Conspicuous by Their Absence

Speaking of Heinkels, what about a Heinkel He177 or would that be impossible due to the inability of CFS to provide a decent amount of smoke and flames from the DB610s.
What about a Manchester instead of a Lancaster or even a Lincoln to go with the multitude of Meteors about.
How is it that nearly everyone has a B25 in the pipeline (me included), my problem with it is that I am well up on my parts count and it needs simplifying.
The Halifax is desperately needed, preferably with merlins and that abismal greenhouse that was also called a turret on top.
Nobody seems to have metioned the stalwarts of the RAF early on in the conflict, namely the Avro Anson, a Mk1 with gently sloping cockpit and the greenhouse on its back. Just to be accurate you could pump the U/C up manually.
The interwar years are also poorly represented with a meagre offering of a Handley Page Heyford, Hawker Hart/Demon, Siskin and Bulldog. What about the flying boats as well. The list could be endless because no sooner than one aircraft is built we know we can do better.
see you soon
Les AKA Womble
 
Hello Womble55,

I actually DO have a Heinkel 177 in the works. With my previous techniques, I was running out of resources, but within the last year or so, I have developed some techniques that might work to reduce the resource count. I just tried some different methods on a rebuild of my B-25C and knocked three components off the assembly. The parts count went up by 10 and I might have to add one component back for a better visual though. 27 components and 1193 parts at the moment. I don't have enough left to put in 3D engine cowls or windows....

Post some screen shots. I need to do the same.

The Halifax is one that could use a good build. For such a good bomber it is surprisingly neglected. Some of the others such as the Anson have been built. I believe I have flown a FS98 Bristol Bulldog.

My selection is seldom based on what the CFS community really "needs" but rather on planes that I want to own. Thus, yet another Messerschmitt 109 and a Kawanishi N1K-2J Shiden-KAI are a couple that are on my list though the world hardly needs another 109. Another that is on my list is a P-40B/C. I have started on that, but lost my reference drawings.

You are more prolific that I am. Build more!!!
- Ivan.
 
Hi Womble55,
Here are some small screenshots of the He 177 and other stuff mentioned.

Note all the different colours on the He 177. They are all the components used to avoid bleeds.

The ground picture of the B-25C shows one of the issues I am trying to address. The glass should be visible on the top of the nose just as it is on the canopy and nose cone.

The cowling on the Zero is a single component and is the actual use of the technique I described and illustrated earlier with a B-26 Marauder cowl. There are obviously concave areas on this component and yet there still are no bleeds.

- Ivan.
 
For the period...maybe some balloon barriers might make things interesting....a bit later stuff might include a Hawker Tempest V and some "doodlebugs" to shoot at.
 
There already have been some Tempest V's floating around and available for download from various sources. Some are quite good in my opinion. The models don't seem to lack for much though I don't remember if they fly particularly well. The doodlebug intercept is one of the stock missions if I remember right.

- Ivan.
 
My B25 was doing quite well, especially with the nose glass area, but the part count is way too high and annoyingly I am getting bleeds on one side of the nose. Left side displays perfect but the right side, even though they are mirror images, displays with a part missing. I havent got enough hair to pull out but I will get there.
My He177 has the problem of me not getting the nose looking right, but the dual leg undercarriage looks the biz when retracting.
The majority of my other aircraft need just a few tweeks so maybe if I pull my finger out I will upload a Vickers Vernon, a Shorts Singapore, a Fairey Hendon, a Saro Lerwick.........geeeez I got to pull my finger out a long way.
 
Hey Womble55,
Post some screenshots! As for parts count, I am up to 1195 on my version of the B-25, but there really aren't any significant bleeds to speak of either. Only noticeable issue is that the far side propeller blades bleed through the lowered nose gear doors, but since the biggest nose gear door only opens and closes during the extension / retraction sequence, it isn't all that bad.

With this few parts left over, I still need some outter wing intakes on the leading edge and some rear windows which perhaps I need to do with a texture. Or maybe I will rebuild some pieces to scrounge a few extra polygons.

- Ivan.
 
Hi Womble55,
I believe I just ran into the same situation you did. After correcting the nose gear doors and rebuilding the nose, the aft end of the port nacelle started going away. The MitchellC project was only at about 1185 parts, so that certainly wasn't it. I found that it got a little better when I removed some duplicated polygons on the inboard section of the upper wings. I had saved one component with the nose rebuild, so I decided to see if replacing a structure with a component to reduce the polygon count would help things: I replaced the tail skid structure (20 polygons) with a tail skid component (12 polygons) and the nacelle reappeared in its entirety. I even had enough polygons left over to put in two rear fuselage windows.

Perhaps it isn't just the polygon count but also the complexity of your model. I know mine got quite involved in building the nose section without significant bleeds.

- Ivan.
 
It can simply be a "dummy jump" at the wrong place, forcing a part into oblivion. AF99 has the bad habit of seasoning the model with such unnecessary code. If the parts gone are from another group, it is probably the case.

Or it can be a jump further than 32767 lines, basically out of reach, but it is most unlikely as, with grouping, that situation seldomly occurs.

I doubt that your model is too big for CFS1, but AF99 stops quite short from those limits. Next time you have such a case of disappearing parts, try removing all the dummy «dummy jumps», just to see...
 
Hi Hubbabubba,
I don't disagree that your method might work, but I don't really want to go there just yet. I probably will need to for the next multi engine plane though. Literally it was a matter of losing the last 5-10 polygons off a component. It wasn't very obvious, so it might have happened much earlier than I had noticed. I found that 1185 didn't work, 1160-something did work. Funny thing is that my SBD Dauntless project is around 1197 polygons and still displays well. It isn't textured though which might increase the complexity.

I am guessing that it is an internal data structure / table that is dimensioned a little too small because in addition to manual "glue" there is also automatic glue to add complexity. For that I am guessing.

In any case, this project was to prove that a good multi / twin could be built within AF99 / Aircraft Animator limitations. I will still do the SCASM thing to move the VC and possibly include a copyright as you suggested though.

This morning I did some engine tuning to make the part throttle cruise settings match up with the Specific Engine Flight Chart I found. I also need to go back and take out the steerable nose wheel and possibly add some damping to the landing gear so it doesn't hop on braking. (Or perhaps I should leave that in?) Pictures really don't show the changes, but they were quite extensive.

- Ivan.
 
Regarding my B25, I built the nose as a component, then using the constituent parts removed bits to make the framework of the glass area. I then filled in the holes as it were with more parts and putting those in a seperate component as 'noseglass'.I did exactly the same for the cockpit framework and glass, the flying model displayed fine. All was tickety-boo til I started to add the little things to finish the model off like doors,aerials, guns, turret framework. So your explanation of the complexity of components seems to be the answer and to prove the theory I copied the B25, renamed it B25_navy, put my original nose on plus a radome and hey presto! no absent panels.

Here are some pikkies of my Vickers Vernon, Shorts Singapore, Saro Lerwick and HP Hinaidi.
 
Hi Womble55,
Got a couple questions and suggestions for you:

What is the clear radome-like thing on the nose? I don't remember any model of the B-25 (Navy or not) having that.
Is this an early model or late model B-25?

The early models had the dorsal turret aft and didn't have a gun position in the tail.
The late models starting with (I believe) the J had a tail gun position and the dorsal turret moved to just behind the cockpit. The DF loop (football thingie) was moved to the underside (near centerline) under the cockpit.
I believe only strafers and late models had the package guns on the side of the nose.
Late models would also have the two waist gun positions and I believe they had the ventral turret removed.
The nose gear retraction sequence is unusual. It retracts aft and to starboard. On the port side is a tunnel under the cockpit to enter the nose section.

The nose gear doors on the B-25s are weird The are all hinged on the starboard side and the one section that remains open when the gear is down appears to be a small spring loaded section. I can send you pictures if you like. It took me a LONG time to find detail shots of this area.

If you are building the flight model, the early models are quite a bit faster and lighter. The B model was used by the Tokyo raiders. I believe the C model was the best performing which is why I built it. I also intend to build strafers and eventually a J model when I have a chance. Still working on the C at the moment.

- Ivan.
 
On Page 25 of William Greens Famous Bombers of the Second World War is a photo of a PBJ-1D or to all intents and purposes a navalised B25D. Very few of them were identical but of the pictures and colour (color) schemes some had mid upper turrets, some had them removed and the mounting ring sheeted over. Some had mid beam positions, some had rear gun positions, some had gun packs and some actually had what they were supposed to have as per the specs. The generalisation of the PBJ-1D is a dead end as far as I am concerned, there are just too many variations. Unless there is a complete set of photos out there, I cant be sure as to what a particular aircraft was fitted with. Drawings and artwork are not accurate sources as far as I know. Please can this hobby get easier as I am pulling out too much hair!
 
Hi Womble55,
I guess perhaps I am just trying to be a purist here. The bottom line is that you or anyone else can build darn near anything you feel like. My comments were pretty much centered around the things I found out when I was building my version of the B-25. Mine isn't completely accurate either. I just ran out of parts before I got everything done. There should be some circular windows just behind the trailing edge of the wings, but I don't have enough resources left over to put those in. The nose gear door animation on mine is a very rough approximation of how the real one works. It took me a LONG time to find out what the arrangement was and I have 3 books specifically on the B-25.

BTW, the glass and framing on the nose took me about 5 full rebuilds with different combinations of compoents with the same parts and different glue to work out. I still haven't finished the texturing of the internals in the nose.

- Ivan.
 
so many models and variants,
so little time.
and then there are the numerous field modifications.
it definitely could make one crazy.

I'd say please yourself

you could always use my method;
wait for years for someone to build what you want,
give up and attempt to do it yourself,
get frustrated and bored,
put the project on the shelf,
move on to something else.
 
Hi Smilo,

There is no question building for CFS can get quite boring and frustrating. I still dread the flight testing part of the game. Sitting in front of your computer watching numbers tick over while holding a stop watch is not the most enjoyable way to spend time. Going back to re-test when some little thing gets changed is REALLY a pain. Spending a couple hours to rebuild components to kill an annoying bleed and then finding out at the very end that the idea didn't work is frustrating. Trying to figure out how propellers behave and how to mess with them in a flight sim when you don't know the basic aerodynamic theory behind the equations is way too close to school work. Flipping through NACA reports and Technical pubs to try to understand basic theory is interesting at times. I figure I have at least a half dozen projects of this time going on at any one time if I am not taking a break and doing other hobbies.

Some folks do Sudoku, some folks do crossword puzzles. This is how folks like us spend our time.
We must really be crazy to be doing this. I know Anna Honey thinks I am crazy for doing it.
- Ivan.
 
Some folks do Sudoku, some folks do crossword puzzles. This is how folks like us spend our time.
We must really be crazy to be doing this.
Click to expand...
Ivan

Exactly my thinking. This has to be fun. Otherwise, it is not worth the excruciating pain it can induce... sometimes :eek:!!!

But, as a compensation, nothing beats the moment of pure elation when everything "falls in place".:jump::greenbo::redfire:

I don't know how Ivan and womble55 can work on multi-projects all at the same time though. When I'm working on something, nose to the grindstone, I'm so absorbed that I often become lunatic. I forget to eat, to do my house chores, to take my pills, to go to bed at a decent hour. I remember walking on the street to get something at the store, only to realize that I went 2-3 blocks pass the place, thinking about a way to kill a bleed or get an animation to work!
 
Well said the both of you, I couldn't have put it better myself. When I get to a problem, if I can't work it out, will go onto another project. For instance, many of my aircraft do not display properly, bleeds, and missing displays mostly. I moved onto my Vickers Vernon and Short Singapore and learnt a lot more about the order of things than I had before. As you said when you do solve the problem the joy is unmeasurable.........sad aren't we?
As to the B25, I've read a few more books and now believe that each one was unique!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top