New P3 Orion - Page 6
Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 278

Thread: New P3 Orion

  1. #126

    Cowl Edits

    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    I am glad you understand this business. I actually have a little trouble once in a while trying to visualize what I am about to do.'
    I included a little visual explanation for the folks who are following along but may be a bit too polite to ask.

    The problem with Structures is that the cross-sections are regular and many Aeroplane pieces are not so regular.
    If you choose to use a Structure, the widest section will always be at the vertical Mid Point.
    The cross-section will have a well defined (and unchangeable) taper.

    When the real Aeroplane is not shaped this way, and it seldom is, manual adjustments must be made to make the AF99 pieces match.
    Note that this image is greatly simplified because there is no consideration for making the Wireframe segments line up with each other.

    - Ivan.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Orion-CowlEdits.jpg  

  2. #127
    Hello Ivan,

    I get it. Quite fascinating! The explanation for the transition of the widest part is quite clear.
    It will be curious to see how the effect comes through on the model with this very realistic looking shape.

    As regards the upper scoop: Would it not be a good idea to have this separated from the propeller cowl in a different component to prevent any bleeds due to the gap under the scoop?

    I only wish I had more time and energy to actually do something, but the last two weeks have been rather hectic and I have had little spare time. I havenīt even been able to play the new Starcraft 2 expansion my family gave me last Saturday, but at least once is better than none.

    Anyway, I still hope to have some energy left for the wings and nacelles this weekend.
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp

  3. #128
    Hey Gents,

    So I was finally able to get time with my Dad over Thanksgiving dinner. I was off on his plane. It was in fact LC-81. He has pics but has to scan them in. VP-8 had LC-81 thru LC-89 at that time. He will also look for anything that he has on the P-3Bs and Cs. My Dad has Parkinsons so his memory isn't always the best. So it could take him a bit. I'll post anything I get.

    'til Later,
    John
    "Courage is the discovery that you may not win, and trying when you know you can lose."-Tom Krause

    My works Here: http://www.thefreeflightsite.com/JFortin.htm

  4. #129
    Hello BloodHawk!
    Thatīs very good of you. Weīll be looking forward to that!
    Pity about the Parkinsonīs... Both my parents had either Alzheimer or something very similar, and that was bad too. Something always starts failing, but such is life.
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp

  5. #130
    Hello Blood Hawk,

    Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.
    Best wishes to your Dad.

    I keep forgetting that the rest of the world doesn't celebrate Thanksgiving which is why the "weekend" comment from Aleatorylamp had me confused for a few seconds. I was thinking, we already ARE on our weekend.....

    I really don't know how far my version of the Orion will get, but if it gets to the painting stage, the things our paint crew would find useful are:
    A serial number for the aeroplane and an exact model; The windows seem to differ a bit between models.
    A nice square image of the squadron marking along with an approximate date.
    Any peculiar or non standard markings. Most of my aeroplanes end up with an "Anna Honey" inscription, but that should be easy to remove if anyone is so inclined.

    I presume Aleatorylamp would need something pretty similar for his paint crew.

    Gotta go do some more cooking.
    - Ivan.

  6. #131

    Nacelle Components

    Hello All,

    This is my first try at a (almost) complete assembly of a single outboard Nacelle.
    Although I like the shape, it is unfortunately much too expensive.
    What is present in the screenshots uses 118 Parts.
    With 580 Parts in the model thus far, this would not leave enough Parts to build the rest of the aeroplane.

    I believe I need to stay under about 80-85 Parts for what is shown here to have any chance of finishing the rest of the pieces.
    This is just a guess, the actual number may end up to be significantly lower.

    It is quite a pity, because I believe this shape is actually pretty good and I am about to make it much worse.
    The Yellow marks indicate where I expect to reduce the Parts count.

    - Ivan.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Orion-OutboardNacelleV1.jpg   Orion-NacellePrototype1.jpg   Orion-NacellePrototype2.jpg  

  7. #132
    Hi Ivan,

    Drool.... What a pity AF99 parts limit isnīt at 12,000 parts.

    Must shoot off...
    Itīs such a busy week, and has been so, and will continue being
    so for another 2 weeks or so, that "I got no time fer nuttīn".

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp.

  8. #133
    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    You can see my intent of two layers of polygons for the Top Scoop and Cowl. Perhaps that will not work with Parts limitations.
    The problem with this assembly is that there needs to be FOUR of them, so any extra expense or savings is multiplied by four.
    Hopefully the shape will not be degraded too badly and hopefully the extra complexity of the Inboard Nacelles will not affect things very much.

    We shall see....
    - Ivan.

  9. #134
    Hello Ivan,

    Interesting... So it would be 16 components for the 4 engines... At the moment I have 6 free. Even eliminating the animated ailerons, rudder and elevators on my model would only give me a total of 11.

    The shape you have managed is really beautiful, and the areas you marked for simplification will be OK, and will hardly worsen the shape - perhaps also making the cross-section at the top with 5 instead of 6 parts will not be too bad. It would be flat-topped instead of pointed. Anyway, eventually, I donīt think that parts count will be much of a problem. More so, the availability of components, of course.

    Without the engines, my model now has a parts count of 101.6 % i.e. 813 parts, leaving 387 for the engines and glue - 96 parts per engine. Iīd also calculated between 70 or 80 initially, so 16 more is quite nice.

    Well, as we always say... we shall see!
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp

  10. #135
    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    Actually it is only 3 Components per Engine thus far and I have more than 12 Components remaining.
    Perhaps if my idea does not work, I will have to think of another assembly idea.
    Keep in mind that I don't have Propellers or Spinners yet, so that is probably around 125 Parts there alone.
    I also don't have Flaps or Landing Gear either.

    We shall see.
    - Ivan.

  11. #136
    Hello Ivan,
    Depending on whether a whole wing (instead of a 3-component wing) will support both engines glued to it, there would be enough components for four 3-component nacelles.
    Weīll get somewhere good in the end, though, Iīm sure!
    Iīm still bogged down with work...
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp

  12. #137

    Making Things Ugly

    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    This morning, I made a few edits and now have the Single Nacelle down to 106 Parts.
    It is very difficult to intentionally make things Uglier in a project, but that is what it will take to complete the model.

    I actually have much more working room than I thought.
    The Parts Count is 579 which is what drives this rework of the Nacelle pieces, but the Component Count is only 13 at the moment.
    My editing process here is not logical but it comes from trying to keep this project as amusement. There are many tedious tasks ahead which would give me a better grasp on what resources actually remain, but the re-shaping of the Cowl is more fun.

    Time to go cook Lunch and do some Laundry. I am a Single Parent this weekend. Anna Honey is on a business trip.

    - Ivan.

  13. #138
    Further Edits last night.
    This Assembly is now down to 86 Parts and I suspect I can still reduce a bit further though some of the flowing lines may be affected.
    Time to do the Propellers, Spinners, and Flaps to see what kind of reduction is still needed.

    - Ivan.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Orion-Nacelle-86-Parts.jpg   Orion-NacellePrototype3.jpg  

  14. #139

    Piece of sculpture indeed!

    Hello Ivan,
    Sculpted very nicely, and very economical on parts indeed.
    Even if for amusement only, itīs quite remarkable!
    I wouldnīt reduce it any further - I donīt think it will be necessary. There are 10 extra parts per engine left over (from my parts count anyway), which may be needed for the wheelwells of the inboard nacelles. My parts count still includes extra parts for elevators, ailerons and rudder, so I think you will be well within the limit.
    By the way, my spy liked the blueprint screenshots from the side for his Minolta!
    Looks interesting how you resolved the exhaust too. I donīt suppose the inboard nacelles will be any problem, and I think I can just about squeeze out the 3 components per engine...
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp

  15. #140
    Tell your Spy that this is still a Work in Progress so I would not get to hung up on exactly what is here yet.
    I plan on using three Components per Nacelle, but don't follow the idea too closely until I have proven that it works.
    If it doesn't, you may find that I change direction VERY fast.

    I suspect that there are still going to be significant changes.
    The inboard Nacelles are going to be a lot more complicated because the shapes are quite different. I wanted to do the simpler one first in this case because the forward part is the same between the two but depends heavily on the outer and just has to join the inner Nacelle.

    Good Night.

    - Ivan.

  16. #141
    Hi Ivan,
    Of course, no problem - no hurry anyway. But it is already looking rather good!
    I still havenīt got enough time or peace and quiet make any progress. Workwise either it only drizzles, and never rains, it pours!
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp

  17. #142
    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    Thanks for the comment.

    My main concern at the moment is really about the total Parts Count.
    I believe I am still too close to limit to have room for anything else.
    Of course this can be solved by using SCASM, but for this project, I would consider that to be cheating.

    This is the Outboard Nacelle with a few more of the accessories added.
    Note that it doesn't have the Propellers yet or any Glue and is already up to 126 Parts in these screenshots.....
    ....and I haven't even started on the Landing Gear and Flaps yet. That is why I believe it still needs to be simplified a bit.

    I did some minor re-shaping of the Top Scoop and the area between the Top Scoop and the Engine but the general appearance hasn't been significantly altered. Some things really could not be seen until it was flipped around a bit inside the simulator because AF99 views are too limited.

    Note that I will most likely be using simple textures for the opening on the Bottom Scoop to save on resources.

    - Ivan.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Orion-NacellePrototype4-1.jpg   Orion-NacellePrototype4-2.jpg   Orion-NacellePrototype4-3.jpg   Orion-NacellePrototype4-4.jpg  

  18. #143
    There is no way you guys could make this in Gmax and export it for CFS is there?

    Its a shame you're limited.

    Though I guess that is why you both are still building in AF99. For the challenge.

    Still, Awesome work.
    "Courage is the discovery that you may not win, and trying when you know you can lose."-Tom Krause

    My works Here: http://www.thefreeflightsite.com/JFortin.htm

  19. #144
    Hello Blood Hawk,

    Any of the stuff we build for Combat Flight Simulator will work on Combat Flight Simulator 2 as well though it won't come close to the graphics of a native model.

    You see the screenshots and they are kind of cool looking, but if you actually were flipping the model around in CFS2, you might be disappointed at the lack of detail. Imagine if you were working with a 1200 Polygon limit. The practical limit is more like 1175.

    - Ivan.

  20. #145
    Hello, Bloodhawk:
    With AF99 models, I donīt know how the graphic quality appears in CFS2 because I donīt have the programme, and I wouldnīt know if animations work there, at least basic ones: props/flaps/ undercarriage. If one were to import the model into FS2004, it is shown without any of the animated parts, not even basic ones (contrary to FS2002 where all work), so thereīs really no point, but I donīt know about CFS2.

    Hello Ivan:
    So the CFS2 question for you is: Regarding your comment on graphics quality of AF99 models in CFS2, do they show their basic animations?
    The outboard P3 nacelle looks impresive. If the 126 parts include the spinner, which in my case is split into fore and aft sections to prevent blade-bleedthrough, then that gets it down to 102, so with the others being at 86, and in my case the average being 96, it would just about fit into my spare parts count! I know itīs still work in progress and will be so for some time, (no hurry!), but it looks very promising!

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp

  21. #146
    I was actually thinking of Gmax Models for CFS1. I don't think they go backwards. Its a shame.

    Wow, only 1200 polys. Thats not alot. The t-34/85s I just made had almost half that. Actually the main LOD has 605. 1604 for all four LODs. 218 for the lowest LOD.

    Its very impresive what you both are able to do with those restrictions.
    "Courage is the discovery that you may not win, and trying when you know you can lose."-Tom Krause

    My works Here: http://www.thefreeflightsite.com/JFortin.htm

  22. #147
    Hello Bloodhawk,

    I see, it was meant the other way around. Sorry!
    I remember doing the Gmax, FSDS and AD2k2 tutorials - all for FS2004, as AF99 was made obsolete for Flight simulators from then on. It never occurred to me to see if it would work the other way around. As it was, unfortunately I didnīt enjoy them very much. I even repeated all the tutorials after one or two years, to force myself to up-date, but the same thing happened, so Iīm afraid I gave them a miss.

    In my case, with AF99, I donīt think itīs exactly the challenge, although it is definitely nice to get something done well within the limitations of AF99 (thank you for your good words!). Iīd be more inclined to simply admit it and say I donīt use the other programmes because they are too complicated for me!

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp

  23. #148
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,775
    it is my understanding,
    that models constructed
    with the newer programs,
    ie, gmax, are not compatible with cfs1,
    leaving, af99, fsds, scasm and ad2k
    as the only programs for building cfs1 models.
    of course, this does not apply to scenery objects
    which is another thread.

    if i might interject my opinion...
    for most flight simmers,
    game immersion, specifically,
    model detail became the priority.
    consequently, most, myself included,
    moved away from the early sims like cfs1.
    the problem was framerate loss
    caused by the more complex models.
    since i couldn't afford a more powerful computer,
    i came back to the less resource intensive cfs1.

    with the new programs, model builders
    and developers left cfs1 en mass.
    to put it bluntly, building a cfs1 model
    is a pain in the ass.
    be it the limited resources of af99
    or the big one, z buffering,
    it is next to impossible to build
    a high quality cfs model
    that doesn't bleed like a stuck pig.

    fortunately, for those of us still interested,
    there are a couple builders
    who have taken the af99 modeling hobby
    to undreamed of levels of excellence.

    i may not fly cfs1 anymore, but,
    i do enjoy keeping tabs on the progress
    of whatever project these masters
    may be struggling with at the time.
    thank you gentlemen,
    for your patience and craftsmanship.
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  24. #149
    Hello All,

    I am glad Smilo joined the discussion. We were just about to bring him up in discussion anyway!

    Of the packages mentioned, only AF99 and AD2000 are really suitable for designing an entire aeroplane without additional tools in my opinion. Yes, I do a fair amount of tweaking of the AF99 model with SCASM, but although SCASM has more ability, it is too cumbersome to build an entire project without some kind of 3D design package.

    FSDS actually doesn't work for CFS1 either. I actually bought that before I started using AF99. Herve Devred and Smilo both have done a pretty good job of proving that AD2000 is capable of building superb aeroplanes. I actually have it installed on the laptop I am using at the moment though I have done nothing yet in terms of design.

    The polygon count is much increased with AD2000 over AF99, but I do not believe the textures are any better so the models will still be limited in that way.

    Blood Hawk,
    You're correct. One of the reasons I keep using AF99 is that it is a challenge to build something nice looking within very very strict limitations. I have written enough programs to do certain tasks that it is not as painful to use as it once was. The part I do not like about AF99 is that it often forces a non-intuitive way of designing. As Smilo pointed out so eloquently, it is pretty hard to build without accidentally putting a knife through the pig and I still try with each project that it CAN be done.... mostly....

    - Ivan.

  25. #150
    Update on my version of the Orion:

    Last night I built up a single Propeller Blade and the machine shop made lots of copies of that blade along with the Spinner that was done earlier.

    What is in the screenshots is now just shy of 750 Parts.
    I believe the Cowling and Engine assembly is due for another weight reduction evaluation soon.

    - Ivan.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Orion-Propellers2.jpg   Orion-Propellers1.jpg  

Members who have read this thread: 0

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
  •