SOH Team Project - Grumman Tracker, Trader, Tracer

[Milton Shupe]

Milton,

The link in MGR's post is for the FAA Type cetrificate data sheet, which contains a lot of performance data, includung weights, CG, and speeds. Still looking for more.

Here's the link. http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...FILE/A51NM.pdf

Dave

Ah, that's great! I missed this one.
Thanks to your both.

[p3aewguy]

Ah, that's great! I missed this one.
Thanks to your both.

Milton,

Sadly Marsh Aviation doesn't have a website and some articles detail some trouble they were in with the State Department over exporting problems in 2010 . I found a Type certificate data sheet stating that the Type Certificate was sold to the California Fire Authority in 2009. Maybe Tankerguy72 or another forum member knows someone working there (CalFire) who could loan a supplemental flight manual (S2F-3T Flight Manual Supplement/Pilot Operating Handbook 3-DE6105 dated May 13, 1997) which will list the performance data for the Turbo Tracker.

If there's a forum member in Mesa Arizona who could check Falcon Field and maybe touch base with Marsh (if they're still there).......

I'm pretty much up against the wall, research wise.

Dave

[Milton Shupe]

Milton,

Sadly Marsh Aviation doesn't have a website and some articles detail some trouble they were in with the State Department over exporting problems in 2010 . I found a Type certificate data sheet stating that the Type Certificate was sold to the California Fire Authority in 2009. Maybe Tankerguy72 or another forum member knows someone working there (CalFire) who could loan a supplemental flight manual (S2F-3T Flight Manual Supplement/Pilot Operating Handbook 3-DE6105 dated May 13, 1997) which will list the performance data for the Turbo Tracker.

If there's a forum member in Mesa Arizona who could check Falcon Field and maybe touch base with Marsh (if they're still there).......

I'm pretty much up against the wall, research wise.

Dave

Good points Dave. TG?

[Milton Shupe]

Mgr has pointed out that the clarity of the fuselage artwork is a bit lacking (my words), and asked if we should consider remapping for better resolution.

The paint kit for the E-1B is done so I would not ask for a redo on that aircraft paint kit.

Nick has not yet jumped into the S2F-3 paint kit so I would like to hear some feedback/input regarding remapping the S2F-3 fuselage (and future variants) to a higher resolution standard.

This means of course, that all of you who jumped in to do your own paint scheme, that would work on your current model of the S2F-3, but the newer model remapped would have to be revisited to reapply your work.

What say you?

Given the many paint schemes out there and the plethora of nose and window area artwork, should we remap for higher resolution?

[tankerguy72]

Milton,

Sadly Marsh Aviation doesn't have a website and some articles detail some trouble they were in with the State Department over exporting problems in 2010 . I found a Type certificate data sheet stating that the Type Certificate was sold to the California Fire Authority in 2009. Maybe Tankerguy72 or another forum member knows someone working there (CalFire) who could loan a supplemental flight manual (S2F-3T Flight Manual Supplement/Pilot Operating Handbook 3-DE6105 dated May 13, 1997) which will list the performance data for the Turbo Tracker.

If there's a forum member in Mesa Arizona who could check Falcon Field and maybe touch base with Marsh (if they're still there).......

I'm pretty much up against the wall, research wise.

Dave

Ill ask some of the Tanker pilots and see what I can come up with, but I cant guarantee anything

[AndyG43]

Given the many paint schemes out there and the plethora of nose and window area artwork, should we remap for higher resolution?

Is the need for higher resolution to accomodate the needs of FSX? In my opinion it is no bad thing, map to as high a resolution as possible then shrink to fit - but I'm not a guru, just a dabbler, so that opinion may be invalid.

[Wings of Gold]

The time to remap to support higher resolutions is now - not later. Speaking of FSX, I mentioned (awhile back) that the Concorde nose function does not work in FSX. Do we need to avoid any animations that use that function now - or can that be remaped later, when the FSX version is done? Milton: It looks simply superb!! Bill

[falcon409]

Is the need for higher resolution to accommodate the needs of FSX? In my opinion it is no bad thing, map to as high a resolution as possible then shrink to fit - but I'm not a guru, just a dabbler, so that opinion may be invalid.

Mapping to as high a resolution as possible for FSX (4096x4096 is what I usually do repaints in) is a nice idea, but what I've found is that sometimes folks want one of my repaints reduced to fit the FS9 format of 1024x1024 and by the time I reduce it (saved in 32bit for best clarity) the details are gone. So I don't see an advantage in doing textures oversized and then reducing as all that nice detail work you just did, won't remain. Another thing that degrades those even further is that a lot of folks don't like 32bit for some reason, so they request DXT3 which renders even less detail. So in summary, doing oversized textures to get as much detail as possible, only to reduce them to fit a relatively small texture size is wasted effort.

[p3aewguy]

Mapping to as high a resolution as possible for FSX (4096x4096 is what I usually do repaints in) is a nice idea, but what I've found is that sometimes folks want one of my repaints reduced to fit the FS9 format of 1024x1024 and by the time I reduce it (saved in 32bit for best clarity) the details are gone. So I don't see an advantage in doing textures oversized and then reducing as all that nice detail work you just did, won't remain. Another thing that degrades those even further is that a lot of folks don't like 32bit for some reason, so they request DXT3 which renders even less detail. So in summary, doing oversized textures to get as much detail as possible, only to reduce them to fit a relatively small texture size is wasted effort.

I tend to agree. The 2048 x 2048 format seems best for both worlds (FS9 and FSX) Just my 2 cents worth.

Dave

Edit: The use of DXT3 helps on older/weaker computers with respect to frame rate and loading. With my previous computer, I had to convert exclusivel to DXT3 or my video in FS was jerky or the video crashed completely.

[AndyG43]

Another thing that degrades those even further is that a lot of folks don't like 32bit for some reason, so they request DXT3 which renders even less detail.

I think that is just habit, it wasn't too long ago that 32 bit textures caused the dreaded stutters, but I think most people now have PCs that are more than capable; I've decided I'm doing all my repaints in 32bit, if people want DXT3 then they will be able to convert it themselves. DXT3 should be left for AI now - again, my opinion.

[hawkeye52]

OK, I finally shoved real life into a corner so I could get some Sim time.

Milton, regarding the latest S2F-3 --
1. I changed [exits] to =2 and presto, the weapons bay opens
2. After some experimenting, changed [folding_wings] \ fold_rate to = 0.06, 0.07. That seems to be a good compromise between the real rate and smoothness. Folks should adjust the fold rate to their taste.

QUESTION -- can provision be made for the searchlight to operate?


Regarding the latest E-1B --
1. As in the Stoof, I changed [folding_wings] \ fold_rate to = 0.06, 0.07.
2. Don't forget to add the CSD air scoops
3. Are there animations in addition to crew door, wing fold and tail hook?
4. There is a protrusion on the lower starboard fuselage which looks like a stowed trailing wire antenna (TWA). If it is, and if you have animation tags available, would you consider animating it? That would be a "first" in FS!!!
In the event a TWA is provided, you may wish to couple the data-link antenna to the TWA such that they are both deployed/stowed simultaneously. Just a thought; don't want to cause you grief!


Finally, the Nit-Picking Department
The fuel-dump pipes are offset inboard from the nacelle centerlines. Is moving them a quick fix?
- H52
Attachment 49702

[hawkeye52]

Indeed it is!Attachment 49703

[Matt Wynn]

Milton Crazy idea here, if we cut the fuselage in half, what we can do then is get higher res and all me and Nick have to do is to cut our masters in half at the same point.... then it's a simple case of a rapid trace (2 or 3 days) and we're back in business....

[Milton Shupe]

The time to remap to support higher resolutions is now - not later. Speaking of FSX, I mentioned (awhile back) that the Concorde nose function does not work in FSX. Do we need to avoid any animations that use that function now - or can that be remaped later, when the FSX version is done? Milton: It looks simply superb!! Bill

WoG, A native FSX version is being done by euroastar350 so no need to worry about the Concorde Nose animation.

Thanks for the heads-up though. :-)

[Milton Shupe]

The time to remap to support higher resolutions is now - not later. Speaking of FSX, I mentioned (awhile back) that the Concorde nose function does not work in FSX. Do we need to avoid any animations that use that function now - or can that be remaped later, when the FSX version is done? Milton: It looks simply superb!! Bill

Is the need for higher resolution to accomodate the needs of FSX? In my opinion it is no bad thing, map to as high a resolution as possible then shrink to fit - but I'm not a guru, just a dabbler, so that opinion may be invalid.

My apologies Gentlemen as I was not clear.

When I map for higher res, I do not mean the size of the map, I mean how much aircraft to put in the texture width to get more pixels per inch of map/texture.

We are looking at doubling the pixels per inch to improve resolution.

BTW, the paint kit is being done at 2048 for most body parts.