Warhawk - Page 2
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 225

Thread: Warhawk

  1. #26
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivan View Post
    .....
    The Disney Flying Tiger image didn't quite turn out as well as I had hoped, but the fuselage seemed a bit bare without it.
    I am not sure which set of textures I like better.

    .....................

    I still believe this project could use some improvement but is pretty much releasable as it stands.

    - Ivan.
    if i might offer an opinion, or two;

    ship it, she's a beauty!

    as for the textures, i have to disagree.
    but first, i need to qualify....
    i have always been partial to the Plane Jane,
    everyday workman style paint schemes.
    i don't think the fuselage seemed a bit bare without it.
    i like it. she looks great!

    as for the Disney Tiger and the Aleutian Tiger motifs,
    i prefer the Disney Tiger.

    i've never really appreciated the Aleutian Tiger.
    to me, it just looks like a muddled glob of yellow.
    a bit harsh, yes. please don't take offense.
    i can see that you've spent a lot of time on it.
    this does not apply to just your paint.
    i have thought that since the first time
    i saw the scheme many years ago.
    maybe, if i was stationed in the Aleutians,
    i would feel differently about it.

    as i said above,
    SHIP IT!!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails PlaneJane.jpg  
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  2. #27
    Hi Smilo,

    I actually uploaded it last night....
    ;-)

    The Disney Flying Tiger was a poster sized print that was sent to the AVG in China. They pasted them onto the sides of their aircraft. The problem is that in CFS, the pixels are kinda large so if the image is about the right size on the aeroplane, it looks a bit pixelated up close.... I may work on it again, but not for a while.

    - Ivan.

  3. #28
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,775
    good, good...well done
    did you send Dave a copy for your page
    at the freefflight site?

    here's the link for download here;
    http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...s.php?catid=19
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  4. #29
    Smilo,

    You're right. I should have sent a copy to No Dice. Last night, I was just a bit too tired after trying to write something descriptive for the P-40K.
    My son had my computer most of the day for online games and right now, the ZIP file is on a flash drive that I can't get to without waking up Anna Honey. Doing THAT would not be wise....

    FWIW, Tonight, I thought I would demonstrate proper flying technique for a simple take-off, once around the island and landing to my son after his online games. He was sitting still and watching so intently (which is unusual). I executed a proper take-off while staying near the center of the runway.
    On the approach to land, I was dragging it in pretty slow for a nice three-pointer, found I was a touch low and managed to stall and crash in a nice looking fireball just short of the runway....

    I had forgotten that at low speed, the P-40 has all kinds of trim changes.

    - Ivan.

  5. #30
    Now that the Workshop's Assembly Line is cleared of the P-40K (at least for a little while), What should take its place in the P-40 series?
    For a Long Tail, we can go next to a P-40N. For the Short Tail, we can go next to either a revised P-40E with WEP and some graphical fixes or a P-40F with a Merlin, or even a Short Tail P-40K with a Fin Fillet. Or perhaps the Hawk 81s also need a canopy frame?

    - Ivan.

  6. #31
    SOH-CM-2019 hubbabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Age
    67
    Posts
    1,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivan View Post
    Now that the Workshop's Assembly Line is cleared of the P-40K (at least for a little while), What should take its place in the P-40 series?
    For a Long Tail, we can go next to a P-40N. For the Short Tail, we can go next to either a revised P-40E with WEP and some graphical fixes or a P-40F with a Merlin, or even a Short Tail P-40K with a Fin Fillet. Or perhaps the Hawk 81s also need a canopy frame?

    - Ivan.
    Any P-40/Merlin version would be great. It would also give you an opportunity to explain to us why it was not as successful a pairing than it was for the P-51. Was the P-51 lines so superior to the Curtiss? After all, North American bought the plans of the P-40 before building their pony. Some even accused them of copying, which is absurd in face of the greatly enhanced performances of the Mustang, Allison or RR versions.
    Torture numbers and they'll say anything.


    Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.

  7. #32
    Off the top of my head, I think it was down to the aerodynamics. The P51 had much better streamlining and that all important laminar flow wing whereas the P40 was fairly modern but still old technology. The P40Q tried to address these problems which to some extent they did but there was no point changing production over to something that was just as good as what they already had...the P51. As quoted in several books, the P40 was a damn good second choice.

  8. #33

    Aerodynamic Differences

    Quote Originally Posted by hubbabubba View Post
    Any P-40/Merlin version would be great. It would also give you an opportunity to explain to us why it was not as successful a pairing than it was for the P-51. Was the P-51 lines so superior to the Curtiss? After all, North American bought the plans of the P-40 before building their pony. Some even accused them of copying, which is absurd in face of the greatly enhanced performances of the Mustang, Allison or RR versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by womble55 View Post
    Off the top of my head, I think it was down to the aerodynamics. The P51 had much better streamlining and that all important laminar flow wing whereas the P40 was fairly modern but still old technology. The P40Q tried to address these problems which to some extent they did but there was no point changing production over to something that was just as good as what they already had...the P51. As quoted in several books, the P40 was a damn good second choice.
    I was debating on which message to reply to. Hopefully this looks OK.

    Hubbabubba,

    The actual plans that North American were REQUIRED to buy were not those of the P-40, but rather of the P-46 which was a more recent development that showed promise. The big problems with the P-46 were that the airframe was a bit on the heavy side and that the Allison engine didn't have enough power to haul that mass around but it was still a faster aeroplane on the same engine power as the P-40. Although North American bought the plans, there is no evidence that they influenced the Mustang / Apache design at all.

    Womble55,

    Aerodynamics was certainly ONE factor but in my opinon was not the DOMINANT factor. Aerodynamic / streamlining generally affects maximum speed but perhaps not much more. With the same engine, the Mustang was superior in speed to the P-40 but it was just as superior to the Spitfire when equipped with the same engine:

    The Mustang Mk.I and P-40E were both equipped with the Allison V-1710-39 (F3R) with the same horsepower ratings. The maximum speed of the P-40E was around 345 mph while the Mustang I could hit about 380 mph on the same power. The climb rates of the two aircraft were quite similar as were their weights.

    The Mustang Mk.III (P-51B/C) and Spitfire Mk.IX were both equipped with Merlin 60 series engines of nearly the same power. The maximum speed of the Mustang III was about 440 mph while the Spitfire IX could only achieve about 410 mph. The Spitfire could climb over 600 feet per minute faster mostly because it was significantly lighter.

    An even more interesting comparison is the Lavochkin La-5FN and La-7. Both aircraft had the same engine. Their planforms and size are nearly identical. The La-5FN could hit about 405 mph. The La-7 with a laminar flow wing and repositioned oil cooler (!) could hit about 425 mph.

    A bit off topic, but WHY was the Mustang so much faster on the same engine power?
    First, it did have a laminar flow wing section and that probably helped a lot but also cost something as well. The Mustang was less agile than the P-40 or the Spitfire probably because the Laminar Flow Wing had a significantly lower maximum Lift Coefficient when compared to the older designs.
    A second aerodynamic factor was the Coolant Radiator which used something called the "Meredith Effect" to add thrust on the exhaust side to offset most of the cooling drag. I believe this was the more significant factor.

    The prototype P-40 ALSO had a rear mounted Coolant Radiator which was moved forward because of fears that it would be vulnerable to debris from the the propeller wash. The Lavochkin La-7 moved its Oil Radiator back from under the cowling to under the rear fuselage even though it would make it more vulnerable with longer oil lines to weapons fire.

    ....

  9. #34

    Engine Power

    The most significant reason the P-40 didn't get as much of a gain as the Mustang did with the installation of the Merlin engine was simply that the two aircraft did not get the same version of the Merlin:

    The P-40E had an Allison V-1710-39 (F3R) engine with a Single Stage - Single Speed Supercharger.
    Its critical altitude was 12,000 feet at which it could produce 1150 HP at Military rating.

    The P-40F received the Packard Merlin V-1650-1. This had a SINGLE Stage - Two Speed supercharger.
    Its critical altitude at low speed was 10,800 feet at which it could produce 1240 HP at Military rating.
    Its critical altitude at high speed was 18,000 feet at which it could produce 1050 HP at Military rating.
    At 18,000 feet, it was making about 200 HP more than the Allison F3R did at the same altitude.

    The P-51B received the Packard Merlin V-1650-3. This had a TWO Stage - Two Speed supercharger.
    Its critical altitude at high speed was 26,000 feet at which it could produce 1210 HP at Military rating.
    Its significantly higher critical altitude was the main reason it gained so much performance.

    The Merlin installed in the P-40 was pretty similar to the one installed in the late Hurricanes while the Merlin in the Mustang was most similar to that of the 60 series Merlin Spitfire. The Hurricane was never noted for great altitude performance either.

    As a side note, The P-51A which was easily the best performing Allison Mustang had the Allison V-1710-81 (F20R).
    It also had a Single Stage Single speed supercharger but with the critical altitude increase to 14,600 feet (1125 HP Military rating).
    It was considerably less capable at lower altitudes than the earlier Allison F3R and F4R engines and had a WEP MP limit of 57" Hg instead of the earlier engines' 60" Hg.

    The Merlin Mustang was apparently a bit less aerodynamic than the Allison Mustang as well. The Merlin 60s produced a bit more power at low altitudes than the Allison F20R, but the Allison Mustang was a bit faster up to 10,000 feet at which it was making about 390 MPH.

    - Ivan.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails P51A_LFHigh.jpg   P51A_RFLow.jpg  

  10. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivan View Post
    I created the P-40E from a set of drawings by William Wylam.
    These were drawings derived from Curtiss company specifications for the aircraft with dimensions stated.
    I had noticed when building the model that sometimes the stated dimensions could not actually line up, but the differences were not great and the result looked like a short tailed P-40.
    I had also noticed that my model differed a bit from photographs but wasn't quite sure where the differences were.
    ....
    The interesting thing is that the mismatch does not appear in the Fin as I was expecting. It is mostly in the Canopy and Keel area.
    ....
    The Wylam drawing is the only dimensional reference I have at this point and my model agrees pretty well with that.

    - Ivan.
    I decided to go back and do another comparison between the drawings' dimensions and my own. The Vertical offset is 0.75 feet because I selected the CoG to be 0.75 feet below the Engine Thrust Line, 12.08 feet from the Spinner Tip and 19.00 feet from the back edge of the Rudder. As you can see from the attached screenshot, the differences are VERY VERY slight.
    The worst discrepancy is at the aft end of the Keel which is slightly less than 0.2 feet aft of where it should be. I did this intentionally to make the Fuselage join easier. The other area is the Rudder Aerodynamic Balance at the top of the Fin which is about 0.06 too far forward.

    ....Yet it still does not quite look right.......
    - Ivan.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails P-40E_Compare.jpg  

  11. #36

    Thanks for the Comment, Arfyhun

    Hello Arfyhun,

    I just noticed the reply in the Warbirds Library forum.
    It isn't often that we see an actual reply in that forum

    Thanks for the Comment.
    - Ivan.

  12. #37

    Warhawk Rebuild

    Hello All,

    I finally managed to find a Fuselage Station diagram for the short tail Allison P-40 about a week ago.
    It isn't a great drawing for quality, but is quite useable for at least laying out many things longitudinally.

    I found where the Longitudinal and Vertical Datum lines were and am now able to adjust photographs accordingly.
    The Longitudinal Datum (Station 1) happens to be at the airframe's Firewall.
    The Vertical Datum or Fuselage Reference Line happens to be at the seam where the top half of the Fuselage joins the Bottom half.

    From these drawings, the BIGGEST problem with the drawings by William Wylam is that he appeared to be confusing the Engine Thrust Line with the Fuselage Reference Line. This alone would have accounted for a 3.75 inch shift from the front end of the aircraft to the tail. There are MANY other listed dimensions in the drawings which simply do not make sense.

    Also from these drawings (along with a couple other P-40 Manual references), I can conclude that the overall length of the P-40E was 31' 8.75" instead of the 31' 7" as stated in the Wylam drawings.

    Here is what I have for general longitudinal locations:
    Station 1 at the Firewall is the reference.
    The front end of the Cowl is 87" ahead of Station 1.
    The Rudder Line (Middle Portion) appears to coincide with Station 16 at 226.5" aft of Station 1.
    The Rudder End is 262.5" aft of Station 1.
    The Fin and Stabilizer appear to attach slightly behind Station 13 at 188" aft of Station 1.
    Assuming the OAL listed earlier is correct, that would put length of the Spinner at 31.25" which is very close to the 31" listed in the Wylam drawings.

    In comparison to the drawing, the CoG of my model is 2.35 feet aft and 0.44 feet below the aircraft Datum.
    I have already started on a rebuild that looks to be quite tedious.

    I would post the drawing here but it happens to be several megabytes in size and is hard enough to read even at that resolution.

    - Ivan.

  13. #38

    Accurate Drawings

    After a couple days of looking over the station diagram and rescaling and combining another tech drawing of the P-40 Cowl, I now have a pretty good representation of the fuselage of the P-40E series. It is still missing the fin and rudder, but I had already scaled those dimensions from several photographs.

    Today, I finished entering those dimensions into AF99 to compare with the AF99 model I have of the P-40E. First, I took the resulting part which I believe is as correctly dimensioned as I can get and compared it to the original Warhawk model.
    I then took that same part and compared it to the Warhawk model I have been reworking. Attached are screenshots of the results.

    I found that the offsets from the aircraft datum point to my AF99 model were not optimal.
    The longitudinal offset of -2.35 feet is good, but I found that a vertical offset of 0.55 feet has more matching points than the 0.44 feet offset I used earlier. The engine thrust line now needs to be moved 0.10 feet higher.

    The entire front fuselage has already been moved 0.12 feet forward. The horizontal stabilizer has been moved down and will also need moved forward to be even with the fin. I will be ignoring the 2 degree angle of incidence.

    It seems like almost everything except for the cockpit and wings will get some kind of adjustment or re shaping. The end result (if I ever finish) will be as close to dimensionally accurate as I can make it which should cure some of the shape issues. I wonder if anyone else will ever notice the changes.

    - Ivan.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails BluePrintOld.jpg   BluePrintWorking.jpg  

  14. #39
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,775
    I wonder if anyone else will ever notice the changes.

    you will
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  15. #40

    Cape Cod on Vacation

    I did a fair amount of review of the shape changes from what the Warhawk looks like now to where it should be but can't do a thing for the next week or so. Am out in Cape Cod, MA for vacation.

    Before we left for vacation, I tried to look at what the outline of the entire aircraft should be to best match the drawings I have. This involved estimating the line of the lower fuselage under the Cowl fairing based upon the angles of the wing fillets extended to the aircraft centerline. What I found was that the projected centerline was actually much more consistent than I would have expected even though the line was not shown in the reference templates I had built with the original aircraft. The points were all where I would put them now with the except of the aft-most template. The last template is incorrect because the angle of the tail is quite different between Wylams drawings and my current drawings.

    It is a pity that so little of the original aircraft will be retained.

    Screenshot comparisions will be posted when I am able.

    - Ivan.

  16. #41

    Template Parts and Checking Alignment

    We got back from vacation this weekend.

    While on vacation, I had quite a bit of time to look for photographs of the P-40 and found quite a few though I did not have the capability to actually do any modifications to my project.

    One of the things I noticed was that the P-40 actually had a wing tip with a flat underside and I had missed that completely in my model. This is actually a very easy and quick fix which I did the night we got back.

    Other changes have been from starting from the wing trailing edge and moving forward. (I believe I have completed everything behind the wing.) My process here is to rework the reference parts (the equivalent of Jigs and Fixtures) while checking how they align with other existing pieces and THEIR Templates which may also get reworked.

    An interesting thing to observe is the relationship between the cowl fairing on the bottom of the fuselage and the line of the lower fuselage as it continues back to the rudder. On the real aircraft, the underside of fuselage at the cockpit is where the two wings are joined to be covered by a fairing. On my model, this line is just imaginary because there are no actual polygons under the fairing. The light blue reference part shows a fairly consistent line between the tail and the cowl and is used to confirm that the polygons forming the wings are aligned with the wing fillet polygons and their projected endpoints are in alignment at the fuselage centerline. The cowl fairing polygons must also meet along the projected line.

    Next step is to rebuild the front half of the Warhawk....

    - Ivan.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails P-40NewWingTip.jpg   P-40ReferenceCompare.jpg   P-40RebuildCurrent.jpg  

  17. #42
    The rework of my P-40E is finally nearing completion. It turned out to be MUCH more extensive than I had first expected.

    As an example, the last thing I found which was only a couple days ago was that the maximum fuselage width was quite a bit off.
    William Wylam's drawing lists it as 1' 9" (1.75 feet in AF99 Units) from the centerline.
    I had already done a correction (to 1.66 feet) some time back because it simply didn't look right
    When I reworked the radiator intake (Shark Mouth), the shapes still didn't look right.
    I found that I had a pretty good technical drawing and re-scaled it down to 1 pixel = 0.01 foot.
    The tech drawing showed a maximum width of 1.60 feet and an upper cowling that was also 1.60 feet above the propeller centerline.
    This is very unlike the Spitfire or Mustang that do not have constant radii in their cowling.
    A P-40N Erection & Maintenance manual lists the fuselage maximum width as 38.3 inches in a 3-View drawing and 38.32 inches in a dimensions table.
    38.32 inches overal width works out to 1.5966667 feet from the centerline.

    Seems like a pretty reliable number to me!

    At this point, I have most of the polygons reworked. There are a couple wing polygons and the pilot and canopy that haven't been changed and that is about it! This turned out to be more work than building an entirely new design.

    Next comes the texturing and animations and minor revisions to the AIR file.
    The screenshot shows a rather disturbing state I saw earlier.

    - Ivan.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails BrokeSomething.jpg  

  18. #43
    Latest changes were the following:
    Added Gun Ports to the model. They were only a texture before. They should be stubs but are just black ports. The locations (offset from centerline) came from the P-40N E&M manual.

    Modified DP file to match the new outline of the model. Relocated the weapons slightly to match the locations from E&M manual. Changed the bomb load from 1x500 lb to 3x500 lb. There are still a few more things to check here.

    Modified the AIR file for new contact points for the longer landing gear struts. Moved the propeller location about 1 inch up and 1 inch forward to match the model which hopefully matches the tech drawings.

    Next comes a majpr rework of the layout of textures and some edits to the textures themselves.

    So far, I can say that with the same paint job and even knowing where to look, I don't see much detail difference other than the increased depth of the aft fuselage. The entire cowl is about 1 or 2 inches higher, but it isn't very obvious. The 1.5 inch narrower fuselage isn't very obvious either.

    I have been changing the painting templates and from those, it becomes apparent that somewhere around 95% of the polygons were altered and for components of the aircraft, it is closer to about 98%.

    - Ivan.

  19. #44
    After about three evenings of relocating textures and panel lines, here is what I have.
    A wire frame comparision shows LOTS of changes, but a screenshot doesn't show up much difference at all.
    I suppose the comparison is to that of an "Eyeball Scale" model versus a dimensionally correct scale model.

    Still need to relocate some textures, but the basic shapes are done. The dimensions and layout are as accurate as I can make them with the information I have accumulated with the exception of the area just behind the radiator exhaust.

    Besides the visuals, there is plenty more to do. I figure this beast deserves to have the WEP rating that I didn't know about when I first built it way back.

    - Ivan.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails WarhawkRebuild_LFLevel.jpg   WarhawkRebuild_LALevel.jpg  

  20. #45
    Hello All,

    The rebuild is pretty much finished. I am not quite satisfied with the shape of the Radiator Exhaust, so that area will get rebuilt again. Besides that, there are a couple panel lines that need to get moved around a bit after the polygons under them got shifted.

    In looking at the screenshots, I KNOW that just about everything on this aeroplane got moved around, but the general appearance does not appear to have changed much at all. The shape of the Radiator Intake took a few tries. I finally decided to open a Otaki (?) 1:48 P-40E model kit I had to see how the shapes looked in 3D. I believe I got the shape fairly close to the model. Hopefully it is close to the actual aircraft.

    The only new obviously new thing is the textured Radiators.

    - Ivan.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Warhawk)_RFHigh.jpg   Warhawk_LProfile.jpg   Warhawk_Radiator.jpg   Warhawk_RadExhaust.jpg  

  21. #46
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,775
    she's a real beauty.
    nicely done.

    at the risk of sounding like an obnoxious sob,
    have you considered bringing the project full circle
    and building the p-40 precursor, the p-36 hawk?

    might be interesting.
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  22. #47
    Hi Smilo,

    Thanks for the suggestion.

    Actually I have had a P-36 / Hawk 75 project going for a couple years now.

    From my line of reasoning, after I had the first P-40E (the current "Warhawk" project), I thought there would not be too many changes to get to a P-40C.
    It turned out to a LOT of changes to get to a P-40C "Hawk 81" project. (Fewer though than my current revisions to the Warhawk.)
    From the Hawk 81, it should have been "easy" to get to a Hawk 75 since everyone KNOWS the P-40 was just a P-36 with a new engine. Turns out that there aren't that many shared pieces between the two. Although the general construction is the same, everything was moved around a bit to put the Allison inline in place. The prototype P-37 and P-40 might have been simple engine swaps, but production stuff was a lot dfferent.

    The cockpit is located in a different place. The main gear fairings are different. The tail gear is also located differently.
    Internally, even the fuel tanks are quite different. There may be more that I haven't seen yet.

    I COULD re-engine a P-40C and get something looking a lot like a P-36, but dimensionally it would be quite wrong. I am also not sure the Paul Matt drawings I have are correct.

    With the latest drawings on the P-40, I could probably get a bit further than I have before though. It at least gives a common reference point between the different airframes.

    The idea of this "Thorough Rebuild" was to get to a good point for further P-40 releases though I will probably change direction again before that happens because I don't have a very long attention span.

    - Ivan.

  23. #48
    Revised the Radiator Exhaust to look more like the real thing.

    I also found a pretty serious bleed in the nose from an "improvement" I had made.
    Turns out I usta be a bit smarter than I am now.
    After removing the bleed, I'll need to adjust the textures on the parts that were reshaped.

    The remaining screenshot shows the revised wingtip.

    - Ivan.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Warhawk_NewFairing.jpg   Warhawk_LLow.jpg   Warhawk_Wingtip.jpg  

  24. #49
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,775
    'twas just a thought
    inspired by an Aviation History article
    about the USS Ranger based F4F Wildcats
    taking on Vichy French H-75A Hawks
    during Operation Torch in November 1942.

    was almost considering setting up
    invasion Task Force 54 off Morocco.

    oh well...sorry to interrupt.
    back to topic.
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  25. #50
    Hi Smilo,

    That discussion seemed very much ON topic to me. The Hawk 75 is a natural progression when working on the P-40. It seems less and less likely now that I will actually do a P-40Q. It just seems like way too much work and is a hard thing to comtemplate when I have spent the the last few weeks essentially building a new P-40E that looks almost exactly like the original one. I felt I needed to do that to own a really "Good" P-40 which I have always wanted.

    If I am planning on building more P-40s I needed to have as good a starting point as I can create.

    Another thing to consider is that just about all of this group of fighters has the same basic wings, stabilizers and fin though the pieces get moved around a bit. With that in mind, hopefully the next Curtiss fighter project will just be a matter of moving a few correctly dimensioned pieces around and connecting the dots.

    Status update:
    After the last post, I was thinking this aeroplane was ready for the SCASM treatment. I started the process and then decided to check on JUST ONE MORE THING....

    As Background:
    Although this P-40E has almost everything altered from the original to one extent or another, the build secquences and file naming are nearly all the same. The actual parts themselves sometimes are simply moved or hava vertex moved or have nothing of the original except for the purpose.

    To cure bleeds, I often duplicate the same part in several assemblies. When the part is re-shaped, it sometimes doesn't fit in all of the original assemblies any more. Also, AF99 has a single directional display polygon called an "insignia". These work pretty well for addresing specific bleeds.
    The problem is that if a part is reshaped, often the insignia parts display in the wrong direction. You don't even need to change the sequence of vertices. Now, you have a bleed from a direction that you were not checking to build the new part or the insignia part itself becomes a bleed because it is facing the wrong direction.

    Glue (viewing planes) are also very often located in reference to existing parts. When those parts are re-shaped or moved, sometimes the glue part itself needs to be re-shaped.

    Another issue is that all the rebuilding adds up to quite a few more polygons. At the moment, I am up from 1042 ro 1112. When the parts count gets higher, sometimes AF99 starts to behave badly.

    ....

Similar Threads

  1. P-40N Warhawk (NL540TP).zip
    By Bomber_12th in forum Warbirds Library
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 31st, 2013, 11:39
  2. A2A P-40 Warhawk (accu) now released (payware)
    By YoYo in forum FSX General Discussion
    Replies: 121
    Last Post: January 26th, 2012, 08:00
  3. A2A P-40 Accu-sim WarHawk on Final
    By Phantom88 in forum FSX General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 27th, 2011, 06:50
  4. Iris P-40 Warhawk flutter fix
    By awj112 in forum FS 2002/2004 General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 22nd, 2010, 09:55
  5. Maxstuka P-40Q Warhawk
    By bub in forum CFS2 General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: February 13th, 2009, 12:21

Members who have read this thread: 6

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
  •