Yak9T - collectors version.. LOL

**bearcat241** · January 18th, 2016, 16:49

I use Paint.net and Gimp for all the gauge image modifications. These programs work well enough with FS Panel Studio.

**gaucho_59** · January 18th, 2016, 17:13

Originally Posted by bearcat241

I use Paint.net and Gimp for all the gauge image modifications. These programs work well enough with FS Panel Studio.

How do you get the bmp out of the mlx gauge file? The GauBMP changes the gau to bmp... and reverses it... using a paint program as editor... I use PSP8 or PHOTOSHOP...
I am interested to know how you get the bmp file out of a gauge mlx... never hurts to know another way to skin a cat... lol
G.

**msfossey** · January 18th, 2016, 18:55

Morton, your work looks amazing. Thank you for making these available to us.

msfossey

**gaucho_59** · January 18th, 2016, 20:11

never really used it... exchanging ideas with you I checked it and see that it is REALLY nice... and will start using it to modify and create gauges...
Thanks for the inadvertent tip... I was using ConfigEdit and gauBMP.... and this panel studio makes a lot more sense to me now...
I guess I was so used to those two freebies I never used what I already had in my computer... FS Panel studio really offers a lot more latitude...
Thanks again for "teaching an old dog new tricks"... lol

Cheers,
G.

***Rami*** · January 19th, 2016, 01:16

Hello all,

Boy, this thread has really gotten active. After having read this, I need to clarify a couple of points.

1) Morton and Gaucho_59, let's take a deep breath here. Both of you are very talented, and both of you have been civil to this point, despite your disagreements on this. We have a very small band of CFS2 brothers now, and with SOH needing to raise money, we need to support one another, not tear each other apart.

2) A more tactful suggestion in the future is to start a new thread if you are providing an alternate panel or other major item as an adjunct or compliment to someone else's release. Although not intended to one-up their work, to put in that user's existing thread can be perceived as rivet-counting or thread hijacking. Many of us work hard trying to improve CFS2, and we all have our talents, but just remember that we don't want to step on anyone else's toes, either.

Let's settle this before things really roll downhill, please.

**Fibber** · January 19th, 2016, 05:18

**kelticheart** · January 20th, 2016, 00:51

Originally Posted by Rami

Hello all,

Boy, this thread has really gotten active. After having read this, I need to clarify a couple of points.

1) Morton and Gaucho_59, let's take a deep breath here. Both of you are very talented, and both of you have been civil to this point, despite your disagreements on this. We have a very small band of CFS2 brothers now, and with SOH needing to raise money, we need to support one another, not tear each other apart.

2) A more tactful suggestion in the future is to start a new thread if you are providing an alternate panel or other major item as an adjunct or compliment to someone else's release. Although not intended to one-up their work, to put in that user's existing thread can be perceived as rivet-counting or thread hijacking. Many of us work hard trying to improve CFS2, and we all have our talents, but just remember that we don't want to step on anyone else's toes, either.

Let's settle this before things really roll downhill, please.

Yeah, here we go again.........

**Morton** · January 21st, 2016, 00:32

Gaucho, a final word on this matter.

It's nice of you call me an artist, but I'm no such thing. Hell.. I'm an engineer in the Air Force. Actually I think you are more into the graphic business than me. But the disagreement about panels/textures we can do nothing about.

Positive criticisme however is welcome.

Secondly I want to clearify something. As I said this is not about any copyright. Because there's none. But when you crash the party with comments on poor artwork etc etc, I feel the need to explain something. In CFS2 it's a good idea to keep the filesize down to reduce the load on the graphic engine. It's no problem to make 24 bit bitmaps with millions of colors. However in CFS2 panel bitmaps are often optimized to 8 bit palettes giving only 256 colors. For a 1680x1050 bitmap this decreases the file from 5100 Kb to 1700 Kb! This will of course reduce the quality of the bitmap considerably, but it's a compromise. So this should explain at least some of the reasons why your pictures are prettier than mine. The rest has to be blamed on me..

cheers
Morton

**gaucho_59** · January 21st, 2016, 01:13

I can let you in on a little trick with PSP to reduce size and maintain detail even in 256 colors... No charge... absolutely gratis...lol
(ending up with no more than 1 mb files)
Cheers,
G.

**miamieagle** · January 21st, 2016, 12:47

Thank you!

**Captain Kurt** · January 21st, 2016, 22:10

Originally Posted by gaucho_59

The disposition of the bezels is exactly where they should be... in order to use this type of bmp background... one must have the proper Russian dials.... WITHOUT... screws, bezels, etc....
just the circular face... (as they are quite faithfully reproduced in the surface detail of the panel I create) I do not use the standard instruments that belong with Hellcats, Corsairs, etc. Those are really meant for a panel without any surface details..
(they are included with the gauge file... but generally quite crudely executed) and indeed, if you use those... they seem to hang in the air ... out of place so to speak...
However, if you fish around... there are many sets of gauges that do not include bezels... they are just circular faces...
or (as I do in my aircraft)... I revise those "WHOLE" gauges and eliminate outside details that are too crude for my taste... sometimes, I make a more realistic gauge bmp... and make the panel without surface details like screws, etc.'
putting a lot of artwork into the gauge bmp itself... In sum... I enjoy tinkering with the art work...
I seek to produce panels that "look more realistic in the sim"... (for my taste) trying to go with photographs or good drawings that do so...
So, in the final analysis, moving the bar would do no justice to the artistic effort put through... and, at any rate, in this case, there are no flight instruments behind the bar... so it would be a lot of work for nothing...
Notice that the original bmp on the panel loaded with the aircraft... the artwork is pretty poor... like a copy, of a copy, of a copy... devoid of the details that make a panel "come alive"...
so the result is "sharp instruments" (in the gauges) surrounded by rather crude artwork... At any rate... it is a matter of one's taste.... I see a panel that looks like that and try to do some "plastic surgery" to make it
look more "realistic" (not really... if one wants realism... there is no substitute for a good sharp photo... lol)

If one uses a program like GauBMP... it is very easy to change "whole" gauges to suit anyone's desires... like eliminate the bezels and the screws...which has no effect in the gau function at all... and can be adapted to any panel...
often times... gauges have Phillips screws... which were not invented until the 1940s... and are supposed to be used on an aircraft of the 30s...etc.
In my FS2004 thread I did some tutuorials on how to change gaude bmps...

Cheers,
G.

I was curious about the comment regarding Phillips head screws. According to what I could find the Phillips screw was invented in the early 1930s, and manufacturing started in 1935. Use of the screw quickly spread throughout the automotive manufacturers and by 1939 only 2 manufacturers were not using it. By 1940 all manufacturers were using them although one still used slotted heads on passenger cars. 85% of all the fastener manufacturers were making them and 10 foreign manufacturers had purchased licenses. ( I couldn't discover which ones though)

Evidently aircraft manufacturers in the USA also adopted the screw about the same time. I found two specific references to prove it.

The first is from the J3 Cub forum:

"The slotted head screw story is an example of repeating something often enough until it becomes the truth. Piper used Phillips head screws way back, pre-war. Interesting in the video at 3:01 they show the well known photo of the L-4A or B instrument panel that is loaded with phillips head screws."

The second is from the US Army Air Force:

PROOF DEPARTMENT
ARMY AIR FORCES PROVING GROUND COMMAND
EGLIN FIELD, FLORIDA
FINAL REPORT
ON
TACTICAL SUITABILITY OF THE P-38F TYPE AIRPLANE
6 March 1943

m. Maintenance.
(3) Considerable time is being lost due to difficulties in removing inspection panels throughout the airplane structure. It is believed that a great percentage of these panels could be installed with dzus fasteners which could then be removed in a matter of seconds and not hours. All panels now installed with Phillips head screws have a tendency to freeze making their removal impossible without the aid of an easy-out tool.
(8) Inspection plate be installed to allow inspection in rear of instrument panels. At present there are ninety-six (96) Phillips’ head screws that have to be removed to perform inspections or maintenance work on instruments.

I think the statement that slotted head screws were used is correct at least for German aircraft. I found a comment from the group rebuilding the Me-262 on the advice they were getting from the Messerschmitt Foundation:

"Overall, though, the team has stuck as closely as possible to the real thing. While aluminum would have been lighter, the skin was made of steel, like the skin on the originals—a concession to wartime aluminum shortages. The instrument panel was made from plywood, as were the landing gear doors. The use of Phillips-head screws seemed like a reasonable substitute, but guests from the Messerschmitt Foundation, who planned to make a flying copy of the Me 262 the centerpiece of their collection of Willi Messerschmitt-designed airplanes, insisted that slotted screws, identical to those in the original, be used.

Read more: http://www.airspacemag.com/military-...m99LchSh7FH.99
Save 47% when you subscribe to Air & Space magazine http://bit.ly/NaSX4X

Follow us: @AirSpaceMag on Twitter"

I couldn't find references for British, Russian, or Japanese aircraft. But at least the American WWII aircraft did use Phillips screws.

**kelticheart** · January 22nd, 2016, 00:42

[

Originally Posted by Captain Kurt

I was curious about the comment regarding Phillips head screws. According to what I could find the Phillips screw was invented in the early 1930s, and manufacturing started in 1935. Use of the screw quickly spread throughout the automotive manufacturers and by 1939 only 2 manufacturers were not using it. By 1940 all manufacturers were using them although one still used slotted heads on passenger cars. 85% of all the fastener manufacturers were making them and 10 foreign manufacturers had purchased licenses. ( I couldn't discover which ones though)

Evidently aircraft manufacturers in the USA also adopted the screw about the same time. I found two specific references to prove it.

The first is from the J3 Cub forum:

"The slotted head screw story is an example of repeating something often enough until it becomes the truth. Piper used Phillips head screws way back, pre-war. Interesting in the video at 3:01 they show the well known photo of the L-4A or B instrument panel that is loaded with phillips head screws."

The second is from the US Army Air Force:

PROOF DEPARTMENT
ARMY AIR FORCES PROVING GROUND COMMAND
EGLIN FIELD, FLORIDA
FINAL REPORT
ON
TACTICAL SUITABILITY OF THE P-38F TYPE AIRPLANE
6 March 1943

m. Maintenance.
(3) Considerable time is being lost due to difficulties in removing inspection panels throughout the airplane structure. It is believed that a great percentage of these panels could be installed with dzus fasteners which could then be removed in a matter of seconds and not hours. All panels now installed with Phillips head screws have a tendency to freeze making their removal impossible without the aid of an easy-out tool.
(8) Inspection plate be installed to allow inspection in rear of instrument panels. At present there are ninety-six (96) Phillips’ head screws that have to be removed to perform inspections or maintenance work on instruments.

I think the statement that slotted head screws were used is correct at least for German aircraft. I found a comment from the group rebuilding the Me-262 on the advice they were getting from the Messerschmitt Foundation:

"Overall, though, the team has stuck as closely as possible to the real thing. While aluminum would have been lighter, the skin was made of steel, like the skin on the originals—a concession to wartime aluminum shortages. The instrument panel was made from plywood, as were the landing gear doors. The use of Phillips-head screws seemed like a reasonable substitute, but guests from the Messerschmitt Foundation, who planned to make a flying copy of the Me 262 the centerpiece of their collection of Willi Messerschmitt-designed airplanes, insisted that slotted screws, identical to those in the original, be used.

Read more: http://www.airspacemag.com/military-...m99LchSh7FH.99
Save 47% when you subscribe to Air & Space magazine http://bit.ly/NaSX4X

Follow us: @AirSpaceMag on Twitter"

I couldn't find references for British, Russian, or Japanese aircraft. But at least the American WWII aircraft did use Phillips screws.

Thank you for the exhaustive explanation Captain Kurt!

MVG3d told me a few months back that instruments on Italian Regia Aeronautica aircraft panels were installed with slotted screws as well. All screws used on Italian WWII aircraft were of the slotted head type. Phillips head screws were brought over here by the U.S. Armed Forces through their vehicles and military equipment.

They were virtually unknown by ground crews here before 1943, apart from those who happened to work on very few captured US aircraft.

KH

**gaucho_59** · January 22nd, 2016, 07:11

(from biographical data on who invented the cross-slotted screws):

"After failing to interest manufacturers, Thompson sold his self-centering design to Phillips in 1935.[4] Phillips formed the Phillips Screw Company in 1934. After refining the design himself (U.S. Patent #2,046,343, U.S. Patents #2,046,837 to 2,046,840) for the American Screw Company of Providence, Rhode Island, Phillips succeeded in bringing the design to industrial manufacturing and promoting its rapid adoption as a machine screw standard.[5] One of the first customers was General Motors who used the innovative design in 1936 for its Cadillac assembly-lines. By 1940, 85% of U.S. screw manufacturers had a license for the design.[6] Due to failing health, Phillips retired in 1945. He died in 1958.(Mr. Phillips)"

Obviously, it seems that Japanese, German, etc. airplanes did not used them... or made very sparse use of them.... and from the 1943 date of USAAC data cited... probably their use was not so successful for a bit after introduction... and their use in inspection panels was apparently questioned... in sum, certain gauges in our midst should probably be corrected...

G.