AF99 vs. SCASM : The Ultimate Confrontation... well... not really...

Hello Hubbabubba,

You are right: If there were ANY kind of a patch for AF99, I would probably install it.

You are the builder of the Jeep. If you believe SCASM was necessary for proper construction, who am I to argue? I will point out however that my original argument still holds: if you found that there needed to be minor tweaks for alignment to get a body panel to curve (Jeep? Curve?) correctly, you would have an extremely difficult time fixing things. I also believe that without a visual design package, I could not have done the fine tuning of contours for the recent P-40C.

With few exceptions, I prefer to texture pretty much everything in a model because the reflections and shadows look strange without textures. Besides, How much of the speed differences are due to texturing and how much to shading?

I actually had no luck with an octagon for the muzzle, so I used a small hexagon. I agree with you that even that hexagon doesn't look quite right. Regarding fuzzing due to textuers, I noticed that you have that issue with the rear wheel wells and the effect is much more visible than for the muzzle on a machine gun.

Your comment about the 45 degree vertices of the 0.24 polygon being too fat is interesting. You said *I* have good eyes. I am thinking yours must be much better: The dimension from the screenshot in AF99 is 0.17 feet for the 45 degree vertices. The actual number SHOULD be 0.169705627484 feet. It is too big by just under 0.0003 feet (0.0035 inch) or a bit less than the thickness of two sheets of paper.....

- Ivan.
 
Your comment about the 45 degree vertices of the 0.24 polygon being too fat is interesting. You said *I* have good eyes. I am thinking yours must be much better: The dimension from the screenshot in AF99 is 0.17 feet for the 45 degree vertices. The actual number SHOULD be 0.169705627484 feet. It is too big by just under 0.0003 feet (0.0035 inch) or a bit less than the thickness of two sheets of paper.....
Click to expand...

I was making an aesthetic appreciation here, not a Pythagorean calculation. To settle the matter, I took your "GunMuzzle.jpg", removed the 0.25 octagon to only keep the 0.24 and the little hexagon, made a double of the image and made the octagon yellow. After turning it clockwise by 90°, it was over imposed on the original one;

View attachment 13929

If AF99 was making a perfect octagon, the yellow lines would cover the white lines, it is simply not the case here. The yellow octagon appears to be higher but narrower than the original white one. The 45° angles appear to be more or less at the same distance from the center but, given the wider original figure, they appear also wider. I repeated the experiment making my own 0.24 foot octagon along your method and got exactly the same distortion.

So, it is very possible - certain in fact - that AF99 blueprints are distorted OR that it lies about coordinates.

Which makes me rethink my comments about AF99 being a good CAD...:kilroy:
 
Hello Hubbabubba,

I suspect there is more to the visual interface of AF99 than that. I have noticed that sometimes when adjusting a point using the point editor, the apparent movement of that point isn't consistent. I thought this was perhaps it uses metric measurements internally and it was a matter of snapping to points. (In other words, perhaps the SCASM scale conversion happens within AF99.

I have also noticed that when I run CFS, it screws up my display in AF99 and I need to restart AF99 to get a proper parts display. The change is in the aspect ratio; The left/right scale on the screen is doubled so that aircraft start looking long and skinny.

I always thought this was my computer because I also have a minor issue when using AF5Paint.

- Ivan.
 
This is also why my octagon, that was short by two units right-left, looked OK to me. I had noticed that when the mouse cursor was hovering over the coordinates in the upper-right corner, the picture was stretched horizontally.

I used more or less the same visual trick on my octagon in game (yours is ¾ frontal) and it is not distorted, give or take a few pixels.

I guess we'll have to live with it. But it good to know.
 
Hi Hubbabubba,

It wasn't my intent to get a 3/4 frontal screenshot. It was as close as I could get to a full frontal shot. It isn't all that far off considering that this almost cylinder is much longer than it is wide. Perhaps I should have just altered the AIR file to put the cockpit viewpoint right in front of the cylinder. I didn't do it because I have been putting these these test cases together in a few minutes and taking screen shots just before I leave on my commute to work.

Do you remember that way back when you were building your Taifun, I was commenting that textures for edges were not as good as polygons? Seems like our positions in this case are somewhat reversed when discussing the Machine Gun Muzzle. I suppose that with the .50 M2HB on a pintle mount, a proper muzzle is needed for "The Look", but for an airplane model, I generally don't even try to put a muzzle on any of the guns. Most of the time, I have even left off the gun barrels themselves.

- Ivan.
 
Hello All,

Considering the discussion about representing the muzzle of a .50 caliber machine gun, consider how well such an object would show up in the simulator. The Spitfire's cannon are 20 mm or 0.787 inch and the Corsair uses .50 caliber guns. Muzzles of neither type of gun are typically visible in these views.

- Ivan.
 
Ivan said:
Hello All,

Considering the discussion about representing the muzzle of a .50 caliber machine gun, consider how well such an object would show up in the simulator. The Spitfire's cannon are 20 mm or 0.787 inch and the Corsair uses .50 caliber guns. Muzzles of neither type of gun are typically visible in these views.

- Ivan.
Click to expand...
Hi Ivan,

As long as the muzzle is not seen directly in the external view, like the "Ma Deuce" jeep, it can be omitted. But what about a Bf109 with a motorkanone? For many Allied pilots, it was the last thing they could remember before being deported to the POW camps. The less fortunate would probably have said the same if they had survived.
 
Is it the opening in the spinner which is only the blast tube or is it the muzzle of the cannon which can't be seen about 5 feet behind the spinner or is it the "Flush" (DPED term) that they are seeing? Or is it just a black dot inside a spiralling spinner which was typical of Luftwaffe aircraft of the period? Did they say the same about the FW 190A which didn't have Motorkanonen?

The FW 190A would have been a more common interceptor and the more dangerous one to bombers.

By my understanding, the 20 mm MG151/20 was a more common motor cannon than the MK108 even though the MK108 was more destructive. Also, from the characteristics of the guns, the MG151/20 should have put out a larger muzzle flush than the MK108. The MK108 was a very low velocity gun with very little propellant and a big A$$ shell which blew rather large holes in aircraft structure.

Any details to your assertion regarding bomber crew? If there were any statistics to be collected, the meticulous Luftwaffe would probably have done it.

BTW, a Me 109K is in my plans and yes, it MUST have an opening in the spinner for the cannon. Whether this is visible in combat is debatable though.... As designers, we all choose what we represent. In the case of the 109, I don't think I will bother with the aileron balance weights.

- Ivan.
 
LOL!:icon_lol:

I have been using DPEd for ages and I never remarked that it was spelled "Flush"! I think it should read "Flash", but who am I to judge? LOL again!:icon_lol:

I was talking of the opening in the spinner, of course. What I was trying to explain is that they are circumstances where "detailing" is more important, like the motorkanone that the simmer will inevitably see from quite close quarter if he he goes front-back-front in external views. I remember reading an account by, I think, Gentile in which he was trying to shake-off a "Gustaf" by going vertical, the 109 on his tail. He could see the spinner cannon, probably in his rear mirror, coming closer and closer as his follower was climbing. I'm not convinced that Gentile, or whoever it was, debated the merits of the Mk 108 vs. MG 151/20 while its servant was trying to aim for a no-deflection shot.

Any details to your assertion regarding bomber crew?
Click to expand...
Which assertion? I make so many...

In the case of the 109, I don't think I will bother with the aileron balance weights.
Click to expand...
With the Taifun, I did bother. And I think I would still bother now that I'm SCASMing my projects.
 
You actually wrote "Pilots". I interpreted this to be "Bomber Crew" because for the most part, fighter pilots who get shot down never see their attacker. A dogfight isn't quite as common.

The typical Luftwaffe fighter of the time had a black spiral on the spinner or al all black spinner or a black and white spinner. I am guessing that in combat, most of the time the muzzle could not be seen. Gentile and the typical fighter pilot had excellent eyesight, but I am guessing that sometimes it was just imagination.

Imagine what would have happened had Gentile fought a G-10 Gustav or a K-4 Konig? The result may not have been the same against a superior fighter.

- Ivan.
 
(...)
He reverses his turn, trying to fall in behind us. My wingman is vulnerable now. I tell Skara, "Break off!" and be peels away. The German goes after him, and I go after the German, closing on his tail before he can close on my wingman. He sees me coming and dives away with me after him, then makes a climbing left turn. I go screaming by, pull up, and he's reversing his turn--man, be can fly!--and be comes crawling right up behind me, close enough that I can see him distinctly. He's bringing his nose up for a shot, and I haul back on the stick and climb even harder. I keep going up, because I'm out of alternatives.

This is what I see all these years later. If I were the sort to be troubled with nightmares, this is what would shock me awake. I am in this steep climb, pulling the stick into my navel, making it steeper, steeper . . . and I am looking back down, over my shoulder, at this classic gray Me 109 with black crosses that is pulling up, too, steeper, steeper, the pilot trying to get his nose up just a little bit more and bring me into his sights.

There is nothing distinctive about the aircraft, no fancy markings, nothing to identify it as the plane of an ace, as one of the "dreaded yellow-noses" like you see in the movies. Some of them did that, I know, but I never saw one. And in any event, all of their aces weren't flamboyant types who splashed paint on their airplanes to show who they were. I suppose I could go look it up in the archives. There's the chance I could find him in some gruppe's log book, having flown on this particular day, in this particular place, a few miles northwest of the French town of Strasbourg that sits on the Rhine. There are fellows who've done that, gone back and looked up their opponents. I never have. I never saw any point.

He was someone who was trying to kill me, is all.

So I'm looking back, almost straight down now, and I can see this 20-millimeter cannon sticking through the middle of the fighter's propeller hub. In the theater of my memory, it is enormous. An elephant gun. And that isn't far wrong. It is a gun designed to bring down a bomber, one that fires shells as long as your hand, shells that explode and tear big holes in metal. It is the single most frightening thing I have seen in my life, then and now.
(...)
Click to expand...
Clarence "Bud" Anderson.

The whole story is HERE.

So, it was not Gentile after all...:kilroy:, but the rest of the story is pretty much what I said.
 
Hello Hubbabubba,

I have seen that story from Bud Anderson from other sources. I have also met the man at a local Gun Show in Maryland. I believe he was trying to sell his book at the show.

What I can tell you is that there are many men who can fly VERY well and aren't necessarily the most reliable source for aeronautical information. I can tell you for a fact that you cannot see the muzzle of the gun that is installed as the motor cannon on a Me 109. What you see is a blast tube through the spinner. The actual muzzle is several feet behind which is why I don't believe you can see the muzzle flash. Perhaps you can tell which gun is installed by the sound of the jackhammer.

I am pretty sure you know that the 20 mm version of the motor cannon in a Me 109G (MG 151/20) and later was not a particularly powerful weapon. Instead of just the one on a 109G, the FW 190A carried FOUR of the same type of gun. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't any better than the Hispano that British fighters mounted. The 30 mm MK 108 was a much more devastating gun.

I still wonder though: If the German could really fly which Anderson states AND had a better plane. The power to weight ratio and climb rates of the later 109s was such that in a vertical climb, the Mustang should not have a chance. As we all like to say, it is the Pilot and not the plane, but then again, sometimes it IS the plane that makes the difference.

- Ivan.
 
What can you actually see?

This thread came up as related with the AF99 Tutorial I am working on. This discussion about what can actually be seen on an aircraft seems to be the perfect place to discuss what to include and what not to include in an aircraft design. Some things are necessary because they are the recognition features of the aircraft. Some things are so small that they are not really noticeable.

- Ivan.
 
This is quite a "thread revival", Ivan! LOL!:icon_lol:

I don't know if Bud Anderson was seeing the hole in the propeller hub, the blast tube within or the actual 20mm muzzle, but what he saw made an indelible impression on him. Firearms have a tendency to do that when they're pointed at you. It was probably not as potent as an Mk 108, but the anticipated effect is the same; sheer terror!

The biggest caliber I ever had pointed at me was a BB gun, but I have a vivid mental image of that little black hole, curve inward at the perimeter with stamped inscriptions around, and the a$$hole shooting at me was a good twenty feet away! I guess my imagination ran wild as I was charging him to snatch it from his hands and break it on the nearest tree trunk.

Same thing with the black pick-up that almost killed me. I do remember vividly the shiny grille, the yellow-amber-white plastic spotlight cover, the black luster finish of the paint, but I would be incapable of telling you if it was a Ford, A GM or a Subaru!

Details are frequently different for different observers depending on their physical and psychological point of view.
 
Hi Hubbabubba,

Yes, that was a great revival. I was bringing up this thread again because the original discussion was about what could be seen in a CFS model. My point was that the gun muzzles in a typical fighter aren't all that visible no matter what the perception is in combat. We modellers whether electronic or plastic try to emphasise certain details that just don't stand out in photographs of aircraft. How often can you see the rivets and panel lines on an aircraft that was flush rivetted if you are standing more than 20 feet away? Can we see a Radio Antenna? Fuel Cooler? Canopy Latch? In general, most of this stuff is invisible at the distances that we see other aircraft.

- Ivan.
 
Ivan said:
Hi Hubbabubba,

Yes, that was a great revival. I was bringing up this thread again because the original discussion was about what could be seen in a CFS model. My point was that the gun muzzles in a typical fighter aren't all that visible no matter what the perception is in combat. We modellers whether electronic or plastic try to emphasise certain details that just don't stand out in photographs of aircraft. How often can you see the rivets and panel lines on an aircraft that was flush rivetted if you are standing more than 20 feet away? Can we see a Radio Antenna? Fuel Cooler? Canopy Latch? In general, most of this stuff is invisible at the distances that we see other aircraft.

- Ivan.
Click to expand...

This is why I added LOD models in my jeeps, like stock a/c. As you say, at twenty feet, you don't see the rivets, but if you go for a spin in your favorite mount, this is the kind of details that get you "immersed", well... at least... it does the trick for me!:cool:

The added bonus with LOD is that it is framerate-friendly, which also helps the overall experience.

I understood your "revival" question. I was simply pointing out that what is detail for some is not for others. This is all too obvious in the 3-views I (and, no doubt, you too) collect on the web and elsewhere. One artist will put great emphasis on reproducing, let's say, the gills of an air intake while missing completely the riveting pattern of an under-wing, and another will take great care of this later aspect but only sketched the air intake.

Photos may help, but not always. The camera don't think, but film sensitivity, aperture, angles, lightning will influence what we see. I'm always astonished by the human eye and its ability to perceive things that elude the best camera. One example that anyone can relate to is the classical case of the failed attempt to capture the picture of some animal at the zoo that stand in the shade in a bright afternoon. Our own eye sees perfectly what will turn into a black hole in a sunny blur when you get your film developed.

Devil is in the details...:angryfir:

Well... what I'm trying to say is that, as a modeler, we do have to stop somewhere but, at the same time, I can't help but notice that I never received a negative comment about being too detailed! smilo may have contented himself with a less elaborate model, but he never complained of having a too good one to play with! At least, that is my interpretation...
 
Devil is in the details...:angryfir:

Well... what I'm trying to say is that, as a modeler, we do have to stop somewhere but, at the same time, I can't help but notice that I never received a negative comment about being too detailed! smilo may have contented himself with a less elaborate model, but he never complained of having a too good one to play with! At least, that is my interpretation...

well, there's the rub, isn't it?
you have never heard me,
or anyone else for that matter,
complain about too much detail.

BUT, at great risk, i will complain,
that projects don't get completed
because of some minor detail,
or dwindling interest caused
by some minor detail,
that most would never see.
 
I have never received criticism for being too detailed but then again, I have never received criticism for not being detaile enough either. For that matter, criticism is pretty rare in this game.... You would think that all the aircraft built were superb models for this reason, but we all know that is not the case.

- Ivan.
 
For that matter, criticism is pretty rare in this game.... You would think that all the aircraft built were superb models for this reason,....

well, i guess i haven't been
blunt enough or loud enough.

PLEASE SHOW ME A DECENT
A-20, B-25, B-26 or Do17

and that's just for starters.

i mean for cryin' out loud.
how many flippin' P-51s
are out there?
sure, it was a great plane,
but give me a break.

if you will remember,
this forum use to be
bitch central.
nearly everyone was a critic of sorts.
the reason you don't see it anymore
is that people have moved on,
be it developers or clients, ie critics.
you should drop into the FX forum sometime.
 
Hi Smilo,

This kind of message was why I started the "Conspicuous By Their Absence" thread way back.

I see you like the medium twins. I can't disagree with you that there aren't very good examples of those planes out in the wild. The problem is that to do one of these things well hits right at the limit of what AF99 can do. To do it properly really requires SCASM and there aren't that many folks who work well there.

Besides the planes you mentioned, I can think of a bunch more I would like to see and fly in CFS:

1. J2M Raiden
2. Kawasaki Ki-61
3. N1K2-J Shiden KAI
4. F4U-1 Corsair
5. F2G Corsair
6. Me 309
7. Ju-87D Stuka
8. He-177 Greif
9. SBD Dauntless
10. F8F Bearcat
11. Ki-43 Hayabusa

The list goes on..... Some of these planes aren't all that hard to build.

- Ivan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top