Calling in a request to all the amazing aircraft and ship developers out there. Is there anyone willing to make angle deck Essex for FSX that would be able to be used with the AIcarrier2 program. What a beautiful home for A-4s, F-4s,F-8s, C-1s, and SH-3s. This is a ship that is long over due and deserves a place in FSX Naval Aviation. So lets stir up some interest and maybe one of these guys will surprise us. :woot::woot::woot:
ATC(AW/SW) Schaefer, USN
Originally Posted by navychief8
Well ahoy there, shipmate!!
I echo your interest!
NC (AMEC(AW), ret)
This is becoming a wee bit of the CPO mess here. AHOY!! Nice suggestion. =S=
Retired RMCM(ITCM)
1974-2004.
Yeah, where's Willy? Lets go get some coffee!
NC8, I too would welcome an "SCB-27" Essex! Helldiver, however, will not be impressed! :d
ATC(AW) 1980 - 1994
MB: GIGABYTE GA-X299 UD4 PRO ATX
CPU: Intel(R) Core™ Processor i9-10900X Ten-Core 3.7GHz
MEM: 64GB (8GBx8) DDR4/3000MHz Quad Channel
GPU: RTX 3080 Ti 12GB GDDR6
OS: Win 10 Pro 64bit
HP Reverb G2
Do you mean.........something like this???????????????
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Patrick
I think that flight sim not only provides great entertainment, but it is also a great way to preserve the history that these great Ships and Aircraft wrote. I am involved in a project to bring the USS Macon ZRS-5 to FSX and bring a forgotten era of Naval Aviation back to life. This game is a great way to show young kids the history of aviation in some other form than looking at a picture in a book. Well I will get off my soapbox now and get back to flying.
Do you have a status report on the Macon? Is this the same as the Akron project of a few months ago. I ask because I recently released a model of the F9C Sparrowhawk which I have successfully docked with a simple static airship the size of the Akron. It appears it "might" be possible to dock with an AI version which I haven't completely tested yet.
Paul
Paul you are amazing! Your releases are nonstop! :woot:
I'm jealous!
Some of us have various completion stages of the angle deck carriers. I have two sitting in the shipyard.
Coral Sea
and
- enter your favorite SCB-27 here -
<ENTER here SCB-27 favorite your>
Real life is just kicking me in the pants right now and I apologize for that... with the economy the way it is I make sure I stay busy.. I have employees to feed.
crashAZ- Virtual Navy
[SIGPIC]http://www.sim-outhouse.net/images/rtwr2013/rtwr2013_sm.png[/SIGPIC]
Both Crashaz and myself are trying to pick off the Essex models, though there terribly complex so take a little time and real life has its pressures right now.
large picture of attached thumb is here........... http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/...20modified.jpg .........its a Max8 render and WIP.
Kindest
Michael
Since I was only a AMM3/C, I would like to offer up my opinion.
Why anyone that would take a sleek, beautiful Essex Class Carrier and turn into one of these lop-sided, ungainly looking, angled deck abortions is a mystery to me.
Just a look at Mike Davies screen shot would tell you that. Leave perfection alone. God, you'd put a mustache on the Mona Lisa!
Boom, I don't know where you got that picture but I been telling everyone that a Carrier is a planing hull, As such it goes at flank speed with the wind behind it and then turns 180 degrees to head into the wind. When it does. it heels way over and you make sure that the planes are well guyed down. It's hard to stay up right and make sure you don't fall off. One of the fun things about being on a Carrier. That and dodging props.
Would you like to ride in my big green tractor?.
Hello!
Helldiver your post remind me a discussion I had with a friend of mine who had land Corsair on wooden deck few years before...
I wondered which version of L'Arromanches (ex HMS Colosus) I should build.
In her last years, Arromanches was added a small angle deck for carrier landing qualifications.
The conclusion we met was that, for some people, angle deck and island are nicely balancing each other, and for others, the hull line, or silhouette, must not be disrupted by this ugly "angle"...
The very last conclusion was : I have to build both
And by the way Good luck Michael and Crashaz!!
Sylvain
Didn't F-4s only appear on Forrestals (and larger), because they were too big and heavy for the older carriers?
Michael,
That is the most awesome looking ship model I have ever seen for any version of FS.
Will be worth the wait!
Expat
Striker, listen, and you listen close: flying a plane is no different than riding a bicycle, just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes.
I get it !!!Do you mean.........something like this???????????????
"Trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty!" John Adams 1772
Snuffy / Ted
Yup, the Independence CVL's were rollers! Just now reading a book about the Bunker Hill which I had a chance to go aboard when she was still in the mothball fleet in the mids 60's. Wasn't too much longer before she was towed away for razorblades.
Cheers: T.
Not quite, the F-4s appeared on the rebuilt Midway class before the forrestals, but only after their decks had extra metal work to support the increased sink rate impact.
The biggest Essex's could support was the A-3, the biggest the Midway could support was the F-4 and the biggest the Forrestal could support was the F-4, A-5 and F-14s.
Physical size or speed ( note F-8s served on Essex classes) isnt the deciding factor, its the approach speed coupled with the appraoch weight and sink rate, the F-14 has the biggest impact but there was one larger and that was the F-111B, but not by much, sadly it was only a test and nothing ever came of it.
Best
Michael
Michael, it'll be worth the wait !!! Looks great !
"Hornets by mandate, Tomcats by choice!"
Thank you, but sadly there is one among us who may not be around by the time I finally pull my digit out and finish it....truth is the project is so massive I'll be updating and adding for ever, much like DCCs P-38 projects, each one better than the last one.Michael,
That is the most awesome looking ship model I have ever seen for any version of FS.
Will be worth the wait!
Expat
I am seriously considering an appeal to SoH users to help me at least get a beta package to said gentleman so that he may at least have some fun in his failing years, all be it a untextured beta model. I need time to think how best to do this and word the appeal and the ramifications of the proposal, which basically throws the current beat model into the public arena and may void previous payware agreements, the Beta has no acceleration features so would require these other freeware packages for cat and trap, neither of which I have time to learn on top of the rest of my schedule, plus other issues.
One good thing is that FSx is around for a while, that means no more moving goal posts in compilers and materials and other tedious requiems that developers have to jump through LOL.
Anyway, heres another render, I'm still not happy with the high angle views with respect to lighting values or scene ambiance, the low level ones are ok now, but up high they loose something, big image here......http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/...ps/CV10_01.jpg .... http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/...ps/CV10_02.jpg ....thumbs attached, this is the short hull version, I do have another render of the Port side going through right now, should be done in a few hours, I'll post that up as a taster.
Kindest
Michael
That looks marvelous Michael.
"Trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty!" John Adams 1772
Snuffy / Ted
If there is a question of voiding previous payware agreements, I can help you turn wrenches. We can use my virtual shipyard workers to give you a hand. This way you can still get the ship done faster for your friend... and you don't have to make the ship available to a bunch of people.
With the acceleration features I can help you get setup. I would prefer we get a real nice artist though. I'm good... but this one deserves the best!
Just have the people who work with you sign an NDA and this protects your work from those not working on the project specifically.
Maybe we can setup another time to talk via Skype... much faster way of working together.
crashAZ- Virtual Navy
[SIGPIC]http://www.sim-outhouse.net/images/rtwr2013/rtwr2013_sm.png[/SIGPIC]
Colin,If there is a question of voiding previous payware agreements, I can help you turn wrenches. We can use my virtual shipyard workers to give you a hand. This way you can still get the ship done faster for your friend... and you don't have to make the ship available to a bunch of people.
With the acceleration features I can help you get setup. I would prefer we get a real nice artist though. I'm good... but this one deserves the best!
Just have the people who work with you sign an NDA and this protects your work from those not working on the project specifically.
Maybe we can setup another time to talk via Skype... much faster way of working together.
Initially I just want it as a moving carrier you can land on in FSx, I already can do this and sent the files, I've sent them to others and they have it installed and landable.
What I need initially is a simple clickable exe that installs it and sets a flight up or what ever one needs, so the guy can find it, no files here, files there, cut this paste that crap, one click and go, I'm prepared to send what ever I have now to achieve that one singular aim.
Just that alone will be a massive boost to the guys enjoyment in FSx, once that is established I can work on the rest.
Basically I need a moving carrier on a track with a schedule that the guy can use and work easily, many of us here have time and patience to work through any issues and get an end result, I want and need something packaged that is water tight that for example my twelve yr old could install and work, I dont have the experiance, skills or time to explore / learn whats needed to do this.
I've seen others post paths and moving ships and this and that, which tooke them mere moments to achieve, just getting mine to sail around North Wales took days to work out.
Regarding the rest of the model, I'll work on that in my own pace, your right texturing needs to be perfect and I'll work through that as and when, it will really benifit from baked textures with shadows and such, especially on things like masts, fittings and weapons, that will throw them into sharp 3D, painting is easy, its the mapping and variant mapping and the tight control on the draw calls and the amount of textures required thats the hard part.
For example, the Quad 40s need to be in a three or four colors, this depends on their location and the paint scheme, you cant just paint one quad 40 in grey and leave it there, simplest thing is to map one and clone with each paint scheme, problem is, that will make four or five distinct seperate textures where the only difference is the base color, it would be smarter to use one large 1024 with a Quad mapped four times on it, each quarter in a different color, easy enough but I'm only just scraping by mapping and baking one item per texture, cloning it and mapping four times on one texture has me lost at the moment. I know whats needed but not the skills to achieve it, or to be frank the stomach to learn long hard winded inner depths of Max to get the result.
Doing baked textures isnt so hard for say aircraft or even a landing gear, but a decent Quad 40 model is another story, then duplicate four times into one texture is another task, setting Max to simple bake is easy, but you end up with a mish mash of polys all over the place, you need to start grouping them into some sort of cohesive form so its not just a map of 450 seperate polys. Indeed some parts can be replicated in model form from one map, examples would be the seats, magazines, sights or barrels, you only need map and bake one, then clone across when done to replicate the duplicate parts.
Sound crazy ?, oh brother is it crazy, it takes me weeks to work out the best method LOL, true, I could just set Max to auto bake and map, but on the Essex you'd end up with nearly 100 textures, some from 128x128 others upto 2048x2048. Its not a problem if you just want to make one model, say USS Intrepid in 1944, but I dont, I want others, long hulls and short hulls, flag bridge modified or standard, all that has to be figured into the equation.
What I'm saying is, if I gave this to anyone else to paint or map they'd have a seizure LOL, I dont want simple grey bland textures for anything, it would be so easy to do that, I want a full 3D mapped and baked model, and that is going to take an inordinate amount of time and effort.
To summise, initially I want to get what I have right now into a simple one click package for one of our esteemed elderly SOH members to use, if FSx Accel cat and trap is easy to add I'll add that, if not then this other freeware stuff, threewire ?, sorry, really out of touch with all that stuff right now....( its a need to know basis and whilst attempting to map the model....I dont need to know LOL )....will need to be added.
If anyone can help then jump in, contact myself or Colin and help us make it happen, its not for me, its for someone else here who I think needs a leg up right now.
Kindest
Michael
Addendum, Colin, sorry, not saying no to any help, just babbling and trying to get something sorted in short time, re-assesing priorities and schedules.
Mike - As far as shadows are concerned it looks like your right on. Here's a picture of the USS Leyte and your ship and they look almost identical.
Would you like to ride in my big green tractor?.
This model has the potential of no equal , it is brilliant ! , Mike , be it a work in progress , payware or ... the other , my wallet is open !
Yes, a most important world addition for FSX, a classic in the making!
Regards: T.
Hm, but as far as I can remember I've never seen photos of F-4s on a Midway class carrier.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
Sure thing about the Forrestals, but A-3s on the Essex?The biggest Essex's could support was the A-3, the biggest the Midway could support was the F-4 and the biggest the Forrestal could support was the F-4, A-5 and F-14s.
They were considerably larger and heavier than F-4s, so why were they put on a smaller carrier?
Because of...
...the approach speed and weights?Physical size or speed ( note F-8s served on Essex classes) isnt the deciding factor, its the approach speed coupled with the appraoch weight and sink rate, the F-14 has the biggest impact but there was one larger and that was the F-111B, but not by much, sadly it was only a test and nothing ever came of it.
Members who have read this thread: 42
Posting Permissions
FSX
Bookmarks