"How can one edit the post title? I wanted to say "normal" instead of "norlal"..."
from my experience,
sorry, you can't...
at least, i've never been able to do it.
"How can one edit the post title? I wanted to say "normal" instead of "norlal"..."
from my experience,
sorry, you can't...
at least, i've never been able to do it.
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
Hi Ivan,
I hardly expected such good results in so little time! The plane is now fantastic to fly, thanks very much! I tested if for manoueverability, power, climbing etc., and it performs very well all round! It is very nicely balanced - so much better than I was able to manage.
The climbs are also coherent with the specs as far as I could tell, and itīs interesting now how the pitch behaves at the different speeds you mention. Indeed an achievement, which Iīm sure a lot of simmers will appreciate!
In another order of things, however, the transparent canopy is giving me trouble with bleedthrough, which is by no means down to an acceptable minimum yet. We shall see!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Hi Smilo!Originally Posted by smilo
Here I was so absorbed with the .air file back-and-forth, I almost overlooked your post - so thereīs no backing away from a mistake there! Ha! Iīm glad I didnīt put an "i" instead of an "l" in the word "title" in the title...
Hope allīs well with the new computer!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Hello Smilo,
I guess changing a post title is different from changing a thread title because I know you have done that before.
I take it you didn't see the email I sent to you a couple weeks ago about finding a lot of drawings of he Martin Baltimore.
Take Care.
- Ivan.
Hello Aleatorylamp,
Glad you like the almost complete AIR file. Please feel free to use it. It WAS intended for your aircraft.
Keep in mind though that it isn't quite done yet
It also should not have War Emergency Power as it does now.
The overspeed and dive characteristics have still not been tested.
I believe the trim should be slightly more nose up so that it is neutral at about 175 mph or so.
The Flap values should be adjusted a bit so that the drag is higher and so that the aircraft pitches down more when flaps are deployed.
It seems a bit easier to fly than it should but I am not really sure what its nasty characteristics were.
I believe that a lot of the issues you ran into with your version of the AIR file were caused by some strange characteristics that were in the Zep-R6 AIR file that you started from. That is why I thought it was a good idea to start from the stock P-51D. (It was also an opportunity to run through the build process for the first time and not everything was listed that needed to be done.)
Things are still evolving....
- Ivan.
Hi Ivan,
Yes, not to worry, I realize itīs not the definitive .air file yet, and Iīll fine-adjust the attitude for 175mph and the flaps pitching effect as you say.
Iīm actually quite pleased that it doesnīt have the nasty characteristics it was reputed to have, so thatīs fine too!
Also, as regards WEP, I mistakenly thought the aircraft had WEP as Iīd mis-read an ex AT-9 traineesī comment about an instructor who on final approach had suddenly simulated an emergency in combat by pulling the power on one of the engines. Iīd thought heīd pulled the WEP on one of the engines, but he just pulled one of the throttles, de-stabilizing the aircraft instantly.
OK, thank you for your continued efforts. When I upload the plane it will be with your .air file!
Regarding the transparent cabin... Oh dear! The more I muck around with it, the more I like my textured shading on the windows!!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Hello Aleatorylamp,
I also did some messing around with the AIR File last night. Check your email again.
Added is the Pitch Down effect of deploying Flaps, so on final approach, it is distinctly nose down though not as bad as looking out the top window. With such a short nose on this aeroplane, I bet it DID look like it was pitched down a bit more than it really was.
I started to increase the Flap Drag as well, but stopped way short of making the aeroplane unable to maintain altitude at maximum power. The numbers I had to use were getting a bit unrealistic.
At 70% power, it barely maintains altitude and even above that setting, it is very difficult to gain altitude with full flaps though it is possible to take off with full flaps deployed.
I adjusted the trim slightly so that now it has neutral pitch trim at 175 MPH which it achieves with 75% Throttle and full RPM.
In case I forget to tell you later, the Trim adjustments are the following:
Lateral: 2 Notches Right Wing Down.
Directional: 1 Notch Right Rudder
Longitudinal: Varies a lot more with Airspeed. It is NOT easy to trim to fly hands off which is the way I thought it should be.
I also adjusted the High Speed controls a bit, especially for the Elevator and made some Low Speed adjustments for the Ailerons.
Hopefully this is an improvement.
It seems such a shame to intentionally screw up a nicely flying flight model though....
- Ivan.
Hi Ivan,
Thanks for the newest .air file. Iīve just tried it out a bit more:
1) Full-power take-off with 1 notch of flaps, slight rotation and lift-off at 120 mph.
2) Approach with 50% power and last-but-one flap notch at 135 kt
Keeping the same settings:
3) Final approach at 130 kt
4) Raise nose slightly and touch-down at 120 mph
5) Throttle back to idle-power
6) Retract flaps to prevent lifting off again
7) Slowly lower tail
Touchdown can also be at lower speeds, with the advantage of not having to retract flaps before lowering the tail to prevent lift-off, but at higher speeds control is better, which is completely realistic.
The .air file I feel fits the air craft very well!
Thanks again
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Hello Aleatorylamp,
Seems like it works well for you. As I commented in the email, I typically used lower power settings when landing.
I also try to a full stall 3-point lading so there isn't enough lift for a serious bounce. With full flaps this isn't very easy because the aeroplane starts to get very wobbly at the stall.
Loops are not very easy even now because at the top of the loop, there is very little airspeed. The loop has to be started at very near the maximum level speed to go over the top easily.
The general maneuverability is what I will be checking out now though I really don't have much to use as a guide other than a comment that it was fully aerobatic.
Let me know if you find other issues.
- Ivan.
Hi Ivan,
I was further trying out the new .air file, and everything seems to be ship-shape.
With loops it usually makes it over the top between 90 and 105 kt, which seems fine, and then it comes out nicely at the bottom without losing too much height, which is also good. Rolls and inverted flight are fine too.
Depending on the approach angle, I found 20% throttle to be good for steeper angles with 3 points of flap, as otherwise height loss is too much - which on the other hand is fine if you are close to the threshhold. Anyway, the need for power on approach is definitely consistent from the reports on the plane.
The .air file is very good all round, so Iīd say it is the definitive version!!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Hello Aleatorylamp,
Most of this text is also in your email, but I thought it would be worthwhile to post it here as well for folks who may be following along. I typed this before I saw your post this morning.
I did some more testing of the AIR file last night.
Here is what I found out:
Initial Climb Rate is between 1610 and 1615 FPM at TAS of 131-132 MPH. Aeroplane is very stable, so trimming for about 135 MPH might work better even though the climb rate drops a bit. This climb rate was checked at around 200 feet altitude . By 500 feet, aircraft is below 1600 FPM.
I typically line up way way out and drag the thing in at low power and a fairly high rate of descent.
The problem is that this method is a bit less predictable because the descent rate varies quite a lot depending on flaps and especially engine power. The aeroplane also gets VERY wobbly directionally with low speed and full flaps and is always barely stable longitudinally.
Your method of 50% power and dragging it in pretty much level with a low rate of descent is the better method and historically more correct. The flare is a lot longer though.
Also worth noting is that in my opinion, the directional stability is a bit too high and that directional control at low speed is a bit low. It is nicely coordinated for take-off but not so much when lining up for landing.
To go over the top at around 100 knots, you must be entering the loop a bit faster than I am doing. I typically don't exceed 75 MPH and have even made it at around 40 MPH with an entry speed of around 185 MPH.
Glad it works for you.
- Ivan.
Hi Ivan,
Yes! I was diving a little before entering the loop!
Fine - I think Iīll repeat some of my e-mail reply here too - it may be of general interest as well.
I think the .air file now has a nice balance between realism and simming practicality.
Climb: A good rate of climb I think is fine for the model! I would leave it at this and not lower it. Anyway, itīs very good at 1600 fpm initially at about 200 ft. it goes down enough a bit higher up!
Directional stability: I had the feeling that in its present state, the need for certain speed and hence power during approach and landing, and also the (consequent) wobbliness at low speed, coincide very nicely with reports on the handling of the real plane, and I would be inclined to favour the low directional control at low speed as well. One thing is the stall at 80 mph, quite another being the low directional control - thatīs probably why there was a normative not to fly the plane below 110 mph.
The .air file comes quite close, I feel, and I think also it would complicate things too much moving the CoG backwards, so Iīd prefer to leave it as it is!
Iīm still working on the transparent canopy, which is not so easy because as it sits in
and not on the fuselage, the rear being flush with the aft fuselage top.
However, following the sequence in your Lightning J I think Iīll be able to do it!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Last edited by aleatorylamp; July 21st, 2015 at 09:44.
Hi all, Hi Ivan,
After many different approaches, finally I think Iīve arrived at a satisfactory transparent cabin. There are no parts designated as interior view, so a standard SCASM correction of the virtual cockpit later will suffice.
For the time being, and while I get other little details polished up, hereīs some eye candy - 2 close-ups of the tinted glass cabin, one general shot and an interior virtual cockpit view.
In a few days I hope the definitive Fledgeling will be ready for upload!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Hi Ivan!
I forgot the nav-lights... I think it would be a red one on the fuselage just behind the cabin, then the usual one on each wing-tip, and then three formation lights in a row under the fuselage just aft of the wings, but I donīt know the colours of these.
Should nav-lights be important, Iīd have to add them and send you the plane again, but if they arenīt I can just include the red and green in the textures on the wingtips, which I have often seen done!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Hello Aleatorylamp,
You have the latest AFX at this point. After moving the CoG, I did nothing else to the AFX, so you have the latest.
I looked through the MPI files for content and from what I can tell, the markers are a form of Hash and since I don't know how they are generated, there is no way I can edit them.... SO... With the new model, the old animation would be lost.
Please add the pieces you want. I will hold off on editing the model until I get another copy unless you want to do things differently. I am sure you noticed already, but I changed the shade of the Canopy Glass so I could see inside better for bleeds and also changed a few Parts to Insignia as we were discussing.
I have pretty good confidence that the results of an edit of the assembly sequence will be a pleasant surprise.
- Ivan.
Hi Ivan,
Thanks a lot for your work! Iīll have a look at the changes in the new AFX! It will be interesting.
Not to worry about the animations - I can do them again easily as many times as necessary. No difficulty!
OK, so then Iīll add the Nav-lights and send you the new AFX as soon as Iīve done them.
I found some WW2 bombers had a row of 3 belly formation lights in red-green-amber starting from forwards, apart from the standard red/green nav-lights on the wing-tips. Then it seems that the AT-9 had a red position light on the back (a dark Khaki livery one), or a white one on the fin (the silver ones), but not both.
OK, for the canopy windows, I can see from others of your models that you prefer grey. No problem - I always used to use dark grey as it was less milky, but OK! Thanks for correcting some of the Insignia stuff.
I am quite intrigued as to the outcome of all this hard work! Sounds promising!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Hello Aleatorylamp,
This is your aeroplane. Colour the Canopy whatever you like. I just changed the colour so I could see it better.
The P-38 Lightning also had a row of three lights on the aft end of the Nacelle.
As for the outcome, the general feel will be pretty much the same as the Macchi C.202 with the same style of Virtual Cockpit.
- Ivan.
Hi Ivan,
Fine, fine! Sounds great!
Interesting how the momentary cabin bleedthrough only seen from the left disappeared with your CoG shift processing - Thanks! It hadnīt done so when I moved it from within AF99.
I just sent you the AT-9 again with all the lights and a slight improvement in the wing-shape as well as on the area where the nacelles meet the lieading edges. However, further cleaning up (hairline cracks, etc.) will be necessary, and I need some more time. Should this cause any annoying need for repetitions in your processing, perhaps you may like to wait until I send the cleaner AFX. If not, then of course use the new AFX right away. Whatever!
Cheers
Aleatorylamp
Hello Aleatorylamp,
I did a major rework on your AT-9 AFX last night.
Check your email. I think you will like it.
- Ivan.
Hi Ivan,
Iīve just unpacked the new AFX, and Iīm very impressed. It is a very clean-looking job, despite the initially feared two-pilot combination! Incredible - thank you very much! This would then be the basis for the future SCASM-addition of the Virtual Cockpit.
I have achieved slight improvements on the leading-edge/engine-nacelle area, and added the new parts to the new construction file, and the AT-9 is looking great now.
I will gladly do any of the other little issues you may like to point out!
Working on the hairline cracks between ...grunt!... the upper and lower nnacelle components on the wings and the forward nacelle structures is hard. In some positions itīs quite impossible to match the vertices. Maybe I should try doing both just in case there is a position where they can match. Making it overlap a little could possibly also help... I gather this issue is rather notorious!
Itīs better now, so thatīs something good anyway!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
P.S. Perhaps one of the next steps is the canopy frame plus windows in a separate AFA file for SCASMing.
Last edited by aleatorylamp; July 29th, 2015 at 05:25. Reason: added information and added P.S.
Hi Ivan, Hi all!
I remembered the "Speed below 179" alpha transparency setting for the canopy-window component, and tried it out. Itīs slightly less dense and I think it looks cool!
Here are some shots.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Hello Aleatorylamp,
The two areas I was thinking about that should be tuned a bit can both be seen from above and to the rear.
The front quarter windows will disappear at around that angle. They are not quite planar and should be triangulated (convex).
The underside of the fuselage can also be seen at certain angles through the wing fillet. I didn't look much into a solution for that, but I would imagine it to be a glue adjustment with the wing fillets and possibly moving some polygons from the fuselage to the wing fillet.
Yes, it is definitely time for a interior canopy frame, but that also presumes you are satisfied enough with the model to adjust it using SCASM.
While I can see adding the interior of the canopy frame via SCASM, I don't believe you should add window glass.
The Alpha Transparency idea is a good one for certain aircraft but doesn't look so good on others. You make the determination here.
I liked it on my P-38 and P-40, but when I tried it on others, I didn't like it as much. I think it looks good when there is a lot of framing but not on bubble canopies where the Alpha Transparency almost makes the canopy vanish.
I presume you know this already, but many times, the vertices of a Structure do not align on an even multiple of 0.01 foot and you simply CAN'T match it with a AF99 Part.
Glad you like the result.
- Ivan.
Hi Ivan,
Yes, a great result! Thanks also for the extra indications: OK with the screen-windows - theyīll get their triangles. The underside seen through the wing-fillet will be a bit harder to solve, but Iīll get there in the end!
Yes... some hairline cracks canīt be fixed... maybe moving both the component vertice and the structure template vertice could help... Iīll see.
Youīre right about the alpha transparency - it indeed requires struts in order to enhance its weaker hue.
I will wait until Iīve fixed everything fixable on the plane before the canopy is added with SCASM.
Maybe an easy way to do it would be for me to send you the sole canopy frame .SCX file, and you could point out exactly which part of the text should be copied into the aircraft SCX file. I know where to copy it to, as I identified the place quite well on the Giants.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Hello Aleatorylamp,
Build another AFA file with either just the Canopy Frame Component or with minimal other stuff.
Texture it the way you like but with the assumption that the textures you see on the outside will eventually be inward facing.
Package it into an AFX and send the AFX along with the texture file.
I will build the model here, disassemble, pull out the routine you will need and flip the polygons and send you back just the SCASM subroutine to add to your code.
I believe you already know about making additional calls to existing subroutines to generate the V-Cockpit.
I believe the following sequence should work:
Cockpit Floor
Control Panel
Canopy Frame <---- This is not be the Canopy Frame already in the model. It should be the flipped version I will send back to you.
Pilot Torso
CoPilot Torso
CoPilot Head
This is the process I would follow. No Glue Parts are required because the V-Cockpit point of view doesn't change.
Hope the process makes sense. If you want, I can also do the SCASM additions and calls to existing code.
Obviously if I do the SCASM additions to your model and you change the AF99 project, you will have to redo the SCASM stuff.
If you want me to do the SCASM stuff, let me know also if you also want me to change the code to use BMP textures.
The only real "Magic" in this process is flipping the polygons of the Canopy Frame.
- Ivan.
Hi Ivan,
OK! I remember for the Giant youīd sent the .sxc file of the VCockpit alone comprising roof, lateral struts, back and floor, and I just put that piece of text into a specific place near the end of the aircraft .scx file, and then there was one call to it from further above just after the viewpoint alteration. (I know exactly where those places are). I didnīt use several calls, so I didnīt use the sequence you mention.
So, Iīll send you a new fabrication into one textured component of the canopy frame.
Were I to use a different texture for the interior lining, this texture would then have the next .Xaf suffix number after the last one used by the aircraft, and it would also be inside the texture directory.
... and yes indeed, it would be great if you could use your "magic" to flip the polygons, thanks!
I inspected the changes in glue sequencing and the re-arrangement of some of the fuselage structures and components, and found it very interesting how several glue sequences along the line can be interpolated, eg: on one hand there were my cabin/glue/aftwall and nosetip/glue/nose sequences, and then elsewhere in the list you did a nosetip/glue/aftfuselage sequence amongst others... This kind of thing had never occurred to me, but makes a lot of sense, making several glue-sequences along the line possible.
Thanks for your offer to change the code to use bitmap textures. It sounds incredibly useful, but I will take you up on that on a later occasion so that it doesnīt get too complicated so quickly.
Thanks so much again for your pacience, and itīs great to see you are having fun too!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Members who have read this thread: 0
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks