• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.

    Post 16 Update

    Post 17 Warning

new P-36 screenies...

Bomber_12th said:
Looking good - love the bare metal! I'm curious about the shape of the spine and rear glazing of the aircraft, however - by the first screenshot, it looks to suddenly dip downward, half-way through the rear glazing, straight to the antenna, where the angle changes again. Perhaps I am wrong, and it is just that screenshot throwing off the look.

The spine and the rear glazing 'should' feature a very subtle curving line, coming from the canopy to the tail. The rear glazing is a very sleek design in itself. Hopefully this might be something helpful to pass on to the modeler, if in fact any work needs to be done:
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm being blind, but having compared the photo you posted to the earlier screenshots, I'm not seeing a discernable difference in appearance.

Cheers,

Ken
 
I can see the difference John pointed out, but it won't be a "show stopper" for me. I would not have noticed it at all had John not pointed it out.
 
Ken Stallings said:
Perhaps I'm being blind, but having compared the photo you posted to the earlier screenshots, I'm not seeing a discernable difference in appearance.

Cheers,

Ken
Click to expand...

Your one of a rare group of people who can see through the camera's jedi mind tricks of compressed perspective. to my own eyes, the close up pic looks like the spine has a major bend in it.. thats why i know its compressed perspective, but others may only see a heavy bend, and not realize its a camera trick.. Thats a rare gift you have.. i wish i had that good of an eye..
 
I remember a time in which, if someone made the original comment I had in this thread, that I would have thought, well who cares? It surprises me now, that I have found myself on the opposite end. I could also see people question why I am going off about this plane in particular, again - it just so happens that unlike so many other product releases in recent times, that I haven't cared to look closely at, because of a lack of interest in the aircraft type, I am actually really interested in having a Hawk 75/P-36 in FSX, and to have one that looks spot-on, and fly accurately, well that would just be amazing - and the first opportunity I have had, since starting into flight sim in 2003! Casual-simmers, who come into buying the product, having not known much if anything about the plane, will not spot errors, yet they will not spot the many accuracies either - the accuracies that I have seen, and really, really like about how this product has been progressing so-far.

I unfortunately have come to look at things differently, since getting into aircraft development, even more so recently - just this morning I was adjusting vertices and remapping some areas of the wings on an on-going project that I had thought I had gotten right in this area, almost a year ago - thanks to some fresh eyes. I really appreciate the attention to detail spent on so many areas of the aircraft to get it right, and no doubt, the visuals look superb. It is extremely close, and I can understand the eagerness to get the product finished and released.
 
One thing that the real and beta shots DO show is that the scale of the pilot model is wrong. This is a particular pecadillo of mine as any number of aftermarket developers seem to think either that all pilots are stumpy dwarf gits or all airplanes are the size of a 747.

Scale of the pilot is never more important than with fighter aircraft which are designed to have minimal frontal area to go as fast as possible with whatever engine is fitted. Ergonomically, the Beta looks like the pilot is about 5` tall and with the build of a racing snake. The whole plane was only 28` feet long, but it looks about 40 if you extrapolate the pilot as the scale, and for me it destroys the illusion.

Compare:

p36-3.jpg
 
I guess the only course of action is for me to remove the pilot altogether so as to not destroy the illusion.
 
Deano said:
I guess the only course of action is for me to remove the pilot altogether so as to not destroy the illusion.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply. Yes, it would be better to remove the pilot if it's too much trouble to do it right. Better still to simply re-scale and re-size the original so that he/she is in keeping with the scale of the airplane.

Or I suppose you could rescale the entire model to suit the pilot size. Scale is a subjective issue in FS anyway.

Proportion is not, as this topic has shown.
 
yeahhh, scaling up the size of the pilot isnt too hard.. hide the planes vertices, select the pilot, aand choose linear scaling..can be done in a few minutes ( unlike the shape of the spine which could take hours).. You could also lose some vertices by chopping off the pilots legs at the knee... ::shrugs:; just ideas..

One thing is extremely true.. Dean and his team at vertigo, and I and Paul have put more time and energy into this plane than perhaps any other plane we have individually ever worked on.. I myself have spent the most of the last month working with the same five calculations, and admittedly trying to fudge them when FSX didnt do what I and paul believe the real plane should do.. If i increase the instability on yaw and pitch, it stops spinning and stalling.. If i increase the stability, it spins and stalls, but then it flies like its on rails.. FSX is being very weird, and i'm no genius.. At this very moment, i have it spining and stalling on my machine, but it flies like its on rails on Pauls machine.. Its enough to make you pull hair out. I'm sure Dean has experienced similar..

One of the main issues i've been dealing with is that, there isnt one single person alive that flew this thing, that i can find.. We have the manual ( its in french but we can translate ) but that still doesnt tell me the important stuff. Unlike other models i have made, i cannot at this time, and will not gaurantee that it flies true to the real aircraft.. It flies true to the calculations, and it meets the requirements and expectations as proscribed by the manual, but to be honest, i'll never know if i did it right, and i'll never say i did.. but, i know that all dimensional calculations are correct, that the MAC is correct, that the horizontal tail lift is correct. that the power train calculations are correct, that the roll and bank rate will be correct ( its a little fast on the roll at this moment ).. I can gaurantee that this is the most enjoyable plane to fly i have ever worked on, because after i dont know how many grueling months of living inside a calculator, and starting up FSX umpteen times a day for test flights on every single variable, i still love flying it.. The only other plane thats like that for me is the c-27, and it will be finished later this year.. Rotation can be at 80 mph without flaps. Top speed without using emergency boost is 312 mph.. cruise is at 250 mph.. landing is wobbly but can be done at 85 mph.. brakes work as expected if the tail is on the ground, but they'll flip you nose over if the tail is off the ground.. At low speeds she takes a bit of love to keep in the air and fly right, and at an incline over 60 degrees, a stall will take you for a ride you simply do not want to go on, and it will keep you there all the way to the ground..

Please understand, this plane is quite simply the very best work we've ever done. many people know my work, and Paul and i pulled out all the stops on this one and went light years beyond anything we've ever done before, and you know deans work. its impeccable. together, his team and my tam are putting together something special. it may not be perfect, none of what any of us devs ever do, is, but if it isnt perfect, it isnt because we havent tried.. :)..

And please, please keep expressing your opinions. To me, they are invaluable. the only drawback for me there is that i wont be able to get your opinions of my work till after the plane is released.. But i still want to know.. I need to know..
Love you all.. :)
Pam
 
omg.. i can see where the spine thing is happening.. Look at the image of the planes just above, with the canopy open.. it visually looks identical, to our plane if you dont look too close..
i just saw that and had to say something.. At a glance, it makes it look like the spine has a hump..
 
Snave, I tend to disagree with you about the size of the pilot (with all respect of course). When you compare the position of the top of the head and the top of the shoulders of the virtual pilot with the French pilot on the picture you posted you can see they are at the same height compared with the canopy. The main difference is in the volume. But perhaps this has to do with French cheese, French wine, French fries, etc.

Cheers,
Huub
 
Oh I agree it's a question of perception, what I am surprised at is the discussion about the shape of the roof line is a matter of debate, whereas a comment about the size of the pilot results in an asinine, snide comment from the developer instead of a discussion. Curious, but it happens.

I shall refrain from positing further on the Hawk, as it clearly isn't going to be a model for me, as I don't buy payware, no matter how good, if the scale of included characters is inappropriate as for me it shatters the illusion in any and all external viewpoints, and in my experience often proves to be an indicator of the care with which the rest of the model has been put together. The purpose of a `progressive` beta display in a forum is not only to curry interest in the eventual product but also to solicit opinion and critique from the potential customer base.

As I now exclude myself from that, there's no reason to proceed further on this matter for my benefit. But thanks for your input.:salute:
 
I have never noticed that before on the model but now you pointed it out the pilot is too small or the aircraft is too big, one of the too!
 
Pilots come in diffrent sizes.....!:icon_lol: I've seen big ones that fill the pit and I've seen small ones that need a seat booster to see over the instrument panel! It's a human thing I guess. I WANT THIS PLANE BAD! Its beautiflu!:jump::salute::icon_lol:
 
MudMarine said:
Pilots come in diffrent sizes.....!:icon_lol: I've seen big ones that fill the pit and I've seen small ones that need a seat booster to see over the instrument panel! It's a human thing I guess. I WANT THIS PLANE BAD! Its beautiflu!:jump::salute::icon_lol:
Click to expand...
i would tend to go along with that also
H
 
Everyone has different things that are regarded as critical and non-critical. For me, the size of the pilot bon-homme is not important. In fact, I wouldn't even care if there was no pilot. I spend most of my time in the cockpit. But everyone is different. I think that somewhere in this thread, Deano pointed out that there has been other threads about this plane, earlier in its development, during which input was solicited, and that now, it may be a little too far along in development for such changes. I don't mean to speak for Deano and the rest of the team, but they may release a patch for a bigger pilot in the future. For me the bend in the cockpit shape behind the canopy is more critical, but that's because we're all different, and even that is not that big a deal for me. In any case, some perspective may be in order by remembering that it isn't a real plane, but a simulated one...
 
Snave said:
As I now exclude myself from that, there's no reason to proceed further on this matter for my benefit. But thanks for your input.:salute:
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to hear that Snave, apart from the section with the French fries etc. I was quite serious! Look at the picture below. The pilot looks even smaller than the pilot in the model. I assume this looks like this because he is skinny. Nevertheless his shoulders and the top of his head is almost at the same level as the model and the picture.
The pilot in the model leans backwards while the French pilots all lean forward, which gives a different impression as well.

But like PRB already said, you are supposed to be flying an aircraft from the cockpit ;)

Cheers,
Huub

36431_4196.jpg
 
warchild said:
One of the main issues i've been dealing with is that, there isnt one single person alive that flew this thing, that i can find..
Pam
Click to expand...
Pam, Bomber's picture was of the Fighter Collection Hawk at Duxford. Don't know if it's still there or still airworthy, but if it is I guess they'd know? Or am I missing something? Wouldn't be the first time!
 
Stephen Grey, Nick Grey, and Steve Hinton are just a few names of those who have flown The Fighter Collection's Hawk 75. Not sure if they've ever published a pilot-report on flying it however, though there are means of trying to contact them for information, such as through the museums they operate - The Fighter Collection and Planes of Fame. It could very well take a while to get there however, and actually come into enough contact with them to get the answers - making the exercise of correcting the aircraft's spine and rear glazing a rather short-time task, in comparison - I'm still cursing myself for not noticing this area in earlier screenshots. In retrospect, I would have loved to have been involved with the project, but obviously I should have made a better effort to - and that is if you would have me (just as a warning, the Bearcat is another favorite of mine, perhaps even more so than the P-36). :d
 
Reading John's comments made me think about the time I was still glueing plastic aircraft kits together. Especially from popular aircrafts, every manufacturer had at least one model. I can remember Messerschmitts Bf109 in all sizes and shapes. It was amazing to see how much difference in size there was between all these kits which suppose to be on 1/72 scale......

Although they all had errors, I did built most of them, as they all had their strong points as well. I think there is not much difference with these virtual models.

I have checked and I have 7 different P-51s installed in FS9 and FSX (Sorry John not the Warbirdsim one). None of them is perfect and I can find several mistakes in all of them. Nevertheless I love them all for their strong points ;)

I think the P-36 looks stunning and is very close to the real thing. As it is definitely the best around I think this will be the P-36 to go for.

Cheers,
Huub
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top