.5.
highlight the first in that pair.
now, left mouse click near the corresponding vertex
on the outside nacelle wing profile.
hover the mouse over then new vertex,
left click and press Ctrl.
hold and drag over the profile vertex
and the program will move the new vertex
to align with the profile vertex precisely.
yeah, that was convoluted and most likely
a poor explanation, but, that's how to crop a wing.
ooops, i forgot to mention,
after the new vertices are made,
delete the 27.5 ones.
how many panel lines are there?
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
Hello Smilo,
Interesting post as regards the procedure!
The way I built the wing in AF99 understandably involves slight misalignemts of the bulkhead vertices on the inner bulkheads No. 2 to No. 5.
No. 1 and 6 are the end bulkheads used to make the 15 panels, so those bulkheads, in principle, should be without misalignment.
Then, making the 4 in-between bulkheads so that their vertices lined up with the panel lines of each individual panel was very difficult because the viewing angles are limited to x, y and z views.
To correct misalignments on the bulkheads you have done the right thing, adjusting the bulkhead vertices to the panel lines as you have explained. I hope it hasnīt been too annoying!
>so, it's back to some hand work.
>i've decided to find the intersecting points
>for each panel line with the 9.91 bulkhead.
>then, adjust the bulkhead vertices to match.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
"Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"
already done..with the addition
of another bulkhead vertex
to compensate for the extra
3 point upper forward panel.
totaling 9 upper wing vertices.
have compiled the cropped wing
and am looking at it now.
it looks good, so, i think i'll leave it be.
a quick question about af99 wing building process.
is the, say, centerline bulkhead built first,
then, all others are just copies,
reduced in size and properly placed?
how is the resizing accomplished?
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
Hello Smilo,
The centre bulkhead would be built first, and then there is a magnifying option that allows resizing for the wing-tip bulkhead, but as the shape is a bit different, the vertices have to be adjusted manually.
Must rush.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
"Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"
the different shaped wingtip bulkhead
would explain the extra three vertex panel, right?
did you have to hand build the wing panels?
started to work on the nacelle yesterday,
but, got called away for emergency pet matters.
am still running around on that one.
anyway, was making 16 side nacelle templates,
then, i realized 18 side might be best
to better show the wheel well detail.
woke in the middle of the night
and thought, hold on...
before spending too much time
shaping the nacelle,
i need to figure out exactly where
the retracted wheel will be
and what it's diameter is.
it would be a real drag
to spend a lot of time
making the nacelle pretty,
only to have a big fat tire
poking through the top.
okay, that's it for now.
hope all is well on your end.
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
Hello Smilo,
Yes, wing panels in AF99 have to be hand-made. No automatic
building here! Only longitudinally aligned parts can be automatically
rendered starting from side and top views, with pre-fab bulkheads.
And yes, the wing isnīt symmetrical from root to tip. Angle of
incidence at the top surface just behind the leading edge is steeper
at the root, and gets shallower as you go towards the wing tip tip,
so I had to make triangular panels at the leading edge.
I would have thought it would be easier to make the vertices fit with
a more conventional 12-sided circle cross-section for the nacelle.
This would perhaps also make it more fitting with the cross-section of
the fuselage, which is also not so smoothly rounded. 16 sides for the
nacelle is already very smooth, so 18 I donīt think will be necessary.
But... as you decide, I wonīt complain!
As regards the retracted wheel (2.7 ft diameter):
I make the centre at 2.1 ft aft of, and 0.75 ft below the CoG.
I hope this is of use.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
"Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"
your points are well taken and i agree.
no one could ever falsely accused me
of overkill.
actually, my first attempt was 12 sided.
so, why 18 sides?
mainly, it's because of the open wheel well.
when templates are covered,
individual panels can be hidden, deleted or modified.
the more panels in place,
the better the potential for accuracy
when creating the multi-curved wheel well,
saving the panel modifications
for a much smaller area.
of course, this is just a theory,
so, we shall see how it goes.
just to let you know,
there will be an exorbitant number
of nacelle profile templates.
one for each point
where a wing panel line
intersects with the nacelle.
inner and outer, upper and lower.
not to mention, extras for shaping.
okay, i'm off...family stuff.
ps, thank you for the wheel size
and retracted location.
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
Hello Smilo,
OK, I understand the reason for the number of panels. Then perhaps, as the shape DOES look much nicer, instead of reducing the number later, it may be much more fitting for the fuselage to go the opposite way there, and increase the number of panels to get it more rounded.
The fuselage cross-section now only has 10 parts after adjusting the shape at the bottom. Maybe I should have started off with at least 16 or better 20, and not with 12.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp.
"Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"
looking at bulkhead profiles AA, BB and CC,
the L10 appears to have very graceful lines
and nice curves...almost voluptuous.
ad2k gives us an opportunity
to come closer matching those values.
the caveat is too curvy and she becomes
a resource hog for older machines.
i say, what the heck,
let's push the envelope and see what we get.
that said, have a look at the 18 side template.
i believe it's a nice compromise
and i like that the top and bottom centers
have an 00.00 vertex as opposed to a line.
by the way, what do you come up with
for the width of the main tire treads?
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
Hello Smilo,
OK then for an all-over much more rounded model then!
Iīll improve the fuselage bulkheads then.
As regards tyres, I make them to be 1.1 ft wide on the main plans Iīm using.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
"Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"
1.1 works for me...thanks.
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
Hello Smilo,
Iīve been trying to get a better shape for the main fuselage bulkhead template.
I took a 24-point-section, so it is rounder at the top, no problem.
With the corrections for the "V" bottom it could come out 18-sided! That will be nice...
The "BB" Cross-section on the plan Iīm working with, corresponds to 4.4 ft aft of the CoG.
This is also about 4.4 ft forward of the trailing edge at the root on the plan.
The fuselage actually gets a bit thicker and higher infront of the "BB" Cross-section, and
then a bit narrower and lower again as it approaches the leading edge.
However, it was hard to find the way to make the bottom "V":
It always came out over a foot deep instead of only 0.4 ft, and I had to make the bottom completely flat.
This was incorrect of course, because it should really only be flat from the trailing edge towards the tail!
Eventually I managed to understand how the "theta" values in the template shaping menu work.
The values accepted by the program to make the shallowest "V" ranged from 0.10 to 0.60.
Ideally, the "V" should be a couple degrees shallower, but AD2k wonīt have it. Nevertheless, itīs much better than before.
Iīll see how the mid-fuselage build develops with its "V"-bottom adjusted to size going forwards upto the leading edge where perhaps it will have to start getting more rounded to merge the shape with the nose.
I hope different template classes can be used to panel the fuselage...
Now the curvature at the top is better.
You can see the parameters for the 3 different template-making menu in the 3 captures on the combined screenshot.
Notice the different arrangement of vertical lines next to the "UP" and "Low" lines in the first 2 menus.
Where it shows the values for the bottom "V", the top curvature is still the default ones, before I raised it in the menu for the upper part. The curvature difference is noticeable.
The template height, width and origin-position were still the default ones, until I entered those, shown in the 3rd menu.
Actually, although it isnīt perfect, this shaping thing is quite cool when you know how.
It has its limits though, and wonīt let you do whatever you want...
Incidentally, there is a "phantom" template to be seen in the screenshot - a deleted one with a slightly more pronounced "V" shape, and with a lower rounded roof. Strange that deleted template classes never disappear!
The RED-coloured template is the new one.
Letīs see how it continues with the rest of the bulkheads.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
"Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"
looks like you're getting the hang of it.
i was going to suggest deleting
a few lower vertices to get the V.
about the ghost template...
are you sure it's still a template?
after a class has been deleted,
a chain of the original template
is left in the desktop sub assembly.
i'll bet that's what you're seeing.
you can delete it...i usually do.
i wasn't happy with the nacelle shape.
it just didn't seem to match up
with the side view drawing.
so...i built a completely new one.
it's a little sleeker, but, still has nice curves.
...and for an added bonus,
the tire seems to fit perfectly.
although, there's still a lot to be done.
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
ps...i hope you're documenting
"how the "theta" values in the template shaping menu work."
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
Hello Smilo,
OK, thanks about the deleted template remnants!
Am I documenting the templates? Well... Hopefully a Screenshot like the one I sent will be OK.
Deleting Vertices on an AD2K template: HOW?
I have the feeling we are going round in circles with the vertex-intersection problem.
As far as I can see, in order to delete a vertex on a template, one would have to work on a ghost template, i.e. a normal chain coming from a deleted Template a normal chain.
This will then have to be turned back into a template, which unfortunately, I havenīt found a way of doing upto now.
The template shaping menu wonīt even let you join the dots closely enough so that 2 count as 1.
If template vertices have to be deleted, one might as well start off with a normal chain in the first place, but the
vertex-intersection problem with the wing persists - the automatic process is not available unless cross-sections are official AD2K templates. The automatic vertex-intersection option is the whole point about my starting to use AD2K.
To manually have to intersect the points, or adjust vertices, especially on parts with 18-point cross-sections, is a nightmare I will avoid at all costs, because personally, Iīm afraid I find it is so completely off-putting and depressing that it takes away any pleasure of building anything this way. AF99 is bad enough there, but as itīs simpler, I can cope with it.
Update: Anyway, before giving up altogether... I also tried out 18 and 20 point Template Classes, and it seems that the Template Shaping Menu gives slightly better results, both just as good for the top, but slightly better for the bottom.
The best one is the 20-point template. The slight curvature of the "V" on the bottom left and right template corners is the smallest, so Iīll use that one to make the mid-fuselage.
Update2: OK, the mid-fuselage is done! It has a rounded top, a "V"-shaped bottom from the front to the "BB" Cross-section reference point, and a flat bottom at the trailing edge. Possibly Iīll round off the "V" bottom at the front a bit, Iīll see.
The "k" option in the template shape editor allows the bottom of the "V" to be expanded sideways, making it rounder or flat. Thatīs why a 20-sided template was needed so that the "V" bottom is made up of 2 points that can be pulled apart.
Itīs interesting how it works. Vertex alignment between fuselage sides and wing root seemd to go OK by simply adjusting fuselage template widths. The Intersection option had been done for the wing parts before.
Anyway, it is a great a relief that the fuselage shape improvement has worked!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Last edited by aleatorylamp; August 8th, 2017 at 00:58.
"Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"
whew...i thought we might have lost you.
am glad to see you stuck with it
and figured out template the shaping.
sorry, you misunderstood my delete vertices comment.
as you know, you can not delete a template vertex.
but, after, say, two templates are covered,
vertices can be added or removed,
which in turn will change the shape of the "cylinder"
to have, in this case, a V shaped bottom.
of course, square panels would have to be modified
into triangles with some hand work.
but, it can be done.
as an experiment, build an 18 sided template,
cover it, then look at the chain head on
in the chain editor, use the N key
to scroll through the vertices.
when you get to the lower left vertex,
just to the left of center, delete it.
do the same for the lower right of center.
there's your sharp V bottom.
granted, this is over simplified
and it's only for one covered template.
if you're interested, i'll explain
how to modify two covered templates,
which i eluded to earlier in this post.
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
Hello Smilo,
I must confess it is very tedious, and a pity that the available shaping and intersection options are so complicated to use.
Itīs more like work than a hobby.
Even if you know how, the work is meticulous and hard, but it seems the only way to get a better model into the sim air without deeply delving into SCASM to improve AF99 models.
So the alternative is deeply delving into AD2K, or simply sticking with the somewhat more rudimentary but simple AF99 on its own - albeit with small SCASM enhancements. This would be a cop-out, but understandable, but not for the moment...
I understand what you mean by deleting and/or adjusting vertices to fix the shape of the panelled fuselage.
For the moment, Iīve continued building it forwards, adding Cabin and Nose Sub-assemblies, editing bulkhead template shapes to get cross-sections a bit better. Then, Iīll cut out parts and adjusted panels in the cabin section to fit the windscreen.
Later, if necessary, I can doctor up the rounded bottom corners left and right under the wing roots in the way you describe.
Hereīs a 3-view fuselage screenshot. I still have to delete the old templates, that can be seen in light blue.
Also, I have to correct the nose Bulkhead Templates, to widen them a bit and make them less high, to get the round nose cross-section shapes better. I had adjusted the side view shapes again, and now I have to work in top and front views, to make the "spiderweb" lines more harmonious.
Iīm also looking to see if thereīs a way to import this build into the version I have with the wings and nacelles, and delete the old fuselage.
We shall see...
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
"Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"
you are absolutely correct.
it is time consuming and tedious.
i guess it all depends
on what you're into.
i can spend hours,
chasing pixels around
a drawing in ms paint,
trying to get the curved lines
of the nacelle just right.
so, i know about tedious.
you, on the other hand,
can spend untold hours
tweaking and air file
to attain a few feet of altitude
or a couple mph here or there.
...it's all what you're into.
all i can say is,
if you don't like it,
don't do it.
it's a hobby, not a job.
remember me?
i've spent the last month bitching
about wing profile templates.
or the lack there of.
someday, i'd like to finish
my work on a solution.
i feel was getting close.
i guess another build option
would be to stop being so picky,
accept the program for what it is
and use what's offered.
sorry, that's not my style.
i want to find a work around
to build the best model i can.
BUT, i must keep reminding myself,
perfection is an unattainable option.
as for importing...yes, you can,
but, take care... there will be
a visual complexity issue.
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
Hello Smilo,
Firstly, thanks a lot for your patience and for your suggestions!
I agree thereīs a philosophical part to this, relative to the time required to build a plane.
AD2K gives so much room for better building, and itīs so much more complicated, that it could well take a year or two to complete a plane.
Years ago, when my knowledge was more rudimentary, an AF99 plane for FS98 took a couple of months. Then, after Ivanīs patient coaching to improve my AF99 abilities and include a little SCASM, a new CFS plane possibly takes 4 to 6 months to build, and an FS98 improvement with adaptation for CFS1, 2 to 4 months. Times are relatively short, because AF99 makes you keep things as neat and simple as possible to maximize possibilities, and also because of my impatience to get things finished.
Anyway, with the new AD2K fuselage, I hadnīt expected it would cause visual complexity issues to incorporate it into an existing AD2k build. I didnīt mean importing it from AF99, I only wanted to avoiding re-building it from scratch.
Well OK then: The best way will be to call the fuselage as a separate assembly, and do the same with wing + nacelle, I suppose.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
"Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"
Members who have read this thread: 3
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks