Frosted Canopy Glass

GearyMcS

GearyMcS

Charter Member 2011
Hi all,

It's been a number of years since I spent any real time in CFS1. I still have all my old CFS1 addons, payware and freeware. Loved the game when it was new, but always had a particular dislike for one thing in most of the beautiful planes I aquired... the frosted glass look of the canopy from the external view. Many of the planes I aquired didn't have the frosted glass. Most of the older ones did.

Anyone figure out a way to get rid of the frosted glass look of the older planes. Would love to fly them again, but still have a problem with that damn frosted glass look.

Thanks for any help you can give.
 
Hmmm... What planes are they? Where can I get them? I'll take a look.
 
If you could post a screen capture, it would certainly help, GearyMcS. Even better; two screen capture - one with and one without that "frosted glass look".:mixedsmi:
 
Thanks guys, but think I remember why so many planes for CFS1 have frosted glass... it's so you can't see inside because there's no pilot. I'm used to newer flight sims that all have pilots.

I still have many of the original Abacus and Just Flight (The Associates) addons like, The Battle for Midway, Pacific Theater, Combat Pilots, Pacific Combat Pilots, Pearl Harbor, Tuskegee Fighters and Wings Over China. These loaded tons of planes into my installs and most look quite dated now. Maybe I should download a few newer ones and give them a try.

Any suggestions for newer planes?
 
Around Christmas, I'm going to upload around 20 German, Russian, and Finnish aircraft for my Continuation War Multiplayer group if you're interested.
 
New aircraft.

~S~ GearyMcS,

I was in the other Airborne Units. Never made it to the 101st or the 173rd, but I will write to you anyway.

There are thousands of new aircraft and even mote paint jobs out there. Many are right here at the Outhouse. Just go to Yahoo (my preference) and type in "CFS downloads p-51 or aircraft or planes or scenery or panels or anything else and you will find it.

With CFS you can go from WWI to Iraqi to the moon or to Star-wars and beyond. But, if you do not fly multi-player you are missing out on all of the fun. We, the AAC (Allied Air Corps are flying with the ACP (Ace Carrier Pilots) tonight 7:30 pm EST and tomorrow 12:30 pm EST. I also fly with the 45th-peacemakers on Tuesday and Thursday 7:00 pm CST. There are other games and times, but those are the best I have found.

Tonight it is Frankydog Night and it will be at 7:30 am Sunday in Australia. He will be joined by a second Australian named Windie. I hope to see more Australians in the near future.

If you would like help with anything, please post it.

Johnny:cost1:
 
I believe the "Frosted Glass Thingy" is caused by the opacity of the canopy. (Redundant Statement, right?) No, it is because the polygons of the canopy are facing OUT. If you change all the transparent canopy polygons to face in, you get a clear view of the pilot but the places where there is only glass will still have a slightly frosty shade. I believe you can only do it with SCASM if you are building with AF99.

- Ivan.
 
winslow33,

Thanks for the invite. Let you know closer to Christmas on the multplayer thing. I still can't get my rig on CFS2 multiplayer. I need to work out the bugs. I saw your post on 'work on 67th,' great stuff, doesn't look like the old CFS I remember. Going through my old CFS stuff now and redoing some of my installs. Your planes look great.

Johnny,

Sorry you never made it to the best Airborne unit in the Army..:d ( it's not technically an airborne unit anymore, no paratroopers, though it still keeps the airborne tab. It's an Air Assault division now.) But I work at Fort Bragg now that I'm retired from active duty and I see maroon berets left and right. Always good to meet a flying grunt. :ernae:

Ivan,

When you talk SCASM and AF99 you're talking way above my head. I had been wondering if there was a way to 'clear up' the glass, but don't think it's worth it in most of my old planes. Maybe I'll just change the ac in the old missions and campaigns to newer ac and have a go at it, again. Looks like many new improvements since I was here last.

Thanks for the chat and suggestions, all.


Geary
 
Ivan,
well, there you go again, tormenting the troops with another of your fantastic creations.
have you noticed that I haven't mentioned the B 25 in quite a while?
I've pretty much given up on seeing it released to the public. pity, she's a beauty and I am sure that the boys would love to fly her in a combat mission or two. oh well, so it goes.
I think what GearyMcS is referring to is shown in the picture below. basically, you can't see through the glass from the outside. in this example, the author painted the pilot on the window.
 
Hi Smilo,

I think you are right about the Frosted Canopy thing. I really should read a bit more carefully before posting. My version of the frosted canopy is something that bothers me a little sometimes, but I am too lazy to go in with SCASM and fix things.

Regarding B-25, Thanks for the compliments and don't hesitate to remind me once in a while. I have so many projects going concurrently that stuff often drops off the radar. Up until a week or two ago, I was working on AIR files and flight testing almost exclusively. That little texturing example in Hubbabubba's thread now has me going back to work on visual models. I just had a look at the B-25C this morning. I bought a book recently that has some pretty good dimensional drawings and I am disappointed that my model isn't really that close in some places. Here are a couple recent screenshots so that others can see the project we are discussing.

- Ivan.
 
Right now, Ivan, I'm picturing smilo drooling in his beard:icon_lol:...

Looking at the pictures, I wonder how much the Americans engineers would admit that the He 111 inspired them.
 
yup, she's still the Class of the Field.
I would so much love to see,
maybe, 10 of them flying together,
over the Channel in Multi-Player.
that would be a site for sore eyes.
 
Hello Hubbabubba, Smilo, et al.

What makes you think the He-111 inspired the B-25? The two don't seem to share much in configuration other than being medium sized twins. The wings are different and in different locations. The tails are different. The landing gear is different. I don't find all that much that is similar...

Don't worry Smilo, I will be working a bit on the B-25C at least for a while. The AIR file still needs some minor reworking as does the DP file. Hubbabubba, I believe this plane will get a bit of a SCASM treatment in the engines. I really like 3D cowls and ran out of resources on this plane.

BTW, did you know that the nose gear of the B-25 does not retract straight back? It actually retracts back and to the starboard side. The port side of the nose has a tunnel for the bombardier to get into the nose.

- Ivan.
 
It must be in the eye of the beholder...:kilroy:

Looking at the front view of your B-25, I was struck by the resemblance. The B-25 looks like a He 111 gone tricycle. Wings are swept back, but this too account for a tricycle configuration; you need more weight in the nose to get a stable a/c rolling on the ground.

If I was going to make a He 111 a tricycle, the double rudder configuration would be a good solution to landing-take-off attitude.

As I was saying, this is all in the eye of the beholder.

P.S.-Went to Wikipedia and, what do you know, the B-25 was derived from the experimental XB-21; A tail dragger with a single rudder tail and wings much more forward! Go see a picture HERE .
 
Hi Hubbabubba,

While I agree the configuration is the same, I wonder somewhat whether ancestry or inspiration can be attributed. There are zillions of medium sized twins. The B-23, B-18, B-26 all come to mind. I believe the B-25 was a fairly original design with just the basics. I chose the B-25C (MitchellC as I call it) to model because it was probably the fastest of the bunch. BTW, I based my model on some drawings from a Russian site. The dimensions are slightly incorrect as a result, but I don't think anyone will notice. (The flap chord is about 6 inches too short, and anhedral is too severe.) I now have good schematics with labeled dimensions, but it is too late.

Also, why does a twin rudder setup help the take-off attitude? I see it as assuring low speed rudder control because each rudder is in a propeller's slipstream. I don't see why a rudder would make a difference for a tail dragger to a tricycle gear.

- Ivan.
 
OK here...

Lets "rewind" a bit.

Looking at the pictures, I wonder how much the Americans engineers would admit that the He 111 inspired them.
Click to expand...

I never, explicitly or implicitly, said that the B-25 was an He 111 offspring.

That said, the B-25 was being designed as the Spanish Civil War was being fought. Every military experts, war theoreticians, and certainly aircraft engineers as well, could not help but notice that the He 111 was making quite an impression.

When I look at the frontal view of your model, I can't help but notice the large "greenhouse" nose, the pilot post on top, the mid-fuselage wings. The B-17, developed before the Spanish Civil War, had much less see-through surfaces, at least in its first versions.

As for the double-rudder being more suited for tricycle a/c, it is simply a question of lifting surfaces available to maintain the tail up at low speed. The intersecting rudder-vertical surfaces, stiffening the tips like the corner of a cardboard box, at the wingtips permits wider span and longer chord from tail to tip. Try to imagine the same vertical surface without twin rudders and you will probably understand. The B-24 followed the same pattern BTW. Go compare the tail surfaces of the latter with a B-17 tail.

Was the B-25 an original project? No more and no less than any aircraft preceding and following it. Even the Wright's brothers would admit that they took some of their ideas from birds and insects... or so I would be inclined to think:kilroy:.
 
Hi Hubbabubba,

As I see it, the specification of Army Air Corps proposal 38-385 calling for twin-engne attack bombers was really the inspiration for the B-25 (and the B-26 for that matter).

Regarding twin-tails and tricycle gears, I still don't see the connection. The A-20 (which will be a future project) has a single tail and a tricycle gear. The Me 110 has a twin tail but is a tail dragger. As I see it, a twin tail gives better rudder authority, but is penalised by extra drag over the single tail.

As for the B-24 being a good example, there is also the Lancaster and Halifax which are contrary examples.

I am not sure what the advantage is of being able to lift the tail at low speeds. I also don't believe that the twin tails help that effect much. All that is really required is enough elevator authority to stall the aircraft at a low speed to flare at landing and that effect is required whether it is a tail dragger or has a nose gear.

- Ivan.
 
This will be my final comments on an argument that bites its own tail.

Regarding twin-tails and tricycle gears, I still don't see the connection.
Click to expand...
Neighter do I. You're the one who was pointing out that, and I cite;
What makes you think the He-111 inspired the B-25? The two don't seem to share much in configuration other than being medium sized twins. The wings are different and in different locations. The tails are different. (...)
Click to expand...

I only offered my reasoning as an hypothesis for a twin rudders configuration for the B-25 tail. This doesn't mean that I equate twin rudders to tricycle and simple rudder to taildraggers. Another good example that didn't made your list was the twin-rudders-taildragger Donier Do 217.

As I see it, the specification of Army Air Corps proposal 38-385 calling for twin-engine attack bombers was really the inspiration for the B-25 (and the B-26 for that matter).
Click to expand...
Which was issued in March 1938, at the height of He 111 activity in Spain, activity that started in April 1937 with the experimental terror bombing of Guernica with incendiaries by He 111 and Do 17 preceded by Ju 52 carrying conventional bombs.

So lets agree on the principle that we tend to disagree and leave it at that.:ernae:
 
Hi Hubbabubba,

For two people who disagree or find something to argue about on nearly every subject, we sure do stay on friendly terms! This must be yet another of those cases in which we simply didn't understand each other at one point or another. I don't disagree with your conclusions though....

BTW, did you know that two of the three entries for 38-385 ended up as smoking holes in the ground?

:costumes: Just hate it whennat happens!

Best wishes to you!
- Ivan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top