Conspicuous by Their Absence - Page 58
Page 58 of 58 FirstFirst ... 848505152535455565758
Results 1,426 to 1,443 of 1443

Thread: Conspicuous by Their Absence

  1. #1426
    Hello Ivan,
    Despite probably being of the FS5 type, it does have the typical Stirling no-nonsense look and stance!
    This could be an interesting project for the future.
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  2. #1427
    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    You are probably correct about this being an old FS5 project.
    The shape isn't too bad, but the nose seems a bit strangely shaped.
    I would need to look at a few more photographs to be sure.

    If you like this kind of shape, then the Heinkel 177 would probably appeal to you also?
    I had started one many years ago before I started working with SCASM and there are just not enough resources to to it properly in AF99.
    Perhaps either this or my version of the Dornier 17Z would be a worthwhile subject for a try at AD2000?

    At some point, I want to see what is possible (for me) to do within AD2000 not so much from a 3D design standpoint but more from a CFS variables approach. The code I have seen you and Smilo post looks amazingly like what I am already doing in SCASM coding only a bit less cryptic.

    - Ivan.

  3. #1428
    Hello Ivan,
    The Stirlingīs straight lines, as well as the 4 engines, and even the transparencies in the cockpit area, seem to me not to be too complicated to build with AF99.

    With Ad2K Iīm sure a Do-17 would yield much better results because the details inside its large glazed nose section would come through very well. The automated "Z" Buffer in AF99 has limited ability, SCASM is very cryptic, so AD2k will possibly allow clearly understandable view-sequence organization, which will let the builder achieve his goals. Iīm sure AD2K will be an interesting exercize for you if you decide to give it a try. Of course, as any new tool to be learnt, it takes some time!

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  4. #1429
    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    We just got back from our vacation this afternoon.
    Traffic made the drive much longer than it should have been.

    You are right, the Stirling does not look to be too difficult though even a simple project tends to push resource limits the way I build.
    You do things with a lot of Structures which should work well, but I have never been comfortable doing anything other than fairly simple things with Structures with just one exception: The Eindecker's machine gun.
    One fellow I knew was an expert with Structures, but I haven't heard from him in many years.
    He actually built an entire Fuselage for a Curtiss Wright CW-21B with a single Structure and the shape was quite excellent.

    For me, a Four Engine Bomber may not be complicated, but each Cowl, Supercharger Scoop and such would use up a Component and that would be the end of it. The Heinkel 177 isn't very complicated either, but was beyond the limit of what I could comfortably do within AF99 only.

    The B-25 Mitchell was a special case. I was out to prove a point rather than just designing for fun and that project probably took about 4 times the work that it needed to because of AF99 limits and it really didn't have all the features I originally wanted. The same applies to the P-38 Lightning projects.

    By the way, if you do a quick comparison, the general syntax for AD2000 that you posted isn't that different from SCASM; It is just much better organised and a bit more obvious as to what is going on. I suppose it is much like the difference between C Programming and Assembly Language Programming.
    Some of the things Smilo was telling me a few years ago when he was working with his Arado 196 had suggested to me that the folks who designed AD2000 probably did a lot more thinking and addressed things using more typical 3D design methods. The only problem at this point is that I simply do not have a working development machine at the moment and the old Pentium 233 is probably not powerful enough even it was working.

    If you look at what we BOTH have already been doing with the Virtual Cockpits in SCASM, you can certainly see the similarity of patterns between the sequencing of AD2000 and SCASM jumps.

    In looking further at the Halifax, I can't decide which I like more: The Merlin versions with a Nose Turret or the later Hercules versions with a simpler nose. It isn't on the build list yet, but with these discussions, I have been looking around to see if I can figure out the differences in the various Marks.

    - Ivan.

  5. #1430
    Hello Ivan,
    I hope youīve had a restful vacation.
    It looks like the traffic is unavoidable nowadays in all parts of the world... Iīm sure a more modern civilization would perfect public transport to such a point as to make having a car totally unnecessary!

    Interesting thoughts on the different building programmes. After the last few years learning "extended building skills" of AF99 and SCASM with you, and now starting on AD2K, I agree with you that AD2K presents a more logical and understandable sequencing organization - even if this has to be completely hand-written, as compared to SCASM, which assists AF99īs often insufficient, semi-automated sequencing.

    After one were to be more familiar with AD2K, it definitely offers more scope, largely due to its much greater parts count.
    It is taking me a lot of time to master some things, because of the shortcomings this programme also has, but which Smilo is kindly helping me out with!


    Anyway... I suppose your last comment on the nose refers to the Stirling, not the Halifax. I donīt really like the looks of the last unit produced the Mark V, with the longer, sleeker nose. The nose on the previous, shorter nosed ones looked more in proportion, with or without the turret. The Mark III is the one Iīd perhaps go for!

    Have a nice Sunday!
    Aleatorylamp
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  6. #1431
    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    The vacation was actually much less than optimal. I only spent one day in the water because I got injured at the end of the first day and it did not seem like a good idea to get sea water into an open wound. Am nearly recovered now.

    We made the same trip almost two years ago. My Daughter was injured last time.

    Public Transportation would not work well for a fairly short trip like this one. With no traffic, it should only take about 4 hours to get there.
    With rest stops and traffic, it is more like 6 hours.
    With public transportation, we would need to pack much lighter than we actually did because we certainly could not carry all the luggage and beach gear that we had.
    There is no way that public transportation could have matched the price (about $15 per person) and then we would need a rental van when we got there to be able to go out for meals and groceries with 6 people.

    Regarding the British Bombers,
    I am not really sure which post you were reading because I commented that the Stirling's nose did not seem quite right in the model I have for CFS AND that I was trying to decide which version of the Halifax I liked better: the one with the Nose Turret or the later version without the Nose Turret.
    With the Halifax, I like the look of the Merlin engines on the earlier versions and the fact that they had a Nose Turret, but the later version is higher performance but some of them had a bulge in the belly of the aircraft which is a bit ugly.

    - Ivan.

  7. #1432
    Another interpretation of Conspicuous Absence.....

    I was just looking over the various A6M Type Zero Fighters I had available on the game machine and came across this old airframe that was used to test fit pieces.
    It reminds me of some of the old abandoned wrecks found on remote Pacific islands.

    - Ivan.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails ConspicuousAbsence.jpg  

  8. #1433
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,600
    i've just finished an article
    in the september, 2017 issue of Aviation History
    about the boeing-stearman model 75.
    apparently, over 8,500 fully assembled were produced
    with enough parts for over 10,000 total aircraft.
    this was the ultimate trainer.
    has anyone seen a quality cfs model?

    btw, the article includes, what appear to be,
    nice three X drawings and a spec sheet.
    i don't know about the scale, though.
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  9. #1434
    Hello Smilo,
    Check out Simviation. They have a very nicely built FS98 model by Chris Lampard, and it flies nicely too!
    Scroll down the page a bit and youīll find it.


    http://simviation.com/fs98vintage16.htm

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Stearman.jpg  
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  10. #1435
    Hello Guys,

    It seems like I have a different Stearman PT-17 installed on my game machine.
    I was a bit curious when Aleatorylamp commented that it was a nicely built model and flew nicely, so I downloaded it from the link he posted.

    Now imagine my surprise when I attempted to load it into the simulator and found that I had TWO Boeing-Stearman PT-17s.

    Here is a screenshot of the one I have.
    I did not have a chance to try it out tonight.

    Please note that the version in my screenshot does not have a cowl ring though I believe they are both probably by the same author.

    I believe one of these biplanes was in the air when the Pearl Harbor raiders arrived.
    It was flown by a very experienced female flight instructor and managed to evade the attacking Zeros.
    Unfortunately, she did not survive the war.

    - Ivan.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Kaydet.jpg  

  11. #1436
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,600
    being as the pt-17 was produced,
    mainly, as a military trainer,
    i prefer the military version
    with the exposed pw radial
    and bright paint scheme.

    do you remember where you got yours?
    or, would you please, send me a copy?

    i've read that it was easy to fly,
    but, also, could be a challenge
    in certain circumstances.
    it was a trainer, after all.
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  12. #1437

    Cowled and uncowled PT-17 Stearmans

    Wow! One Stearman was searched for and two were found!

    As regards the airframe, the interesting thing about the military unit
    is the exposed PW radial.

    Without wanting to spoil the party, thereīs one thing:
    A closer look at the cowled model shows the build is a bit more advanced.
    Wing curvature is smoother, wheels are rounder, there are strut wires, and the
    tailplane is 3D. The uncowled model looks like a very nice but simpler FS5 build.

    Initially I was going to suggest painting the cowled version with military textures,
    but just before Captain Obvious came in wielding his club, I searched the web
    for military cowled versions, but couldnīt find any. That kept the Captain at bay!

    I also found an uncowled, military, FS2000 Stearman model... Although it loads
    into CFS1,
    textures of course wonīt show, and as thereīs no Z-Buffer, it plays
    havoc on the structure!


    So, itīll be hard to have a more advanced build of a military version with the
    exposed pw radial unless we build one! Maybe we should?

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  13. #1438

    Another idea

    Hello Ivan, Hello Smilo,
    I have discovered a new thing on the more advanced cowled version I found.
    The nose on the real aircraft has a cowl thatīs flush with the fuselage.

    On the model, the cowled seems to
    be an added round part, fitted infront of the
    original un-cowled fuselage. Of course, the physical shape doesnīt show the
    individual cylinders as on the posted picture of the military PT-17.

    The
    solution could be easy: To texture the plane with military colour scheme,
    and to texture the round Cowl with the
    exposed cylinders of the uncowled version.

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails mistaken cowl.jpg  
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  14. #1439
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,600
    well....you said,
    you needed a change.
    didn't you?
    so, there you go,
    a new af99 project.

    why waste your time
    correcting someone else's?
    when you could have too much fun
    building your own.
    besides, today's build standards
    are much higher than in the past.

    so, go ahead, push the envelope.
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  15. #1440
    If you want to make the modification for an uncowled military PT-17 with the red model, you could of course just make the changes via SCASM.
    I don't believe it would be that difficult to do.
    That opens up the standard can of worms though: If you fix one thing via SCASM, why not fix other things such as the wacky windscreen frames?
    How about some shape edits?

    Hmmmm....

    I test flew the Red version. The flight model isn't really that good.
    The real PT-17 was basically a very agile "Cotton Ball" as can be seen in quite a few aerobatics videos online and also in the movie "Tora Tora Tora".
    The one here can't roll fast enough to get out of its own way.
    The acceleration on the ground also seems to be too rapid.
    There may be a few more issues. I really did not do much testing.
    I haven't tried to gather any data to see if anything else was odd.

    - Ivan.

  16. #1441
    Hello Guys,
    Probably it will best to make a new one then.
    That way I wonīt have to chase all the worms that come out or the red one.
    I wonder what you think of the .air file on the military version. Perhaps itīs better than red versionīs one?
    Anyway, the military textures will be useful as a reference for a new one.
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  17. #1442
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,600
    the av history article has several pictures
    and, as i said, clean 3 X drawings
    and a small spec sheet.
    i don't know about the scale, though.

    if you're interested, let me know
    and i'll hook up the scanner.
    (not a big deal)

    shall we start a new thread?
    it seems appropriate.
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  18. #1443
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,600
    done...new thread started,
    and posts moved from here
    to help get it started.
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

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: 65

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
  •