Report issues with old swap pages content here

Ryan Douglas

Administrator
Staff member
Johnny, those frame names are case sensitive. You should always adhere to the naming standards we set forth, including case. Ex: ~CS_MainOuterHub (vs. ~CS_MAINOUTERHUB).

It looks like parts of your hierarchy still diverge from what RF-X expects. The DISKMOUNT part should be entirely separate and attached as a child of the fuselage itself. It should have no children.

You omitted the expected 2BLADE designation. This may well cause problems, too.

I understand some of these things apparently worked in 7.5, so the results here probably come as a surprise. Except for the "grip" type noted in the creation guidelines (and of course the new metalness workflow), the standards haven't really changed for RF-X. It's just that 7.5 was apparently more lenient about handling things that deviated from the specification.

We recommend examining the stock heli models for good examples of expected naming and structure. As I'm sure you know, you can do that in the Visuals tab of the editor.
 

Attachments

Ryan Douglas

Administrator
Staff member
I also found a model on the swap pages created for g3.5. I imported the model and it warned me of many issues but it loaded the model pretty well. In the sim the models landing gear falls through the ground and causes chaos.
...
http://www.knifeedge.com/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=1261
I took a quick look. All of the warnings are significant. The lack of collision frames may well cause performance problems (though you may luck out if the model is simple enough, or you may be willing to put up with issues on the ground if it performs okay in the sky).

The 29% Vehicle Graphical Scale will definitely cause sinking into the ground issues like you're seeing. That graphical scale is simply not applied, so in RF-X you have visuals that are much too large for the physics. Hence, the physics model is resting on the ground, but it the oversized visuals are not.

You should be able to scale all the physics components and adjust the graphics scale to 100% to fix the sinking (unless the missing wheel visual frames cause further problems). Unfortunately, the remainder are not issues anyone but the original modeler will be able to fix.
 

Johnny31297

Active member
Thanks Ryan, will try correct capitalization when I get home.

Another point regarding collisions, how are those handeled now? If there are no collision meshes on a plane, will it
a) collide the mesh with the ground
b) collide the physics with the ground
c) collide the mesh with the ground if graphical scale=100% but collide the physics if graphical scale=/=100%?
 

Johnny31297

Active member
Johnny, those frame names are case sensitive. You should always adhere to the naming standards we set forth, including case. Ex: ~CS_MainOuterHub (vs. ~CS_MAINOUTERHUB).
Thank you. This was the solution. The sim doesn't care about the 2BLADE naming, it's the capitalization of the blur hubs what matters :)
 

Attachments

Ryan Douglas

Administrator
Staff member
I'm guessing you get the desired results without the 2BLADE designation only because the sim defaults to 2. It would not be good practice to depend upon that behavior; it would be best to follow the spec and always specify the number of blades.
 
Top