B-26 Marauder
- Thread starter Ivan
- Start date
I thought you would never ask.
yes, but it is nowhere near good enough.
I'll try to find a link...
but it would be a heck of a good project for you to honor your friend who flew the thing.
he said, not so subtly
there are two of them on this page;
http://www.simviation.com/cfs1aircraft8.htm
yes, but it is nowhere near good enough.
I'll try to find a link...
but it would be a heck of a good project for you to honor your friend who flew the thing.
he said, not so subtly
there are two of them on this page;
http://www.simviation.com/cfs1aircraft8.htm
Hi Smilo,
I believe I have both of these B-26's. If this is the best that is out there for CFS, then there is plenty of room for a better one.
I actually began the equivalent of building jigs for some parts for a B-26 this morning. The B-25 needs finished before the B-26 really gets started, but I figured this was a good opportunity to test an idea in AF99.
By the way, no need to be subtle. If you are looking for something in particular, just email me. You already know about the monster lead times to get a complete project through my shop though.
- Ivan.
I believe I have both of these B-26's. If this is the best that is out there for CFS, then there is plenty of room for a better one.
I actually began the equivalent of building jigs for some parts for a B-26 this morning. The B-25 needs finished before the B-26 really gets started, but I figured this was a good opportunity to test an idea in AF99.
By the way, no need to be subtle. If you are looking for something in particular, just email me. You already know about the monster lead times to get a complete project through my shop though.
- Ivan.
Great News!!
Time to put on my patience shoes.
I have often wondered why there wasn't a decent B 26.
I am sure that it would be a welcome addition to all of us.
although I still mostly fly the Fw190, I am taking an interest in the Medium Bombers.
love those low level bomb runs at full throttle.
Time to put on my patience shoes.
I have often wondered why there wasn't a decent B 26.
I am sure that it would be a welcome addition to all of us.
although I still mostly fly the Fw190, I am taking an interest in the Medium Bombers.
love those low level bomb runs at full throttle.
Dave Cumming
Charter Member
Ivan
I copied this a while ago about AI control:
"Yes, I know about that method of differing AIR files for AI to fly. Problem was that I was not quite sure what it was about AIR file that was causing the crashes. Why is a plane reasonably easy for a Human to fly and causes computer AI such problems. Easy way to test this idea is to set up a Helicopter as AI opponent. The controls are so radically different for a Helicopter that AI does not know what to do with it. It's standard responses do not work.
I have since figured out what the problem was though. It is NOT the nasty stall characteristics. Turns out it is the high control force of the Ailerons. Once I turn that down a bit, the AI flies the plane as well as any other. It still crashes once in a while but usually because it put itself into a silly position such as a dive at high speed and low altitude. Control factor for Human should be 1850 and down at 1250 for AI to work OK. AI still tries to fly it as a TnB aircraft though. It's the only style AI knows.
I turned down the control force at about 180 knots and reduced some of the nasty stall on this version. Plane is still an interesting opponent. Not hard to evade but hard to chase since it changes directions so fast"
Maybe this means something to you.
D
I copied this a while ago about AI control:
"Yes, I know about that method of differing AIR files for AI to fly. Problem was that I was not quite sure what it was about AIR file that was causing the crashes. Why is a plane reasonably easy for a Human to fly and causes computer AI such problems. Easy way to test this idea is to set up a Helicopter as AI opponent. The controls are so radically different for a Helicopter that AI does not know what to do with it. It's standard responses do not work.
I have since figured out what the problem was though. It is NOT the nasty stall characteristics. Turns out it is the high control force of the Ailerons. Once I turn that down a bit, the AI flies the plane as well as any other. It still crashes once in a while but usually because it put itself into a silly position such as a dive at high speed and low altitude. Control factor for Human should be 1850 and down at 1250 for AI to work OK. AI still tries to fly it as a TnB aircraft though. It's the only style AI knows.
I turned down the control force at about 180 knots and reduced some of the nasty stall on this version. Plane is still an interesting opponent. Not hard to evade but hard to chase since it changes directions so fast"
Maybe this means something to you.
D
Hey Dave,
I believe the second and third blocks in your message are quotes of something I wrote a couple years back. It describes the problem but does not solve it. What I am trying to do is to have a single AIR file that both AI and human can fly well. The numbers correspond to my earlier AIR file versions but it is possible someone else has an AIR file with the same parameters.
I am not sure if the first block about AI helicopters was written by me or not.
I guess this really DOES mean something to me!
;-)
- Ivan.
I believe the second and third blocks in your message are quotes of something I wrote a couple years back. It describes the problem but does not solve it. What I am trying to do is to have a single AIR file that both AI and human can fly well. The numbers correspond to my earlier AIR file versions but it is possible someone else has an AIR file with the same parameters.
I am not sure if the first block about AI helicopters was written by me or not.
I guess this really DOES mean something to me!
;-)
- Ivan.
hubbabubba
Charter Member
Well, Ivan, I sincerely think it is a mistake -and a "dead en"- to try to do so.
When stock AI a/c are made "flyable" without changing their AIR files, they're a pain in the a
s to fly!In QC, I can't use the FW 190A while manning a ship because, quite simply, they keep ramming me! AI a/c simply do not fly like humans do and, as Dave says, fighters will keep T&B, even when the situation demands to act otherwise.
I think that we should write "Ai" rather than "AI"; very artificial flying with very little intelligence.
I also believe that some entries in the AIR file act differently in the AI a/c. Proof of that would be in the fact that AI used as "bomber" in QC can be caught by the same a/c piloted by you. If they would be on the same footing, distance should stay the same, no?
This means that bomber AI does not go full throttle, and I suspect that AI -bomber or fighter styles- plays with other AIR files entries as well.
So, what is the point of making equal two things that are not to begin with?
Hello Hubbabubba,
I don't necessarily disagree with you (surprise!), but my goal is different. I already created what I believe is a reasonable simulation of a FW 190A for human pilots to fly. The problem is that the AI simply can't fly it at all. I am trying to alter some settings to get the same roll rate in a manner that the AI pilots can handle. It isn't very high on my priority list though.
BTW, you mentioned the Jeep in another thread. This afternoon, I finally figured out what was making it not move.
Because the jeep is fairly low to the ground, I figured I would change the propeller diameter to something small. I figured 3-5 feet would work, but in combination with the reduced power of the engine (I get 60 hp but 40 is more reasonable), there apparently isnt enough thrust. I still need to tune the engine to a VERY large extent. It's response and power curve isn't reasonable yet.
- Ivan.
I don't necessarily disagree with you (surprise!), but my goal is different. I already created what I believe is a reasonable simulation of a FW 190A for human pilots to fly. The problem is that the AI simply can't fly it at all. I am trying to alter some settings to get the same roll rate in a manner that the AI pilots can handle. It isn't very high on my priority list though.
BTW, you mentioned the Jeep in another thread. This afternoon, I finally figured out what was making it not move.
Because the jeep is fairly low to the ground, I figured I would change the propeller diameter to something small. I figured 3-5 feet would work, but in combination with the reduced power of the engine (I get 60 hp but 40 is more reasonable), there apparently isnt enough thrust. I still need to tune the engine to a VERY large extent. It's response and power curve isn't reasonable yet.
- Ivan.
W
winslow33
Guest
Missles!
I just had a random, wild, and somewhat unrelated idea--- If the Fw190 keeps ramming us, what if we put it's AIR file into the stock V1 and enabled it for QC? We would have a somewhat crude guided missle like the ones dropped from Fw 200 Condor's at allied ships late in the war!:costumes::costumes::isadizzy::isadizzy: I think I'm going to try that tonight just for fun...
J
Johnny
Guest
Jeep
~S~ Hubbabubba,
Do you still have the Vehicle with reverse/ Helicopter air file?
J.
~S~ Hubbabubba,
Do you still have the Vehicle with reverse/ Helicopter air file?
J.
Hello All,
After minor adjustments to the jigs for the B-26 Cowl, I put one together. Here are the results. Developers take note: This is ONE component with 62 individual parts. The result is not quite as clean as I would have hoped for, but IMHO isn't bad for the resources used.
- Ivan.
After minor adjustments to the jigs for the B-26 Cowl, I put one together. Here are the results. Developers take note: This is ONE component with 62 individual parts. The result is not quite as clean as I would have hoped for, but IMHO isn't bad for the resources used.
- Ivan.
hubbabubba
Charter Member
A bit of everything for everyone...
To Ivan; my first concern with the jump between FS98 to CFS1 AIR files was for the prop entries. The AAC ships I made with a FS98 style AIR files because start-ups and shutdowns were of little importance.
Not the same with a jeep, of course! I thought I could work on other things around the jeep while waiting for your attempts but I found out that about everything else depends, to some extend, on the AIR file. Can't make a panel if I don't know what gauges I will have to use for start-ups. Can't make a DP if I don't know how many engines are associated to it. Can't do the sounds as I have no idea of the kind of RPM I will get.
Anyway, personal matters are keeping me away of the PC right now, and they're is no rush.
Your B-26 cowling attempt is very promising. Do you intend to paint it while keeping the concavities? The two "humps" are probably representing the supercharger's fairings? It goes without saying that SCASM techniques would do wonders with that kind of component.
To Johnny;I don't recall using a chopper AIR file for a ground vehicle. If you're thinking of that idea of a reversed speed, it never worked!
To winslow33; Just try it, we never know. But be reminded that FW 190A don't always ram the ships. Some do fly for a while and do fancy maneuvering. This would make the V1 look like a "rogue missile".
To Ivan; my first concern with the jump between FS98 to CFS1 AIR files was for the prop entries. The AAC ships I made with a FS98 style AIR files because start-ups and shutdowns were of little importance.
Not the same with a jeep, of course! I thought I could work on other things around the jeep while waiting for your attempts but I found out that about everything else depends, to some extend, on the AIR file. Can't make a panel if I don't know what gauges I will have to use for start-ups. Can't make a DP if I don't know how many engines are associated to it. Can't do the sounds as I have no idea of the kind of RPM I will get.
Anyway, personal matters are keeping me away of the PC right now, and they're is no rush.
Your B-26 cowling attempt is very promising. Do you intend to paint it while keeping the concavities? The two "humps" are probably representing the supercharger's fairings? It goes without saying that SCASM techniques would do wonders with that kind of component.
To Johnny;I don't recall using a chopper AIR file for a ground vehicle. If you're thinking of that idea of a reversed speed, it never worked!
To winslow33; Just try it, we never know. But be reminded that FW 190A don't always ram the ships. Some do fly for a while and do fancy maneuvering. This would make the V1 look like a "rogue missile".
J
Johnny
Guest
Reverse
~S~ Hubbabubba,
I was working in an air file for Khloee and happened upon a combination that allowed me to back up, but I had no need for it, because tanks turn in one spot. I probably have it saved to a disk, one of about fifty, in a file marked Tank Factory. It was three computers ago.
Ce le vie,
j
You may want to correct the spelling for me. French never was my strong suit, in fact I do not not know if a have a suit?
~S~ Hubbabubba,
I was working in an air file for Khloee and happened upon a combination that allowed me to back up, but I had no need for it, because tanks turn in one spot. I probably have it saved to a disk, one of about fifty, in a file marked Tank Factory. It was three computers ago.
Ce le vie,
j
You may want to correct the spelling for me. French never was my strong suit, in fact I do not not know if a have a suit?
Hi Hubbabubba,
My current status with the Jeep AIR file (was working on it last night) is that it moves. It hits a top speed of about 45 knots but that can be adjusted. I am attempting to use stats as close to a real Jeep as I can get. It is prop driven (sounds like a sopcamel). RPM should be max about 4500. Starter is conventional piston engine. Brakes are too strong. I only put in one engine. No idea why I would use more than one.
Prop is 10 feet in diameter sitting about 5 feet above the CoG and offset about 25 inches Left so far to counteract engine torque. Prop effect on Rudder has been totally eliminated. It was the source of even greater pulling to the left, but no more.
The track of the vehicle is +- 60 inches or so. It needs to be extra wide in order for the vehicle to resist rolling over because of the high thrust line and the high CoG.
The propeller efficiency curves are totally wrong. Until I fix that, I can't tune the engine. The prop is from a Mustang and expects 1300 hp or so. It is getting about 50 hp right now but can't exceed 2500 rpm because of the resistance of the prop.
Acceleration is poor, very poor. The yaw stability is also very poor. It seems to want to keep turning whichever way it is currently turning. I believe I improved it somewhat by putting th rear wheel back from -60 inches to -220 inches, but there is no weight on the rear wheel.
I also need to adjust the spring rates and damping to let it dive on braking and bounce a bit. My standard spring rates make this way too steady.
Regarding the B-26 cowl, I think this is quite promising also. The beautiful thing is that this single component is not very expensive resource wise, so it leaves enough resources for building the rest of the bomber in a better fashion. I believe this cowl can be textured as a single component as a Top / Bottom arrangement. It can't be textured Left / Right because on the later B-26s, only the inboard half of the cowl was painted anti-glare olive drab. If it is textured Left / Right, the inboard side of both carburetor intakes would get the same colour. The problem with that idea is that I can't put emblems on the sides of the cowl. I'm still working on ideas. This was just the first attempt to prove the concept.
If I had figured this out when building my P-40E, I could have saved probably two components to be used elsewhere. That area is a patchwork to avoid bleeds due to the concavities. I was also planning to build a P-40B/C, so perhaps I will try it there.
- Ivan.
My current status with the Jeep AIR file (was working on it last night) is that it moves. It hits a top speed of about 45 knots but that can be adjusted. I am attempting to use stats as close to a real Jeep as I can get. It is prop driven (sounds like a sopcamel). RPM should be max about 4500. Starter is conventional piston engine. Brakes are too strong. I only put in one engine. No idea why I would use more than one.
Prop is 10 feet in diameter sitting about 5 feet above the CoG and offset about 25 inches Left so far to counteract engine torque. Prop effect on Rudder has been totally eliminated. It was the source of even greater pulling to the left, but no more.
The track of the vehicle is +- 60 inches or so. It needs to be extra wide in order for the vehicle to resist rolling over because of the high thrust line and the high CoG.
The propeller efficiency curves are totally wrong. Until I fix that, I can't tune the engine. The prop is from a Mustang and expects 1300 hp or so. It is getting about 50 hp right now but can't exceed 2500 rpm because of the resistance of the prop.
Acceleration is poor, very poor. The yaw stability is also very poor. It seems to want to keep turning whichever way it is currently turning. I believe I improved it somewhat by putting th rear wheel back from -60 inches to -220 inches, but there is no weight on the rear wheel.
I also need to adjust the spring rates and damping to let it dive on braking and bounce a bit. My standard spring rates make this way too steady.
Regarding the B-26 cowl, I think this is quite promising also. The beautiful thing is that this single component is not very expensive resource wise, so it leaves enough resources for building the rest of the bomber in a better fashion. I believe this cowl can be textured as a single component as a Top / Bottom arrangement. It can't be textured Left / Right because on the later B-26s, only the inboard half of the cowl was painted anti-glare olive drab. If it is textured Left / Right, the inboard side of both carburetor intakes would get the same colour. The problem with that idea is that I can't put emblems on the sides of the cowl. I'm still working on ideas. This was just the first attempt to prove the concept.
If I had figured this out when building my P-40E, I could have saved probably two components to be used elsewhere. That area is a patchwork to avoid bleeds due to the concavities. I was also planning to build a P-40B/C, so perhaps I will try it there.
- Ivan.
J
Johnny
Guest
Tanks
~S~ Ivan,
Why back up when you can turn on a dime. Most accidents happen when you are backing up.LOL
j:costumes:
~S~ Ivan,
Why back up when you can turn on a dime. Most accidents happen when you are backing up.LOL
j:costumes:
Why back up?
1. You find that you are engaged at short range by something that bounces shells off your front armour but can easily pierce your side and rear.
2. A bridge partially collapses as you are crossing.
3. You put the nose of the tank into a trench / river bank / ditch.
4. You are in a street or alley that isn't wide enough to pivot in place.
5. You are on terrain that will churn into a swamp if you pivot in place.
I'm sure you can think of more reasons.
- Ivan.
1. You find that you are engaged at short range by something that bounces shells off your front armour but can easily pierce your side and rear.
2. A bridge partially collapses as you are crossing.
3. You put the nose of the tank into a trench / river bank / ditch.
4. You are in a street or alley that isn't wide enough to pivot in place.
5. You are on terrain that will churn into a swamp if you pivot in place.
I'm sure you can think of more reasons.
- Ivan.
