FK14 Le Mans

[Boof69]

I've started in on the fuse tonight for the FK14 Le mans. The 3 views are quite meager so I hope I can fill in the blanks with reference pictures.

[a4magic]

Looks good. Are you planning on making one with double canopies?

[Madratter]

Looks good. Are you planning on making one with double canopies?

I had an idea about that. Although I personally prefer the open air version, you might be able do both on the same model. Depending on a switch position on the radio, you could just hide it within the plane. I'm not sure if you can get enough movement in the editor for that to work, and I'm not sure if the fuselage is big enough to hide it somewhere. You would probably have to rotate it and move it. I was originally thinking about this is terms of two versions of the observer in my FE2b, one sitting, and one standing and manning the backwards gun (I can't afford the polygons even if I could find the space, but it was an idea).

[jeffpn]

There's a much easier way to have optional physical components. "Engine to Show" was designed to allow a viewable electric or 2 stroke or 4 stroke motor, but can be used to show pretty much whatever you want to show. All optional components and the base model and the CMesh still have to be under the 20k poly limit.

[Boof69]

I had an idea about that. Although I personally prefer the open air version, you might be able do both on the same model. Depending on a switch position on the radio, you could just hide it within the plane. I'm not sure if you can get enough movement in the editor for that to work, and I'm not sure if the fuselage is big enough to hide it somewhere. You would probably have to rotate it and move it. I was originally thinking about this is terms of two versions of the observer in my FE2b, one sitting, and one standing and manning the backwards gun (I can't afford the polygons even if I could find the space, but it was an idea).

Maybe you got the idea HERE (http://www.knifeedge.com/forums/showpost.php?p=229970&postcount=32):cool:

[Boof69]

Looks good. Are you planning on making one with double canopies?

Yes sir that's the plan anyway. Maybe both.;)

[jeffpn]

Me?! :eek: I've used that idea in models WAY before that post!!! :p

[Boof69]

No! the idea to do both canopy types.

[Madratter]

Maybe you got the idea HERE (http://www.knifeedge.com/forums/showpost.php?p=229970&postcount=32):cool:

You could be right. I definitely read that post. But I don't think it hit me at the time what you were saying. But subconsciously, that may (maybe even probably) be where it came from.

[Maj. Numbskully]

That idea could have been had from at least 20 different threads
What does it matter where it came from??

[Boof69]

I obviously meant that I had already mentioned doing both canopies. It doesn't really matter. Geez:rolleyes:

[Boof69]

It's been a busy weekend but I sat down today and wrung out some work on the fuse and canopy. Here's some pics.

[Norton]

Looking good;)

[jeffpn]

See above.

[Boof69]

Thanks fellas.:)

[Madratter]

That is some complicated modeling going on there. :)

[Boof69]

Yeah it's not too easy without the proper 3 views and allot of the reference on the internet are from very similar angles.
The double cockpit canopy still needs allot of work as does the single canopy but they are in place. Once I get those done I will work on the cockpit itself. Right now there is nothing there I'm just using a 2sided material for the renders. I'm not looking forward to the sweeping wing faring since reference is sparse in this area as well.
Plugging away...

[Fly_electric]

That is some complicated modeling going on there. :)
Yep, the pros always make it look easy!

[jeffpn]

Pros? They won't let us make money off these!! :p

[Boof69]

More progress.

[Madratter]

This is kind of silly, but I love the blue for the blue prints.

As for the plane itself, it looks so sleek. What an interesting plane to model.

[Boof69]

Thanks MR
I do the blue because all the geometry selections in Max are white so it makes things more visible. When I cut up my 3 views I add a layer on top and color it blue the blend "overlay".

It's super interesting especially with such deplorable reference images.

[jeffpn]

You're a sculptor, remember??? :D

[Boof69]

I know that's what you like to call me.:) I said I've sculpted but I'm not sure that makes me a sculptor.:o

[jeffpn]

Just call me "The Tracer!!" :p (I think that's a cool nickname!)

[Madratter]

Thanks MR
I do the blue because all the geometry selections in Max are white so it makes things more visible. When I cut up my 3 views I add a layer on top and color it blue the blend "overlay".

It's super interesting especially with such deplorable reference images.

It's the double bubble of trouble. It would have helped if at least the more complicated of the two canopies was what was in the 3 view.

On the other hand, now you don't have to tweak endlessly to get it to exactly match the 3 view. :D

[Boof69]

You said a mouthful.:)

[Boof69]

OK I guess I lied. I will be doing the cockpit last I think.
I've added the wings and I am more than happy with the way the farings have turned out. Also the wing tips turned out well too.

With everything modeled including the alternate canopy polys are at 4,444.

[Boof69]

Last of today's updates. Landing gear are done. Funny how the poly count goes up after wheels and wheel pants. I'm now at 7,219.

[jeffpn]

Funny how the poly count goes up after wheels and wheel pants. I'm now at 7,219.

There seems to be a pattern here... :cool:

[Boof69]

Round stuff......The enemy of low poly modeling.:mad:

[jeffpn]

I think my next model will be a Borg ship.

[Boof69]

In RF...:) Still no cockpit.:(

[jeffpn]

I definitely like the twin version better.

[Madratter]

I definitely like the twin version better.

I agree. It is what makes this plane so distinct.

[Boof69]

When that Fresnel shader comes in one of the next updates the full canopy will look real good. :)

[a4magic]

Don't know if this is any help, or if you have already seen it, but it is a decent frontal shot, although a little blurry.

http://www.aerobuzz.fr/local/cache-vignettes/L490xH302/FK14_MANS_polaris-aa5e0.jpg

And here is another by the canopy.

http://www.airmarugan.com/public/joomla/images/stories/noticias/LeMans/LeMans3.jpg

[Boof69]

Thanks you.

[Boof69]

Since I've named both canopies for use with the engine to show feature they don't show up in the components list therefore I cant add either to the fuse in the physics. Any ideas on how to complete the physics shape? I was thinking I could add a movable pod or detachable item in this area but to size it I think I may need some geometry.:confused:

[jeffpn]

Let's see your schematic. Doug was quite creative with the Numbskull pilot to get the jaw, head, and eyes all moving with it in Engine to Show.

[Boof69]

Schematic?Like from Max?:confused:

[jeffpn]

Yeah, the button with the hierarchy view. Max calls it 'Schematic.' ;)

[Boof69]

I'm not sure how this will help but here ya go.:confused:

[flexible]

Add a very small dummie objest, then linking.

[jeffpn]

Call your canopies ~CS_Canopy1 and ~CS_Canopy2. Use the grouping function to put each in their own group called ~CS_4STROKE and CS_2STROKE. In Doug's case, in those groups, he used the ~CS_ prefix for the jaw and eyes and head so that he could get them to move. I think it's correct for your fuselage not to include the canopy. Naming this way will allow you to create physics for each.

[Boof69]

Thanks Jeff your idea worked great. I have both canopies in movable pods with only one set to 100% fuselage aerodynamics percent. Engine to show is working too. Perfect. :)

[Boof69]

Spent some time tonight getting the cockpit started. The little gauge pod was fun to fit in both or under each canopy. Polys are at 8,301.

[Boof69]

More cockpit progress. Here's were most of the polys will go.:cool:

[jeffpn]

Nice seats!!

[Madratter]

Nice seats!!

No kidding. Just the right size for Batman and Catwoman.

[Boof69]

Tee Hee.

[Boof69]

Meant to post these last night.

[jeffpn]

You're crazy, Scott!!! Getting better every model!

[Boof69]

Thanks Jeff. I like the way it's turning out.

[Boof69]

Here's a series of pics demonstrating the flap and track mechanism. Quickly hitting the next button shows the animation.

[Madratter]

Awesome. :) It must of been fun finding the right pivot point.

[Boof69]

It wasn't as bad as you may think. I offset the pivot of the flap below and behind until I liked the motion then constructed the guide rollers. Finally I made the track pods. I could think of no better way.

[jeffpn]

I've used a method that would hep you for this. Day late and a dollar short I know, but next time, maybe. Place a temporary cylinder who's perimeter is the arc needed for your motion. The center of the cylinder is your pivot point, and the perimeter of the cylinder is your motion. No guesswork at all.

[Boof69]

I tried that first and wasn't getting great results. Believe it or not there was no guess work the way I did it either.

[jeffpn]

I offset the pivot of the flap below and behind until I liked the motion

I wonder why I thought there was guesswork!! :confused: :D

[Madratter]

Well I just learned something; two somethings actually. It would not have even occurred to me to set the pivot and then do the model. And the cylinder trick is nice too.

[Boof69]

OK so if I did your way would I not move the cylinder around until I liked the movement? Same difference.

[jeffpn]

You'd make the cylinder the size of your groove arc. I'd think that'd be a set size, based on specs of the model. Model the groove arc to the perimeter of the cylinder, and the center of the end cylinder face is where your pivot goes. I get perfect rotational movement of throttles the same way, when I model them.

[Boof69]

I see what you mean, but you are under the misconception that I had specs for the model that included the flap specs. All had to be done by eye.

[jeffpn]

Sculptor!! :p

[Madratter]

I see what you mean, but you are under the misconception that I had specs for the model that included the flap specs. All had to be done by eye.

Boof the Sculptor said modestly.

[Boof69]

Ok I give. I'm a sculptor.

[jeffpn]

Lol!

[Fly_electric]

Ok I give. I'm a sculptor.

That's one. Now we have to get Jeff to admit it too;)

[jeffpn]

Sorry, dude. Like I told Boof earlier today, everyone who models for RF has to sculpt to some degree in every model. My models are largely traced. This is by far the most artistic I have ever been in my life.

[Fly_electric]

This is by far the most artistic I have ever been in my life.
As you say, but it IS looking great.

Render question: is the color something unique to wings or are you just using a default??

[jeffpn]

This isn't my thread, but I just choose a color for the model for the render. Then I put it back to default when I'm done. Default is a shiny white.

[Boof69]

As you say, but it IS looking great.

Render question: is the color something unique to wings or are you just using a default??

In case your talking about my model its light blue on an external tga and the rest of the look is lighting in Max.

[Boof69]

Started mapping today. I thought I'd get the hardest part out of the way first, so I mapped the cockpit. With that out of the way the rest should go fairly quick.

[Madratter]

Started mapping today. I thought I'd get the hardest part out of the way first, so I mapped the cockpit. With that out of the way the rest should go fairly quick.

As someone trying to learn the trade, this is pretty informative. It is very interesting to see from the size of the checkers where you want lots of detail and where you are willing to live with considerably less.

[Boof69]

While a good point. Don't believe what your seeing yet. Nothing has been finalized as to size yet. The seats for example may be sized up for more resolution for the leather texture. The nav screens however may stay that size. I have plans to make the ~CS_BULB objects so they glow at night.

[Boof69]

Mapped! Yahoo! This one didn't go gently and I'll probably still have to fix some distortion later, but she finally relented. :cool:

[Norton]

Sweet;)

[Boof69]

Thanks Norton.
So I did have the fuse mapped top and bottom but that didn't work at all. Doing a remap of each side cured all problems. With that done I started in on some color this morning. Here are some renders and a screenie from RF of the displays in the cockpit set as bulb objects.

[Madratter]

Oooh. I love the bulb objects in the cockpit. I'm wishing that was period for my FE2b. It would cause me problems anyway because I need to use ~SBS on the back face and ~CANOPY on the front face.

You picked a great plane to model. I just love the lines.

[Boof69]

Oh right because the glass is so thick. Is that looking right in RF.
I dig this plane too man.

[Jed_Sanders]

wow, that does look very good.
Great to see what IS possible with custom models.

Now where can I put a bulb object on the Spitfire...:eek:

[Boof69]

Nav lights if the spit had them.

[Fly_electric]

Boof: Had not learned about bulb objects before-- very cool
MR: Are you sure it's not period? Did they not make night flight during the Great War? Also thought some simple radios were used (Morse code). Those were powered by batteries or generator?
Jed: Does not the Spit have the light on the gunsight? Seem to remember a WW2 story about a pilot having to change to his spare blub during a mission. Could be wrong on that one as the story may have been about a US P51 or P47 pilot late in the war.

[flexible]

Mag ne toooooooooooooo!

[Boof69]

A couple of cockpit renders.

[jeffpn]

I'd buy it!

[Boof69]

Take me up once you learn how to fly it.

[jeffpn]

I've soloed a few times, way back when. Got within 4 hours of getting my license.

[Boof69]

I've been up allot with pilots in the family but never did more than watch.

[Norton]

I've soloed a few times, way back when. Got within 4 hours of getting my license.

A long time ago in a far away place. I soloed twice from San Carlos to Halfmoon bay.
I was a member of the United Airlines 747 club out at SFO. So close but so far :(

It was a blast though, I have thought about taking it up again but money and new requirements always put's it off.

The club was great, we got to climb inside of 747 engine and such.

I was 17 years old.

[Madratter]

I've soloed a few times, way back when. Got within 4 hours of getting my license.

I used to fly out of Andrews Air Force Base in D.C before 911. You can't do that any more. I could tell some stories and maybe will sometime.

The guy I flew with was a friend who was also a certified flight instructor. We split the costs and it was a great deal for both of us. He got to fly a lot cheaper than if he was paying the whole bill himself. I got to fly and got free instruction besides. I got a lot of hours in but never soloed. I could take off and land but I was definitely not ready to solo.

He ended up moving to Washington State and that was the end of my flying.

Good times :).

[Maj. Numbskully]

I've soloed a few times, way back when. Got within 4 hours of getting my license.
;).......................
http://www.knifeedge.com/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=12975

[jeffpn]

He hee! Yup. In one that looked alot like that one, right down to the tail number. Boy was that a long time ago! (Modeling that POC, I mean!)

[Maj. Numbskully]

I was surprised its been 2 years :eek:


Awe......I still think it was pretty good .............that was only the first or second one you did right?

[jeffpn]

That was the one I did after doing Doug's step by step Edge. My first model.

Sorry for the hijack, Boof. :o

[Madratter]

He hee! Yup. In one that looked alot like that one, right down to the tail number. Boy was that a long time ago! (Modeling that POC, I mean!)

A lot of us probably have pretty fond memories of those Cessnas. I flew 152s, 172s, and a 177 RG. Most of my time was in 172s.

[Boof69]

That was the one I did after doing Doug's step by step Edge. My first model.

Sorry for the hijack, Boof. :o

I don't mind Jeff.

[jeffpn]

I don't mind Jeff.

New signature for everybody!!! :D

[Boof69]

Ah haha.:D

[Boof69]

Here's some more progress on the interior rendered with a bit of dramatic lighting. The last picture has the rudder pedals and their texture.

[jeffpn]

Looks great!!! :D

[Boof69]

Believe it or not these lights only cost me 28 polys including the displays

[abaser]

:eek:.............That's it..............All I can say!


:p

[uncle twist]

Looks great Boof....is that dog poo on that rudder pedal..........................??
.......................Made ya look:D:D

[Boof69]

Thanks Guys.

[Boof69]

More interior progress....

[Boof69]

This model has given me the opportunity to give the lion's share of the map to the interior with no real detail loss on the exterior because it's so simple. I think I'm done with the leather in the cockpit. In the last post I had started hand drawing the wrinkles and finished that effect today. So far there is no bump or specular applied. this one still has room for more modeling so I may add belts or maybe the exterior control rods. I also need to make the C-Mesh. Polys are at 18,202.

[jeffpn]

Looks good. What's your average CMesh run you? For a long time, mine was around 1,000 or so.

[Boof69]

300 to 600 on the outside extreme.

[Madratter]

This model has given me the opportunity to give the lion's share of the map to the interior with no real detail loss on the exterior because it's so simple. I think I'm done with the leather in the cockpit. In the last post I had started hand drawing the wrinkles and finished that effect today. So far there is no bump or specular applied. this one still has room for more modeling so I may add belts or maybe the exterior control rods. I also need to make the C-Mesh. Polys are at 18,202.

It is really instructive to me to look at how you laid out the map. Those wrinkles and such in the leather look great.

[Boof69]

Some modelers will live by the rule of keeping relative size on the map for continuity. I live by another school of thought(Graphical priority). Many detractors for that idea.

[Madratter]

Some modelers will live by the rule of keeping relative size on the map for continuity. I live by another school of thought(Graphical priority). Many detractors for that idea.

Are there really? :eek: It seems obvious to me that graphical priority is the way to go. There is no way I could build much of the detail I want into my model if I kept everything in the map sized proportionately.

[Boof69]

Yeah most would say to get the checkerboard to be the same size across attached parts. That way the art work doesn't have to be resized for the rudder for instance vs. the fuselage. I usually map all of the parts then pack the 1to2 from high to low priority. Which necessitates resizing of parts to fit in the decreasing real estate.

[Boof69]

Just a bunch of clay renders.......

[Boof69]

One more.....

[jeffpn]

Some modelers will live by the rule of keeping relative size on the map for continuity. I live by another school of thought(Graphical priority). Many detractors for that idea.

My default would be same relative size for everything, but I don't think I've ever had a model where it stays that way. For example, Maj. likes a huge instrument panel. If I have a stripe that runs from one part to another, say fuselage to vstab, I'd keep those parts the same size, especially if it's a more involved design than a stripe.

[Madratter]

My default would be same relative size for everything, but I don't think I've ever had a model where it stays that way. For example, Maj. likes a huge instrument panel. If I have a stripe that runs from one part to another, say fuselage to vstab, I'd keep those parts the same size, especially if it's a more involved design than a stripe.

Yeah, I totally get how if a design is going to transition across parts, it makes it much easier if they are laid out proportionately and fit together on the map. I have some pieces like that on my FE2b. And I'm sure there are models where you could lay everything out proportionately. But to insist that you should do it that way for the whole model, on every model boggles my mind.

My FE2b has a wingspan of 47 feet 9 inches. With my map being 4096 pixels wide, that means each inch is represented by only slightly over 7 pixels. There is no way I could do anything approaching an acceptable instrument panel at that scale. Maybe I could see it if there wasn't a pilots position in the model looking at the instrument panel. It would have saved me a great deal of time this week if each instrument was just an blurry circle 20 or so pixels in diameter. But it wouldn't look very good.

[jeffpn]

47 feet? Is that a 1/1 scale model?!?! :eek:

[Madratter]

47 feet? Is that a 1/1 scale model?!?! :eek:

No, it is 1/4 scale which is still almost 12 feet.

But I was thinking in terms of the gauges in 1:1 scale also. I.e. full scale they are roughly 3 inches in diameter. If you convert everything to 1/4 scale and then do the math, those gauges are still only about 20 pixels in diameter.

[Maj. Numbskully]

. There is no way I could do anything approaching an acceptable instrument panel at that scale. Maybe
Au contraire !

Like jeff said , take a look at how to map the IP on any one of the models jeff and I did with an IP like the
Spartan Executive or the Corby starlet and a few others...... you may need to stack some parts or mirror a part or 2 (where it won't really matter) to make some extra room
mapping it that way makes the actual scale of the aircraft largely irreverent in regards to the IP

I think the FE2b looks fantastic for a first model all the way around even with out any gauges;)

[Madratter]

Au contraire !

Like jeff said , take a look at how to map the IP on any one of the models jeff and I did with an IP like the
Spartan Executive or the Corby starlet and a few others...... you may need to stack some parts or mirror a part or 2 (where it won't really matter) to make some extra room
mapping it that way makes the actual scale of the aircraft largely irreverent in regards to the IP

I think the FE2b looks fantastic for a first model all the way around even with out any gauges;)

You misunderstoof me Maj. In fact, I am doing exactly what Boof and you are talking about. I have made room so I can do instuments at greater detail. Your map you show is another excellent example of that.

And thanks!

[Boof69]

When I say other modelers may disagree with my mapping philosophy I meant the modeling community at large not just here at the forums. The single map limit forces everyone here to resize parts at least a little.

[Boof69]

Here are some screenies......

[Madratter]

Oh yeah. It won't be too long now. And it still looks awesome in RF6. I hate to admit it, but I don't know how you made screenshot 4.

[abaser]

In a 3d field, change modes by hitting Q, then W,A,S, and D to navigate. Move your mouse to the rotate camera around.

[Boof69]

The model isn't moving in any of my shots. It's frozen right where I want it.
Add this file to your scripts folder. Now whenever you wish hit the B&N keys and the model will lock position and orientation where ever it is. Then move to the models location. A quick way to jump to it's location is to press ctrl+e, then WASD to move into the precise position you want. Then use shift+PgUp/PgDn to move the sun up or down and shift+home/end to rotate the sun to give more dramatic lighting.

[Madratter]

The model isn't moving in any of my shots. It's frozen right where I want it.
Add this file to your scripts folder. Now whenever you wish hit the B&N keys and the model will lock position and orientation where ever it is. Then move to the models location. A quick way to jump to it's location is to press ctrl+e, then WASD to move into the precise position you want. Then use shift+PgUp/PgDn to move the sun up or down and shift+home/end to rotate the sun to give more dramatic lighting.

Thanks!

[Boof69]

Just for the heck of it this is how the cockpit cam will work. Just cycle through the pics to see what I mean.

[Mikeymike21]

nice plane

[Boof69]

Thanks man. I'm kinda stalled on it right now but I plan on getting it done later in the week.

[Boof69]

This model is finished and ready to go, but I will not release it until Flex is dealt with. If he never gets dealt with then I will stop posting. Not because of Flexible but because of the neglect KE shows to these forums and swap pages. I guess this is just a one sided relationship.

[Boof69]

This model is POSTED! (http://www.knifeedge.com/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=17200)

[jeffpn]

Great!

[Boof69]

Really? Your glad huh? Tell me how she flies.:p

[jeffpn]

I haven't touched a computer all week!

[Boof69]

Are your hands shakin? I don't know how your doin it man.:confused:

[jeffpn]

Last week it was tough to use my iPhone, too. No computer then, either. I had more than one person wonder what was up with me!!

[Madratter]

I have literally been watching the swaps for days hoping this would be released. I got a chance to fly it this morning and what a gorgeous model. It was worth the wait. :D

[Boof69]

Thanks MR.

[Boof69]

So far this model has 2 reported problems but I also know at least 2 others imported with no problems. One person couldn't find it in his list after the import. The other said that the stock 70cc engine could not be found and a replacement was chosen. I think these are isolated problems on their end. If anyone else is seeing a problem could you report it here? Thanks

[Madratter]

So far this model has 2 reported problems but I also know at least 2 others imported with no problems. One person couldn't find it in his list after the import. The other said that the stack 70cc engine could not be found and a replacement was chosen. I think these are isolated problems on their end. If anyone else is seeing a problem could you report it here? Thanks

Hmm. I did not notice any trouble when importing. However, I just checked the editor to be sure and the engine I am seeing is the standard 70cc Gas. So perhaps I had the problem as well and just looked away long enough when creating the dds that I didn't see it.

For info sake, I have the mega airplane pack and the addon packs but none of the expansion packs.

I will try reimporting and paying more attention.

[Boof69]

If you have the 70cc engine then you had no problem. The problem was that the 70cc couldn't be found and they got a different engine.

[Jed_Sanders]

I cant seem to get it to load at all.
After selecting the FK14 and waiting for the dds to load, Im greeted with an error message:
Error: D3DERR_INVALIDCALL
File: \DXTexture.cpp
Line: 510
Once I click OK, I get the same error but Line: 673.
If I click OK to this, I then get the previous error.
This is endless until 'cancel' then I get a crash.

Thought I would post it up in-case it is useful.

[Madratter]

Yeah, I just deleted the aircraft and ran the import from scratch. I had no error messages come up, and I got the "standard 70cc engine". So things look good on my end.

[Boof69]

I cant seem to get it to load at all.
After selecting the FK14 and waiting for the dds to load, Im greeted with an error message:
Error: D3DERR_INVALIDCALL
File: \DXTexture.cpp
Line: 510
Once I click OK, I get the same error but Line: 673.
If I click OK to this, I then get the previous error.
This is endless until 'cancel' then I get a crash.

Thought I would post it up in-case it is useful.

Are you using the known work around for this issue?

[Boof69]

Yeah, I just deleted the aircraft and ran the import from scratch. I had no error messages come up, and I got the "standard 70cc engine". So things look good on my end.

OK cool. It's odd this one is giving trouble to some and none at all for others.

[Jed_Sanders]

I wasn't in the know about that one. Just read up on it and will re-try. Thanks.



Edit: Tried the work-around by opening RF, choosing stock aircraft, then stock photo field, Restart and then try loading again. Unfortunately after many variations of loading stock craft and scenes with a restart, I continue to receive the same errors, resulting in a crash.

I've imported another fresh model without issue, if that helps.

[Boof69]

Did you remove the bad import of my model first?

[Jed_Sanders]

Did you remove the bad import of my model first?

Nope.. But I have now and all is well.

She looks fantastic and flies great as well. I would say the nicest looking model I've seen in RF.

Thanks for posting it up.

P.S.
Some nice wing fairings you have there! ;)

[Boof69]

I like the fairings on the ryan better but thanks man.:)

[willsonman]

I'll give her a whirl later.

[willsonman]

Issues observed:
-Rudder component deflections. See picture. Pretty self-explanatory.
-Elevator tips at 1oz and the rest of each elevator is over 4oz? Tips should be lighter.
-OS 1.20 sound with a 70cc gas engine. HUGE difference in engine there. I would have gone with the DA100 sound as it is much closer.
-main wheel alignment in physics with graphics do not match vertically.
-wheel weight seems a bit low. two 2oz wheels to support a 20 pound plane? While not impossible I personally would want something more robust.
-Flaps. Physics do not match movement of actual flap. I used pods in my Tenzan and it worked out great for this effect.

Stuff I LOVE (aside from the as-usually prettiness of the subject):
-IT STALLS!!!! power-off and pull back slightly reveals a slight stall that is quite recoverable!
-Power to weight ratio is as it should be and not too overpowered to make it 3D but fly like a civilian aircraft.
-Balance is great. Use of ballast at the tail to get it right. 6oz is nothing on a plane this size and is a great use of rel-world building. Ground handling is interesting on grass and nose-ins are typical if you are not careful. With the short nose and wheel placement this is as it should be in relation to the CoG.

Overall:
What a great model. Clearly your physics chops are getting better with each model. This model screams that you have taken your time to put in a lot of fun details and not just thrown a surface-detail model together to wow others. This is a really good contribution to the community. My hat off to you sir!

[Boof69]

I am always shocked when something like that rudder issue gets through the cracks.
I wasn't satisfied with any of the engine sounds to tell the truth. I tried the DA100 but I didn't like it at the RPM range this motor has. I am still very bad at weights since allot of my models don't really have a RW precedence to go from and I'm no math whiz. I originally had the flap set up with pods but it acted like an airbrake. If you could try it out let me know what you did to get it to work on this model.

As for the flight characteristics I am trying new things to test for things like stall and to try to build them in. I also watched a youtube video that was from the cockpit of the plane displaying stall characteristics with and without vortex generators. I have spent allot of time dialing this on in and I appreciate the detailed opinion and observations. It's good to hear that you are enjoying the physics more. Thanks.