PDA

View Full Version : RAF FE2b


Pages : [1] 2 3

Madratter
04-01-2012, 07:07 PM
This will probably be a long, ongoing effort because the skills needed to pull it off are well beyond my current capabilities at modeling. I'm also constrained by the 3 views I have. More on that later. But for some reason, I really love this aircraft, even though it isn't particularly well known. And thus, I want to give it a try.

Some links:

http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/projects/fe-2b/flying-fe-2b

http://www.cbrnp.com/profiles/quarter1/raf.htm

http://www.aerodromerc.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1270690007

http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/raf_fe-2.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Aircraft_Factory_F.E.2

Among other things, this plane has the distinction of being the Red Baron's first official kill. It occurs prominently in his kill list, especially in the early days.

A later version of the aircraft, the FE2d also has the distinction of shooting the Red Baron down. He was seriously wounded as a result.

My biggest need is a better set of 3 views. There is a poor 3 view in the one link above. And the one link has an excellent view from the side. But a higher quality 3 view all drawn by the same draftsman would be a huge help.

Boof69
04-01-2012, 07:13 PM
Do you have this one?

Madratter
04-01-2012, 07:20 PM
Do you have this one?

That is the one 3 view that I do have. It is ok, and I'll use it if it is all I can come up with, but it is pretty low res, and may not be particular accurate. And it is essentially zero help on some pieces like the engine. Fortunately, some of the other photos in the other links help out there even if there aren't 3 views.

As far as scale, I'm thinking about doing this one 1/4 scale, although that would still be quite large since the original was 47 feet 9". Maybe 1/6th scale would be a better idea. That is still almost an 8 foot wingspan.

Boof69
04-01-2012, 07:21 PM
How about these? They are big images.

Madratter
04-01-2012, 07:25 PM
Those are way way better. Thanks!

Boof69
04-01-2012, 07:27 PM
Take a peek at some of these shots at this sight.
http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/image/tid/137

Madratter
04-01-2012, 07:31 PM
Take a peek at some of these shots at this sight.
http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/image/tid/137

Yeah, my first link above is a different way of getting to that site. The pictures there are fabulous and are going to be a tremendous resource. And since they were working off the original drawings, and look to have been pretty much perfectionists about it, it is almost like having pictures of an original.

Boof69
04-01-2012, 07:34 PM
Oops didn't notice that. They are some beautiful shots. If you need any help along the way let me know. I'll help if I can.

Madratter
04-01-2012, 07:37 PM
Thanks Boof. Given your track record, I know that is the case. :) You have already been a tremendous help digging out that one set of higher res 3 views.

Boof69
04-01-2012, 07:41 PM
No problem. Good luck with it. It looks like a challenging plane.

dhk79
04-02-2012, 07:45 AM
Here's a link to the assembly manual for a scale model kit (non-RC) that has some great close-up shots for scale details (i.e. the engine).

http://www.wingnutwings.com/ww/www/products/model_kitsets/32025/online_instructions/32025%20FE.2b%20Late%20instructions%20Pdf.pdf

Madratter
04-02-2012, 07:53 AM
Here's a link to the assembly manual for a scale model kit (non-RC) that has some great close-up shots for scale details (i.e. the engine).

http://www.wingnutwings.com/ww/www/products/model_kitsets/32025/online_instructions/32025%20FE.2b%20Late%20instructions%20Pdf.pdf

Wow. That is a goldmine. Thank you! :D

U-Bird
04-02-2012, 12:10 PM
That Boof is something else, isn't he? Always there to help. God Bless him.

uncle twist
04-02-2012, 01:36 PM
Madratter, search "Airco DH2" in the swaps, that Dirtyharry did, a very similar plane.You may find the physics set-up useful

Madratter
04-02-2012, 01:42 PM
Madratter, search "Airco DH2" in the swaps, that Dirtyharry did, a very similar plane.You may find the physics set-up useful

Thanks Uncle Twist. Excellent idea. :)

jeffpn
04-02-2012, 01:44 PM
You might want to try his model first. If you don't like the way it flies, it won't be a good place to start.

willsonman
04-02-2012, 01:47 PM
You do realize that you almost NEVER find a resource like that. But you also almost never have stiff competition like DH's. He has done some beautiful work. You have some hard work ahead of you. I'll be watching closely.

abaser
04-02-2012, 02:04 PM
Maybe you can help me out with my next build.:p

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SG-38

Madratter
04-02-2012, 02:13 PM
You might want to try his model first. If you don't like the way it flies, it won't be a good place to start.

There is at least one area where the two planes are very significantly different. The DH2 is a rotary, whereas the FE2b is a 6 cylinder inline.

Madratter
04-02-2012, 02:14 PM
Maybe you can help me out with my next build.:p

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SG-38

Nice. I still can't believe people had the nerve to get in some of these things. :p

Madratter
04-05-2012, 09:28 PM
I've been trying to setup the 3 views for this. The problem is, they simply are not correct and do not match (they are not self consistent). It is like when they did the 3 view from the side, it was not done with an orthographic projection. From the top view, you can see the wing should be flat across the back. With the side view, you can see the wing looks like it sweeps back even with the prop. I know from photos of the reproduction that this is incorrect. The wing does not sweep back.

So I'm trying to decide whether to proceed, or move on to something else until I get something that is more consistent.

jeffpn
04-05-2012, 09:32 PM
So I'm trying to decide whether to proceed, or move on to something else until I get something that is more consistent.

Good luck with that. 3-views are drawn by artists, not engineers. Right, Doug?

dhk79
04-05-2012, 09:33 PM
Yep, I think I've made that point just a few times over the years.

Madratter
04-05-2012, 09:51 PM
OK. I think I get the message. Quit whining! :)

It isn't like the finished product gets compared to the 3 view anyway. If it looks good, it is good.

dhk79
04-05-2012, 09:55 PM
Ratter,
The best way to deal with poor 3-views is to get some pictures of the aircraft and then try to figure out whether the top or side view is most consistent. Use the pictures to scale that one view along a single axis if needed. The one view is now the reference and the other views are scaled to it.

Then when the different views show something in different places, split the difference or use photos to figure out which is right.

As Jeff alluded most 3-views are usually off to some degree and would never pass an engineer's standard for accuracy. There are exceptions, however, and once I modeled an aircraft not because I liked it but because I found an absolutely perfect set of 3-views. I had to do that aircraft for the simple joy of working with drawings that were done by someone who knew what a scale was.
Doug

Madratter
04-05-2012, 10:06 PM
In this case, I think the side view is most suspect. I have an alternate side view that looks like it is at least orthographic, and may be more correct in general. So I'll give that other side view a try.

dhk79
04-05-2012, 10:09 PM
I've sometimes used more than one set of three views on a model and turned them on and off depending on which was less messed up.

Madratter
04-06-2012, 12:22 PM
Off for the weekend :). I have now put in the guide lines on the other side view and inserted it for use in blender. This side view works much better. There are still some minor issues, but that is what they are, minor.

Madratter
04-07-2012, 03:22 PM
With a little research today, I was able to find the exact airfoil shape that was used. :D

http://www.ds-cats.com/~kurisawa/aeronautics/Airfoils/OpenFiles.link/A2051/OS0153_A.png

Madratter
04-09-2012, 09:55 PM
I defined a single rib tonight. It takes 64 rectangular faces. I'm not sure I can afford the count since just the top wing alone has roughly 40 ribs. And then you need to connect them together. I could just extrude the whole thing, but then I need to do the wing ribs with bump maps. I would rather do something like Andy's technique. Ah well. I'm going to sleep on it before I decide anything.

abaser
04-09-2012, 10:06 PM
If you want to use my method, create the whole wing. No need to create each individual rib at the moment. Granted, you will use way more polys than if you bumped it, but if you would like some help, let me know. Ill also look at your file if you want to send it. Just let me know and Ill PM you my email addy.

dhk79
04-09-2012, 10:35 PM
FYI, RF doesn't have an RAF 14 in its airfoil database. It does have a RAF 15. If you can find the rest of the specs (or data points) for the RAF 14, I'll see if I can find a closer match.

Madratter
04-10-2012, 01:16 AM
If you want to use my method, create the whole wing. No need to create each individual rib at the moment. Granted, you will use way more polys than if you bumped it, but if you would like some help, let me know. Ill also look at your file if you want to send it. Just let me know and Ill PM you my email addy.

No need yet but thanks for the offer. :)

Madratter
04-10-2012, 01:18 AM
FYI, RF doesn't have an RAF 14 in its airfoil database. It does have a RAF 15. If you can find the rest of the specs (or data points) for the RAF 14, I'll see if I can find a closer match.

The Raf 15 is a pretty close match.

The coordinates for the RAF 14 are:

http://www.ds-cats.com/~kurisawa/aeronautics/Airfoils/OpenFiles.link/A2051/OO0153_A.txt

and the graphic of the shape:

http://www.ds-cats.com/~kurisawa/aeronautics/Airfoils/OpenFiles.link/A2051/OS0153_A.png

and for the RAF 15:

http://www.ds-cats.com/~kurisawa/aeronautics/Airfoils/OpenFiles.link/A2050/OO0003_A.txt

and the graphic of the shape:

http://www.ds-cats.com/~kurisawa/aeronautics/Airfoils/OpenFiles.link/A2050/OS0003_A.png

Madratter
04-12-2012, 10:08 PM
I know this doesn't look like much progress, but I have created the lower left wing. I was having some problems getting this to be smooth. When I would smooth, the coloring of the wing tip got much worse. It turned out I needed to redo some of the normals. Anyway, I think I now have it. Also, although it isn't obvious, the ailerons are actually ready to cut out. I have edges where I need them for that.

Madratter
04-15-2012, 04:52 PM
Here is the latest. I now have both the upper and lower wing done, with the ailerons cut out. Progress continues to be slow, both because I need to learn to do things that were irrelevant with the flat foam planes I have done before, and because I am currently building a real Telink 44" Edge 540. I kind of sneak some modeling in, when I'm waiting for glue to dry on the Telink.

willsonman
04-15-2012, 05:14 PM
I'm not sure how blender does edge specification but in wings it is referred to as hard and soft edges. In Max its called crease. You may want to look into it to help resolve the irregular shading you are seeing especially around the ailerons and wing trailing edge. Looking great though!

abaser
04-15-2012, 05:39 PM
The word, in Blender, you are looking for is sharp.;)

MR, if you get stuck on something, give me a shout.

Madratter
04-15-2012, 05:53 PM
I'm not sure how blender does edge specification but in wings it is referred to as hard and soft edges. In Max its called crease. You may want to look into it to help resolve the irregular shading you are seeing especially around the ailerons and wing trailing edge. Looking great though!

The word, in Blender, you are looking for is sharp.;)

MR, if you get stuck on something, give me a shout.

Thanks guys. Yet more stuff to look up. :)

abaser
04-15-2012, 06:02 PM
Ill save you a little trouble here. Highlight the edges you want to have a defined edge, hit control E for edge options and hit mark sharp. You will not see any changes until you add an edge split modifier though. In that option box, only check the marked as sharp option. Ill post some screenys in the tip thread to show what I mean.

abaser
04-15-2012, 06:05 PM
Better yet, see post #4.

http://www.knifeedge.com/forums/showthread.php?p=226018#post226018

Madratter
04-15-2012, 07:10 PM
Thanks again. Here I have added in the edge split modifiers with some sharp edges. :)

willsonman
04-15-2012, 09:22 PM
Much much better. As you use it more you will learn what edges will need it and what ones will not.

Madratter
04-24-2012, 10:19 PM
I got a chance tonight to work on the Horizontal Stab and Elevator.

Madratter
04-28-2012, 08:52 PM
This modeling stuff can be quite frustrating at times. Here is the really messed up rendering within RF6. Compare it to the rendering in Blender. I tried reassigning normals. It did not help. The colors are assigned (baked) not mapped, other than the box fuselage.

Boof69
04-28-2012, 09:32 PM
I don't know if you meant it this way but there is nothing wrong with the rendering within RF. You've just missed something somewhere.

abaser
04-28-2012, 09:42 PM
I'm betting on parenting, or object centers.

abaser
04-28-2012, 09:53 PM
:oNow that Im off my phone, I see the real problem:o

Are you using a mirror modifier? If so, did you apply it?

Also, if you hit "N" to open the properties window, scroll down to mesh display, find normals, then click face. this will show spikes pointing the direction of the norms.

Madratter
04-29-2012, 12:10 PM
I don't know if you meant it this way but there is nothing wrong with the rendering within RF. You've just missed something somewhere.

Oh, I'm sure the problem is on my end. In no way did I mean to even imply there was a problem with RF itself.

abaser
04-29-2012, 12:47 PM
Let me know if you'd like a second set of eyes on your file.

Madratter
04-29-2012, 01:00 PM
Thanks Andy. I was actually just about to write another message. It turns out the normals somehow got really messed up. I have corrected the top left wing and aileron so far and things look much better. Here is that partial work. So at least I know what to do. Turning on the display of normals really helped out. In fact, there is no way I could have corrected it otherwise.

Madratter
04-29-2012, 03:27 PM
Ok. I got the normals straightened out and also fixed the pivot point for the elevators while I was at it. Now back to actually making new "stuff".

Madratter
04-29-2012, 05:32 PM
I got the basic fuselage shape carved out. I'm currently at 2430 polygons, which is a good thing, since I'll need them for the many struts, guy wires, and other details.

maxkop
04-30-2012, 09:54 AM
Shortcuts for normal recalculation in blender:

Ctrl+N: Recalculate normals outside

Ctrl+Shift+N: Recalculate normals inside

Greets,

Max

Madratter
04-30-2012, 08:49 PM
Thanks Maxkop. I have tried the commands on these wings but for some reason, it gets just completely messed up. Attached is what happens after I recalculate outside with Ctrl+N. Note the shorter normals that are coming from the bottom of the wing (and are wrong). Also note the ones on the leading edge that should be pointed out but are pointed back.

Fortunately, it is possible (although a pain) to fix them by hand.

jeffpn
04-30-2012, 09:20 PM
Is it possible to have normals of one object pointing in and out? What I see looks right. :confused:

Madratter
04-30-2012, 09:55 PM
For perhaps the clearest example of what is wrong here, notice that on the far left of the leading edge (from our point of view), all the normals are pointing outward. Then notice the normals for the leading edge one set of faces to the right. Notice how some of the normals are pointing backwards. That is because they are pointed inward from the bottom of the leading edge.

Madratter
04-30-2012, 10:04 PM
Little by very little.

jeffpn
04-30-2012, 10:43 PM
To me, that looks like the bottom part of the wing. Those normals would point down.

Madratter
05-01-2012, 01:32 AM
To me, that looks like the bottom part of the wing. Those normals would point down.

Here is an extreme closeup of the leading edge of the wing where the normals are bad. Notice that some of the faces have two or even three normals poking out. That is because the normals from the top of the wing are good, but some of the normals from the bottom of the wing are pointing up (going through the inside first) and then coming out the top. Notice the blue dots on some of the faces. Those are where the normal is starting inside instead of outside. I think part of what is confusing you is that the selection color makes everything kind of look brown like the bottom of the wing is colored.

maxkop
05-01-2012, 09:27 AM
Are you sure the faces are connected to each other ? Did you export via .3ds to .max and than reimported back to blender ??? Check if there are no doubled vertices in your mesh and that all faces are connected to each other !!!! If this is not the case normal recalculation will fail !!!

For example: Select one wing part object, select all faces (A) in vertex mode and click W, than remove doubles. This function will join overlapping vertices (or vertices which are near each other) you might not see. Blender will tell you if vertices are joined or removed.

The limit and threshold of joined vertices you can adjust in the editing panel under mesh tools. Than recalculate the normals again.

Greets,

Max

Madratter
05-01-2012, 10:34 AM
Thanks Maxkop. I'll give that a try tonight. All work on this file has been in Blender.

maxkop
05-01-2012, 12:31 PM
Try it firt on a single object, not on the whole aircraft :) Than it's easier to identify the problem :)

Madratter
05-01-2012, 08:38 PM
Try it firt on a single object, not on the whole aircraft :) Than it's easier to identify the problem :)

I tried it, and 0 vertices were removed on the wing I have been showing. So whatever I have done that is confusing Blender, that isn't it. It would have been great if it had been. :(

Ah well. At this point I have fixed it manually so it isn't holding things up.

Madratter
05-01-2012, 10:05 PM
I added Boof's pilot tonight as well as the vertical stabilizer. But mostly I worked on things like pivot points and beginning on the physics. I'm now well over 6000 polygons, but 3000+ of that is the pilot.

Boof69
05-02-2012, 12:31 AM
Don't worry too much about poly limits. It's looking nice.

jeffpn
05-02-2012, 07:12 AM
You gotta be under 20k when you're through. :confused:

I'm interested in progress poly counts.

Boof69
05-02-2012, 09:53 AM
Well of coarse.

Madratter
05-02-2012, 08:16 PM
Don't worry too much about poly limits. It's looking nice.

Thanks! :)

Madratter
05-03-2012, 09:58 PM
I added the main wing struts tonight. The polygon count is 6676.

Madratter
05-05-2012, 04:44 PM
Today I added the main wheels and the axle between them. The polygon count stands at 7452.

Madratter
05-06-2012, 04:03 PM
I continued work on the under carriage, adding the front wheel, the front wheel fork, and some of the struts that connects the undercarriage together. Polygon count is now 7796.

Madratter
05-07-2012, 10:16 PM
I added the main wheel struts as well as made a start on the collision mesh. The model is now at 8384 polygons.

jeffpn
05-07-2012, 10:18 PM
Lose 385 polies, and you won't need a CMesh!!!

Madratter
05-08-2012, 02:33 AM
Lose 385 polies, and you won't need a CMesh!!!

True dat. :p

Madratter
05-08-2012, 09:48 PM
I have finished a crude collision mesh for the parts of the model I have currently completed. Polygons are now at 8788. I'm not sure if a better collision mesh than this will really be necessary.

Boof69
05-08-2012, 09:57 PM
The only coll mesh that needs any real resolution is the coll mesh for the tires. If they don't have enough sides the model will bounce down the runway.

abaser
05-08-2012, 10:05 PM
They also need to be the same size or the wheels will appear to float or sink into the ground. I typically will duplicate the wheels exactly for their mesh.

Madratter
05-08-2012, 10:12 PM
I have the wheels at 16 sided and I haven't noticed any bounce on grass. I'll have to try a paved runway. I was very careful to get the collision mesh for the wheels exactly the same radius as the actual wheels.

jeffpn
05-08-2012, 10:15 PM
I was very careful to get the collision mesh for the wheels exactly the same radius as the actual wheels.That's the important part.

Madratter
05-10-2012, 10:51 PM
Today I finished the undercarriage and added the upper trusses. I also worked a little bit on the physics. Polygons are at 9172.

Madratter
05-14-2012, 09:54 PM
I have added more of the tail boom. Polygons now are 9484.

I have a question about adding the numerous wires that make up the rigging for the tail boom and the wings. Does anyone have a good technique for this? I shudder to even think about doing each one as a custom fit cylinder with just the right lengths and rotations.

abaser
05-14-2012, 09:59 PM
Do one complete side of the plane and mirror modify the little suckers.:D

Boof69
05-14-2012, 10:00 PM
There are most certainly some shortcuts, but it will still be a tedious endeavor. Can Blunder quick clone (shift + move in Max)?

abaser
05-14-2012, 10:02 PM
I think it's D+ move, but can't remember. Amazing how quickly I'm forgetting my old ways.

Madratter
05-14-2012, 10:05 PM
I think it's D+ move, but can't remember. Amazing how quickly I'm forgetting my old ways.

[Shift]-D and I clone stuff that way a lot. Even so, doing it that way would be a very large amount of work.

Madratter
05-15-2012, 10:15 PM
I finished the main struts for the tail boom and also completed the tail skid assembly. Polygons are now at 9852.

jeffpn
05-15-2012, 10:40 PM
Where's the wires, man?!?!

Madratter
05-16-2012, 12:43 PM
Wires? You want wires? You think the pilot has time to plug in a TV and watch his favorite show? Or perhaps he needs to microwave some popcorn?

Actually, I really should start doing some of the rigging just so I don't end up having to do around 100 wires all at one time. That would be a huge drag.

Madratter
05-17-2012, 07:48 PM
I have reworked the bottom and the front of the fuselage to be much closer to the actual shape. Even better, I managed to do it without adding a ton more polygons to the model. Holes were cut for the pilot and observer seating areas. The fuselage was remapped (very rough test job), and the mapping for Boof's pilot was added. Polygons now stand at 10302.

Interestingly enough, when I added Boof's earlier pilot bust for the observer, it would not get through the Kex converter and was messing up other parts of the plane as well. It looked fine in Blender.

Madratter
05-18-2012, 03:52 PM
I've had off most of the day today so I added in the two Lewis Guns. Morphed Boof's pilot somewhat into an observer and added that as well. Polygons now stand at 15218, which is slightly worrying. On the other hand, the only major piece left is the Beardmore engine. So I'm worried but not panicking.

abaser
05-18-2012, 05:30 PM
Beware of wires as they are poly eaters as well;)

Boof69
05-18-2012, 05:35 PM
It's nice to see twins out for a patrol. Your getting there. :)

Madratter
05-18-2012, 05:43 PM
I was out of my mind trying this as my 3rd model, but hey, it has been an interesting challenge.

jeffpn
05-18-2012, 05:51 PM
obviously not above your skill level. I think it looks great!! Doug once said he makes his wires from a triangle. He said if you twist one end a slight bit, it looks good. Eliminate the end faces. and each wire is only 6 polies.

Madratter
05-18-2012, 06:12 PM
Thanks Jeff. And thanks for the tip on the wires. With as many wires as there are, I need to save every triangle I can. I thought I was going to need to go at least 5 sided.

jeffpn
05-18-2012, 06:17 PM
Try Doug's method on a couple wires. See if you like it. Here's the link. http://www.knifeedge.com/forums/showthread.php?p=191627&highlight=twist#post191627

abaser
05-18-2012, 06:17 PM
I use that method for servo rods and smaller things like that and they look fine. I've never went much larger than that though.

Boof69
05-18-2012, 09:49 PM
I use 2 sided objects for my wires...uh that's possible shut up!:p

jeffpn
05-18-2012, 10:34 PM
My Yak has 2 sided thread for the pull pull. It disappears at the right (no pun intended) angle.

Madratter
05-20-2012, 04:11 PM
I added the last 4 major struts. Then I put in the wires rigging for the wings. It is a major pain. Polygons now are 15794.

Scale wise the wires are about the right size. However, they are really as visible as I would like. I may need to scale them up. I don't even want to think about that. :(

jeffpn
05-20-2012, 04:15 PM
I bet you can scale it radially along the normal of an end. Look for something like that.

jeffpn
05-20-2012, 04:23 PM
Or grab all of the rings that define the wires, and scale them uniform.

Madratter
05-20-2012, 05:00 PM
It turned out to be much easier to correct than I had thought. :D A bunch of clicking later, here are the new wires.

jeffpn
05-20-2012, 05:03 PM
You're welcome! ;)

Madratter
05-20-2012, 05:05 PM
You're welcome! ;)

Thank you. :)

Boof69
05-20-2012, 05:53 PM
As much as I like the pilot. I don't think they look right on this bird. Your model is looking great. You are doing a bang up job mate.:)

Maj. Numbskully
05-20-2012, 06:11 PM
As much as I like the pilot. I don't think they look right on this bird.
I respectfully disagree
Your model is looking great. You are doing a bang up job mate.:)
I totally agree

Boof69
05-20-2012, 06:25 PM
To clarify-the pilot is a 30s pilot and wears the clothes of that era. The chaps that would pilot this bird would have considerably different garb. High collard long tailed leather with a furry toque and massive goggles. Im sure that pilot is better than nothing but....

Madratter
05-20-2012, 06:32 PM
To clarify-the pilot is a 30s pilot and wears the clothes of that era. The chaps that would pilot this bird would have considerably different garb. High collard long tailed leather with a furry toque and massive goggles. Im sure that pilot is better than nothing but....

You made it so you should know. The good news is that as far as I can tell, there is no set uniform for the RAF in WWI. Pilots tended to wear the uniform of the service they came from. But some kind of longer leather coat would probably be more appropriate. Still, this is the best I have access too. I was thinking maybe by adjusting the tga somewhat, I could get closer to what is correct. I think the helmet and googles are just fine given the variations.

jeffpn
05-20-2012, 06:33 PM
If you want my Hansa pilot, let me know.

Boof69
05-20-2012, 06:44 PM
It's just my opinion. Frankly I'm just throwing it out there before someone else does down the road and your completely married to it (if your not already). The plane is looking so good that the pilots won't matter to most. Nevermind me. Just giving an unsolicited opinion. Carry on. :)

Maj. Numbskully
05-20-2012, 06:54 PM
OK
now I get what you were referring to .....I think few will notice
I took it as if you didn't like having them at all
likewise I was just stating my Opinion.

Madratter
05-20-2012, 09:01 PM
The fuselage behind the pilot and between the pilot and observer had been squared off. It was time to round it off like it should be. Even better, it save a few polygons. They are not at 15775.

Jeff - thanks for the offer for your pilot figure. He looks more period but doesn't have a full body, which I need. I may still end up taking you up on the offer at some point if I decide I have to change things up. He does have the advantage of far fewer polygons.

jeffpn
05-20-2012, 09:07 PM
You know, I did consider offering it to you before, but then I noticed yours is a full body, so I didn't. I forgot that!. There is a full body pilot in the parts repository. Maybe you could doctor it up?

Madratter
05-21-2012, 10:33 PM
Started work on the engine tonight. Polygons are now at 16467 so I am feeling better about being able to produce something that looks half way reasonable for the engine and stay under 20k. :)

jeffpn
05-21-2012, 10:41 PM
It's like crack isn't it?? :D

Madratter
05-22-2012, 10:32 PM
It is quite engaging.

Further work on the engine tonight. Polygons are now 16971.

abaser
05-22-2012, 10:39 PM
Love the floating gun mounts:p

Madratter
05-22-2012, 10:45 PM
Love the floating gun mounts:p

Yeah. Those are on the long list. Part of why I haven't done them is I am not sure where I want the final location of the guns. The one in particular is on a telescoping mount so the exact location isn't fixed.

Madratter
05-23-2012, 11:25 PM
I worked on spacing the engine cylinders evenly (created a template to do it). The length of one connecting cylinder was adjusted accordingly. The engine silencer was added. The model is now at 17143 polygons.

jeffpn
05-23-2012, 11:32 PM
Wings 3D has a nice redial feature. It repeats the last command you do. See if Blender has it. I frequently do spacing that way, by duplicating parts on top of each other, and moving one. Then I repeat the command as many times as needed to place my objects.

Madratter
05-23-2012, 11:34 PM
Wings 3D has a nice redial feature. It repeats the last command you do. See if Blender has it. I frequently do spacing that way, by duplicating parts on top of each other, and moving one. Then I repeat the command as many times as needed to place my objects.

Cool. I would never have thought to look for that. Thanks!

Madratter
05-24-2012, 10:39 AM
Got to go, but I have imported this into 3ds max. :D

abaser
05-24-2012, 11:12 AM
I see you brought your cameras and lights along for the ride. Make sure you delete those as they are now polys of your model.;)

Madratter
05-28-2012, 06:55 PM
Well, I'm back and now I'm trying to wrestle with 3ds max with limited success. A couple things about it are already driving me buggy. For example, it is relatively simple to hide something, but I haven't found an easy way to unhide it.

Also, I'm not sure if hiding it is the same as making it not visible in blender so that it won't render.

Plus, if I leave my collision meshes visible, then it seems to block my light within 3ds max - that is quite annoying.

Some of my objects got messed with pretty heavily in transfer as well. Lengths and angles aren't right.

So for specific questions:

1) Is hiding/unhiding what I really want to use?
2) Is there an easy way to unhide?
3) How can I get rid of the annoying shadows shown? Basically, I would like some fairly even illumination of the scene. I have fooled around with lights, and so far, they aren't doing what I want.

Thanks!

jeffpn
05-28-2012, 07:05 PM
Time for you to learn smoothing groups, my friend. That will help with the shadows. Auto Smooth works pretty well most times.

Madratter
05-28-2012, 09:11 PM
I'm beginning to long for the days of Blender. I know I just need to push through and figure some of this stuff out, but in ways 3ds max does feel like a step back. For example, in Blender, it is easy to display an object as a wireframe while other objects are rendered normally.

Anyway, my big problem at the moment is that 3ds max is not exporting my model to KEX. I'm trying to export just what is selected, and it is complaining about a texture not being a power of two for an object that isn't selected. Arg...

Any good ways around this?

On the good news front, I did figure out how to turn off shadows. :)

abaser
05-28-2012, 09:16 PM
Well, I'm back and now I'm trying to wrestle with 3ds max with limited success. A couple things about it are already driving me buggy. For example, it is relatively simple to hide something, but I haven't found an easy way to unhide it.

Also, I'm not sure if hiding it is the same as making it not visible in blender so that it won't render.

Plus, if I leave my collision meshes visible, then it seems to block my light within 3ds max - that is quite annoying.

Some of my objects got messed with pretty heavily in transfer as well. Lengths and angles aren't right.

So for specific questions:

1) Is hiding/unhiding what I really want to use?
2) Is there an easy way to unhide?
3) How can I get rid of the annoying shadows shown? Basically, I would like some fairly even illumination of the scene. I have fooled around with lights, and so far, they aren't doing what I want.

Thanks!

In my short experience, I believe hiding also removes the ability to be rendered.

As far as unhiding parts, right click and select unhide by name. To select more than one part, hold control while selecting. If you want several parts, you can select the first part you want, scroll to the last part, hold shift and click. This will select all parts between the two.

abaser
05-28-2012, 09:19 PM
I had that problem the other day. It had to do with a pic I had set as a material. The size of that pic was an odd number, not even. I changed that in the file location and all was good.

Madratter
05-28-2012, 09:25 PM
I had that problem the other day. It had to do with a pic I had set as a material. The size of that pic was an odd number, not even. I changed that in the file location and all was good.

I have a whole mess of images that I have used in creating the model that I created with "import image as plane" in Blender. I really want to keep them, but this problem is really going to complicate things. They need to be powers of two, at least if the pop-up error box is right, and that isn't even approximately true for most of them.

What I really need is a way of setting an object so the kex exporter doesn't even try to use the object.

abaser
05-28-2012, 09:29 PM
Hide what you dont want used, select what you do want, and export selected. That's found in a sub menu of export.

jeffpn
05-28-2012, 09:30 PM
Isn't there an option to export selected objects?

Madratter
05-28-2012, 09:46 PM
Hide what you dont want used, select what you do want, and export selected. That's found in a sub menu of export.

That is what I was doing. But it is looking at objects that are hidden and not selected when doing the export. I assume that is a problem with the kex exporter, not 3ds max.

I did find a way around my problem even if I don't like it. I simply select everything I want to export as normal. Then I inverse select to get everything I don't want. Then I delete them. Then I do my export.

That works. I better not forget and save though. And I probably will by accident at some point... Murphy's law and all that.

Bottom line is I did manage to get things into RF6 by doing the above. There is still a problem though. Everything was scaled much much smaller. Whereas before using Blender the model was 12 feet and change in wingspan, now it is only 4 feet 9 inches.

abaser
05-28-2012, 09:54 PM
I've used this only a couple times so I hope I get this right.

Under the hammer tab, click more then measure. Scroll down a bit until you see the x, y, z coordinates. That's the size of the model. Scale to desired size. I believe the default is inches.

Madratter
05-28-2012, 10:28 PM
I've used this only a couple times so I hope I get this right.

Under the hammer tab, click more then measure. Scroll down a bit until you see the x, y, z coordinates. That's the size of the model. Scale to desired size. I believe the default is inches.

Ok. That got me a lot closer. Here is the model back in RF6. I'm almost back to where I was with Blender. So that is progress.

Boof69
05-29-2012, 12:59 AM
First let me say that is wasn't a great idea to cross the street mid build. Allot more problems occur while trying to learn.
to unhide or hide simply select an object right click the click hide selected. You can even choose hide unselected which will you guessed it hide every thing but the selected part. To unhide I simply use unhide all. That will bring everything back even things you may not want like your collision mesh. The best thing to do is to create selection sets. This is like grouping but not quite. Say you want to be able to quickly select all of your collision mesh for hiding. You can select all the coll parts then assigns them a selection set name. They can all be selected again at any time by the drop down box in the main toolbar. This is helpful because you may want the collision mesh hidden then you hide another part but when you unhide all the coll mesh comes back too. Now just use the selection set to quickly select all the coll parts the right click hide now its all back and the coll is hidden. I can do a quick tut tomorrow.

Madratter
05-29-2012, 06:54 AM
First let me say that is wasn't a great idea to cross the street mid build. Allot more problems occur while trying to learn.
to unhide or hide simply select an object right click the click hide selected. You can even choose hide unselected which will you guessed it hide every thing but the selected part. To unhide I simply use unhide all. That will bring everything back even things you may not want like your collision mesh. The best thing to do is to create selection sets. This is like grouping but not quite. Say you want to be able to quickly select all of your collision mesh for hiding. You can select all the coll parts then assigns them a selection set name. They can all be selected again at any time by the drop down box in the main toolbar. This is helpful because you may want the collision mesh hidden then you hide another part but when you unhide all the coll mesh comes back too. Now just use the selection set to quickly select all the coll parts the right click hide now its all back and the coll is hidden. I can do a quick tut tomorrow.

Thanks Boof. I already spotted the ability to do selection sets but I haven't tried them yet. It did occur to me they would be very useful for the reasons mentioned.

I knew when I went from Blender to 3ds max it was going to slow me down, at least initially. Part of the reason I did it was because Andy had so much trouble doing the mapping in Blender. I hadn't run into his problems, but then again, so far my mapping has been simpler, having worked only on 3d foam stuff.

At any rate, so far my biggest complaint probably has more to do with the 3ds max to Kex plug-in than 3ds max itself.

jeffpn
05-29-2012, 07:14 AM
At any rate, so far my biggest complaint probably has more to do with the 3ds max to Kex plug-in than 3ds max itself.

You wouldn't happen to be an old geezer, would you? That's a popular opinion in that age group. :D

Madratter
05-29-2012, 10:15 PM
You wouldn't happen to be an old geezer, would you? That's a popular opinion in that age group. :D

Maybe.

I have some questions about smoothing groups. As shown in the picture, this rudder has some lighting issues. As shown, the whole thing belongs to one smoothing group. If I clear the group, the issues go away. I guess my question is why?

Also, I think I read somewhere that RF only allows one smoothing group per object. That is very restricting. Especially given the # of smoothing groups allowed in 3ds max. How are you all dealing with that? In blender, I didn't go overboard assigning sharp edges, but for example, on my fuselage, I used 3 of them.

Oh - and that awful orange color does not match what I see in RF6 or in Blender. What is up with that?

Boof69
05-29-2012, 10:20 PM
If you clear all smoothing groups every poly is shaded individually. If the object is simplistic as your rudder is it won't be overtly obvious. Do the same to a wheel and you will see a big change.
As for a single smoothing group per object, That is incorrect. Put the limit on any object you like and RF will be fine with it. Although I usually need no more than 6 SGs at the most to get the job done on any object. Smooth away!

abaser
05-29-2012, 10:24 PM
Have you removed your double verts from the edge split modifier?

Boof69
05-29-2012, 10:24 PM
In the Max 2012 the Gamma/LUT is enabled by default. That changes the Default light setup considerable. Go to Customize/Preferences/Gamma and LUT tab and uncheck "Enable Gamma/LUT Correction"
Also I wonder if anyone told you to use Direct 3D for viewport rendering. By default it is now using Nitrous as the viewport render engine. This is changed also in preferences. Under the "Viewports" tab in the "Choose driver" dialog.

Madratter
05-29-2012, 10:44 PM
In the Max 2012 the Gamma/LUT is enabled by default. That changes the Default light setup considerable. Go to Customize/Preferences/Gamma and LUT tab and uncheck "Enable Gamma/LUT Correction"
Also I wonder if anyone told you to use Direct 3D for viewport rendering. By default it is now using Nitrous as the viewport render engine. This is changed also in preferences. Under the "Viewports" tab in the "Choose driver" dialog.

I have much better colors now. Thanks! :D

Madratter
05-29-2012, 10:45 PM
Have you removed your double verts from the edge split modifier?

Mmm. No.....

Madratter
05-30-2012, 03:43 AM
Experimenting with rendering.

Madratter
05-30-2012, 10:57 AM
Of course doing the above render, I noticed I hadn't hidden some objects that should have been. That forced me to learn how to modify selections sets (which IS a really great feature in 3ds max).

I must also say I much prefer the way 3ds max does smoothing groups compared to the equivalent in Blender. So I am finding things I really like about it.

I do have some more questions:

When I changed to Direct 3D for rendering, the test mapped fuselage shows in much lower resolution. I tried putting the textures to max size in the configuration, but it didn't help. Is there a way to get nice crisp textures again when working on the model? (As you can see, once you render, it is nice and crisp again so this isn't the end of the world)

When I did my test map and added the stuff needed for the pilot/observer, I did that tga file in 2048x2048. Is there an easy way in 3ds max to change this all to 4096x4096?

Thanks!

Boof69
05-30-2012, 12:46 PM
Use the images below to answer both of your questions. The first image is to make the viewport maps high res and the rest deal with map output.

Madratter
05-30-2012, 01:25 PM
Use the images below to answer both of your questions. The first image is to make the viewport maps high res and the rest deal with map output.

Thanks for going to the effort of making the screenshots. That was very helpful! :)

Boof69
05-30-2012, 01:35 PM
Your welcome. :)

Madratter
05-30-2012, 09:42 PM
I ran into a little problem trying to configure Direct 3d. My changes were not getting saved and had no affect.

It turns out you must run the program as administrator. Right click on your 3ds max icon and select "Run as administrator".

jeffpn
05-30-2012, 09:51 PM
Is that right? I could never get it to work either. I bet Boof has UAC off. I've asked him the same question a while back.

Boof69
05-31-2012, 12:06 AM
Um yeah I usually turn UAC off as part of an OS install/reinstall. I also have a little regedit called "take ownership". Once installed an entry is added to the right click menu that allows me to gain full read/write access to install folders. This is merely a shortcut to what's possible in the properties of any file. Super handy tweak. :)

jeffpn
05-31-2012, 07:11 AM
I get by just fine with UAC. ;) I did have to do Take Ownership reg edit once to do something specific, but now I forget what that was.

Madratter
05-31-2012, 07:41 AM
I also run under UAC with Windows 7 and I almost never run under an administrator account. I want those protections working for me. Of course, I do end up having to figure out the occasional hiccup like this one.

jeffpn
05-31-2012, 08:04 AM
I find very few programs that UAC interferes with. I'm with you on the protection.

Boof69
05-31-2012, 09:14 AM
Yeah well I'm an IT professional yup...and I don't need no stinking UAC.:p

Madratter
05-31-2012, 11:08 PM
I had to go to the airport tonight, so I got a limited amount done. However, I did eliminate a bunch of vertices causes by the way Blender does smoothing. It made almost no difference in triangle count however. The objects involved then needed to have their SGs redone. Then I actually got to start modeling again. That is yet another learning curve. Here is a render of the engine that I have been working on. Oh, and last night the TGA was switched over to 4096x4096.

Madratter
06-01-2012, 07:06 PM
Well I had something interesting happen to me with 3ds max. Somehow my observer got switched so that it was identical to the pilot. :confused: I had to go back to a previously saved version of the file, save just that one object, and then merge. Fortunately, things are back to normal.

I have continued to work on the engine. I probably have about as many triangles tied up in it as I can at this point. Here is a progress shot from within RF6. Polygons now stand at 17851.

Madratter
06-01-2012, 09:48 PM
I just added twenty two more rigging wires, this time to the tail boom. I'm doing better on my polygon budget than I hoped. I'm now at 18,027.

I absolutely love one aspect of 3ds max. You can create a basic shape, edit it with a modifier (editable poly in this case), and still modify the basic shape later (length for these wires).

Say for example, I wanted to change the radius of these wires later. To a uniform .15 instead of .1. It would be simple. :)

Boof69
06-01-2012, 09:49 PM
It's great to see you are seeing some bright side.

Madratter
06-01-2012, 09:54 PM
It's great to see you are seeing some bright side.

I am so beyond glad I made the switch at this point. :D

Madratter
06-01-2012, 11:33 PM
I would like to take this fuselage, and basically create new faces where the red dots are and do away with some of the existing faces so that basically there are some walls along the back side of the fuselage instead of everything being solid. In Blender, I know how to connect the vertices to form new faces, but I cannot figure out how to do that in 3ds max.

abaser
06-01-2012, 11:52 PM
Select the edges you want to connect (with the red dots). Now, click the small dialog box next to connect. This will open a popup box that has different parameters to adjust. You can add more edges, spread them apart, or slide them to one side. Im not quite sure what you are wanting in your second part, but I assume you are wanting to create depth. Im not sure this is the best way, but select the inner faces of what you just created, and extrude those faces inward, using the same dialog box as connect. Just my .02.

Madratter
06-02-2012, 08:16 AM
The back of the fuselage is redone as I wanted.

Boof69
06-02-2012, 09:57 AM
Use the J key to get rid of the selection bounding box.

Madratter
06-02-2012, 01:39 PM
Further modifications to the fuselage have been made and I added a radiator as well (recessed in so until mapped, it won't be very obvious that is what it is. Here are some screenshots and renders:

Boof69
06-02-2012, 01:47 PM
Very nice MR. I love all the detail going into the modeling for this one.

Boof69
06-02-2012, 03:18 PM
I don't know if you already know this , but by looking you may not be useing the "edged faces" display type to edit your model. Click on "Smooth and highlights" in the corner of the viewport and then click edged faces and the wireframe will overlay the model. It makes editing easier.

Fly_electric
06-02-2012, 03:33 PM
Looks good Madratter!

Madratter
06-02-2012, 03:50 PM
Thanks Fly_electric and Boof. I do sometimes use edged faces for editing. It took me a while to find it, but as you say Boof, it is very useful.

abaser
06-02-2012, 03:54 PM
If you dont know, F4 I believe is the shortcut for that, and F3 will show only wire frame.

Madratter
06-03-2012, 04:43 PM
I have spent way more time than I want to admit learning to map in 3ds max. Part of that is simply that with my first two models, flat foam jobs, mapping was much simpler. There is still a lot I need to learn but I have succeeded in getting something at least reasonable when mapping the machine gun.

Unfortunately, I have discovered that 3 of the boxes that make up my machine gun are inside out. The normals point inside rather than outside. I dealt with this early when changing the fuselage around, but I did so by redoing some sections. I don't want to redo these boxes. Hopefully the modifiers for normals will do the trick (they didn't on the fuselage mods).

Question: Is there a way to force all the different elements from the different objects making up this machine gun to a uniform scale?

I have it approximately right based on the checkerboard pattern, but if there is an exact way, that would certainly be better.

Attached is a picture of the mapped machine gun. If you look towards the backend of the gun, you can see some of the weirdness caused by the flipped normals.

Oh, and polygons are now at 18,184.

jeffpn
06-03-2012, 04:46 PM
Question: Is there a way to force all the different elements from the different objects making up this machine gun to a uniform scale?Yes. I do that every build. Oh wait, you're using Max to map.

Actually, I think Max 2012 does have a way to do that. I'll defer...

Boof69
06-03-2012, 04:55 PM
Check out this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL6sJA1BWAo). Go to the 2 minute 20 seconds mark for an over view of "Arrange elements". If you still have problems let me know.

Boof69
06-03-2012, 04:58 PM
This doesn't always work but change the gun to an editable mesh then back to an editable poly. Then try the normals modifier. It won't hurt anything if it doesn't work.

Madratter
06-03-2012, 08:01 PM
The Normals modifier did the trick. I needed to remap the 3 objects involved, but they were simple anyway.

This render looks a little less quirky. :)

Madratter
06-03-2012, 08:11 PM
Every once in a while I like to import the latest and make sure things are still looking good in RF6.

Madratter
06-03-2012, 09:32 PM
Hmm, maybe I need to go see the Dr.

Madratter
06-03-2012, 10:26 PM
Just beginning to colorize it.

Madratter
06-04-2012, 10:38 PM
Today, I changed the mapping a bit on the machine guns and did some more painting on it. I also got and installed the NVidia Normal plugin for photoshop but I haven't started playing with it yet.

Question, can you get 3ds max to use the normal map when rendering? Or do you have to go into RF6 to see the results?

Boof69
06-04-2012, 11:11 PM
If you notice my bump shows in my renders. This is done in the material editor. If you choose your diffuse material (color tga) slot. Scroll down to "maps" you will need to open it. Default is collapsed. You will see all the different material slots for that material. This is where you add your other tga files. You will see "bump" in the list. Click on the none button and add "normal map" this will take you to another dialog in the first slot click and browse to your normal map. This is done this way because there is a difference between a bump and a normal map. A bump map is a grey scale map and a normal map is calculated from that. So by first adding the "normal map" then adding your _n map there Max knows how to use it. There is an amount slider back at the "maps" dialog use it to adjust the intensity of the bump.
I recommend you save out as a new document for rendering so you can add as many maps as you want and not affect the export.

Madratter
06-05-2012, 10:16 AM
Thanks Boof. I'll give that a try.

Madratter
06-05-2012, 10:09 PM
Well, I did some experimenting with the bump mapping tonight. There is good news and bad news. The good news is I figured out how to create one, and I figured out with the direction Boof gave me, how to bring it into 3dsmax and render with it. The bad news is that it won't work well for one place I really wanted to use it to save polygons, the magazine for the machine gun. The picture shows why. I wanted the top and side bumping to merge into each other. It doesn't.

Madratter
06-05-2012, 11:35 PM
Next on the list was the radiator intakes. Polys are now at 18,552.

a4magic
06-05-2012, 11:53 PM
I think the bump mapping looks great. It follows the real magazine pretty closely.

http://www.deactivated-guns.co.uk/images/Lewis_aircraft_mag/Lewis_gun_magazine.jpg

How big is the magazine of the gun going to be?

Madratter
06-06-2012, 02:14 AM
I think the bump mapping looks great. It follows the real magazine pretty closely.

http://www.deactivated-guns.co.uk/images/Lewis_aircraft_mag/Lewis_gun_magazine.jpg

How big is the magazine of the gun going to be?

Oh wow. Thanks for that image. :) It is by far the best shot of the magazine that I have seen, and has some great details I wondered about. I know there is a 47 and 97 round magazine but I haven't seen a picture that clearly shows the difference between them. The kind you have shown above is what I was trying to model.

willsonman
06-06-2012, 11:02 AM
You should add that gun to the parts repository. Looks fantastic.

Madratter
06-06-2012, 11:25 AM
You should add that gun to the parts repository. Looks fantastic.

Thanks! :)

Madratter
06-07-2012, 12:14 AM
I worked some more on the gun tonight. I replaced the cylinder at the end of the gun with a tube. I also played around some more with the normal map. Here, the Bumping on the top of the magazine is offset from the bumping around the side. That will need correcting. Still, I think this is going to turn out fine.

Madratter
06-07-2012, 10:44 AM
Foolish me, I want the magazine of the gun to actually have the right number of indents. So I remade the cylinder that represents the magazine. Unfortunately, in 3dsmax, at least by default, the triangulation of the caps does not show. I want to see those triangles both so I can select individual faces, and so the edges will show up in the uvw map. How do you do this. I can force them to show by having more than 1 segment on the cap, but that is extremely wasteful of triangles.

abaser
06-07-2012, 10:57 AM
That cap is what's known as a ngon. A poly with more than 4 verts. An impossibility in blender. To show them, you must create them.

jeffpn
06-07-2012, 10:59 AM
If you triangulate the cap, you'll find out how many triangles it has. I think you'll find it's more than you thought.

Madratter
06-07-2012, 11:06 AM
Ok. I figured out how to add a vertex in the approximate center. That creates the triangles I want.

jeffpn
06-07-2012, 11:10 AM
That's kind of what I was thinking. Talking Wings, but if you connect 2 opposite vertices, and then cut that new edge, that will put the new vertex exactly in the center. Then you could connect the appropriate vertices. If I understand what your goal is, you could map what needs to be mapped, and then stack all of the multiple identical mapped parts. Saves room on the map, and gives uniformity.

Madratter
06-07-2012, 12:18 PM
There are now the correct # of indents for the magazine in the right place. :)

I just noticed that counting the initial posting of my crack yak, (407 downloads), my Crack Yak model just hit 1000 downloads. :D

Boof69
06-07-2012, 01:13 PM
For future reference you would add a cap segment then just select the circular edge loop and ctrl+backspace and the triangles will now show and the center vertex will be perfect.

Madratter
06-07-2012, 04:56 PM
Some more detailing on the MG.

Fly_electric
06-07-2012, 07:49 PM
Look forward to it being on the swaps, Madratter!

Madratter
06-07-2012, 10:51 PM
Look forward to it being on the swaps, Madratter!

Thanks.

I added in the gun mounts, and both guns are now mapped. The fuselage isn't in the final color, but I have changed it from the horrid checkerboard pattern. Attached is a render from within 3dsMax where the bump mapping is working. Unfortunately also attached is a picture from within RF6 where the bump mapping is NOT working. I'm not sure why this is the case. I had the _n map present in the same place as the KEX file and the regular map when I did the import. I'm clearly missing something.

There are now 18,552 polygons.

jeffpn
06-07-2012, 10:55 PM
Here's a dumb question: do you have normal maps turned on in the sim?

Madratter
06-07-2012, 11:05 PM
Here's a dumb question: do you have normal maps turned on in the sim?

Yeah. I wish it was something that simple, but I do. Otherwise all the models on the swap pages wouldn't look half so slick. And I did double check just to be sure it had not accidentally gotten turned off.

jeffpn
06-07-2012, 11:19 PM
What is the name of your base .tga and your _n .tga?

Madratter
06-07-2012, 11:22 PM
Fe2bMap.tga and Fe2bMap_n.tga

jeffpn
06-07-2012, 11:26 PM
If you export the CS as a new name, does it pick up the _n file?

Madratter
06-07-2012, 11:36 PM
If you export the CS as a new name, does it pick up the _n file?

Yeah. Here is a screenshot of the unzipped contents. This is the same _n file I used to make the render in 3dsmax.

abaser
06-07-2012, 11:38 PM
Dumb question #2. Why are they zipped?

Madratter
06-07-2012, 11:39 PM
Dumb question #2. Why are they zipped?

Oh, I worded that poorly. I renamed the CS file to .zip so I could show the contents.

abaser
06-07-2012, 11:45 PM
I see you are using PS. In Gimp, when converting your grey scale to the _n, there is an option to scale. Is there a way to do that in PS (Im sure there is)?

Also, this is how your files should be listed if RF recognizes them correctly.

abaser
06-07-2012, 11:50 PM
Also, what's that g3x file? I thought that went away with the release of G4.:confused:

jeffpn
06-08-2012, 07:11 AM
Also, this is how your files should be listed if RF recognizes them correctly.MR was showing his CS file that RF creates when you export a CS. You are showing the final location of the CS files. Apples and oranges on that one.

abaser
06-08-2012, 07:16 AM
Then where are the .dds files? The .tga and _n should both have one.

jeffpn
06-08-2012, 07:18 AM
.dds files are not in a CS file. They are generated first time you load the CS in sim. Download any CS file from the swaps when it's back up. You'll see what I mean.

abaser
06-08-2012, 07:24 AM
I get that. I was just thinking he was showing the files being currently used that were not showing up. If RF is recognizing his _n file at all, he should have a .dds for it since it has been loaded.

Boof69
06-08-2012, 08:13 AM
I'm with Andy. I would like to see a screenshot of the models install folder in rf6. There could be a minor spelling error. MR you may be able to delete the _n.dds if there is one. Then RF will generate one a new. My bet is a spelling error though. If so there will be no _n.dds just the _n.tga.

Madratter
06-08-2012, 08:17 AM
I get that. I was just thinking he was showing the files being currently used that were not showing up. If RF is recognizing his _n file at all, he should have a .dds for it since it has been loaded.

Here is a directory listing showing that was created:

All I can figure is that the scaling must be off so that it isn't visible enough. But the scaling was fine when rendering within 3dsmax.

Boof69
06-08-2012, 08:31 AM
Ok I see. Make a simple spec map and see if you see a difference. It can be just 256x256 and a solid darkish grey. Having a spec map applied allows light reflections on the model and therefore enables the bump.

Madratter
06-08-2012, 08:35 AM
Ok I see. Make a simple spec map and see if you see a difference. It can be just 256x256 and a solid darkish grey. Having a spec map applied allows light reflections on the model and therefore enables the bump.

Doh! Good thing I asked because that simply would not have occurred to me, especially since it isn't necessary in 3dsmax.

Boof69
06-08-2012, 08:38 AM
Its odd that the PSD icon is used for your .tga files. I'm not saying it affects anything. Just an observation.

Madratter
06-08-2012, 10:02 AM
Ok, I am now trying to plan out some of my next steps with this model. One thing I haven't done is put in control wires, horns, etc. for the control surfaces. Frankly, I'm not even sure I will do that. There are so many other details I could still be doing on this plane, and I have a limited set of polygons left to do them.

However, if I do, I see a problem. The way the real plane did this was with pull pull wires. But the wires went around pulleys. Those pulleys would stay in one place, while the wires effectively need to get longer/shorter. I don't know of any way to make this happen.

Any ideas?

Boof69
06-08-2012, 10:17 AM
That depends on how much rotation will be on the pulley. If it's more than a few degree it will be hard to replicate.

Madratter
06-08-2012, 10:32 AM
That depends on how much rotation will be on the pulley. If it's more than a few degree it will be hard to replicate.

There would be considerable rotation on the pulley. That is what I was thinking. Now I need to decide whether to even put in the pulleys and control horns on the surfaces since no wires would be attached. Alternatively, I could do some non-scale method of running the surfaces that is more RC like. But I have been doing this scale as close I can to this point.

Boof69
06-08-2012, 10:35 AM
How about if the pulley was 2 parts the outer rim that stays stationary with the wires and an inner part that rotates this will give the illusion that the wires are moving as well. What is the connection like at the other end of the wires?

abaser
06-08-2012, 10:39 AM
Scott, do you remember how I did the bands on my Pawnee gear? With the parts overlapping? If so, do you think a modified version of that might work?

Boof69
06-08-2012, 10:41 AM
How do you mean? On the pulley side or at the other end where the connection type may be more conventional?

abaser
06-08-2012, 10:44 AM
Connection end.

Boof69
06-08-2012, 10:46 AM
Yes that's why I'm asking MR what the connection type is at the other end. To suggest that a small overlapping segment of wire be attached there to show movement at that end.

Madratter
06-08-2012, 11:10 AM
Ok, you guys got me thinking. If I put the pulley in, I would like that to rotate. Put I don't think the wire that goes around it will need to move. Then at the control surface, there are two control horns that stick out that the cables are attached to. The wire from the pulley will go almost the full length, stopping just short of the full travel of the control surface. Then a short wire goes back from the control horns back towards the rudder.

That basic idea makes sense.

However, there is still a problem. As the surface goes up and down, the wires to the pulleys would of necessity move in angle to the pulley. This means the stationary wire from the pulley, would need to move up and down slightly to match that angle.

That will require real precision to get that overlap precise and stay precise. I'm not sure that level of precision is possible. But the method makes sense and is probably worth experimenting with to see if I can get it close enough.

Boof69
06-08-2012, 11:16 AM
Of coarse none if this is necessary but if you really want to pursue this I think the precision is there but to really help you I need to see some pictures showing the real world setup. If you hit a snag post some pics.

Fly_electric
06-08-2012, 12:45 PM
Interesting challenge MR.
If the distance from the CH to the pulley is large, the displacement of the cable likely would not be seen. If they are too close (with "too" being undefined or at least empirical in value) and/or the user sets the surface up for large throws, then it is an issue. In a setup where a push rod exits through a guide on the fixed surface, there is both angle displacement from the CH and shorter/longer visible push rod length. Can the wire at the pulley contact point "disappear" into the pulley edge in a similar manner while also being a pivot point? If that is true, then only the wheel rotation needs to be animated.

Boof, what do you mean when you say none of this is necessary??

Boof69
06-08-2012, 12:50 PM
2 question marks? Just a disclaimer comment for those who find all these animations inane. The pulley rotates quite a bit MR stated so pivoting the wires from that point will look very wrong. The solution I provided will do the trick. Even the added wrinkle he further described is workable he just needs to experiment.

Fly_electric
06-08-2012, 01:18 PM
Boof,
If I've understood your idea, the wire has pivots points at both the pulley edge contact point and the CH, so that it can move as required (with the over lap being required to accommodate the change in appearance of length). To complete the illusion, the majority of the pulley face rotates (both sides if both are visible). Correct?
Pardon my ignorance, but as far as RF is concerned, where are the servos and how are they connected?


MR,
Are you going to add the sound effect of wind whistling through those wires when the plane is flying dead stick?

Madratter
06-08-2012, 01:25 PM
Boof,
If I've understood your idea, the wire has pivots points at both the pulley edge contact point and the CH, so that it can move as required (with the over lap being required to accommodate the change in appearance of length). To complete the illusion, the majority of the pulley face rotates (both sides if both are visible). Correct?
Pardon my ignorance, but as far as RF is concerned, where are the servos and how are they connected?


MR,
Are you going to add the sound effect of wind whistling through those wires when the plane is flying dead stick?

If I do the whole pulley thing, it is because I'm building it scale rather than scale/rc. So there won't be any servos. As for the whistling in the wires, that would be awesome. With some of the gliders, you do get wind sound as they fly by.

jeffpn
06-08-2012, 01:34 PM
That sound should be automatic.

Boof69
06-08-2012, 03:31 PM
Boof,
If I've understood your idea, the wire has pivots points at both the pulley edge contact point and the CH, so that it can move as required (with the over lap being required to accommodate the change in appearance of length). To complete the illusion, the majority of the pulley face rotates (both sides if both are visible). Correct?
Pardon my ignorance, but as far as RF is concerned, where are the servos and how are they connected?


MR,
Are you going to add the sound effect of wind whistling through those wires when the plane is flying dead stick?

No that's not at all right. The wires and the outer rim of the pulley doesn't move. The inner hub containing some surface detail rotates with servo input. This will appear as if the wire is moving around the pulley. The other end of the wires would have a length of overlapping wire that moves with servo input in the normal way not breaking alignment with the long stationary wire. This completes the illusion of pulleys and wire.:)

Madratter
06-08-2012, 04:31 PM
Today I added some additional engine detail (silencer outlets) as well the radiator fill tube and cap. Triangles are now 18,672.

I have to say dealing with pivots in 3ds max is so much easier than in blender. :)

Madratter
06-08-2012, 10:07 PM
Further detail on the machine gun.

Madratter
06-09-2012, 11:52 AM
The top wing and ailerons are now mapped.

Madratter
06-09-2012, 10:36 PM
I quick little color scheme for the top wing with renders in 3dsmax and in RF6. I clearly need to up the scale factor for the bump map since detail like the bump mapping on the magazine isn't clear enough.

Madratter
06-10-2012, 09:50 PM
Part of the bottom of the fuselage was redone to fix some shading problems. The fact it saved a few polygons was a bonus (very few). The bottom wing was fixed to join the fuselage without any gaps. The top wing was remapped and the bottom wing was mapped.

Madratter
06-11-2012, 10:29 PM
I have been working with the edit normals modifier today. It can make a huge difference in how smooth things look in ways that smoothing groups by themselves cannot accomplish. Here is an illustration of that on the elevator. The left elevator has the normals left alone. The right elevator has them edited.

I also got rid of some unneeded polygons dropping the current count down to 18,564 triangles.

Madratter
06-11-2012, 10:49 PM
Well the bad news is that RF6 doesn't reflect it properly. Notice the badness on the elevator in this shot from RF6.

jeffpn
06-11-2012, 10:53 PM
I was going to ask you how it looked in RF. Chalk that one up to learning!

dhk79
06-12-2012, 11:54 AM
That look's to be a parenting/pivot problem and should be easy to fix.

Madratter
06-12-2012, 12:25 PM
That look's to be a parenting/pivot problem and should be easy to fix.

There is either something I'm not understanding here, or you have spotted something I haven't. I was talking about the shading on the edge of the elevator being messed up. I don't know how parenting/pivoting could affect that.

There is a pivot problem on the elevator I am aware of, but I don't think it would be visible here. I did a bunch of work on the right elevator, deleted the left and mirrored. When I did that, the pivot got mirrored too and as a result, up is now down, so when I use the elevator, visually, the right and left elevator are acting more like ailerons moving in opposite directions. I simply need to flip the pivot 180.

Anyway, please let me know what you are seeing.

Madratter
06-12-2012, 11:01 PM
I reworked the right and left horizontal stabilizers and elevators to get rid of the smoothing problems both within 3ds max and RF6. While I was at it, I saved a few polygons. The count stands at 18,536 triangles.

dhk79
06-13-2012, 07:20 AM
There is either something I'm not understanding here, or you have spotted something I haven't. I was talking about the shading on the edge of the elevator being messed up. I don't know how parenting/pivoting could affect that.

There is a pivot problem on the elevator I am aware of, but I don't think it would be visible here. I did a bunch of work on the right elevator, deleted the left and mirrored. When I did that, the pivot got mirrored too and as a result, up is now down, so when I use the elevator, visually, the right and left elevator are acting more like ailerons moving in opposite directions. I simply need to flip the pivot 180.

Anyway, please let me know what you are seeing.No my mistake. On a quick look, I thought the rudder was pivoting wrong and didn't notice the shading on the elevator.

Madratter
06-13-2012, 09:50 AM
No my mistake. On a quick look, I thought the rudder was pivoting wrong and didn't notice the shading on the elevator.

Ah, that one. You found a real problem all right; it has been on my to do list for quite a while. The rudder isn't correctly connected to the body. Right now it is kind of floating by itself. :p

willsonman
06-13-2012, 01:05 PM
rookie mistake, j/k its a simple fix. Looking very nice and progressing at a good rate.

Fly_electric
06-13-2012, 01:22 PM
Looking very nice and progressing at a good rate.
Second that!