AR196 Project in AD2K

S

smilo

Charter Member
no promises here.
let's just see how it goes.

as i said in the Conspicuous by Their Absence thread,
AD2K has been giving me fits.
for some unknown reason,
the program likes to crash,
leave a window in french,
and delete everything before it closes.

here's the really good part,
for some reason, i have not
dropped ad2k like a hot potato
and continue my attempt to learn how it works.
i guess i'm just a glutton for punishment.

in the mean time, here's a shot of today's work.
of course, you must understand,
i did it twice or three times,
i can't remember.
 
Caution : AD2000 v2.5 no longer make use of the AD2000.dat header file. It has to be replaced by the AD2025.dat file.


If you have both on the same machine the above warning may have something to do with it. ????

Dave
 
even though i have v2.0 buried in another folder,
that might be the problem.
heck, it's worth a shot,
moving it out of the program files folder.
won't know if that's the solution,
until it nails me again.

fortunately, i'm still just building
flat panels for the visual orientation
and am writing down the coordinates in a notebook.

___:running:_____back to it.
 
Hey Smilo,

That shape looks pretty good so far. How many vertices are you using for the wing tips?

Note to self:
Stay away from AD2000 version 2.5.

- Ivan.
 
i thought you would notice.
more than i care to count.
it will be pared down to 8 or so,
if i use the program,
a few more if i do it by hand.
 
Hi Smilo,

I can't say anything about resource counts for AD2000 because I have never used it. I am not convinced that anyone in the simulator can really tell between 10 points on a round wingtip or 12 points. I believe it becomes quite noticeable below about 8 points.

The problem that I ran into when doing the Veltro was that things looked so "Good" after I put the extra points in that I just didn't have the heart to take them out. I did it in a couple places in the end anyway and can't really tell the difference, but I CAN say that it hurt to do it at the time.

Do you have a good set of drawings?

- Ivan.
 
so much for the teaser screen shots
and jumping ahead of myself.

apparently, my drawings are okay,
but will need a heck of a lot of work.
not to mention, there are no dimensions,
other than the basics, which i already have,
length=36.08'
height=14.42'
wing span=40.75'
i have scaled the drawings to
1 real foot=1 drawing inch at 100 pixels per inch

so far, so good, right?
the original drawing is 5982x4316,
with 5 views, 4 bulkheads,
and the top view angled around 45+*.
which is usually a pain to get just right.
on top of that, the lines are about 8 pixels wide.
i can't help but wonder
where to make the finished 1 pixel line.
seems to be quite a lot of room for error.
just what i need, more room for error.

i spent most of yesterday trying to clean up
and align the canopy area for three drawings,
with not enough success to satisfy myself.
i finally said, the heck with it
and went to a little birthday party for my grand daughter.
that was fun...she's growing up fast.

this morning, my good friend, No Dice,
has sent me several AR196 links
and many AR196 drawings, which look very nice.
i plan on spending the day checking them out,
selecting the best, then resizing,
aligning and cleaning them up.

what this all means is that,
i will be, most likely,
starting the project over from scratch.

this does not upset me tooo much.
i firmly believe that without a good solid base
of very clear drawings that align properly,
there is really no point in attempting the project.
that is, unless i want to do it half assed
and i'm not really into that.
 
Do you need to re-align the 45 degree top view? I typically use GIMP and it isn't difficult with that tool. You may find other misalignment when you actually line up the longitudinal axis though. I have a really good cutaway view of the Arado 196 that is probably as good as a bunch of cross sectional views. The wing tip on this beast is REALLY simple to execute with a 3D design.

- Ivan.
 
thanks, no, Dave directed me to more drawings
with a perpendicular top view. much better.
they still need to cleaned up, though.

ad2k has a wing tip creator,
but it's very rudimentary.
i have another idea i want to check out
when the time comes. hope it works.

i am using ms office picture manager
to view and rough crop drawings.
ms paint to clean up and psp7 to resize.
i really like the basic tools in ms paint,
but don't like the way it changes
the pixels per inch to 72 or 96,
depending on the size of the drawing.
wish it would stop doing that.
it's no big deal to open the drawing in psp7
and resize it to 100ppi. it's just another step.

i have thought about installing gimp,
but, frankly, am trying to avoid the need
to learn the ins and outs of another program.
ms paint would be perfect,
if i could just add a couple tools
and change the default pixel count thing.

yes, i am interested in the cut away drawings.

as i said in another thread,
i am tiring of cleaning up drawings
and would like to build a few parts.
i am considering building the tail section,
just for a change of pace.
we shall see.
i have a couple of things to do first.
 
the plot thickens.

last night, Ivan sent me some very nice drawings.
the detail is better than any so far.
BUT, in the side view,
the attitude is much different.

where as, in my drawings,
and most of my paintings and pictures,
the horizontal line shows to be, roughly,
center of the spinner to the center of the tail cone,
which puts the floats at a down angle.

Ivan's side view drawing shows the floats level
and the fuselage horizontal line
from center of the spinner to about a quarter
of the way up the rudder.
substantially, a nose up position.

so, here's the deal,
with the floats level, (Ivan's)
the model will look better sitting on the water.
with the fuselage level, (the old drawings)
most parts lines are perpendicular and level,
which makes layout and measurements much easier.

if i go with the new, float level drawings,
i basically have to trash all i've done so far
and start over cleaning up and resizing the new drawings.

so it's opinion time.
fuselage level,
nose up,
or split the difference.
i have my opinion,
what's yours?
 
if a picture is worth a thousand words,
here's a couple thousand;

both are resized to fit here,
but are not cleaned up.
 
:wavey:Hi smilo!

Picture on the right represent the correct attitude in flight and should be the basis for your work. The "nose down" floats is normal as the aircraft has to alight with a positive pitch to slow-down. Attitude on water should be adjusted in the AIR file with gear and scrape points.

Good luck:ernae:!
 
On the Level

Hi Smilo,

Consider what you are asking: If I have a picture of a tail dragger sitting on the ground in 3 point attitude, should I build my model that way?

The simple answer is NO!!! CFS doesn't allow for adjusting the thrust line in relation to the centerline of the model. If you do the model with the floats level, you will need to adjust the thrust line. That in itself isn't too bad, but consider how you might have to adjust the angle of incidence of the wings and tail to make the model fly level. You REALLY don't want to have to do that. Just adjust the contact points and the model will sit level when in the water. Just another way of stating what Hubbabubba already stated.

Adjust the angle of the drawing! It is pretty easy with GIMP.

- Ivan.
 
thanks All, for taking the time
to answer the question
and reaffirm what i already knew.
but i have to admit, wasn't sure.

now, i'm trying to decide
whether to bore you
with some more colored flat panels.
maybe tomorrow.

Ivan,
i can rotate drawings by .01 degrees with psp7,
but the line quality is degraded.
does gimp have the same effect
on the overall drawing quality?


time to go get some :sleep:
will probably wake up at 0:230
and not be able to go back to sleep.
seems to be the way it usually goes.
 
With GIMP I can rotate drawings down to 1 pixel no matter what the size (as long as it is small enough to edit). The line quality sometimes is slightly degraded, but you kinda expect that when resizing and moving stuff around anyway. If you put a couple red dots on the front center point and rear center point and email me the drawing, I will edit and send it back and you can see how much degradation there is in the result. I can also send you the spreadsheet I use to calculate the offsets from the CoG.

- Ivan.
 
well, i've just spent a couple hours
installing and screwing around with gimp.

i'm sure it's a great program
and has lots of features.
i'm also sure that it is easy to use,
once one learns how to use it.

for example, i have tried and tried again
to rotate a drawing, but continually get
a message saying there is no path
for what i am trying to rotate.
really? what the hell am i trying to rotate then?
and where did it come from?
what flippin' path are they talking about?

sorry, i don't have the time or patience for this.
i have enough to do without learning
the subtleties another program.
sure, i could send it off and let you do it,
but that's not the point. or is it?
as i see it, that doesn't teach me
how to use the program.

sorry for being snappy.
i hate screwing around
and wasting hours my time.
i am extremely irritated with myself
for being a dumb a$$
 
:wavey:Hello smilo!

If you still have Saint Paint around, it should be easy. I can give you a quick n' easy step-by-step procedure that will do it in less time it took you to write your last post...:kilroy:

P.S.- ... and you're not an a$$; you're a mule...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top