Junkers Ju-52/3m

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Yes, very interesting indeed!

I was trying to figure out a way of separating the two views, but couldn´t decypher it.

Anyway,
a) to "Move the MODEL's Interior Cockpit View to behind the obnoxious Bulkhead." has a problem: I did that, but behind the cockpit bulkhead there is a horizontal opaque division that shows up between the upper dome-cross-sectioned roof structure and lower square-cross-sectioned fuselage structure. I didn´t have enough components free to use.

b) To activate a different VC point with the Spoiler: I´ll investigate the SCASM code for a Spoiler conditional to have two different Virtual Cockpit views. One normal VC (spoiler off) and one Gunner VC position (spoiler on).

However, I´ll also analyse the other options you mention more carefully, and see what I can do.

Perhaps you mean the dorsal gunner when you mention the gunner behind the bulkhead. He´s on outside the roof anyway, so that point of view shouldnt´need any bulkhead modification.

The Cockpit gunner is above the cockpit, infront of the bulkhead, so the parts don´t bleed either.

At the moment these three points of view don´t pose any bleed problems, but none of them offer a view below the fuselage. For that you´d need to be inside the fuselage, transparent and without the opaque division I mentioned above. Also, you´d see pieces of wing+engines, tail and nose.
The question is: Do we want that?

There are two blueprints attached to this post, showing the 4 gunner positions:
Cockpit Gun on the cockpit, Dorsal Gun on the roof, and 2 Waist Guns on the fuselage sides behind trailing edge level.

This is on the model I called "Gunship", although there were 12 special units modified by "Weser Flugzeugbau", specifically converted into convoy escorts - real "Gunships" - with another 2 extra fuselage guns and a ventral one (re-instating the "stew pot" on the earlier g3e auxiliary bomber below the fuselage). The extra armament was not made standard for weight reasons.

The Night Flier model as the one recovered from the Norwegian Lake lacks the waist guns. Although there was provision for them, they didn´t have them mounted, so the unit on display in the Norwegian Museum doesn´t have them.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[smilo]

well, Stephan, it would appear we're moving
in the right direction and yes, it's very interesting.

i would venture to say,
being a bomber pilot/gunner/bombardier in cfs
could be the epitome of multi tasking.
especially, if one is to hit the mission target
and survive the mission itself...no small task.

i come back to a past comment about bleeds
if the bulkhead is removed, or something like that.
in my opinion, if a gunner is looking at bleeds
instead of attacking enemy aircraft...he's dead.
in other words, i, for one, can live with a few bleeds.

when thinking about point of view(s),
i would also remind you,
not to forget about the bombardier.
he requires a centered and unobstructed forward view.

and on that happy note,
i'm off to do some homeboy chores.

 

[Ivan]

Bleeds

Hello Aleatorylamp, Smilo,

I am lazy.... I know the proper way of doing things, but do not want to spend the time on just one model which is why I do things a certain way. There is a certain group of features that *I* need for suspension of disbelief and that may not be the same as yours.
The same thing was true with plastic models which is why most of mine never got a camouflage paint job.
I like the shape of aeroplanes and most of that shape is on the outside or shell of the model.

Now you might be wondering why I started with that discussion.
In my opinion, a properly built model for CFS really requires two separate models. One is viewed from outside and one is viewed from inside.
I know this, but since I am lazy, I just redisplay the pieces that have bleeds. It isn't really the best way of doing things, but it gets perhaps 95% or even 98% of the effect with perhaps 10% more work. This is what I have been doing all along.

The situation you are running into is actually something that would affect the P-38 Lightning Projects I was working on, the Mitchell, and even the BV 141B.
Yes, I have released the BV 141B already, but I chose a compromise for he cockpit display. I left out the Aft Wall of the Cockpit entirely.
(Didn't I say I was Lazy?)

So a useful summary of this suggestion would be that you certainly can do things the way I described but you might need to build avisual model for the interior to make things work optimally.
I have actually already thought about this subject before this discussion came about, but am always drawn to the greater interest of building a new pretty model than going back for the drudgery of improving a old one.

Hope this helps.
- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Smilo, Hello Ivan.
Well, I agree that we are moving in the correct direction, only that I don´t exactly
understand what it is you are suggesting as being the next step. So, where do we
go from here?

The forward cockpit gunner with his head above the cockpit has an even better view
forwards and forward-down, and sideways and backwards than the pilot, who has the
instrument panel and centre engine in front of him, and the cockpit bulkhead behind.

Then, the rear or dorsal gunner has the rest of the plane and wings obstructing large
parts of the forward-down and some lateral-down-forward views, but would have the
best upper, rear, lateral and most lateral-down views.

Both gunners have a 180-degree swivelling firing circle horizontally.

So, respecting the well-shaped external model, and the virtual cockpit from the raised
front gunner´s position viewpoint, this could be the normal VC view, (as installed on the
most recent WIP model attached to post #197), and additionally, the spoiler-activated
extra VC view could be the rear gunner´s dorsal position view. I´d only have to figure
out how to SCASM-code the Spoiler instruction.

Neither of the two views would involve bits and pieces visible and others invisible, or bleeds.
The only thing would be that there wouldn´t be a ventral gunner´s view.

How about that?

Update:
Then, the bombardier view only needs a separate instrument panel bitmap in the
downward-looking map view option, which is as unobstructed as you want because
no model parts interfere there. The grey filled in sides around the viewing circle with
the scale, could be made transparent. But that won´t let the chase-view work
simultaneously, would it?

Further note:
If we are just worried about the rear bulkhead obstructing the view of the enemy,
and don´t mind restly visible elements like wings, tail, nose, etc., then the perfect
solution is just to use the AF99 model´s CFS1 un-SCASMed VC, that offers a transparent
fuselage, useful for shooting at the enemy with TG2 in Padlocked Chase View.

The problem is that I´m afraid I don´t really understand what the suggested visual
model to be used for the internal Virtual Cockpit View should look like, or what
elements it should show.

Sorry to be such a bother!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[smilo]

Stephan and Kwong, i find the past few posts very interesting.
unfortunately, i'm currently involved in a home project
and am unable to multi task...where have i heard that word before?
anyway, i'm on a roll with the home project
and don't want to set it aside for now.
i might forget where i'm at.
old age has it's drawbacks.

anyway, i'll try to reply as soon as i am able.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Smilo, Hello Ivan,
OK, Smilo! As it is, there´s more to life than just warplane building anyway!
Good luck with the home project, thumbs up definitely!!

After the progressively more successful ventures using Dp gun definitions
and changing on-board viewpoints, thanks to suggestions and hints to this
respect from both of you, the main thing is clear:

TG2 works perfectly with swivelling guns if the enemy can be seen enough
to be fired at.

Two minor improvements to perhaps counteract the disadvantage of a
slow-moving auxiliary bomber, could be to improve the hit probability value
to 8 instead of 12 or 14, and also, the firing angle can be made steeper,
without being totally unrealistic, of course.

The only thing yet to determine, is exactly what the Padlocked Chase view
should show. ...or rather views, if we use an added one with the Spoiler Key,
so there´s not really much more to decide.

I´ll be trying out different things in the mean time anyway!

Update:
A normal cockpit-crew view without the aft bulkhead, or alternatively a view
from just aft of the bulkhead (it´s only visible from the front), gives an acceptable
view aft.
However, lateral-down views are blocked by wings, and if lower, also by undercarriage.
Then, the forward view is blocked by the dashboard, and by the fwd engine if lowered.
The view-point would have to be really low to be useful, e.g. between the wheels.
That´s why they had the "Stew Pot" there in the g3e!!
That view could then toggle with an upper-gunner view.
The enemy has a predilection to come from below-rear though, nasty buggers!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Regarding the differentiation between the normal Virtual Cockpit View and
the Padlocked Chase View Virtual Cockpit View, I´m afraid I haven´t been
able to keep them apart. At best, both views appear simultaneously...

I found a convenient "battle station" view point for the Padlocked chase view,
behind the cockpit aft bulkhead a bit below the engine, that gives convenient
views all round, especially from below-aft and sideways.

; Pilot´s view point inside cockpit: 221 -780 -1313
; Fore Gunner´s view point outside above: 0 -1300 -1170
; Inside fuselage behind bulkhead, under roof dome, below engine: 0 100 -700
;
:MAINIVC
Transformcall( :MAINSTR 0 100 -700
0.00000 00 0.00000 00 0.00000 00 )
Transformcall( :COCKPIT 0 100 -700
0.00000 00 0.00000 00 0.00000 00 )
Return
:COCKPIT
CALL ( :L0056D4 ); Dashboard +
CALL ( :L0026D8 ); Cabin main floor +
CALL32 ( :L0068AE ); Co-pilot body +
CALL32 ( :L008EEC ); Co-pilot´s turning head
CALL ( :L006106); Cabin Back
Return

;*** Start of Main Aircraft Code ***

etc...

This would be the code at the moment, and the question is where the normal
not-padlocked-chase-view VC code is in the listing.

I wonder if you could help?
Thanks in advance!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Well, for the moment I´ve managed two battle station view points for the padlocked chase view.
One from the cockpit gunner´s view above the cockpit, and another extra one from behind the cockpit bulkhead, a bit below so as not to have the front view blocked too much by the engine, and sideways, to see through the wing.
Front, aft and side screenshots for both attached below.

What I haven´t been able to put in yet is a Free Flight Mode normal Pilot´s Virtual Cockpit view.

For now, I´m afraid, to me it looks like the same point of view has to be used for the normal Virtual Cockpit view as well as for the Padlocked Chase View.

:MAINIVC
; Pilot´s view point: 221 -780 -1313
; :1STVIEW = Fore Gunner´s view point: 0 -1300 -1170
; :INSVIEW = Inside fuselage, behind bulkhead, under roof dome, below engine: 0 100 -700
;
IfVarRange( :2NDVIEW 7C -5 4096 )
; Skips to :2NDVIEW if Spoilers/Dive Brakes (0 = up; 32767 = Down) not in Range -5 to 4096
; The following displays with Spoilers OFF
; ---------------------------------------
:1STVIEW
Transformcall( :MAINSTR 0 -1300 -1170
0.00000 00 0.00000 00 0.00000 00 )
Transformcall( :COCKPIT 0 -1300 -1170
0.00000 00 0.00000 00 0.00000 00 )
Return
:COCKPIT
CALL ( :L0056D4 ); Dashboard +
CALL ( :L0026D8 ); Cabin main floor +
CALL32 ( :L0068AE ); Co-pilot body +
CALL32 ( :L008EEC ); Co-pilot´s turning head
CALL ( :L006106); Cabin Back
Return
; ***** Dummy Jump *****
dwx( 00D 8000 )
Return
:2NDVIEW
IfVarRange( :INSVIEW 7C -5 4096 )
; Skips to :INSVIEW if Spoilers/Dive Brakes (0 = up; 32767 = Down) not in Range -5 to 4096
Jump ( :MAINSTR )
; The following displays with Spoilers ON
; ---------------------------------------
:INSVIEW
Transformcall( :MAINSTR 0 100 -700
0.00000 00 0.00000 00 0.00000 00 )
Transformcall( :COKKPIT 0 100 -700
0.00000 00 0.00000 00 0.00000 00 )
Return
:COKKPIT
CALL ( :L0056D4 ); Dashboard +
CALL ( :L0026D8 ); Cabin main floor +
CALL32 ( :L0068AE ); Co-pilot body +
CALL32 ( :L008EEC ); Co-pilot´s turning head
CALL ( :L006106); Cabin Back
Return
;*** Start of Main Aircraft Code ***
:MAINSTR

Well... so far, so good!
At least this allows to make the enemy get a good beating!
They do try and ram you, dont´they?
By the way, the AI P-38 lightning seems almost invicible!
Thanks for your time!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Visuals

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I see you understood what I was intending!
SCASM is fun, isn't it?

I think you already implemented what I was describing.
I would actually need to download and install your Tante Ju to see what you are seeing and I haven't done that yet.
In fact, I do not know where all the gun positions actually are.

In the case of Tante Ju and this may not work for other aeroplanes, perhaps you can hook yet another variable in for alternate purposes.
Think about it a bit......

You have used the Spoiler Control to adjust one view because Tante Ju doesn't actually have Spoilers.
What else does a Ju 52 not have????

How about hooking in the Landing Gear controls????
This would work for the Ju 52, but not for aeroplanes with an actual retractable landing gear.
Of course you would have to alter the AIR file a bit, but that should not affect anything.
You already have the basic code for using Spoilers which I presume actually works so it should not be difficult.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan!
Thanks!
Yes, SCASM is VERY much fun!

It took me a few tries to discover that only the AF99 Spoiler Retracted Instruction was of any use, because the Speed Below Animations in AA eliminate the effect of the Spoiler Extended instruction, in the same way as it happens with Flaps.

OK! Good idea with the retractable landing Gear Conditional that this plane doesn´t use!

The actual Landing Gear will remain fixed if untagged as Gear Up or Down, so that won´t be affected, but in the .air file, I have some air resistance on the Gear, that would then have to be added to Zero Lift Drag - I hope it won´t mess up the propellers...

I expect that in the same way that on an AF99 model, the Lights On and Strobes On instructions won´t work for anything else than Lights and Strobes, SCASM won´t be able to do anything with them for the View Points.

So: I´ll look into the Gear Down instruction now, or perhaps it will be the Gear Up one - we shall see!

The thing now is to decypher how to thread in this extra conditional into the SCASM listing, so that it makes sense together with the two existing conditions.

Thank you for your counsel, comments and suggestions!
At least, the "Gunship" is more fun to use this way - it now stands a chance against the enemy!
More later!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

Done! 3 Virtual Cockpit views Available.

Hello Ivan,
I´ve just done it!
It works! SCASM is fun indeed!

Now there is a Pilot´s Virtual Cockpit view as default on the ground, in Freeflight mode,
and also when the gear is lowered in Quick Combat Mode in Padlocked Chase View.

The other two "Battlestation" Padlocked Chase Views are selectable with the Spoiler key
only when the Gear is up.

Thus, in Quick Compbat mode, you get to start with the Upper Gunner´s Padlocked
Chase View, and can select the "less obstructed" view with the Spòiler key, and then,
just for the sake of form, by lowering the Gear you get the normal Pilot´s Virtual Cockpit view.

I mean, we can´t fly without a pilot, can we?

Nice...
Thanks again for your indications!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

Three VC views for Ju52 with guns - new WIP

Hello Folks,
To toggle between the usual Pilot´s Virtual Cockpit view and the two extra "Battle"
views, use the "G" Key. The normal VC appears with the lowered landing gear.

With Up landing gear, the cockpit gunner´s view appears, and then you can toggle
between that and the other "Battle-station" view (for downwards views) with
the Spoiler Key.

The .air file adjustments as regards the transfer of the Gear Drag to Zero Lift Drag
did not affect the propeller or engine performance, and the Cockpit Gunner´s view
looking down into the cockpit, is now corrected: You see the pilot, not the co-pilot.

The plane can be operated quite conveniently, and is definitely defendable!
As I´m sure Smilo will be interested in trying it out as soon as he has time,
here it is, attached to this post.

Here are also two downward-view screenshots.

Now I´ll put in the extra VC views into the armed transport night-flier.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[smilo]

i had every intention to come in and saying,
just keep the forward gunner vc view.
the fuselage blocking the lower aft view
is just a ju52 design flaw.
don't worry about it.
it's just the way it is...right?

well, i just spent an hour
test driving the new 3xvc Ju52 gunship.
granted, i'm not a very good shot,
but, boy, that was fun.

who'd a thought multi vc views were possible?
great idea, Kwong and well done, Stephan
for putting it together.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Smilo,
OK, thanks. Glad you like it! It´s fun how it works with TG2, isn´t it?
It makes it a usable airplane!

This is really thanks to Ivan for having prodded me on to use SCASM to
this purpose. It is really incredible!

The AF99 + SCASM is really quite a good Tandem, or, if you include
Aircraft Animator, it´s a Triad!

...and, I got the 3 views into the camo night-flier too!

The next thing to do is establish if the firing power is enough, i.e.
the hit probability, which on some stock models is 1 in 14, and on
others 1 in 8 or 1 in 4.

I put in 1 in 4, but we could use 1 in 2 as well.... Then, firing range
and speed is as per the book for each type of gun.

Gotta rush. More later!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Smilo, Aleatorylamp,

I had actually been thinking of the changing VC point of view for quite some time.
The problem is that with my own projects, there isn't really a good way to fit them in because just about everything uses Spoilers and Retractable Landing Gear.
Think about it.... I have two Dive Bombers in the works: SBD-3 Dauntless, and Ju 87B Stuka and they need their Dive Brakes.
I suppose Landing Gear would work for Ju 87B but the problem is that I really don't like the default view being from the Gunner's position because most of the time, I fly them in Free Flight.
I cheated a bit with the BV 141B by just leaving out the Aft Wall of the Cockpit and without that bulkhead, the all around view is already pretty good.

FWIW, I don't even have TG2 installed on any of the machines. Neither CFS machine is really stable at the moment.
I suppose I should install TG2 at some point for testing........
....But before that, I should probably finish the Ki 61 that has been sitting around forever.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
That´s one advantage I have with my old crates!

I could even put in more VC views for the different machineguns
on the Gotha Grossflugzeug and the Staaken Riesenflugzeug...
they use neither Spoilers nor Retractable Landing Gear.

The Dornier 17 and the Martin Baltimore don´t use Spoilers, so
these could also be candidates for an extra VC view. Combined with
TG2, they´d stand a much better chance in combat.

Anyway, to your post:
I remember you once said you were not a great fan of using nav-lights.
Save the resources for something else! ...and if needed, use luminiscent
red, green or white paint on the textures so lights could be made in that
way were needed.

So... Hmmmmm... Do you get my line of thought?
You DO have one possibility for an extra VC view for the Dauntless and
the Stuka.

What I said about lights not being useful for toggling something is not
entirely true. It only applies to strobe lights, that make anything tagged
with that appear and disappear the same way as a strobe light.

But a normal nav-light works! Something tagged with the condition:

IfVarAnd( :L001A68 76 0001 )
; *** Nav Lights Control Variable ***

will appear when you press the "L" key, and disappear again when you
press the "L" key again.

How about that?

I used to use the "L" key on my models to make pilots appear or disappear.
That way a pilot could park his plane on the tarmac, get out and have a
coffee or go home and sleep.

BTW: About your Ki61 - Your recent work in this plane has given great results,
and it is looking great, so I can only encourage you to continue!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I was also thinking along the same lines, but have a few things going on and no fully functional development computer at the moment.
I also wasn't actually sure that Navigation Lights were implemented in Combat Flight Simulator and haven't tried to test to confirm.
Are you sure that Nav Lights work in CFS? I actually don't remember commenting about liking or not liking to use Navigation Lights.
Thanks for listing the code to check.

Regarding displaying Nav Lights, the way that I do textures now is entirely with BMP files and they already glow in the dark, so I don't believe there is a distinction between night lighting and normal textures. It isn't hard to test, but I need to get a reliable development computer first.
There ARE a few things I am comfortable with doing at the moment so perhaps I should resolve those first.

You seem to have no issue pushing a project to completion. I am finding I am getting distracted quite a bit from completing ANY projects.
It seems like there is always something more interesting to do than to push a project to the release stage.
I had actually been thinking of starting yet another CFS project aeroplane.

Regarding the Ki 61: Its texturing was done in a rather odd fashion (via a spreadsheet), so at some point I want to get that procedure expanded a bit so that it is much easier to use. I actually found some texturing "errors" via use of the spreadsheet and I would never have known about them otherwise. That procedure requires way too much user interaction at the moment so if I can make a program work properly, I could easily finish painting a Spitfire IX and a Macchi 205 that have been sitting in the Paint Shop for the last few years.

Recently I found that my calculations for German ATA Manifold Pressure and Japanese Boost Pressure were slightly incorrect. The numbers are not different enough to notice, but I had to go back and revise my calculations which affects some of the AIR files I was working on.... and of course also affects the gauges. (The Gauge effects are so slight that they are very difficult to notice which is why they didn't compare badly against the stock gauges.....
In any case, now that I know better, I want to do some corrections to the gauges I have already written.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Yes, definitely! The AF99 "lights on" option in the "Special Effects (display Conditions)"
menu works well in CFS1. Apart from turning on lights, you can make anything appear
and disappear. Just for fun you could have a biplane and turn it into a monoplane with
the "L" key, and using this conditional with SCASM is probably be even more useful.

As regards creations with small inaccuracies that are so small they go almost or completely
unnoticed, I suppose it would depend on the person who´s creating them.

Sometimes it simply takes too long to be 100% exact, AND one has to take into account
inaccuracies caused by the limitations of the tools we use, so there is always a practical
balance to strike.

Obviously, quirky hardware can be very off-putting, as it takes a lot of the fun away. I do
hope you can get a reliable machine soon!

Anyway, the next step for the two remaining armed Tante Ju´s, is to finish the altitude vs
speed scale on the bomb aimer´s panel. I can´t use the B-17 scale, because of Tante Ju´s
slower speeds and lower altitudes, but it´s coming along.

Once I finish it the bomb aimer´s panel, the planes will be ready for upload.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

Alternative Bomber Panel Idea

[h=2]Alternative Bomber Panel Idea[/h]

Hello Smilo, Hello Ivan,

I was wondering: Instead of having a complete separate bomb aimer´s panel,
perhaps it would be practical to have this position in the main panel on the right.

This position is at the moment the navigator/communications position, which could
now be placed into a separate, new nav/com instrument panel.

So, for the bomb aimer´s panel, a new window would be obtained from the menu
"Views - New Window - Map New", and mouse-shaped and fitted to get the red
cross in the middle of the central bomb symbol.

Just by enlargening it a bit and moving it into position, the top right corner of the
new window can then be moved to adapt the size so that it fits exactly.

The bomb aimer´s scale shows two altitudes which can be used - 1600 ft and 3300 ft
( 500 m and 1000 m), at 30-minute power, full throttle non-WEP speed, 154-157 Kt
(285-290 Kph or 177-180 mph) depending on which altitude you choose.

For this purpose, the default ft altitude/ kt speed reading in red text at the top of
the screen would be enabled, as the airspeed indicator in kph is a bit small.

Two screenshots show the release and impact moments, aiming for the bottom of
the white square on the map view.

The question is, would this kind of bomb aimer´s panel be more practical?
...or maybe it´s too ugly to have on a main panel - specially if you´re not going
to bomb anything and haven´t installed the Map View from the New Window option,
so you are left with just a black square hole in the panel...

What do you think?

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp​

 

[aleatorylamp]

Normal Bomb Aimer´s Panel

Hello again, Gentlemen,
This would be the normal bomb aimer´s panel for the two bombing heights
at full throttle, no-WEP speed. Actual speeds for the 830 Hp Tante Ju would
in such a case be 152-153 Kt for 1600 ft, and 155-156 Kt 3300 ft.

Update: Now I´ve written in the speeds on the scale, next to the altitudes,
to make it more useful. Then, the 725 Hp night-flier speeds come down by
about 16 Kt (18 mph or 29 kph), so it gets a different altitude/speed scale,
with cross-hairs for the same heights placed correspondingly lower.

This panel is probably visually better and probably easier to use. It only
requires a mouse-drag on the lower map-border border to stretch it down
so that the centre crosshairs are inside the bomb symbol in the middle.

Probably this option would be better. Which would you prefer?
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp