• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.

    Post 16 Update

    Post 17 Warning

Angle Deck Essex

If there is a question of voiding previous payware agreements, I can help you turn wrenches. We can use my virtual shipyard workers to give you a hand. This way you can still get the ship done faster for your friend... and you don't have to make the ship available to a bunch of people.


With the acceleration features I can help you get setup. I would prefer we get a real nice artist though. I'm good... but this one deserves the best!

Just have the people who work with you sign an NDA and this protects your work from those not working on the project specifically.

Maybe we can setup another time to talk via Skype... much faster way of working together. :wavey:

Colin,

Initially I just want it as a moving carrier you can land on in FSx, I already can do this and sent the files, I've sent them to others and they have it installed and landable.

What I need initially is a simple clickable exe that installs it and sets a flight up or what ever one needs, so the guy can find it, no files here, files there, cut this paste that crap, one click and go, I'm prepared to send what ever I have now to achieve that one singular aim.

Just that alone will be a massive boost to the guys enjoyment in FSx, once that is established I can work on the rest.

Basically I need a moving carrier on a track with a schedule that the guy can use and work easily, many of us here have time and patience to work through any issues and get an end result, I want and need something packaged that is water tight that for example my twelve yr old could install and work, I dont have the experiance, skills or time to explore / learn whats needed to do this.

I've seen others post paths and moving ships and this and that, which tooke them mere moments to achieve, just getting mine to sail around North Wales took days to work out.

Regarding the rest of the model, I'll work on that in my own pace, your right texturing needs to be perfect and I'll work through that as and when, it will really benifit from baked textures with shadows and such, especially on things like masts, fittings and weapons, that will throw them into sharp 3D, painting is easy, its the mapping and variant mapping and the tight control on the draw calls and the amount of textures required thats the hard part.

For example, the Quad 40s need to be in a three or four colors, this depends on their location and the paint scheme, you cant just paint one quad 40 in grey and leave it there, simplest thing is to map one and clone with each paint scheme, problem is, that will make four or five distinct seperate textures where the only difference is the base color, it would be smarter to use one large 1024 with a Quad mapped four times on it, each quarter in a different color, easy enough but I'm only just scraping by mapping and baking one item per texture, cloning it and mapping four times on one texture has me lost at the moment. I know whats needed but not the skills to achieve it, or to be frank the stomach to learn long hard winded inner depths of Max to get the result.

Doing baked textures isnt so hard for say aircraft or even a landing gear, but a decent Quad 40 model is another story, then duplicate four times into one texture is another task, setting Max to simple bake is easy, but you end up with a mish mash of polys all over the place, you need to start grouping them into some sort of cohesive form so its not just a map of 450 seperate polys. Indeed some parts can be replicated in model form from one map, examples would be the seats, magazines, sights or barrels, you only need map and bake one, then clone across when done to replicate the duplicate parts.

Sound crazy ?, oh brother is it crazy, it takes me weeks to work out the best method LOL, true, I could just set Max to auto bake and map, but on the Essex you'd end up with nearly 100 textures, some from 128x128 others upto 2048x2048. Its not a problem if you just want to make one model, say USS Intrepid in 1944, but I dont, I want others, long hulls and short hulls, flag bridge modified or standard, all that has to be figured into the equation.

What I'm saying is, if I gave this to anyone else to paint or map they'd have a seizure LOL, I dont want simple grey bland textures for anything, it would be so easy to do that, I want a full 3D mapped and baked model, and that is going to take an inordinate amount of time and effort.

To summise, initially I want to get what I have right now into a simple one click package for one of our esteemed elderly SOH members to use, if FSx Accel cat and trap is easy to add I'll add that, if not then this other freeware stuff, threewire ?, sorry, really out of touch with all that stuff right now....( its a need to know basis and whilst attempting to map the model....I dont need to know LOL )....will need to be added.

If anyone can help then jump in, contact myself or Colin and help us make it happen, its not for me, its for someone else here who I think needs a leg up right now.

Kindest

Michael

Addendum, Colin, sorry, not saying no to any help, just babbling and trying to get something sorted in short time, re-assesing priorities and schedules.
 
Mike - As far as shadows are concerned it looks like your right on. Here's a picture of the USS Leyte and your ship and they look almost identical.
 
This model has the potential of no equal , it is brilliant ! , Mike , be it a work in progress , payware or ... the other , my wallet is open !
 
Not quite, the F-4s appeared on the rebuilt Midway class before the forrestals, but only after their decks had extra metal work to support the increased sink rate impact.

Hm, but as far as I can remember I've never seen photos of F-4s on a Midway class carrier.

Feel free to prove me wrong. :)


The biggest Essex's could support was the A-3, the biggest the Midway could support was the F-4 and the biggest the Forrestal could support was the F-4, A-5 and F-14s.

Sure thing about the Forrestals, but A-3s on the Essex?

They were considerably larger and heavier than F-4s, so why were they put on a smaller carrier?

Because of...

Physical size or speed ( note F-8s served on Essex classes) isnt the deciding factor, its the approach speed coupled with the appraoch weight and sink rate, the F-14 has the biggest impact but there was one larger and that was the F-111B, but not by much, sadly it was only a test and nothing ever came of it.

...the approach speed and weights?
 
Tell one thing HD , there is no way i'm going to try and land - a simply prity aeroplane on a though deck Essex class carrier without someone handing me coffee every 100 meters , :faint:
 
Hm, but as far as I can remember I've never seen photos of F-4s on a Midway class carrier.

Feel free to prove me wrong. :)




Sure thing about the Forrestals, but A-3s on the Essex?

They were considerably larger and heavier than F-4s, so why were they put on a smaller carrier?

Because of...



...the approach speed and weights?

Here you go,

links to bigger images of forum thumbs

Some 'very' large images of F-4s on the Midway class

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images Ships/DN-SN-84-02495.jpg

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images Ships/DN-SN-84-03467.jpg

second one shows damge from the Frigate collision she had, I think it was the Kennedy ?, will need to dig around to be sure, I think it was after this accident that a seperate mast was added in front of the bridge structure by Cat1 JBD on all carriers, often nick nammed the Kennedy pole. The collision occured at night and the cause was sited as the Frigate was unsure which direction the carrier was going under minimal lighting conditions.

Heres some A-3s on Essex carriers

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images Ships/cv-31-h97344.jpg

You can just see it sat behind the bridge, they were always parked here because they could not be struck under as far as I know.

Another view

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images Ships/kn05442.jpg

And a bigger view

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images Ships/023116.jpg

Best

Michael
 
What a great thread! :applause: (great historical imagery)

Great work on the carrier!

Perhaps worth a sticky

:friday:
 
I can remember saying, on seeing a shot of the island on Mike's carrier, that it brought me back to over 64 years ago to the real thing, it was so very real. Everything was in it's place. I don't know how he does it.
 
There we go , Douglas A3 Skyworriers:kilroy: , saves me digging pics up , the Midway class , CVA41-42-43 , I must get over to San Diego , the Midway being the most modified carrier till its retirement , oh no not another scale model :woot:
 
I can remember saying, on seeing a shot of the island on Mike's carrier, that it brought me back to over 64 years ago to the real thing, it was so very real. Everything was in it's place. I don't know how he does it.

Its easy, no one told me it was this hard in the beginning LOL, plus I'm an obsessive for pictorial data, when you have fistfuls of pictures its hard not to get at least some of it right :).

Just a little update, I've resurrected all the files ( I'd forgotten that I'd forgotten so much ! ) and shuffled things around, the short hull model was woefully wrong in several areas so I took the time to sort a lot of that out today, along with the old style flag bridge and weaponry.

Thanks to some very insightful PM's I now have cat and trap programmed in, hopefully it will compile ok and I can do some sea trials tomorrow, then I'll still need to look into packaging it up for our 'friend'.

Some one else also asked for some 'WOW' renders for his site as they are running a WWII history learning thread through FS screen shots and such, you know who you are so feel free to grab the uncompressed renders from here

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images%20Ships/CV10_03.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images Ships/CV10_04.jpg

for your use, the rest y'all are free to look or use or simply look at the smaller thumbs below.

I have been questioned as to why the 'lower' parts of the carrier are so detailed, surely if your just landing and taking off you cant see underneath, technically this is true, but FSX allows drivable carriers and many camera angles, I'm not sure if you can drive a carrier in MP and watch others land, in which case cameras on the fan tail or catwalks will give a some nice angles, or vulture row if you wish.

One other aspect is that you could also be a plane guard, set the carrier as AI and let people land and trap, whilst you scoot around at sea level in your 1st person Destroyer, then camera views from that vessel would be looking up, in which case below deck details become very prevalent.

Whether any of this can actually be achieved I'm not sure, but reading posts around here it might all be possible, then again it might all be pie in the sky, a nice pie none the less :).

Kindest

Michael
 
Slightly off topic but a contemporary of the Essex that I've been working on for a while. Not up to Michael's standards but I think I'd go mad putting in that much detail! Oh and my computer would grind to a halt, it's struggling with this in Max.
 
Skippy,

That looks nice, always good to see some RN stuff kicking around, how many polys is it at the moment ?, the Essex models are only around 120-140,000 polys depending on long or short hull and weapons fit.

You might find Max works better if you choose the right display drivers, Max prefers Direct X, look under cutomize / preference settings then click the viewport tab, at the bottom make sure you have Direct X set, then you can configure the driver better.

Note, Max then will look at your desk top settings so if you have that set up for high AA or any other game smoothing settings, these will transpose to Max, for really big models I tend to drop my desk top settings down and that helps fluidity a lot in Max.

Hope that helps

Michael
 
Michael,

Thanks, she' ~80,000 polys at the moment which leaves me a few thousand for deck crew and some detailing. I did scare myself at one point when I'd made overly detailed Pom-Pom guns and broke the FSX exporter! Fortunately I think this is the most complex version due to the Pom-Poms so the late and post war versions when they get done should have a little flex in the modelling.

I'll check my max settings, be nice to scroll around the model without having to take a break everytime I move it!

Skippy
 
By the way, in comparing the Leyte vs. Mikes presentation I noticed that the quad 40 sponsons were eliminated from the starboard side of the Leyte.
They were on it when I was aboard her so she apparently had them removed for the Korean conflict.
Small wonder, traditionally, gunners aboard a Carrier, inspite of having a more stable platform, could not hit a barn door.
In the mean time the Destroyers would hit anything that came into range. I believe that finally they even did way with the 5 inch turrets and emplacements too.
 
Michael, Skippy, about time you posted some piccies in the Naval forum so we can collectively go ..."ohh".."ahhh"...then scratch ya eyes out in a jealous rage.:applause:

regards Collin:ernae:
 
Back
Top