Conspicuous by Their Absence

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I don't know if I told you this from the start, but I really don't have much interest in the AT-9 Fledgling either.
It is in the correct time period, but would never have hit my build list.

You already know of my lack of interest in the big bombers from the Great War.

That doesn't stop me from assisting if asked. My real interests are actually quite narrow as far as things I actually would build on my own.

The Macchi fighters were only built because that is what the audience wanted.
That is why they sat in limbo for a couple years while others passed them by.
I stated very early on that it might take a very long time to finish them or that they may never get finished.

I have a tendency to keep revisiting aeroplanes that I like such as the P-40, FW 190, and the Corsair.
The Corsair has had two major reworks and the FW 190 has had significant enhancements since I first completed it.
I have spent enough time and effort on the P-40E to have built AT LEAST four other aircraft.....

Don't let MY choice of subjects affect yours.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

The important this is to enjoy the building process. There´s one determining factor against enjoyment: What one would personally label as ugly: For example, in my case, the MAD Boom on the Orion or the Neptune come quite close, and then worse, the awfully shaped twin-engined Douglas B-18 Bolo or Digby, but that´s just me. Then, there´s the Boulton Paul Sidestrand or the Overstrand, and also the Boeing B-9 bomber, which are just on the verge of what I´d call ugly. So it´s quite easy to decide what not to build.

I suppose it´s just that I haven´t quite decided yet what I do want to build, but will do so soon, no doubt!

As far as twin-engined aircraft go, a couple more candidates come into mind: The slightly strange-but-not-too-ugly-looking yet ground-breaking pre-WW2 Martin B-10, which was faster than many contemporary fighters, or the post WW2 rather spectacular Grumman F7F Tigercat. Then there´s also the Martin A30 Baltimore that Smilo mentioned some time back.

We shall see...
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I have been involved with CFS for so long that there have been literally dozens of aspects I want to research and also a couple dozen aeroplanes I have wanted to build. I keep a task and project list and periodically add to it or cross something off as I finish a project or find a solution to something.

The twin engine gauges are on the To-Do list and have been there for years. Now I have at least a functional if not ideal solution.
Your Tigercat made it onto the list when I was reading "Corky Meyer's Flight Journal" a few years ago.
A lot of projects get to the Development stage without ever having been on the list.

I have also done my share of "Ugly" projects. The Stuka easily qualifies as does the BV 141.
There is never a shortage or worthy projects; there is only a lack of time to build them.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,

Of course! Sorry, I should have continued the comment "to build, or not to build" after the ellipsis.
It is definitely a matter of personal taste, if you are inclined or not towards a given model.
Aesthetically, e.g. I wouldn´t say the Stuka or the BV141 were ugly - just "strange", and perhaps you wouldn´t say the Douglas B-18 Bolo or Digby were so ugly...

Another nice one would be the Lockheed Harpoon, the lines are rather smart, and a little less nice because it looks stubbier and not so elegant, the Lockheed Ventura, but perhaps not everyone would coincide with that.

The Tigercat, very much like the Lightning, has very elegant lines, and looks like a real power-house, both of which make it so appealing. None of these are available for CFS1, so the list never stops...
Anyway, we´ll see, as I said before!

Incidentally, your progress with the twin gauges seems quite interesting. I was wondering if you would be willing to let me try them out, or is it too soon yet? ...just a thought, no problem if not.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Actually the Ventura is on my build list also. It is rather low on the priorities but would fit well as a general "Between the Wars" kind of subject. (It may not be historically correct to do this, but the aeroplane has that look.)
This is one of those projects that I am interested in because it seems like such a nice little high performance aeroplane even though it isn't particularly attractive. I know a Hudson is available somewhere.

There actually IS a F7F Tigercat out there I believe for FS98. I even have it installed on a couple computers.
The model isn't great quality so a new one would work well. That is also why I am considering aircraft like the Ki-43 Hayabusa. The ones that exist are not really all that well executed.

My "Progress" with Twin Gauges is pretty much where the last post in the Gauges thread would indicate.
I have a pair of Tachometers. I can generate a new one with a different face pretty much at will.
I have a single Manifold Pressure Gauge for Engine 1 but never bothered to alter it for Engine 2 though it would only take an hour or so to do it.
I can email you the pair of Tachometers. Not sure if you really want a single MP Gauge since it is functionally no different from the stock ones.

The issue I have had with the MP Gauge is that at Idle, the MP readings are so low that they go off the marked scale.
I am wondering if I should alter the scale but the interesting thing is that all the real gauges I have seen have the same scale as mine.
I have not come to any conclusion about this issue yet.
It becomes even more messy when one considers that although the gauge face reads to 75 inches Hg, I don't believe the simulator can produce a reading quite that high.

Of course I also have a bunch of failed Dual needle gauges......

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Quite a coincidence, then! I downloaded a number of pictures on the Ventura and its later Harpoon upgrade, and I read some of the texts available, and it certainly seems to have been a machine that threw its weight.
There are even a few good-sized drawings that look quite exact. It could be interesting to see once a possible Ventura has a nice .air fie, how the different area on the fins and the larger wings affects the behaviour of the Harpoon.

I also looked up the Martin A-3 Baltimore, another very interesting candidate - some good drawings too, big enough to be useful. It seems to have had a considerable punch too, and looks quite cool.

As for the sleek Tigercat, the biggest drawing I could find was 880 pixels for the wingspan, which boils down to about 1 pixel for 1 inch. I have to see if I can find a bigger one. I also read a post about the conversation between the new text pilot and Cory, the other test pilot... quite an entertaining read. For the moment, this is the one that I may tackle first.

I´m drawing up scales on the drawings for all these planes in the 3 axes, to use as plans. Maybe that´s how I can decide which to build first.

Then, the strangest looking is the Martin B-10, and I might just make the scaled plan just to see the feel I get. So basically, there are 4 or maybe 5 twin-engined light, medium and light attack bombers on the list.

As for the gauges, I´d love to try out your 2 Tachometers! Thanks a lot! I´ll be looking in my mail-box then.

Cheers for the moment!
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

It seems like you're set on Twins of some kind.
There are a very large number of candidates. We haven't even touched on the ones from the Pacific Theater yet.
I don't think I have ever seen proper treatment of any Japanese twin. There are a couple of G4M Bettys out there and that is about it.

If you are not set on twins, there are plenty of single engine stuff that has not had enough attention. Try looking for a good TBF Avenger.

I actually found a fair amount of data on the Martin A-30 Baltimore. I personally don't have a lot of interest in it though I know Smilo does.

There are always the projects Smilo and I have batted back and forth for a while such as the A-20 Havoc, B-25 Mitchell, B-26 Marauder, Dornier Do 17Z, Junkers Ju 88, etc. None of those have had very good treatment thus far that I know of.

Here are a couple of screenshots of a F7F and another twin that I was working on at one point.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,
Well, yes, at least twins!...

After your comment on Japanese aircraft, I just looked for Japanese twins and there are quite a few with cool designs on par with the Tigercat´s lines... Nakajima Gekko, Kawasaki Randy, Mitsibishi Dinah...

Judging by the quality of their cars nowadays, no doubt their planes back then must have been impressive.
When I retire in November next year I´ll have more time!

I´d thought that the more well known war-twins you mention - i.e. A-20 Havoc, B-25 Mitchell, B-26 Marauder, Dornier Do 17Z, Junkers Ju 88, etc. - were not badly represented, so I hadn´t really looked into those. But it seems there´s room even there, although being so well known, I tend not to go for those so much. Anyway, the range of possibilities grows and grows...

Time for bed!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

The aircraft and especially engines built by the Japanese are worthy of an entire new discussion.
After doing a fair amount of reading, I have my own opinions, but there are so many caveats and exceptions that it is hard to describe them in even a number of posts.

I believe I described some of their issues in a post about War Emergency Power. It really is a strange thing.
I can tell you that one of the issues with my Kawasaki Ki-61 project was the conflicting data as is the case with a lot of other Japanese aircraft. The local library is completely insufficient for research unless you start requesting inter-library loans.

Japanese manufacturing today has nearly nothing to do with their industry before and during WW2. Credit all new industrial machinery and W.E. Deming for the changes.

Smilo and I had this discussion many times: (Summary as follows.)
Yes, all those German Twins are well known, but try to find a good add-on of any of those. The same applies to the B-25 and B-26.

The Greif in my screenshot is another fairly interesting aeroplane that has never been built that I know of.

The Tigercat is an interesting beast. If you look over photographs, you may be surprised how narrow the fuselage is....
I haven't even started looking for drawings or specifications for the beast though I do know about some of its strange handling characteristics.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,

I looked around a little for all the models we have been mentioning, and it seems that when FS5, FS95, BAO Flight Shop/AF5 came out, there was proliferous building going on for the majority of these models.

Later, with FS98 and AF99, some of them were upgraded to some degree or other, but probably the difficulties in doing a good job there were a deterrent. Also, computer hardware had a tough time catching up, and the improved models needed the frame rates only expensive graphics cards could handle, and the FS5 models were generally compatible with FS98 and CFS1, so few really bothered at that time. Perhaps these were the reasons that not much happened until the better 3D engines and the wireframe extrusion building programmes appeared.

When FS2002 and CFS2 came out, people were more interested in the new simulators whose 3D engines could cope with the more powerful GMax and FSDS2, but even that lasted only a short while, because soon everything became even more powerful, and only after that, a number of these models seem to have been re-born with for FS9 and FSX with Gmax and FSDS3, so there seems to be a generation gap as far as we are concerned.

As regards the Japanese and their WW2 machines then, possibly their design genius and war production quality were not on the same level, and their potential was not fully taken advantage of. Like many Russian designs, a lot of their designs are reminiscent of American ones.

The Greif in your screenshot - I was wondering what it was - the tail is too small for a Boeing B-9, and had me baffled. Interesting. Some of the large post-biplane designs are not ugly!

Yes, I noticed the minimum frontal resistance design of the Tigercat - it looks unexpectedly different from the front. Definitely an interesting machine! I prefer the one with the pointed nose...

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hi all, hi Ivan,

After trying again despite the dimensional confusions, I have resumed the conversion of the L-188 Electra I had upgraded from FS5 to FS98 in 2005, into a CFS1 P3-Orion.

Thanks in advance, Ivan, for your help in the CoG shift! It will be vital for clear building.

There is one interesting thing I discovered about Wing-Nose templates:
The inner spinner/prop was bleeding through the outer engine-nacelle when viewed from slightly aft, so I made a Nose-Wing template as per AF99 Instruction Manual: A long triangle starting at the fuselage and the point ending near the wing-tip, intersecting the nacelles just behind props and spinners.

Well... it didn´t work: The inner prop/spinner bled throught the outer nacelle when viewed from slightly forwards, although the aft bleedthrough did disappear. So, I tried a different sized, shorter triangle (see attached screenshot), just covering the nacelle area. And.... it works!!!

I thought this was cool!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Do the Propellers and Spinners now bleed through the opposite side of the Fuselage?
That is what I would expect to happen with the templates the way they are now.

I will download your AFX tonight and see how well the shift works.
Keep in mind I will likely shift the CoG to around 1/4 of the Wing Chord because this has a nose gear and CoG must be between the Nose and Main Wheels.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,

There´s only one small short bleed: the outer spinner through the inner engine-nacelle front seen from the opposite side underneath, but it´s hardly noticeable.

Luckily there´s no bleedthrough through the fuselage from the opposite side, neither seen from above nor below, slightly forward or backwards. I´d have to understand a little more about the templates to visualize exactly what they do...

Your suggested CoG shift to the position you say sounds perfect, thanks very much!

Meanwhile I have been planning and found ways to reduce the 5 fuselage textures so as to have some for the pilots, and also ways to free another two components, to have 4 of these for the transparent cockpit. This way the model will gain a lot if everything works.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp.

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I believe you are getting way too ambitious with trying to build a Transparent Cockpit and PILOTS on a 4 engine bomber within the limitations of AF99.

- Ivan.

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I just had a look at the P3-Orion Project.
Per our discussions via email, I understand that you want the CoG shifted 12.00 feet Forward and 0.50 feet Up.

I recommend that the numbers be changed a bit.
12.00 feet forward puts the CoG entirely ahead of the Wing.
Considering that the Wing is the primary lifting surface, I believe the CoG should be very near the Center of Lift.
Ideally, I like the CoG slightly behind the Center of Lift so that the Tail Plane is supplying a slight amount of lift.
Usually on actual aeroplanes, the CoG is slightly AHEAD of the CoL for better stability.

In this case, the CoG needs to be ahead of the Main Gear and SHOULD be somewhere on the Mean Aerodynamic Chord.
That doesn't leave a lot of room for choices.

I recommend moving the CoG about 9.5 feet forward.

This would still have very little weight on the Nose Gear and hopefully the Fuel Tanks are not behind the CoG or it may sit on its Tail when fueled.
You might want to look at where the fuel tanks are mounted. (I am guessing most likely it is in the Wings.)
They should be near the CoG if the Designers were doing their work properly.

A for a vertical shift, Where the CoG is now actually looks to be a touch high, not low.
Keep in mind that although we can see the shape of the Fuselage and guess where its center of form is, we don't know where all the heavy equipment is located.
Most of the aircraft structure is pretty light with the exception of Landing Gear, Engines, and perhaps Electronics.
I am guessing most of the significant electronics will be under the Floor of the Fuselage in what would normally be the Cargo Bay.

I will set up the shift as I described and if you want something different, changing the scripts will be pretty easy.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,

How diplomatic of you! You are very kind.
CoG: Yes, you are (of course) absolutely right. Thank you very much indeed.
I was silly enough not to check that the previous CoG correction by the original author had placed the point ahead of the leading edge, but the engine nacelle lines disguised the lines and I stupidly never noticed.

So, 9.5 ft forward will be perfect indeed! If you would like to lower it too, it will be fine, as there was a bomb bay with a capacity for 20000 lb load - bombs, depth charges, whatever, the doors being in the belly just forward of the leading edge. And: Yes, fuel was only in the wings - slightly over 10,000 USG (62,500 lb).

As regards transparent cockpit and the pilots: Oh dear! I was getting really over-ambitious! I´ve just added up the free parts left, and the shapes of all I want to add would have to be far too rudimentary, so I may leave it at the shaded cockpit windows.

Update:
Things are not easy: As regards under-wing torpedoes or missiles, there would be parts left for two on each side, with hardpoints, but bleedthrough with the outer wing is proving to be a tremendous problem.
It appears that the best and cleanest building solution here is a conservative one - i.e. to leave the plane more or less as it is now, just more finely adjusting the textured cabin windows.
As you feared, anything else seems to complicate matters considerably, but I´ll see where to use the parts that I still have left over to further improve shapes here and there.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp.

[Ivan]

Diplomatic? Hmmmm.... One of the few times someone has said that of me.

As for refining shapes, you might want to take a look at the Nose / Cockpit area.
I didn't observe if the Nose was a Structure but suspect it probably is.
If so, you might want to change it to a Component.
At the moment, the contours of the Nose look very much like those of the Lockheed C-130 Hercules rather than a P-3 Orion.
If it is a Structure, you really can't improve its shape as you could with a Component.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Yes, in fact the whole fuselage is a set of structures - at least this avoids the hairline cracks when joining a structure to a component - but I see what you mean about the C130 nose.
Being a structure, the circular cross-section joint or bulkhead at the windshield creates a funny effect that can only be eliminated using components there.
A good suggestion, thanks! As there are quite a lot of parts left over, I´ll try for that then.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

If you have ONE Component left over, use it for the Nose and then either close off the Nose Component's back with a bulkhead or have a Forward Bulkhead / Wall on the following Structure.... Or Both. You may still have a slight mismatch but it won't be noticeable.

I am guessing you probably don't have enough Components to do the entire Fuselage.

This is a good illustration of the design choices we each make. I would rather get the better shape at the cost of less detail and favour the areas of the aeroplane that are most noticeable to me. I also spend a ridiculous amount of time refining shapes as can be seen on the Warhawk Project.

I am still convinced that there are not enough resources in Aircraft Factory 99 for me to build a 4 engine bomber using the methods I currently use. That was shown pretty well by the Mitchell and Lightning....

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,

Thank you for your consideration and counsel! I definitely agree with you that shapes are more important that other secondary details. Actually, I think shapes are vital and make all the difference. It will be quite tedious, but it will definitely be worthwhile and probably possible.

As it is, at the moment there are only 3 components free, but as the wheels are all in components, I could free 4 from the main wheels, reverting these into structures again, and then I´d have 7 free in total to make the whole fuselage out of components, including MAD boom.

I think there will just be enough parts left for this, as 4 wheels mean 48 parts more than before, although the fuselage components will save a couple.

At the moment parts count is 1066, with 134 free.

For a start, I´ll do 2 components which comprising nose and cabin sections only, and cover the last bulkheadlike you suggested, and see how it goes just out of curiosity, and then I´ll do the restly 3 (2 for fuselage "tube", 1 for tail-fuselafe and 1 for MAD-Boom).

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I tried to do the CoG move this morning and ran into a bit of a problem.
Moving Structures and Parts was no problem at all. It took about a half hour to get the scripts in order but there were no issues.

The remaining task is to move the Texture mapping to agree with the new locations of Parts / Components and Structures.
The problem I am running into is that while regular mapping uses four numbers, the corresponding moved pieces have eight numbers.
I need to figure out what those eight numbers mean and alter the program to read and process them properly.
Luckily, it appears that some of the numbers are blank, but the parsing section still needs to recognize that there are spaces for eight numbers even if it will only use four of them.

By the way, regarding design philosophies, you are not REQUIRED to use up all 1200 Polygons in a model.
My Warhawk is getting pretty complicated at this point and still only uses 1125 or so.
Use them if there is a reason to do it and if it really improves the model.

- Ivan.

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

This P-3 Orion project is really starting to look strange.
I just did some poking around in the AFA file to try to figure out what the 8 numbers instead of 4 might mean.
I wrote down the numbers to compare to what was shown in the texture mapping values in AF99.
That is when I noticed that the texture mapping DIDN'T HAVE any reasonable values.
When the values from one end to the other are both zeros, one can come to no reasonable conclusion.

I thought that perhaps I had corrupted the AFA file, so I unpacked the AFX again but there was no difference.

The place I looked to confirm this was on the Right Wing.

So Where do we go with something like this?

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,

Ha ha! Yes, but if I need parts for some extra improvement, I have to scrounge around to get as many as I can.

Sorry to hear about the problems you had with the CoG shift. If I knew where to look, I´d un-texture the parts that were problematic.

Well, after a lot of exact shaping, I re-built the whole fuselage including MAD boom as components, and parts count is at 145.8%.

In order to get rid of the C-130 cheek-nose aspect under the windshield, I made the joint less circular and more like an inverted oval, i.e. wider at the top, and it´s looking better, but not quite right yet. I also have to fit the windshield parts better. Anyway, I´m getting there! I even had some parts left over for prop-blurs and glue, and to split the spinners in two so as to improve the propeller-blade bleeds.
The screenshots show the nose and the cabin where the nose just fits in. Perhaps I made the nose a tad too wide at the top. Now it looks like a CRJ-900... I have to get iit better!

I´ll keep you posted!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,
Strange - and only on the right wing.
Well, there´s no doubt about it. I´ll take out all the textures and send you the Orion again with just the AFX for the CoG shift, and then I´ll put the textures back in again. That is the easiest solution and should be no problem.
I´ll do that right away.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp.

[Ivan]

I am wondering how the AFX / AFA was textured so that the file appears in a way that even AF99 can't read it.
I can probably figure out how to fix things, but it would be a fair amount of hand editing the AFA file and I can't be sure I will get it right. That is why I do as many things as possible via programs: Less opportunity for human error.

I think the nose actually looks a bit like a DC-9. The actual P-3 Orion's nose is fairly elegant looking for the huge thing that it is.
Perhaps the famous EP-3 that "invaded" China back in 2001 would be a good subject.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Look in your e-mail! I´ve just sent off the textureless AFX and plane. I wish I could write programmes that did cool things - e.g. extract parts from structures to save hand-building parts for components... but anyway, it went quite easily. Now I´m busy looking for pictures to get the nose better. The drawings I have are all different, so I´ll go by photos. I´ve just re-adjusted the "face" a bit and made it less wide at the "cheeks", and again, I have to adjust the windows.
I´ll look up the "2001 China invader" and see what it looks like to do the textures.

Update:
I´ve just seen it - this particular plane has a long ridge on the back, and does not have the whole MAD Boom, but the colour scheme is fine - it´s on other models without that ridge.

I´ll try another thing for the nose adjustment, i.e. incorporating the windows into the cabin shape itself instead of just sticking insignia windows onto the cabin. Let´s see.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I just sent this as a reply to your email, but this hopefully will also help others follow along with this thread.
You really didn't need to do anything to the AFX / AFA. I CAN work around the issue and you will still have a textured model.

The process I am using is this:
1. Move all the Parts. This takes care of Components because they are just made up of Parts.
This also takes care of Glue and Structure Templates.

2. Move all the Structures Fore or Aft. There is no Vertical or Lateral shift on a Structure FILE because it is covered by moving the Templates.

3. Move the Texture Mapping in the AFA file. This was the last of the programs I wrote and it was having issues with the weird formatting.

At worst, I was going to remap some of the textures by hand as soon as I figured out what the original author's intent was.
I may get a few wrong, but there will still be less cleanup than if you had to lay out all new textures.
Send me the updated AFX with textures. It will work to some extent. At worst, I can have the program ignore the eight number texture mapping.

The way I actually execute the steps is to get a listing of all the .AFP files and then use MS Excel to modify the list into a script that calls "MoveIt.exe" for .AFP Parts Files and "StructMoveIt.exe" for .AFS Structure Files. Creating the scripts usually takes around 30-45 minutes. It SHOULD be faster, but I often make mistakes on hand editing the scripts.
As I do this more often, scripting is getting a bit faster.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,

It was late and I went to sleep, so I missed the last message until now.

First let me explain:
I´ve discovered the origin of the texture mapping problem. I´d forgotten that I was having it for years until December last year. I was having great difficulties with AF99 textures and Windows XP because of the Spanish keyboard, that uses decimal commas instead of decimal points.

AF99 uses decimal points, and the separator for each texture coordinate entry is a comma. After the third comma in the 4-coordinate entry line, AF99 ignores the rest and puts in zeros, as it does if nothing is placed between commas. I only discovered the origin of the problem in Summer last year, and until I discovered how to make WinXP to use decimal points and comma separators it was December.

For the moment I have looked at the wings and the horizontal tail, where the biggest problems are. I hadn´t re-worked them this time, so it went unnoticed. Then, inexplicably, somehow, sometimes, AF99 manages to spread textures conveniently despite incongruent texture-coordinate entries, so by bashing the +10% button in the texture window 5, 10, 15 or 20 times, textures sometimes seemed to fix themselves at the time.

Of course, the solution is now to simply make AF99 re-distribute the textures by re-spreading them correctly in the texture window.

So in the .afa file, where it reads:
0,"rwing(49,,,,11,,-7,)1
1,"lwing(,,-49,,11,,-7,)1

1,"h_stab(19,,-19,,-37,,-51,)1
0,"h_stab(19,,-19,,-37,,-51,)1

These should then read:
0,"rwing(49.46,.94,11.91,-9.17)1
1,"lwing(-.94,-49.46,11.91,-9.17)1

0,"h_stab(19.52,-19.52,-37.98,-50.75)1
1,"h_stab(19.52,-19.52,-37.98,-50.75)1

How stupid, idiotic, and what an utterly useless pain. I´m terribly sorry for the problems I have caused you.

Well, now I can put all the textures back in again and this time they will be all OK, so I´ll send you the AFX again as soon as they are done.
I´d jumped the gun with the textureless plane...

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

11 feet 4 inches.

....in reply to your post in Warhawk Thread.
i can supply a lot more information if you need. P-3B Orion if it matters.
Message will be short cuz this is being typed on an iPad.

-Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
The new AFX you CoG-shifted and sent back are working really fine now!
With the rather intense back-and-forth of one AFX after another, eventually getting it clean of further left-over garbage from deleted propeller textures in the script, I had failed to answer your post on the additional P-3B Orion information you have. I´d definitely be interested, if it´s not too much of a bother to send.

Thanks for the 11.4 ft fuselage width info. I´d been looking for ages without finding that! The new drawings I had were giving me 11.8, and that was rather a lot. At the moment the model is a bit below 11.4, but I may leave it at that. I´ll see.

Is the information you have in a text-file or on a drawing with technical info like with the Fledgeling? It would be great to have more details. Of course, if you have to type it out on your Iphone, better not! I won´t put you through that.

I think I´ll try putting back the propeller textures - extending the front/back spinner textures over them if they don´t get too blurry.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Actually a bit UNDER 11.4 feet is good because it isn't 11.4 feet!

It is actually 11 feet 4 inches which is 11.33 feet.

I decided to go poking around on the iPad when I got up this morning. (I don't own an iPhone and don't really want one.)
What I found (literally in about 5 minutes) is more information than you probably want or need about the aircraft.

The Lockheed site didn't actually have much information.

The best single source of information is in the link below.]
Note that the Wing Span differs from the Lockheed number by 1 inch which means one of them is wrong.

https://airbornescience.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/P-3B%20Experimenter%20Handbook%20548-HDBK-0001.pdf

It wasn't quite what I was looking for but is quite good enough for what we are doing. I was just reading it online with the iPad.
I would expect the data to be pretty reliable if it is published by NASA for their scientists.
I haven't actually downloaded it myself because I am not really that interested in the P-3 Orion....

Enjoy!
- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Can´t sleep! Thanks for the document - Pages 20-22 have lots of measurements! What a massive load of info!
Sorry about the 11 ft 4 in. that I instantly turned into 11.4 ft... typically I do this all the time.
The fuselage on the original FS5 plane and consequently the one I rebuilt is then way too narrow with only 10.2 ft width, so it´s slightly over a foot too thin. I may have a bash at it. First I want to see if it´s a bit higher than wide though.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Glad you are happy.
I was viewing this PDF on an iPad, so it only shows the printed page numbers which do not match with the numbering in the document.

There is so much dimensional information here that I was even tempted to assemble a AF99 model of my own!
The CoG estimate can be confirmed by information in the document as well, but in looking at more photographs and checking the locations of underwing missiles, the bomb bay and guessing at fuel tank locations, a little ahead of 25% chord and possibly up to the wing leading edge is probably correct.

I believe there is enough information here to build a pretty good flight model as well.

I wish there were this much easily available information for a B-26 Marauder.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
An interesting find indeed, this .pdf document!
As you say, apart from accurate measurements, there´s interesting performance data for the flight dynamics. As we know, the P3-Orion airframe came from the L-188 Electra, modified only with a 7-ft shorter fore-fuselage, a less bluntly shaped nose, a MAD boom aft, and a some time later, engines with 850 more Hp each.

So, I´m happy about this new veritable fountain of abundant and good information, but what I´m a bit less happy about, is the model I´m working on. The original author evidently did not have access to good information, otherwise dimensions wouldn´t be so far out all round. I had taken their accuracy for granted, given the reputation for quality of their source.

Basically, my making a P3 Orion out of such an unexpectedly inexact L-188 Electra, is turning into a huge can of worms, to use one of your favourite expressions!
In the days of AF5/FS5, computer pixels must have been grossly fat, and nobody either noticed or maybe even cared if a plane was over a foot too skinny, with a fin over a foot too low, with wings almost a foot too short and tailplanes almost two feet short each.

Now I know why my try at a fuselage width correction made the whole plane look really fat: Because of the low fin and short wings and tailplanes!

So these are the worms that are crawling out:
- The confirmed width of 11.33 ft means that the fuselage is 1.13 ft too narrow, i.e. 6.78 inches too thin on either side, and the dorsal line is 4 inches too low on the top. The fuselage cross-section should be circular, not slightly oval.
- Then, the top of the fin is confirmed at 33.7 ft height, and this one is 1.5 ft too low.
- The tailplane is even worse: Span is confirmed at 42.8 ft, this one falls short by 3.7 ft.
- The main wing span is not to be forgotten either: Should be 99.7 ft instead of 98.9 - almost a foot out.

All very disheartening, involving a lot of work to put right, mainly the fuselage component parts.
However, such is the life of a modeller who tries not to be such a cock-up-artist.
So much for my intended "quick conversion". Nervertheless, having got this far, it would be too much of a wasted effort to give up now, wouldn´t you agree? It won´t take more than a couple of days to put right anyway, and at least I´ll know then that the model doesn´t contain wildly inaccurate dimensions!

Incidentally, I re-dug up some AF99 add-ons that I knew existed, but never used because of their dubious utility and/or their user un-friendliness. They are Win32, mouse-driven applications. Freeware versions allow 0.1 ft precision, which in some cases would not be a great drawback.
-So, one is Mover.exe: It can move or rotate individual parts or whole components. However, it will not allow more that one item at a time, so it can be quite tedious to move 30 components and all the restly individual parts, glues and structure templates.
-Then there´s a scaling programme: It can scale up or scale down a part. Useless for anything other than individual parts.
-Then there´s 2 others that make components, normal one and wing components, but are quite hard to use. It´s easier to make a component in AF99 than try and make one with these and then use it in AF99. I don´t see the point.
Anyway, your script-run applications sound far more logical and practical.

So - good fun to be had!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hi all, Hi Ivan,

As this is getting far more complicated and lengthy that I had originally expected, I think it´s best to start a new thread for this L-188 Electra to P3-Orion conversion to free the present thread up a bit.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I actually have the command line equivalent of many of the AF99 Utilities you described and perhaps a few that you have not mentioned.

Over the years, I have programmed the following:

Mirror - Creates a New Part that is Flipped Left to Right. Yes, this can be done inside AF99, but is cumbersome if there are quite a few Parts to process. The original Part is saved as .BAK.

MoveIt - Moves a Part with Left-Right, Down-Up, and Aft-Fore offsets as specified on the command line.
The original Part is saved as .BAK

StretchIt - Scales a Part Up or Down or even Flips it Fore-Aft or Up-Down if the multiplier is negative. It takes three multipliers on the command line. The original Part is saved as .BAK.
This program has problems. It has a slight rounding problem which I believe can be solved by adding 0.005 before Truncating.

CMoveIt - Calls MoveIt on all the Parts of a Component. Note that this program isn't very smart. If a Part is listed twice (Left-Right Pair), it will get moved twice. I thought about ways to work around this aspect and came to the conclusion that it was easier to just build custom Components for the move because it would need to understand the Component in a non-trivial way.

CMirror - Creates a New Component that has all the Parts of the original but on the opposite side. Nothing happens to the original Component.

StructMoveIt - Shifts the Bulkheads Aft-Fore by an offset specified on the command line. Note that only longitudinal locations exist in the AFS file. The Template Parts also need to be moved.

SCX_Reverse_Poly - Makes a New SCX file with the facing of all the polygons reversed. So far I only use this for Canopy Frames.

MoveTexture - Creates a New copy of a AFA Assembly File with all Textures offset by the Left-Right, Down-Up, and Aft-Fore dimensions specified on the command line.

Those are the Programs that are fairly reliable. There are some that I have not finished because the need for them was very limited. There are also a couple that I haven't figured out how to do yet. I can't remember some of the Maths I learned back in High School.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,

I´d thought the freeware Win32 MoveIt one was acceptable with its 0.1 ft limite accuracy but it is quite useless too because it deforms things such as wheels!

So as not to bother you with modifications, perhaps I could run one or two of the programmes you have on the CLI available in WinXP or maybe better on the old P4 Laptop here which has Win98 on it. Anyway, we can come to that later.

Once the contradictory information for the FS-0 station is established, it does seem that things are probably really not so bad after all, and in fact mostly seem quite acceptable, including the positioning of things like tail assembly, nose-wheel and engines.

However, there´s always room for improvement, and as there´s no hurry, I´ll wait and see what you can discover with your current investigations, thanks very much!

Meanwhile, I´ll increase the size of the cabin-windows, as from the photos that´s quite obvious, and the cabin shape will also be improving accordingly.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello All,

Just a little bit of news that hit very close to home.
There was a fire in a chemistry lab in my Daughter's High School today.
A few students and even the teacher were hurt. Two of them were serious and went to a burn center.

This one was VERY close to home.
My Daughter was in a class room just a couple doors down from the chemistry lab and she and others heard the screams from the lab.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hi all!
I´m glad nothing even more serious happened! Chemistry labs are indeed dangerous places.

I remember our chemistry lab back at school in 1968 had tables with wooden walls around their vertical legs, housing the bunsen-burner gas pipes. A boy was putting out a burning magnesium strip with his foot on the floor, and nobody had suspected that there was a gas leak inside one of the tables. The gas had filled up under that table, overflowing silently onto the floor to about 4 inches high.

Well, the gas on the whole lab floor ignited for a second or two, and the table in question went WOOOOOMPFFF, and fell apart. Luckily nobody was sitting there at the back of the lab, but those of us with their feet on the ground had their fine nylon socks disappear at the ankles. The teacher was on the podium with his desk and nothing happened to him. One pupil was coming in through the laboratory door and the door slammed in his face, knocking him down - he ended up sitting on the ground outside the lab.

Strangely and luckily enough, nobody at all was hurt, except the boy who was coming through the door. He had a blue nose for a few days.

Have a nice weekend!
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Actually this event was about as serious as it gets without a fatality and from the descriptions and confusion about serious or life-threatening condition, I suspect it was a close call for at least one girl.

I do hope that the teacher is not dismissed because of this. From descriptions of her, she is very good and during the rash of suicides at Woodson a couple years ago, made herself available for anyone who needed to talk.
There are a couple idiot teachers in our system, but she is not one of them.
She was injured also but chose to stay on campus to talk to police and investigators.

What is interesting is that from my daughter's account, the authorities may have thought that this was a case of arson. The students were not allowed to mingle and had to stay with their classes which is a bit odd otherwise.

I also hope that the girl who was injured worst recovers well without any serious permanent scarring.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
I hope the girl gets better soon.
To blame the chemistry teacher is usual but ignorant, as by nature of their job, they are totally familiar with the dangers in labs, rarely lacking the attention required to prevent accidents. Negligence in the labs installation maintenance could be another point, as well as the school budget. At the end, there´s lots of possible scapegoats, and people washing their hands. If additionally the police is including arson as a possibility, it starts getting uncanny. I do hope they get to the bottom of it, because I´m sure it has spread feelings insecurity and fear in the neighbourhood.
Good luck!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I have heard three scenarios of what happened thus far.
One was from my Son who heard it through the grape vine from the Middle School a block away.
The source was most likely siblings in the two schools communicating via cell phone / twitter / facebook.
One was from my Daughter who got home a bit after my Son because of delays from the event.
Normally the two arrive home on the same bus.

One was from the news interview of a boy who was in the chemistry laboratory at the time and was interviewed for the news.

So far, the most plausible one of them is from my Daughter who most likely got the story from someone who was involved in the accident. The story of the boy in the lab is not as plausible because the error it describes is unlikely to have caused injuries to more than one person and five people not including the teacher were injured.
It is possible that all three stories just tell different parts of what happened from differing viewpoints and all are faithful accounts.
This was a half school day trying to do all the classes of a full school day. I can see how some things MAY have been neglected.
I just hope the event is recorded as a pure accident which is almost certainly was.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello all, hello Ivan,

I´ve just tried out a CFS1, SCASMed-VCockpit model in FS98, and contrary to what I had expected all the time, it worked!

What of course didn´t work properly was the .air file, because of the different CFS1 engine and propeller parameters, but the model didn´t fail to load, it just wouldn´t take off, but with a proper FS98 .air file, it flew perfectly.

I thought this was quite interesting, especially for those who occasionally like using FS98, or building for that Simulator.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Yes, I knew the models also worked in FS98. The problem is that they look like they are shaking a bit as a consequence of setting the model reference point to Cockpit Viewpoint instead of the World.
I have never tried to fly them there though; the scenery just looked way too crude.

To me, CFS had just enough graphic quality to aid "suspension of disbelief".
FS98 almost had enough but not quite.

This may sound strange, but I do all my FDE flight model editing in FS98.
I can't fly them there, but I have way too many aeroplanes loaded in CFS for FDE to work.
There are only about 40 aeroplanes in my installation of FS98.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Thanks for your comments.

As regards the shaking, on the Win98 computer I can use for FS98, a Pentium 4 at 2.6 Mhz, this not noticeable in any of the FS98 views, probably because it is fast enough for this not to happen.
I haven´t got my 800 Mhz PIII in the house at the moment, so I can´t test it there. I have asked my friend Udo Entenmann (the texture specialist), who is incidentally available again to help me with textures, to check this out - he has a PIII at 866 Mhz.

Interesting you should say you edit .air files on FS98 rather than CFS1 because of the amount of planes in the index. Wouldn´t this be too cumbersome to copy over to CFS1 to try it out all the time? I only keep about 15 or 20 in the index, and take all the rest out to another directory, because it is a bother to always have to go through all the planes to select one of the few currently in use. Anyway, everyone has their own system to get used to!

You mentioned CFS had just enough graphic quality to aid "suspension of disbelief" - I quite agree, but unfortunately the world is smaller there, so my solution has been to copy over ALL the sceneries from FS98!
One of the really nice ones I think is Chelan, with the hills, the river and the mountain-lake. I love it. It´s like a golden mountain and works really beautifully in CFS1 too.

Anyway, I´m going to ask Udo Entenmann to provide some nice textures for the Orion, which will be great. I think I´ll go for one of the white-grey classic liveries, hopefully one of the ones Blood-Hawk´s dad was flying!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

As a little side-line from the Orion, I´ve got my workers preparing an FS98 WW1 biplane twin I made, for CFS1 this time, (a Hansa Brandenburg G.1), and perhaps you could give some advice on in-component sequencing here.

I´ve already managed to get the two 160 Hp engines and 9 ft props working quite smoothly on the plane, which behaves nicely (for 1916), and I´ve eliminated the hollow parts to put in crew and guns, which is also going reasonably well.

However, there´s a concavity (caused by a narrow rather vertical part) crossing the top surface of the nose and shows up as a transparent slit. I´m trying not to have to split the surface into 2 components, because the nose is already split into 2 components - one with the up/down surfaces and one with the 2 sides. (Blueprint screenshots shown).

I´ve tried sequencing the part in at the first position and also in the middle and at the end, but it´s always transparent, except when I put in the narrow vertical part separately into the .afa list, like in the screenshot of the nose of the model . (The pilot body is as yet not there).
Maybe I´m asking too much?

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I believe in this case, you are definitely asking too much from Aircraft Factory 99.

The idea of sequencing (perhaps there is a better term?) the Parts within a Component is to make them display in a certain order.
I know this works because I do this on a lot of projects, most recently on the P-40F Merlin Warhawk.

I believe in this case, it is a different problem.
When the sequence is wrong, you get bleeds, but the Parts do not become Transparent.
THAT happens when the Part is facing the wrong direction because only the side facing away from the Center of the Component is displayed.

Note that my second Component looks very much like the Orion Nacelle.
The opening of the lower Scoop did not display for the same reason.

Note that the example Structure has a bit of resemblance to the Spandau Machine Gun from my Eindecker.
This feature of Structures is how I could get away with a lot of strange shapes in a single Structure that would have required several Components.
(In reality I may have used more than one Structure but that was because they had to live in different Groups.)

Hope this makes sense.

I do wonder though, why not build your aeroplane's nose as a single Structure?
Is it because you need to texture it Top-Bottom as well as Left-Right?
If so, consider using Insignia Parts for Top and Bottom surfaces and Gluing in place.
I believe it is only slightly more expensive in Parts and saves on Components.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Thank you for your illustrating answer, and explanations! Your insight into the way AF99 works never ceases to amaze me. I´d always wondered what it was about structures that made them display better in certain circumstances.
I´ll follow your suggestion then, thanks! I had also been wondering whether to change the fuselage components to structures. I don´t know why I was still hesitating... The initial hollowed-out construction needed components there, but those are no longer necessary! As there are ample resources left, I´ll glue on textured panels for the top-bottom displays.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

You're Welcome.

Although I didn't qualify it, what I explained is really my interpretation of how things work.
I don't really know for sure that I am correct but my theories seem to work well enough that I can make AF99 do what I want (mostly).
There are definitely a few holes in my "knowledge". For example, I don't know for sure how the "Center" of a Component is determined. I have a few ideas, but haven't taken the time to prove that the ideas are correct.

A lot of these ideas were gotten from examining the SCASM code that is generated from a AF99 Project and I can tell you that I still have problems doing a few things in SCASM.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

Very interesting. I suppose the fact that it is possible to a certain extent to understand how the AF99 "insides" work, is what makes it attractive, and possibly easier to use than the higher complication of more modern programmes. I doubt the innards of Gmax or FSDS can be decyphered.

I always remember that in 2003 an FS2002 FD writer I knew said that it was a pity that AF99 was going to become obsolete, because having to use Gmax to build models was like using a sledgehammer to kill a fly...

BTW: with this comment I don´t want to criticize Gmax builders in any way - in fact I quite admire their pacience with the greater capacity for detail this programme allows. That goes for AD2k as well! I have never been able to get into them beyond the tutorials.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I will have to disagree with you on this subject.

Perhaps the workings of Gmax and FSDS and AD2000 are more complicated and perhaps they are more difficult to understand, but they are also more full featured. I would much rather have the additional features because AF99 is definitely inadequate for building a really good project for CFS.

It is very much like comparing the relatively simple MS Paint to something like GIMP or Photoshop. One is simple and very easy to learn, but you run out of capability VERY quickly while the others may offer features you have no use for or take some experimentation to understand.

Basically I believe that killing a fly with a sledge hammer beats trying to kill a bull with a fly swatter. One results in a very dead fly and the other results in a very angry bull. Overkill is fine! Regarding your friend from 2003, AF99 is (unfortunately) no different today than it was back then. We push the limits a bit further these days because we have gotten smarter but we have lost no capabilities from what the program could do before.

This probably surprises you because you know I am still using AF99, but I have always believed it is an inadequate tool. That is why we keep having to use SCASM to do things that a really good 3D package SHOULD address. The reason I don't go full SCASM is because I prefer a visual design package to a coding package....

SO.... The conclusion from all of this is that although AF99 is a very mediocre tool, I believe it has enough features to do a pretty good looking visual model in many cases and its models CAN be corrected to work pretty well inside Combat Flight Simulator.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

Understanding how the innards of anything work has always been a fascination for me. As a kid I systematically pulled apart toys to see how they worked, and eventually was also able to put them back together successfully. With AF99 it is still possible to act on some inner aspects specifically, SCASMing an AF99 creation, even though my gnat capacity is limited to visual cockpit corrections, and even here I need help flipping polygons.

Of course this tweaking business is not necessary any more in the more advanced a programmes - what could there be to tweak? It´s not possible anyway without being an expert hacker or a C++ wizard, so it was just a rhetorical comment.

I agree that the newer programmes can do much more despite being more complicated to use, and once I retire I might give them another try to see if my pacience can cope with them, although I do have my misgivings there. I´m probably just too lazy to work with them. There is something quite appealing in the rather more simple workings albeit more limited capacities and bugs of AF99, that makes me continue using it.

I was musing "what if Gmax and FSDS could make models for CFS1 - would that make a difference for me?", but the answer for me is clear - it wouldn´t, because otherwise I´d be using them already with CFS2 or 3 and FS2004 or FSX, ignoring CFS1 and FS98, which is not the case.

So for me it´s a matter of liking how AF99 works, made more interesting by the SCASM tweaking possibilities, even though I can only do very little. Also greatly enhancing the use of AF99 are your comments on its intricacies and hidden secrets. Fascinating, as they are not only lists of objective information, but mostly including reasoned deductions from speculative thought, leaving room for more speculation and experimentation!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

I had made the Hansa Brandenburg G.1´s straight, rectangular wings, with structures because the hollowed out fuselage had eaten up so many components that there were none left for the wing. Then, being concave underneath, I made two structures for the main wing section, apart from separate ailerons and wing trailing edges.

Now, experimenting after your description of structures, I found that it is indeed possible to make the main wing section in only one structure - it DOES display as concave!

I thought this was very interesting - I had never tried this, taking for granted that concavities were "prohibited"!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

P.S. Of course, the nose and fuselage is coming along very well with structures, lined by top and bottom insignia surfaces textured separately. Perhaps I´ll use components for the wings later, as the shading looks better on component-made wings rather than structure made ones.

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I am glad things are working out for you.

I still can't do much with Structures in Wings because they don't allow tapered Wing Tips or Dihedral.
Both are generally show stoppers with modern aeroplanes.

I remember discussing some time back how I had put together the Spandau Machine Gun on the Eindecker.
I had thought it was kind of cool how with a single Structure I could build something that would take MANY Components.

Regarding AF99, my main complaint isn't that it is too simple.
My greatest complaint is that it is too linear.

Consider this:
The separation of various sections of a model can best be represented as a Tree Diagram.
As you go down a major branch, it separates into minor branches and each minor branch is further subdivided.
Having the ability to do this is essential because it is a pretty intuitive and logical way to define viewing planes.
With the right language definition, this can easily be coded in a simple text file.
This is how SCASM and other programming languages are designed.

The separation of the major Groups in AF99 are also done in a Tree representation, but within each group, the representation resembles a Vine more than a Tree. There are branches from the trunk but each branch only be separated from the trunk andthere can be no separations into smaller branches.

This is obviously easy to code but has great limitations. Sometimes it is necessary to spend some time to design a language to have certain features. I actually spent a week on a project just working on how to represent features that I wanted in a new language.
I don't see that this was done with AF99 and it is a shame because designing the language properly is certainly easier than the parts that the authors ACTUALLY DID DO.

It is a pity that there is not the opportunity to do a little fixing of AF99. With very few changes, it could be a much more powerful design tool.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Happy New Year to all!

Hello Ivan,
...on the first day of the New Year, may it see a few new CFS1 models here!

So as I see it, this is what must have happened: In the days of BAO Flightshop (AF5), its "vine" tree, producing simple aircraft, was just about what the average user´s computer could cope with - the 1st bifurcation was enough! When it was upgraded to AF99, the average computer had become faster, but was underestimated. The upgrade included mainly only a bigger file size and higher parts count but not a "Tree" tree with 2nd or 3rd bifurcations.

Your "Vine" rather than "Tree" illustration/explanation expands upon your older glue sequence description for the parts comprising an example tail: fin, glue, aft-fuselage, glue, left tailplane, glue, right tailplane.

Being a vine, there´s no room to glue on rudders or elevators - each piece of glue represents a bifurcation, and a sequence including these in the respective positions won´t work.

I suppose the grouping principle tail, tail left/right, tail upper, tail upper left/right, was an effort to remedy this, but made it more complicated and less effective than a "Tree" tree would have been. A pity, becuse it would have been nice...

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Happy New Year, Everyone!




Your "Vine" rather than "Tree" illustration/explanation expands upon your older glue sequence description for the parts comprising an example tail: fin, glue, aft-fuselage, glue, left tailplane, glue, right tailplane.

Being a vine, there´s no room to glue on rudders or elevators - each piece of glue represents a bifurcation, and a sequence including these in the respective positions won´t work.


Hello Aleatorylamp.

I had already typed a fairly long reply that just vanished a few seconds ago.... Hopefully I won't miss anything serious on the second attempt.

I believe your summary of my Vine / Tree / Glue explanation is pretty good.
The problem though is that although the "bifurcation" of the Tailplane into a Stab and Elevator cannot be specified in AF99, its single direction assembly sequence and simple rules it follows make it impossible to build the proper sequence.
This is why I don't really try to build animated control surfaces.

I believe in another aspect, you are confusing the complexity of the modelling application with the complexity and size of the model being created.
AF99's assembly sequence does NOT result in a particularly economical MDL file. This can be seen by examining the SCASM code from a disassembled MDL. AF99 adds viewing planes for EVERYTHING whether they are specified or not. The problem is that although the viewing plane / Glue code exists in the MDL, the author cannot specify where it is located and AF99 does a rather poor job of guessing where it should be.

Additional complexity in the modelling application would not result in a lot of additional code because most of the complexity would really be in the DESIGN of the application. As a negative, the resulting program would certainly be a bit more complicated to use. The current AF99 assembly process has no concept of subroutines and the new assembly process would need to implement something equivalent to a subroutine.
The resulting program would certainly be no more complex than other Integrated Development Environments or Compilers.

Regarding the question of whether computers of the era were capable of handling the more complex models, consider that the computer I am currently using for development has not been significantly modified since I built it in 1997.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
It is frustrating how the window times out and one can´t post when one finishes writing, and then the text gets lost. Sometimes I can go back to the writing window, copy the text I´ve written, open another Internet window, loggin SOH anew, go to the thread, open the posting window, paste the text and post it!

I was just speculating on a logical reason for the simple Vine tree style without subroutines implemented when AF5 came out in 1997, which was not upgraded to a Tree tree for AF99 in 1999.

So it wasn´t the average computer performance that was the limiting factor. The Pentium 233 MMX came out in 1993, so by the time 1997 came along it, must have come down in price pretty much so as to be a computer for the average user, perfectly capable of producing more complicated models to be made properly with a Tree tree style programme with subroutines.

It must have been that the creators of the programme did not expect modellers to create more complicated models. I could also be wicked and come to think they didn´t know how to programme something non-linear. It is curious that animated surfaces were not catered for either, until Aircraft Animator came out later, to do what it could with what there was. AF5/AF99 wasn´t meant to make animated surfaces anyway!

I suppose I keep coming back to the subject in the subconscious hope of finding solutions to the unsolvable limitations created by our Vine-tree.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Recommendations for Combat Flight Simulator were for a 150 MHz Pentium with 3D graphics card as minimum.

My computer actually started life as a Cyrix 686 P200+
The memory bus speed was 75 MHz and the processor ran at 2x.
Even at 150 MHz, this system was quite fast but the Cyrix chip although it was probably as fast or faster than a Pentium 200, it was more instruction compatible with a 80486 and would hang on some Pentium instructions.

The Pentium 233 MMX is actually faster compared to a Pentium 200 than its clock rate would indicate; There were improvements besides the MMX additions.

When I replaced the processor, I had a choice of either going with 75 MHz bus and 3x processor for 225 MHz or 66 MHz bus with 3.5x processor for 233 MHz. I chose 233 MHz because it was a bit more conventional.
I also found that I could enable three of the four banks of 64K of memory. One bank was shared between the two memory types, so I could not populate both.
I also had to cut away parts of the interior of the case to install the extra bank of memory.

Regarding the Vine versus Tree arrangement, keep in mind that it only meant that the design application could be simpler.
It didn't mean the resulting model is shorter or simpler. In fact the model is likely to be more complicated.
Although the design application is simpler, it doesn't mean that it requires any less processing power.
I believe the developers of the design application just took a simpler and easier way out because they didn't expect models to get very elaborate.

Pity they didn't do it. It would have resulted in a much nicer generation of models though one cannot guarantee that result.
Consider that even with the Vine assembly limitations, we can build pretty good models with minimal bleeds today but that most of the past designers using AF99 never figured out how to do it.

The 30 Components and 30 Structures limitation was probably also for the same reason. 40 Components and 20 Structures would have made more sense.
Who would have thought we would be trying such fancy things a few years down the road?
Who would have thought AF99 would still be in use this many years later?
Note also that the original non-patched AF99 would only handle 800 Parts in all and the Wizard did not work at all from what I could tell.
The animation was clearly an afterthought, thus the "Speed Below" tags to communicate with Aircraft Animator.

Of course there are solutions to the Vine versus Tree: Work in SCASM!

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Interesting, the way you built up and upgraded your computer!
I definitely agree that in spite of its shortcomings, the fact that work-arounds can be found in AF99, is quite amazing. That is the good side of the whole story, and my experiments in the last few days only illustrate this further, with my Hansa Brandenburg G.1 side-track from the P3-Orion.

Your explanatory diagram about structures and components, and your single-structure machinegun on the Eindecker have spurred some investigation on my part.

Something made with a component cannot display concavities and needs more than one component. I had always thought this applied to structures too, but as you said, it doesn´t, as they use a different displaysystem.

The first experiment involved the Schwarzlose machine guns on the Hansa B. I had them in two structures, barrel and body, out of habit, to avoid concavities. However, this played hell with the glue-sequencing of gunner,gun, gun-ring halves and gunner-well circle, and as soon as I made one-structure MG´s, everything seemed to click into place! They can now even be textured.

This was a small victory compared to the second experiment:

I had always made concave wings with three separate sections (forward, mid and aft). The sections had to be 3 components if the wing was tapered, but for reactangular wings I liked using structures (they save work). In the case of components, there is no other way of displaying the concavity, but with structures, contrary to what I´d always thought, there is no need for dividing the wing up, not even for the aileron cut-out! (my obsession with moving parts!).

Here I always had a separate structure for the wing trailing-edge next to the aileron, but this invariably creates hairline cracks at the joint, impossible to eliminate even by adding little flanges to the structure ends (they reduce the size of the hairline cracks but create interfering darker lines). Then, ailerons, if rectangular, can also be structures, but not in the case of the Hansa B., because the aileron trailing edges slant backwards as they go out.

This causes an added complication even if one were to eliminate moving parts. The shape of the top wing needs a component inserted for the ailerons, as the shape is no longer rectangular.

So here, on the Hansa B., I carved out the aileron hole, similarly to how I carved out the complicated fin/rudder structures on the Fledgling. Now the wing is one whole single structure with ailerons, and there are no hairline cracks.

Finally, there is a glue piece gluing the aileron to the wing because the aileron cut-out cannot be made exactly perpendicular, and has to have a difference of 0.01 ft in the hinge line ends (this is for the two bulkheads the structure needs here), and this makes a wall what bleeds through the aileron if it is not glued.

Here are a few screenshots to illustrate the point. I really like the smooth curvature of the wings.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,
The glue sequence on the tail empenage is also strange here, and quite successful.

The triple rudder adds difficulty to the simpler bleedthrough-avoiding glue sequence involving no moving parts, so the problems caused by the triple rudder could not even be solved by eliminating animations.

Strangely, the tailplane is one piece, glued onto the fueslage tail section, which is a component without a lid, as the tailplane covers that, and a one-piece elevator is glued to the tailplane. Then the fin and all the rudders are in tail-upper with the wires, and the backward-slanting outer-rudder struts are in tail upper left/right. An unexpected setup, but it works better than any combination of left and tight tailplane and elevator halves grouped or glued anywhere else, possibly because the tailplane sits on the fuselage as opposed to being fixed to the sides... although I did have to eliminate two wires going from the tailplane edges to the fuselage on both sides underneath - there was no way of eliminating those wire-bleeds through the tailplane.

There is a little bleed as yet with the external rudder struts, but I don´t know if I can get rid of that. Them, the texture on the central fin/rudder needs improving as it diffuses where it meets the taiplane.

Maybe I can upload this quite soon if things don´t get too complicated - and then I can return the hammers to the P3-Orion panel-beaters for them to finish the nacelles!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello all, Hello Ivan,

I´ve been busy with the new CFS1 old 1916 biplane, and it´s almost ready.
It´s quite an important model historically as it was Ernst Heinkel´s first attempt at a twin-engined biplane bomber, with 2x160 Hp engines on outriggers instead of on the wings. It was apparently OK for the prototype with Maybach engines, which ran smoothly, but the German Military didn´t approve so he had the model made in Austria with Austro-Daimler engines which vibrated quite a lot. 39 were built and only saw one bombing mission, and were then used as trainers for the new Gothas which were coming out. They also tested it with a Skoda anti-tank cannon in the nose, which was shortened for CoG reasons, probably, and that must have had quite a punch. That would make an interesting variant for this model.

The triple-fin tail, 3 crew and 2 machineguns went surprisingly well with able glue sequencing, so it is quite satisfying, ...obviously thanks to Ivan´s patient coaching!
There´s still a black cabin well part bleeding through the fuselage, but hopefully I´ll have that licked soon and I´ll be able to upload it tomorrow or the day after.

The Spanish celebrate Christmas on the 6th January, the 3 King´s day, so it could qualify as a Spanish Christmas present!
Here´s some screenshots meanwhile!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[No Dice]

Looking good Sir, 3 thumbs up..........:applause:

Dave

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I believe there is a better solution to your tail assembly sequence.....

Consider putting all the pieces into the Tail Group but Start with the Central Fin.
Sequence it as follows:

Center Fin
Center Rudder
Starboard Rudder
Port Rudder
Starboard Fin
Port Fin
Horizontal Stabiliser
Elevator
Tail Cone

The locations of Glue should be pretty obvious with this sequence.
I believe the result should be pretty close to zero bleeds without the complication of two separate Groups.

Regarding the Wing as a Concave Structure.....
It IS possible to make a Concave Component; That was the whole point of the earlier discussion.
Just start with the middle of the underside of the Wing and move forward and aft from there.

If you MUST go with Structures and have an issue with the Aileron Cutout, consider re-shaping the Aileron to match the cutout.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello No Dice,
Glad you like it! Thank you for your moral support!
Have a virtual cup of tea here in the sub-sub basement!!
I like Lapsang Souchong, but we also have Earl Grey or Irish Breakfast...

Hello Ivan,
Thank you very much for your indications! (cup of tea, maybe Darjeeling?)

For the moment actually, the Tail-upper group seems to solve my problems rather than to create them, as opposed to tail-upper left/right and tail-left-right that only worsens them. It is working perfectly!

But I had to take out most of the wires. I have marked them in red in two screenshots.
The only wires that are allowed at the moment go from the upper side-rudder tips to the central rudder base.
Left and right fins in this case are of course the slanted rudder struts that hold them up.

Your list brings memories of the two Fledgling pilot glue-dancing act... with two slanting glue pieces, perhaps - between Port Rudder and Starboard Fin, and Starboard Fin and Port Fin?
Also, I suppose a tail skid can be glued under the tail cone.

So in your list, glue template separators following each part could be:

Center Fin + vertical front/back
Center Rudder + vertical right sideways
Starboard Rudder + vertical left sideways
Port Rudder >>> + a slanted glue piece <<< ?
Starboard Fin >>> + a slanted glue piece <<< ?
Port Fin + horizontal up/down
Horizontal Stabiliser + vertical backwards
Elevator + horizontal up/down
Tail Cone >>> + horizontal up/down <<< ?
Tail Skid

Would this setup also allow the missing wires? The only one that could work well at the mmoment is the left upper slanted one. For some odd reason the right upper slanted one disappeard when viewed from the side-front. The horizontal upper ones bleed through the central and lateral rudders, and the lower ones always bleed through the tailplane.

Ailerons are fitted into the Aileron cut-out on the wing structures - that went ok, and fit quite nicely the hinge slant is offset 0.01 ft from the perpendicular.

Thanks for the description of the part-order in a concave single-component wing! I hadn´t expected that could be done!

The wings are structures (with 1 degree dihedral >ughh!<), as I have no components left. They went into things like left/right gunner rings, lateral rudder struts, tail skid, landing gear struts, radiators, and the central fin/rudder, Parts count is squeezing at 1178. Then, the central fuselage has a cross section of a trapeze mounted on a square, and I needed several components to separate pilot and gunner wells because of the black insignia piece glued to the top of each, and there is a slanted step in the middle of the well.

Update: I´ve fixed the pilot well bleedthrough, and then changed the central fin/tail to structures again, so now I have 2 components for the top wings - to improve the shading there (aileron components always cause shading mismatch in wing structures). That way I can also experiment making a concave wing-component! Parts count has now gone up to 1196 (149.5%) but will go down again with the wings as components - it should save possibly 3% (24 parts).

Let´s see... Sorry about the long post, but sometimes these happen...
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello again, Ivan!

The top wing component is made of 7 upper and 7 lower strips making upper and lower surfaces.
The outer rim is vertical and has 7 segments as well.
As you said, numbering from the inside and going forwards and backwards, alternating upper and lower segments of the surface we´d have, leading edge on the left:

wing tip pieces: 11t 7t 3t 1t 5t 9t 13t
upper surface p: 11 7 3 1 5 9 13
lower surface p: 12 8 4 2 6 10 14

Updated correction:
------------------
I tried this build order:

1t, 1, 2, 3t, 3, 4, 5t, 5, 6, 7t, 7, 8, 9t, 9, 10, 11t, 11, 12, 13t, 13, 14.

...but it won´t work - the undersurface stays invisible. Maybe I shouldn´t have alternated the top and bottom parts as I went forward and backwards from the middle?
So perhaps, the component-parts should be grouped as per their surface, the top parts first in the list, the tip parts second and the undersurface parts last?

2nd Update:
-----------
No, sorry this didn´t work either. OOoooppssss!!!! I didn´t pay attention! I should have started with the with the underside! .... NO, no, that didn´t work either.
I´ve just done it, working forwards and backwards starting from the middle, underside first, then top surface, and lastly the vertical wintip pieces.
I must be doing something quite wrong, but I don´t know what it is.

The blueprint screenshot shows topwing component in blue lines and aileron component in light grey (its outer end makes the wing wider at the wingtip). Parts count is down to 143.3% (1146 parts) and the wing component itself is down to 19 parts from 34, and there are still 3 structures left!!

Thank you for your inspection and possible suggestions!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Actually my preference would be Earl Grey. I drink it all the time (decaf though).

Regarding the ordering of the Wing Parts.
First thing to check is that the center of the Component will end up in the correct location.
To do that, just add all the Parts and don't worry about the order.
If you see bleeds, that is fine, but if you see transparencies, then you know the shape of the wing is not workable as a single Component no matter what the order of Parts is.

Now assuming that you don't see transparencies, you need to add all the Concave Parts first.
I usually start with the deepest concavity and work outwards. (This is only a general rule, sometimes things are different.)
In the case of your Wing:
2-4-6-8-10-14-12 assuming that the Parts are numbered from Front to Rear....
Then add all the non-concave parts because order does not matter there.

So... Only the Concave stuff matters and it must be listed first.

To make it more clear:
If the lower surface of your Wing has 7 Parts numbered 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 from Leading to Trailing Edge:
4-3-5-6-7-2-1
or something similar....
The order does not alternate because I believe the maximum Concavity is slightly ahead of mid-Chord
AND
because the Trailing Edge continues its concave curve while the Leading Edge reverses as it gets to the first Part.

I can't see the exact shape from your screenshot but that is my best guess.

Hope that helps.
- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,
Thanks for your coaching on this! You are very kind.

Your explanation is quite clear, and the numbering too - you understood mine and I understood yours. There is a numbered side-view screenshot below, just for clarity´s sake, showing the top and bottom parts and their numbers.

So... I´m afraid that in this case the entire wing underside IS transparent, so it´s a definite no-go then. ...Possibly the concavity is too pronounced.

Anyway, the wing as a structure does look beautiful, with only a small shading difference between ailerons and leading edges, which is negligible, I´d say, so I´ll go ahead with that.

Then, other than taking out some wires from the tail, everything shows correctly, so there´s no real problem there either. With effective "Ivan´s-Konga" type Sequencing for the forward gunner´s well and the 3 separated sections of the shared oval rear well for rear gunner and pilot has yielded nice results there too.

Instead of texturing the guns, which are all grey in reality anyway, I used the last texture to put a "Hoheitszeichen", meaning "Highness Mark", the German for the Maltese Cross, on the nose-tip, as some units had that - I hadn´t discovered it until now, as when I made the model, a few years back, there were not so many photos available.
So, I´ve got the Dp file done, and I´ll SCASM it for the V-Cockpit now.
Well, it is just in time today for the Spanish Christmas - the 3 King´s Day !!

The Cannon Version info is also new. I think I´ll also provide a snub-nose variant with the Skoda anti-tank puncher! That has the forward gunner´s well a bit further back. That should be useful for CFS1 fighter-simmers to shoot up tanks, and ought to please more than one!

However, first I´ll finish the P3 Orion, which is meeowing in the corner stretching its paw forward like our cat.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello all!
I wish you all a very merry Spanish Christmas 3-Kings´ Day.

As promised (just on time ha ha!), I´m pleased to say that there´s a new golden oldie from 1916 in the SOH Warbirds CFS1 Library: The twin-engined Hansa Brandenburg G.1 bomber-trainer, which has turned out quite nicely with very few bleeds, and a CFS1 .air file, SCASM-corrected V-cockpit, Dp files.

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...id=19&id=20699 (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/local_links.php?action=jump&catid=19&id=20699)

Thank you Ivan, for your continued support!

I have also uploaded the latest FS98/CFS1 USAF Starfighter TF-104G, into the SOH Warbirds Library. It has great textures by Udo Entenmann, for the event that there is a little interest for this "space rocket". This is an extensive upgrade for FS98 + CFS1 re-work of a BAO Flightshop AFX of a RG-104G single-seater Starfighter for FS5.

Here´s the link to the Starfighter two-seater:

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...id=19&id=20702 (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/local_links.php?action=jump&catid=19&id=20702)

Enjoy!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[papingo]

dear Ivan....
what does bifurcation mean?
also bear in mind that an af99 afx is able to be
interpreted by af2000___so could you use it to add features?
***
many yonks ago I built a simple plane at Meigs
beside the runway__this was before I understood
vectorjumps
>>>papingo

[Ivan]

Hello Papingo,

You really should be asking Aleatorylamp. He used the word first.

Bifurcation just means a split into two parts.....

Yes, I know you can import an AFX into AD2000. I may do that eventually with projects that are really too big for AF99.
The problem with doing it now is that I don't know how to use AD2000 yet. I will get there in time unless time gets to me first.

What kind of aeroplane did you build at Meigs? Any possibility of bringing it into Combat Flight Simulator?

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Papingo,

I should have answered yesterday, but didn´t want to butt in. Like Ivan says, bifurcation is a split into two parts. For example, a fork where the flow of programme splits in two: If condition 1 happens, it´ll do A, and if condition 2 happens, it´ll do B.

The second bifurcation would be another split after condition 1 or 2, where another 2 actions would be possible after each one, and this is what the AF99 compiler does not do very well or at all.

It only seems to work works nicely for the first bifurcation, along a linear flow, as Ivan says like a vine, and not a tree with branches branching out from other branches, which would be second and more bifurcations.

Chess programmes use this principle with multiple bifurcations, although nowadays they have a huge look-up table...

I have never used AD2000, but when I did the FSDS tutorial I tried its AF99 AFX import-plug-in, but it converts EVERYTHING into individual parts, so this was of very debatable use because you end up with over 1000 individual parts. I don´t know how AD2000 would do this.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[papingo]

dear boys (Ivan and A....lamp)
thanks for reply.
Did you see the size of smilo's
ardo mdl--must be a record
****
gotta go
>>papingo

[Ivan]

Hello Papingo,

I did download and fly Smilo's Arado 196 and flew it around a bit and of course looked over the model from a bunch of angles, but never actually looked at the file sizes. From your comment I gather the MDL file is a bit on the large side? I don't doubt it. There are a lot more polygons than a typical AF99 project.

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Regarding bifurcations, it can be anything. A fork in the road is a bifurcation.

As for AD2000, When Smilo was building his Arado 196 floatplane, I sent him a couple pieces and found out something interesting.
From the limited view from way outside Smilo's development shop, I gather that the order in which the points of a polygon are specified determine the facing. This is a bit of information that AF99 COULD use but does not.
The really interesting thing is that this is part of how SCASM determines facing and is pretty typical for other design programs from what little experience I have with them.
If AF99 used this information, we would be so much better off though a couple of my utilities such Mirror would need to be reworked a bit.
Still, this is a characteristic that the designer could determine much better than a program's automatic functions can.

.....

[Ivan]

Regarding Chess Programming.....

I thought this subject deserved its on post so it can more easily be continued or ignored and because it opens a HUGE can of worms.

Back in the late 1980's I actually wrote (most) of a Chess program.
The computer I used started life as a 5-slot IBM PC without a Hard Disk Drive because when it was bought, HDD's for the IBM PC were only 10 MB and cost an extra $1000. They only came on the IBM PC/XT. The PC/AT was very new at the time and was quite a bit more money and my family was on a very restrictive budget.

By the time I wrote the Chess Program, I probably had upgraded the processor to a NEC V-20 which was a pin compatible replacement for the Intel 8088 chip. I may have also put in a 20 or 40 MB "Hard Card" which combined a controller and HDD in the space of a single expansion slot. I know for sure that I was still using IBM's CGA graphics.
Sometime later, this same machine became a 16 MHz Intel 80386 machine with a new "motherboard", memory and processor all on yet another expansion slot.

I decided I wanted to have a Chess Program that I could modify to play "Fairy Chess" (Variations on the game) and so I wrote the program using either Lattice C or Microsoft C. This was back in the days when the sizes of memory "segments" were a distinct limitation.
The default was that each section of project (Program, Data, Stack, and Heap) had to stay under 64K.

[Fast Forward past the major development details]

I learned quite a lot about search trees, "Mini-Maxing", and Alpha-Beta pruning in practice by actually writing this program.

***** Relevant Points are Here *****
The typical search tree for Chess is much more than a bifurcation. It is more like a 35-furcation in the middle game.
Even on the first move, the branching factor is 20 for each side.
The search trees get REALLY BIG really quick.

My program could be tuned for depth of search. I found that I was typically using a 4-ply depth because any more would simply be unplayable in a reasonable amount of time with the processing power that I had.

Depth of search always has to be an even number or silly things like the second half of an exchange would be hidden by the "horizon effect" and cause the program to make really bad choices.
It also helps to be able to determine whether a position was "quiescent" so that it would not try to evaluate a position in the middle of a long exchange. (My program was not sophisticated and did not incorporate this feature.)

Back in those days, because of the fairly shallow searches even on large Chess Computers, and because computers play a rather strange and very materially dominant game, programmers would try to incorporate an "opening book" to skew the evaluations to avoid having a not so sophisticated program get itself into a totally hopeless position.
Life got interesting when the program would get past the opening book (lookup tables) and start to evaluate on its own. It would find a position which was quite reasonable in human terms but that looked poor to its own evaluations and might do silly things to correct the situation.
Heuristics would also cause problems because although they were good in human terms, they might get the computer to do things that its own evaluation would not normally pick and again at some point, it would try to "fix" things.

These days, I don't think a lookup table or opening book is used much if at all. Hardware has increased capabilities tremendously and a simple material (point-count) used on a LOT of leaf nodes I believe is most common.
(My evaluation was based on material (obviously) and on mobility.)

I found that I could beat this program easily when it was set to respond in about 2-5 minutes per move. I am not a particularly strong chess player (probably around a 1650 rating) but quite a bit better than the average person. This program was actually able to beat most beginning chess players among the people I used for testing at a rate of about 2:1 or 3:1.

Regarding why it was only MOST of a Chess Program:
There never was implementation of En Passant, and Castling.
The problem was that for each of these moves, they are really TWO moves in combination and my data structures were never created with that in mind. I knew about this limitation, but to do it differently would have cost me much more memory that I did not believe I had.

....and so was the story of MY Chess Program.
It probably still resides on 5.25 inch Floppy Disk in my archives.

- Ivan.

[No Dice]

dear boys (Ivan and A....lamp)
thanks for reply.
Did you see the size of smilo's
ardo mdl--must be a record
****
gotta go
>>papingo

Smilos work is really great, he used AD2000 and if I remember correctly
he told me that AD2002 worked as well ?

If you should try to use it remember to download the ACT data fix.

Find them all here:
http://www.thefreeflightsite.com/Design.htm

Dave

[Ivan]

Hi No Dice,

What exactly is an ACT Data Fix?

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

Fascinating, how you managed to make an "almost complete" chess programme with the limited resources of the time. I once wrote a checkers programme, which was of course much simpler.

In the 80´s a friend gave me an electronic chess board called Mephisto, and the levels it could play at, were either graded by setting a time for the turn, or by setting its thought depth with a coice of 2 to 10 bifurcations. With a depth of 3 it took about 15 to 20 seconds, and at 4 it was a little over a minute, which was great for playing.

You could also see it think, as it went through each piece to see how it could move it: It would light up the vertical and horizontal coordinates of the piece and the positions it was investigating. It could also suggest moves if you asked for help during your turn. A great example of AI, and I only saw it make stupid mistakes at level 2, unlike other mid-range chess machines of the time that often played strangely at most levels.

This machine did not have a start-game look-up table, but was nevertheless very good. Much better than me, because I only beat it at level 3 most of the times, and only few times at level 4. I must take it out of the box again for a game!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello, hello again,

I´m working on another boxkite, a little known German 1916-1917 twin by the name of Albatross G.III Grosskampfflugzeug - a large battle-plane. I´m upgrading my 2007 version from FS98 to CFS1.

Incidentally, someone who shall not be named from another page which shall not be named stole it and made a CFS2 version without crediting any of the original authors... These things happen...

Anyway, here are a few screenshots. I´m putting in the G.II prototype with 165 hp Benz Bz.III engines as well as the G.III with its 230 hp Benz G.IV engines. All the air file work done in the last year with Ivan on the different sized engines and propellers comes in very handy now - it´s all done!

Apparently the Albatros G.III was faster and more manoueverable than all the other Grossflugzeuge of the time.
The shape is also very appealing, gently curved even though it had a box cross section.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[smilo]

Hi No Dice,

What exactly is an ACT Data Fix?

- Ivan.

hello Ivan and all,
as i recall ad2002 had an issue compiling a mdl.
the ACT Data Fix solved the problem.
A.C.T. was the name of the group
that developed ad2k and ad2002

btw...many thanks for the kind comments
regarding the work done on the ar196.
too true, the model was very complex.
i often wondered what the limits could be,
but, was never able to reach said limits.
i also wondered how the model affected
slower machines.
is it a framerate killer?...most likely.

[smilo]

"Incidentally, someone who shall not be named from another page which shall not be named
stole it and made a CFS2 version without crediting any of the original authors... These things happen..."

greetings Stephan,
while it's true, these things happen,
stealing another's work is frowned upon.
i would suggest posting the perpetrator's name
and the "page" where your work is offered.
i'm not saying anything will be done about it,
but, i for one would like to know who this ahole is.

[No Dice]

smilo,

Who and what website ?

"Incidentally, someone who shall not be named from another page which shall not be named
stole it and made a CFS2 version without crediting any of the original authors... These things happen..."

I have been around long enough and know enough people, Let's just shut them down.

Dave

[smilo]

i don't know who or what website, Dave.

the quote in red is from Aleatorylamp's post #1328 above.

[No Dice]

Aleatorylamp,

If you do not want to post the thief in this forum,
Please contact me direct: dea14u@aol.com

I will take it from there:

Dave

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Smilo and Dave,

Thank you for your support on this issue.
OK, so it is better not to just accept it and stay quiet, so I WILL mention the culprit:

The plane is on the ABSquad page, and does not include any credit for the original authors of the plane or the AFX files from which the guy made a modification for CFS2.It is easy to see that he has plagiarized the model and has unfairly taken credit for himself. This is to be seen in the .air file content, panel, sounds, textures and colours on the screenshot. Even the title is the same! Then he took out the readme I had in it, and also put his name into the panel .cfg. I had put in disclaimers and copyright texts for the model and also for the AFX.

The web page is: http://www.absquad.net/cfs2_absquad_wolrd_war_1.htm

The text on the page next to the plane is as follows:
CFS2 AB-Albatros G.II (http://www.absquad.net/cfs2_ab_albatros_g2.exe) (848KB). Prototype of the Albatros G.III, a very little known medium sized tactical bomber biplane produced by Albatros Flugzeugwerke of Johannisthal, Berlin. By: AB_Lt_Cmd_Riker (michael.priester@comcast.net).

Behind the pseudonym AB_Lt_Cmd_Riker (michael.priester@comcast.net) is the webmaster and "author", a Mr. Michael Priester,
whose e-mail is michael.priester@comcast.net

I wrote him an e-mail a few days ago complaining about his not very honourable way of taking credit for other people´s work, but of course he hasn´t answered.

Thanks again for your support!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

This fellow did the same to me a few years back.

There seems to be something wrong with his CFS1 page at the moment or I would include some links to my own projects that he has claimed as his own.

One of the good things is that he has a tendency to pick some generally nice projects that might otherwise not get publicity otherwise.
I found a few models mostly by Japanese authors that I had not found elsewhere on the ABSquad site.
It is amazing how prolific he would be if he actually even built 1/10 of what he claims are his own projects. As it is, I am sure he has built absolutely none of them.
It is quite amazing how such as A$$H0LE can make such claims about honour and have so little of it himself. I wonder if he winces every time he even thinks of the words honour, courage, and all the other crud he posts.
The only nice thing about his site is the genuinely nice stuff he chooses to steal.

I had an email exchange with him a few years back.....
He even acknowledged my ownership of a couple of the projects and promised to fix the credits. Of course he never did.

Hubbabubba executed a rather embarrassing "Sting" operation on him a few years back. Although there was probably some minor embarrassment on his side, nothing really ever came of it.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

I think it´s a flaw in human nature, perhaps to do with the survival of the fittest, but applied to the sense of achievement in this case, so that the person in question feels to be someone, as opposed to being nothing.

I don´t think this kind of person ever feels embarrassed about anything. We tend to look at them through our prespective, when theirs is totally different. They like to get away with whatever they can at the expense of others, and feel a sense of achievement when they sucessfully trick or rip someone off, or steal something. If caught out, they are very apologetic, polite, and seemingly cooperative, but that´s only out of cowardice - words to avoid confrontation!

A large part of modern society actually thinks that this kind of action is cleverness, and confuse it with fighting the establishment and the oppresive oligarchy. In countries like Spain, if you get caught cheating in an exam, you may get a zero, but not necessarily. Peers will regard it as being clever! In Britain, however, you get a zero, and the third time, you get expelled.

Corrupt politicians are another example of this kind of dishonesty, and it often extends into a free for all for a long time until some of them get landed in jail. They never give anything back, though... They don´t care anyway, because they see the war-mongering power-groups, ruthlessly acting in their own interests all the time, regardless of the human suffering caused.

One can always think that Karma will catch up with them one day, or that they will eventually learn what to do and noto to do, even if it is not in this life, but enough philosophy for this morning!

Building airplanes is better!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello!

My progress on the Albatross G.2/3 large battle-plane has come to a point of battling bleedthrough with different approaches, none of which is perfect. In this case, there is no difference in having animated surfaces or not, because of the excessive number of parts to be glue-sequenced in the tail groups. To prevent bleeds with the fuselage and wings, the the pusher props, and consequently the rear gunner and gun, must be placed in the tail groups, apart from the normal tail-assembly elements, which here also have two lateral tail struts. So it´s not a very straight forward ensemble.

However, as there is considerable distance between the tail assembly and the pusher-props, rear gunner and gun AF99 seems to cope quite well in separating the display for the different elements, and there are only short minor bleeds when viewing from directly behind.

Several different alternative groupings undertaken in several days give worse results, so I´ve come to a point of the best possible result, and the minor bleeds will not hamper the model so much as to prevent its upload!

So, now I´m doing the virtual cockpits - and for the moment, here are some more screenshots! In a few days I hope to have the model ready for upload.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I actually don't necessarily want the ABSquad site to go away (strangely enough).
The site hosts quite a few things that simply cannot be found elsewhere.

The majority of people who are not quite as well connected as we are in this enthusiasts forum would never figure out that Michael Priester is such a phony. I believe that is his audience. Most of us here know better.
One does have to wonder how someone can live with himself knowing that he is a simple thief and unable to actually create any of the things he claim as his own work. ...But as you said, this fellow obviously doesn't share the same values.

You certainly are quite prolific with the Great War Aeroplanes.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,

Well, at least there is some use to be had from this phony´s website, and its flaw is another example of a lesser evil!

Anyway... Planes of the Great War: I have always found old biplanes fascinating, especially the bing ones. Not many modellers build these slow multi-engine biplane bomber, probably because there are too many struts and wires, and some elements are located in strange positions, and this adds difficulty to building the model. So, I thought here´s a niche where I can quietly do my thing.

While I know that general interest for these models is somewhat limited, probably for performance reasons, there is an adventurous atmosphere I like about them. The fact that a lot of them flew well was a tremendous engineering feat.

If a new model was actually able to fly reasonably, it was already a merit in itself, as not all of them did. A lot of experimentation was going on, and in a matter of months or even weeks after the prototype trials, new versions came out with notable improvements, possibly leading to a production batch. It must have been a fascinating time, with lots of room for inventiveness, even though test pilots flew these machines at the risk of their lives.

The development history of a lot of these models is in fact quite interesting, and the Albatros "G" type battle-plane is a good example:

The Albatros factory was having great success with its nimble fighter biplanes, but there was a need for armed bombers with capacity for large payloads. Hardly anyone had built any, so in 1915 the Albatros factory based a design on the 4-engined Ilya Murometz, and came out with its 4-engined Albatros G.I prototype (4x100Hp Mercedes DI). Unfortunately, performance was far from satisfactory, and the design was abandoned.

Shortly afterwards, in 1916, they made a 2-engined prototype, the first G.II. The more powerful 165 Hp Benz Bz.III engines and the lighter airframe made for a much better aircraft, but its wide wings not only reduced the rear gunner´s visibility, but forced a rather aft-placing of the engines because of the pusher-props, causing CoG problems which made the plane very tail-heavy. For approach and landings, constant forward helm was required, and flaring was was forbidden, so a heavy "Stossfahrgestell" nose landing-gear (shock-landing gear in German!) was installed to prevent nose-overs! Some stop-gap inventiveness!

Although why they insisted on using pusher engines, remains a mystery to me. Perhaps it was inherited from the cleaner single-engined pushers that kept pilots´ goggles free of castor oil...

Anyway, the design was nevertheless good enough as to allow for improvements: Intelligent and practical inventiveness: They cut away the lower-wing trailing edge to move the engines forward, making room for the propellers, thus eliminating the CoG problem - and also the heavy "Stossfahrgestell" nose-gear. Then, they also cut away the central top-wing trailing edge to improve the gunner´s field of view.

In spite of retaining the Benz Bz.III engines, the single prototype improved tremendously, and led to a reduced production batch in 1917 of the Albatros G.III, which was given the more powerful 230 hp Benz Bz.IV engines and saw service in Macedonia. The prototype was subsequently also put into military use. The Albatros G.III was in fact faster and easier to fly than the rest of the more famous German Grossflugzeuge, and was an example of a clean, elegant and noteworthy well-functioning design.

Anyway, those were other times!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

It seems like the "limited interest" you described is actually more than the interest in my more modern projects.
I personally don't have a great interest in bombers or "Targets" in general.
As you already know, I have released exactly ONE aeroplane from the Great War. My Albatros D.Va has been awaiting its Lozenge paint and flight model for years.

These days, I have to carefully choose the aeroplanes I work on because of time and other constraints.
I generally don't pick a subject unless I would like to have one of my own or if there is some aspect about it that I would like to test as with the P-3 Orion. The Me 109E was supposed to be just a short diversion for the good of the community. I seriously miscalculated the time required for that one.

I think there was a lot less engineering for aeroplanes in the Great War; I am convinced that they were generally designed by eyeball.

Regarding ABSquad, their CFS1 site appears to be down. Although I didn't like what Priester was doing, I do still miss the site because of the other cool things he hosted.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

I think the interest there is, even though limited, still provides enough motivation to justify keeping up an activity which is in itself enjoyable. To do all this only by oneself with no outside contact, would be too isolating to be possible!

Sometimes a model I´m working on does not always coincide with what I planned to do, or perhaps really want. For example, friends from our little group of FS98 enthusiasts (who are now a little less active than before) sometimes request a little upgrade, which I then do quite willingly. Other times things get a little difficult on a model like now with the P3 Orion, and I am easily side-tracked with other models to fix that look easier than they eventually turn out to be, and it ends up taking longer to get back to what I was originally doing!

I got back to the Orion and eliminated all the control surfaces on the P3 Orion, and now I have enough resources for all components needed for the new nacelles, but it is not an easy job! So I got side-tracked again with another biplane upgrade I´m finishing - the Albatros G.III age-old biplane twin.

At the moment I´m stuck again, this time, with incomplete specifications, and I´m trying to decipher the maximum fuel capacity for the given maximum range, calculating from the engine and payload specifications. Then I have to adapt that to the weaker-engined, lighter, slower G.II prototype - So I´m busy juggling a lot of numbers...

After that I hope to return to the P3 Orion!

I don´t think the ABSquad site is down... I got into it to download and inspect my creditless plane, and the site is still open today. Perhaps it has changed its address?

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

just the CFS1 section is down....

[papingo]

the plane that I made at meigs.....
It was made using Chuck Dome's 'trodem demo
these were the early happy days trying to figure
how Scasm/BGL lingo worked
It also calculated vectors (which I was not to sure of then)
When I got SciDis I could figure it out.
I also did the Fsasm examples and d'sembled them to
Scasm source txt----happy intreging days!!!!
>>>papingo

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

You mentioned that there was not so much engineering and more eyeballing going on in the aircraft industry of the Great War. I would tend do disagree, but not with the purpose of starting an argument, but only with the intention of expressing my opinion. I would think eyeballing is more like what you do when you make a paper aeroplane and try to fit the build to the shape of the sheet of paper available. ...or what I have to do when I only have one or two photos and have to fit specifications to draw a plan, and there are things hidden from view...

I my opinion, even the first pioneers conducted more than eyeballed measurement on birds´ dimensions and weights, (that´s why for some years airplanes were all tail-heavy and had sustaining tails - I mean what is a bird´s head going to weigh anyway? It uses the tail as a fan not only for direction but also to adjust flight attitude). To make a plane like a bird is already an engineering exercize, I would venture to say.

Then, after the initial success of the first pioneers, data from experimental results like wing-area, span and curvature, aircraft weight and engine power became increasingly available, and using this data do to lift, drag, speed, power and weight calculations for a new model, I would qualify as engineering. Even innovations had to have some kind of theoretical basis and would need calculations more than mere eyeballing, and success depended on whether the ideas and their mathematical calculations worked or not.

Limited by the need for light structures because of the heavy, low-powered engines, there was a tendency towards flimsiness on prototypes, and structural failures were the order of the day, but I wouldn´t say that they were eyeballed. Also, new materials like glue and lighter canvas were not always reliable, and calculated specifications were not always true. Wood had to be selected and treated carefully, and this was also not perfect. With all this inexactness, the risk of accidents was not exactly low.

Engines were also evolving very quickly, and that was pure engineering, and soon aircraft factories realized that larger multi-engined aircraft were possible, and experimental designs with different degrees of success appeared. Including failed designs, they all contributed to the further evolution of aviation, and even if it started as an inexact science, it was a science.

Of course, there will also have been manufactures who weren´t as good as others, and who just copied some designs, possibly eyeballing quite a lot of it. A famous case apparently were the Rumpler aircraft! Although they were very successful, Mr. Rumpler had a reputation in Johannisthal for being quite a copy-cat, and others would scatter when he arrived!

Anyway, be it eyeballed or engineered, the budding aircraft industry must have been exciting times.

At the moment we can see something similar happening with the DIY 3D scanners and printers, perhaps?

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I am always open to these kinds of discussions.... I don't consider them more as explorations than arguments.
The reason I believe that aeroplane design up until the mid-1920s was more an art than a science and more of eyeball design than real engineering is because there were so many structurally unsound designs.

Although the Wright Brothers used a "Wind Tunnel" to experiment with airfoils, it is pretty obvious that some that came after them did not. How many times have we seen photographs and videos of the early "aeroplanes" that could not get off the ground?

I have a book called "Early Flying Machines" that illustrates many of the good as well as bad designs. Some designers had an instinctive understanding and put together pretty well balanced aeroplanes. Others' designs looked more like a bunch of aeroplane pieces attached together in some random fashion.

Think of how many of the Great War "Kites" would shed pieces of their structure in a dive or under hard maneuvering. Nieuports come to mind here. These aeroplanes looked good but it is pretty obvious in hindsight that there was certainly not enough consideration for stresses and loads which is the part I would consider "engineering".

I believe the reason that they were so often successful was because they tended to err on the side of too much wing area and too light loads, so the inefficient wings, weak structures and draggy airframes that were built to mimic birds or bats (like Rumpler's designs) still made it into the air.
I believe there simply was not the understanding of what we call aerodynamics today. I believe there was a lot of very good research on both sides of the pond after the Great War.
NACA Technical Reports written at that time are still very good reading today.



I my opinion, even the first pioneers conducted more than eyeballed measurement on birds´ dimensions and weights, (that´s why for some years airplanes were all tail-heavy and had sustaining tails - I mean what is a bird´s head going to weigh anyway? It uses the tail as a fan not only for direction but also to adjust flight attitude). To make a plane like a bird is already an engineering exercize, I would venture to say.


If a Bird is used as a design model and the big issue is that the bird's head is very light compared to an engine, then a bit more weight at the front would tend to move the CoG forward and increase stability. There would also be less lift required of the tail plane with a forward CoG.
Also, there is nothing really wrong with the tail surfaces supplying lift.
The only requirement in my not so educated view is that the Front Lifting Surface stalls before the Rear Lifting Surface.
I don't think God cares whether your aeroplane is a conventional tailed design, canard or has equal front and rear surfaces like Langley's aerodrome. If the rear surfaces stall first, he will kill you just the same.

On a minor side note, in another forum, I came across a discussion of propeller behaviour with increasing engine power and a constant speed propeller. I can say that there was never as much information presented as we have discussed here based on Jerry Beckwith's documents on flight simulator propellers.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
OK, I´ll go with that! Being more of an art than a science would include a lot of intuitive ability and feeling for a successful design, and your expression "eyeballing" would have a more sophisticated meaning to it this way. It would not only include the idea of haphazard approximation eyeballing that I´d interpreted before.
Given the lack of technical information available at the time, the success of a model would depend largely on the intuition of the designer and the ideas that were put into practice, some of which were evidently disastrous!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello all!

I have managed to complete the CFS1 upgrade of the German 1917 Albatros G.III Grosskampfflugzeug mid-range tactical bomber and its 1916 prototype. Apart from 3D crew figures and guns, I have been able to include several little improvements in the AF99 build. With all the struts, wires and the pusher props, it is actually quite amazing that there is only little, short, transitory bleedthrough in few places, so I suppose it is quite satisfactory. The unusually elegant design made it an appetizing candidate for modelling, as well as the reputation for good quality on the part of the manufacturer and designer.

Although of the G.II prototype only a single unit was built, it is interesting to experiment the difference in performance in CFS1, compared to the noticeably more powerful engines of the G.III.

The Albatros G.III Grosskampfflugzeug link:
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/local_links.php?action=jump&catid=19&id=20835

The G.II prototype link:
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/local_links.php?action=jump&catid=19&id=20834

I hope you will enjoy some leisurely flying to admire the CFS1 scenery...
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello All,

Over the last couple days, I have been working on a high precision Trim Gauge that can show the current trim state as precisely as possible.

The first goal was to be able to indicate Trim for all three axes:
Longitudinal -- Elevators
Lateral -- Ailerons
Directional -- Rudder

I found after starting with the FS98 SDK Control Surfaces source that I had no trouble getting a very precise reading with the Elevator and decided to go looking for the variables for the other control surfaces.
Imagine my surprise when I found that there actually aren't any indicator variables for Aileron or Rudder Trim....

The next thing I found is that the way I THOUGHT the aircraft trim worked probably isn't accurate.
That would explain why I was sometimes getting inconsistent results in testing.

My next steps are to tune my nifty new test gauge to indicate what I BELIEVE it should indicate and then to work out another Trim Gauge that I can throw into an operational panel to replace the not so accurate SP,Trim gauge I have been using.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Sounds very interesting and useful, and I´m looking foward to seeing how it develops.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Yes, this development was very interesting. I am just not quite sure yet how to interpret what I am getting.
As I said before, I had certain ideas how things worked in the AIR file and this Gauge is telling me that I am not correct.

Here is a screenshot. It is on my Test Panel and is Screen 3. (Screen 1 is the Main Panel, Screen 2 is Engine Controls.)

As you can see from the screenshot, this Gauge reads exactly Zero as I enter the simulator and all trim settings are neutral.
As you can also see at the lower left, SP.Trim gauge reads slightly Nose Down.
I will most likely re program and replace my the SP.Trim gauge on my own machines with something that is lined up a bit better, but I have always relied on this as a stock gauge that is on everyone's machine and I can't replace others out there.

As you can also see, although the new Trim Test Gauge appears to be capable of fine accuracy, it is way too large to use in an operational panel.
It looks to me like I will be programming a normal looking Trim Gauge to distribute. It is a wonder that the first gauge I build and distribute publicly will have such minimal functionality. <sigh>

Ivan.

[Ivan]

This aeroplane is the test subject for my Trim Test Gauge.
It was released quite a few years ago and has a basic non-jittery SCASM cockpit but that is all.

The Aeroplane has no significant bleeds and the general shape is fairly accurate so after the Warhawks, this may be the next subject for rework.
Since it was first built and released, I have gotten a little smarter with Aircraft Factory 99 and a whole lot smarter with SCASM, so this will be interesting.
There will be some new pieces added but I believe the Antenna Wires will not be staying. They are a bit distracting.

The AIR file definitely needs a bit of a rework, mostly for engine tuning.
I didn't have much information to work with when I first built this, but have found a Pilot's Manual for the La-5FN and a few flight evaluations by the Germans and also have an engine manual for the Shvetsov ASh-82FN motor that is installed in this aeroplane. The manual is in Russian but hopefully I can read enough to get what I need.

- Ivan.

P.S. Much of this Aeroplane's structure is Wood, so there will certainly be a bit of time needed by the technicians to become familiar with the different techniques.

[Ivan]

Hello All,

Here is what I have figured out thus far.
(Please comment if you already know this or believe I am incorrect in my conclusions.)

I tuned the Gauge so that the pointer moved one tick mark per tap of the Trim adjustment keys.
When the Trim adjustment is pressed several times very quickly,
The first key press moves the pointer one tick, but
Each following key press moves the pointer EIGHT ticks.
This is very reliable and repeatable.

So.... Now I know that the Trim settings I had been listing in my Check Lists were really showing the Large adjustments and sometimes were not even showing them consistently depending on how fast I was making the adjustments.

I would also like to see if the Lateral and Directional Trim work the same way, but can't program the gauge to show it.

Next step is to program a Trim Gauge that can be added to an operational panel and maintain the appearance.
The question now is whether to include this gauge into the main panel as I have been doing or to put it into yet another pull up panel or perhaps even to add it to the engine controls panel.
It would be even more useful if I could make the new gauge react to mouse clicks.

- Ivan.

[No Dice]

Aleatorylamp,

If you do not want to post the thief in this forum,
Please contact me direct: dea14u@aol.com

I will take it from there:

Dave


Hello Aleatorylamp,

I think I took care of that situation,
Take a look:
http://www.absquad.net/cfs2_absquad_wolrd_war_1.htm

Dave

[aleatorylamp]

Hello No Dice,

Thanks for your post and your efforts, but I don´t exactly understand what you mean.
I had a look but it appears that nothing has changed either on the plane files or in the index where it´s mentioned - unless of course I´m missing something, which is not to be discarded nowadays, as my attention is starting to resemble my alias...
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[No Dice]

Well hell,

When I checked the site was gone...
Seems to be back up, I guess I thought I had accomplished something but did not.

Damn.

[Wayland]

It was gone when I looked yesterday.

[smilo]

same here, Dave.
i don't know what you did,
it was gone, now, it's back.
what say, you do it again, please.
i wish i had the capability.
making a thief's life miserable,
might be kinda fun.

[Ivan]

Hello Blood Hawk.

There is actually a lot more to that story about runaway props on the B-26 Marauder than most people have heard of.
Some problems may have been due to the Curtiss Electric propeller itself, but consider how many other aeroplanes used a Curtiss Electric propeller and did NOT have a history of runaway propellers.
My belief is that most of the problems were due to other issues in the use of the aeroplane.
I am pretty sure that the F4F Wildcats used a Curtiss Electric propeller and even in a harsh naval environment were not noted for problems.
Many models of the P-47 Thunderbolt also used a similar Curtiss Electric propeller also without a great deal of problems.

From what I have read, the Marauder had a lot of electrical accessories such as the gun turret.
Although the manual stated specifically not to do it, sometimes when performing tests or maintenance, the ground crew would run the accessories off the batteries in the aeroplane. (The proper procedure was to power up the APU or to run from an external power source.)
Prolonged use would drain the batteries and although there was enough juice to perform the propeller pitch tests before take-off, there might not be enough power to run the propeller DURING Take-Off.... which would result in a runaway prop.
On some aeroplanes, a slight reduction in power might not be dangerous, but the Marauder was a "Hot Ship" with a relatively high Take-Off / Landing speed and a fairly high single engine control speed.

- Ivan.

[Ivan]

This thread has evolved into pretty much a catch-all so perhaps this discussion isn't really so far off topic.

I am pretty much finished with the P-40N / Hawk87W Project at this point.
What is left is mostly packaging, a little testing and thinking of something for the description.
I am amazed when I think back that the P-40N is the most recent of a series that took me over 10 years to build.

I was cleaning up some papers a couple days ago and came across a print out of a discussion between Hubbabubba and I and a couple other folks. The date was October 12, 2005 and was about Hubbabubba's Messerschmitt 108 Taifun. I had only released the P-40E in January of that year, so it was still a recent project. There was even a mention of the fantastic paint job done on the Warhawk by a fellow named PJ Dunbar.

It is amazing to me that some of the people from back then are still around and may be following the current discussion.
We also seem to have lost a few but also have gained a few along the way.

At this point with the P-40N almost complete, there is the same question about what to work on next.
Should it be an entirely new aeroplane (I have a bunch of candidates) or should it be a rework of one of my earlier projects that may not hold up under modern (CFS) standards. Should the time be spent on finishing up one of the many projects that have gotten pushed to the side of the Workshop as more interesting projects have occupied the center of the Workshop?

Perhaps this wasn't so far off the "Conspicuous" topic after all.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Not off topic at all...
I´d go for whichever has the most-interesting-of-all aspect for you!
That usually provides the most enjoyment - even though what´s most interesting often comes with the biggest load of unforeseen problems. Jump off at the deep end, as they say!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello, all!

Some time ago I built a WW2 Heinkel 162-2A "Spatz" - sparrow - Volksjäger, the "people´s fighter", a curious German throw-away aircraft made of wood! Its single dorsal 1800 flb BMW 003E-1 single-spool axial-flow turbojet engine gave it a top continuous speed of 453 knots, and 489 kt in short 2028 flb boost bursts. 116 units were built officially, but there were further, urgent, undocumented deliveries. The aircraft came too late to affect the outcome of the war.

I was wondering whether there was any interest for a possible upload for CFS here. The model will perhaps need some bleedthrough tweaking tu upgrade it conveniently, but I wanted to make sure iff there is any interest first.

Here´s a screenshot!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[smilo]

i would say, yes, please upload it.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello all,

I did some tests with AF99 and CFS on a Windows 64-bit system using a virtualization programme called "VMWare Workstation 12 Player", and posted the results on Hubbabbuba´s thread "I really need to know!", because it is rather off-topic here.
...Just in case anyone´s interested.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello all!

I have just uploaded the Heinkel He162 Sparrow. Here´s the link:
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...id=18&id=21752 (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/local_links.php?action=jump&catid=18&id=21752)
Enjoy! Criticism welcome - then I´ll improve it!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Merry Christmas to you all!
...and a happy New Year.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Happy new year to all!

"How now, brown cow?" is a friendly greeting often used by the Scots, as well as the Geordies in Northumbria I believe, and was pronounced like in the title. Shakespeare would use the similar "How say you now?", its short form being "How now?" - both quite archaic nowadays, of course, but nonetheless picturesque!

The Webster Dictionary actually has it as the equivalent of "What´s next?". So, the intention of this post is simply a query, looking for suggestions. After a moderate spell of inactivity, what shall be the next project... ? Maybe we can inject a bit of noise and activity!

As per a list last year by Smilo, Ivan, and myself, possible candidates after the three Martin A-30 Baltimores, Mk.II, IV and V, could be the Lockheed Ventura/Harpoon, the Grumman Tigercat, ...and possibly not the Tupolev Tu-95 Bear.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[smilo]

...and a happy new year to you as well.

i tend to lean toward active WWII era aircraft,
so, naturally, the Lockheed Ventura/Harpoon
would be on my wish list,
followed by the tigercat.

of course, the do17 is, was
and ever shall be at the top.
but, that's just my list.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Smilo,

Yes, Now I remember you had mentioned the Do-17 "Flying Pencil", and the lack of a decent CFS1 version - the AI one being quite a simple FS5 job.
Ivan also mentioned it, and I´ve had a look at pictures. It actually looks like quite an interesting model to build, and I quite like the idea. Why not indeed!

With 2x1000 hp Bramo 323 Fafnir (the German dragon´s name - was it from the Nibelungen Lied?) 9-cyl radials, it sounds like a moderate performer, although not bad for an early war design. I´ll start doing some more extensive research and open a thread for it!

I´ve been poking around in the stock AI model´s .air file, watching performance with the Beckwith Gauge Stack, and with a few tweaks, the engine hores-power looks quite accurate, although aircraft speed is way too fast, but easy to fix. Nevertheless, I´ll check with Ivan to see if it´s a good idea to use the AI .air file as a basis or not.

At any rate, the model seems very appetizing to make!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Folks,

We can' leave this thread idle for any length of time. It just would not be right.
I have actually been looking around a bit even though I have not posted much about new design ideas.

I noticed that for one of the other Simulators, there is a Hawker Typhoon being developed.
It is a pity there hasn't been a good one for CFS, at least not one that I know of.
Another topic of recent research has been the P-39 Airacobra and that is likely to be the subject of a design study at some point.
The British thought it was worthless. The Americans thought it wasn't very useful. The Russians thought it was great....
Although its performance was mediocre, it did have a quite pleasing appearance.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Both look striking enough to make interesting projects. The way the P39 is designed is quite out of the ordinary. I wonder if it had any special handling characteristics due to the CoG with the engine behind the cockpit.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello folks!
I was rummaging through my old FS98 old-old-timers and came across one that could be of interest. Dig the screenshot!
I hadn´t bothered to try it out in CFS1 because I had automatically assumed that bleed problems would make it prohibitive, as unfortunately had happened with my version of the Caudron 3 fighter and the Caudron 4 twin engined bomber. ...although the old AGO.C1 was quite bleed-free, wan´t it?

So, I tried out the 1914 Otto BI trainer and fighter/bomber Doppeldecker, and I was amazed at the low level of bleed problems, so I have decided I could upload it, as it would require no additional work!

This machine was the first German widely used effective trainer, and also saw limited service on the Turkish front in the Great War. Fighter bomber may sound like a euphemism, but the gunner did fire a hand-pistol and dropped hand-grenades.

Incidentally, Gustav Otto Flugmaschinenwerke in Bavaria was the very beginning of what today is BMW.

Apparently there is new information as to a number of the latest units produced, which had the more powerful Rapp 150 hp engines instead of the more usual 100 Hp Argus or 100 Hp Gustav Otto engines or 80 Hp Gnome Rotaries, and this makes the Otto BI even more attractive for CFS1.

Now, engine spec details for the very obscure 150 Hp Rapp engine are impossible to find, and the FS98 .air file flies remarkably well, living up to the reputation of the real plane. So, its 150Hp engine and 96-inch propeller entries in the .air file, seem good enough, and the plane wouldn´t really need a specific CFS1 .air file.

So, would there be interest for another ancient plane here?
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[smilo]

Hello All,

Here is what I have figured out thus far.
(Please comment if you already know this or believe I am incorrect in my conclusions.)

I tuned the Gauge so that the pointer moved one tick mark per tap of the Trim adjustment keys.
When the Trim adjustment is pressed several times very quickly,
The first key press moves the pointer one tick, but
Each following key press moves the pointer EIGHT ticks.
This is very reliable and repeatable.

So.... Now I know that the Trim settings I had been listing in my Check Lists were really showing the Large adjustments and sometimes were not even showing them consistently depending on how fast I was making the adjustments.

I would also like to see if the Lateral and Directional Trim work the same way, but can't program the gauge to show it.

Next step is to program a Trim Gauge that can be added to an operational panel and maintain the appearance.
The question now is whether to include this gauge into the main panel as I have been doing or to put it into yet another pull up panel or perhaps even to add it to the engine controls panel.
It would be even more useful if I could make the new gauge react to mouse clicks.

- Ivan.
so...what ever happened to this trim gauge?

[smilo]

"So, would there be interest for another ancient plane here?"

sure, there would.
why not?

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Smilo,
Yes, why not indeed... I was afraid people might have been getting tired of slow oldies, but I see my fears were misfounded.

I will gladly upload the plane very soon then, especially as it was the more powerful advanced version of the Otto "B" seies, with much improved performance, of which quite a number seem to have been produced. Including the ones with 80Hp and 100 Hp motorizations, the grand total was 150 units produced from 1912 to 1915, so it was quite appreciable.

I´m just making the green uniforms grey to be more in accordance with those times, and correcting the readme´s.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Folks,
I have just uploaded the Otto B1 Pusher Biplane with the following link:

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...id=19&id=22486 (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/local_links.php?action=jump&catid=19&id=22486)

I thought it was a good idea because I very recently found new information relative to the latest and more powerful units produced of this model in 1914 and 1915, that with their 150 Hp Rapp engine (50 Hp more!), make it more attractive than it was before for CFS. The gunner/observer had a hand pistol and could drop hand grenades, making this not only a reconnaissance and training aircraft, but also one of the first fighter/bombers!

Incidentally, another curious aspect of AF99 building in the case of this particular model, apart from the low bleed incidence, is a more extensive than usual use of structures: On one hand, for the convex-concave wings - all sections including ailerons and inter-wheel plane, and also all tail surfaces, and on the other hand, for the nacelle or cockpit pod, which is made of several separate top-only and bottom-only structures, which allowed a surprising degree of accuracy with the real nacelle, combining sharp edges and smooth curves. It started out as an experiment and I hadn´t expected the results obtained from using structures in this way. ... Small wonder, that parts count is at 148.9 % !

The model is easy to fly and takes off and lands at 35 mph, and is quite manoueverable, so it should be fun to fly. Top speed is all of 84 mph! ...Quite impressive compared to previous units of this model, that had 80 and 100 Hp engines, with top speeds of only 68 and 74 mph.

All in good fun, and enjoy!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[smilo]

got it...thank you, Stephan

[aleatorylamp]

You´re welcome! I hope you like it.

[Ivan]

so...what ever happened to this trim gauge?

Which one? The Test Trim Gauge or the Panel Trim Gauge?
The Test Trim Gauge has been in use on my Test Panel for quite some time.
The Panel-Worthy version has not been built yet because of conflicting priorities:
I would much rather finish up a set of useable Multi-Engine Gauges and there are still a bunch that I have not figured out yet.
Part of the problem is trying to figure out what the real one does in order to know what features to put in.
Also, the FS98 SDK that I was using earlier only handled Elevator Trim and I was thinking of something that would do all three axes.
Do you need a Test Trim Gauge? I can send if you need.

I also had an idea for a very cool WEP Gauge for those aeroplanes with Supercharger WEP to avoid wrecking engines so easily.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Very handy, very much so! ...a WEP gauge. But take your time! We will be patient!

[smilo]

yes, please send a trim test gauge.
i would like to check it out.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello, all!
My mind is like a sieve - I forgot to SCASM the Otto B1 Pusher Biplane´s VCockpit view, didn´t I?
I´ll ask Rami to slip in a new model file with the fix when I´ve done it.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Rami]

Good morning,

Just let me know when you have it done, thanks!

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Folks,
Now what would we do without your help, Rami? Thanks very much!

OK, I´ve uploaded the fix, and also managed to correct the display priority of the nacelle struts going up to the wing behind the observer/gunner - or rather...pistol shooter!

Anyway, it looks fine now.

I do apologize for the inconveniences.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Do you know that you can change your own uploads in the library?
I have only done it once or twice, but I do know that it was possible.
Adding a panel to your aeroplane should not cause too many problems.
I think it makes sense to put the entire package in one place.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Yes, I agree it´s good to have the package in one place.
You had mentioned it, so I searched to find the way to do, but wasn´t successful.

Update: It appears that adding things to an upload is possible only as administrator, so I can´t do it.
I have just uploaded the Panel, and Rami has kindly seen to it, and has added it to the package.

There´s always something slipping my mind...
The amazing thing is that it still works, even if belated sometimes.

P.S. I´m always surprised at the download numbers for these old struts-and-wire contraptions!
...even though in this case, the 2 cockpit-related added uploads would of course somewhat distort the numbers.
There seems to be something about them that many find quite fascinating!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello all!
Good heavens! I´m quite impressed by the number of downloads the Otto_BI is managing.
Thank you all very much for your moral support!
What is it about these old machines? The sound of the wind in the wires, perhaps.
I don´t know if I have another one, but I´ll have another rummage around.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Perhaps a silly question, but do you actually HAVE a "Wind Through the Wires" sound effect?
I really should finish up a Biplane model except that I have no idea how to tune the AIR file for a Biplane.

Congratulations on the downloads.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Thanks!
I´m sorry to disappoint you, it was only a poetic or rhetoric comment, inspired by the title of a novel I once read, about someone who was barnstorming across the US.
Some people increase the chord to make up for the double wing, others just compensate by altering airfoil lift. I suppose it isn´t perfect. I know you don´t duplicate the wingspan because you don´t want to make it into a glider.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
I was thinking of the best type of monoplane to compare to a ratherfast biplane, maybe like the Pitts Special:
Perhaps a kind of racer, with short, squat wings but greater drag because of the struts, wires and doubled sustaining planes.

Imagine an air file for the "affordable" Monnett Sonerai, with more drag and slightly increased roll inertia because of the mass of the top wing. Specs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monnett_Sonerai

Maybe a good idea? - or just a lot of Bull...?
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

As usual, I think our approaches are quite different.
My goal is to understand how the Biplane / Triplane / etc. configuration actually affects the basic numbers in the AIR file.
So, what I have been trying to find is the Biplane equivalent factors.
Getting the overall performance where I want is the really easy part, but that isn't quite how I want to do things.

I HAVE gone through the NACA reports written by Max Munk back in the 1920's but the math is way over my head.
Then again, up until a couple weeks ago, the idea of programming working Tachometer was beyond me as well.

There are still so many things I am trying to figure out how to do that the Biplane issue hasn't gotten to the top yet.
At the moment the prime topic is Gauges and I am still trying to quantify the weirdness that I have found in the SDK.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
You have all my respect for the way you are approaching the new subject of gauge creation, and especially in view of the recent and unexpected results and their quality. Your preserverance and meticulous endeavour is commendable, to say the least.

As regards .air files for biplanes, it seems we are faced with something similar to the lack of superchargers and turboprops in FS98. The parameters are just not there. Superchargers exist only from CFS1 onwards, and Turboprop parameters are only available as of FS2002. Behaviour has to be adapted and compensated using a jet .air file in FS98 and CFS1.

I don´t think I understand exactly what you mean by knowing and understanding the numbers for biplanes. Even if you knew them, where would they go? If at least the option existed of defining a biplane or a triplane, then the spec. numbers of area, span and chord could easily be entered, including interplane distances and stagger.

But, with those parameters lacking, what is there to do but try and compensate as many factors as one would imagine could be affected?

I think FS2004 offers something for Biplanes in the air file or aircraft config, but I don´t know how they implemented it.
It´s a difficult issue, at least for CFS1, I agree!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

There is a proper way to represent a biplane with monoplane statistics.
I just need to learn what it is and why.
Just do a search on "Munk biplane theory" and you will see what I mean.
It is on my list of things to do, just can't do them all at once.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Interesting, that theory, many thanks. I understand what you mean now.
It would be the correct, exact way of applying compensations and adaptations to the monoplane .airfile that I was imagining.
The concept explained in the introduction is quite helpful to understand what´s going on. It seems not to be as bad as one would fear, except for high pitch angles, although I would expect that it would not be as bad at low speeds.

Implementing the maths for a given biplane would be quite demanding, at least on my human mortal´s brain capacity. I´m sure Building things like aeroplanes or gauges, or even SCASming Virtual Cockpits is more pleasurable.

One thing is nice about biplanes, though: Apparently, at very low near-stall speeds, the lift available is remarkable. There´s a video of Ernst Udet´s Flamingo on the U-Tube where he recovers from a dive initiated at very low altitude, where you´d say he´d definitely be gone for a Burton.

Anyway, the more there´s on the "to-do" list, the better.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

One doesn't have to have a biplane to have very good low speed characteristics.
A nice high lift airfoil with flaps, slats, etc. and a very low wing loading will do pretty well.
Just look at the Westland Lysander and Fieseler Storch.
It says a lot if you can get airborne in around 30 yards.
How many biplanes could beat that?

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Hmmmm... with the availability of more modern materials and engines
you probably wouldn´t normally want a biplane anyway, unless you
were perhaps specifically looking for a short wingspan with enough lift
and robustness to throw around in the air.

I don´t know... A biplane would be heavier than the STOLs you mention,
but I don´t know if they´d stand acrobatics.
A few modern STOL biplanes also exist, so there must be some advantage
in the biplane concept. Maybe just the short wingspan?
Cheers
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I believe that for the same strength, a Biplane configuration is lighter than a cantilever Monoplane of similar wing area.
If you have an externally braced Monoplane, there is a lot of additional drag with all the necessary bracing.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Really, how interesting! That clarifies a lot to me then, and apart from being the best design layout
because of materials 100 years ago, nowadays it would also justify a biplane design. Great!
Thanks for your patient explanation.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Perhaps I generalized a bit as well.
A monocoque stressed skin construction is fairly light and strong.
If the construction is limited to wooden frames and fabric with wire bracing, then I am correct.
Flats are weak. Rectangles are flexible. Triangles are strong.

A friend of mine once showed me a piece of wing skin he had from a Japanese Ki-43 Hayabusa.
It was amazingly flimsy and flexible by itself without all the framework underneath.
Reading the specifications and thicknesses is one thing. Handling the actual part gives an entirely different understanding.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
The number of factors mentioned, that influence the difference between
biplanes and monoplanes seems to be growing all the time!

Obviously, the mathematics involved go straight over my head, I´m afraid,
and I can only apply an intuitive, non-mathematical grouping of all factors,
and try to sift them into manageable data for weight, lift, drag, stability factors,
moments of inertia, centre of gravity... etc.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

The factors for representing biplanes with monoplane parameters hasn't grown significantly since probably around 1930 or so.
The literature has been out there for many decades; we just have not had a chance to learn them yet.
My very old Albatros D.Va has been waiting for years for its chance to fly.
Then again, it is also waiting for a few bolts of Lozenge Camouflage fabric to be printed and our Art / Graphics Shop is probably the slowest of all.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
I was looking through the different lozenge textures of some of my old Zeppelins and Gothas, but none coincide with the colours or shapes of the lozenge pattern seen on some Albatros DVa pics. I have one or two regular hexagonal types, an irregular splinter lozenge type, and a distorted splinter lozenge type, none of which fit the irregular pentagon lozenge you probably need.

However, I could definitely try and adapt the hexagonal Gotha pattern to make it fit - that shouldn´t be too difficult, including the colours.

Colours is another issue altogether, and there seems to be room for debate. These have had to be deduced from b/w photos of the time, and different plausible options appear to be available. What combinations were they? Was it pink or orange? Grey, yellow or light green? Blue or purple? Dark brown, red or black? To make things worse, colours faded, so what were they like on new planes?

Anyway, another item on the to-do list!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Thanks, but don't waste your time.
There is zero chance of a pattern that fits a large bomber actually scaling well to match what is needed on a fighter.
Also, the rib tape pattern would make it a complete mismatch and the effort to undo the rib tape is probably more effort than it would be to create a lozenge pattern from an image download.

I actually have good working patterns for Lozenge camouflage.
It is just a matter of scaling, aligning and then overlaying rib tape and other accessories.
I also have to decide if I want to use a longitudinal pattern of covering or diagonal. (I am tending toward Longitudinal).
It isn't particularly difficult, but just quite tedious.

I also have a few other projects that are also in the paint shop queue but of higher priority.
In order of likely completion, they are:
Ki-61-Id
Spitfire Mk.IXc
P-38F
P-38J
Ju 87B

Don't worry about specifics, the order of priorities changes on a regular basis.
The Lightnings are probably quite a bit higher at this point because of the current Gauge Projects.

With all the videos I have been watching to figure out the instruments on the P-38F and J, I am probably going to need to revise the flight model slightly.
There are a few inconsistencies that I only picked up by watching the flight instruction over and over again.
There are also some little bits of weirdness in which my own flight modelling is telling me that some of the performance figures I had seen were a bit optimistic.

- Ivan.

[Ivan]

This screenshot is from years ago but nothing has changed since then.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Nice shapes. I notice the how you separated the landing-gear strut roots for different grouping, and the engine details are also very interesting!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Folks,
I was looking for an old FS98 Model 10 Electra, as a platform to try out how Ivan´s new 2-pitch propellers would work on a twin-engined aircraft, but could only find a FS5 model of the plane on SimAviation, although it does have a very impressive panel and gauges, and some very nice metallic textures.

The model is actually more than enough as a platform to produce a CFS1 .air file with the new propellers. Building a new model of the Lockheed 10 Electra is incidentally on my to-do list, which may be interesting for some people in this forum.

As I know Flightsim.com has a newer version of this plane, I tried to look there, but access is blocked because of some missing RC4 security prococol and/or SSL encryptation. I don´t know if it is my version of WinXP/Google Chrome that is at fault, or if it is Flightsim´s Site security which is no longer good enough for Google Chrome.

Would anyone perhaps have any information on this?
Thanks in advance,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I believe the aeroplane you are looking for can also be found here.

https://simviation.com/1/download?file=LElectra-LAN.zip&fileId=5247

I know I have had a version of it for years, but it isn't this version.
The fellow who uploaded this particular version has a tendency to repaint EVERYTHING in Chilean Air Force markings and I figured I would look for it in that manner this morning on the chance that he got to the Lockheed Electra also.... Which he did of course.

I notice that this thread is getting to be pretty much an Off Topic collection or a general announcement for yet another project.
Originally the intent was to address the very prominent or famous WW2 aeroplanes that had somehow been neglected or never had a good version built thus

Conspicuous because it stands out
and Absence because it doesn't exist.... yet.

About half of my own projects are because I really want to own one or figure I can do much better than what is currently out in the wild, so mine don't often qualify for the topic either. I really can't think of even one project that I have ever done that really fit into well into the topic of this thread!

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Well... There were a few Electra 10A versions flying around as WW2 couriers with military markings in a few countries apart from the US, Spain and Turkey for example, if I´m not mistaken. There are a few colour schemes available!

So, if one were to be stricter, and comply a bit more closely with the title of this thread, one could of course texture the model accordingly! How about the US and the Spanish Electra?

It is difficult to define the line that exactly separates the topic of a thread from what is off topic. Subjects related to the topic in some way would qualify though, and there is not much point in creating a short separate thread for short-lived sub-subjects, I´d say. Also, it is hard to decide where or how else to make an announcement, or an inquiry as to the convenience of buidling a certain new or upgraded model.

The link to the LAN Chile Electra you have so kindly supplied, contains the same FS5 model that I found with different textures. I remember being contacted by the person who released this version some years ago, and I know what you mean. There is a program that allows polygons to be re-coloured and even re-textured, (i.e. "hacked") that works for models made with AF5, (fortunately not with AF99). Textures used elsewhere can by put on other parts (i.e. "botched"). He sent me some AFX of a biplane, to alter the nose from an in-line engine housing to a radial one, as the Chilean Air Force had had a few of these. I started working on the model with AF99, but it was so complicated because several other proportions were all wrong, that I resigned after the first test, and prohibited any release of the unsatisfactory modified model - which he ignored and proceeded to do anyway!

I know there is a better Electra 10 too, whose model is ugraded for FS98 with 3D fins and tailplane, (probably also with rounder fuselage, wheels and engine nacelles) at Flightsim.com., but I can´t get at it because of the access-protocol difficulties that appeared a few months ago.

It´s not important anyway, so it doesn´t matter, because with any luck and with Smilo´s help, a nice AD2K model will most probably come out. At the moment we have the mid-fuselage and the inner wings ready!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I am not the authority as to what qualifies and what does not as far as WW2 combatants.
We can be pretty certain that the Albatros D.Va I described a couple posts ago does NOT qualify.

As far as I see it though, the Lockheed Model 10A was pretty obsolete by the time of WW2 and so far, most of the countries you mentioned were not even "involved" in WW2. As for Lockheed Model 10 aircraft flying in the United States, do you believe that they would still be the model 10A using a two pitch propeller? I really don't know.

You don't need a justification for building a particular model. If you like it, build it.

If you really need to have a WW2 combat aircraft that had a two pitch propeller, there are a few:
The early Spitfires and Hurricanes come to mind.
I believe the Nakajima Ki-43-I Hayabusa is another and it actually served in active combat for quite a while.
The Japanese tended to have lots of very primitive types in active service during the war.

If we are discussing all the combat theaters of WW2, I believe many Japanese types fall into the "Conspicuous by Their Absence" category which is one of the reasons why so many are on my build list.

The Dornier 17Z that you finished recently easily fell into that category.
The RAF Halifax and Stirling were also very prominent designs that have never gotten decent treatment.
The Russian Yakovlev fighters were important aircraft that have not been treated well.

About to lose Internet connection.

- Ivan.

[smilo]

am having difficulty seeing the point
of this critique of a thread
that has gone off on many tangents
over the many years of it's existence.

with the limited audience here,
one can't help but think, so what?
imho, brainstorming is what we do
and, eventually, we always return
to the main topic of the thread.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan, Hello Smilo,
Yes, I see... Hmmm...
I had run out of ideas about what to build some time ago, after the CFS1 upgrades some of my FS98 Great War bombers and early "fighter-bombers" (i.e. hand-pistol shooters and hand-grenade-droppers), so I picked up on a few suggestions for the last few I´ve made. Probably only two of all these strictly fit into the category of this thread - i.e. the Martin Baltimore and the Dornier Schnellbomber. The projects started off here and soon got their own threads.

Then there were other more distant "relatives": E.g. the more modern 4-turboprop engined P3 Orion I built after Ivan´s "nudge", that it would be more interesting than the cumbersome Tupolev 95 Bear I had inquired about the convenience of building. The Orion turned out to be a very interesting study involving different ways of making interesting kinds of shapes.

Furthermore, there was the recent CFS upgrade of the 4-engined Fw200-A Condor, the idea of which came about with the object of putting Ivan´s new 4-engine RPM and Boost gauges and the lovely old 2-pitch propeller into an immediate-as-possible use. A very successful experiment at that, to say the least!

Now, the present Electra Model 10 Project has a 2-fold reason behind its origin: Firstly, Smilo´s suggestion for an AD2K Electra L10 model after the AD2k tutorials I did as a result of some comments about why Smilo doesn´t provide some AD2K tutorials... and I jumped in at the deep end because I always like trying something new! Secondly, I was curious about trying Ivan´s new 2-pitch propeller on a different engine. I can´t stop my itching fingers, even if Ivan is sometimes aghast at my lack of total-understanding behind several issues... My depth of insight is not half of what Ivan´s capacity is, I´m afraid!

One of the things I often do is ask for suggestions on different things, and Ivan has come up with a brilliant one just now: The Short Stirling - Drool! - a very robust, and outrageously manoueverable large early bomber work-horse, (Lancasters would lose their tails if flown like that), which saved many lives due to the strength of its structure, and of which sadly none were kept for museums. There are some totally hair-rairsing pilot´s reports like one of a bombing run on a port, involving an un-intentional barrel-roll over a ship, thus avoiding its anti-aircraft fire, and subsequent escape after dipping a wingtip into the North Sea, and others about the Stirling´s capacity for cork-screw dives to escape from Bf109´s. So... Fantastic! The Short Stirling will be the next project! (AD2k or AF99...? Hmmm...)

After starting a discussion about a certain model in the "Conspicuous" thread, almost all of the models I have mentioned have ended up having their own thread. Where else could one try and bounce off ideas about what to do?

I´d say that the spirit and reason for existence of this thread is still very much alive and useful, if not vital, i.e. "interesting things to build because they aren´t really available for CFS1 yet."

So, this thread is like a Witch´s Cauldron, where many things start off, and a good place to drool about the Short Stirling, for example. It´s a huge champion-length gargantuan thread anyway...!!

All in good fun,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

am having difficulty seeing the point
of this critique of a thread
that has gone off on many tangents
over the many years of it's existence.

with the limited audience here,
one can't help but think, so what?
imho, brainstorming is what we do
and, eventually, we always return
to the main topic of the thread.

Hello Smilo,

Your description of how this thread has gone off topic so many different ways is EXACTLY the reason for the critique.
There tends to be a very very high ratio of noise to signal and it means that although there is a large amount of good information in this thread, it is nearly impossible to find anything quickly.

Brainstorming is fine. It just should not add up as clutter going off in so many directions.
If it is a worthy new subject then make it a new subject that folks can figure out from the subject what the topic REALLY is.
You might have noticed that I have been resurrecting quite a few old threads lately.
That is because I believe it is better to keep a bit of continuity in a topic rather than either starting a new topic or dropping it into a general purpose bin.
At least then, if someone comes along a few years later at least there is a single collection of messages instead of a few posts in one thread and another two or three threads that were all current at the time but can no longer be followed once they are not listed together.



After starting a discussion about a certain model in the "Conspicuous" thread, almost all of the models I have mentioned have ended up having their own thread. Where else could one try and bounce off ideas about what to do?

I´d say that the spirit and reason for existence of this thread is still very much alive and useful, if not vital, i.e. "interesting things to build because they aren´t really available for CFS1 yet."

So, this thread is like a Witch´s Cauldron, where many things start off, and a good place to drool about the Short Stirling, for example. It´s a huge champion-length gargantuan thread anyway...!!

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Your view is certainly more general than mine which probably explains why you keep bringing up all those atrocious jets and turboprops.
I have always had an attraction to the WW2 era especially because it was the time when the good old-fashioned piston engine reached its peak of development.
Originally, my idea was to discuss the "important" Ww2 aircraft that were still not built but this thread has seriously degenerated from that idea and I am as guilty of the off topic posts as anyone else.

Gargantuan length certainly describes the Stirling very well. Have you ever seen a comparison of the fuselage dimensions of the Stirling and other comparable types?

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan, Hello Smilo,
So... it would occur to me that the only solution would be to separate this thread into sections depending on the topic, and move them to different new threads. But the million dollar question is who we can land this job on?
The parts on my horrible jets and Eeeek! turboprops, could of course be scrapped - ha ha!

Anyway, because the Stirling is Conspicuous Because of its Absence, this post is ON topic, and here is a diagram comparing its impressive length to others. The shape is rather appealing too, I´d say... and just look at that tailfin!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[smilo]

in response to the first part
of your reply, i'd say,
not bloody likely.
another solution could be,
not to worry about it
and just let it go...it is what it is.

as for the second part,
if you want to talk about
a jet or turbo prop....talk about it.
if you want to build one,
build one.
it's not like this forum
is overflowing with participants
that really care anyway.
as i see it,
"conspicuous..." is nothing more
than an ongoing conversation.

about the stirling/halifax/lanc diagram,
that's very cool, Stephan.
i must admit, all three could be
interesting ad2k projects
and would, subsequently,
each, deserve their own thread.

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

The Stirling is most certainly on topic.
Just reading and comparing the numbers don't give quite the same impression as a comparison of the profiles.
Now if you want to see something else interesting, please note that the monster sized carcass also has the tiniest wings of the bunch.


Hello Smilo,

Unfortunately, I believe you are correct in your assertions about this forum which is sad.
I guess trying to keep this place even slightly organized doesn't really make sense any more.


Take Care.
- Ivan.

[smilo]

it is becoming abundantly clear
that you are dissatisfied
with the free flow of this forum.
yes, it is true, while i do have
moderator and administration tools,
i don't walk around
with a dust cloth and broom in hand.
but, i do try to help when i can.

as far as i'm concerned,
this is an open forum,
with as few rules as possible.
it's my job to let folks know
when the rules are breached.
it's up to them to back off
or face the consequences.

if that isn't good enough for you,
might i suggest taking your complaint
to the senior admins.
who knows, just maybe,
they will make you the moderator
and you can tidy up the place
to your heart's content.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan, hello Smilo,
I´d actually agree with both of you... and there´s nothing much to be done about it anyway!
An ongoing conversation is also nice... so we can enjoy it notwithstanding.

I was looking for the second part of the diagram the Stirling´s length comparison came from, and I found it.
This part compares the wings. Yes! A picture is better than numbers for this, so here´s another picture!

As regards the Stirling´s wingspan, I woudn´t call 99 ft exactly "tiny". One would have expected a different proportion judging by the length. Span was a bit shorter than that of the Lancaster and the Halifax, but wing area was greater: 160 sq ft and 260 sq ft respectively.

I believe the wingspan was limited to 100 ft by specification because of the width of hangar doors at the time, even though this was really 126 ft. However, thanks of this, the Stirling had an impressive manoueverability, which many pilots liked - at the cost of some altitude under full load, I gather.

P.S. Did you know that it is one of the very few aircraft that had double tail wheels?

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Yes, I knew about the double tail wheels.
My impression was that there was more of a difference between the wingspans than that but perhaps I got distracted by the huge fuselage and tail also.
Do you happen to know if the Stirling was stressed for higher G Loads than the other bombers if it could handle rough maneuvering while the others could not?

I actually had done more poking around with the Halifax than with the Stirling. I just could not decide which version to build though I was tending more toward the later version that did not have a turret in the nose and with different shaped tail fins.


Hello Smilo,

As I see it, it doesn't really matter how I see it.
I find it rather annoying that even when I KNOW what I am looking for, I often have trouble finding it because the information may not be where one would expect.
Does it really matter?
Probably not because I am probably the only one left who is really looking for information from earlier discussions in old threads.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
I don´t know about the stressed fuselage, but from the information what I´ve been able to collect in a short time, it appears that the Stirling was the only bomber of the time that was specifically designed as a four-engined aircraft. It seems that the Avro Lancaster was an extension on the original twin-engined Avro Manchester design, and that the Handley Page Halifax was also initially designed as a twin, but was then produced with 4 engines.This could perhaps account for the increased robustness of the Stirling.

Apparently, the Stirling design was based on the Shorts Sunderland S-25 4-engined flying boat, without the lower boat part on the fuselage, and with a shorter wingspan due to Air Ministry specifications - this made for a lower ceiling, but it was the fastest of the three at lower altitudes. Its 14000 lb bombload and also its range seem to have been the greatest at the time.

Because of the specification for lift-off from 500 ft runways, wing angle of incidence had to be increased, but they wanted to avoid a nose-down attitude at level high-speed flight, so they had to increase the length of the landing gear to get a better attitude for take-off. This in turn led to mishaps on the ground and the undercarriage was re-inforced, and in general made take-off and landings rather challenging on this aircraft.

I´ll see if I can find any more interesting information.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp.

[Ivan]

Because of the specification for lift-off from 500 ft runways, wing angle of incidence had to be increased, but they wanted to avoid a nose-down attitude at level high-speed flight, so they had to increase the length of the landing gear to get a better attitude for take-off. This in turn led to mishaps on the ground and the undercarriage was re-inforced, and in general made take-off and landings rather challenging on this aircraft.

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Can you tell me where you found this information about the Short Stirling?
The information and reasoning from this passage are a bit odd.

Thanks.
- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Apparently another factor that led to the high undercarriage was the fuselage length that made the angle of incidence for take-off too shallow.

Wikipedia mentions the following:

The Air Ministry issued Shorts with an order for a pair of S.29 prototypes. However, prior to this, Shorts had decided to undertake a successful practice which had been performed with the earlier Empire flying boat in producing a half scale version of the aircraft, known as the S.31 to prove the aerodynamic characteristics of the design.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Stirling#cite_note-norris_3-3) The S.31, which was largely composed of wood, was powered by an arrangement of four Pobjoy Niagara (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pobjoy_Niagara) engines and featured a retractable undercarriage, operable bomb bay doors, and other measures to realistically represent the larger production aircraft. It was constructed at Short's Rochester (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochester,_Kent) facility.[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Stirling#cite_note-norris_3_4-12)
There was one notable criticism amongst the feedback from pilots, being that the length of the take off run was considered to be excessive and that improvements would be desirable. Fixing this required that the angle of the wing to be increased for take off; however, if the wing itself was modified, the aircraft would fly with a nose-down attitude while cruising (as in the Armstrong Whitworth Whitley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_Whitworth_Whitley)); making this change was also complicated by the fact that work on the production line had already reached an advanced stage. Thus, Shorts lengthened the undercarriage struts to tilt the nose up on take-off, leading to its spindly gear which in turn contributed to many take off and landing accidents. The S.31 also received the lengthened undercarriage in order to test this; subsequent trials found that there was no need for further modification in this respect.

Prior to this information, a bit earlier on, a few paragraphs above, it talks about the excessively harsh specifications for the bomber, amongst which the 500 ft take-off run was prescribed:

The British Air Ministry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Ministry) published Specification B.12/36 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_Of_Air_Ministry_Specifications), which called for a high-speed, long-range four-engined strategic bomber (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bomber) aircraft, that would be capable of being designed and constructed at speed. Amongst the several requirements specified, the bomb load was to be a maximum of 14,000 lb (6,350 kg) carried to a range of 2,000 miles (3218 km) or a lesser payload of 8,000 lb (3,629 kg) to 3,000 miles (4,800 km) (incredibly demanding for the era). It was to have a crew of six and was to have a normal all-up weight of 48,000lb, while a maximum overload weight of 65,000lb was also envisioned. The aircraft would have to be capable of cruising at speeds of 230 mph or greater while flying at 15,000 ft (4,600 m), while possessing three individual gun turrets (located in nose, amidships and rear positions) for self-defence
Additionally, the prospective aircraft should also be able to be used as a troop transport for 24 soldiers, and be able to use catapult assistance for take off. The concept was that the aircraft would fly troops to far corners of the British Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire) and then support them with bombing. To help with this task as well as ease production, it needed to be able to be broken down into parts, for transport by train. Since it could be operating from limited "back country" airfields, it needed to lift off from a 500 ft (150 m) runway and be able to clear 50 ft (15 m) trees at the end, a specification most small aircraft would have a problem with today. Aviation author Geoffrey Norris observed that the stringent requirements given in the specification for the prospective aircraft to be able to make use of existing infrastructure, specifically the specified maximum wingspan of 100 feet, negatively impacted the Stirling's performance, such as its relatively low altitude ceiling and its inability to carry anything larger than 500lb bombs.

I suppose anything in Wikipedia has to be taken with a pinch of salt, but other pages also give this information...
At least they recognize that the 500 ft take.off run and the 100 ft span limitation was rather unfair.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

This is a seriously goofy set of specifications.
My impression is that at the time, both Italy and England were designing weapons to subdue the primitive native populations rather than fight a war against a modern enemy.
The Vickers Wellesley was another such aeroplane.
Just about any aeroplane will do when the enemy's most high tech "vehicle" is a horse or camel.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
It must have been a lot of the specs that sounded goofy.
Possibly, after the experience of the Great War, governments of nations were relying too much on data from that time, and did not have enough practical futuristic vision to foresee their needs, and what the technological advances of the time could do for them.

Initially they all had some material from the between wars period, and manufacturers were only able to develop more modern stuff quite a few years into WW2, when authorities started realizing what was really necessary.

The Wellesley looks more like a powered glider than a fighter-bomber, and probably had many virtues that were not needed by a warplane, other than its range.

Sounds a bit like the evolution of simlulator-aircraft building programmes. Initially, they had many shortcomings which were not so apparent at the time due to the slow computers. Nowadays, they have evolved so much that you can create virtually anything and everything, but the learning curve is so high that they require a lengthy course to be used!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I believe there were quite a few pre-war designs that were quite viable through a good portion of the war.
Just about every nation that actually built aircraft had a few good designs that were not out of place when the war started.
The Spitfire, Corsair, A6M, Yakovlev fighters, were all pre-war designs. I am sure you can think of a lot more.

Regarding development tools, I believe the biggest issue is that the most popular tool was basically just a quick and dirty effort to push a product out the door with the hope that wanabe developers who had nothing else would be desperate enough to by something mediocre before seeing the limitations.

Just because a tool has a lot of capability and features does not necessarily mean it is difficult to use.
Consider how different the current MS Windows Operating Systems (much as I dislike them) are when compared to some of the older stuff like CP/M. Yes, I am old enough to have used CP/M and even used it professionally.

On a slightly related note:
About three days ago, I finally set up a Java development environment on my laptop to where my Son was running into problems debugging his programs.
The really funny thing about this setup is that I chose to do it with a separate editor and command line compiles rather than with an IDE. I do the same thing with C Compilers, so it must mean I am really old fashioned.
As a contrast, when my Son had finally gotten his programs to run and needed to check the output, I suggested that he do it with FC from the command prompt. He could not figure out how to start the command prompt because he never uses it and I have it on my Task Bar and have multiple shortcuts because I use it so often.....

- Ivan.

[Ivan]

I wonder if the Ki 61 Hien or "Flying Swallow" fits into the category of "Conspicuous by Their Absence"?

The Army Type 3 Fighter was produced in fairly large numbers (for a Japanese aircraft) and had a very prominent role in Japanese Army service.
There already are several versions available for Combat Flight Simulator, so it is not truly absent, but my belief was that it had never quite gotten the treatment that an aeroplane with such beautiful lines deserved.

When I first thought of picking this as a design subject, I was somewhat reluctant because my perception was that this was fairly mediocre aircraft regardless of its fine lines and never really excelled in combat. It served because it was the best that the Japanese Army had at the time.
This was a very similar conclusion when looking at the P-40E Warhawk and to date, the P-40E project has led to more related offspring than I ever expected.

Here are a few screenshots of other Ki 61 designs that I have encountered for Combat Flight Simulator. If there are others that you know of please let me know. Each of them seems to be missing a few features that I would expect out of a full featured CFS project.... But do the missing features make the type "absent"?

Note that the BR version is really just a repaint with a different flight model but the whole package is nice enough that I keep it as a flyable selection.

- Ivan.

[Ivan]

It turns out that I have actually had a Short Stirling installed on my Game computer for quite some time.
(Quite some time because I don't remember installing it.)
It isn't a particularly nice model so there is definitely room for improvement.
There also appears to be something odd going on with the engine face on Engine 1; Note the strange colour compared to the others.

I believe it also has a FS98 flight model:
All the engines start at once and the starter switch can be used to shut them all down.

....So there is room for improvement for the flight model as well.

- Ivan the Forgetful.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Despite probably being of the FS5 type, it does have the typical Stirling no-nonsense look and stance!
This could be an interesting project for the future.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

You are probably correct about this being an old FS5 project.
The shape isn't too bad, but the nose seems a bit strangely shaped.
I would need to look at a few more photographs to be sure.

If you like this kind of shape, then the Heinkel 177 would probably appeal to you also?
I had started one many years ago before I started working with SCASM and there are just not enough resources to to it properly in AF99.
Perhaps either this or my version of the Dornier 17Z would be a worthwhile subject for a try at AD2000?

At some point, I want to see what is possible (for me) to do within AD2000 not so much from a 3D design standpoint but more from a CFS variables approach. The code I have seen you and Smilo post looks amazingly like what I am already doing in SCASM coding only a bit less cryptic.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
The Stirling´s straight lines, as well as the 4 engines, and even the transparencies in the cockpit area, seem to me not to be too complicated to build with AF99.

With Ad2K I´m sure a Do-17 would yield much better results because the details inside its large glazed nose section would come through very well. The automated "Z" Buffer in AF99 has limited ability, SCASM is very cryptic, so AD2k will possibly allow clearly understandable view-sequence organization, which will let the builder achieve his goals. I´m sure AD2K will be an interesting exercize for you if you decide to give it a try. Of course, as any new tool to be learnt, it takes some time!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

We just got back from our vacation this afternoon.
Traffic made the drive much longer than it should have been.

You are right, the Stirling does not look to be too difficult though even a simple project tends to push resource limits the way I build.
You do things with a lot of Structures which should work well, but I have never been comfortable doing anything other than fairly simple things with Structures with just one exception: The Eindecker's machine gun.
One fellow I knew was an expert with Structures, but I haven't heard from him in many years.
He actually built an entire Fuselage for a Curtiss Wright CW-21B with a single Structure and the shape was quite excellent.

For me, a Four Engine Bomber may not be complicated, but each Cowl, Supercharger Scoop and such would use up a Component and that would be the end of it. The Heinkel 177 isn't very complicated either, but was beyond the limit of what I could comfortably do within AF99 only.

The B-25 Mitchell was a special case. I was out to prove a point rather than just designing for fun and that project probably took about 4 times the work that it needed to because of AF99 limits and it really didn't have all the features I originally wanted. The same applies to the P-38 Lightning projects.

By the way, if you do a quick comparison, the general syntax for AD2000 that you posted isn't that different from SCASM; It is just much better organised and a bit more obvious as to what is going on. I suppose it is much like the difference between C Programming and Assembly Language Programming.
Some of the things Smilo was telling me a few years ago when he was working with his Arado 196 had suggested to me that the folks who designed AD2000 probably did a lot more thinking and addressed things using more typical 3D design methods. The only problem at this point is that I simply do not have a working development machine at the moment and the old Pentium 233 is probably not powerful enough even it was working.

If you look at what we BOTH have already been doing with the Virtual Cockpits in SCASM, you can certainly see the similarity of patterns between the sequencing of AD2000 and SCASM jumps.

In looking further at the Halifax, I can't decide which I like more: The Merlin versions with a Nose Turret or the later Hercules versions with a simpler nose. It isn't on the build list yet, but with these discussions, I have been looking around to see if I can figure out the differences in the various Marks.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
I hope you´ve had a restful vacation.
It looks like the traffic is unavoidable nowadays in all parts of the world... I´m sure a more modern civilization would perfect public transport to such a point as to make having a car totally unnecessary!

Interesting thoughts on the different building programmes. After the last few years learning "extended building skills" of AF99 and SCASM with you, and now starting on AD2K, I agree with you that AD2K presents a more logical and understandable sequencing organization - even if this has to be completely hand-written, as compared to SCASM, which assists AF99´s often insufficient, semi-automated sequencing.

After one were to be more familiar with AD2K, it definitely offers more scope, largely due to its much greater parts count.
It is taking me a lot of time to master some things, because of the shortcomings this programme also has, but which Smilo is kindly helping me out with!

Anyway... I suppose your last comment on the nose refers to the Stirling, not the Halifax. I don´t really like the looks of the last unit produced the Mark V, with the longer, sleeker nose. The nose on the previous, shorter nosed ones looked more in proportion, with or without the turret. The Mark III is the one I´d perhaps go for!

Have a nice Sunday!
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

The vacation was actually much less than optimal. I only spent one day in the water because I got injured at the end of the first day and it did not seem like a good idea to get sea water into an open wound. Am nearly recovered now.

We made the same trip almost two years ago. My Daughter was injured last time.

Public Transportation would not work well for a fairly short trip like this one. With no traffic, it should only take about 4 hours to get there.
With rest stops and traffic, it is more like 6 hours.
With public transportation, we would need to pack much lighter than we actually did because we certainly could not carry all the luggage and beach gear that we had.
There is no way that public transportation could have matched the price (about $15 per person) and then we would need a rental van when we got there to be able to go out for meals and groceries with 6 people.

Regarding the British Bombers,
I am not really sure which post you were reading because I commented that the Stirling's nose did not seem quite right in the model I have for CFS AND that I was trying to decide which version of the Halifax I liked better: the one with the Nose Turret or the later version without the Nose Turret.
With the Halifax, I like the look of the Merlin engines on the earlier versions and the fact that they had a Nose Turret, but the later version is higher performance but some of them had a bulge in the belly of the aircraft which is a bit ugly.

- Ivan.

[Ivan]

Another interpretation of Conspicuous Absence.....

I was just looking over the various A6M Type Zero Fighters I had available on the game machine and came across this old airframe that was used to test fit pieces.
It reminds me of some of the old abandoned wrecks found on remote Pacific islands.

- Ivan.

[smilo]

i've just finished an article
in the september, 2017 issue of Aviation History
about the boeing-stearman model 75.
apparently, over 8,500 fully assembled were produced
with enough parts for over 10,000 total aircraft.
this was the ultimate trainer.
has anyone seen a quality cfs model?

btw, the article includes, what appear to be,
nice three X drawings and a spec sheet.
i don't know about the scale, though.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Smilo,
Check out Simviation. They have a very nicely built FS98 model by Chris Lampard, and it flies nicely too!
Scroll down the page a bit and you´ll find it.

http://simviation.com/fs98vintage16.htm

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Guys,

It seems like I have a different Stearman PT-17 installed on my game machine.
I was a bit curious when Aleatorylamp commented that it was a nicely built model and flew nicely, so I downloaded it from the link he posted.

Now imagine my surprise when I attempted to load it into the simulator and found that I had TWO Boeing-Stearman PT-17s.

Here is a screenshot of the one I have.
I did not have a chance to try it out tonight.

Please note that the version in my screenshot does not have a cowl ring though I believe they are both probably by the same author.

I believe one of these biplanes was in the air when the Pearl Harbor raiders arrived.
It was flown by a very experienced female flight instructor and managed to evade the attacking Zeros.
Unfortunately, she did not survive the war.

- Ivan.

[smilo]

being as the pt-17 was produced,
mainly, as a military trainer,
i prefer the military version
with the exposed pw radial
and bright paint scheme.

do you remember where you got yours?
or, would you please, send me a copy?

i've read that it was easy to fly,
but, also, could be a challenge
in certain circumstances.
it was a trainer, after all.

[aleatorylamp]

Wow! One Stearman was searched for and two were found!

As regards the airframe, the interesting thing about the military unit
is the exposed PW radial.

Without wanting to spoil the party, there´s one thing:
A closer look at the cowled model shows the build is a bit more advanced.
Wing curvature is smoother, wheels are rounder, there are strut wires, and the
tailplane is 3D. The uncowled model looks like a very nice but simpler FS5 build.

Initially I was going to suggest painting the cowled version with military textures,
but just before Captain Obvious came in wielding his club, I searched the web
for military cowled versions, but couldn´t find any. That kept the Captain at bay!

I also found an uncowled, military, FS2000 Stearman model... Although it loads
into CFS1, textures of course won´t show, and as there´s no Z-Buffer, it plays
havoc on the structure!

So, it´ll be hard to have a more advanced build of a military version with the
exposed pw radial unless we build one! Maybe we should?

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan, Hello Smilo,
I have discovered a new thing on the more advanced cowled version I found.
The nose on the real aircraft has a cowl that´s flush with the fuselage.

On the model, the cowled seems to be an added round part, fitted infront of the
original un-cowled fuselage. Of course, the physical shape doesn´t show the
individual cylinders as on the posted picture of the military PT-17.

The solution could be easy: To texture the plane with military colour scheme,
and to texture the round Cowl with the exposed cylinders of the uncowled version.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[smilo]

well....you said,
you needed a change.
didn't you?
so, there you go,
a new af99 project.

why waste your time
correcting someone else's?
when you could have too much fun
building your own.
besides, today's build standards
are much higher than in the past.

so, go ahead, push the envelope.

[Ivan]

If you want to make the modification for an uncowled military PT-17 with the red model, you could of course just make the changes via SCASM.
I don't believe it would be that difficult to do.
That opens up the standard can of worms though: If you fix one thing via SCASM, why not fix other things such as the wacky windscreen frames?
How about some shape edits?

Hmmmm....

I test flew the Red version. The flight model isn't really that good.
The real PT-17 was basically a very agile "Cotton Ball" as can be seen in quite a few aerobatics videos online and also in the movie "Tora Tora Tora".
The one here can't roll fast enough to get out of its own way.
The acceleration on the ground also seems to be too rapid.
There may be a few more issues. I really did not do much testing.
I haven't tried to gather any data to see if anything else was odd.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Guys,
Probably it will best to make a new one then.
That way I won´t have to chase all the worms that come out or the red one.
I wonder what you think of the .air file on the military version. Perhaps it´s better than red version´s one?
Anyway, the military textures will be useful as a reference for a new one.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[smilo]

the av history article has several pictures
and, as i said, clean 3 X drawings
and a small spec sheet.
i don't know about the scale, though.

if you're interested, let me know
and i'll hook up the scanner.
(not a big deal)

shall we start a new thread?
it seems appropriate.

[smilo]

done...new thread started,
and posts moved from here
to help get it started.

[Ivan]

This seems to be the right place to gauge the reception for a new project.
I am hardly out of things to work on, but recently I had noticed that I had done an awful lot of development on the Curtiss P-40 series. There are only about three more models to do before I have a pretty good representative of what Curtiss actually built in the P-40 line. (The P-40Q is such a radical change that I probably won't be building it anytime soon if at all.)

When going through photographs of the P-40 series, one very odd idea that probably never made it past the mock-up stage was a twin engine version. While I am sure this was never actually produced, I believe it would make for a very interesting little hotrod.

The version in the photograph was barely plausible because it used the basic P-40 wing, but expanding on this idea would be a pretty good exercise in SCASM editing because there is no possibility of staying within AF99 limits with such a project.
I would be using a great amount of artistic license in this project because I am fairly certain that there were many details that would need to be modified from the P-40 airframe to make the idea plausible.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Interesting idea, although as you say, it would involve a lot of speculation - more a modelling exercise than building a model that existed in reality. There is really very little information to be found.

The Curtiss factory mock-up seems to have had two P-40 noses+engines mounted on top of each wing, which would seem aesthetically quite questionable, and would and also reduce lateral visibility considerably.

To improve both these aspects, applying artistic license here, subsequent development into a prototype may have derived in lowering the engine-nacelles a bit. The 2 x 1425 Hp hotrod would actually look quite appealing, and be more practical as a fighter.

Two shark mouths instead of one! The resulting design would end up looking a bit like the Wright Whirlwind, but with less delicate, stronger and more no-nonsense-looking lines.

One added advantage was that the nose was free to have a large number of machine guns!

Another interesting hotrod would possibly be the 2 x 2100 Hp Grumman Tigercat, although with the narrow fuselage, this model must have been a little cramped for the pilot. There, the Warhawk fuselage looks a bit roomier.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Further to your thoughts on a possible Twin P-40, I found come pictures
of two plastic models made by P-40 entusiasts. The one on the right would
be a model of the original Curtiss Factory Mock-up, and the other sleeker
one on the left, would correspond to an improved development of the same.

Now, I don´t know whether this was a Curtiss design-improvement or the
logical conclusion on the part of an enthusiast, similar to my speculations.

Anyway, here are the pictures of the two models in question. The sleeker
one with the lowered engine nacelles is definitely very attractive looking,
wouldn´t you say so too? Some hotrod!!

In my opinion, it looks like a very appetizing model to build.

Cheers, and a nice Sunday to all!
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,ue
I agree that this kind of project would involve a lot of speculation and large dose of my own expert (Yeah, Right....) Aeronautical Engineering. <Cough>

This was a plywood mockup based on the standard Allison P-40 probably without consideration for practical matters such as fuel tanks, armament, and wing loading, so all of those factors would need to be "addressed" for a plausible model. Someone was obviously convinced enough to build such a mock-up for a basic concept. For me, this was an idea of a lazy project very much like the original concept of the mock-up it is based on but which might lead to an interesting and unusual aeroplane for CFS. The inspiration for this idea was actually a discussion on small arms in another forum....

In concept, this is not too far from the Messerschmitt 109Z Zwilling or Heinkel 111Z Zwilling or North American P-82 Twin Mustang, and there is actually a basis in reality for trying out such a project. It makes a nice departure from all the other projects which are always limited by research.

I agree that the second model that you posted looks a lot more practical, but I believe it is starting to deviate a bit too much from the basic concept of "lazy" that was the probable driver of the plywood mock-up. It also looks way too much like a DeHavilland DH-88 Comet.
If I do end up building this model, we shall see if the view from the cockpit turns out to be as bad as expected.

- Ivan.

[smilo]

my first impression was it looks like a Crimson Skies model.
or, at least, something very close to it.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Smilo, hello Ivan,

OK, the Twin P-40 looks generally similar to the DH-88, but quite
a bit less delicate, and it has much more of a punchy look to it.

I´d never got into Crimson skies, but I can see the design style
resemblance!

Anyway, definitely an interesting exercise in my opinion, if you
decide on making one, Ivan!

Also, I find the concept of a what-if kind of model quite appealing
for a change. There´s room for interesting experimentation!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Smilo, Aleatorylamp,
Yes, this does have a "Crimson Skies" look to it, very much like the screenshot attached.
(That was an "aeroplane" that I did some editing on for the old JG 57 crew many years back.)

I now have my Curtiss Engineering Team working on a study on how to go about building such an aeroplane.
They have recognized that although the mock-up shows two Merlin engines, those engines will not be available in production quantities and this aeroplane will need to use Allison engines.
It will be using an auxiliary supercharger as on the P-63 King Cobra instead of a turbo supercharger as on the P-38 Lightning and altitude performance will be considerably better than the standard P-40.
The Wing will need to be much larger than found on the mock-up because with an additional engine and fuel, the aircraft will weigh at least a couple thousand pounds more than the P-40.
The other obvious issue is that if two engines are installed ahead of the center of gravity instead of just one engine, the balance of the aeroplane will be quite different.

The problem of balancing the aeroplane is probably the most difficult without a serious redesign at which point, the original concept would be lost.

- Ivan.

[Josh Patterson]

Hello Smilo, Aleatorylamp,
Yes, this does have a "Crimson Skies" look to it, very much like the screenshot attached.
(That was an "aeroplane" that I did some editing on for the old JG 57 crew many years back.)

I now have my Curtiss Engineering Team working on a study on how to go about building such an aeroplane.
They have recognized that although the mock-up shows two Merlin engines, those engines will not be available in production quantities and this aeroplane will need to use Allison engines.
It will be using an auxiliary supercharger as on the P-63 King Cobra instead of a turbo supercharger as on the P-38 Lightning and altitude performance will be considerably better than the standard P-40.
The Wing will need to be much larger than found on the mock-up because with an additional engine and fuel, the aircraft will weigh at least a couple thousand pounds more than the P-40.
The other obvious issue is that if two engines are installed ahead of the center of gravity instead of just one engine, the balance of the aeroplane will be quite different.

The problem of balancing the aeroplane is probably the most difficult without a serious redesign at which point, the original concept would be lost.

- Ivan.
Actually IRIS did a twin P-40 that looks quite a bit like the model in the upper right hand corner of the picture in ale's post but I don't know if one was created for CFS. (I'm running a version in FSX.) It is freeware. (Maybe could be ported to CFS?)

[smilo]

am looking at the crimson skies box
and see what could be an A6M Type Zero twin,
or something really close.
but, that's not the subject here, is it?

[Ivan]

Actually IRIS did a twin P-40 that looks quite a bit like the model in the upper right hand corner of the picture in ale's post but I don't know if one was created for CFS. (I'm running a version in FSX.) It is freeware. (Maybe could be ported to CFS?)

Hello Josh,

Thanks for the information. I found a couple images of their "P-40 Experiments" which look interesting.
CFS uses a much older model format, so I doubt the model would be portable but I am glad someone else also built this aeroplane. You are right, it doesn't look like they changed it much from the shape of the mock-up.


Hello Smilo,

Nothing wrong with discussing a twin engine A6M Type Zero.

- Ivan.

[smilo]

i decided to ask mr google
and apparently, crimson skies is also on xbox.
who knew? i surely didn't.
anyway, here's the "zero twin" i spoke of.
if one wanted to call it a zero twin.
i guess, it's more of just the twin concept.
i like the twin boom, but, am not a fan
of the twin cockpit idea.
but, that doesn't apply to the p-40 twin, does it?
again, my apologies for getting off track.

ps, i believe you are correct,
in that newer sim models don't work in cfs1.
some from cfs2 will work, but,
there's the issue with model z buffering.
or, should i say the lack of it in cfs1.
for example, i can build a model with ad2k
and drop it into fs2000 or cfs2 and it looks fine.
but, if i drop the same model into cfs1,
the parts look like a bleeding mess,
unless, i manually enter each part's sequence coding.
z buffering built into the newer sims does the sequencing for me.

[Ivan]

Hello Smilo,

I had no idea that was the one you meant. I actually have a copy of Crimson Skies still in the box in my Son's closet.
I don't think I ever opened the box after I bought it many years ago.

My problem with this project as with many others is that it has to meet certain standards and I already am running ino some conceptual problems. I tend to get there a lot which is why so many of my other projects get stuck somewhere in the contruction pipeline. The Ki 61 is about to go through a minor change in texture layouts because of an issue that I found when laying out the textures. It isn't visible, but I know it is there, so I won't be satisfied until I know I have addressed the issue.

Building the Twin Warhawk visual model is actually pretty trivial because I have all kinds of pieces for the P-40 series of aeroplanes. The problem is one of plausibility in my mind.
One of my "requirements" is that the profile of the new model be as close as possible to the standard P-40 which puts a slight limitation on what I "can" do.

I thought about the Center of Gravity problem a bit and may have come up with a creative solution. It may look a bit weird but I won't know until I try out a few drawings.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
My texture-specialist friend Udo Entenmann contacted me re. the P-47D that was recovered from an Austrian lake after 60 years, and has recently been fully restored into flying condition.
It flew again in July last year!
Please see attached photo, and more info on this page:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-482093-1.html)

As you have built a couple of excellent P-47D models, Udo is planning to make some new metallic textures incl. nose art, correspoding to the restored Bubbletop model, specifically for FS98, but of course also for CFS1.

However, being a CFS model, there are certain canopy transparency incompatibility issues with FS98, and so, Udo asked me if I could in turn ask you if you would be willing to let me rework your Bubbletop model with AF99 so as to let the bubbletop canopy transparency show up correctly in FS98.

In exchange, Udo would be very happy to share the new textures that he is planning to produce for this aircraft, with the CFS community!

How would you feel about such a project?

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[smilo]

a quality, metalic textured P-47?
yes, please

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Smilo,
Yes, I did think it would be quite enticing! The rerstored model certainly looks fantastic.
Perhaps Ivan could let me have his AFX to fix the canopy, as Udo says that it shimmers
and isn´t transparent in FS98.
OK, then! Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Smilo, hello Ivan,

I just noticed something about the transparent canopies on one of my recent Ju52´s.
Importing the models into FS98, one of the four shows a non-transparent, shimmering
canopy, so I looked into the model and found what was causing it:

I´d ommitted to tag the window component as smooth, leaving it as regular, but
because I ´d applied alpha transparency 179 to it with Aircraft Animator, it worked
perfectly well in CFS1. Not so in FS98, though!

Now, looking into in the SCASMed final model version, the listing for the transparent canopy component is totally different if not tagged as smooth, so the correction won´t be something
that can be simply corrected with AF99 - it would have to be totally re-SCASMed afterwards!

Thus, I imagine it will be difficult to find a simple solution for P-47D canopy without causing
a lot of hassle.

Although Udo does have CFS1, he normally re-works textures for FS98, so in this case I
don´t know if he´ll be interested in doing the metallic Dottie Mae textures...

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I am actually not really interested in such a collaboration.
I just did a quick check of what my Thunderbolt would look like in Flight Simulator 98 and was not impressed with the result.
Besides, this really isn't the correct Thunderbolt model anyway.
I was planning at some point to do a bit of reworking of some minor details (mostly the Propeller and Spinner) to get a D-25 with the Hamilton Standard propeller instead of the Curtiss Electric version that both of my Thunderbolts currently have.
That would be closer in appearance to Dottie Mae, but I still think the models would look pretty poor in FS 98.

For what it's worth, the Canopy already is "Smooth" and is coloured Transparent White. It does not have Alpha Transparency yet but was going to get it when next updated.

For some reason I could not get a screenshot out of FS 98, so this was done as a photograph of the screen.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
A couple of weeks ago I managed to rig up a very stable-working Win98
Pentium-III and have just put in your P47D-27, although I couldn´t fly it
because of the .air file, but that´s a minor issue.

I´m sorry to hear that you think your model is not as good as I do, and
I respect that, although I don´t agree at all!

I feel it looks absolutely fantastic - a clean, detailed build, totally up to full
Ivan-type building standards! I couldn´t get a screen shot because I still
have to install a programme that can do it.
Here´s a screenshot - the model looks really great!

The only thing of course, is that in FS98 the aft cockpit glass shimmers when
viewed from above the horizontal.

I ran the model file through SCASM, but of course I couldn´t identify the
canopy component because I haven´t got the AF99 AFX for it.

A pity! Generating the AF99 canopy component on its and giving it Alpha
Transparency 179 would of course give me the SCASM code I need to
identify the corresponding routine in the SCASM listing of the model to
substitute it for the correction.

In case you change your mind, please, do let me know, because Udo would
then be able to make the corresponding new metallic Dottie Mae Textures
to celebrate the restoration of the unit recovered from the Austrian lake
last year.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Your screenshot looks pretty good.
I believe you were misunderstanding me.
I do believe that my Thunderbolts are some of the nicest and cleanest looking ones out there for CFS.
I just didn't think that they looked good in FS 98 but your screenshot shows that there isn't much difference between FS98 and CFS.
Perhaps the settings on my computer are not correct for getting the best display possible.

The landing gear would not stop "dancing" when I tried out the D-27 out at National Airport.
I also don't know how to change the views around or even get a screenshot.
A couple years ago, I purchased a copy of FS 98 with all the manuals for $2 at a model show and perhaps I should read the manual.
I actually have about 4 copies of FS 98. Some are still new in the package but the newer copies came with just a CD and no printed manual.

I still have no intention of sending the AFX, but you actually don't need it for identifying pieces in SCASM.
This still isn't the correct model for "Dottie Mae" though. It still needs a Hamilton Standard "Paddle Blade" propeller.
The diameter isn't hard to find. I need to find the blade chord to adjust the model.
The version I have now is actually quite a bit better than what was released years ago. The most obvious change is in the Canopy Frame.
As I have commented elsewhere, the biggest problem is that the model was done by eyeball and some profile drawings rather than dimensional drawings and station diagrams.

I know from the last experiment with FS 98 that a "Smooth" Canopy doesn't get rid of the weird opaque business with the glass at some angles.
I take it you believe that the "Speed Below 179 Knots" Tag for Alpha Transparency in Aircraft Animator is a solution?
I can test that out in a matter of a few minutes.

I also know that BMP textures do not work for FS 98. The mapping ends up very strange.

If the changes are very simple, I can make them and send you the resulting model.
I don't guarantee a response time because I actually have several projects going at the moment, but this one looks to be very quick.

As for re texturing this model, it is actually very easy to do with a program that I wrote to do the Ki 61 paint scheme.
If I have a set of good profile and other orthogonal image, it should be pretty easy to cut them up to overlay on the model.
It was what let me match up camouflage patterns across the different pieces of the aeroplane without a lot of pain.
I did a quick search, but all I have found thus far are profiles for just one side and both sides are needed to get the lighting and colours consistent.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Thanks for your comments!
I was just on my re-furbished Win-98 Pentium III at 800 Mhz with its
128 Mb acellerator card, which I thought was so stable.

No sooner I´d said it was stable, than the graphics card gave up the ghost!
Now I have to fix up another card before I can continue.
Never a dull moment - there had to be a kicker!

I had just been working on the unarmed Ju52/3m version with the cockpit windows
that were shimmering opaque in FS98. They were designated as Alpha Transparency 179,
but defined as regular instead of smooth AF99 components.

Being SCASMed models, I took the SCASM code of the cockpit windows of the other
Ju52/3m that worked correctly in FS98 (I noticed that there certainly were differences
in the SCASM text), and overwrote the old code that was giving problems, and the
windows display correctly now.

Anyway, I can confirm that with a cockpit-window component designated both
as Smooth AND with Aircraft Animator´s Alpha Transparency 179,
FS98 displays a correct and very soft light grey transparency.

Well, with this in mind, it looks like it probably won´t be too much trouble for you to
make the Bubbletop Thunderbolt´s canopy compatible with FS98.

There´s no hurry, and I appreciate your efforts - thanks in advance!

Udo wouldn´t be worried about the propeller, so you can skip that if you want.
It will be interesting to get his new textures! There is foreseeably no problem with the actual texture format either - He always uses standard 256 colour, 256x256 pixel .Xaf textures.

P.S.
I just put in another graphics card into my PIII Win98 computer, and found the drivers - it works again!
Just for you to rest assured that it looks fine in FS98, here´s another picture of your Thunderbolt!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Glad you got your computer working again.
I haven't actually bought a Desktop computer in over 10 years.
I had a lot of spares until the water leak in the basement.
There is still no shortage of actual CPUs that are reasonable for CFS, but the problem is in finding a matching 3D Graphics Card.
I had a couple spare PCI cards but no idea where Anna Honey packed them or if she just simply threw them out.
We also just bought a laptop computer for my Son last week for about $1450, and my Daughter got an even more expensive laptop late last summer, so we are not going to be spending much on computers any time soon.

What I really need to find is a few inexpensive older PCI (not express) graphics cards and set up a little test area.
PCI express cards are easy to find. Plain PCI cards are not.

By the way, In case you haven't quite figured out how I work:
I am actually not terribly concerned with what would satisfy Udo.
I don't know him and don't believe I have ever even run into him online anywhere.
What I do has to satisfy me or I won't do it.
If you look at my various stalled projects, they are all stuck because of limitations of what I can build or accomplish.
The Ki 61 waited many years for a decent paint job and I know there are folks out there who can do a lot better than what I can do even now.
There are a bunch of projects that are waiting for panels and gauges because my shop isn't quite up to speed on those yet.

My goal is really to learn how to do things rather than push out new releases.
(So the quickest way to get me to finish something is to teach me how to do it!)

Regarding Thunderbolt Propellers:
There were 4 different types that were used.
1. Curtiss Electric 12 foot (This was the first propeller and typically called the "Toothpick")
2. Hamilton Standard 13 foot "Paddle Blade"
3. Curtiss Electric 13 foot "Paddle Blade"
4. Curtiss Electric 13 foot Asymmetric Blade

I have a little trouble telling the difference in photographs between the Curtiss 12 foot and Curtiss 13 foot Paddle Blade propellers unless they are next to each other.
My Thunderbolts both carry the Curtiss 13 foot Asymmetric Blade propellers.

Note that any of these propellers would fit on any model of Thunderbolt and many newer propellers replaced the older Curtiss 12 foot propeller to improve performance.
Dottie Mae was a P-47D-28-RA. It currently wears a Hamilton Standard propeller but that is not really proof because just about all flyable P-47 regardless of model typically use the Hamilton Standard propellers.

From doing just a little bit of reading, it appears that aircraft originally equipped with H-S propellers were -RE (Republic Farmingdale) while most -RA (Republic Evansville) were equipped with C-E propellers. That would suggest that the original propeller on Dottie Mae was a Curtiss-Electric but not the 12 foot of course! These late model Thunderbolts had a lot more power than the 12 foot propeller could handle.

The question would then be whether it was the "Paddle Blade" or the "Asymmetric Blade" propeller that was originally installed.
For that, I will use research by some other folks. Please see the linked images.

First image is a painting, but from the lower propeller blade, it appears from the trailing edge that it is an Asymmetric type.
It is a little hard to tell though.

The second image shows the four types of blade side by side for comparison. Yes, they are plastic models, but it really isn't easy getting photographs of the real thing all at the same angle and same scale. Besides, these guys are typically much more nit-picky than I am.

The third image shows the colour scheme of Dottie Mae. Note that the propeller shown here is clearly the Asymmetric type.
It also gives a little more information as to what happened to her.


Additional Data from Joe Baugher's site:
1942-29150 (MSN 2812) 511th FS [K4-S], 405th FG, 9th AF; "Dottie Mae" - artwork of a young lady wearing a
Santa Claus outfit; Ditched in the Traunsee, Salzkammergut, Austria May 8, 1945 and sank. Pilot injured but saved.
Aircraft recovered by Sandy Air Corp, June 13, 2005. Brian Kenney/Trojan Aircraft Services, Chino, CA, 2005,
shipped to California July 2005. Registration N328FA reserved May 7, 2008; not registered; cancelled
June 24, 2011. Jack Croul/Air Corps Pursuit LLC, Newport Beach, CA, 2008. Restoration to airworthy
condition at Rialto, CA, 2008. Restoration project moved to Caldwell, ID, 2009. Allied Fighters,
Sun Valley, ID. Registered as N47DM to Vintage Fighters June 27, 2012; current [Jun17].
Test flights at Caldwell June 23, 2017.

Bottom line is that it appears that no modification is needed for a reasonable representation of P-47D-28-RA "Dottie Mae" to the extent that I can build.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
That´s a detailed research line! Interesting the number of differently shaped propellers. And... that Dottie Mae girl sure was a good looker! Dancing and singing is very important for the moral.

Thank you for your time and pacience explaining things! So, if I understand correctly, the existing propeller will not pose an obstacle for a correct model of the Dottie Mae model using your P47D-27 as a basis.

Udo is a friend and we have been working on FS planes for about 11 years now - we have also met twice when he has been on holiday here on the islands on two occasions. I know he likes WW2 aircraft as much as you and me do, and I have sent him FS98 compatible versions of my latest models.

At the moment I´m working on the texture bitmaps of default FSFS-Conv Engine 1 to 4 RPM and Boost/Fuel Flow gauges for FS98, as these were the only gauges missing to complete the engine-gauge set with the re-worked dials. Upto now, we were completely limited to the FSFS-Conv gauge set for FS98.

Like we managed in CFS1, the old-looking gauge frames and dials with metric conversion, give the FS98 panel a much better look.

By the way, I have a couple of old PCI Graphics cards here. They are not the fantastic 64 Mb or 32 Mb accellerator cards, more like 4 Mb or maybe even 8 Mb 2D-3D cards of the time. If you like I can post them to you. Do let me know if you are interested!

I dug up a couple of AGP accellerator cards. I think there´s a 32 Mb, a 128 Mb and a 256 Mb one. The one that blew was another 256 Mb one, and I´m just testing a 4 Mb one because of the power supply which is a bit small. Anyway... hardware tinkering is part of the fun too, I suppose!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Dottie Mae was the pilot's wife, but not the pilot who crashed the aeroplane.
I doubt she really looked like that. Most certainly she was not around to pose in a Santa Claus outfit.
Check out the last image I posted to get more details about why I believe this.
I don't actually have all that much faith in paintings for the most part.
This was basically a Alberto Vargas style painting probably with a lot of artistic license.

No need to send the PCI cards you have. I don't believe they would work because I have what I believe is a 8 MB card in the Game machine and it can't handle some of the models that work fine on the 16 MB card. I did have a AGP machine with a fairly hot graphics card for the time. I just need to figure out here it went.

The laptop computer that we bought for my Son actually would work pretty well if it were not a Windows 10 machine.
Problem is that a lot of the older tools won't work with the newer Operating Systems even if CFS does.
It has Nvidia 4GB 1060 and a fairly hot processor for a laptop. Only a 15.6 inch screen though so it is a bit smaller than I would like....

I actually have no idea what you are referring to with the FS 98 gauges.
I know that programming FS 98 Manifold Pressure gauges was easy. I never did have any luck with the FS Tachometer though. I never tried to do a Fuel Pressure gauge.
I believe I am pretty competent in C Programming but with Gauges, I am basically a "Cookbook Programmer".
I can follow recipes and maybe make a few small changes but that is about it. Sometimes the results are pretty cool though.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
I see... Well, at least Dottie Mae then boosted the pilot´s morale!
Anyway, the plan behind all this is the new textures Udo can make - if in FS98 the model can display the canopy correctly, then we be able to have them! As it´s such a cool looking plane, it will most probably be worth while.

What I´m doing with FS98 gauges at the moment, is completing the multi-engine set for FS98, with old-fashioned frames and dials, for use with the unarmed versions of the Ju52/3m in FS98. Udo often does textures for me, so I help out with what I can to compensate.

Remember the CFS1 Engine 1 to 4 RPM and Boost gauges you programmed with the bitmaps of the default CFS1 Messerschmidt gauge bitmaps? I had then proceeded to adapt matching dials and frames for some of the other existing gauges that come with Flight Shop FS98 Converter: EGT/CHT, Oil Temperature and pressure, and fuel gauges.

The RPM and Boost gauges were still missing, and I´m adapting the bitmaps now to have a complete matching engine instrument set, and it´s coming along OK.

OK then! ...and good luck with your graphics hardware for the development machine!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Well, so it looks like the propeller needn´t be updated, and with the
Aircraft Animator Alpha Transparency 179 option, from what you
said, it will be quite easy to make the canopy of your P47D-27
compatible with FS98.

So, I was wondering if I could count on you to send me the new
model in the near future, so that Udo can start on the metallic
Dottie Mae textures, which he would naturally be glad to share
with the SOH community!

Thanks very much in advance!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I will get to the Thunderbolt but I cannot promise a time for response.
I currently have one project ahead of it which I do not want to pause at the moment for various reasons.
Anna Honey is out of town for a week, so I am also doing the single parent thing again and this is also the end of the third quarter of the school year and any requests for assistance from my Son come first as well.
Thus, I may spend a fair amount of time on my laptop on a browser but haven't fired up the Development machine since before Anna Honey's trip.

From what I can tell, the updated model for the D-28 will need just about all the changes minus the texture renaming and the reference point shift. With a good working computer, it should take a couple hours. With my current computer, it took me around two days each for the Ki 61 and Wildcats. (Graphics problems, programs that sometimes don't run, lock ups, reboots and chkdsk after a hard shutdown make the difference.)
You do have my permission, if you need it, to SCASM and edit the D-27 model for FS 98.
Please leave the copyright notice in place if you edit.

Even if you do not edit the MDL for FS 98, the mapping of the textures will not change when I update the model,
so even with the current MDL, there should be no limitations on re-texturing even if it is an issue for a release.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Thanks for your coming help! I hope your development computer problem will be solved soon.

As regards the P47D-27 textures, they seem to be standard straight forward format, and I realize that the texture spread won´t be affected, so that will be nothing to worry about to convert them for the D-28 Dottie Mae.

Regarding the SCASM listing, I´m afraid I haven´t been able to discover the code corresponding to the aft canopy parts in question, so I´d prefer to wait until you send me the model with the compatibilized canopy.

Actually, I´ve just had an idea! Maybe it would be easier for you just to pin-point which SCASM subroutine refers to the aft-canopy, and I could try and make the necessary corrections myself.

On the other hand, it probably wouldn´t! It would entail having to compile a separate individual transparent aft canopy with AF99 twice and pass it through SCASM: Once without Alpha Transparency 179, to identify the SCASM code, and once with it, to make the necessary corrections, so in reality it would not be much of a difference for you...

Update:
P.S. I tried inspecting the model file with a program called MDLVUE.EXE which can identify polygons and gives their addresses, to identify them with a hex editor, but it´s a bit difficult to see what I can actually do with that.
Anyway, I can tell Udo to go ahead and start with the new textures, as that will take quite some time, and later the textures can be fit into the P47D-28 when that´s ready.

Thanks very much again!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

While my Son was eating dinner, I decided to see how difficult it was to edit the P47D27 using SCASM.
It turned out to be pretty trivial even without AF99.
It took about 15 minutes to identify the code and make changes and test.
It actually took a bit longer to package everything up in a ZIP file which is now an attachment in a thread called
"Thunderbolt".
Except for going online to use a calculator, this was all done on my game machine which is light in the way of tools.
(My Game Machine isn't networked.)
At some point I should install a Hex Editor on it but it wasn't necessary to accomplish this task.

Time to go clean up after dinner.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
That´s very nice and forthcoming of you. Thank you very much indeed.
I´ll have a look and do the download.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Folks,
I was wondering if an Il2 Shturmovik, a Petlyakov Pe-2 or an
Australian CAC-12 Boomerang would be of any interest for CFS1.
Any opinions?
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

P.S. Being quite a fan of twins, I tend towards the the Petlyakov PE-2FT light bomber/heavy fighter. It seemed to be quite a performer. Vmax is given as 360 mph, with its two impressive 1210 hp (2700 RPM) Klimov V12 engines, developments of the Hispano Suiza V12, with refinements including a 2-speed supercharger. Critical altitude: 13000 ft. Emergency boost(max. 2 minutes): 43.30 MP at 2,800 RPM.
It would sound fun programming the performance into the .air file...

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I had not responded because I personally don't have any great interest in any of the aeroplanes you listed. Perhaps others do.
I know there is a very mediocre Commonwealth Boomerang out there and a reasonably fair IL 10 Sturmovik that might substitute for a IL 2. I believe there is also a Petlyakov Pe 2 out there as well though I can't find it at the moment.

I do find it rather surprising that there has never been a very good Yakovlev single engine fighter of any model available for CFS.
A couple Yak fighters are on my build list but they are not anywhere near the highest priority and with my speed of building, they may never even get started.

I figured that for this poll, you really needed opinions other than mine because if I wanted something bad enough, I would just build it myself. My choice of ideal subjects and things I would want to see are quite a bit different from yours.

Last night I ended up working pretty late on edits to the P-47D-25 Thunderbolt and decided to do a little looking around at other projects afterward. Recently I have been involved in several discussions about the P-39 Airacobra and decided to see what I had.

The AFX I have is from Eric Johnson and is very old.
The shapes don't look too bad in the simulator but it was built to a way different standard than we are using today.
The total Parts count is only 460 while current projects seldom run fewer than 1150 Parts unless someone got lazy.
Working with someone else's AFX always SEEMS like an easy approach, but has never really worked well in my experience.
Looking at other AFXs are great ways to learn different build methods though.

The Airacobra has been on the build list for a long time but always gets put off for something more interesting.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Not to worry! I realize out tastes are different, but thanks for your comments anyway.

I find the design of the IL-2 Shturmovik and the Petlyakov PE-2 quite appealing, and
their performance quite worthy, so they are next on my building list.

I remember Christoph Ruhtenberg some years ago re-worked the flight dynamics for
a series of quite well made FS98 Bell Airacobra models. There are a number of them
about on the net, of about 640 Kb, as well as some older ones of about 71 Kb, but
none with AFX. Anyway, I was never very interested in it, although the Russians
did put a number into good use!

Regarding your comment on improving existing AFX, I quite agree with you!
Of course it is always interesting to see how others approach a building project,
but it can be very irritating or even a nightmare. Often whole sections from other
planes are used and are just "pushed" into position, where they continually exasperate
you because they never stay put, and end up flying around all over the place all the time!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I believe I have most of the Airacobra versions that you mentioned.
There may be more features, animations, refinement on some details and such but if you look closely, they are probably based on Eric Johnson's AFX.

Are these the versions you are describing? Look at the descriptions and you will see what I mean.
http://simviation.com/cfs1aircraft41.htm

As is mentioned in one description, the original AFX was from FS5 and was probably pretty good for that era.
There is one other Airacobra out there that appears to be from a different AFX and has a clear Canopy, but it has more shape problems.
The descriptions on the Simviation page are not very accurate from a historical perspective.

If I were to build this aeroplane, it would most likely come in two versions. The first would be the P-39D and the second would be a Thompson Trophy Racer. If I got really ambitious, a P-39Q might also get built.
This is yet another one of those that I do not believe was a particularly good fighter but it would be nice to own one and the build does not look that complicated except perhaps for the flight model.

Regarding the IL 2 Sturmovik:
My belief from what I have read over the years is that it really wasn't very "worthy" from a flight performance perspective but was quite effective in its role as for ground attack. Even the slowest, most clumsy aeroplane is going to catch the most agile ground vehicle. It carried a lot of armour and was very resistant to ground fire which is what really saved it.
I actually picked up a pre-built 1:72 model of this aeroplane when the local Hobby Works store closed earlier this year.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Yes the Airacobra on this page is one of them.
The model is quite good, especially for the time it was built, as you said.

I also saw the IL-2 Shturmovik on that page - I had been looking, but
hadn´t seen it before. The model is also quite good, and, as always happens
when I see an existing model that´s quite good, I completely loose interest
in buiding another one.

I have read the historical details, and I would agree with you, but it certainly
played an important role in stopping the enemy. With 15% of its flying weight
in armour plating (it was called the flying tank!) I suppose that would account
for it not being so agile in a dogfight, and also not easy to shoot down.
The rear gunner was apparently very important.

Anyway, the Il-2 is not conspicuous for its absence after all...

P.S. ...and I´ve finally also found an existing PE-2 model along the same lines as
other two mentioned in this post, so that´s another one that´s not conspicuous
by its absence either. I´ll have to decide if I have enough gumption to undertake
a new build. The three models are quite cleanly built, without bleeds, and their only
shortcoming would be the opaque cockpit. Well, we´ll see...

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I picked what I believe was the best P-39 - The USAAC 1941 version.
As usual, not everyone has the same priorities in design features.
I prefer to have a model that looks as close to the actual aeroplane as I can get within the limits of the design tools.
I will put shape and lack of bleeds before animated parts and priority for representation are for pieces that would indicate some kind of status before just plain eye candy.
This model has quite different priorities, but the assembly techniques used are actually pretty good.

Although this is a "CFS" aircraft, the flight model is for FS98 which of course means that there is no supercharger and other CFS-only features.
The Checklist also has numerous issues that differ from how the aeroplane would actually be flown.

Attached is a screenshot to show the similarity to the original Eric Johnson model and to show a couple other rather silly errors.
Please note that the Flaps are lowered. This model has plain Flaps while the actual Airacobra had Split Flaps.
The Flaps were the reason I had deleted this from my computer earlier.

Note that there is only one national insignia on the wings but it is on the wrong side (as it was on the original).
If there is only one insignia, it would be on the upper LEFT wing.

Regarding the IL 2 on the same page:
If you are really interested in building THE Sturmovik, don't let this model's existence stop you.
Do you believe you can do better?

Why are you letting the existence of THIS model influence your decision to build or not to build????
How much research have you already done on the IL 2 before starting your project?
What do you consider the definitive version of this aeroplane?
(Why did I just ask you all these questions; What am I hinting at?)

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
The existing FS98 and/or CFS1 models of the IL-2 and PE-2 are
shaped quite well as far as fuselage and wings are concerned, but
could do with some improvements:

3D tail surfaces, properly shaped transparent cockpits, 12-sided
wheels and spinners, wheeldoors, and a more convenient CFS1 .air file.

Thus, perhaps there ARE enough reasons to undertake the two projects.

The CFS1 IL-2 is one of the very easrly, less powerful single-seaters,
and would not be so representative of the model in my opinion - it would
be the one with the rear gunner.

The Airacobra model, incidentally, apart from the flaps issue, is actually
a better model, having 3D tail surfaces.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I guess you figured out the point I was getting at.
That rather fair model is a IL2. I also believe the definitive version was the two seat IL2/3M so it made no sense when you were discussing rear gunners with the single seat IL2. These aeroplanes were terribly underpowered and had no hope of dogfighting anything.

As for the Petlyakov Pe-2, I believe there is room for improvement. Look at your screenshot as compared to the attached image.
The canopy on the simulator version is oversized but perhaps some of it can be corrected by texturing.

I don't think we agree on the aesthetics of flight simulator models.
While the tail surfaces of the Airacobra are "3D", they have diamond shaped cross sections and are not much better than a 2D piece.
I prefer pieces that are more airfoil shaped.

The nose also isn't quite right in my opinion but I will need to line up the model against a good drawing to confirm what I believe.
It looks to me like the thrust line is too low.
I have actually looked at a LOT of drawings and photographs of the Airacobra over the last few months and while I am not a "P-29 Expert", there are a lot of details I can pull from memory now.... And a few that I am still trying to figure out.
Note that the Fuselage of the simulator Airacobra sits pretty level and the nose slopes down from the cockpit.
The real Airacobra tends to sit at a very nose-high attitude which seems to vary with the load condition and the highest point is about half to two thirds of the distance forward from cockpit to propeller.

One thing I found really amusing last night when taking a P-39 out for a short flight was that the 37 mm cannon on this version carries 500 rounds of ammunition. The actual aeroplane only carried about 30 rounds if I remember correctly.....

It seems to me that the Airacobra might be worthy of a Design Study at some point.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
I had already noticed the wrong shape on the Pe-2 model cockpit - hence my diplomatic comment on the need for "properly shaped transparent cockpits". A texture correction not enough - it can only correct the lower part a bit.

The version of the IL-2 I was thinking of, is the one you correctly mention: The IL2/3M.
The original design was for a pilot and a rear gunner anyway, but was altered to single-seater for early production. This, however, proved useless as it made the plane too vulnerable, so they quickly put the gunner back in.

I got some 3-view drawings of both aircraft, and I´m just putting the scale on them as well as checking that their shape coincides with the shapes on photos.

I haven´t been able to inspect the Airacobra closely enough, as I haven´t got the source files, but I´m sure you are right about the shortcomings that you mention.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Sorry, I did not understand the diplomacy.

You actually don't need the source files to inspect the Airacobra model.
DPED does a pretty good job in giving the dimensions of the model though the numbers are Metric.
In fact, that is how I am doing it myself.

Here is an overlay of the Aircobra's Wire Frame onto a scaled version of Paul Matt's drawing from Historical Aviation Album from 1965.
I believe these are pretty good drawings. They appear to have the correct shape and have a few critical dimensions labeled.

After looking at the comparison, I am actually VERY impressed with Eric Johnson's work.
The proportions are much better than I had thought and errors appear to be due to a single misinterpretation of dimensions.
You might look at the overlay (Reference Drawing in Red) and wonder why I came to that conclusion because there are a lot of differences.
Production versions of the Airacobra had a length specification of 30 feet 2 inches for ALL versions.
What isn't obvious is that this dimension is from the tip of the SPINNER to the end of the Rudder.
The length of the cannon barrel out the front is not included.
The cannon barrel shifted with recoil and differed in length based on whether it was a 20 mm or 37 mm.
I believe Mr. Johnson used a P-400 profile as a reference and used the length specification as the OAL with the cannon included.
In addition he was limited to the 0.1 foot resolution while we use a 0.01 foot resolution with AF99.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Of course... As well as Dped, Aircraft Animator would also be easy and fast to
inspect models. I hadn´t got round to it because I´ve been quite busy with
the 2 Russian ones.

Looking into it, I noticed what you said about the diamond cross-section.
The way of making the tailplane component out of triangles radiating out from
the root was quite a usual approach in those days. Personally, I prefer to make
the leading edge thicker, so I tend to build them more like a wing, although the
resulting airfoil is a bit flatter.

Perhaps the dimensional error you saw earlier errors came from the AF99 blueprint,
which we discovered some time ago deforms the overall dimensions making the
model too long and not high enough.

I´m glad that Eric Johnson´s Airacobra model is better than you thought!
In case the AFX you have is good enough, it may be simpler to make the
necessary improvements with that istead of doing a complete scratch build:
New transparent canopy, canopy frame, rounder wheels, longer nose-gear,
corrected flaps - perhaps it won´t be so bad!

I´m still setting up the drawing board to start on the Russian ones.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I really wasn't even involved in flight simulators at all "in those days" when this model was built so I don't know what the practices were.
I probably began with simulators a few months after Combat Flight Simulator first came out and then put it away for months when I could not get it to work at all on my computer (which happens to be the same basic machine as I use for Development today).

The dimensional errors are not from the AF99 Blueprint because I am using DPED to get my screenshots of the wireframe.
The Plain Flaps are not actually in EJ's AFX; It has Split Flaps like it should.
It actually doesn't matter how good the AFX actually is. I have learned my lesson.
To bring it to where I want it to be would take about as much work as it would to build from scratch.
I have already rebuilt two AFXs.
The Me 109E Trop was a good AFX to start but needed too many edits.
The P-38J I used for AIR file development was another of EJ's AFXs but I only got to about 95% of where I would take it for a releasable project because I was only using it for one specific purpose..... And for some quick and easy work when I got frustrated with my normal projects.

Just for amusement, I decided last night to see what would happen if I re-scaled all the Parts in the AFX to a slightly larger size.
I used a multiplication factor of 1.0191 and wrote a script to run through all the Parts from a directory listing.
(This only took about 5 minutes to do. Adjusting the Structures took perhaps another 5 minutes.)
What this process did not catch was Structures and of course Texture Mappings but the result was interesting as shown in the screenshot
The new wire frame is in Green.
I seem to have miscalculated the scale increase a little.

I am trying to decide if I should write another program to edit the old texture mapping to match the new Parts.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
I wasn't around fs until 2004, so I got the info just looking into the afx's that were about 6 or 7 years old at that time. The FS98 model I have doesn´t have the split flaps, but of course, it´s not from the AFX you have.

Your amplification of the Airacobra model size sounds quite fascinating and judging by the previous drawings compared, would seem very close! Hope you get it where you want.

Updated paragraph: I hadn´t see the attached screenshot until now because I´d answered this post on the mobile phone, which doesn´t show attached pictures. All the model really needs now is a slight general giration to bring the tail down a bit, and a longer nose-gear, perhaps...

I suppose the criteria to use for a re-build of an existing AFX can be misleading. It often happens that the more you progress, the more crops up that could use re-working, and at the end, it would have been simpler to start from scratch!

I've just done the Shturmovik's spinner, just to get me going... This plane, as well as the Pe-2 twin, have slightly different lines form the more usual designs, so it´s going to be fun! The Shturmovik is a bit reminiscent of the Stuka, with general Me109 influences perhaps...

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,
My involvement with flight simulators was earlier by around two years, but I didn't try to find others' AFX projects until much later.

I actually have no real plans for this AFX other than to use it to experiment with situations that never occur in my own projects.
I don't really know if the utility I used to resize the 3D model is completely stable or not.
I had found when examining the model further that the Wing Span was also short so it made sense to expand everything in all directions.
The dimensions are better but they are still not quite correct.

As mentioned before, I don't believe it makes sense to use someone else's AFX except to examine.
I like a project to be my own work, so this model really serves just to represent my competition if I should ever build an Airacobra.
Besides, there isn't a single Part that would be retained in its present form into the final project anyway.
The Fuselage only has eight sided cross sections and my own projects have a twelve sided Fuselage.
It still would be interesting to see how much I can improve the model with a few reworked pieces.
It is nice to work on a project that has absolutely no requirements once in a while.

- Ivan.

[Ivan]

Last night I decided to see what I could quickly edit in EJ's model.

There is a strange thing that seems to happen when a Part with concave edges is displayed in CFS. The concavity is lost in the normal display but shows up again when leaving the simulator or bring up a menu. (Press Esc or Alt Keys.) Sometimes this happens and sometimes it does not. It appears to happen more often when the Part has many vertices or is not in perfect alignment along the primary axis of the model.

This was a problem in the original model and can be seen in the Main Gear Doors and in the Pitot Tube.
I decided to make a correction to the Pitot Tube because it was easier and the Pitot was untextured.
An interesting observation when making this edit is that the entire model does not use any Glue Parts and it is relatively bleed free.
It now has its first Glue Part. The lack of Glue Parts might partly explain why the Parts Count is so low. I can easily see adding another 50 Glue Parts to rely less on AF99's automatic (and unpredictable) Glue sequences.

The other thing I changed was to replace the Propeller with MY standard setup.
Just a simple Propeller change seems to have radically altered my perception of the appearance.
Note that the method I am using for corrections (actually additions) were not available to Mr. Johnson when he first built the model so the fact that I can improve things using later tools is no commentary on his work.
Contrast this Propeller with 0.01 feet precision with the original Propeller which was limited to 0.10 feet precision.
I know I could never have gotten anything done with the earlier tools.

I actually like the shape of this Propeller enough that I may just save it for other projects.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
The old model definitely looks very nice.
It´s always a good sensation when an idea for improvement works out, more so
if the results are better than expected.

With the success over the original model I bet the author E.J. would be pleased.

It´s interesting how a model that was up to standard in those days can be much
improved with a few able strokes using the more modern tools you mention, and
also how some seemingly minor improvements have a greater overall effect on the
general impression.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Last night I tried some automatic remapping of textures.
This is the result.

I had to do multiple attempts so I worked from the original AFX.
Scaling is
Left-Right: 2.25x
Fore-Aft: 1.25x
Up-Down: 3.33x

The rather extreme stretching / scaling is because it isn't easy to tell whether a texture is remapped correctly if there is only a 2% difference.

While the remapping worked out pretty well, the original Stretch did not seem to work for all the pieces this time and I need to figure out what happened. This is probably a result the instability that I mentioned earlier.

- Ivan.

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=60579&stc=1http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=60580&stc=1http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=60581&stc=1http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=60582&stc=1

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
So your programme has to read each texture-spread, and re-scales
it by the same value you are applying to the model.
Interesting, and time saving when applying corrections!
Is each axis done independantly or are the three done at the same time?
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

My program is just a minor modification from the one I used earlier to Move Texture mappings after moving the CoG of the pieces of a model. In fact, there are very few differences and the total changes are fewer than 20 lines of code.
The Input File and Multipliers are specified on the command line and that is about it.
It works fine for my models but is having problems with some pieces on this model because some of the pieces are shifted in the final assembly process here. Since I always build thing in place, I would never see this in one of my own models which is why it is more useful to test with someone else's models.

I need to do a bit more programming to handle that situation and things may get a little more complicated.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Interesting. Yet another annoying aspect of finding elements simply
pushed into position after having been built somewhere else!
That´s why I stopped re-working other people´s AFX a long time ago!
But that´s only my humble opinion, as obviously it´s not annoying for
those who do it.

I was wondering if your little programme would be able to shift vertices
so that a model would be 1 inch higher and 1 inch lower from the
centreline. At the moment it´s only a portion of the fuselage, and untextured.

The problem is that the 3-view I was using at first seems to differ by
this amount from a second set I´d found, which seems more reliable.

Update: I decided to correct it part by part, and it´s fine now.
I should have used the second 3-view in the first place, but it was a .png file and
took some work before I could make it editable to put a scale on.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Glad you have things managed.
I presume you are discussing the Sturmovik.
What you encountered is why I spend a LOT of time looking for drawings and editing them before ever cutting any virtual metal.
At the moment, I am seriously considering building the Airacobra, but haven't found a set of drawings I completely trust yet.
The Paul Matt drawings look good but there are some details I am not so sure of.
There are a bunch of drawings from some Polish language books but they don't show all the views I want (Profile with Gear Down).

The program I wrote is called "StretchIt".
It takes a Part and multiplies its coordinates by a set of three constants specified on the command line.
All I did was to execute this program with a multiplication factor of 1.0191 on ALL the Parts in the P-39D project folder.
The problem was that many things cannot be seen with only about a 2% increase, errors just don't show up, so I did a much greater stretch as a test to see what else would show up.

The problem is that the pieces that were moved around in the Assembly process also need their adjustments multiplied and my programs don't do that at the moment.
This screenshot shows what happens when the pieces that were moved in the assembly are also displayed.
As you can see, things get quite interesting.

There are few enough pieces moved around that I could easily make the adjustments in the AFA file manually if correcting the model were my primary interest but it isn't. I am just using it to experiment on because my Development Machine doesn't choke on it as much as with more complex models.
By the way, I also found that there were some Glue Parts used already. There just are not very many.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Looking at your experiments, an accordeon comes to mind, but with bits
and pieces flying out of it while you squeeze it into different positions!
Ha ha!

As regards problematic source drawings, it often happens that it is only after
I actually start building, that I notice flaws and incoherences which were not
apparent during the initial preparations.

It then requires additional preparations to source material, and the resulting
model modifications before I can continue. In this case it´s only the Nose
elements that needed adjusting, so it was no problem!

Anyway, that Stretchit program does sound like a useful little gem!

I see that you are quite getting into the Airacobra. Good luck if you decide
making a new one!

The idea of the engine being on the CoG seems to be quite an appealing one.
I remember when racing cars came out with the novely of the middle-engine
approach.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

The StretchIt program has yet one more great use.....
The Multiplier does not have to be positive!
When working on my SBD-3 Dauntless Dive Bomber, I needed a Gunner in the aft Cockpit.
The easy way to get this was simply to take my standard Pilot model B and use StretchIt to make a version that faced backwards.
I forget if I did the same thing with the Ju 87B Stuka.

I paused the updates to the Thunderbolt because it is really dependent on additional research and AIR file tuning at the moment.
The research is not that bad but boring and I do not have a machine that is reliable enough to do significant flight testing.

The Game Machine finally stopped booting about a week ago. The hard drive does not appear to power up.
I MAY have the pieces necessary to repair it, but my Daughter wanted to be involved in the hardware aspect of the repair and she is busy for the next few days.
There is yet another possibility of setting up a second Development / Game Machine with a spare mini Tower computer I have as a spare.
I found a graphics card but I don't know if it works or not.

Regarding good drawings and research:
I always try to find as much as possible beforehand. The case of the Airacobra is special because it had some very strange flight characteristics which I want to allow for in the AIR file which means I need to be more accurate than usual in the representation.
There is also a LOT of data to be organised and as usual, some of it is conflicting.
Even with the research beforehand, there is always bound to be a problem in drawings but with better research, the problems are not likely to be as serious.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
The main cause for my initial problems with a model is my impatience.
After a week or two few of looking for information, inspecting 3-views
and scaling them, and repeatedly looking at the same stuff all the time,
I get pretty bored and my fingers start itching to get building...

So the little StretchIt program also allows rotating a complete object.
Interesting! Scaling, rotating and also moving things... I remember you
re-positioned the whole Curtiss-Wright AT-9 Jeep Build to get a better
CoG position because of a cabin bulkhead bleed.

A cool tool lacking in AF99, where everything has to be done by hand,
piece by piece.

I suppose your programme would process the .afx file.

Looking into the subject of objects simply shifted into place being built
elsewhere, I looked into the .afa file and found something interesting,
that you also must already have seen:

The first three entries after the title or name of a part correspond to
the shifted, pushed positions: left/right, fore/aft and up/down, in that
order. If an object hasn´t been shifted, these three entries remain at Zero.

Unfortunately the .afa file won´t show the positions of an object´s vertices,
but then I looked into the .afx file, and lo and behold, it was very obvious
where all the vetrices for each part were placed!

Perhaps I could write a QBASIC program to process .afx files without ruining them,
as QBASIC has a very complete set of instructions related to manipulating text.
It could discover and alter vertex x-y-z coordinates to re-scale something, for example.

Once again, I wish you the best of luck with your new (and old) development
machine. It´s nice that your daughter is also interested in computer hardware!
By the way, I sometimes use a nifty little Hard disk Scanning Programm called
HddScan to test hard disks, freeware available at http://hddscan.com.
One of the faster tests it does is a read-only scan of the surface, and informs you of the
sector reading speed, so you can see the quality of the surface, not only totally defective
errors.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Writing a QBasic programme to open the AFX as a text file, locate
the vertices to scale them up or down by a certain value, is possible
but will be quite difficult.

The theory looks quite straight forward:
Looking into the AFX file with a text editor, it seems that every
aircraft part with its name label exists as in the AFA file, but has an
added section after it, repeating the name label, which contains
the vertex information, amongst other things.

Most relevant lines for the vertices appear to start with two inverted
commas and a comma, except for Structures, that have the name of
the cross-section type written in, between the inverted commas.
(Now I understand why you have to process structures separately!)

I know how to make QBasic write data to a file and save it to the disk,
and then retrieve it later to read it, but now I have to see how to open
any text file to read, and then how to make the programme identify the
relevant vertex data lines... no small feat. I wonder if I´ll get very far...

Anyway, it is intriguing, to say the least.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I was once just as impulsive with getting into building a 3D model, but the cost of having to redo things was too high.
The output was greater, but the learning and quality of models was not as good. The chance of making a mistake is much higher when one doesn't take the time to think things through.
That is why I have other little projects of no consequence to work on when the urge to SEE results hits me.
This FS5 P-39D is one of those projects.
Also, I often find things that are not quite right a few weeks after a project release and sometimes they are not worthy of a new release, but I take the time to correct them and that adds up to a lot of little tasks.
At the moment, I am avoiding a couple tasks that should be done for the Macchi C.202 and C.205 because they look tedious.

The StretchIt program actually is fairly low capability. It only works on ONE AF99 Part.
When it is used on ALL the parts, life gets interesting.
The StretchIt program also doesn't do rotations; It only stretches or shrinks each axis by a multiplier.
I don't think I had originally intended it for any great purpose. It just happened to be a natural follow-on to the MoveIt program.

I had already figured out where the offset numbers were located in the AFA file. Those are the ones I am trying to edit now.
I actually never intended to edit the AFX file because often there isn't an AFX at all.
I use AFX files for archive purposes when there is a stable version that is worth archiving.

If you can write QBASIC programs to do the same thing with the AFX, why not do it? I obviously thought it was a worthwhile task.
I actually found I was a bit rusty with some of the C Programming but it came back pretty quickly. In playing with this new program, I also found a very slight rounding bug that exists in the old StretchIt program as well, so there are a couple things to fix.
I am guessing that you won't be nearly as rusty because you are staying pretty active with the development stuff.
The nice thing is that the source code is pretty standard C/C++ so it is compatible with the MSVC compiler on my Laptop and the old GNU C compiler on the Development Machine. The EXE files from the Laptop will run on the Development Computer, but the reverse is not true. There isn't room on the Development Computer to install MSVC.

Regarding the mid-Fuselage Engine location of the Aircobra, in my opinion, it really was not a good idea. There are too many other things that needed to go there. I have actually been collecting information on the Airacobra for a very long time even before I had thought it was a worthwhile CFS project. This one needs to be more precise than usual to make sure that I don't gloss over the goofy flying characteristics of the real aeroplane.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Well, with age I seem to be getting more patient slowly. It used to be
much worse and I wouldn´t notice flaws on the source material until
a model was well underway. This time it´s just the nose section and
not a widespread overall glitch mess-up.

Re. the QBasic Text-Editor come Vertex Changer I´m planning, now
I´m looking for how QBasic opens existing Text Files, as I keep getting
a Non-Existent File Error. This never happens with the data files I can
make a Qbasic Program create, save and later use. I suppose it must
be a path error. I still have to learn elementary things I never needed
before, but it shouldn´t be too difficult.

Anyway, to your StretchIt program:
OK! When you made the head face backwards inverting the longitudinal
axis, you pulled the face backwards through the head and out at the
back, the end effect looks like a 180 degree rotation, but of course it
isn´t one. Right and left don´t change around either! Sorry!

As regards your MoveIt Program:
This I believe does the whole model with all parts moving together,
structures being done later in a second stage. With the Curtiss Wright
AT-9 Jeep obviously you worked this on the AFX.

The question is, if you can´t access the AFX because there isn´t one,
and obviously neither will there be an AFA, then the only other file you
can use would be the SCASM Code.

Would you for example apply StretchIt to an identified portion of the
SCASM Code, like the pilot´s head, a) pull it back to front to make
it face backwards and b) change it to the gunner´s position?

I´m just curious, and I hope I´m not being a pest
asking these questions!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I believe you are assuming that I did much more than I actually did.
On my own projects as with other projects, there NEEDS to be an AFA file to have something to produce.
In fact there may be several AFA files. I usually use another AFA for the Canopy Frame so that I can generate a Component to flip inside out using SCASM for the Interior Canopy Frame.
I sometimes use even more AFA files to build just one section of the Aeroplane that I am interested in at the moment.
I don't generate the AFX file until I am ready to archive the project, thus there is may not be a AFX especially for a project In development.

The reason I was getting so specific about the Rotation versus Stretch is because I was also working on a program to Rotate a Part about an axis. It was started years ago but never completed because I found that I didn't really need it that badly.

The MoveIt program only works on a single Part. I just use it on ALL the Parts in a directory if I intend to move the entire aeroplane.
There is also a CMoveIt for Components, but it isn't necessary when all the Parts within the Component are moved by something else.
There is a StructMoveIt for Structures as well.

While it is possible to edit SCASM code, I do that as little as possible there because I prefer working on something I can examine visually more easily.

I finished the StretchTexture program earlier today and tested it on the original P-39D AFA file.
The Screenshots seem to show that things are working.

- Ivan.