New P3 Orion

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,
Of course, no problem - no hurry anyway. But it is already looking rather good!
I still haven´t got enough time or peace and quiet make any progress. Workwise either it only drizzles, and never rains, it pours!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Thanks for the comment.

My main concern at the moment is really about the total Parts Count.
I believe I am still too close to limit to have room for anything else.
Of course this can be solved by using SCASM, but for this project, I would consider that to be cheating.

This is the Outboard Nacelle with a few more of the accessories added.
Note that it doesn't have the Propellers yet or any Glue and is already up to 126 Parts in these screenshots.....
....and I haven't even started on the Landing Gear and Flaps yet. That is why I believe it still needs to be simplified a bit.

I did some minor re-shaping of the Top Scoop and the area between the Top Scoop and the Engine but the general appearance hasn't been significantly altered. Some things really could not be seen until it was flipped around a bit inside the simulator because AF99 views are too limited.

Note that I will most likely be using simple textures for the opening on the Bottom Scoop to save on resources.

- Ivan.

 

[Blood_Hawk23]

There is no way you guys could make this in Gmax and export it for CFS is there?

Its a shame you're limited.

Though I guess that is why you both are still building in AF99. For the challenge.

Still, Awesome work.

 

[Ivan]

Hello Blood Hawk,

Any of the stuff we build for Combat Flight Simulator will work on Combat Flight Simulator 2 as well though it won't come close to the graphics of a native model.

You see the screenshots and they are kind of cool looking, but if you actually were flipping the model around in CFS2, you might be disappointed at the lack of detail. Imagine if you were working with a 1200 Polygon limit. The practical limit is more like 1175.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello, Bloodhawk:
With AF99 models, I don´t know how the graphic quality appears in CFS2 because I don´t have the programme, and I wouldn´t know if animations work there, at least basic ones: props/flaps/ undercarriage. If one were to import the model into FS2004, it is shown without any of the animated parts, not even basic ones (contrary to FS2002 where all work), so there´s really no point, but I don´t know about CFS2.

Hello Ivan:
So the CFS2 question for you is: Regarding your comment on graphics quality of AF99 models in CFS2, do they show their basic animations?
The outboard P3 nacelle looks impresive. If the 126 parts include the spinner, which in my case is split into fore and aft sections to prevent blade-bleedthrough, then that gets it down to 102, so with the others being at 86, and in my case the average being 96, it would just about fit into my spare parts count! I know it´s still work in progress and will be so for some time, (no hurry!), but it looks very promising!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Blood_Hawk23]

I was actually thinking of Gmax Models for CFS1. I don't think they go backwards. Its a shame.

Wow, only 1200 polys. Thats not alot. The t-34/85s I just made had almost half that. Actually the main LOD has 605. 1604 for all four LODs. 218 for the lowest LOD.

Its very impresive what you both are able to do with those restrictions.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Bloodhawk,

I see, it was meant the other way around. Sorry!
I remember doing the Gmax, FSDS and AD2k2 tutorials - all for FS2004, as AF99 was made obsolete for Flight simulators from then on. It never occurred to me to see if it would work the other way around. As it was, unfortunately I didn´t enjoy them very much. I even repeated all the tutorials after one or two years, to force myself to up-date, but the same thing happened, so I´m afraid I gave them a miss.

In my case, with AF99, I don´t think it´s exactly the challenge, although it is definitely nice to get something done well within the limitations of AF99 (thank you for your good words!). I´d be more inclined to simply admit it and say I don´t use the other programmes because they are too complicated for me!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[smilo]

it is my understanding,
that models constructed
with the newer programs,
ie, gmax, are not compatible with cfs1,
leaving, af99, fsds, scasm and ad2k
as the only programs for building cfs1 models.
of course, this does not apply to scenery objects
which is another thread.

if i might interject my opinion...
for most flight simmers,
game immersion, specifically,
model detail became the priority.
consequently, most, myself included,
moved away from the early sims like cfs1.
the problem was framerate loss
caused by the more complex models.
since i couldn't afford a more powerful computer,
i came back to the less resource intensive cfs1.

with the new programs, model builders
and developers left cfs1 en mass.
to put it bluntly, building a cfs1 model
is a pain in the ass.
be it the limited resources of af99
or the big one, z buffering,
it is next to impossible to build
a high quality cfs model
that doesn't bleed like a stuck pig.

fortunately, for those of us still interested,
there are a couple builders
who have taken the af99 modeling hobby
to undreamed of levels of excellence.

i may not fly cfs1 anymore, but,
i do enjoy keeping tabs on the progress
of whatever project these masters
may be struggling with at the time.
thank you gentlemen,
for your patience and craftsmanship.

 

[Ivan]

Hello All,

I am glad Smilo joined the discussion. We were just about to bring him up in discussion anyway!

Of the packages mentioned, only AF99 and AD2000 are really suitable for designing an entire aeroplane without additional tools in my opinion. Yes, I do a fair amount of tweaking of the AF99 model with SCASM, but although SCASM has more ability, it is too cumbersome to build an entire project without some kind of 3D design package.

FSDS actually doesn't work for CFS1 either. I actually bought that before I started using AF99. Herve Devred and Smilo both have done a pretty good job of proving that AD2000 is capable of building superb aeroplanes. I actually have it installed on the laptop I am using at the moment though I have done nothing yet in terms of design.

The polygon count is much increased with AD2000 over AF99, but I do not believe the textures are any better so the models will still be limited in that way.

Blood Hawk,
You're correct. One of the reasons I keep using AF99 is that it is a challenge to build something nice looking within very very strict limitations. I have written enough programs to do certain tasks that it is not as painful to use as it once was. The part I do not like about AF99 is that it often forces a non-intuitive way of designing. As Smilo pointed out so eloquently, it is pretty hard to build without accidentally putting a knife through the pig and I still try with each project that it CAN be done.... mostly....

- Ivan.

 

[Ivan]

Update on my version of the Orion:

Last night I built up a single Propeller Blade and the machine shop made lots of copies of that blade along with the Spinner that was done earlier.

What is in the screenshots is now just shy of 750 Parts.
I believe the Cowling and Engine assembly is due for another weight reduction evaluation soon.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Smilo, Bloodhawk, Ivan, hello all,

Very interesting and varied comments. My own rather reduced technical knowledge on the different programmes and their (in)compatibilities has also been enhanced. Thank you very much!

It is interesting to see how different aspects of flightsimming in general and CFS1 in particular appeal to different people, and it is very pleasing to see how despite the limitations of both CFS1 and AF99, this interest, together with intriguing work-arounds and tweaking tricks to reduce the limitations, adds some spice and does indeed encourage and motivate those who strive to get a nice new model out for CFS1!
Thanks to all the work Ivan does, it keeps me going too!

As a sideline now I am converting one or two of the CFS1 models I made so that they work in FS98 to upload them on another page I used to upload my models to, as there is still some interest there as well! Not as much as here in SOH, but it´s there.

Today I got a message from one who would like a few modern airliners for FS98. I was surprised that someone was encouraging me to continue for FS98 too! I´d had no feedback there for 8 years, other than my friend who textures my FS98 models. So it makes one feel useful. Unfortunately I don´t like making modern airliners because thay all look very much alike. But anyway, it was encouraging and unexpected. Maybe I´ll make a stretched or shortened version of my Dreamliner for them some day!
At the moment this texturing friend and I are just finishing an update on an FS5 Starfighter for FS98, with a new model for the 2-seater, ...and fighting bleeds, as always...

Thankfully this activity of ours is very enjoyable in itself, and also thankfully, CFS1 and AF99 still work if installed on the correct computers! So we can consider ourselves quite lucky!

Using all kinds of tricks to achieve something really cool with what we work with, is indeed great!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

750/4=187.5

Hello Ivan,
750 parts I´d have thought was still enough for the four nacelles plus the landing gear struts and flaps... unless you have other things in mind, of course.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[smilo]

wow...
my name used in the same sentence as Herve Devred.
i'm honored, but, let's get real.
i've only built one model
and it took well over a year.

i think it's clear that i'm a big fan of ad2k.
or, more accurately, was a big fan.
i haven't opened the program
for quite some time now.
i won't waste time here w
ith my many and varied reasons.

regarding the ad2k polygon count,
as i recall, i was unable to find the limit
and believe me, i pushed the envelope.
at the time, details seemed limitless.
although, i didn't have the time
to look into potential framerate issues.

it's true, textures are limited, but,
i believe that is due to cfs1
only accepting 256 x 256 bitmaps.
anything larger like 512 x 512
will cause the model to freeze
or not even show in the game.

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Post a screenshot of the Starfighter (F-104, right?) It is one of my favourites of the "modern" fighters. The F-4E Phantom, and F-8 Crusader are a couple others. I actually have debated on building a Phantom but... it's a jet and CFS doesn't handle guided missiles.
I don't know a thing about airliners other than having flown on a lot of them in the past. With modern airport security, I don't like to travel by air any more.

750 Parts are used in the model in the screenshots. That means there are at MOST 450 Parts left and the practical number is probably a bit less than that.
Also, there needs to be a lot more Glue Parts that are not in the Cowls, Spinners, or Propellers.
Flaps should take about 24 Parts if I do the inboard sections also, so there probably won't be any inboard Flaps at all.
Landing Gear Struts and Doors should also take a few of the scarce Parts and the inboard Nacelle will be more complicated than the outboard.
It WILL be very tight!


Hello Smilo,

I have taken much longer than a year to build a few of my projects. It is really a matter of how much time you really devote to it and how many other things intrude. Herve Devred's B-17 is a definite frame rate killer. I uninstalled it for that reason.
You may have built just one model thus far, but there are some folks who build a couple dozen models and none are very good.
Yours is superb!
I may come to bother you for help if I ever get started with AD2000.

- Ivan.

 

[smilo]

thank you, Ivan, for the high compliment.
coming from a master, such as yourself,
the compliment is high, indeed.

to be brutally honest,
i don't know if i would be any help
if you decided to pick up ad2k.
i've been away from it for quite a while
and with my old man memory loss,
i would be starting over from scratch.

looking back on it now,
i sure wish i would have completed
the a-20 and a couple other ad2k projects
that got set aside for whatever it was i forgot.

at this point, my main concern
is getting out and about
and taking in the sights
while i'm still able to move this body.
true, i may still be relatively healthy,
but, who knows how long that will last.
my friends at our fiftieth reunion and i
are starting to think and talk about AOD.
this may sound morbid, but, at my age,
the average age of death is rapidly approaching.
by my calculations, i have 14 years,
give or take a few years.
that doesn't leave much time
to sit on my ass building a model.
i'd rather go check out some museums,
archaeological sites and stuff like that
while i can still walk and see the things
i was never able to see when i was busy
working on being a responsible family man.

ooops, sorry about that...
smilo goes off on another
of his famous thread hijacking tangents.
that should teach you to think about
bringing me up in the discussion.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Smilo,

Hmmmm, I do wish you the best of luck. I wouldn´t worry too much about AOD - it´s law of nature. Who´d want to live forever anyway - too decrepid and possibly boring. The best is to be forever young, like in the beautifully haunting song by Alphaville. Maybe viewed from a larger scope our existence(s) is(are) indeed such, and I believe there´s interesting things beyond the threshold, so I don´t really care if I´m on the way out or not.

What is definitely true, and I absolutely second your opinion, is that one has to do as much of what one really wants at this age. Otherwise, what would be the whole point anyway?

I´m 64 and my memory fails badly if I have too many things to think about, and then there´s also a "plumbing issue" that is being attended to, which however seems not to be very serious and whose prospects seem to be very good, thanks to an Ecuatorian Palmtree Flower extract called BIRM, which appears to be boosting the immune system tremendously, and will most probably eliminate the necessity for any radical approach. Few know about this liquid and I´m led to believe that it is very successful. It´s easily Googled. Obviously it is constantly being discredited and under attack for obvious reasons.
Anyway, I´ll have to wait and see what happens in the next few months. I thought it would be good to mention this liquid, because at this age, the machine fails progressively, in different places for different people, like a lottery, the art being how to skive the bad parts. At any rate, someone else may benefit from this info.

This is all way off topic, isn´t it? The P3 Orion also seems to have its phylosophical facet, (whatever that may mean!) so it´s as good a place as any to talk about these things!

So that´s just by the by. Your Ad2K feat is definitely impressive, and I may get into it one day.
For the moment, however, I´m still too addicted to AF99!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

450, not 750 -- Ooops!

Hello Ivan,
I understood this the wrong way around too! I see what you mean, it does seem to be cutting things a bit short. I´d prefer to have flaps in only two 2D parts myself, so have more for elsewhere, but that´s just my opinion.

I´m ging to try this weekend to get the top-view template of the nacelles shape right, and fit the 3 wing-parts correspondingly. Hopefully I can post a screenshot soon.

The Starfighter (guided missile, ha ha!) certainly seems to have been one heck of a remarkable thing - it´s more like an Atmospheric Spaceship or Rocket than a plane! For the moment here´s 2 screenshots of the TF104-G in NASA and Luftwaffe livery textured by Udo Entenmann. There´s also a beautiful metallic-and-orange USAF one, but I can´t find the picture at the moment.
BTW - what are these guys doing around lake Chelan anyway? It´s almost finished, and I´ll ask Udo if we can post it in the aircraft index here. Bleeds are a bit tough though, but well within the limit.

Update: I found the picture of the USAF one, it´s not orange and metallic, just metallic.
Incidentally, the TF104G two-seater model is a conversion of the single-seater FS98 upgrade I did of the FS5 Original RF104G by Michael Gurezka, just for the record...

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I see your Starfighter with the Tip Tanks, but I don't see any guided missiles (Sidewinders) mounted.
The Starfighter seemed to be entirely unsuccessful in combat. Its kill-loss ratio in Vietnam was on the losing side.
It surprised me a bit as well.
Its competition as a fighter for Europe was a rather beautiful aeroplane that never got the credit it deserved: The Grumman F11F Tiger.

For guided missiles, I was really referring to armament. Such is not implemented in CFS, so it would be almost purely a guns fight.

Regarding the Orion:
I added a test set of Cowl Components last night and put in the Glue for the Cowl / Intake / Propeller / Spinner.
THAT was a revelation. There are 8 Glue Parts for each Nacelle thus far and it is still far from complete.
I also realised that my Inner and Outer Cowls will have to be different Components. They will share a lot of the same Parts, but the Component itself will have to be different.

These Cowl Components in the model are just place holders.
They have no been built properly and are not really mirrored because of issues with mirrored and Opposite pieces in the Assembly sequence that I first discovered with the P-38 Lightning project.

Total Parts Count in the screenshots is 991 with 17 Components used.
I figure it needs at least another 8 Components.
With the Remaining Components, I will probably rebuild some of the Wheels which would save about 10 Parts per Wheel.
There are several rebuild options but some end up to be quite complicated and don't recover quite as many Parts.

Even with all the missing pieces, I believe this aeroplane already has "The Look" I was trying to achieve.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

I thought you were being funny by just calling the fighter jets "guided missiles" but OK, yes, I see. They are missing in CFS1 and Rockets aren´t enough for that.

I didn´t put in any missiles for the Starfighter for FS98 - no point really - and I forget if there were too many bleeds with the tip tanks or something... On the two-seater, the upload after the single seaters had wrong nose-wheel doors - the ones of the single-seater - and this has led to the present new improvement. Are you sure there´s interest for the model here?

I never got into fighter jets that much, and only "met" the little plastic ones that came with Cornflakes 55 years ago, and heard the sonic boom of the Lockheed Thunderjets in the Peruvian Airforce.

I had a look and saw the Grumman F11F you mentioned - yes, a sleek, strong looking design with good stance.

The F4E Phantom also looks like it has a "no-nonsense" look about it. I remember upgrading a similar-looking FS5 Douglas TA-4K Skyhawk for FS98 too. Your F8 Crusader is a bit reminiscent of the Corsair II - I just looked it up and saw in effect it was developed from it! Yes, they had nice designs!

Your Orion is definitely getting "The Look!" The one-piece wing is an asset, and I hope it works out well, because it allows 4 extra components for other important parts! Your description of the existing and following nacelle building processes is intriguing. As it´s turning out, it looks like the nacelles are one of the main things that gives the design its charisma.
I´m grabbing the arm rests on my chair watching the progress!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I was really never THAT interested in the missile armed fighters except when I was very young.
WW2 and the era of Gun Fighters was much more appealing.
I built my share of plastic models. In fact a couple days ago, I managed to break a Propeller Blade from a FW 190A I built when I was in my teens.
I hope I can repair it without it showing much. This model has been through a lot and it was the model I used to build my eyeball scale FW 190A for CFS.
It survived a lot of years without damage and lots of travel and finally gets the propeller broken by falling papers from a shelf.
It was not a great kit; it was a MPC issue of an old Airfix kit, but it had the look if not the detail.

I finally tried my assembly idea of the Orion on a single piece Wing. It did not work anywhere near as well as I had hoped, but it was worth the try.
Next comes the task of cutting the Wing into several pieces on each side. It won't actually take any more Components, but will cost another 20 Parts per side.
It will also make the Glue for Flaps much more complicated.

The Merlin Warhawk also wants some more attention. I think I end up working on which ever project is most fun and this part of the Orion will not be much fun.

- Ivan.