Spad XIII WIP

[DirtyHarry3033]

Don't know how many here are interested in WWI birds, don't seem to be too many on the swaps. But I've always loved 'em (just something special about the days when flying was brand-new and every flight a pilot made was an adventure he might not come back from, not just another entry among many in his log book...)

So anyway I'm modeling a Spad XIII for RF as my 1st serious attempt at 3D modeling. I've done simple modeling with primitives before but this project is at least 100 times as complex as anything I've tried in the past ;)

At the suggestion of pplace I'm starting a thread on the work. If people are interested, I'll try to get it good enough for the swaps, though I may need some help from the experts with the physics model and CS since I have even less experience with those than visual modeling.

I'm building this model in Modo 302 which frankly is a joy to work with :D

Anyway here are some renders I did last night, I've made a lot of progress today and there'll be more tonight or tomorrow. Any/all comments, criticisms welcome :)

DH

[DirtyHarry3033]

A couple more renders...

[phrank]

Excellent modeling work there!
WWI birds are always welcome, nothing like a classic. more... more...

Always glad to see new talent join the short list of contributors.

[pplace]

I'm glad you started this thread.....now the Spad can get the attention it deserves (it's not buried away in another thread) Now any specific questions you have, PLEASE fire away at anyone....everyone will be sure to offer all the help they can.

I've thought about modeling a couple WWI birds in the past...but honestly a lot of them look like more of a challenge!! (So I commend you for taking this as your first major undertaking) The planes are so basic....yet so complicated. All the flying wires, wing struts, exposed engines and exhaust (on many WWI birds), open cockpits, etc. add to the extra detail and attention that is needed for these. I say bring on as many WWI subjects as possible!!

Again GREAT job...I look forward to the progress and updated renders of this as your build progresses.

P.S. Done anything with the Lancaster plans I sent you? ;)

[doug schluter]

Don't know who wouldn't like them.So i'm in for some,looks good,can't wait

[DirtyHarry3033]

Thanks phrank and pplace for the kind words!

pplace, haven't forgotten the Lanc, it is on hold for a while as I try to learn modeling. Getting the wing and tail surfaces modeled was no prob but the fuselage and nacelles were a different story entirely. Just too many complex curves running together at all different angles :( And then all the glass, turrets and whatnot with still more complex curves thrown into the mix.

Decided to put it on hold for a while for something simpler. Sure a WWI bird has a lot of struts and guy wires but it's mostly straight lines. Not many curves at all, and no fillets period which simplifies things for a newbie!

Today I've done the radiator grille on the nose, and got most of the guy wires done on the wings. Also cut the cockpit opening. Made some renders that I was gonna post but then realized I should go ahead and cut the recesses in the top of the fuselage for the guns, and get the armament in place.

Big probs there, I was gonna make the cuts with a boolean but Modo 302 is VERY particular about booleans. If there's an opening anywhere in the mesh, it won't work. Gives an error and aborts :( I understand 301 didn't do that, this is a new "feature". So anyway I'm getting that error but damned if I can find where the prob is. Will take some sweat to get it sorted I think.

DH

[DirtyHarry3033]

Ah, what the hell - just one quick render despite the fact she's not armed yet! This will show the work I've done on the nose and also the rigging work. Still need to lay more wires, that's only about 2/3 of 'em.

DH

[crashed again]

Beauty of a plane!
only concern i have is for the poly count.......

[phrank]

I missed the bit about Modo.

I don't know much about Modo, but also make sure that you can export a valid format for Realflight conversion.

Last I looked at that package, it could read multiple formats but only export it's own.

It would be a shame to do all that hard work but not be able to use it. :eek:

[DirtyHarry3033]

Modo 302 will export to the following formats:

.lwo
.lxo (modo's native format)
.x3d
.dxf
.fbx
.plt
.obj
.psd

I'm sure something on that list can be made to go into RF :D I can export from Modo to Max for sure though I haven't done that yet and then exported the resulting conversion to RF. Also most likely can get it into Blender, gmax or wings 3d. I'm sure something will work. All I can say is that Modo is sweet, Modo and I get along.

DH

[pplace]

Ah, what the hell - just one quick render despite the fact she's not armed yet! This will show the work I've done on the nose and also the rigging work. Still need to lay more wires, that's only about 2/3 of 'em.

DH

Okay enough with the joking around. How long have you been getting paid to do 3D modeling professionally? :p You truly have done some amazing work thus far!

Edit:
Beauty of a plane!
only concern i have is for the poly count.......

I too am a bit concerned about your poly figures. I know for instance Wings3D figures polys totally different than 3dsMax.....(nearly doubles them) I too hope your figures are correct so you can keep up the great detail.

[DirtyHarry3033]

No pplace, I have never done a single bit of professional work, like I say I have just played with it. Got interested in 3D stuff around 1993 when I was in the checkout line at the news stand and saw a videotape called "The Mind's Eye", 40 minutes of 3D CGI animation that was the most amazing stuff I'd ever seen. Went back the next day and bought the sequel, "Beyond the Mind's Eye"

I've been trying in an on-again, off-again manner (typical of me) ever since to learn this 3D stuff. But either frustration or limitations of personal time or disgust with the results of my effort, or whatever have always taken the toll and I drop it for a year or five. Then "rinse and repeat" ;)

Finding this site and seeing all the awesome planes you guys make I guess inspired me to try again. And apparently gave me the motivation to get serious for a change. and actually try to accomplish something.

Wasn't kidding when I said I've gone 100 times farther than anything I've done before with this model and though the frustrations have had me pulling my hair out on occasion, it has still been a very intensely rewarding experience! Hopefully I will actually buckle down and LEARN this stuff now that I see that it's possible. Maybe this could be a career alternative when my employer pulls the plug on me? I owe thanks to all the modelers here, looks like you guys have inspired me to finally learn something :)

DH

[DirtyHarry3033]

Regarding polys, it was (I think) a bit over 11,000 in the last renders. Pretty high I know. I noticed last weekend that most of the polys on my fuselage were quadrupled, i.e. if I clicked a single poly Modo reported that 4 polys were selected. After fixing all those (deleting and recreating 1 by 1) I got the count down to around 10,500.

<edit: I had done most of that work before I did the pictured renders that measured out to 11,000. The poly count was beyond belief before I started that ;) >

Well I noticed today that this problem was also on EVERY surface, wings, ailerons, tail surfaces etc. Except on those the polys were only doubled not quadrupled. No idea how that happened, I'm new to Modo and must have clicked something I shouldn't have :( Was dreading that 1-by-1 "delete, recreate" bit but then I found a cool command, "Unify" which let me select the entire model, run the command, and it got rid of ALL the excess polys in about 2 seconds. Nearly 3,000 of 'em, the mesh is now at 8,400.

Brought it into max 9 this evening and the count was WAY higher, bit over 19,000. So I used a trick I learned when I was building the Space 1999 Eagle that I posted about in the Sci-Fi thread, I put a slice plane on every part. Set to "Refine Mesh" I believe is how it's called. (Not removing top or bottom that is...) After doing that to every part the poly count was down to 8,500. Don't ask me how that works, I just know it does...

One problem though is that I used a couple of Modo free-form drawing tools to make the landing gear struts and they did NOT carry over into max at all. They came out as solid triangles instead of a front strut and a rear strut connected at the axle. Have to find a workaround I guess ;)

DH

PS as far as my high poly counts, well my nature is "detail-oriented". Look at some of the work on military-meshes.com for instance and you'll see where my nature wants to take me - every last nut, bolt and rivet modeled...

[pplace]

I'm also a poly hog!! I like to use every last one that I can....to make my models as detailed as possible.

Remember you also have to account for the collision meshes in the 20,000 poly limit. Right now my PBY is just over 17,500 (with collision meshes) most of my finished models are in the 16,000 - 20,000 poly range.

Here is a list I posted on my Gee Bee R-2 Build thread. It lists a few of my previous models and the finished poly count.

F-82 Twin Mustang = 16,074 (twin fuse ate up extra polys)
FW-190A = 17,060 (full detailed cockpit used many extra polys)
Ju_87G-2 Stuka = 19,996 4 short of 20,000!!! (twin cannons and cockpit)
Me-109 = 11,328
Nakajima Ki-27 = 7,178
Gee Bee R-2 = 19,764

[DirtyHarry3033]

Yeah, thanks for reminding me about the collision meshes - I have a hard time remembering those! Should be OK though, I'm thinking I'm not gonna do a whole lot more on the model. Just finish up the rest of the guy wires, put a couple Vicker's on the nose and leave it at that. (At least there's no visible engine to model...)

(And then of course try to figure out how to model the landing gear struts with some technique that max can understand! And try to figure out how to even begin unwrapping it for the texturing. That's gonna be a nightmare I think.)

Yep, you like poly's it seems! The 190 and the Gee-Bee are my favorites of your work - beautiful models and a blast to fly :)

Hoping you're not really gonna let onderunway con you into holding out on releasing the Cat, I've really been looking forward to that plane!

DH

[pplace]

Hoping you're not really gonna let onderunway con you into holding out on releasing the Cat, I've really been looking forward to that plane!

DH

Nope...no holding out. Take a look at my updated posts on the PBY (I started doing the CS on it yesterday) I mentioned in there that I would be releasing the PBY.

[DirtyHarry3033]

Quick update. With the work week back in full force (don't ya hate 'em?) progress is gonna slow to a crawl.

Tonight I added the rest of the guy wires (at least to the extent that the pics I found allow...), a couple of Vickers MG's with ring and bead sights (if I have the sights wrong somebody let me know how they should look and point me to references and I'll fix them!)

Also reworked the exhaust a bit based on a couple fuzzy pics I found. From the side view the exhaust appears to taper to a point beginning just behind the cockpit, from above it seems to widen out slightly. With an oval opening cut in the top of the pipe to let the exhaust out. Pics I found were not good at all, this is pure guesswork but I think it's closer to how it looked.

Total polys at this point are still under 9,000.

I'd really like the MG's to look better and there's probably gonna be some polys to burn, but you'd never be close enough to see the work :( OTOH, there are all kinds of details on the nose - louvers, panels and whatnot that I'd like to model in 3D and that WOULD be seen but that might blow the poly count out of the water...

What would the pro's do in a case like that?

DH

[josh0987]

Wow, that's one detailed BiPlane! :D

[DirtyHarry3033]

Yep that's me. DETAIL!!!!

If it was up to me, and if detailed enough plans/drawings were available, and if I actually had the skill, I'd no doubt model a plane down to the pilot's relief tube :D (What good that would do in RF is beyond me...)

But RF won't support anywhere close to that many polys so I gotta cut it off somewhere. I just want it to look as good as I can possibly make it, and still fit RF's poly limit. The hard part though will be the CS - I've never even attempted one and I'm worried that will totally break this little project of mine.

I mean, who wants to fly a totally white Spad :eek:

DH

[pplace]

Looking real excellent. I certainly could be wrong (and I hate to keep bringing this up) but I think your 9000 poly figure could be wrong?!? With all the half circles on the wings, elevators, rudders, guy wires, etc.....I get nervous about your figure (or the way modo figures polys)

If it was me doing my first model.....I would certainly whip up a quick set of collision meshes and export to 3dsMax and check the poly count there: In Max8 go under File then Summary Info and lastly look at the Faces figure under the Mesh Totals category. This would put my mind at ease a bit more.....then if you wanted you could export it to G4 also and make sure it'll work also.

I would just hate for you to do all this awesome work and later find out the figures were wrong and it won't export to G4?!! I hope I'm just being anal about this....but the detail makes me worry.

Not saying you need to do the above.....it's just what I would personally do. Lastly: The model is looking fantastic!! :)

[smwpuck19]

erm... how... can ... that... be .... under... 9000 polys!!??

Are you temporarily using turbosmooth for the render??

[DirtyHarry3033]

Thanks pplace, Crashed Again was also concerned about that and pm'ed me. So just to make sure, I exported out to an .fbx and imported that into max 9. Then did my "slice plane" trick which cut the polys pretty much in half. Dumped a .kex without putting on any collision mesh or pivots, no probs at all. Imported into RF G4 again with no probs, and was able to fly it just fine.

So I guess yep!!! You're being "anal" :D Nothing wrong with that, I worry myself sick over everything I do, i.e. "Will it work? Won't it work?" But the Spad is in RF as I write this and actually flying (and with NO collision mesh - if the poly's exceed a certain #, you MUST have the coll. mesh, right?)

Anyway hope that sets your fears at ease! I believe this bird will fly in RF one day :) Not sure but I think the fantastically smooth renders are the work of Modo - I think their rendering engine is working some "magic" behind the scenes. For instance, the guy wires are 3-sided cylinders and still look great! And the scallops on the wings and tail eat maybe 10 polys each - I'd have to go count to be sure but it's not a massive amount. Thought about leaving them off but hey, it wouldn't be a Spad then, huh? That's a distinguishing characteristic, it's gotta be modeled :D

DH

[DirtyHarry3033]

erm... how... can ... that... be .... under... 9000 polys!!??

Are you temporarily using turbosmooth for the render??

I'm new at all this, I don't know squat about "turbosmooth". Do you use Modo? If this turbosmooth is a default render feature in Modo, then I'm most likely using it without knowing as I bought Modo only last month and I'm still trying to learn it :) All the modeling and rendering has been done in Modo 302.

DH

[pplace]

But the Spad is in RF as I write this and actually flying (and with NO collision mesh - if the poly's exceed a certain #, you MUST have the coll. mesh, right?)DH

Well that's good to hear and honestly I'm a bit baffled and amazed. You are correct after 8,000 polys you then need collision meshes added.

Good job...and thanks for doing the test. Now don't just fly that model around, go get some work done on it!!haha

[phrank]

This is indeed impressive.
We are usually bullied by the poly monster when creating these models.
Do you have any in-sim screenshots?
Very interested how Realflight and the Modo render compare.

[Haole]

Excellent modeling being done here, DH! Very impressive that you have taken upon not only learning a new program but have chosen such an intricately complicated model to draw.

Me tips hat in yer direction ;)

Looking forward to seeing what she looks like all painted up! It'd be great to get a decent whistling sound file for that insane array of struts and wires too! Can you imagine putting yourself up in the air in one of those things!? Awesomely bravado indeed.

Thanks for your hard work and I very much look forward to seeing your finished product.

Carl

[willsonman]

Indeed this looks very good. If all the WWI models looked that good I may want to fly them more! Just a tidbit on polys... for some unworldly reason I got away with my SB2C4 being about 18500 polys and NO collision meshes. Granted, the frame rates are really bogged down compared to other high-poly aircraft. Not quite sure how I snuck away with that but there it is.

[crashed again]

Then did my "slice plane" trick which cut the polys pretty much in half. DH

Just tried your "trick", you are amazing sir... where did you learn that?
if you do not, i will make a small tutorial explaining this process, as it WILL result in more detailed models to come.......
thanks again
crashed

[smwpuck19]

Indeed this looks very good. If all the WWI models looked that good I may want to fly them more! Just a tidbit on polys... for some unworldly reason I got away with my SB2C4 being about 18500 polys and NO collision meshes. Granted, the frame rates are really bogged down compared to other high-poly aircraft. Not quite sure how I snuck away with that but there it is.
You're right, there. Models with polys over the limit and no collision mesh do seemingly import and fly just fine in the sim. However, its a good rule of thumb to create a collision mesh when one has exceeded the poly limit simply to increase framerates.
My guess is that the slow framerate issue with too many polys (and no coll. mesh) is probably magnified on slower computers/graphics cards whereas faster cards are more apt to cope with it...

[smwpuck19]

Dumped a .kex without putting on any collision mesh or pivots, no probs at all. Imported into RF G4 again with no probs, and was able to fly it just fine.
Well, if you've managed to get it into RF I guess you're good to go! :D
Congrats on a job well done!

[pplace]

Just tried your "trick", you are amazing sir... where did you learn that?
if you do not, i will make a small tutorial explaining this process, as it WILL result in more detailed models to come.......
thanks again
crashed

I see he mentioned Max9 is this "trick" possible in Max8? If so I'd love to see a tutorial or description of the process involved.

[crashed again]

I see he mentioned Max9 is this "trick" possible in Max8? If so I'd love to see a tutorial or description of the process involved.

building the tutorial now.....
crashed

[crashed again]

look at the poly count in pic 1

drag a selection box around all

apply slice modifier

look at poly count in pic 4

seems to work well...
thanks DH!
crashed

[dhk79]

Amazing trick :D

That dropped nearly 10K polygons from my C-5 model. I'll have to try exporting it to RF again and see if the system performance improves.

Thanks for the tip.

Doug

[willsonman]

I was think about going back to Max with my Helldiver for G4 using this method. So easy I may just do it.

[pplace]

I don't know if I didn't do it correctly but I tried on one of my models that was at 10994 polys I did the "slice" and exported it and it came with a failure that stated "You have exceeded 8,000 polys [11,186] Reduce the number of polys or use collision meshes"

Doug did you try to export it ever? Because if I go to my summary info now it states I am at 5,105 polys (faces) yet I get the error on export.

[phrank]

Very Cool!
Look at you, teaching some old dawgs new tricks. :p

You've certainly sent me back to the drawing board to re-work some of my current projects.
I wish I knew about this on the Trex'es, certainly could have used a little poly breathing room back then.

Cheers!
Frank...

[pplace]

I sent an e-mail off to crashed about my export failure. He replied back with this:

"I had the same error on a model THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN SUCSESSFULY EXPORTED using a coll mesh.
it may imprint a key in the file if you use a mesh.
try it on somthing you have never had a mesh on, or somthing previously not exported..."

I'll see if I have another model I can test it on

[DirtyHarry3033]

pplace, last night I did the "slice" trick on the Spad as pictured earlier (before adding MG's) and cut it from around 19,000 polys to under 9,000. The .kex exported fine with no errors. No warning about needing collision mesh even.

But then I tried it this morning before work on the new version with the MG's added and got the same thing as you did :( Slicing cut the poly count nearly in half (to just over 9,000 as reported by max ) but when I exported the .kex the plugin reported the count was something like 20,100 and failed. It's like the plugin was seeing the original poly count before slicing. I don't know what caused that, it worked fine last night :confused:

When I get home from work I'll mess with it and see if I can get it working.

DH

[dhk79]

Doug did you try to export it ever? Because if I go to my summary info now it states I am at 5,105 polys (faces) yet I get the error on export.I was able to export to a KEX file without errors (and the model has collision meshes), but haven't tried importing to RF yet as I'm at work.

One thing to note: I applied the SLICE to the C-meshes too.

[pplace]

I'm not totally convinced if this is truly reducing the number of polys.....

I just tried it on another test model I had. Originally it had around 7,500 polys I did the "Slice" and the poly count went to around 3,200. On export I get this message: "You have exceeded 1,200 polys [7,356]. We suggest reduce the number of polygons or add collision meshes"

I get that message if I don't add collision meshes under 8,000....and it exports just fine. It's just a warning or reminder. BUT if the summary info states 3,200 polys...but the export figure is stating 7,300??? I think the "Sliced" figures might be smoke in mirrors?

Kind of like in the past when I changed some surfaces to "Editable Mesh" "Editable Poly" etc.....the reduced poly figure didn't actually represent the export number? Hope I'm wrong....I would love the added polys to use.

[dhk79]

When I get home tonight, I'll test it the new KEX versis the old. The C-5 puts a huge strain on RF, so I should be able to see a difference in the framerate.

[crashed again]

seems as though i am unable to duplicate my initial reduction in poly's and export from max...
i as well get the errors pplace is getting, without the aid of ~CS_COLL, it is over limit of 8k poly's :mad:
not sure how i did it the first time, but i am currently working on the solution.....
crashed

[smwpuck19]

Does anyone know WHY the slice modifier reduces the number of polygons? in theory shouldn't it increase the number???
Educate me!!!

[Haole]

It sounds like you guys are merely cutting your models in half--literally.

[DirtyHarry3033]

OK, I've been playing with this. Looks like I may have made the mistake of taking max at "face" value (ha ha...) regarding the reduction in # of "faces" after applying a slice.

I re-imported the Spad into max and took note of the # of faces. Then attempted to export a .kex, and noted the # of faces that the export plugin reported when it failed.

Next I did the "slice" trick, recorded face count as reported by max, and by the export plugin. Here's the results:

Reported by:..Max............Kex Export

Unsliced......20,707.............20,707
Sliced..........9,313..............21,335

When I tried to export without slicing, the poly count was reported same by both. Exporting after slicing, the kex poly count went up by 628 polys despite max reporting 11,394 polys less.

My apologies for mentioning this :o I trusted the #'s max was showing me.

However - a few months ago I built a model of the Space 1999 Eagle spacecraft to see if I could build something and get it into RF. It had an ungodly # of 6-sided cylinders, boxes and cones and long before it was done it was pushing 20,000 polys if I remember right. I was getting worried - it was at that time that I found the "slice" trick.

I re-did the thing almost from scratch and put a slice on every cylinder, box, whatever and got a LOT more detail and parts in it and the model is now at just over 10,000 polys. It exports with NO problems. Sadly I can't go and take the slices off as I collapsed the seperate components when I was done with it. So no way to see if it would still export with the slices gone, or what the poly count would be :(

Only difference is, the geometry was designed in max, NOT imported from another prog like with my Spad. To the guys that tried this and it didn't work, was your model built in max, or imported from another app? Maybe this "trick" won't work right on imported geometry? Just a thought.

I may try building a 20,000+ poly count model in max this weekend that I know won't export, then put slices on it and see if it will export then.

Again, if this is a wild goose chase, my apologies to all. I wasn't trying to get up false hopes, I just thought I'd found something that would be a benefit to everyone.

DH

PS Off to do some manual "poly reduction" on my Spad ;) I know I can get it under 20,000 without sacrificing much at all of what I've done. I'll put up some screen shots of it in RF a bit later tonight.

[pplace]

To the guys that tried this and it didn't work, was your model built in max, or imported from another app? Maybe this "trick" won't work right on imported geometry? Just a thought.

I personally model in Wings3D then import in to 3dsMax8

Unfortunately I feel this might just be a "smoke in mirrors" figure drop in the polys. I hope crashed or someone can prove me wrong. Don't feel one bit bad DH about bringing this up......I wouldn't count it out yet.

Good Luck

[DirtyHarry3033]

OK, here's just a couple quick shots of the Spad in the editor to show I got it in there, and give an idea how it might look. This was before I put on the guns

The only visual prob that I see is the landing gear, like I said max couldn't import the struts right and there is some kind of mesh between the front and back struts. I can't select it in max to delete it Otherwise it looks pretty good I think!

I've tried a couple different ways in Modo to build it and still get the same effect. So I'm gonna try just building it out of 2 boxes and an ellipse, and limit the bevel - I went too high the 1st time and ended up with over 1,000 polys. If it works, it should get the poly count down enough for the .kex, maybe 19,000-19,500 I'm thinking.

If I get it sorted and into RF I'll post more pics tonight.

Again, sorry for any probs I caused - you guys are probably remembering onderunway fondly right about now :D

DH

[willsonman]

I think its great that the community is pitching in here looking for new techniques to improve model quality. This is the exact reason for these worklogs. Keep up the great work. I've never been so excited to fly a WWI plane! Mostly I am into WWII so its a big change for me!

[pplace]

DH,

That really is a fine looking model. Nobody would ever guess it's your first. Keep pluggin away on that thing! Take your time, there is no need to rush any work....quality is more important than just pushing a model onto the swaps. Put as much effort into the CS as you do the visual model....and it will be even more stunning!

[DirtyHarry3033]

willsonman, thanks! Your Helldiver is a beaut, if you think my Spad is exciting then I couldn't ask for a better compliment :)

pplace, thanks to you also - all I can say is "beginner's luck", ya know? My next effort will probably look like something that fell out the backside of my dog when he was sick ;)

All the positive comments that have been left mean a lot to me guys, there is no one harder on my efforts than myself. I was about to drop it as just another "lost cause" but decided to post pics on onderunway's CS thread to "show him up" when he was dispensing his wisdom about the "Clown CS's".

Well it's because of the positive reception from all of you guys that this project moves on. You guys motivated me with your encouragement - THANKS!!!! If not for you, it would have died an early death...

Now, news and progress reports.

News:

I built a 25k poly model this morning before work in max and was not able to export it. Put on the "slice" trick and cut the poly's in half and it still wouldn't export. As before with the model imported from modo, the export plugin reported more polys than max did before the slice was done.

I was hoping that if the whole model was built in max rather than imported from another app, it might work. No such luck, pplace was right it is "smoke and mirrors" as far as the poly reduction.

Sorry to build false hopes, it would be awesome if it really worked. But if something is actually being reduced, it's not anything that RF cares about I think...

Progress update:

The Spad model is just about finished. In max I'm exporting just over 19,000 polys to the .kex and it looks "good enough" for me. Barely :D All that is left is to tweak some things - get the wing struts and wires totally against the wings and fuselage mainly so there are no gaps.

Then all the "fun" parts - bring it into max, bust it up into all the separate pieces and get 'em named, get the hierarchy and pivots done, import to RF and start a physics model. I hope to have that done by early next week, if I get it anywhere near flyable I'll post the .RFX here for "beta testing" if anyone's interested ;)

BTW, I only have G4 so I guess I can't make a G3.5 file? If I provide the .kex, can someone with G3.5 do that? Not really sure how all that works :confused:

Next the CS - everything I've read tells me that will be a nightmare. I fully expect to spend far more time trying to do the unwrap than I did building the model. I'll be trying it in Modo 1st, after unwrapping you can apparently generate a map by painting directly onto the 3D model and see what happens in real-time. I've played with it a bit and it's cool - remains to be seen if it will export the map properly to max...

DH

[crashed again]

BTW, I only have G4 so I guess I can't make a G3.5 file? If I provide the .kex, can someone with G3.5 do that? Not really sure how all that works :confused:
no problem, just export a .kex file to ANYONE interested, and they can import it into 3.5 and build a physics model.
the .kex file dose not care what version it goes into ;)
Next the CS - everything I've read tells me that will be a nightmare. I fully expect to spend far more time trying to do the unwrap than I did building the model. I'll be trying it in Modo 1st, after unwrapping you can apparently generate a map by painting directly onto the 3D model and see what happens in real-time. I've played with it a bit and it's cool - remains to be seen if it will export the map properly to max...
leave the unwrapping for max, and use this little utility
multi object unwrap (thanks nemo) (http://users.skynet.be/arketip/arketip_multiObjectUnwrapENG.htm)
this part is "simple", start here for "rapid" unwraping of things
as always, ask for help and everyone will throw in $.02
crashed

[willsonman]

In max for multiple unwrapping I simply use the control button to select multiple items, apply the modifier, edit the unwrap and export the template to apply to the CS. Dont know if it is the "right" way but it works well. It cuts my mapping time nearly in half that way. This way, also, you can scale wings and stabilizers so that they are the same size and a lot of time on the CS can be saved as well. Just do one side and copy, flip the copy and position over on the other side.

[pplace]

In max for multiple unwrapping I simply use the control button to select multiple items, apply the modifier, edit the unwrap and export the template to apply to the CS. Dont know if it is the "right" way but it works well. It cuts my mapping time nearly in half that way. This way, also, you can scale wings and stabilizers so that they are the same size and a lot of time on the CS can be saved as well. Just do one side and copy, flip the copy and position over on the other side.

I'd be interested in seeing a couple screenshots of your process. I always have mapped each object individually. Time consuming...plus lining and scaling all corresponding objects can be tricky (Ailerons to Wings, Elevators to H-Stabs, etc.)

Thanks

[crashed again]

if done as in the pics, all surfaces will line up perfectly and be at the same scale.
this is AN EXTREAME EXAMPLE, I NEVER DO THE WHOLE PLANE AT ONCE, but is gets the point across. it took longer to make this post than it did to unwrap the plane!!! i hope this answers more questions than it raises :D
crashed

[willsonman]

Ok, so in picture 1 you can see how I have selected the outer wings and ailerons on both side. I selected one obcject then pushed the "ctrl" (control) button and clicked on the other 3 objects.

The second picture shows how I apply the UVW Unwrap modifier just as you normally would if you had selected a single object.

Third shot shows the parts after they have had flatten mapping applied... again... just as you normally would. Then you can select multiple items to scale or move accordingly. Rotate or whatever. I also go back and forth between this window and the perspective window to make sure I have the bottom parts lined up and the top parts lined up. some of the smaller pieces I fin helpful to rotate properly this way. So as you can see I have lined up the tops of the wings with the tops of the ailerons. Also, the bottoms of the wings and ailerons. Also the, as I call it, pile of goo that goes into a single color block because it gets no detail... polygons that go between the ailerons and wings etc.

Last one shows the same as the previous but with the CS in the background so you can better orient yourself... if need be.

Like I said this works for me quite well. It allowed me to properly orient and scale my 3 fuselage pieces at the same time. Save a lot of headache when I went to line up the markings for the side of the fuselage. Just cut and scale and locate. No need to mess with different scaling or clipping decals in half and other junk. I find its worth it in time savings and simplicity of CS creation.

Edit: When I make the template I save as a temp.PNG. always a PNG because it has a great transparrent background that I can just layer on top of the CS to be. Then I paste it on top and it does not effect any of the other lines from other parts.

[pplace]

Thanks crashed and willsonman. Now I know the reason I could never select multiple objects....I never installed the "multi object unwrap" add on. That will save me time on my next mapping project.

Thanks for the photo step by step guys!

Edit: Just installed the multi script. That will be much easier and more precise than how I currently do it.

[DirtyHarry3033]

OK, here it is! The 1st Spad .rfx. No CS, generic flight model, about as basic as you can get. But at least you can fly it and look at it ;)

I've put a light green color on the .tga because the plain white was driving me crazy to look at. I think it looks a little better than white.

I had a start on the physics model that was coming along but that got wiped out when I tried to import the green .tga :( Had the wireframe totally finished, the airfoils done, gas engine instead of electric, and was working on getting the weights right. Did something wrong and it's all gone, well I guess I'll do it over!

Let me know what you think of the visual model!

Enjoy!

DH

[pplace]

I had a start on the physics model that was coming along but that got wiped out when I tried to import the green .tga :( Had the wireframe totally finished, the airfoils done, gas engine instead of electric, and was working on getting the weights right. Did something wrong and it's all gone, well I guess I'll do it over!

DH

Yep, You'll only do that once! I did the same thing once. Now I do several things to prevent a "mind fart"

Whenever you re-import a file that's already in G4 it will ask:
1. You already have a(n) Color Scheme named "___________"
What would you like to do?
~Do not import this file
~Select a new name __________
~Overwrite the old file

2. You already have a(n) Aircraft named "_______________"
What would you like to do?
~Do not import this file
~Select a new name __________
~Overwrite the old file

3. You already have a(n) Variant named "______________"
What would you like to do?
~Do not import this file
~Select a new name __________
~Overwrite the old file

If you've made a change to the CS then overwrite it, if not then do not import it
If you've made a change to the visual model overwrite it
Once you've started on the physics NEVER overwrite it.....ALWAYS select "Do not import this file"

Also an added security: Export as an EA every once in a while. This way if you do overwrite or lose something by accident. All you have to do is go back and re-import your last EA export.

I'm sure everyone has made this mistake at least once in the past.

[pplace]

Now to talk about the model itself. This is really a nice piece of work, you should really be proud of yourself!

I did notice one thing different than the renders though: The "cutouts" on the wings are no long round at the front. They are squared off...missing a majority of the circle? Is this a problem from the modo - 3ds export / import?

Other than that I don't see anything that sticks out at me. This will be a great addition to G4 once it's totally finished. Great Job!!

[WingDude]

DH, That plane is too cool :cool:

[DirtyHarry3033]

Now to talk about the model itself. This is really a nice piece of work, you should really be proud of yourself!

I did notice one thing different than the renders though: The "cutouts" on the wings are no long round at the front. They are squared off...missing a majority of the circle? Is this a problem from the modo - 3ds export / import?

Other than that I don't see anything that sticks out at me. This will be a great addition to G4 once it's totally finished. Great Job!!


Thanks pplace! Just hope I have the patience and skill to see it thru to the end :)

Not sure what you're getting at about the wing cutouts, they look the same on my system as the renders, as far as the shape. Can you post a screenshot pointing out what you're seeing? Maybe I'm just going blind...

I was thinking maybe something was screwy in the EA I uploaded, so I deleted the spad entirely and imported from the EA instead of the kex but it still looks OK on my end.

That's a good tip about exporting an EA from time to time as a backup, I never thought about that! Thanks, I'll make it a point to do that in the future...

DH

[pplace]

Here's a couple shots of what I'm talking about. It seems really weird...at certain angles they appear almost normal and at other angles they look bad. I didn't crank up my AA but that shouldn't cause any problem like this? It's almost as if the shadows or light is playing a trick...not sure if it's really a problem with your model. Lets get more input from others.

[doug schluter]

I'm looking at the same thing some appear ok and at some angles they all look good but this is an excellent looking model just the same nice job DH

[DirtyHarry3033]

Ahhhh! NOW I see what you're talking about, the "scallops" on the trailing edge of the wings. I thought you were referring to the large cutout over the cockpit.

I haven't really been close enough to it in RF to see that but I'll have a look and see if I can figure out what is going on. It's definitely not right!

OK, just took a look in both RF and max and it's definitely there. They're not rounded anymore in either. I guess it is something in the import to max that got lost. Looks perfect in wireframe but if you go to smooth+highlights and zoom in, there is definite strangeness going on :(

Good catch, thanks for calling it to my attention! I never noticed it at all. I'll see if I can figure out how to fix it, I spent a lot of time on those cutouts and they need to look right.

DH

[pplace]

Ahhhh! NOW I see what you're talking about, the "scallops" on the trailing edge of the wings. I thought you were referring to the large cutout over the cockpit.
DH

Aww that's the word....I couldn't think of it when I was trying to explain it. Sorry for the confusion.

[DirtyHarry3033]

No prob, and it's definitely a max and/or import issue. See the render I did in max, shows the exact same thing. So it's nothing to do with your system, or lighting or anything like that.

Maybe I can do a ProBoolean in max and get it fixed up without having to rebuild the wing from scratch?

Thanks, I'll work on it! "Quality is Job 1", right? :)

DH

[pplace]

Thanks, I'll work on it! "Quality is Job 1", right? :)

DH

Yeah, I'm the same way. I get carried away and do the best I can. Just don't get discouraged....push through the little set-backs and keep the progress rolling along. You will appreciate all the hard work you've done when it's all finished!

[WingDude]

Hey DH,
You might want to make the engine shaft coming from the fuse longer too.

[DirtyHarry3033]

You will appreciate all the hard work you've done when it's all finished!

Yeah, tell me about it! I did a little work on re-creating the physics I lost earlier today before stopping for the night, then just for fun I went into the .rfx I uploaded and toned down the default physics some to make it a bit more "scale" in the flying.

Well I've flown it for over an hour tonight, with a big sh*t-eating grin on my face the whole time :D (I haven't flown an hour total in RF since I started this project...)

It's just hard to believe that I made this plane, ya know? Somebody else, sure. But not me :eek: It's amazing, how rewarding this experience has become...

DH

[DirtyHarry3033]

Hey DH,
You might want to make the engine shaft coming from the fuse longer too.

Hey WingDude, thanks for the compliment! Hard as it is for me to admit (since I'm the one that made it) I think it's pretty cool too!

And thanks for pointing out the shaft problem, I didn't notice that either! I had it poking inside the ~CS_ENGINE, I thought that would be enough. I'll punch it all the way thru, and see if that makes a difference. If there's one thing I hate, it's a prop that don't mate up with its shaft!

DH

[DirtyHarry3033]

OK, what a day!

1st, I've fixed the short prop shaft that WingDude mentioned. 2nd, I've fixed the squared-off scallops on the wing that pplace caught. Ended up needing to rebuild both top and bottom wings to get that sorted out, not a bad thing really as I saved a lot of polys by knocking a few segs off of the wing box, and reduced the segs on the scallop cutouts for more savings.

Overall it don't look as good as the 1st renders in Modo, but you'll never notice when you're flying the plane. And if you walk up to it on the ground, you won't see all that ugly crap that showed in pplace's pics.

2nd, got started on the unwrapping chore today. This is totally new to me, I can unwrap a box (barely) and that's about it... So I've got my work cut out for me. Put about 6 or 7 hours into it today and I'm learning stuff left and right, maybe it will work out OK. I hope so anyway, I think this would be a really nice-looking bird with a decent CS on her :) Maybe in another month I can get the 1st coat of paint on!

DH

[WingDude]

DH is if you need AV with all the specs right i have one for it, it flies pretty good actually.

[DirtyHarry3033]

Sure, I'd like to try it out WingDude! You want to post it here or should I PM you my email?

DH

[WingDude]

I'll post it now!! :D

[DirtyHarry3033]

I'll post it now!! :D

Thanks! Flies a LOT better than the model I was working on that got overwritten.

Only "issue" I've seen is that the rudder authority seems a bit much, I can get it flying almost sideways with full deflection but maybe that is a characteristic of Spads or WWI birds in general? I don't really know. Everything else about it is great :)

Would you be willing to release it as the default physics model? Your name would certainly go above mine in the credits...

I'm trying to get this thing unwrapped now for the CS and seems some parts are not unwrapping well at all. Both sides of the rudder unwrap fine for instance but the right side of the vertical stab ends up in 5 separate pieces whereas the left side is one piece as it should be. There are plenty of other areas on the model dong this, with a number of separate pieces where it seems there should be 1.

Guess it's just a matter of banging my head against it until I figure it out! (or my head splits open...)

DH

<edit> I really appreciate the effort you put into that AV - thanks! :)

[WingDude]

Yeah, you can release my AV as the final version... i spent about 2 hours on it.
I am not really sure about the rudder authority, i could reduce it if you want.

[WingDude]

Hello Person i think is Blade Scraper,
I will make a better AV than you! :D

[DirtyHarry3033]

WingDude, it's your physics model, should be the way you want it to be! Anyway it's easy enough for the end user to change things, I've already dialed it back a bit for my own use by reducing the rudder deflection.

DH

[WingDude]

Sounds good.

[DirtyHarry3033]

Hello Person i think is Blade Scraper,
I will make a better AV than you! :D

5+ posts a day? If it's him, he's picking up the pace, was at 4.49/day as BS ;)

Haven't had time to figure out what got BS banned, can you enlighten me? Just curious...

DH

[WingDude]

He asked a admin to ban him.

[phrank]

5+ posts a day? If it's him, he's picking up the pace, was at 4.49/day as BS ;)

Haven't had time to figure out what got BS banned, can you enlighten me? Just curious...

DH
When you get tired of an identity, you can't ask that it be changed.
Instead, Ban yourself and start a new one. :D

Welcome back BS.

[WingDude]

Hey DH,
I decreased the rudder on the Spad and it does fly more realistic, i have it at 12 degrees both ways, what do you have it at?

[DirtyHarry3033]

ROLF!!!!

What a world we live in here online, if you get tired of who you are, or shame yourself somehow, or anything goes against you, you can "change" your identity just like that.

I never would have even imagined such a thing, I'm "old-school" - was raised to believe that everything I do or say will be with me and reflect on me for my whole life. That has kept me (mostly) on the straight-and-narrow and trying my best to do and say things that I can be proud of (or at least not ashamed of...)

Becoming "someone else" is something I'd never dream of - DH I am, and DH I'll always be ;)

DH

PS Sorry to get OT :o

[DirtyHarry3033]

Wingdude, I set it to +/- 15 degrees deflection just for test and it seemed a lot better to me. Haven't had time for more experiments but I was gonna bring it down a bit more later for another test.

BTW, I saw you put exhaust generators on. But the only time I can see any exhaust is when I start the takeoff roll. There is a puff of exhaust but then once I'm rolling it's gone :( I tried increasing the exhaust density from 4% (where it was in your AV) in stages all the way up to 100% but no difference.

Also every time I went back into the editor after changing it, the density was back at 4% :confused:

Any ideas how I can get some exhaust? I must be doing something wrong!

DH

[WingDude]

Try this AV
|
|
V

[DirtyHarry3033]

Cool, I can see the smoke now! How you do that, or is it a "trade secret" :D

DH

[WingDude]

It's an ancient Chinese Secret!
Lol, just kidding, in stead of exhaust i used smoke.

[DirtyHarry3033]

What a week! Fighting with this CS has been even harder than the modeling but I'm starting to get somewhere :)

Attached is a screenshot showing where it stands right now. Pretty amateurish I know but then I've got no experience at this, it's all been a "learning experience."

Still need to weather it some, would also like to try and simulate ribs on the wings tail and fuse but I've got no idea how to do ribs. Guess I need to learn!

Also a lot more work to do on the camo, that's no where near finished yet...

There's a big prob on the fuse, if you look right in front of the tail, you'll see a light green poly on the left side of the fuse, and a dark green poly in the corresponding location on the right side. I painted light green in that area ONLY on the right side but it skipped an area at the top of the fuse and put it on the left side instead :confused:

Can anyone tell me how to fix that? I did a normal mapping top-bottom unwrap in Max (which actually gives a left-right unwrap) and that's what I got. I'm guessing I need to detach the problem polys and move them elsewhere? Any help appreciated!

Don't look for it on swaps this weekend, but it should be up next weekend :D

DH

[WingDude]

What a week! Fighting with this CS has been even harder than the modeling but I'm starting to get somewhere :)

Attached is a screenshot showing where it stands right now. Pretty amateurish I know but then I've got no experience at this, it's all been a "learning experience."

Still need to weather it some, would also like to try and simulate ribs on the wings tail and fuse but I've got no idea how to do ribs. Guess I need to learn!

Also a lot more work to do on the camo, that's no where near finished yet...

There's a big prob on the fuse, if you look right in front of the tail, you'll see a light green poly on the left side of the fuse, and a dark green poly in the corresponding location on the right side. I painted light green in that area ONLY on the right side but it skipped an area at the top of the fuse and put it on the left side instead :confused:

Can anyone tell me how to fix that? I did a normal mapping top-bottom unwrap in Max (which actually gives a left-right unwrap) and that's what I got. I'm guessing I need to detach the problem polys and move them elsewhere? Any help appreciated!

Don't look for it on swaps this weekend, but it should be up next weekend :D

DH


As the guys on the Bud Light commercials say... "DUDE!"

[DirtyHarry3033]

Thanks guys :)

The plane btw is painted to represent Eddie Rickenbacker's Spad. I've had a hard time finding any "definitive" reference materials as far as camo pattern or colors, I'm working from pics of a couple of 1/48 scale plastic models of his Spad I've found online and a LOT of "creativity"... So it won't be accurate ;)

WingDude, question for you - another thing I've noticed about your physics model is it "floats" at very low speeds if that makes any sense. I notice it mainly on landing, if it isn't done perfectly the plane will bounce 4 or 5 feet in the air and just "hang" there at like 12 mph and fly on another 20 feet or so before coming back down.

Seems to me it shouldn't be flying at all, at that low a speed, but maybe I'm wrong? Don't know myself, I've only flown helis, never planes. If that's how a scale WWI bird should fly then fine, but if not is there a way to get rid of the "float"? Just seems to me it's staying airborne at way too slow a speed...

DH

[WingDude]

man, i just noticed that... hmmm, I'll work on it to see if i can fix it.

Edit: you might want to send it to Phantom... he's pretty good with AVs, he could probably fix this.

Edit again: I got it to only bounce 3 feet in the air!!! :p

[WingDude]

Ah HA!
I had the wrong airfoil :p
Lands a lot better now.

[DirtyHarry3033]

Ah HA!
I had the wrong airfoil :p
Lands a lot better now.

Hey WingDude can you tell me the airfoil and params you used? I've screwed around so much with so many different variants, with so many different names, that when I export (Edit: Damn, I meant "Import" of course...) your new AV it tells me that it's based on an airplane I don't have :( If you can give the #'s, I'll plug 'em in and try it out! Thanks :)

DH

[WingDude]

I don't know, the version you just sent me erased it :( :mad:

[WingDude]

Here it is, i salvaged it somehow.

[WingDude]

Lol, look in the cockpit :D

[DirtyHarry3033]

Here it is, i salvaged it somehow.

Nice! Not so much bouncing around for a crappy pilot like me ;) Another thing I like, it's a little slower now on the top end, a little closer to a scale speed.

Yeah, the cockpit has probs :D Like I said this is a "learning experience" and the cockpit is on my list of things to fix! I'd like to put in a stick, rudder pedals, seat, panel etc but don't have enough polys. At any rate, there is a "box" inside the cockpit that should be showing instead of my texture map (not sure why that's showing at all.) Guess I need to flip the normals on it or something...

And yeah, I agree with you it is looking "cartoony" at the moment. Just need to figure out how to rough it up and weather it a bit. This is all new to me, probably a miracle that I got this far with it!

DH

PS That new avatar has GOT to go!!! Put something classy and tasteful back on, you don't need newbie "Clown" stuff as onderunway would say :D

LOL!!!!! (thanks for the compliment!)

[WingDude]

Newbie, lol, that's anything but.. did you even see my first EA, lol, i don't even want to talk about it. It was a crappy rocket called the Dweeb 2 that could fly around, lol.

[DirtyHarry3033]

Were can i get the scheme and the newest EA? :confused:

Well Blade it ain't been released yet ;) WingDude asked for it and I emailed it to him.



But I'll show mercy on you and post it here. Everyone keep in mind though, it is WIP and therefore not done yet! I hope it will look a lot better when I release it to swaps. All comments/criticism welcome :)

DH

[WingDude]

Hey DH, This AV has no down thrust.

[DirtyHarry3033]

I noticed the landing gear is actually part of the fusalage and not a seperate component. You need to seperate them so you can line up the fusalage correctly without extremely unnesesary drag.

Yeah I noticed that Friday night (you're talking about the wireframe view in RF's editor mode, right?) I unlinked everything to do with the LG from the fuse in the max hierarchy, saved it out to a .kex and imported a whole new spad.

Still had the same thing. Deleted/recreated the fuse from the physics model and it STILL came back with that nice ugly triangle where the gear are. Not sure where to go from here...

BTW, I notice that whereas the Sopwith Camel in the free expansion pack does NOT include the gear on the fuse, it DOES have the top wing struts (ones that are attached to the fuse) included on the fuse just like my Spad. Maybe it's an RF bug?

DH

[pplace]

Yeah I noticed that Friday night (you're talking about the wireframe view in RF's editor mode, right?) I unlinked everything to do with the LG from the fuse in the max hierarchy, saved it out to a .kex and imported a whole new spad.

Still had the same thing. Deleted/recreated the fuse from the physics model and it STILL came back with that nice ugly triangle where the gear are. Not sure where to go from here...

BTW, I notice that whereas the Sopwith Camel in the free expansion pack does NOT include the gear on the fuse, it DOES have the top wing struts (ones that are attached to the fuse) included on the fuse just like my Spad. Maybe it's an RF bug?

DH

As long as the gear is named properly ~CS_LG and ~CS_RG then link them to the fuse it will solve your problem in the editor.

[DirtyHarry3033]

As long as the gear is named properly ~CS_LG and ~CS_RG then link them to the fuse it will solve your problem in the editor.

OK thanks pplace, I'll have another look at it - but I'm pretty sure that's how I had it before and still got that effect.

It may be that I set the hierarchy up wrong, it's not quite a "standard" landing gear what with the 2-piece struts and the "wing" running in between the LG and the RG. A little more complex than a cylinder with a wheel attached. I'll try playing around with different hierarchies and see if I can work it out. Also need to address the struts going from the fuse to the top wing, they do the same thing.

BTW, a couple pages back I posted my 1st attempt at a CS and a new EA with it. I'd like to hear your input on it if you have time - the CS you did on the Cat is a thing of beauty :D Also need to weather it some but I don't have a clue how to start - do you know any sites with good tuts on weathering a model? Did a lot of googling today on "2d weathering" and most of what I found was tuts on how to photoshop a pic to make it look like a tornado was tearing up the neighborhood... Any help appreciated :)

DH

[edit] Yep! I reworked the hierarchy a bit and now the gear are looking right in the wireframe :) Had too many parts, I collapsed each side into a ~CS_[L/R]G and a ~CS_[L/R]W and now it's looking good - thanks for the tip pplace!

[phrank]

A few months ago nemo_uk pointed me to this wonderful site:
http://www.simmerspaintshop.com/

Many available tutorials on painting and weathering aircraft, give it a try.

Good Luck,
Frank...

[DirtyHarry3033]

Thanks phrank, looks like a good site! Bookmarked it, sent a link to my email at work (read: Lots of "unproductive time" coming up at work next week ;) ) and maybe I'll learn something from it :)

My prob is the CS stuff in general requires a talent for art and a good eye, which I don't have. I can do a passable job of copying something that's already been done such as a visual model from a 3-view, or throwing some blobs of green and brown on for a camo pattern, but all the work that goes into a CS to make it look great requires the "artist touch" which I lack...

I'll see if I can learn something from the site :D

DH

[phrank]

My prob is the CS stuff in general requires a talent for art and a good eye, which I don't have.

You're not the only one. :o
I wish I had half the painting ability of some of these guys.

[jeffpn]

You're not the only one. :o
I wish I had half the painting ability of some of these guys.
You could practice by painting my house! :D

[pplace]

DH,

I just got back into town this afternoon. Haven't had a chance to check out your EA and CS progress yet.

Attached is one of your renders with some ~CS_"naming" ideas that might help you out a bit. I think a big misconception some have is "swaying" from the listed ~CS_names in the KE tutorials.

You can name an object any ~CS_Name you want (I forget the max character length off hand) but always abbreviate and you shouldn't have problems! Once you have objects with the proper ~CS_Name applied just link it accordingly to the "parent" object.

Unless an object has a ~CS_Name and is linked to the fuse for example....you will always have the trouble of the "protrusions" on the wire frame. If I remember correctly from the past, these "protrusions" do NOT affect the drag of the aircraft.

Edit: P.S. The supplied link by phrank for CS tutorials is where I learned many of my CS tricks. If you really want some pointers I would suggest chatting with brentg.....or at least study some of his CS .TGA files to get a feel for the "look" I can tell you right now that in order to achieve a realistic look.....layers are your answer. I use dozens and dozens of layers for each CS I do. Each color, markings, weathering, etc. are on different layers....thus you can tweak and change one layer without affecting other areas of the CS.

[DirtyHarry3033]

Thanks phrank & pplace for the input on tuts! Very useful stuff, I was actually able to get something on the plane that I wanted badly which is a "cloth over rib" effect! I've done a test on the top wing, see the pic :) Not much chance I would have figured it out without that link, phrank...

Spacing is off a bit, need to work on that. But there's another prob and I'm not sure what's gone wrong.

My rib layers are doing just what they should on the roundels, but appear to have NO effect on the stripe on the left wing, or the number 1 on the right wing :confused:

Hmm, actually looking a bit closer at renders in max, it seems the white is what's not picking up the effect. It's just looking "flat" still, where the red & blue is getting the right effect.

Each roundel is on its own layer, the stripe and the number are each on their own layers, and the "rib" layers are above all the others. I'm using Gimp 2.4.4 for this. Anyone got an idea why the white areas are coming out flat?

Sorry for stupid questions!

DH

[pplace]

Not quite sure why the "ribbing" isn't picking up on the white. I was going to mention that you possibly have the white layer above all others....till I read further into your post. Is it possible you made a duplicate layer of the white and have that above your "ribbing" layer?

I can say thought I am really impressed with how much that adds to the overall look of the aircraft. Like you mentioned, the spacing is a bit off...get that all set up and do the rest of the aircraft......it'll look awesome.

Keep up the great work.

[DirtyHarry3033]

Like I've said, I'm new at this - the modeling, the painting, the whole works!

But the rib layers are above everything else - 4 separate layers, 2 for the left wing, 2 for the right. Each wing has a "shadow" gradient and an inverse "highlight" gradient on its own layer. As recommended in the tut, the rib layers are set to "soft light" mode.

The individual colors on the decals aren't on separate layers - i.e. the left roundel has the red/white/blue colors all in one layer, as does the right roundel. Same with the stripe, and the number "1". Each of the 4 decals is on its own layer but the colors that make each one aren't on different layers. Don't know if that matters.

The camo for the entire model is on the background layer.

I've only got 1 idea why the white doesn't get the effect, and that's that well, "white can't get any whiter". So it can't pick up any more highlights. But it seems it should be picking up shadows anyway.

I'm including a full-size pic of the top wing cut from my .tga, it may give a better idea of what's going on? I'm thinking if I take the white down to a light gray it may work better. I'll give that a try tomorrow and see what happens...

Anyway, doesn't really matter, once the plane is airborne you can't see any of that stuff anyhow!!!! So who cares ;)

Thanks for the input & complements pplace, I'm trying hard to learn and having a blast :)

DH

[edit] It does add a lot... I about sh*t myself the 1st time I loaded it up in G4, couldn't believe the difference it made even if it ain't perfect. Can't wait to see it with the whole plane done, wings, tail, fuse and all!

[DirtyHarry3033]

Done nothing but work on the CS this week, it's not perfect but for a 1st effort I guess not too bad either. Good chance I'll be putting it up on swaps this weekend.

pplace, thanks for the info about making up ~CS names for the parts such as struts, wires, LG wings and so on that don't have "pre-defined" names - I tried that and it cleaned the fuse up perfectly.

But those things DO affect drag apparently, after I did it the plane flew totally differently and was easily 10+ mph faster.

DH

[pplace]

it's not perfect but for a 1st effort I guess not too bad either.

HaHa good one.....you've done a stellar job so far! This truly is one fine looking model.....and the CS is keeping right up with the quality of the 3D model.

I notice in your screen shot that you have the "ribbing" on the white surfaces now. What did you end up changing in order to get that looking correct?

I really hope you decide to do more projects in the future??

[DirtyHarry3033]

Thanks! Coming from you pplace, that is the finest complement I could ask for! It's been a learning experience, and a test of my patience at times but I've had more fun than the law allows ;)

The roundels and number were pure white, I took them down to a light gray and they then picked up the rib effect. I can understand no "hilights" on the white, but seems it should have picked up the "shadow" anyway.

I'll be starting my next project the 2nd week of June, I have the week off for vacation. Part of me wants to stay with WWI and do the Airco DH 2, but I think that totally exposed engine would kill it for me - I'd want to model every cooling fin, push rod and plug wire and the engine alone would eat all the poly's.

Next will probably be the Douglas A-26C, unless you want to reserve that one for yourself. I got some absolutely fantastic 3-views off a Russian site, these things are like 4,000 pixels wide by 6,000 pixels tall! Fuse and wing cross sections, and all the nose variants.

DH

[pplace]

Next will probably be the Douglas A-26C, unless you want to reserve that one for yourself. I got some absolutely fantastic 3-views off a Russian site, these things are like 4,000 pixels wide by 6,000 pixels tall! Fuse and wing cross sections, and all the nose variants.

DH

I would love for you to give it a go!!

[DirtyHarry3033]

I would love for you to give it a go!!

"Roger, we are GO for A-26!"

I've already started pulling the 3-views apart and making them up into something usable, that in itself is an adventure with all the stuff going on in these views. Tell you what, they are crowded! I should know Gimp inside and out by the time I get 'em ready...

DH

[DirtyHarry3033]

The Spad is on the swaps :D

DH

[WingDude]

Nice model and the physics are fantastic :p J/K, the 3d model is sweet

[pplace]

My swap page comment: Nobody would suspect this is your first attempt at modeling. I know you put a ton of time and effort into it and it really shows. The visual model and CS are superb....and WingDude complimented it well with his physics. All around a great job....hopefully a big learning experience for models to come!

In addition to that I really want to emphasize how glad I am that you "stuck it out" through the numerous problems you ran into. You didn't let these problems stop you from "re-doing" items over and over again. I can clearly tell you are more concerned with quality of a build....rather than just pushing one out and onto the swap pages.

I really urge you to start a build thread for the A-26. It is always nice to watch others create as well. In addition it opens more doors and avenues for the "old dogs" to learn new tricks. I honestly learned a couple different methods to try out on my future builds.

Keep up the great work....thanks again.

[DirtyHarry3033]

My swap page comment: Nobody would suspect this is your first attempt at modeling. I know you put a ton of time and effort into it and it really shows. The visual model and CS are superb....and WingDude complimented it well with his physics. All around a great job....hopefully a big learning experience for models to come!

In addition to that I really want to emphasize how glad I am that you "stuck it out" through the numerous problems you ran into. You didn't let these problems stop you from "re-doing" items over and over again. I can clearly tell you are more concerned with quality of a build....rather than just pushing one out and onto the swap pages.

I really urge you to start a build thread for the A-26. It is always nice to watch others create as well. In addition it opens more doors and avenues for the "old dogs" to learn new tricks. I honestly learned a couple different methods to try out on my future builds.

Keep up the great work....thanks again.

Thanks pplace :) I meant it when I said I couldn't have done it without your support & help, and phrank's leads on doing a CS made all the difference there - it would have looked like a "cartoon CS" (or as onderunway would put it, a "clown CS") without his input.

Talking about "re-doing", you wouldn't believe how may times I started over from scratch! Trashed it all and got a fresh start. Every time I did that, I learned a little more and the results were a little better.

As far as quality builds, I'm a perfectionist. Left to myself, I wouldn't release it until it is flawless in every respect - but of course in that case it would never be released since perfection is not possible. So I'm learning to "compromise", to push it as close as I can and accept the imperfections. You wouldn't believe how much time I spent agonizing over the little details. I can easily spend an hour worrying if I've got a color just right, or if I've got the struts placed exactly, on and on...

So yeah, I've got no interest at all in pushing something out onto swaps ASAP so I can push another one out ASAP... I'd much rather post 1 quality effort, than 10 "so-so" efforts.

There will be a build thread on the A-26 when I have a little progress to show. Right now I'm tearing the 3-views apart and trying to get them usable, getting a complete top view, bottom view, side views and so on, and getting everything scaled to within a few pixels. My top view is nearly 7000 pixels wide after mirroring the 1/2 view that was in the plans, so a few pixels error in scaling should be acceptable :) But I will get it as close as I can :D

DH

[pplace]

It's obviously clear that your work needs major improvement..... :rolleyes:

[DirtyHarry3033]

It's obviously clear that your work needs major improvement..... :rolleyes:

Yep I must have done something major wrong! If I had even half a brain, I'd go start yet another thread on the rating system but frankly I don't care :D There's no one harder on my work than I am, and the work I did pleased me enough to release it which for me is a major accomplishment. I don't need a "10" rating to tell me I did a good job :) I know I did a good job just by looking at the model...

To whoever left me the "5", what displeased you? A 50% score is a "failing grade" anywhere. If you feel a modeler fell that far short, you should leave a comment telling why you felt his efforts weren't up to par. Otherwise, how is he gonna know what issues he needs to address on his next model?

DH

[Junkboy999]

This is you first Model release Right HD. what a nice peice of worh it is. Only bad thing I see about the Model is ........... I CANT FLAY IT YET> :D

When I get off my butt and get some more work lined up for the summer I'll buy G4 and this will be one if the first Models I'll be flying.

My first model took 5 months but must was learning the programs. I told my self even if no one like it I would still place it out there for my friends and other modelers.

The rating are,, whell what can any one say. There are many thread out there on this subject. if you look at PPlace PBY he released for G3.5 some one gave it a 5 too. unless they sent him a message i private you dont see and comment. what was that for.?? the system is there to find the best rated models but If I looking for WW1 AC I'mm DL just thoses no mater what rating they have . same with WWII or Civil planes. but oh well


any How fantastic job. An 11 in my book even with me not even flying it :)

[Ikerus]

are you going to try to release a version for us still using 3.5?

[Law]

On a scale of 1 through 10 a 5 is still a decent score. I wouldn't consider it a 50% score or a failing mark.

As an example, if 10 is the best you can do then 10 would be considered perfect. Perfection is an unachievable goal (at least in most people's eyes). So a score of 9 would be about as close as anyone could expect to get to perfection. An 8 would be slightly less and a 7 would be ... etc etc. So by the time you hit 5 your looking at what most people would consider "average". Not even close to a failing grade. A 4 would be poor, 3 terrible, 2 really bad and a 1 would be a failure.

Like when the doctor asks you when your in pain - "On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the worst pain you can imagine, how much pain are you in? If you said 5 you'd be in a "LOT" of pain.

The point is that we're dealing with a 1 through 10 point system, not an "A" through "F" report card nor a "0" to "100" percentage system. A 5 is not 50%, nor a failing grade ... at least not in any 1 through 10 point system that I'm familiar with.

Don't let this jerk bring you down. Don't let him play his game. Be proud of (or at least accepting) of an "average" score from someone who's only playing games and isn't really rating your work.

[DirtyHarry3033]

Ahh, Law! You're as argumentative as me :)

Anyway a few points:

1) I agree with you, 10 is "perfection" and should for the most part be unattainable. It is very rare to get a perfect score on a test for instance (Unless the test is unusually easy) though it does happen on occasion.

2) On every test I ever took, a score of 50% earned me an "F" - failing in other words. Works the same way on reviews, if Car & Driver gives a score of 5 out of 10 in a review, not many people that read it will want to try the car, ya know?

And I don't know where you learned your math, but where I learned, 5 is exactly 50% of 10 :D

3) I wasn't the least bit bothered by the score the guy left :) Frankly, the "10" rating was bothering me a bit, I did a great job on the model I think, but I don't think it deserves a perfect 10.

My only issue with his "5" was, why didn't he tell me what he didn't like? If there's a problem, it might help me do better next time, ya know?

4) In any event, it's a moot point. He either withdrew his rating (if you can do that) or changed it to a 10 because the scores are now all back to 10. Don't know why he did that :confused:


At any rate, I wasn't the least bit bothered by it! I'm very pleased with my work and any bad ratings won't change my satisfaction. Seems like everybody else is pleased also, and that's the icing on the cake :D I tried very hard to make a good model for people to enjoy and it looks like I succeeded.

Regards,

DH

[Law]

Not to be argumentative. :D

I can't comment on the Car and Driver rating System since I don't read Car and Driver. But, many investments firms will rate their stocks on a 1 through 10 system and a stock receiving a 5 is not a failing stock - far from it. In fact the majority of good performing stocks receive ratings of 4 through 7.

If a rating of 5 is considered failing why have a scale that goes to 1 - what are the 4, 3, 2, and 1 for?



Here's a typical product rating system and what the numbers mean:

10.0 (Perfect):
This exceedingly rare score is reserved for a product that is as perfect as it could be.

9.0 to 9.9 (Spectacular):
A product that receives a rating in this range scores high on all of its rating criteria. It succeeds at meeting all of its intended users' needs and has no meaningful drawbacks.

8.0 to 8.9 (Excellent):
A product that receives a rating in this range is superior in so many ways that its relatively few drawbacks are not very important.

7.0 to 7.9 (Very good):
While the strengths of a product scoring in this range certainly outweigh its weaknesses, it has some minor faults that certain users should be aware of.

6.0 to 6.9 (Good):
This range represents a product that is above average. Its strengths slightly outweigh its weaknesses, making it good for most uses but not a standout.

5.0 to 5.9 (Average):
A product that scores in this range is functional but unremarkable.

4.0 to 4.9 (Mediocre):
Products in this range are below average. They fall the middle of the pack for most features, but suffer from a few additional major flaws.

3.0 to 3.9 (Poor):
You probably should not consider a product in this range or lower. There may be one or two specialized circumstances, however, that could justify the purchase of this product for a very low price for a specific demand.

2.0 to 2.9 (Terrible):
A product that receives a rating in this range scores low on all of its rating criteria. It does not satisfy any of its intended users' needs and has no meaningful strengths.

1.0 to 1.9 (Abysmal):
A product in this range should never have been produced. This product has no redeeming qualities and worse, may actually harm you or your productivity.

[DirtyHarry3033]

Not to be argumentative. :D

I can't comment on the Car and Driver rating System since I don't read Car and Driver. But, many investments firms will rate their stocks on a 1 through 10 system and a stock receiving a 5 is not a failing stock - far from it. In fact the majority of good performing stocks receive ratings of 4 through 7.

Law that's fascinating :rolleyes:

Really, I had no idea that we were trading stocks on the swaps! I thought it was simulated RC planes/helis ;)

But now that you've enlightened me, I have 10,000 shares of Spad XIII available at the low, low price of only $30/share. A top-performing issue with a proven track record, likely to double in value within the week! I accept paypal, how many shares shall I put you down for?

OK, that's enough OT stuff. We're talking RF planes here, not stocks. Apples & oranges, ya know?

Back to work on the A-26, but thanks for the education on stock market ratings. I'll keep it in mind if I ever decide to invest :)

DH

[DirtyHarry3033]

are you going to try to release a version for us still using 3.5?

Sorry Ikerus, I don't have 3.5 :( So I can't do it. But if someone who has 3.5 is willing to do the conversion, I'll be glad to provide the .kex.

DH

[rjmanzuk]

But now that you've enlightened me, I have 10,000 shares of Spad XIII available at the low, low price of only $30/share. A top-performing issue with a proven track record, likely to double in value within the week! I accept paypal, how many shares shall I put you down for?DHWhen the price gets to $90/share, put me in for 1000 shares, so I can turn them over at $15. (As you can see, some of us DO follow that rating system religiously .... which is why I am NOT the richest man in the world ... that and the fact that I still don't have my new PC operating system and office suite quite ready for sale just yet .... still adding bugs). :p

[jeffpn]

Aarrgghh!!! I'm about to agree with Law! Somebody smite me, please!!! On a scale of 1 to 10, when you are rating anything, 5 WOULD be average. Think about it; half the ratings are lower, and half the ratings are higher. (I know, I know, there's 4 digits below 5, and 5 digits above 5, but 5 is halfway to 10.) Think of your kid's pediatrician appointment. (Or maybe you are a kid. No wait, there's no kids on THESE forums!) If you are 50th percentile in height, then half of all kids your age are shorter than you, and half of all kids your age are taller than you. A rating of '5' probably should be middle of the road, average, not spectacular, but not abysmal, etc.

[DirtyHarry3033]

Aarrgghh!!! I'm about to agree with Law! Somebody smite me, please!!! On a scale of 1 to 10, when you are rating anything, 5 WOULD be average. Think about it; half the ratings are lower, and half the ratings are higher. (I know, I know, there's 4 digits below 5, and 5 digits above 5, but 5 is halfway to 10.) Think of your kid's pediatrician appointment. (Or maybe you are a kid. No wait, there's no kids on THESE forums!) If you are 50th percentile in height, then half of all kids your age are shorter than you, and half of all kids your age are taller than you. A rating of '5' probably should be middle of the road, average, not spectacular, but not abysmal, etc.

The problem there though, is that to give a rating lower than 5 you have to post a comment and thereby give away who you are. People who feel like posting a bad rating for whatever reason most likely don't want to be associated with that rating., they want to vote "anonymously". So 5 is as low as you can go without giving away who you are.

That throws the scale off totally. It's not a 1 to 10 scale, with 1 the worst and 10 the best. It's a 5 to 10 scale with 5 the worst and 10 the best. Unless the voter wants his vote to be known.

And no Jeff, I'm not a kid. I'll turn 50 next year and that's about 24 years older than I have any right to be as I should have died in a motorcycle accident I had in 1984. There is no medical reason that can explain how I survived it, with the injuries I had and the length of time it took for EMS to get there - maybe I survived only so I could release a Spad on swaps a quarter century later in 2008?

DH

[pplace]

That throws the scale off totally. It's not a 1 to 10 scale, with 1 the worst and 10 the best. It's a 5 to 10 scale with 5 the worst and 10 the best. Unless the voter wants his vote to be known.

That is what gets me: The rater isn't being serious in his ratings at all.....instead he is intentionally giving the lowest rating possible, without getting revealed. As we all know before it was with the 1's.....with the change in the ratings / comments....now 5's are the new 1's.

If a model gets a 5 and the rater is known (either through comments or just by seeing the screen name...similar to taking a poll) then it would be 100% alright to get these crazy ratings, but we all know deep down that the rater is just getting a jab in.....knowing he'll never be uncovered. He thinks he's getting away with this (and he has been for a looong time)


- maybe I survived only so I could release a Spad on swaps a quarter century later in 2008?

DH

I like that comment....made me chuckle

[Junkboy999]

Ok

If we are all average then we all get 5 that is Me, Dirty Harry, user one and user two ( feel free to place your own name in there ). We all get 5 just for walking and breathing, eating and sh*ting. HD is smart enough to make a model, every one else just rates them and take up space, I'll bump him up to a 6. DH makes a killer paint job, Up again 7, what is every one else doing, taking up breathing air, DH figured how to get the Model in to RF Bump up to 8, eveny one else, setting on the butts and eating, DH made the Physic having never flown that RC model of even flying the Real Aircraft, Bump up to 9. He even open up his soul to every one by placing this model out in the open for all the Vouchers and scavengers to pick apart. I'll bump him up again just for that, and you guess it, every one else is just sh*ting on the ground after filling the greedy bellies.

I think only the modelers should be able to rate the models. Ever one else should just enjoy the FREE toys. Why would any one feel the need to rate a model when they them self have never released a model to the public. Any one placing a Model on the open forum will get my same respect having know what that person went through just to make it,


Just my two cent worth. But again I'll keep placing my models up on swaps just because I enjoy making them and sharing them. When the day come that I feel my rating are getting knocked down just because some one does not like me or what I say in the forums, then that is the day when I'll just share my work with the modelers that respect mine and the other hard work.

[Junkboy999]

Ps. My other hobbie is sticking sharp pointy sticks in to hornets nest.



PSS if you need any one to make it a 3.5 model I can work with you on that :)

[iflyinanh]

Ok

If we are all average then we all get 5 that is Me, Dirty Harry, user one and user two ( feel free to place your own name in there ). We all get 5 just for walking and breathing, eating and sh*ting. HD is smart enough to make a model, every one else just rates them and take up space, I'll bump him up to a 6. DH makes a killer paint job, Up again 7, what is every one else doing, taking up breathing air, DH figured how to get the Model in to RF Bump up to 8, eveny one else, setting on the butts and eating, DH made the Physic having never flown that RC model of even flying the Real Aircraft, Bump up to 9. He even open up his soul to every one by placing this model out in the open for all the Vouchers and scavengers to pick apart. I'll bump him up again just for that, and you guess it, every one else is just sh*ting on the ground after filling the greedy bellies.

I think only the modelers should be able to rate the models. Ever one else should just enjoy the FREE toys. Why would any one feel the need to rate a model when they them self have never released a model to the public. Any one placing a Model on the open forum will get my same respect having know what that person went through just to make it,


Just my two cent worth. But again I'll keep placing my models up on swaps just because I enjoy making them and sharing them. When the day come that I feel my rating are getting knocked down just because some one does not like me or what I say in the forums, then that is the day when I'll just share my work with the modelers that respect mine and the other hard work.

Just so you all know, im learning. i can weld things togetther and reshape them, but that is it so far. harry great model! i havent downloadaed it yet because i am to lazy to boot my real flight computer but i will tomarow morning

[DirtyHarry3033]

Junkboy, ROFL and I appreciate it. But let me correct you on one thing:

WingDude made the physics! WingDude made it fly nice! All I did was make it look good. Really, in the one respect that really counts (i.e. how it flies) it's more his plane than mine.

If I'd done the physics, it'd have maybe 10 downloads by now and a rating of negative 10. That'll be my next project, learning how to make a plane fly good!


pplace, glad I made you chuckle! Nothing better than a good laugh, right? So maybe that's another reason I didn't die in that wreck...

BTW, you may have noticed that my "5" was gone today? I looked at your PBY this morning and your "5" was gone also. Interesting, huh? Don't know what to make of that...

DH

[rjmanzuk]

Ps. My other hobbie is sticking sharp pointy sticks in to hornets nest.When you think about it, that's still better than poking that sharp stick in your eye. :eek:

[Junkboy999]

When you think about it, that's still better than poking that sharp stick in your eye. :eek:


;) hehehe

[Law]

The models are what’s being rated not the modeler. I don’t rate the models on the swap pages, never have. Mainly because the modeler is always upset whenever “he” doesn’t get a “10". Since the models are getting rated and not the modeler I don’t bother rating them. Why should I give my honest opinion of what was created if the modeler is going to take it personally and cry about all of the effort he put in creating it ... and why should I be able to rate it anyway, I’ve never created a model ... just like I’ve never built a car so I should never be able to give an opinion about cars ...

I would never give a “10" rating since perfection is unachievable. Most of the models that exist on the swaps would receive a rating of something between a 5 and 7. A few notable exceptions -would receive either an 8 (excellent) or a 9 (superior). In comparison the models on EP 5 would receive mostly 5's with a 7 (or maybe an 8) going to a few exceptions. But, of course, that’s not FAIR because of all of the effort that went into creating them and the fact that I’ve never created one so I have no right to rate them.

Like it or not, agree with it or not - The 1 through 10 rating system is:

10: Perfect

9: Spectacular

8: Excellent

7: Very good

6: Good

5: Average

4: Mediocre

3: Poor

2: Terrible

1: Abysmal

[pplace]

I looked at your PBY this morning and your "5" was gone also.

DH

It's still there....I had a talk with one of the admins and told them I did NOT want the 5 removed. Instead look deeper into the situation. I'm fine with 5 ratings....as long as they true and not vindictive.

[DirtyHarry3033]

It's still there....I had a talk with one of the admins and told them I did NOT want the 5 removed. Instead look deeper into the situation. I'm fine with 5 ratings....as long as they true and not vindictive.


Ah, I was looking at the wrong one :o Thought it was on the G4, but it was on the G3.5 version - I'd forgotten that.

DH

[Junkboy999]

Can you imagine having a Kid, and it was his first day in Art class to make a Macaroni Picture for his parents. He bring it home and the parents say It's no Mona Lisa, I'll Give it a #1. You cant call it #5 average because it was his first one, and there is nothing to base a good average off of. It is not a 10 Because " 10" since "perfection is unachievable". Then you tell him, I'm not rating you.... Just your work. Poor Kid would be traumatized for Life. Think he would ever try that project again, Even if it was just to improve his self-estine. or artwork ? :rolleyes:

Having spent 20 years 1 month and 7 days in the Military and first being rated 1-9 and then later in life 1-5 because every one was getting " Fire Wall" 9 you'll see that rating system does not work. It took only one year and ever one was getting 5 all the time. Even thought a 3 was arrange the 3 3 3 3 3 from you last years sores hurt your chances to be promoted and that in turn hurts you $$$$$$ and your mental worth. The Rating system in the military was a way for head supervision can look at your records and rate you on a number, with out even meeting you or knowing how hard you work. The rating here are for models the same way so some one can quickly go through and pick the best with out going through the trash. So why not rate the trash a 5 "avrage" and the good a 10 or 9".

Here is another Soap Box view of the rating. Let say for an example that some one took 5 month to make a Model and release to the public. It gets DL 890+ times and gets 23, 10 ratings and 1. 9 rating. A fantastic score that every modeler would be proud of , but yet this model score is rated lower in the list compared the An AV of a model physic that had been DL 10 times and is rated with just two 10's and the Av could of been made just as easy as opening up the editor and changing a 100 to 200.. ???

And what about that little clock on the bottom of your task bar. It is never Right, $2000+ computer system and it cant even keep track of time better then my 5 $ watch. , , , , , and Having to type this whole replay out twice because power went out because we got pelted with Hail. :eek: That really Grinds My Gears.


<Thub> another hornets nest gets hit . Waiting for the stings.... :D

[Junkboy999]

That looks really great.


I have seen people Rate an AV bad bceause it was an AV for 3,5 and not the G4 version of the same model.

[Cowboy]

That looks really great.


I have seen people Rate an AV bad bceause it was an AV for 3,5 and not the G4 version of the same model.
you mean like this??

1 Shuts down G4 everytime... Fix please

yes, it's an actual rating...I deleted the name of the poster for banter reasons

[Law]

Can you imagine having a Kid, and it was his first day in Art class to make a Macaroni Picture for his parents. He bring it home and the parents say It's no Mona Lisa, I'll Give it a #1. You cant call it #5 average because it was his first one, and there is nothing to base a good average off of. It is not a 10 Because " 10" since "perfection is unachievable". Then you tell him, I'm not rating you.... Just your work. Poor Kid would be traumatized for Life. Think he would ever try that project again, Even if it was just to improve his self-estine. or artwork ? :rolleyes:

Having spent 20 years 1 month and 7 days in the Military and first being rated 1-9 and then later in life 1-5 because every one was getting " Fire Wall" 9 you'll see that rating system does not work. It took only one year and ever one was getting 5 all the time. Even thought a 3 was arrange the 3 3 3 3 3 from you last years sores hurt your chances to be promoted and that in turn hurts you $$$$$$ and your mental worth. The Rating system in the military was a way for head supervision can look at your records and rate you on a number, with out even meeting you or knowing how hard you work. The rating here are for models the same way so some one can quickly go through and pick the best with out going through the trash. So why not rate the trash a 5 "avrage" and the good a 10 or 9".

Here is another Soap Box view of the rating. Let say for an example that some one took 5 month to make a Model and release to the public. It gets DL 890+ times and gets 23, 10 ratings and 1. 9 rating. A fantastic score that every modeler would be proud of , but yet this model score is rated lower in the list compared the An AV of a model physic that had been DL 10 times and is rated with just two 10's and the Av could of been made just as easy as opening up the editor and changing a 100 to 200.. ???

And what about that little clock on the bottom of your task bar. It is never Right, $2000+ computer system and it cant even keep track of time better then my 5 $ watch. , , , , , and Having to type this whole replay out twice because power went out because we got pelted with Hail. :eek: That really Grinds My Gears.


<Thub> another hornets nest gets hit . Waiting for the stings.... :D

Wow, Junkboy999 where do I start ... First let me say I'm sorry for the lost power/hail storm thing. I know how frustrating that can be.

We're not pre-schoolers here making macaroni art. We're adults and as adults are capable of understanding a 1 to 10 rating system. We're capable of understanding when we're told that our creations are just as good as what's produced by the graphics artists and modelers who are paid by KE ... but of course, they're not.

If you consider the models that came with this simulator, along with all of the models that have been created for the Expansion Packs as all being average - with maybe a few exceptions. Then by looking through the models that have been created and uploaded to the Swap Pages, all of the User models are perfect or superior to anything that's ever been produced by those people employed by KE. Is that fair to the people who work for KnifeEdge?

You claim that the 1 to 5 rating system doesn't work in the military - name something that does. I'm sure there are lots of places where a 1 through 10 rating system doesn't work. It doesn't work here! Obviously if every model that's uploaded to the swaps is rated a 10 there's no way that a new modeler (or any modeler for that matter) can create anything better then what's already been done. And everything that's ever been created by the users is so much better then anything that KnifeEdge can possibly create. Then there's no incentive for KE to try to make better models.

The model is rated ... the varient is rated ... the colorscheme is rated ... one does not and should not effect the other. Just because someone goes in and changes a 100 to a 200 he shouldn't get a good rating? Why because the model was "perfect" to begin with? What if that one little change is what was needed to make that model fly 10 times better then it did? Adults understand that the AV is being rated - NOT the person who made the change. Get that thought out of your head and maybe the rating system could actually work.

There is far more abuse in the ratings from too many people handing out perfect ratings then from one or two people handing out an average rating.

[WingDude]

This is who you should be watching out for blade...

[Junkboy999]

that sound liekthe same guy who DL a G4 AV and rated it bad because it was not for G3.5 :D