Project Dornier Do-17z2

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp, Smilo,

I had a little time today and with all the discussions of Dorniers and all the recent poking around for photographs, decided to go back and look at where I had gotten on my own project years ago.

I can see a few places where I had gotten the shapes wrong on my own model and those are not hard to fix.
Note that there should be a hole in the tip of the Spinner and mine does not have them.
Note that the Trailing Edge of the Wing Fillets is very incorrect on my model.
Note that the Engine Reduction Gear is shaped incorrectly: It is actually cylindrical behind the Spinner and the same diameter.
I believe the interior bracing of the Cowl is actually correct though it looks too simple.
This is because the clutter of the Pushrods makes it appear there is much more in front of the Engines.
The lower section of the Nose is not very good, but I believe I had fixed that section in another AFA assembly.

There SHOULD be an additional "Nose" or "Cockpit" Assembly that is not shown here.
I had built up a fairly substantial AFA assembly there with wider Canopy Frames as Components and started on an interior but accidentally overwrote the AFA which meant that I would have to do it all over again. That is about when I gave up and have not done a thing with it again until today.....

Your project is bringing back memories.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Smilo!
Yes, a more correct lettering seems the one from Post #14. I´ll put that one in!.
I´ve just managed to glue in the bomber/gunner next to the pilot with fewer bleeds changing the glue sequence, and textures are slowly progressing.
Soon there´ll be a beta model for you!!

Hello Ivan!
Wow, very interesting! I´ll study your post and pics with more attention to see if I can get ideas for mine!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I highly recommend you study the photographs of the real thing.
I don't believe the assembly techniques that I am using will work well for you unless you also use SCASM for final assembly.
I can't give you any advice there because this is the first time I have tried it myself and I am still trying to figure out what to do.
I see yet more errors in my work as I dig further.
It appears that the Cowl Bracing that I have on this model is not really correct either.....

The biggest problem thus far is really organization. I need to have the various sections build into different directories so that their models and moving parts don't overwrite each other. Remember that Aircraft Animator loses the animation for pieces if they are not in the current model.
One of the problems with doing the separation is that I like to easily compare left and right sides during animation and it appears that each wing and engine assembly will take more than half of the Components allowed in AF99 so the two sides probably won't share the same directory.

My guess is that your Dornier 17Z will be the only one completed any time soon.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Thanks for your comments, that I always welcome. Not an easy job by any means, this plane. The only reason it seems to be going quite quickly is that I have more time on my hands to build.

I have studied the photos, and have had to apply some degree of simplification to the unusual shapes which are present. I´m afraid that my abilities with SCASM are limited to the Virtual Cockpit, so I will not be able to provide those possible sophistications and animations. My capabilities are directly proportional to AF99´s capabities. Your forward engine nacelles are certainly spectacular, with the parts within the cowling behind the propeller!

I have some momentary interaction here and there, for example between wing-root and engine nacelles, but it´s not terrible, and all in all I find the model is turning out more pleasing than I initially feared.

At the moment I can´t provide any more pictures until I manage to match the textures properly, but it´s slowly coming, so in a few days I hope to be able to manage a beta version post! I will definitely not let Smilo down! Ha ha!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

Slow texturing progress

Hello Folks!
Slow progress with the textures.
The topmost flat part of the fuselage behind the cabin won´t allow texture points, so I have had to alter the splinter camo pattern just there. For the moment, wings, fuselage and tail are done, and I still have to adjust the engine nacelle textures.
For the moment, here´s a screenshot!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[smilo]

the texture issues must be frustrating.
that said, she looks to be coming along nicely.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Smilo,

Glad you like it! Here are some shots from the side.

At first I had dark and olive pattern on the forward nacelles behind the yellow part, but it looked somewhat overdone, so now the right nacelle is olive there and the other dark green. From photos it´s impossible to tell .

Then, some pictures of this unit show yellow spinners with forward nacelles also in yellow, and others show a camo band infront of the yellow part of the nacelle (which is a bit further aft), and spinners in yellow and camo. Then, yet others, have spinners in camo and white!

I wonder... Any preferences?

I still have to straighten out the lower rear fuselage, and round off the edges of the bomb-carrying eagle posters on the sides.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[smilo]

at first blush, yellow nacelle bands
and yellow spinners seemed a bit much.
but, i'm getting use to it.
no, i like it.
as for preferences(?)...
i'm all in favor of artist's discretion.

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Your model is looking pretty good.
The issue you are having with Top-Bottom Textures is why on the Cockpit Assembly of my model (The assembly that was overwritten), what is seen as a single Yellow Component was divided into three separate Components.
The Lower section is pretty close to what is seen here, but the upper section is divided into a Left Component and Right Component.
Those are only the Top section and are intended to be Textured Top-Bottom.
Note also the Fuselage Components near the Wing Root area: They are so short because they are also intended to be textured Top-Bottom.

One thing I noticed on your earlier models and I don't know if you fixed it yet is the top of the Fin-Rudder area.
Note that the Rudder Balance does not go all the way forward to meet the front of the Fin.
It stops short leaving a noticeable notch there.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Do-17 Beta Version

Hello Ivan,
Thanks for your points and good words. At the moment the notch in the rudder isn´t there as I was short of parts. At the moment I´m at 148.1, so I might put them in again. As fins are diamond-shaped bulkhead structures, I just might be able to get the notches back in. I´m full up on 30 components, so fins can´t be done as components.
The "neck" behind the cabin is one component, (see previous screenshots) and can´yt be split into 2 because I have no more free. Another component is the sides below the canopy, another is infront of the windscreen, and another one is for the cabin belly. I don´t think it can be simplified, but I may be mistaken.

Hello Smilo,
Thanks for the input! I think I´d agree with you that after second thoughts, yellow spinners with yellow nacelle fronts and no camo bands look better.

Well then, I´ve just been cleaning up vertices on the nacelle tops and bottoms, panelbeating warps etc., and it´s looking quite pleasing. Here´s the promised Beta Version! Ha Ha! Let´s see how the machine look and flies... As yet, only splinter-camo and no markings except for the eagle.

AFX and texture files included in case Ivan wishes to inspect.
Enjoy!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[No Dice]

Aleatorylamp.

Is it possible for you to change your text to white,
or is it just on my end...I can not read your posts.

Dave

 

[smilo]

that's strange, Dave.
are you saying that the background is dark?
are you using the CFC page style?
if so, try SOH Default.
can you post a screen shot?

 

[smilo]

thanks, Stephan..i got it.

 

[No Dice]

smilo,
I emailed a copy of what I see to you

Dave

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello NoDice,
I´m afraid it has nothing to do with my settings.
Logged in, my text is black on white, and unlogged-in, it´s white on dark-grey.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

fin notches

Hello Ivan,
I got the fin notches back in at a minor 4 parts per fin cost, and parts count is now at 149.4%.
Here are some pics, and it looks more correct. I can´t make the notches more exact for lack of parts.
It´s good you pointed it out as I´d completely forgotten that I´d simplified that quite at the beginning.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[smilo]

hello Stephan and Dave.
i just went back to earlier posts
and looked at them both in
CombatFs/CFC and SOH page styles.
for some reason, Stephan, in CombatFS/CFC,
your earlier posts are dark gray on gray
and are very hard to read,
but, now they are white on gray.
oddly, one of mine and a few of yours are a combination.
i have no idea why this is happening.
i always use SOH Default,
so, i didn't even notice.

maybe, one of the senior admins upstairs
has an answer and solution.

hmmm, i just noticed
the Reply With Quote button
isn't working either.
oh well, so it goes

 

[Ivan]

hmmm, i just noticed
the Reply With Quote button
isn't working either.
oh well, so it goes

Hello Smilo,

For once, this feature is working here.... It usually doesn't.


Hello Aleatorylamp,

I currently am unable to do anything with an AFX; My development computer simply is not working.
I was very surprised when it ran without any issues the evening that I got my screenshots.
After that, it simply has had pretty much endless problems.
The latest is a video problem in which the screen shrinks horizontally.
My best bet is to do pretty much like you did and get an XP virtual machine running on my laptop, but I have not found where to download the software yet.
It seems like many folks use it on Windows 7 or Windows 10, but not many on Windows 8.1.

Regarding the model, I am constantly amazed by the way you use Structures in your builds.
I find them to be generally unsuitable for what I want, but you manage to put them in places with minimal compromises to the shapes.
Have you thought about whether the resources consumed by the crew could be better used elsewhere?

I am still very curious as to how you handle the DP file.
I started a relevant discussion back at another (now defunct) site about how overly effective bomber guns generally were but perhaps you have already addressed the issue with your Baltimores. (I haven't had a chance to install any of them yet.)
The Dornier 17 / 215 is one of those aeroplanes that has lots of guns but not enough crew to actually man them all so there is really no good way to simulate the effect.
A couple simple turrets would have be a much more effective than all the flexible guns in my opinion.

- Ivan.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Pity about your development computer! I have a number of old towers with sundry old accellerator cards here. Too bad It´s difficult to get one to you.

However,VMPlayer is a good solution: There is a free version for private use which goes great!
http://www.vmware.com/products/playe...valuation.html
The computer itself runs VMPlayer with all 4 cores at (in my case) at between 1.6 and 3.2 Mhz, as need be, but Windows XP inside the VMPlayer only uses 1 core running at 1800 Mhz - speed enough to run AF99, AA and CFS1, including a photo editor for the textures, simultaneously.
BTW, low-end Quadcores at 4x1 Ghz are not enough to run VMPlayer, but your laptop is a super one, so there you should have no problem whatsoever! So, Virtual Machine Player works fine on Windows 8.1 for building aircraft, and also for Combat Flight Simulator 1 (in my case without Hardware Accelleration), so you would use the VMPlayer to build and test-fly or check planes.Most Windows 8.1 Machines should however be able to handle CFS1 directly with Hubbabubba´s joystick fix.

Re. Dornier Do-17:
I thought the crew was necessary!
Maybe I should only put heads in, as I need a minimum of three here, and use the resources to improve something else.

I find using structures rather fun! The more of them I use, the more components are free for more difficult things.
I thought the diamond bulkhead was good for rudders when these are on tailplane ends. I managed to get the front part more rounded by including a point right at the front, with only a parts-cost increase of 2.
Normally, for fuselage mounted fins I´d use the triangle bulkhead marked "top only".

Then, for the strangely shaped belly, the keystone bulkhead marked "bottom only" helps out nicely too, with a "top only" dome bulkhead for above, and it´s not too parts-hungry.

One thing I forgot, is that for nacelles it is really better to use a 10 sided circle instead of a 12 sided one: It not only has fewer parts, but its vertical sides are better to fit when continuing the nacelle as components on the wing. However, altering that now will be too complicated.

Anyway, with the guns, at the moment physically there are only 4, but the DP files have 6, each with 1000 rounds.
The model has 4: 2 in the nose firing forward, upwards and downwards (I still have to check the Dp files, as at the beginning I had two firing horizontally, I think). Then, 1 dorsal one firing upwards-backwards, and 1 ventral one firing downwards-backwards. The two last ones are correctly angled in the Dp files.

To make sideways-firing guns I have no components or parts left over, but in the Dp file I had placed two firing sideways, which may have to be eliminated.

The Dp editor options require strange angle numbers to fire backwards, 180 degrees , plus or minus the inclination desired!
I believe sideways firing requires + or - 90 degrees, depending on the side... not easy...

Well, now I´ll have to start making the markings for the textures. There´s no hurry for the Do-17 perusal or appraisal, as it were, so we can wait for that and the possible "corrections list" for when you have managed to get your CFS1 building/testing centre going again.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

The development computer isn't dead; It is just not working well enough to use effectively.
The timing of this discussion is actually rather amusing.
Before the kids came along, I had one of the upstairs bedrooms as a computer assembly and test area.
When that bedroom was needed for the second child, I moved everything to the basement which also offered more space for storage of spares.
THAT is the room that was flooded when the pipe joint failed.
When it was cleared out in preparation for demolition, I lost a lot of spares and even a lot of completely functional computers.
Anna Honey with my son's help did most of the clearing and neither of them knows much about what was valuable and what was not.
The reason the timing is interesting is that TODAY, there are folks in the basement who ripped out what was left of the walls and are installing insulation and drywall and eventually a tile floor in that same room. I can hear their power tools running even now....

As for spares, I have a couple extra CPUs floating around. None of them are all that powerful, but all are better than a Pentium 233 MMX.
One is actually configured as a development machine already but the problem is finding a monitor or a KVM switch. I don't think I have all my tools on the second development box. I will need both running for a month or two while I pull data off the older machine.
(I don't think I even have SCASM on the second machine!)

On the professional side, I have used VMWare before so hopefully I can figure things out. My understanding though was that it was possible to set up a virtual XP machine with just a download from Microsoft so that is the direction I will go for now.
My laptop computer isn't greatly different from yours: Core i7 4710MQ quad core running at a maximum of 3.5 GHz.

As I depend more on this laptop, I am finding that there are lots of tools I do not have here. I needed a Hex Editor for something this morning and found that I do not have one here, so time to go searching for the best one. (On the dev machines, I was using FrHed.)

Regarding Dornier 17Z:
Whether to have a crew is your decision. I wasn't planning on a crew for my own version of this aeroplane.
You do pretty well with Structures, but I don't like the choices. Since I already have decided on a SCASM project, I really don't have to use them at all. (Even my Wheels will be done as Components; Imagine a non-blocky wheel!)

In the case of the DP file, keep in mind that the upper three or four MGs on beam and aft positions are all handled by ONE gunner.
He certainly cannot fire more than one at a time (which should be simulated by the DP) and because of the limited fields of fire for each gun, he also has no great ability to track a target.
The Ventral gunner has even less ability to track because of his limited field of view AND because of the arrangement of the swivel mount has nearly zero ability to track on a crossing shot.
The two forward firing guns are both handled by the Bombardier who obviously can't be in both places and can't even man the guns during the bomb run....
All of the guns have a simple ring and bead sight which is not great for precision.

Quick summary of CFS AI Marksmanship Discussion from way back:
CFS AI gunners are incredibly accurate and by default, all the flex mounts and turrets range out to 1000 yards.
A fixed mount with a reflector sight as on a fighter only ranges to 500 yards.
I believe the flex guns should have a much shorter range because of their lack of stability and because of their very primitive sights.
I have my own ideas, but I believe this discussion is worthy of yet another thread.

For the reasons listed, I believe the CFS DP armament for this aeroplane should be only 4 guns;
One fixed forward firing and
One Aft and High with a wide field of fire and moderate range
One Aft and Low with a narrow field and short range
and One Flexible Forward with a medium field and moderate range

Let me know what you think.

- Ivan.