Conspicuous by Their Absence - Page 2
Page 2 of 63 FirstFirst 123456789101252 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 1564

Thread: Conspicuous by Their Absence

  1. #26
    Hi Hubbabubba,

    The flaps also act as part of the dive brakes. When selecting flaps, only the lower control surfaces move and may move at various angles. When selecting dive brakes, upper and lower surfaces both move and I believe they are fully deployed or not at all.

    The issue that I have on the dive bombing runs is trying to determine when I am over the target so that I can roll the aircraft and enter a vertical dive directly over the target. If the dive is started NOT over the target, there isn't much time to line up before bomb release and pull out.

    The Dauntless wasn't really a vertical diver as the Ju-87 because it wasn't quite as draggy and gained speed too fast in the dive. Neither plane climbs well enough with a bomb load to make a retry feasible. Typically on a patrol, the Dauntless carried a single 500 pounder. On an attack mission, it would carry a single 1000 pounder but could carry a max load of around 1500 pounds.

    The Dauntless was agile enough to be a passable fighter and with 2 x .50 caliber MGs had generally more firepower than the Japanese Zero. The Dauntless wasn't a very big plane, but also didn't have folding wings either. The Dauntless had two multiple wing tanks per wing which means that I can't find an appropriate fuel selector or fuel gauge.

    A man named Vejtasa managed to embarrass a few Zeros with this plane.

    - Ivan.

  2. #27
    BTW, as I mentioned earlier, CFS really doesn't need dive bombers because just about every fighter can behave like one. Pick a plane, take it to altitude, throttle back and deploy flaps. You can dive slower than a Stuka that way.

    - Ivan.

  3. #28
    SOH-CM-2019 hubbabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Age
    67
    Posts
    1,143
    I'm starting to understand your concern about flaps generated drag.

    So, if I understand correctly, the Dauntless had a split trailing edge that acted as diving brake by holding the upper part up and the lower part down, the lower part being also used as flaps.

    The solution would be then to make two lower parts. One for the air brakes, one for the flaps. SCASMing would only intervene to place a conditional jump that renders the flap invisible while spoiler key is being used, and another jump would render the lower air brake invisible when flaps are lowered. I'm not even sure that it can't be done with AA solely.

    P.S.- Oops! Just re-read your diving routine. Point #4 calls for flaps after air brakes deployment. How so???
    Torture numbers and they'll say anything.


    Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.

  4. #29
    Hi Hubbabubba,

    I believe on the real Dauntless, there is only One control for the dive brakes (upper and lower surfaces). On my CFS plane, there are two controls: Spoilers & Flaps. I am at around 1196 parts out of 1200 allowed for AF99 at the moment. I don't even know that the plane will display right when it has been textured. Certainly there is no more room for additional pieces in AF99.

    I am sure you are absolutely right in that the parts can be animated properly in connection with the single spoiler control in SCASM, but there is the additional problem of what happens in flight performance when the flaps are deployed while dive brakes are deployed. CFS will go merrily along and include the additional drag of flaps and..... Then what? I believe the two separate controls is probably the best idea with CFS.

    Besides the flap drag, the typical landing gear drag is also way too high with CFS planes. The typical pitch changes are also incorrect for the most part: Most planes will pitch nose down with extending landing gear AND deploying flaps. This isn't true of every plane, but it is the way to guess unless you know better.

    The sequence I quoted is really only for MY Dauntless. The spoiler first helps to put the aircraft's nose down and also doesn't make the aircraft balloon upward as would dropping flaps at high speed. Also, relatively speaking, the target really doesn't move very much in the time it takes to make a dive bombing run.

    BTW, during this discussion, I have also been looking at details on the Ju 87. Perhaps I need to put this plane on my build list.

    - Ivan.

  5. #30
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivan View Post

    BTW, during this discussion, I have also been looking at details on the Ju 87. Perhaps I need to put this plane on my build list.

    - Ivan.

    bites tongue til it bleeds
    won't let fingers say much, either
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  6. #31
    SOH-CM-2019 hubbabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Age
    67
    Posts
    1,143
    So Ivan, my idea was correct. Of course, AF99 parts limitation may stop you from implementing it. You know my answer to that but I don't want to sound like a preacher heckling to make a convert.

    If we were to change all CFS1 a/c drag and lift figures for flaps and gears, many CFS1 simmers would have to relearn how to land, me first. It would mean longer finals on approaches.

    The Junker Ju 87 is an intricate aircraft and I'm not sure that 1200 parts would do it justice. But I know a way...

    The jeep should be released pretty soon, the only hurdle left being gauges' creators permissions for the panel (dashboard is more appropriate here). The version that smilo and you have is quite outdated, but changes are in the details. I will probably release it with FS98 air file style.

    It was a great experimental project, along with St-Leu church, and I have learned a lot of things that will certainly be of use in the Harvard MkII.
    Torture numbers and they'll say anything.


    Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.

  7. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by smilo View Post
    Get off your butt and finish up the B-25 Mitchell!!!!!
    Hi Smilo,
    I WILL, I WILL....

    - Ivan.

  8. #33
    Hi Smilo,

    Sorry for the misquote, but I thot it would be funny to express what I believe you are really thinking but are too courteous to write.

    - Ivan.

  9. #34
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,775
    thanks Ivan,
    I am sitting here laughing out loud!
    seriously, I kid you not.
    Merry Christmas, to you and yours
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  10. #35
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,775
    Quote Originally Posted by smilo View Post
    Get off your butt and finish up the B-25 Mitchell!!!!!
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivan View Post
    Hi Smilo,
    I WILL, I WILL....

    - Ivan.
    after sleeping on it,
    this is still funny...
    although inaccurate.
    the truth be known,
    I am beginning to understand
    what it's like do build a model.
    even though, I haven't been doing it for years, like you.
    one wants to make it
    as perfect as possible.
    if for no other reason,
    than self satisfaction.
    not to mention,
    we don't want to give our friends
    a crappy product.
    after all, our name is on it.
    then, there is the distinct possibility
    that some a$$h*** will steal it
    and call it their own.
    add to all this,
    the simple fact that we have
    lives that interrupt or hobby.
    distractions abound and it becomes easy
    to set the project aside for another day.
    I know of what I speak...
    this is a person that rarely finishes anything.
    and I mean anything.
    my world is full of projects
    in various stages of completion.
    many are still on the drawing board,
    most have never even made it that far.
    now for the bloody truth,
    I rarely fly CFS anymore.
    there was a time when
    I would have loved to use the B-25 in multi-player,
    but, for now, that time has passed.
    so if you want to finish
    the B-25, the Dauntless,
    or any of your many projects,
    do it for your satisfaction.
    not my persistent hounding.
    please take this with a grain of salt.
    I mean no disrespect
    I honor your work and you as a friend.
    I just though you should know.
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  11. #36
    SOH-CM-2019 hubbabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Age
    67
    Posts
    1,143
    Jeez! We have a poet in our midst!
    :mixedsmi:

    Si tu sais déjà,
    Que tu n'en sais guère plus qu'un autre,
    Tu en sais déjà,
    Bien plus que bien d'autres.
    Torture numbers and they'll say anything.


    Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.

  12. #37
    Hi Hubbabubba,
    I believe it is possible to get a decent Ju 87D Stuka for CFS within the limitations of AF99.

    The change in drag for greater realism is a harder question. You already know that I try to achieve flight performance that is as close to reality as I can subject to the limitations of research, the CFS engine, and my own knowledge of how to do things. To me, it is an easy answer: Change all the flight models to be as close to reality as possible and if CFS pilots now have to use different techniques and practices, so be it. The idea and attraction of simulators IS trying to get as close to reality as possible.

    Hi Smilo,
    Thanks for the message. To some extent that covers most of the reasons I build or don't build something. As far as I am concerned, nothing I have ever worked on will ever be completely done. The B-25 specifically needs to have a few holes cut into the aft fuselage to simulate windows that are there. At the moment, I am stuck on certain issues in flight modeling. I HAVE resolved a few things today though.

    Later Guys.
    - Ivan.

  13. #38
    SOH-CM-2019 hubbabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Age
    67
    Posts
    1,143
    Just found one that should be on someone's drawing board; Heinkel He 115.

    Nice and "sexy" reconnaissance - mine layer - torpedo bomber on stiff floaters. Was the scourge of Murmansk's bound convoys.

    Only model found is a FS2002 at Flightsim. If only we could embark torpedoes like CFS2.
    Torture numbers and they'll say anything.


    Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.

  14. #39
    http://www.elwood.freeserve.co.uk/ai...htm#SECTION012

    I believe there is a passable He 115 here. I don't know if torpedos are in the supply chain though.
    I exchanged emails with Mr. Elwood a few years ago before I reworked his Lysander. Seems like a nice guy.

    Still messing with flight models over here and no real results to show for it yet. BTW, the B-25 Mitchell is sorta stuck. I can't find a good information on the nose gear retraction sequence. Need some good diagrams or a E&M manual. Been too busy shovelling snow to get much accomplished though.

    - Ivan.

  15. #40
    SOH-CM-2019 hubbabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Age
    67
    Posts
    1,143
    Nice find!

    I have visited that page in the past, but overlooked the He 155. I have found some pictures that show an elliptical planform. I will compare with this model.

    Some of the other models are also worth a look. Thanks again.
    Torture numbers and they'll say anything.


    Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.

  16. #41
    Speaking of Heinkels, what about a Heinkel He177 or would that be impossible due to the inability of CFS to provide a decent amount of smoke and flames from the DB610s.
    What about a Manchester instead of a Lancaster or even a Lincoln to go with the multitude of Meteors about.
    How is it that nearly everyone has a B25 in the pipeline (me included), my problem with it is that I am well up on my parts count and it needs simplifying.
    The Halifax is desperately needed, preferably with merlins and that abismal greenhouse that was also called a turret on top.
    Nobody seems to have metioned the stalwarts of the RAF early on in the conflict, namely the Avro Anson, a Mk1 with gently sloping cockpit and the greenhouse on its back. Just to be accurate you could pump the U/C up manually.
    The interwar years are also poorly represented with a meagre offering of a Handley Page Heyford, Hawker Hart/Demon, Siskin and Bulldog. What about the flying boats as well. The list could be endless because no sooner than one aircraft is built we know we can do better.
    see you soon
    Les AKA Womble

  17. #42
    Hello Womble55,

    I actually DO have a Heinkel 177 in the works. With my previous techniques, I was running out of resources, but within the last year or so, I have developed some techniques that might work to reduce the resource count. I just tried some different methods on a rebuild of my B-25C and knocked three components off the assembly. The parts count went up by 10 and I might have to add one component back for a better visual though. 27 components and 1193 parts at the moment. I don't have enough left to put in 3D engine cowls or windows....

    Post some screen shots. I need to do the same.

    The Halifax is one that could use a good build. For such a good bomber it is surprisingly neglected. Some of the others such as the Anson have been built. I believe I have flown a FS98 Bristol Bulldog.

    My selection is seldom based on what the CFS community really "needs" but rather on planes that I want to own. Thus, yet another Messerschmitt 109 and a Kawanishi N1K-2J Shiden-KAI are a couple that are on my list though the world hardly needs another 109. Another that is on my list is a P-40B/C. I have started on that, but lost my reference drawings.

    You are more prolific that I am. Build more!!!
    - Ivan.

  18. #43
    Hi Womble55,
    Here are some small screenshots of the He 177 and other stuff mentioned.

    Note all the different colours on the He 177. They are all the components used to avoid bleeds.

    The ground picture of the B-25C shows one of the issues I am trying to address. The glass should be visible on the top of the nose just as it is on the canopy and nose cone.

    The cowling on the Zero is a single component and is the actual use of the technique I described and illustrated earlier with a B-26 Marauder cowl. There are obviously concave areas on this component and yet there still are no bleeds.

    - Ivan.

  19. #44
    For the period...maybe some balloon barriers might make things interesting....a bit later stuff might include a Hawker Tempest V and some "doodlebugs" to shoot at.

  20. #45
    There already have been some Tempest V's floating around and available for download from various sources. Some are quite good in my opinion. The models don't seem to lack for much though I don't remember if they fly particularly well. The doodlebug intercept is one of the stock missions if I remember right.

    - Ivan.

  21. #46
    My B25 was doing quite well, especially with the nose glass area, but the part count is way too high and annoyingly I am getting bleeds on one side of the nose. Left side displays perfect but the right side, even though they are mirror images, displays with a part missing. I havent got enough hair to pull out but I will get there.
    My He177 has the problem of me not getting the nose looking right, but the dual leg undercarriage looks the biz when retracting.
    The majority of my other aircraft need just a few tweeks so maybe if I pull my finger out I will upload a Vickers Vernon, a Shorts Singapore, a Fairey Hendon, a Saro Lerwick.........geeeez I got to pull my finger out a long way.

  22. #47
    Hey Womble55,
    Post some screenshots! As for parts count, I am up to 1195 on my version of the B-25, but there really aren't any significant bleeds to speak of either. Only noticeable issue is that the far side propeller blades bleed through the lowered nose gear doors, but since the biggest nose gear door only opens and closes during the extension / retraction sequence, it isn't all that bad.

    With this few parts left over, I still need some outter wing intakes on the leading edge and some rear windows which perhaps I need to do with a texture. Or maybe I will rebuild some pieces to scrounge a few extra polygons.

    - Ivan.

  23. #48
    Hi Womble55,
    I believe I just ran into the same situation you did. After correcting the nose gear doors and rebuilding the nose, the aft end of the port nacelle started going away. The MitchellC project was only at about 1185 parts, so that certainly wasn't it. I found that it got a little better when I removed some duplicated polygons on the inboard section of the upper wings. I had saved one component with the nose rebuild, so I decided to see if replacing a structure with a component to reduce the polygon count would help things: I replaced the tail skid structure (20 polygons) with a tail skid component (12 polygons) and the nacelle reappeared in its entirety. I even had enough polygons left over to put in two rear fuselage windows.

    Perhaps it isn't just the polygon count but also the complexity of your model. I know mine got quite involved in building the nose section without significant bleeds.

    - Ivan.

  24. #49
    SOH-CM-2019 hubbabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Age
    67
    Posts
    1,143
    It can simply be a "dummy jump" at the wrong place, forcing a part into oblivion. AF99 has the bad habit of seasoning the model with such unnecessary code. If the parts gone are from another group, it is probably the case.

    Or it can be a jump further than 32767 lines, basically out of reach, but it is most unlikely as, with grouping, that situation seldomly occurs.

    I doubt that your model is too big for CFS1, but AF99 stops quite short from those limits. Next time you have such a case of disappearing parts, try removing all the dummy «dummy jumps», just to see...
    Torture numbers and they'll say anything.


    Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.

  25. #50
    Hi Hubbabubba,
    I don't disagree that your method might work, but I don't really want to go there just yet. I probably will need to for the next multi engine plane though. Literally it was a matter of losing the last 5-10 polygons off a component. It wasn't very obvious, so it might have happened much earlier than I had noticed. I found that 1185 didn't work, 1160-something did work. Funny thing is that my SBD Dauntless project is around 1197 polygons and still displays well. It isn't textured though which might increase the complexity.

    I am guessing that it is an internal data structure / table that is dimensioned a little too small because in addition to manual "glue" there is also automatic glue to add complexity. For that I am guessing.

    In any case, this project was to prove that a good multi / twin could be built within AF99 / Aircraft Animator limitations. I will still do the SCASM thing to move the VC and possibly include a copyright as you suggested though.

    This morning I did some engine tuning to make the part throttle cruise settings match up with the Specific Engine Flight Chart I found. I also need to go back and take out the steerable nose wheel and possibly add some damping to the landing gear so it doesn't hop on braking. (Or perhaps I should leave that in?) Pictures really don't show the changes, but they were quite extensive.

    - Ivan.

Similar Threads

  1. Apologies for the absence!
    By crashaz in forum FSX General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 16th, 2010, 20:15
  2. Apologize for the absence gents!
    By crashaz in forum Landscapers & Architects
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 16th, 2010, 15:46
  3. speaking of conspicuous absence...
    By smilo in forum CFS1 General Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: January 10th, 2010, 11:59
  4. Excuse my absence...
    By Tango_Romeo in forum CFS2 General Discussion
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: December 17th, 2008, 15:33

Members who have read this thread: 23

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •