Posts by ussiowa

    jake, I started a Bandimere raceway project a while ago. I don't know if it fits within the area you showed but I gladly get going on it and give it to you. When we get a free minute that is.;)

    Had same issue on eastern France a couple years ago where the scenery is close to existing switzerland scenery. I don't know if it's related, nobody ever offered any solution, I didn't find any but I didn't have time to investigate much further.


    My name is Michael too, maybe that's the common link.

    For an object model with larger area, if there is a slight slope in the elevation data one edge may be floating or depressed.

    I had to extend the pylon piers well below grade to avoid floating pylon legs on steeper grades

    Well actually for such an example it'd be better to build the models with "legs". If we build the pylons with like a concrete rectangular or pyramidal leg underneath each foot, then they can be implemented at regular height, and the concrete footing will be more realistic too. We could have 2 versions, one with feet, and one without for flat land if that helps too, although I don't think 16 more polygons make a big difference.

    Same principle applies to many things, including houses. We could build a bottom as a concrete block, or some wooden pile structure. When on slopes then the structure would show. Cars will be more of an issue, we need a roll and pitch angle. Boats won't be an issue ;)

    My 2 cents.

    Meme en Francais, pas tres clair (Xbox 360? Aerofly? Aerosim?), Tu veux dire que tu utilises des joysticks xbox 360 sur un PC ou tu as FS2?

    Je pense qu'il y a au moins 4-5 personnes ici qui sont souvent presents, et qui parlent Francais, Mais ca n'est pas un probleme, si on comprends la question on pourra la reposer en Anglais si il faut.


    Comme Herve suggere, la page de reglage joystick est probablement la solution, cliques sur l'axe que tu veux changer (a droite ou a gauche) si il est inverse.

    I use the Buttkicker and while it WORKS in AFS2 (using audio rather then USB input) it is very subdued due to the minimal range of audio spectrum generated by AFS2. Works MUCH better with X-plane and DCS!

    I use BK, with a dedicated amplifier, and I can shake the chair pretty well. I can also filter the bandwidth and I don't think there is any spectrum issue. Yes sound channel is not the same as if we had a motion channel, but still it works pretty well. Now if I could get the audio in the rift and the BK at the same time without using some 3rd party crap software, that would be ideal.

    Incidentally I only fly stuff that makes noise (jet, helo, F4U, etc..), no surprise airliner don't shake much, that would be the point usually.:)

    I know it's not much but here is WIP. We have a key to start it, and breakers and switches to power up stuff.

    Some needles are made, but I had to spend time sourcing the original instruments as the pict wasn't detailed enough to give me a sense of the 3D buttons and knobs and various other things. the bubble and vial of the Turn Coordinator are made too (do you guys need a point at the center of the vial curve to rotate the ball in it?)

    I now have all pictures of all the instruments, so now is the time to speak if you want different instruments before I start on them

    In the mean time I'm busy creating trucks and boats for the scenery guys :)

    I could use picture of the other switches, the one that look like either rotating or pulling switches (red, blue, etc..) I couldn't find much to my liking.


    First appearance at American air show:


    It would be neat to have that one (even better the marine one (VTOL). Although I'm curious how difficult it would really be since one cannot just rely on traditional physics models anymore for flight simulation, the airplane software has such a big part in flying behavior.

    Of course if one can implement all the airplane attitudes and vectoring, then pure physics would theoretically solve the rest (although heavy stall, and other non regular behavior may be tricky).

    Anyway just thinking out loud.


    And a nice A1 skyraider flight too!

    No worries, nothing is "late" even if you'd answered in 2 weeks. Things take the time they take.


    Interesting. So first the 3500 faces is from Sketchup info. And they are quad mostly, so if your transformation makes triangles, that right there must increase significantly the count (but not more than double, so there is still more going on).

    That piece I could simplify a few places and reduce maybe a few hundred or 1000 but with considerable manual work.

    So to clarify you want me to create the inside panel, but no texture correct? For the instruments, you want the needles for example (very likely), and other graphics and text be in 3D?

    FYI dae files export texture if they exist.

    Also I'm assuming the panel you want is this one, I'll need one dimension to size it correctly (diameter of a gauge, or length between two points, etc..), could you do that?

    Also do you want the toggle switches and gauges to be separate objects, or all together (neither is more difficult):

    12702-carbon-cub-panel-006-jh-jpg

    Thanks Jan, I'll check. I spun it up, took off (so full throttle) and even after a while (maybe 2-3 mn) the light seemed to stay on. I didn't specifically try beyond that or further, but next time I'll pay more attention. I also was going to try to find a manual to know what is what more precisely. Incidentally Robinson is down the street from me, so if push came to shove, I probably could get some kind of info from them.

    BTW if you get a minute some time, I'd like to help make more of the F18 system work. There are switches that are active (can be toggled) but they don't produce any result, Also I'd like to develop some system maybe (nav, radar, etc..).

    I don't know if it's the official procedure of the real R22, but you can turn it off completely, and then start it from "cold and dark" (no power, no elec)

    I've done it. When I do that, I have an ALT light on that I don't know how to get rid off (or what it means) other than stopping FS2 and changing aircraft. I think that is the only difference I get.

    Wow that is strange, in my experience sketchup (done properly) creates less vertices than let's say fusion 360 as it really creates less hidden vertices on the flat faces.

    In the warehouse you can get just anything, that's a given, from overly simple to overly complex for a given shape.

    You can try my fire trucks at flightsim.org, each are in the 1000 vertices I believe, but they're certainly not detailed enough for what I see around in cockpits and on the cub so far.

    Here is some plane fuse piece (not quite the right scale but close) to see what you can make of it.

    Sketchup 5600 edges, 3500 faces, quite detailed surface so no need for more I should say.

    You should have a sketchup file, a collada file, and a DXF file, the DXF export may not have worked though. I tried STEP it didn't work.

    Files

    • Test.zip

      (596.44 kB, downloaded 15 times, last: )

    I have been doing the wing struts meanwhile, but don't have any renders now.


    I would love to continue, cause I'm so up for some basic 3d modelling at the moment. But the Arrow has now priority number one until she's in beta. As soon as she's out I'll have some time for the freeware projects again, meaning finishing the Bücker and continuing the Cub.


    Kai

    I can help if you need with 3D modeling. It'll be sketchup, faster without texture but I can apply texture too. Like if you need that cockpit panel, pretty easy to do. I need to know to what level of details/polygon, but it looks like there is essentially no limit for close up objects or airplane exterior.


    I want to learn airplane design anyway, so it's all good, even programming the cockpit functioning, or learning how to modify airplane files (tmd is it?). Time available is my most precious limit (like most of us) but I may have some time this year.

    I concur with Kenneth:

    E: definitely C130, I can't tell what version. It has two side bumps at the rear, but none of the guns of the spectre apparently. same as one below.

    C: F18 hornet, certain, Top row is definitely single seaters (A or C) bottom row seems to be double seaters, at least on the top end that you zoomed (look at the shadows), so B or D. Definitely no E or F versions it would be visible.

    D: I like alphajets, not sure myself, but it seems to be. I can't find alphajets in the US military, but the silhouette looks at least very similar. Definitely not an F5 - T38. Maybe BAE Hawks, however the vertical tail trailing edge is in the middle of the horizontal tail, and the shadow doesn't seem to show that, although it's not clear. I can't find Hawks in US military either (doesn't mean it wasn't there, just not obvious), Hawks are more plausible in US military than Alphajets though due to origin.

    B: Definitely not P3 Orions, they're quadrimotors, this one has only 2, I can't identify beyond that. Fokker C31 definitely a strong possibility.

    A: Very likely specially modified UV-18C (DHC-6 Model 400) for the Golden Knights, 2 of the 3 delivered? Version A went to Alaska and B to Air Force academy.


    [Blocked Image: http://air-and-space.com/20120920%20EDW/_BL30683%20C-130H%2092-1536%20Wyoming%20ANG%20right%20front%20take-off%20l.jpg]