Kitty Hawk Class Aircraft Carriers - Page 6
Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 312

Thread: Kitty Hawk Class Aircraft Carriers

  1. #126
    SOH-CM-2017 DaveB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Pelsall, West Midlands
    Age
    66
    Posts
    3,533
    Frank..

    there are 2 lots of stuff going on in this thread.. the original stuff which is Warren's Kitty Hawk model (which comes with variations on deck loading) and running concurrently.. stuff about the Aerosoft/Mark Harper Kitty Hawk which again comes with variations of deck loading. AFAIK.. the deck aircraft that come with Warren's freeware model are not the ones off Marks model.
    Deke.. navy81 set about doing repaints for the freeware models deck aircraft and it kinda ran into him thinking about doing repaints for Mark's model two. Deck/island repaints have already been done (as you can see by the out of place island lights) and it seemed like a good idea to have the correct aircraft paints too. I don't think there's any intention to physically remove the aircraft off Mark's model and put them onto Warren's.. there'd be no point. Why re-invent the wheel??
    IF the aircraft on the freeware model ARE off Mark's model.. then that's a different ball game but I don't think they are.

    What say you?

    [EDIT]
    For folks not wanting the entire F-14 package, Team SDB has agreements in place with Mark to release the USS Kitty Hawk as a standalone package of three ships with appropriate texture (and tower number light modeling) changes for the USS Constellation and USS America. We're waiting on further development of the Enterprise to see if we will be able to include in a timely manner the option of F-4s rather than F-14's for optional earlier versions.
    Frank.. will there be any consideration for those who already have the F-14 (especially those of us who bought it to get Kitty Hawk). Much as I don't mind throwing money about.. I really don't want or need another Kitty Hawk?
    ATB
    DaveB

  2. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by Bjoern View Post
    Hammered the "Remove" button about 170 times and gave up. The awful thing is that MCX always needs a few seconds to catch up.


    Exported as .x and tried to remove every entry for "mesh platform[number]" gave up after about 200 entries.


    I'm angry and disappointed that this is basically an unsolvable issue. Stupid Sketchup crap.
    Hopefully this will cheer you up I asked Over at the MCX forums if they would consider adding a select all/remove all platforms option to MCX just heard back from Arno and he's added a remove all platforms button which will be added to the development release as of Tomorrow let's see where this gets us.

  3. #128
    SOH-CM-2017 DaveB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Pelsall, West Midlands
    Age
    66
    Posts
    3,533
    Talking of which.. I haven't had a new development release in longer than I can remember. It's setup to check too!

    ATB
    DaveB

  4. #129

  5. #130
    SOH-CM-2017 DaveB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Pelsall, West Midlands
    Age
    66
    Posts
    3,533
    Cheers Dave I used to get one every time I opened the program (not that I use it all the time.. more a case of lots sometimes then not at all for ages) but they suddenly stopped. Lets see if I get one one...

    No.. nada. My Update settings for check for update at startup and check for update unstable are both TRUE so WTH isn't it checking?

    ATB
    DaveB

  6. #131

  7. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by Bjoern View Post
    Changelog says the button is in, but I'm too dumb to find it at the moment.

    http://scenerydesign.org/mantis/plug...urce/list&id=1
    He did say to me 'from tomorrow' and that was at 8:30 GMT this morning so we may not see the revised version uploaded for another day or so but I can wait, TBH i'm just stoked the chap got back to me so quick I wasn't expecting a reply that soon, least of all to have what I asked for put in the same day!! fantastic!

  8. #133
    IT works!!!!!!!!! Only tried it with Forrestall and Oriskney (and had to rebuild the deck polys by hand) but the frame rate issues are gone going to try Kitty Hawk and Midway now will report back just to check my findings but the Bulk platform removal tool really did the trick!

    Second though I'd better not I've got work in the morning but I'll have a play tomorrow afternoon. Midways a bit of an issue if you leaving it up to Auto-platform I'll try it manually tomorrow
    Last edited by Hooky722; August 19th, 2015 at 14:05.

  9. #134
    SOH-CM-2017 DaveB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Pelsall, West Midlands
    Age
    66
    Posts
    3,533
    Well done that man

    ATB
    DaveB

  10. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooky722 View Post
    IT works!!!!!!!!! Only tried it with Forrestall and Oriskney (and had to rebuild the deck polys by hand) but the frame rate issues are gone going to try Kitty Hawk and Midway now will report back just to check my findings but the Bulk platform removal tool really did the trick!

    Second though I'd better not I've got work in the morning but I'll have a play tomorrow afternoon. Midways a bit of an issue if you leaving it up to Auto-platform I'll try it manually tomorrow

  11. #136
    Well, that's confirmed Its definitely worked! Midway is still giving a little bit of hit on Frames but I think thats more my rig that anything (It seems to jump between perfectly reasonable to slug GP from one day to the next but anyway!) so far I've identified what I believe to be a few minor Issues:-

    1) You cant leave it up to Auto-Platform in the attachment tools to redraw the Platforms for you. It draws dozens more than is necessary and Links some of the more Vital ones with redundant platforms so you can't just delete the ones you don't need. (for example: removing some of the platforms from Midway's Island also lost the catapults and half the deck markings!)

    2)You have to lay platforms yourself, Not an Issue necessarily but Very time consuming (I got home from work at 4:00pm, I've just finished Midway and I'm knackered. and I only did the flight deck!) Plus with the above method, even though I was getting 50 or so platforms as opposed to 3050 platforms, it still ran like sludge! although It may have been not compiling properly out of MCX I'll do more tests... but for right now I do it manually.

    3)In order to cover the decks with as few Platforms as possible I've had to Sacrifice the potential for future usability of both the Lifts and Hanger decks on the models I've experimented on, Although this could be done with more careful 'platforming' I suppose

    Aside from that its all gravy...

    Here's a summary of the procedure i used:-

    1)First make sure you have the lastest Development Release of MDLConverterX

    2)Import model and head straight for the Attached Object Editor and click the new 'Remove All Platforms' Button (kindly put there by Arno for us over at FSDeveloperland!) This gets rid of all platforms but leaves all other attached objects in place (smoke, catapults, wires etc)

    3)Start creating platforms (go to ADD - platforms) and start laying platforms. (You can copy and paste the co-ordinates for the deck height from one of the catapult Attach points) Depending on how defined you want your flight deck to be you can get an accurate outline of the FD using about 20 platforms (I think I got Midways down to 19 or so)

    4)Then compile separately (Don't overwrite existing models I think it causes problems!) swap the original with the new one and that's it

    There's probably an easier way but this how I've done it on the three I've tried so far.

  12. #137
    Happy to Help guys, Nice to see another one of FSX's great mystery's solved. I've been wanting use the Oriskney BETA for ages now lol.

    I think form now on with sketchup\3D mesh models we should recommend/adopt this procedure because I don't know what program was being used to make all these 0000's of platforms but the more i used it the more i don't think it was MCX. The maximum I could get it to Auto generate was 54, And there's no way in hell anybody did that many thousands manually, So its a side effect from some part of the conversion process I guess? Just a thought.

  13. #138
    SOH-CM-2017 DaveB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Pelsall, West Midlands
    Age
    66
    Posts
    3,533
    It may be possible that MCX is falsely reporting platforms too. I know that DG recently converted a carrier to import into Max where he removed all the platforms and made one big one. On completion, he ran it back through MCX and it reported more than one there.. quite a lot more than one actually! Whatever.. he didn't get over 2000

    ATB
    DaveB

  14. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
    Frank..

    there are 2 lots of stuff going on in this thread.. the original stuff which is Warren's Kitty Hawk model (which comes with variations on deck loading) and running concurrently.. stuff about the Aerosoft/Mark Harper Kitty Hawk which again comes with variations of deck loading. AFAIK.. the deck aircraft that come with Warren's freeware model are not the ones off Marks model.
    Deke.. navy81 set about doing repaints for the freeware models deck aircraft and it kinda ran into him thinking about doing repaints for Mark's model two. Deck/island repaints have already been done (as you can see by the out of place island lights) and it seemed like a good idea to have the correct aircraft paints too. I don't think there's any intention to physically remove the aircraft off Mark's model and put them onto Warren's.. there'd be no point. Why re-invent the wheel??
    IF the aircraft on the freeware model ARE off Mark's model.. then that's a different ball game but I don't think they are.

    What say you?

    [EDIT]
    Frank.. will there be any consideration for those who already have the F-14 (especially those of us who bought it to get Kitty Hawk). Much as I don't mind throwing money about.. I really don't want or need another Kitty Hawk?
    ATB
    DaveB

    Dave,
    Thanks for the "top cover" in reply to Frank - i have been on vacation and just returned last evening. Frank - Dave is correct in stating that i have not nor will not move Mark's aircraf to another deck - was just trying to repaint the existing air wing to go with the different carriers being created from the Mark's Kitty Hawk - an absolute treasure.

    ATB and cheers to all.
    Deke

  15. #140
    In the last couple pages this thread has gone to a tech level a bit over my head (easy to do) but let me throw this in...
    Hooky722 mentioned tweaking the platform count on Oriskany and I assume he's referring to the beta uploaded by Gary (gp183601) last year. Gary also uploaded a 1970's Midway which has the same problem with frame rates dropping off to almost a standstill as you taxi out of the wires and move forward past the island and the "crotch" (where the angle deck and forward flight deck intersect). This deck would also be a good candidate for whatever MCX magic can be worked to resolve the FR drop.

  16. #141
    Yes, I think that is the master plan. We are very fortunate to have all these new post war carriers - Gary's Oriskany and Midway and Wombraider's Forrestal and Kitty Hawk class cv's. Superb freeware. While trapping and catting aren't too bad FPS-wise, you, me and others have found that the taxi to the forward cats are causing noticeable frame rate hiccups which put a damper on the fun. If these modifications result in models that have smooth frames during the whole carrier op cycle, there will be a lot of happy campers.
    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.

  17. #142
    Well, Upon completion of the flight deck on Gary's Midway '75 last night I'm fairly certain now that I've cracked it! no frame rate issues. I would post the amended models up in the Library but I'd need to get Gary and Warren's permission before I can go uploading their stuff. Also because this was just in the experimental stage some of the deck platforms I've done are quite rough. I'd need time to refine them unless anybody else wants to try. I'm about to start work on the Kitty Hawk deck tonight.

  18. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by TARPSBird View Post
    In the last couple pages this thread has gone to a tech level a bit over my head (easy to do) but let me throw this in...
    Hooky722 mentioned tweaking the platform count on Oriskany and I assume he's referring to the beta uploaded by Gary (gp183601) last year. Gary also uploaded a 1970's Midway which has the same problem with frame rates dropping off to almost a standstill as you taxi out of the wires and move forward past the island and the "crotch" (where the angle deck and forward flight deck intersect). This deck would also be a good candidate for whatever MCX magic can be worked to resolve the FR drop.
    Yes that's pretty much it and you'll be happy to know the Midway model your referring to has now been 're-platformed' taking with it the FR issues but I need to speak to Gary Before I can do anything with it! I was only tweaking it to test the theory initially I'll need his permission if i'm to release it. Same for Oriskney and Warren for the Forrestal and Kitty Hawk.

  19. #144
    Hooky, thanks for the update. Take the time to make whatever adjustments you need, I'm sure the originators of the carriers will give you the OK to upload your finished products.

  20. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by TARPSBird View Post
    Hooky, thanks for the update. Take the time to make whatever adjustments you need, I'm sure the originators of the carriers will give you the OK to upload your finished products.
    Hi All,
    Still no response from Warren or Gary at the moment I'm afraid guys but I shall keep working through the models and hopefully should have them all ready to go by the time these gents get back to me.

    Hooky

  21. #146
    Also what would make a good Plane guard for use with the 1969 Oriskney model? Or the '75 Midway for that matter Any thoughts?

    Has anybody done Any Static park's for Collin Glendinning's Korean War Essex carriers? would quite fancy some static Banshee's or Skyraiders for my early 50's Ops.

    Thanks,

    Hooky

  22. #147
    Charter Member 2015 delta_lima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Age
    53
    Posts
    3,427
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooky722 View Post
    Also what would make a good Plane guard for use with the 1969 Oriskney model? Or the '75 Midway for that matter Any thoughts?

    Has anybody done Any Static park's for Collin Glendinning's Korean War Essex carriers? would quite fancy some static Banshee's or Skyraiders for my early 50's Ops.

    Thanks,

    Hooky

    I use the SDB CVN-65 Enterprise SH3 Sea King that was included. White paint scheme. Is already an AI "boat" - so just drop into your formations and go. It features in my SimWorks Studios F-4b screens posted here.

    EDIT:


    Here's s shot ... on the CVN-65 ..


    http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...3&d=1432826005

    DL
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails SWS_F-4B_CALI_07.jpg  

  23. #148
    Aboard USS Oriskany in 1969 the plane guard helo would have been a UH-2C Seasprite from HC-1 Det 34. Aboard USS Midway in 1975 it would have been a SH-3G Seaking from HC-1 Det 2.

  24. #149
    It features in my SimWorks Studios F-4b screens posted here.
    Show off!!

    I have a motley collection of AI plane guards. The SDB SH-3 looks the business with prop splash and flashing strobes especially at dawn/dusk and as DL says is already an AI boat you can just spot in your AI Carriers cfg. I find the helo engine sound is neat when looking at the carrier from outside but hearing it approaching traps very unrealistic so I disabled it. I also have an S-58 Choctaw and HUP but both are pretty low poly/undetailed compared to the Sea King. What is missing is a good AI Seasprite, which as TARPSBird says is the correct guard for the Oriskany in '69.
    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.

  25. #150
    Charter Member 2015 delta_lima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Age
    53
    Posts
    3,427
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by expat View Post
    Show off!!
    Sorry - just from reading, I suppose it sounds that way. Was not meant that way at all. In fact, in light of the truly talented fellow testers that team, I feel like I should be taking the "short bus" to the flight line ...

    Yes, I'd be enthralled with an AI Seasprite. But it feels like just yesterday that all we had for FSX post war carriers was the Nimitz and the SH-60 for plane guard... so for me, the compromise is more than acceptable.

    Ex, I recall the sound discussion a while back - was there no way to lower/attenuate the sound? I still run it, and I love on it deck, but could do with it being quieter when from afar.

    cheers,

    dl

Members who have read this thread: 2

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
  •