Conspicuous by Their Absence

Hello Smilo, No Dice, Aleatorylamp.

Sorry Smilo,
No easier solution from me.

No Dice,
Your method works also, but you have to be careful that your NEW BMP file name is the same length as the ?af file name.

Aleatorylamp,
The guys are giving you advice. That is how I do the editing myself.
If you want to be REALLY cheap though, you can just rename the BMP file to a .?af extension and it will still work.
The easiest way to tell if you have BMP or R8 textures is that BMPs glow in the dark and R8 does not.
I normally fly in the Pacific and if I warp over to a European airfield, it often switches from day to night.
If it does not, then going back to the Pacific base will do it.

It is actually easier to just convert your PCX to a BMP file than to convert the ?af stuff.
If it is a Left-Right or Front-Back Texture, flip the top half left to right and then rotate the whole thing 90 degrees clockwise.
If it is a Top-Bottom Texture, just flip the bottom half left to right.
I believe that is all that needs to be done.

- Ivan.
 
Interpolating Values

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Interpolating values with a spreadsheet is pretty easy.

With the whole numbers, just set the cell value to be the same as the original stock value:
J=1.00 ---> J=1.0 value

With intermediate values, it is still pretty simple:
J=1.25 ---> J=1.2 value + (J=1.4 - J=1.2) * 0.25
J=1.50 ---> (J=1.6 - J=1.4) / 2
J=1.75 ---> J=1.6 + (J=1.8 - J=1.6) * 0.75

I cheated a bit in places because there is no value for Efficiency for J=2.4, so there can be no interpolation.
I just projected the last value as the same slope as the prior value.
Many of the goofy values needed edited anyway such as the low J values for Pitch = 15 Degrees.

- Ivan.

P.S. Keep in mind that I have only done very minimal testing and although the results look fairly good so far, nothing is definite.
 
Textures format changes

Hi Smilo, Hi No Dice,
Yes, there are tons of them! Thanks for the advice - each textured polygon has its texture reference... editing should go well with simply "search and change all" for each individual tecture.

Hi Ivan,
Thanks for your extra indications. I understand the rotation and on AF99 PCX textures vs. the .Xaf ones. I was wondering about the names of the textures - OK, so they just have to have the same length, and I´ll put in the number before the dot then. I´ll also try the cheap trick!

The thing is I need to further darken the more blueish night bomber textures for the second Giant and the colours I want are really not available in AF99 production format.

OK, then - now it´s going to be better than before!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Texture format Change

Hi Smilo, No Dice and Ivan,
The change was totally successful.
Yet another useful use of SCASM (or Hex-Editor)...
As with most things, it´s easy when you know how, and it boosts the morale!
Now I can easily give a darker hue to all textures.
Thanks again for the counselling!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
File names only have to be the same length when using a hex editor.
I believe SCASM allows anything up to the max 8.3 format.
I just use the same names as I did for the PCX.
It is a lot less confusing that way.

- Ivan.
 
renaming textures

Hi Ivan,

OK, good tip.
I just renamed the .xaf textures to .bmp directly for a first try, and I checked them out in the dark: Ha ha! They do glow... it´s a Halloween plane...

However, I can´t really use the PCX files and rename those, because I needed .bmp textures in order to darken them uniformly, which the PCX ones wouldn´t allow, as they would alter the colours completely in order to fit the changes to their palette.

Wouldn´t that glowing also happen if I used the PCX files to change those to .bmp´s and then darkened them?

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Palettes

Hello Aleatorylamp,

You will actually have the same problem with your BMP as with the PCX files.
They all need to run from a fixed palette although you can alter the colours within the palette.

I believe Hubbabubba uses Saint Paint to alter his palettes. I use GIMP.

Regarding naming: I don't think that other than being 8.3 it matters what the file names are as long as they are R8 or BMP format.
Once I had a working solution, I didn't bother experimenting much.

- Ivan.
 
Flight Testing the Hien

The service ceiling seems to have gotten considerably higher at 36,490 feet.
Some of the behaviour didn't seem quite right on the climb though; Airspeed seemed too high.

- Ivan.
 
Pallettes

Hi Ivan,
Renaming went OK, so what names to give the bitmaps is no issue - it´s just the glow.

A sinister ghost Giant! - it was a really funny sight when I parked it on the Heliport in N.Y. at night to test for night textures! (I thought of testing the FS98 Sceneries in CFS1 as well - I was surprised they all work!!)

Well, the limited fixed pallette was actually why I thought of using another texture format. Perhaps I´ll have to find another work-around. Does the glow happen with all textures with ".bmp" extensions? Perhaps it would need bitmaps with more than 256 colours, one step up from that?

As regards performance issues on the second Giant, I was also getting ceiling issues apart from excessive climbing power after altering the torque and friction graphs, so I´ll conduct some more tests with the old friction parameters and not alter the torque so much, and fiddle around some more with the propeller tables before bothering you again, although I will accept your kind offer for testing if I arrive at another dead-end. Thanks!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
2nd Giant´s performance corrected

Hi Ivan Hi all!
After lowering the exorbitant friction and torque parameters again, everything has started falling into place, and the Maybach engines are performing very close to specification. Compared to the Mercedes ones, as expected, they give +3 mph, +30 RoC and +2000 ft ceiling, and also have increased range (2 extra inboard tanks).

I have also been able to correct the textures glowing in the dark - copying the darkened BMP´s back onto the PCX´s, this time, the limited palette has accepted the darker colours with hardly any changes, so the manouever has been very successful indeed!
After some minor adjustments on the engines, I´ll be uploading the machine.

Thanks again to all for such fine support and help!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 

Attachments

  • Maybach Giant 1.jpg
    Maybach Giant 1.jpg
    69.5 KB · Views: 0
  • Maybach Giant 2.jpg
    Maybach Giant 2.jpg
    54.4 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Philosophy

In trying to refine a flight model to my own satisfaction and edit the visual models because of very slight inaccuracies, one has to wonder which is better?

To build a very very small number (perhaps only one) really superb aeroplane or
To build a few very good aeroplanes or
To build many more pretty good aeroplanes that are each much better than what is currently available?
Most of the audience cannot tell the difference in any case.

Opinions?

- Ivan.
 
Philosophy: Lots of good stuff!

Hi Ivan,
As many good and interesting aeroplanes as possible!! Ha ha!

The best of both worlds! Well, seriously now, as the question is about an opinion, and I don´t want to impose my opinion on anyone, here goes my opinion:

I suppose the crux of the matter is really one´s own enjoyment while working on or re-working a given model to get it right, and then to share the model. Often that depends on the model itself, how accurately one can get it within the limitations of display conditioins and/or Flight Dynamics. In my case, I always include as many animated parts as I can, which may cause more imperfections than without them, and with experience and suggestions from others, this continually gets better. There is a good saying in Spain: "He who works, has the right to make mistakes.". Maybe I should learn FSDS, Gmax, or AD2k2... but I like AF99... but that could be an interesting discussion topic for another day!

Mistakes hopefully cause feedback, thus making room for improvement. Without the initial mistake, there would be no improvement, and most probably there would have been be no initial product. So, how far is fear of making mistakes or fear of inaccuracy any use? Perhaps it only acts as a deterrant to upload an otherwise nice model.

Sometimes the question arises, whether unavoidable compromises render a model unfit for uploading or not... Very subjective! It depends on one´s own appreciation of how forgiving or unforgiving the "audience" could be, and I include bugs here too. I imagine most people realize that nobody will consciously and carelessly upload a defective model, so I like to think they understand a modeller who has put his foot in it. A bug fix may easily puts it right, and if there is no fix, maybe it is better to have the model with bug than to have no model...

I am not justifying mediocrity, which a totally different thing: Mediocrity is only the bad result of an "I don´t care" attitude, cutting corners and sparing efforts.

So, the ideal situation could be: All in good fun, with a margin of tolerance for mistakes and bug fixes, and a huge number of fantastic aeroplanes!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Mediocrity versus Mistakes

Hello Aleatorylamp,

The topic I was bringing up wasn't really abut mistakes. The silly thing is that even when folks actually see a mistake, seldom does anyone comment.
In fact, the amount of feedback I have received over the years from people that I did not already know has been pretty minimal. The total number is probably around 5 or 6 and that includes you.

I was thinking more of doing a LOT of research that is not even visible in the completed model.
The Messerschmitt 109E I recently rebuilt is a pretty good example.
The overall dimensions were pretty far off in the original AFX and yet I don't believe anyone noticed.
I fixed what I thought were the biggest issues, but didn't feel like fixing everything I saw.

The P-40E rebuild is another case. The corrections I recently did were quite extensive and yet the overall appearance did not significantly change.

I rebuilt the P-40E because I wanted the most accurate model I knew how to build and am still not done yet.
My tendency is to fix everything I know how to fix regardless of how long it takes.
This experimental Ki-61 has been sitting in the workshop and paint booth since around 2006 and still hasn't seen its first release.

What do others think about "Good Enough"? I have seen others push out a new project about every two weeks.
The quality wasn't really there, but each project was an aeroplane that didn't exist before and they were generally comparable to the stock aeroplanes.

- Ivan.
 
How good is a good model?

Hi Ivan,
I understand perfectly that you weren´t referring to mistakes, it was only my own idea added to the concept of accuracy and inaccuracies, and as an answer to your question about extended research and consequent higher accuracy, I had commented "that depends on the model itself, how accurately one can get it within the limitations of display conditioins and/or Flight Dynamics.".

With regards to feedback not being very frequent, I put it down to shyness perhaps. Thank heavens there is a very small percentage of people who do, so this is what helps us develop.

In general, I love fixing and repairing things myself, as it gives physical items a longer life. With FS models, if the source files are reasonably accurate, a repair job can be quite enjoyable as it saves the initial basic work. As regards accuracy here, I go for a general degree of accuracy myself - mostly 100% is impossible because of contradictory information and diagrams on the old models I tend to go for. Here often old photos are more accurate than someone´s drawings, and it´s a nice mental 3D exercise to "get it as right as possible" from this kind of material!

When the information is available though, it is nice to be exact, for one´s own pleasure more than anything else. If it does get too tedious, however, there is a limit to my pacience/frustration, and then I go for a practical degree of accuracy - the visual model must look correct, and the flight model must behave within reasonable limits.

My concept of "good enough" probably differs from others´ "good enough". Personally, I would say that Stock Models were good enough for 1999, but not now. Upto last year, I normally used to take 3 or 4 months to produce an FS98 model, but now it takes anything from 3-4 weeks just to upgrade the visual model for CFS1 and even longer to make a CFS1 .air file. When that is done, then for me it is "good enough". I would say the minimum for me, for a decent upload is my self-criticsism criteria of 8.5 out of 10 on difficult models, that after a lot of work, I cannot improve any further.

What I hate is something that has obviously been slapped together by "pushing" parts from other models into position, and only generally fixing dimensions, and coming out with a new model, where many shapes are noticeably incorrect on the visual model. I can accept adaptations when the result looks like it´s supposed to, even though the exact measurements, if one were to investigate the source files, were not totally exact.

Well, now I have to help in the kitchen...
More later,
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Second 1918 Zeppelin Staaken Giant

Hi all!
After checking everything I hope it´s all ship-shape and the upload is OK.
Here´s the upload link to the second Zeppelin Staaken R.VI Giant:

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...id=19&id=19601

This is one of 3 night-bomber version license built by Albatros Flugzeugwerke. The darkened textures were a bit too gloomy so they are now a little lighter than I had them a few days back, but they are darker than the ones on the previous Schütte-Lanz built model.

Because of the central tailfin/rudder on this model, as well as the horn-balanced ailerons, this time there is no mechanic sitting in one of the engine nacelles, but the propeller-blurs look nicer (similar to Ivan´s!) and the machine-guns are better shaped, the front one being more accurate than the rear one. The shape was just outside the 150% parts count so I had to simplify it a tiny bit!

The model is at 149.5% parts with the virtual cockpit inserted separately using SCASM, view corrected, so basically it´s a 151.4 % parts model. The more powerful Maybach engines noticeably provide more power at altitude than the mercedes engines, although they were slightly slower lower down. They had "oversized" cylinders as well as quite a lot more compression.
Interesting, how technology was developing at that time!
The Checklists give detailed flight plans for the different bomb loads, as well as instructions for flying.

I hope you all enjoy the model. Tell me if you find any glitches of bugs.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot1.jpg
    Screenshot1.jpg
    67 KB · Views: 0
Zeppelin Staaken R6 firing speed

Hi all,
I did forget something after all. There´s always one thing, isn´t there?.. Nothing is perfect in this life, and modellers even less so!
In the Dp files, the machine-gun (and cannons here, to differentiate the forward firing one from the rear) firing speed should be at 0.08 and not 0.13 and 0.25.
Ivan had already pointed it out, but I hadn´t understood it correctly as I mistakenly took the 745 m/s bullet-speed for the firing-speed of about 700 rounds/min... I never noticed the help text at the bottom of the screen... Live and learn. Ever so sorry! This applies to the first uploaded Giant too.
Perhaps simmers will be able to correct the entry in the Dp files on their aircraft. Do forgive me!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Pensuti Triplane, 1918

Hi again, everybody!

I was wondering if there´s any interest for a model of the following invention, something along the lines of A.A. Porokhovschikov´s sesquiplane, I suppose, but even more quaint, to put it mildly:

Qualifying as the smallest wartime man-carrying aircraft, we have the Pensuti Triplane with its wingspan of only 13 ft, and an all-up weight of 507 lb including pilot and 2 USG fuel for an hour´s flight. A few saw active service until 1918, in short-range reconnaisance missions for ground-troops. Powered by a 3-cyl, 35 hp Anzani radial, it flew at 59 mph and took off in only 65 ft!

It was built by Caproni in 1918 and designed by their chief test pilot Emilio Pensuti, who unfortunately died heroically before he could see the results of his invention. The purpose behind his design was to do in the air "what bicycle does for the man on the road". It was categorised post-World War I as a small sporting aeroplane, and was reputedly easy to fly.

Would anyone like a CFS1 AF99 model of it?
I could even try my hand at doing a tutorial on a separate thread if there´s any interest...

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 

Attachments

  • pensuti1.jpg
    pensuti1.jpg
    28.2 KB · Views: 0
Quaity of models

Hi all!

I was just re-reading recent posts between myself and Ivan regarding modelling quality.

Just to make sure that I haven´t offended anyone with my comment on Stock Models having been good enough for 1999 but not for nowadays, I would like to add that my reasoning behind this comment exclusively relates to the processing speed of computers nowadays, that allows (even with AF99) more complicated models than was possible at that time.

Frame rates don´t go down anymore on a 150% parts count as happened on slower computers back then, and this often required models to be shaped with simpler cross-sections and to have less detail.

It was by no means a reflection on the quality of the modelling work, which is by any standards clean and excellent. Anyway, there are also some aspects on Stock Models like the propeller blur, that are better than what can be achieved with AF99 even on modern computers.

I thought I´d clarify this just in case.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
it's interesting that you're concerned
about derogatory comments made
about the original cfs models.
i don't think i would be overstepping
if i said, everyone agrees with you.

i have even taken to replacing the originals
with models that i think are of better quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top