New P3 Orion

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Smilo, Bloodhawk, Ivan, hello all,

Very interesting and varied comments. My own rather reduced technical knowledge on the different programmes and their (in)compatibilities has also been enhanced. Thank you very much!

It is interesting to see how different aspects of flightsimming in general and CFS1 in particular appeal to different people, and it is very pleasing to see how despite the limitations of both CFS1 and AF99, this interest, together with intriguing work-arounds and tweaking tricks to reduce the limitations, adds some spice and does indeed encourage and motivate those who strive to get a nice new model out for CFS1!
Thanks to all the work Ivan does, it keeps me going too!

As a sideline now I am converting one or two of the CFS1 models I made so that they work in FS98 to upload them on another page I used to upload my models to, as there is still some interest there as well! Not as much as here in SOH, but it´s there.

Today I got a message from one who would like a few modern airliners for FS98. I was surprised that someone was encouraging me to continue for FS98 too! I´d had no feedback there for 8 years, other than my friend who textures my FS98 models. So it makes one feel useful. Unfortunately I don´t like making modern airliners because thay all look very much alike. But anyway, it was encouraging and unexpected. Maybe I´ll make a stretched or shortened version of my Dreamliner for them some day!
At the moment this texturing friend and I are just finishing an update on an FS5 Starfighter for FS98, with a new model for the 2-seater, ...and fighting bleeds, as always...

Thankfully this activity of ours is very enjoyable in itself, and also thankfully, CFS1 and AF99 still work if installed on the correct computers! So we can consider ourselves quite lucky!

Using all kinds of tricks to achieve something really cool with what we work with, is indeed great!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
750 parts I´d have thought was still enough for the four nacelles plus the landing gear struts and flaps... unless you have other things in mind, of course.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[smilo]

wow...
my name used in the same sentence as Herve Devred.
i'm honored, but, let's get real.
i've only built one model
and it took well over a year.

i think it's clear that i'm a big fan of ad2k.
or, more accurately, was a big fan.
i haven't opened the program
for quite some time now.
i won't waste time here w
ith my many and varied reasons.

regarding the ad2k polygon count,
as i recall, i was unable to find the limit
and believe me, i pushed the envelope.
at the time, details seemed limitless.
although, i didn't have the time
to look into potential framerate issues.

it's true, textures are limited, but,
i believe that is due to cfs1
only accepting 256 x 256 bitmaps.
anything larger like 512 x 512
will cause the model to freeze
or not even show in the game.

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Post a screenshot of the Starfighter (F-104, right?) It is one of my favourites of the "modern" fighters. The F-4E Phantom, and F-8 Crusader are a couple others. I actually have debated on building a Phantom but... it's a jet and CFS doesn't handle guided missiles.
I don't know a thing about airliners other than having flown on a lot of them in the past. With modern airport security, I don't like to travel by air any more.

750 Parts are used in the model in the screenshots. That means there are at MOST 450 Parts left and the practical number is probably a bit less than that.
Also, there needs to be a lot more Glue Parts that are not in the Cowls, Spinners, or Propellers.
Flaps should take about 24 Parts if I do the inboard sections also, so there probably won't be any inboard Flaps at all.
Landing Gear Struts and Doors should also take a few of the scarce Parts and the inboard Nacelle will be more complicated than the outboard.
It WILL be very tight!


Hello Smilo,

I have taken much longer than a year to build a few of my projects. It is really a matter of how much time you really devote to it and how many other things intrude. Herve Devred's B-17 is a definite frame rate killer. I uninstalled it for that reason.
You may have built just one model thus far, but there are some folks who build a couple dozen models and none are very good.
Yours is superb!
I may come to bother you for help if I ever get started with AD2000.

- Ivan.

[smilo]

thank you, Ivan, for the high compliment.
coming from a master, such as yourself,
the compliment is high, indeed.

to be brutally honest,
i don't know if i would be any help
if you decided to pick up ad2k.
i've been away from it for quite a while
and with my old man memory loss,
i would be starting over from scratch.

looking back on it now,
i sure wish i would have completed
the a-20 and a couple other ad2k projects
that got set aside for whatever it was i forgot.

at this point, my main concern
is getting out and about
and taking in the sights
while i'm still able to move this body.
true, i may still be relatively healthy,
but, who knows how long that will last.
my friends at our fiftieth reunion and i
are starting to think and talk about AOD.
this may sound morbid, but, at my age,
the average age of death is rapidly approaching.
by my calculations, i have 14 years,
give or take a few years.
that doesn't leave much time
to sit on my ass building a model.
i'd rather go check out some museums,
archaeological sites and stuff like that
while i can still walk and see the things
i was never able to see when i was busy
working on being a responsible family man.

ooops, sorry about that...
smilo goes off on another
of his famous thread hijacking tangents.
that should teach you to think about
bringing me up in the discussion.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Smilo,

Hmmmm, I do wish you the best of luck. I wouldn´t worry too much about AOD - it´s law of nature. Who´d want to live forever anyway - too decrepid and possibly boring. The best is to be forever young, like in the beautifully haunting song by Alphaville. Maybe viewed from a larger scope our existence(s) is(are) indeed such, and I believe there´s interesting things beyond the threshold, so I don´t really care if I´m on the way out or not.

What is definitely true, and I absolutely second your opinion, is that one has to do as much of what one really wants at this age. Otherwise, what would be the whole point anyway?

I´m 64 and my memory fails badly if I have too many things to think about, and then there´s also a "plumbing issue" that is being attended to, which however seems not to be very serious and whose prospects seem to be very good, thanks to an Ecuatorian Palmtree Flower extract called BIRM, which appears to be boosting the immune system tremendously, and will most probably eliminate the necessity for any radical approach. Few know about this liquid and I´m led to believe that it is very successful. It´s easily Googled. Obviously it is constantly being discredited and under attack for obvious reasons.
Anyway, I´ll have to wait and see what happens in the next few months. I thought it would be good to mention this liquid, because at this age, the machine fails progressively, in different places for different people, like a lottery, the art being how to skive the bad parts. At any rate, someone else may benefit from this info.

This is all way off topic, isn´t it? The P3 Orion also seems to have its phylosophical facet, (whatever that may mean!) so it´s as good a place as any to talk about these things!

So that´s just by the by. Your Ad2K feat is definitely impressive, and I may get into it one day.
For the moment, however, I´m still too addicted to AF99!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
I understood this the wrong way around too! I see what you mean, it does seem to be cutting things a bit short. I´d prefer to have flaps in only two 2D parts myself, so have more for elsewhere, but that´s just my opinion.

I´m ging to try this weekend to get the top-view template of the nacelles shape right, and fit the 3 wing-parts correspondingly. Hopefully I can post a screenshot soon.

The Starfighter (guided missile, ha ha!) certainly seems to have been one heck of a remarkable thing - it´s more like an Atmospheric Spaceship or Rocket than a plane! For the moment here´s 2 screenshots of the TF104-G in NASA and Luftwaffe livery textured by Udo Entenmann. There´s also a beautiful metallic-and-orange USAF one, but I can´t find the picture at the moment.
BTW - what are these guys doing around lake Chelan anyway? It´s almost finished, and I´ll ask Udo if we can post it in the aircraft index here. Bleeds are a bit tough though, but well within the limit.

Update: I found the picture of the USAF one, it´s not orange and metallic, just metallic.
Incidentally, the TF104G two-seater model is a conversion of the single-seater FS98 upgrade I did of the FS5 Original RF104G by Michael Gurezka, just for the record...

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I see your Starfighter with the Tip Tanks, but I don't see any guided missiles (Sidewinders) mounted.
The Starfighter seemed to be entirely unsuccessful in combat. Its kill-loss ratio in Vietnam was on the losing side.
It surprised me a bit as well.
Its competition as a fighter for Europe was a rather beautiful aeroplane that never got the credit it deserved: The Grumman F11F Tiger.

For guided missiles, I was really referring to armament. Such is not implemented in CFS, so it would be almost purely a guns fight.

Regarding the Orion:
I added a test set of Cowl Components last night and put in the Glue for the Cowl / Intake / Propeller / Spinner.
THAT was a revelation. There are 8 Glue Parts for each Nacelle thus far and it is still far from complete.
I also realised that my Inner and Outer Cowls will have to be different Components. They will share a lot of the same Parts, but the Component itself will have to be different.

These Cowl Components in the model are just place holders.
They have no been built properly and are not really mirrored because of issues with mirrored and Opposite pieces in the Assembly sequence that I first discovered with the P-38 Lightning project.

Total Parts Count in the screenshots is 991 with 17 Components used.
I figure it needs at least another 8 Components.
With the Remaining Components, I will probably rebuild some of the Wheels which would save about 10 Parts per Wheel.
There are several rebuild options but some end up to be quite complicated and don't recover quite as many Parts.

Even with all the missing pieces, I believe this aeroplane already has "The Look" I was trying to achieve.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

I thought you were being funny by just calling the fighter jets "guided missiles" but OK, yes, I see. They are missing in CFS1 and Rockets aren´t enough for that.

I didn´t put in any missiles for the Starfighter for FS98 - no point really - and I forget if there were too many bleeds with the tip tanks or something... On the two-seater, the upload after the single seaters had wrong nose-wheel doors - the ones of the single-seater - and this has led to the present new improvement. Are you sure there´s interest for the model here?

I never got into fighter jets that much, and only "met" the little plastic ones that came with Cornflakes 55 years ago, and heard the sonic boom of the Lockheed Thunderjets in the Peruvian Airforce.

I had a look and saw the Grumman F11F you mentioned - yes, a sleek, strong looking design with good stance.

The F4E Phantom also looks like it has a "no-nonsense" look about it. I remember upgrading a similar-looking FS5 Douglas TA-4K Skyhawk for FS98 too. Your F8 Crusader is a bit reminiscent of the Corsair II - I just looked it up and saw in effect it was developed from it! Yes, they had nice designs!

Your Orion is definitely getting "The Look!" The one-piece wing is an asset, and I hope it works out well, because it allows 4 extra components for other important parts! Your description of the existing and following nacelle building processes is intriguing. As it´s turning out, it looks like the nacelles are one of the main things that gives the design its charisma.
I´m grabbing the arm rests on my chair watching the progress!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I was really never THAT interested in the missile armed fighters except when I was very young.
WW2 and the era of Gun Fighters was much more appealing.
I built my share of plastic models. In fact a couple days ago, I managed to break a Propeller Blade from a FW 190A I built when I was in my teens.
I hope I can repair it without it showing much. This model has been through a lot and it was the model I used to build my eyeball scale FW 190A for CFS.
It survived a lot of years without damage and lots of travel and finally gets the propeller broken by falling papers from a shelf.
It was not a great kit; it was a MPC issue of an old Airfix kit, but it had the look if not the detail.

I finally tried my assembly idea of the Orion on a single piece Wing. It did not work anywhere near as well as I had hoped, but it was worth the try.
Next comes the task of cutting the Wing into several pieces on each side. It won't actually take any more Components, but will cost another 20 Parts per side.
It will also make the Glue for Flaps much more complicated.

The Merlin Warhawk also wants some more attention. I think I end up working on which ever project is most fun and this part of the Orion will not be much fun.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
It does not look like there are too many bleeds... but one would need a few more viewing angles to establish that.
Is it your intention to make a 3-sectioned component for the wing?
Another question I would like to ask is if it is only spinners+props in Nose left/right, or also the forward nacelle sections,these being divided by the Nose/Wing left/right Templates from whatever is in the wing.

Anyway, I have applied the top outline using your very useful templates from your earllier-on e-mailed Orion to establish the correct nacelle cutouts for the wings (my nacelles were too wide from the leading edge to the exhaust), and I also applied the Wing-twist (longitudinal torsion?), as the new Nacelle side view didn´t match the slope. Now, with a positive angle of incidence inboard, the Nacelle slope towards the trailing edge coincides nicely.
I had to put lots of guide-lines along the wing reminicent of a Bricklayer´s strings to get the parts for the 3 wing components all lined up.
I didn´t put in an extra wing-part in the flat zone ahead of the ailerons and flaps because I have to save the parts for the time being, as I want (for the moment) to keep the animated surfaces.

What´s pleasing is that finally all wing-things are correctly placed! Next come the actual bodies of the nacelles.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

On my model, the Engine (Forward Nacelle ahead of the Leading Edge) and everything else ahead of the Wing Leading Edge is in the Nose-Left / Nose-Right Groups. There are no Template Parts to needed to get a good separation at least not on my model.
I COULD save another four Components by putting the Engine / Forward Nacelle in with the Exhaust / Lower Fairing but I am not short of Components at the moment.

The Wing Twist is called "Washout" if it is reduced incidence toward the Tip.
Cutting apart the Wing Sections isn't hard, but it will change the Wing from 10 Parts per side to 30 Parts per side.
I hesitate to describe more detail because whatever I describe now will probably not be true in a few days.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Thank you for your prompt reply!

OK, the way you are dividing it as of the leading edge is also better for me.

OK with the "washout" too. I remember the effect on an R/C plane I made was incredible! The outer wing wouldn´t stall at the same time as the rest of the wing, allowing more time to correct. I´d even added triangular wing-tips like on the Britten-Norman Islander adding even more washout, further increasing the effect.

No need for any more descriptions, don´t worry.

I didn´t know a component comprising 3 separated sections was possible. I thought the texture would cover the gaps and bleed through there, but it appears not to be the case. Live and learn!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I am not sure what you mean about a Component comprising three sections.
I can tell you that I have lots of interlaced Components in the Cowl of my P-40s and the effect generally works pretty well.

R/C aeroplanes don't quite follow the same rules as full sized aeroplanes. You can get away with a lot more because Drag is not really much of a factor and there is a LOT of power for the weight of the airframe. I have never built a R/C aeroplane, but it is pretty obvious by the way the landing gear and generally streamlining is done. Also the typical R/C aeroplane has a pretty small propeller and I don't think I have ever seen one with a controllable pitch propeller though I am sure there are a few. Yes, it is the same air, but the Reynolds numbers are way way different, sort of like using a Bumblebee as a model for a large transport aeroplane. They are just way too different.
The reason for the elaborate discussion regarding scale aerodynamic effects is that Washout tends to have its own drawbacks as well.
With a large amount of washout, there is no AoA at which the entire wing is operating a best efficiency. The alternative method of using different airfoil sections at the root and tip is probably a much more efficient idea. The P-38 Lightning wing is a good example in my opinion.
At least this is my understanding of how things work.

I actually don't really know how my version of the Orion will turn out yet. There are just not enough resources without some changes.
I just stopped by because I had to check online for a recipe for dinner.

Now Back to Cooking!
- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

Quote: >Next comes the task of cutting the Wing into several pieces on each side. It won't actually take any more Components, but will cost another 20 Parts per side.< Unquote.

This made me think that you were going to have a wing divided into 3 similar to mine but with the parts all only in one component. But whatever, it´s not important. I´ll wait and see what happens!

I understand what you say about washout and its drawbacks.
The R/C plane I built, was a high-wing "T"-Tail, like a cross between the Fokker Friendship and the DC-9.
I remember reading some basic proportion ranges and measurements for R/C models depending on what one was looking for, and I went for a stable but reasonably manoueverable design.
It had a 40-Inch wingspan, top-convex bottom-flat .air foil, with a discrete 2-degree washout, tapering to the wing-tip base to 2/3 of the 10-inch root chord. The leading edge went backwards and trailing edge went forwards.
The wingtips were triangular - pointed and sloped upward another 2 degrees at the trailing edge.
The thickness of the wing was about 1.5 inches at the root and a bit under an inch at the base of the wingtips. This was meant to make it safer before stalling, and worked surprisingly well.
There was a difference of 3 degrees angle of attack between Tailplane and Wing and the dihedral was about 2 degrees, to cater for self-stability at idle-power, hands off.
It the 2.5 cc engine was not excessively powerful for the design, as it was meant to fly, not just race through the air on a huge engine!
It really flew very well, although I never learnt to fly R/C properly. I was more interested in building just to see if it worked... typical!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

This made me think that you were going to have a wing divided into 3 similar to mine but with the parts all only in one component. But whatever, it´s not important. I´ll wait and see what happens!

Hello Aleatorylamp,

The explanation to this is actually pretty simple:

The current Wing uses the following Components:
1. Wing
2. Wing Tip
3. Inboard Nacelle Top
4. Inboard Nacelle Bottom
5. Outboard Nacelle Top
6. Outboard Nacelle Bottom

The replacement Wing would use the following Components:
1. Wing Inboard Section
2. Wing Middle Section
3. Wing Outboard Section
4. Wing Tip
5. Inboard Nacelle
6. Outboard Nacelle

It is the same number of Components with mostly the same Parts but the Top Surface of the Wing goes from 5 Parts to 5 Parts for each Section as does the Bottom Surface so it goes from 10 Parts to 30 Parts per side.

By the way, have you calculated the actual section thickness of the Wing Root and Wing Tip on your model? Perhaps your Tip actually had a Thicker section which would also have a pretty similar effect to the Washout.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

OK, now this makes sense, of course! (...and will possibly save my day without having to give up on my beloved moving control surfaces!). With the wing in 3 separate sections, it would allow for complete nacelle bodies, like the structures I had at first - with the simplified shapes, of course...

OK, so this way around it could indeed work. Funnily enough, I have 6 components left, the two extra ones possibly being for the wheel-compartments.

With the R/C model, you´re right! The wing had a more pronounced convexity on the top surface as it went outward to the wing-tip base. I couldn´t make them thinner because they would have been too flimsy. What I didn´t know is that this also had the effect of washout. That must have added even more to the forgiving flying style. Very interesting!

OK, then. I´ll see what happens with my 4 nacelle-components then! I´ve got the shape-templates in place now have to fill them in with parts!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
I thought I´d experiment with wires for the shape, just out of curiosity.
I made wires from the outline templates and put in some circles.
It looks a bit comic, ...if only the spaces filled themselves in automatically...
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Strangely enough, that is pretty much how I do things as well though usually I have a lot more lines and sometimes only on one side as to not be too confusing.

In general though, the wireframe shows a lot in the simulator but needs to be moved around to really show the shapes.
I don't post those screenshots much because without the movement, it is much less obvious what the actual shape is.
The Bulkheads / Frames usually get retained as templates, but the longitudinal Parts get thrown away and are usually named something like Y1....Y6 or X11....X16. I have no set naming pattern for these throwaway Parts.

Looks like it is coming along nicely.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Yes it seems a practical way to see things clearly.Thanks for the additional comments to this respect!
One thing that is not working at all is the gap in the area of the upper-scoop bottom and the cowling-top behind the propeller. Initially I´d already expected that, and thought it would require extra components for the upper scoops. I wonder...

Update Actually, thinking a bit further now, the impossibility of making a one-component nacelle with a physical gap between the upper scoop and the lower cowling is not really that important, as this can be shaded in on the texture. What´s important is the actual nacelle shape, which you have shown so well as to capture the "Look". This is then not only possible, but in my case at least, there are indeed enough resources left for it! Now I´m working my way backwards along the outer nacelle, fitting in the panels, and it´s going rather well, I must say!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

The outer nacelles are slowly getting their new shape improvement!

Although the bottom part is unfinished, I´ve textured the outer nacelles to see how the surface shows, because I´ve given them a partial concavity on the sides under the upper scoop, which can be seen from rear angles. The shading seems to work, and as soon as the lower scoop is shaped, it will pull the texture spread down to its correct position.

At the moment they only have 67 parts each - and I´m at 962 total parts (120.3%). Most of the lower part is still missing, but I think I´ll just be within the limits.

The new exhaust "opening" is now both vertical and slanted, not slanted throughout, and this is causing some problems, even with the lower flatter part inside the component, and not a coloured dark-grey insignia part. Nevertheless either of the two ways seem better than the original simplified slanted exhaust it had before.

Well, it seems to be going satisfactorily!

Update: not so much the lower scoops, though. The top ones are at the front and there´s nothing to bleed though forward of them, but these are further back and their opposite sides bleed through when viewed from forward angles... I´ll have to give them a less pronounced shape, possibly.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Even though you are using fewer polygons, I don't see that there is much to choose between your Nacelles and mine.
I am of course partial to mine but that is mostly because it is my own design.
I did a bit more poking around for photographs and found that the angle on a couple of my polygons is a bit off.
I will need to correct that soon.

It is such a shame to cut up a nice looking Wing but that is what will happen soon.
The Merlin Warhawk and a couple other projects are competing for time though.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,

One´s own children are always more beautiful than others´ ...even though the grass in the neighbour´s garden is usually greener than one´s own, and tea always tastes better in someone else´s house - that´s why I think your is better too, but thanks for your good words.

Time for the Merlin Warhawk... time for everything, no problem!
Meanwhile I´ll try some things out for the lower scoop. I´ve seen the bottom nacelle surface and the scoop are flatter on the photos than what I have, so that will stop the bleeds.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I didn't say that my Nacelles looked nicer. I just said I liked mine better mainly because I know what went into building them.
I spent a fair amount of time taking measurements off of many photographs to get there.
Does the result show??? Maybe....

The Inboard Landing Gear Fairing is actually pretty near square on the bottom but the Outboard Fairing is not.
The nice thing about the Orion as a subject is that there are so many photographs of it that if you are looking for a particular detail, you are very likely to find it eventually in a large resolution photograph.

The Orion was getting some serious objections from my design staff. Their comments were "Why are we spending so much time on a project that doesn't meet any of our normal design criteria and that none of us have any real interest in?" The original idea was to test the idea of a single piece Wing and that idea turned out to be pretty much a complete failure already.
Some of the Paint Shop staff already departed to work on the Merlin Warhawk a long time ago.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
I do know what you meant about your nacelles - but I think they are better shaped anyway, and exactly for the reasons you mention!

With regard to your one-piece-wing experiment, it is as good a reason as any to undertake something. I could thankfully benefit from a large part of this! Anyway, nothing is perfect in this life, and especially not in AF99, but at least the experiments are interesting, mostly leading to some sort of beneficial result.

Similar is my one-piece component idea: There is absolutely no way of achieving a bleed-free lower scoop.

I threaten my workers with putting them on chains and getting a slave driver with a whip. They might also have the syndicate dynamite the workshop and go and work for the Tu-95 people next door, why not...

Before doing all that, however, I will try what I did for the AT-9 Jeep´s lower scoop, which should give me a plausible-enough shape: A keystone-cross-sectioned bottom-only structure, glued underneath the nacelle, and with a black insignia opening in turn glued to its front.
Then, after this, the two different shapes lower-nacelle shapes that you point out should not be much of a problem to implement.

You know about the stupid bug with keystone structures, don´t you? You have to build one along the centreline, and then push it position, cloning as many as needed.

There actually used to be a pretty wide-spread BAO Flightshop/AF99 style at the turn of the century, involving a centre-line building-system and pushing everything into position afterwards.

Anyway, we shall see!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp