Switchblade408
Members +
Has anyone thought of making a Vought YA-7F for FSX and/or P3D? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_YA-7F
-
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
Vought YA-7F "Strikefighter" for FSX?
- Thread starter Switchblade408
- Start date
Go for it! Jump in, get it on.
Do not...
plead ignorance, or 'no skills', no time, or other cop-outs. Every single contributor is self taught. Loads of info, how to's, assistance... Load's of free tools- just look at what Robert is doing with Blender. I work with sketchup, also free.
So, jump in. But 'pleasepleaseplease' and 'gentle suggestions' or other grovelling will likely be met with silence, or this, or derision.
It's not hard. Hell, even I can chum out a minimally acceptable model or two, and me are dum. And drunk. Usually pretty high, with rank body hair and halitosis...
What're you waiting for?
Do not...
plead ignorance, or 'no skills', no time, or other cop-outs. Every single contributor is self taught. Loads of info, how to's, assistance... Load's of free tools- just look at what Robert is doing with Blender. I work with sketchup, also free.
So, jump in. But 'pleasepleaseplease' and 'gentle suggestions' or other grovelling will likely be met with silence, or this, or derision.
It's not hard. Hell, even I can chum out a minimally acceptable model or two, and me are dum. And drunk. Usually pretty high, with rank body hair and halitosis...
What're you waiting for?
Switchblade408
Members +
I'll give it my best, sir! I was just curious if anyone had beaten me to it. I'm starting out on Blender, so I am still pretty green. Haven't made anything of note yet.
Josh Patterson
SOH-CM-2023
Switchblade, I'd just like to add for examples that Milton has an excellent series of tutorials on using gmax on YouTube. If doing an entire aircraft is a daunting task, try simply a repaint. (This is the route I have chosen to get my feet wet.) 000Rick000 turned me on to MrTurbine777 on YouTube for using PhotoshopCC for doing a Milviz F-100 texture that I want. Once you get the "AH-HA" moment and things start to click one can start to muddle forward and make some progress, but like Rick told me you have to know how to work the programs. It is overwhelming but just remember everyone here was in the same spot at one point and look what has come from them, especially when teaming up a-la the recent B-26!
fallenphoenix1986
SOH-CM-2022
I might be the odd ball here but its the painting side off aircraft development that I find more daunting. I've started a good few projects over the years and the 3D side has always been fairly smooth, trying to get something looking good however... yeah not so much.
On the Subject of the YA-7F.. a real strange fruit... start with an F-8, downgrade and adapt the basic configuration from a supersonic fighter to a subsonic striker... let a couple of decades slide past then try and turn it back into a quasi-F-8
Josh Patterson
SOH-CM-2023
Yeah, probably like algebra and geometry. People have one or the other come easier, but usually not both. (I got A's in geometry, a first in a math class but took two years to get through algebra!) I just have trouble getting shapes to mesh in gmax (and I want to do just a simple blow-tube early Soviet jet!) and that's not counting the VC or panel or gauges yet. I'm a long way off! I think I myself I will have better luck making pretty colors once I get Photoshop figured out. (And Rick said I've started with one of the trickier paint kits, lucky me!) I did read the WIKI article on the YA-7F and yeah, odd bird. What would have been easier, upgrade the A-7 or just redo the wing and hang some bomb racks on the Crusader? Either way you go I think it would be like taking a Ford Taurus and turning it into a Ferrari or starting with a Ferrari and turning it into a pickup truck! The F-16 was probably the best choice. (Although too bad the F-16XL wasn't produced, I've seen photos of some pretty impressive bomb loads on it!)I might be the odd ball here but its the painting side off aircraft development that I find more daunting. I've started a good few projects over the years and the 3D side has always been fairly smooth, trying to get something looking good however... yeah not so much.
On the Subject of the YA-7F.. a real strange fruit... start with an F-8, downgrade and adapt the basic configuration from a supersonic fighter to a subsonic striker... let a couple of decades slide past then try and turn it back into a quasi-F-8
Bjoern
worst developer ever
Developing, just like everything else, is a matter of patience, persistence, resourcefulness, curiosity and self-reliance.
I only had Cs and Ds (and worse) in maths and physics in high school, but finished my Bachelor's and Master's in mechanical engineering with straight B's. Not because I studied hard or suddenly discovered hidden talents during one of the many parties, but because of practice, practice and more practice.
Same with developing for MSFS. I didn't know crap about anything at the beginning, but I got better step by step and now it's not a matter of "How can this be done?" but "When will I have the time to do it?".
Anybody can do it.
P.S:
The blabber about gifts and talents is pure and utter BS.
Read a few books about exceptional efforts by humans if you don't believe me. None of the people involved in any subject were Superman and all learned their trades the hard way.
I only had Cs and Ds (and worse) in maths and physics in high school, but finished my Bachelor's and Master's in mechanical engineering with straight B's. Not because I studied hard or suddenly discovered hidden talents during one of the many parties, but because of practice, practice and more practice.
Same with developing for MSFS. I didn't know crap about anything at the beginning, but I got better step by step and now it's not a matter of "How can this be done?" but "When will I have the time to do it?".
Anybody can do it.
P.S:
The blabber about gifts and talents is pure and utter BS.
Read a few books about exceptional efforts by humans if you don't believe me. None of the people involved in any subject were Superman and all learned their trades the hard way.
fallenphoenix1986
SOH-CM-2022
That makes two of us. C and D for math/physics respectively in Highschool, 2:1 B.Eng (Hons) Mechanical...
Sundog
SOH-CM-2025
Actually, the YA-7F was the best aircraft for the job, it had better attack systems than the F-16 and could carry more payload farther than the F-16; But the USAF was intent on not buying anything but F-16's to drive the per unit cost of the F-16 down. That's why there weren't any F-20's either. Which is ironic, when you consider the USAF didn't originally want the LWF (Light Weight Fighter). But, I also understand their perspective, in driving down costs by concentrating on one aircraft instead of the best aircraft for the job. It also makes the whole maintenance/supply chain much simpler and saves money overall.
Whereas, I look at the Indian Air Force, and think what a cluster...mess. They have a few of many different types, which is about the most cost inefficient way to operate an air force. The UAE is doing the same thing, but they have money to burn, both figuratively and actually.
As for modeling, my biggest problem is finding the time, with all of the other projects I have going on. I'll get back to it one day. Most of the planes I model will be designs that were never built (These are all the cool designs that helped inspire me to become an aeronautical engineer), although, there is a DC-5 on my list, as I have always liked that plane and have been collecting a good amount of research on it.
As noted above, check out Milton's YouTube videos if anyone decides to jump in and join the fsdeveloper forum.
Whereas, I look at the Indian Air Force, and think what a cluster...mess. They have a few of many different types, which is about the most cost inefficient way to operate an air force. The UAE is doing the same thing, but they have money to burn, both figuratively and actually.
As for modeling, my biggest problem is finding the time, with all of the other projects I have going on. I'll get back to it one day. Most of the planes I model will be designs that were never built (These are all the cool designs that helped inspire me to become an aeronautical engineer), although, there is a DC-5 on my list, as I have always liked that plane and have been collecting a good amount of research on it.
As noted above, check out Milton's YouTube videos if anyone decides to jump in and join the fsdeveloper forum.
Last edited:
Mach3DS
Charter Member
Yup that's how I started. I wanted metallic Liveries for my aircraft. I had no clue how to use Photoshop. I got sick if asking for others to do it and getting told sorry I don't have that aircraft, or the end result want to my liking... So I decided to try it myself! No secret to it. I read the SDK section on texturing and model materials properties over and over again and consult it still. Then I watched MrTurbine777 YouTube videos. Lastly, I consulted a mentor. Gman5250. Very important to have a mentor. He held me through some practical vs. theory application questions and how to s in the real world if doing particular things with a desired outcome. Then just hard work... That it. No secret.
Switchblade408
Members +
Thanks to all! I'll keep all this in mind, as I venture into the world of 3d modeling.
Josh Patterson
SOH-CM-2023
And on that note thank YOU Rick for pointing me in the right direction. MrTurbine's videos are quite informative and funny as well!
Bjoern
worst developer ever
Ah yes, 2:1. Had to deal with while translating my CV for the international job market. I can never get to grips with the grading systems outside central Europe and the US. Wish there was an ISO for that.
Don't forget the F-15E, which covers the long range strike mission.
Sundog
SOH-CM-2025
The F-15E came about as a result of the original ATF program studies (Which I'm currently writing a book about), before it morphed into the ATF program that became the F-22.
This is a relatively brief and quick explanation; During the late 60's and early 70's, the USAF began looking at the advanced SAM threat and how to counter it. The two main avenues considered to counteract this problem were speed, in the form of supercruise (sustained supersonic speed on dry thrust) and low observable techniques (Stealth). The stealth side went deep black (See Have Blue and other studies of the time period) and a new strike fighter program was started that was known as the Advanced Tactical Fighter in the late 60's to replace the F-4, F-105, and F-111 in the long range strike role. It didn't get funding, but design studies were finally funded in the mid 70's. These are the designs my book is concentrating on.
However, in the late 70's, U.S. spy satellites took pictures of some new types at Ramenskoye (Now Zhukovsky) airbase. They were code named Ram-L, Ram-K, and Ram-M. They were the prototypes of what would become the Su-25, Su-27, and MiG-29. As a result, the ATF program morphed into a fighter replacement for the F-15 to counter the new threats. As a result, it was found that the F-4, F-105, and F-111 replacement could be met with a near term solution, in the early eighties, possibly a modification of an existing design. This lead to the F-15E and applying the F-16XL to the program. The F-16XL was actually an outgrowth of the SCAMP program, which was related to the earlier ATF studies mixed with information gleaned from all of the NASA studies that went into the cancelled SST studies.
The YA-7F program came later, at the end of the eighties.
This is a relatively brief and quick explanation; During the late 60's and early 70's, the USAF began looking at the advanced SAM threat and how to counter it. The two main avenues considered to counteract this problem were speed, in the form of supercruise (sustained supersonic speed on dry thrust) and low observable techniques (Stealth). The stealth side went deep black (See Have Blue and other studies of the time period) and a new strike fighter program was started that was known as the Advanced Tactical Fighter in the late 60's to replace the F-4, F-105, and F-111 in the long range strike role. It didn't get funding, but design studies were finally funded in the mid 70's. These are the designs my book is concentrating on.
However, in the late 70's, U.S. spy satellites took pictures of some new types at Ramenskoye (Now Zhukovsky) airbase. They were code named Ram-L, Ram-K, and Ram-M. They were the prototypes of what would become the Su-25, Su-27, and MiG-29. As a result, the ATF program morphed into a fighter replacement for the F-15 to counter the new threats. As a result, it was found that the F-4, F-105, and F-111 replacement could be met with a near term solution, in the early eighties, possibly a modification of an existing design. This lead to the F-15E and applying the F-16XL to the program. The F-16XL was actually an outgrowth of the SCAMP program, which was related to the earlier ATF studies mixed with information gleaned from all of the NASA studies that went into the cancelled SST studies.
The YA-7F program came later, at the end of the eighties.
Bjoern
worst developer ever
And that's baffling, considering that the A-7s were already ANG-grade by then.