Conspicuous by Their Absence
- Thread starter Ivan
- Start date
The remaining work is incredibly tedious. I figure I have reworked the textures at least two dozen times to line up the fuselage panels over three texture files. The landing gear doors are another dozen or so thus far.
The cockpit aft wall needs to be textured. The flaps need frames as do their wells. The underside of the wing should have an outline for the inboard flaps.....
My process at this stage is to do what I can and then flip the plane around in the simulator to see what I missed. I make a list of problems and then try to clear the list out and start over. Repeat until I am tired out or can't find anything else. Note that there is a shape problem on the underside of the nose where the cylinder heads should be but are not.
After this comes the actual paint job which will be complicated for this plane. It will be dark green smoke rings over a tan background. The issue is to make the smoke rings be continous across texture files.....
The end isn't in sight yet, but I do think it is a fairly pretty plane.
- Ivan.
The cockpit aft wall needs to be textured. The flaps need frames as do their wells. The underside of the wing should have an outline for the inboard flaps.....
My process at this stage is to do what I can and then flip the plane around in the simulator to see what I missed. I make a list of problems and then try to clear the list out and start over. Repeat until I am tired out or can't find anything else. Note that there is a shape problem on the underside of the nose where the cylinder heads should be but are not.
After this comes the actual paint job which will be complicated for this plane. It will be dark green smoke rings over a tan background. The issue is to make the smoke rings be continous across texture files.....
The end isn't in sight yet, but I do think it is a fairly pretty plane.
- Ivan.
Most of the panel lines are done. All that is left of the "Permanent" texturing is the control panel.
I would post screenshots, but few of the changes are all that visible.
I did a little test flying to check out the aircraft trim:
Pitch: 11 Down - Pitch Stability is Poor.
Yaw: 7 Right
Roll: 1 Right - Roll Stability is also Poor.
Those are just preliminary numbers.
Rudder effect is WAY too high.
After the panel texture comes SCASM modifications and then I can work with simple Bitmap Files.
The paint scheme will be Tan with Olive "Smoke Rings" which appears to be the most common Veltro scheme for 1943 before the Italian Armistice. Insignia will be Fascist Italian Royal Air Force.
If there is a follow-on Folgore, it will be Tan with Dots instead of Rings.
- Ivan.
I would post screenshots, but few of the changes are all that visible.
I did a little test flying to check out the aircraft trim:
Pitch: 11 Down - Pitch Stability is Poor.
Yaw: 7 Right
Roll: 1 Right - Roll Stability is also Poor.
Those are just preliminary numbers.
Rudder effect is WAY too high.
After the panel texture comes SCASM modifications and then I can work with simple Bitmap Files.
The paint scheme will be Tan with Olive "Smoke Rings" which appears to be the most common Veltro scheme for 1943 before the Italian Armistice. Insignia will be Fascist Italian Royal Air Force.
If there is a follow-on Folgore, it will be Tan with Dots instead of Rings.
- Ivan.
womble55
Charter Member
Hi Ivan, once again you have stated a simple fact that has eluded us all.....please wait while I bang my head against a wall. It is so simple that with a flat surface on the top and indeed on the bottom of a fuselage (engines included) component/structure will produce the painting effect of carry over. I believe that a lot of the painting problems I have incurred are due to this. It seems as though CFS1 wont split a part but will paint the top deck according to the viewers position.
Even in this game, experience is king!
Even in this game, experience is king!
Hello Womble55,
Actually the Right Side will always be "smeared" over the Top regardless of the viewing position. I actually covered this in my Macchi 205 Tutorial about a year or so ago. If you are looking for a "Flat" top fuselage, check out my E.III Eindecker. It actually has a small peak on it just to address this texturing problem.
This is why I made recommendations that only Left side parts should be created and the final component should just have Left-Right Pairs added. That way, your parts must stop at the centerline of the aircraft and giving the component a slight peak is just the natural thing to do.
FWIW, this also happens in Structures such as the ubiquitous cylindrical wheels we all use. It isn't so noticeable there because the wheels don't tend to have fancy patterns.
Status of the Macchi 205: Panel is done. Aircraft is being SCASMed. This aeroplane is going to get more modifications in SCASM than is typical because of an animated spinner. The Cockpit Armour and Cockpit Aft Wall will not be textured because the author is lazy. (And also because I believe I am on the ragged edge of AF99 limitations.)
- Ivan.
Actually the Right Side will always be "smeared" over the Top regardless of the viewing position. I actually covered this in my Macchi 205 Tutorial about a year or so ago. If you are looking for a "Flat" top fuselage, check out my E.III Eindecker. It actually has a small peak on it just to address this texturing problem.
This is why I made recommendations that only Left side parts should be created and the final component should just have Left-Right Pairs added. That way, your parts must stop at the centerline of the aircraft and giving the component a slight peak is just the natural thing to do.
FWIW, this also happens in Structures such as the ubiquitous cylindrical wheels we all use. It isn't so noticeable there because the wheels don't tend to have fancy patterns.
Status of the Macchi 205: Panel is done. Aircraft is being SCASMed. This aeroplane is going to get more modifications in SCASM than is typical because of an animated spinner. The Cockpit Armour and Cockpit Aft Wall will not be textured because the author is lazy. (And also because I believe I am on the ragged edge of AF99 limitations.)
- Ivan.
this effect also occurs in ad2k models.
although, a "peak" can be accomplished
by rotating the, for example, fuselage.
in the end, i decided not to do it.
but, i can't remember the reason.
now, the 196 is to close to release
to consider making the change.
maybe, next time.
although, a "peak" can be accomplished
by rotating the, for example, fuselage.
in the end, i decided not to do it.
but, i can't remember the reason.
now, the 196 is to close to release
to consider making the change.
maybe, next time.
Hello Smilo,
Are you describing just rotating the cross section of the fuselage at each frame / station? The problem with that idea is that you may end up with a flat in a place you don't like.
This is why I pointed out that the other very nice looking Veltro was using 10 sided cross sections while mine was using 12 sided. The disadvantage with my choice is that it eats resources very quickly which must be balanced with the quality of the shape.
My choice of using 12 sided cross sections for most planes is because with 12 sides, there can be a peak on top and bottom and also a peak on each side which establishes what the wides point of the fuselage is. It is easier to create contour lines if you know where the widest point is. Contour lines make it much easier to refine the shape of the aircraft and tell at a glance if something is really messed up.
- Ivan.
Are you describing just rotating the cross section of the fuselage at each frame / station? The problem with that idea is that you may end up with a flat in a place you don't like.
This is why I pointed out that the other very nice looking Veltro was using 10 sided cross sections while mine was using 12 sided. The disadvantage with my choice is that it eats resources very quickly which must be balanced with the quality of the shape.
My choice of using 12 sided cross sections for most planes is because with 12 sides, there can be a peak on top and bottom and also a peak on each side which establishes what the wides point of the fuselage is. It is easier to create contour lines if you know where the widest point is. Contour lines make it much easier to refine the shape of the aircraft and tell at a glance if something is really messed up.
- Ivan.
Veltro to Folgore
I already posted these screenshots once in the AF99 Tutorial thread but the discussion there is a bit different from this one.
A fair number of post-AF99 / Aircraft Animator edits happened using SCASM. These screenshots show a bit of dancing with an AI shadow. Note that normally with an animated spinner, the AI spinner in Quick Combat would disappear with a AF99 aircraft, but in this case another stationary spinner was added in SCASM. This doesn't make it suitable for missions, but it doesn't look quite as ugly in Quick Combat. Other SCASM edits took care of mismatched sequences generated by Aircraft Animator.
Now that the basic panel lines are laid out, it would be quite trivial to make changes in the 3D model to produce a C.202 Folgore. I figure the AF99 changes could be done in a few hours. Perhaps from there, we could even get to a C.200 Saetta....
- Ivan.
I already posted these screenshots once in the AF99 Tutorial thread but the discussion there is a bit different from this one.
A fair number of post-AF99 / Aircraft Animator edits happened using SCASM. These screenshots show a bit of dancing with an AI shadow. Note that normally with an animated spinner, the AI spinner in Quick Combat would disappear with a AF99 aircraft, but in this case another stationary spinner was added in SCASM. This doesn't make it suitable for missions, but it doesn't look quite as ugly in Quick Combat. Other SCASM edits took care of mismatched sequences generated by Aircraft Animator.
Now that the basic panel lines are laid out, it would be quite trivial to make changes in the 3D model to produce a C.202 Folgore. I figure the AF99 changes could be done in a few hours. Perhaps from there, we could even get to a C.200 Saetta....
- Ivan.
Famous Last Words
A "Few" hours spread over several days is what it turned out to be.
Here is my first try at a Macchi C.202 Folgore.
In AF99, it has only 1025 Parts as compared to the Veltro's 1134 Parts.
The differences are:
Structures for the Cannon were removed,
Simplified non-retractable Tail Wheel and associated Tail Structure,
Single simple Oil Cooler instead of Two more complicated Oil Coolers.
The Oil Cooler was done by eyeball. I believe they are still a bit too deep.
The Panel Lines still need checked at the Tail, Wings, and Nose.
- Ivan.
A "Few" hours spread over several days is what it turned out to be.
Here is my first try at a Macchi C.202 Folgore.
In AF99, it has only 1025 Parts as compared to the Veltro's 1134 Parts.
The differences are:
Structures for the Cannon were removed,
Simplified non-retractable Tail Wheel and associated Tail Structure,
Single simple Oil Cooler instead of Two more complicated Oil Coolers.
The Oil Cooler was done by eyeball. I believe they are still a bit too deep.
The Panel Lines still need checked at the Tail, Wings, and Nose.
- Ivan.
Thanks, No Dice.
It is obviously the same aeroplane with just some minor detail changes.
I thought this would be easy and it pretty much was.
Many of the full-sized Veltros were conversions of Folgores. The easy distinction besides serial numbers (MM numbers) is the lack of a retractable tail wheel on the conversions. The interesting thing is that all the surviving Veltros today are conversions of Folgores. Some Veltros were exported after the war and on some, the fixed tail wheel was installed to ease maintenance.
Seems like lots of aeroplanes had issues with working retractable tail wheels, but Macchis did not. If you look in photographs, you almost never find a Veltro with a tailwheel stuck down. If you look at Me 109Ks, a lot of them had the wheel fixed down. Ki-84s also often have stuck tail wheels. A6M Zeros almost never do. J2M Raidens also do not.
Interesting how engineers work.
- Ivan.
It is obviously the same aeroplane with just some minor detail changes.
I thought this would be easy and it pretty much was.
Many of the full-sized Veltros were conversions of Folgores. The easy distinction besides serial numbers (MM numbers) is the lack of a retractable tail wheel on the conversions. The interesting thing is that all the surviving Veltros today are conversions of Folgores. Some Veltros were exported after the war and on some, the fixed tail wheel was installed to ease maintenance.
Seems like lots of aeroplanes had issues with working retractable tail wheels, but Macchis did not. If you look in photographs, you almost never find a Veltro with a tailwheel stuck down. If you look at Me 109Ks, a lot of them had the wheel fixed down. Ki-84s also often have stuck tail wheels. A6M Zeros almost never do. J2M Raidens also do not.
Interesting how engineers work.
- Ivan.
Weight
Macchi C.202 Folgore Serie IX
The Serie IX was chosen because it had wing guns and was built by Macchi.
Other Serie may have been identically equipped but were either later or built by other companies.
Breda built more Folgores than Macchi did.
The Take-Off (Loaded but not Maximum Take-Off) weight was 3069 kg == 6766 (6765.987) pounds
Disposable loads were the following:
65.625 pounds - 7.7 mm x 1000 rounds @ 1.05 ounces (estimated) per round.
181.5 pounds -- 12.7 mm x 800 rounds @ 3.63 ounces per round
681.56 pounds - 430 liters internal fuel
Basic Weight plus Pilot (Zero Fuel Weight) = 5837.315 pounds.
Note that the empty weight of each aircraft was written on the Fin.
They tended to vary a few kg from one airframe to the next.
Let's just round this off to 5837 pounds for the AIR file.
- Ivan.
Macchi C.202 Folgore Serie IX
The Serie IX was chosen because it had wing guns and was built by Macchi.
Other Serie may have been identically equipped but were either later or built by other companies.
Breda built more Folgores than Macchi did.
The Take-Off (Loaded but not Maximum Take-Off) weight was 3069 kg == 6766 (6765.987) pounds
Disposable loads were the following:
65.625 pounds - 7.7 mm x 1000 rounds @ 1.05 ounces (estimated) per round.
181.5 pounds -- 12.7 mm x 800 rounds @ 3.63 ounces per round
681.56 pounds - 430 liters internal fuel
Basic Weight plus Pilot (Zero Fuel Weight) = 5837.315 pounds.
Note that the empty weight of each aircraft was written on the Fin.
They tended to vary a few kg from one airframe to the next.
Let's just round this off to 5837 pounds for the AIR file.
- Ivan.
Weight - Part 2
Although the Take-Off weight of the Serie IX Folgore is not in question, the loading of the aircraft to reach this weight is not known.
US Navy Fighters of the same period had various configurations such as "Ferry", "Fighter", "Fighter-Bomber", etc that reflected different armament, fuel (perhaps drop tanks) and equipment being carried. In the "Fighter" configuration, the aircraft would carry no external stores but also did not carry a full internal fuel load OR (surprise!) full ammunition load for the guns. Only in the "Fighter-Overload" configuration would it have full internal fuel and ammunition.
Perhaps the Macchi C.202 Folgore was similar.
Here is why this data is being revisited:
The Macchi C.205 Veltro has a basic weight plus pilot of around 6448 pounds. Other than the engine difference and a couple MG151/20 cannon, it is basically the same aeroplane. The estimate for the C.202 Folgore under the same conditions is 5837 pounds or over 600 pounds lighter.
The empty weight of the C.202 Folgore Serie III through Serie VIII is listed as 2491 Kg or 5492 pounds.
The Serie VIII is basically the same as Serie IX but manufactured by Breda instead of Macchi. Earlier aircraft did not have wing guns, but they would not have been included in empty weight anyway.
For most countries' specifications, "Empty" weight does not include Guns, Radio, Pilot, Oil, Coolant, Gun Sights, Bomb Racks or other non-disposable items. The difference between our estimated "Basic Weight plus Pilot" and the empty weight is only 350 pounds. Conservatively, we can estimate the weight of a 12.7 mm (.50 cal) MG at around 75 pounds and a 7.7 mm (.303) MG at around 25 pounds, so the guns and pilot (200 pounds) with no other equipment is around 400 pounds.
The ammunition load for the 12.7 mm cowl guns is listed as 360 rounds per gun with 400 rounds per gun maximum. This works out to 163.35 instead of 181.5 pounds. (18.15 pounds difference)
The 80 liter fuel tank behind the pilot was considered a reserve tank and may not have been included in the T-O weight. If not, then another 126.80 pounds may be removed.
This puts the new weight estimate at 5982 pounds. This still seems a bit light but seems reasonable enough to use.
- Ivan.
Although the Take-Off weight of the Serie IX Folgore is not in question, the loading of the aircraft to reach this weight is not known.
US Navy Fighters of the same period had various configurations such as "Ferry", "Fighter", "Fighter-Bomber", etc that reflected different armament, fuel (perhaps drop tanks) and equipment being carried. In the "Fighter" configuration, the aircraft would carry no external stores but also did not carry a full internal fuel load OR (surprise!) full ammunition load for the guns. Only in the "Fighter-Overload" configuration would it have full internal fuel and ammunition.
Perhaps the Macchi C.202 Folgore was similar.
Here is why this data is being revisited:
The Macchi C.205 Veltro has a basic weight plus pilot of around 6448 pounds. Other than the engine difference and a couple MG151/20 cannon, it is basically the same aeroplane. The estimate for the C.202 Folgore under the same conditions is 5837 pounds or over 600 pounds lighter.
The empty weight of the C.202 Folgore Serie III through Serie VIII is listed as 2491 Kg or 5492 pounds.
The Serie VIII is basically the same as Serie IX but manufactured by Breda instead of Macchi. Earlier aircraft did not have wing guns, but they would not have been included in empty weight anyway.
For most countries' specifications, "Empty" weight does not include Guns, Radio, Pilot, Oil, Coolant, Gun Sights, Bomb Racks or other non-disposable items. The difference between our estimated "Basic Weight plus Pilot" and the empty weight is only 350 pounds. Conservatively, we can estimate the weight of a 12.7 mm (.50 cal) MG at around 75 pounds and a 7.7 mm (.303) MG at around 25 pounds, so the guns and pilot (200 pounds) with no other equipment is around 400 pounds.
The ammunition load for the 12.7 mm cowl guns is listed as 360 rounds per gun with 400 rounds per gun maximum. This works out to 163.35 instead of 181.5 pounds. (18.15 pounds difference)
The 80 liter fuel tank behind the pilot was considered a reserve tank and may not have been included in the T-O weight. If not, then another 126.80 pounds may be removed.
This puts the new weight estimate at 5982 pounds. This still seems a bit light but seems reasonable enough to use.
- Ivan.
Way Off Topic - Whatever the Topic is.
Hello No Dice,
I just came across a printout of a post I made in the Designer Forum here back on October 31, 2000.
I was just starting with AF99 and asked about how folks created 3D wings and whether anyone knew how to change the cross sections used in Structures. These days, I am pretty sure we can't do it.
One of the first replies I received was from a user called "Dave AKA No Dice" who suggested I check out the links on his site....
Cool, huh?
- Ivan.
Hello No Dice,
I just came across a printout of a post I made in the Designer Forum here back on October 31, 2000.
I was just starting with AF99 and asked about how folks created 3D wings and whether anyone knew how to change the cross sections used in Structures. These days, I am pretty sure we can't do it.
One of the first replies I received was from a user called "Dave AKA No Dice" who suggested I check out the links on his site....
Cool, huh?
- Ivan.
No Dice
Charter Member
Well as you already know, I was gone for a long bit of time (years).
Yes; in 2000 I had the original Free Flight Site and anything from an
"up and coming" Artist named Ivan was always mentioned if not featured.
When I returned to the Flightsim Community, Low and Behold, as I searched
websites to replace what I had lost in " Katrina" I found your work, but it was
1 here, 2 there.....stupid.
I can only hope by placing your great work in one, easy to get to location
will allow others to enjoy the art that you have invested 1000's of hrs. on
http://thefreeflightsite.com/Ivans.htm
PS, I am also hoping this tutorial is being saved in a format that I can post
for the future artists to learn from and enjoy.
Dave :salute:
Yes; in 2000 I had the original Free Flight Site and anything from an
"up and coming" Artist named Ivan was always mentioned if not featured.
When I returned to the Flightsim Community, Low and Behold, as I searched
websites to replace what I had lost in " Katrina" I found your work, but it was
1 here, 2 there.....stupid.
I can only hope by placing your great work in one, easy to get to location
will allow others to enjoy the art that you have invested 1000's of hrs. on
http://thefreeflightsite.com/Ivans.htm
PS, I am also hoping this tutorial is being saved in a format that I can post
for the future artists to learn from and enjoy.
Dave :salute:
Hello No Dice,
When the messages I am describing were posted, there WASN'T anything produced by "Ivan", at least not by me.
There was no "up and coming" artist named Ivan. There was just one more very frustrated AF99 user named Ivan.
The point I was trying to make was that I was just a new user of AF99 and very confused about its possibilities and capabilities and that I was just posting a "How do I do this?" message that generated a prompt reply by a fellow named "Dave AKA No Dice" that I did not know at the time.
I wonder how many others in the same situation just gave up with AF99?
- Ivan.
When the messages I am describing were posted, there WASN'T anything produced by "Ivan", at least not by me.
There was no "up and coming" artist named Ivan. There was just one more very frustrated AF99 user named Ivan.
The point I was trying to make was that I was just a new user of AF99 and very confused about its possibilities and capabilities and that I was just posting a "How do I do this?" message that generated a prompt reply by a fellow named "Dave AKA No Dice" that I did not know at the time.
I wonder how many others in the same situation just gave up with AF99?
- Ivan.
Thanks No Dice,
This may be true today, but certainly wasn't true 12 years ago when I started.
I was just very surprised when I was cleaning out some old papers and printouts and saw a very familiar name in a very ancient message. I would scan it and post, but the quality of the printout is very very poor and it would not scan well.
I forget what the project was of the time, but it was most likely either the Kawanishi N1K2-J Shiden or a P-51A Mustang. If the development tools were not so poor, perhaps we would have a lot more "successful" developers out there.
- Ivan.
This may be true today, but certainly wasn't true 12 years ago when I started.
I was just very surprised when I was cleaning out some old papers and printouts and saw a very familiar name in a very ancient message. I would scan it and post, but the quality of the printout is very very poor and it would not scan well.
I forget what the project was of the time, but it was most likely either the Kawanishi N1K2-J Shiden or a P-51A Mustang. If the development tools were not so poor, perhaps we would have a lot more "successful" developers out there.
- Ivan.
Engine Bulges
One of the features on the Macchis that I left out was the bulges in the lower cowl area that covered the cylinder heads.
This screenshot shows my first attempt.
The shape isn't entirely correct, but at least it is represented.
This is the C.202 Folgore. The C.205 Veltro doesn't have them yet so I may need to re-SCASM the entire aircraft again.
This is the part I hate about SCASM, but there are enough corrections I want to do that it may be the only reasonable thing:
The propeller blades seem a touch narrow and the tail gear isn't really optimal as I found out when rebuilding it for the C.202.
Recognition features may not be entirely reliable because there were a couple C.202 Folgores that had DB605 engines from C.205s installed without changing the box oil cooler of the Folgore.
- Ivan.
One of the features on the Macchis that I left out was the bulges in the lower cowl area that covered the cylinder heads.
This screenshot shows my first attempt.
The shape isn't entirely correct, but at least it is represented.
This is the C.202 Folgore. The C.205 Veltro doesn't have them yet so I may need to re-SCASM the entire aircraft again.
This is the part I hate about SCASM, but there are enough corrections I want to do that it may be the only reasonable thing:
The propeller blades seem a touch narrow and the tail gear isn't really optimal as I found out when rebuilding it for the C.202.
Recognition features may not be entirely reliable because there were a couple C.202 Folgores that had DB605 engines from C.205s installed without changing the box oil cooler of the Folgore.
- Ivan.