F-35A

[Skelator56 0]

If you're gonna be knife fighting in a phonebooth, it won't be the pilot in the flanker worrying...

 

So since this jalopy's gonna have no hud, what are your options for SFP? Is it possible to integrate the hud with the mouse freelook system?

 

I know that many people out there love the Flankers. I have been in the industry for quite some time and all I can say is that both of our next generation fighters really have no equal. I know this is hard to believe and I was very skeptical at the onset of the development phases of both aircraft, but it will not matter if you are in a knife fight or BVR, these aircraft will utilize what we describe as the "Unfair Advantage". What we have now has made me a believer.

 

These will probably be the last inhabited aircraft that we see for some time. The powers that be think that the Uninhabited Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV) will be the wave of the future.

 

But until then....

 

Check Six

 

Skelator

[eraser_tr 29]

Remember when they thought guns were obsolete and only missiles would be used? or the british white paper stating manned aircraft were to be obsolete back in the 60's?

 

The powers that be have seldom predicted anything wisely as far as warfare goes. It takes learning things the hard way(ie being unprepared and getting our asses handed to us) for often than not.

[Sky Captain 0]

I want the redhead in the flight suit please.

With or without the helmet?

[Skelator56 0]

Remember when they thought guns were obsolete and only missiles would be used? or the british white paper stating manned aircraft were to be obsolete back in the 60's?

 

The powers that be have seldom predicted anything wisely as far as warfare goes. It takes learning things the hard way(ie being unprepared and getting our asses handed to us) for often than not.

 

 

We learned from that (remember Vietnam?). That is one reason both stealth aircraft have guns. We've learned from the past and now the manufacturers, developers, and test folks are listening to the guys and gals in the trenches. At least for this iteration. We'll se about the UCAVs.

 

Skelator

[JediMaster 451]

The problem so far is the anticipated cost savings for UCAVs/UAVs has not materialized. Yes, they're cheaper, but not as much as hoped for.

[+Spectre_USA 7]

Is this your 1st model USAF SP-type d00d?

 

One helluva fine job so far.

 

Have a great time at the Disney place. I took my son for his 9th Birthday, he loved it.

[serverandenforcer 33]

1st model for SF/WOE

[serverandenforcer 33]

I know that many people out there love the Flankers. I have been in the industry for quite some time and all I can say is that both of our next generation fighters really have no equal. I know this is hard to believe and I was very skeptical at the onset of the development phases of both aircraft, but it will not matter if you are in a knife fight or BVR, these aircraft will utilize what we describe as the "Unfair Advantage". What we have now has made me a believer.

 

These will probably be the last inhabited aircraft that we see for some time. The powers that be think that the Uninhabited Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV) will be the wave of the future.

 

But until then....

 

Check Six

 

Skelator

 

These aircrafts maybe uninhabited, but they are still monitored and controlled by man, via remote control. However, the praticallity of replacing conventional manned aircraft with remote drones has not yet been an easily feasible option. Right now their main specialty is short range s&d or recon missions. Here are the main factors limiting these things to become the wave of the future for aerial combat: 1.) training, 2.) cost, 3.) limited capability, 4.) survivability. When I was at Indian Springs AFB in Nevada (where they train the officers to pilot the predator drones) I saw quite a few of these things crash when just only attempting to land. Also, these things are getting shot down quite frequently in the AOR. As an individual model, they're cheaper than the next gen manned aircraft. However, if you add up to how many we have to replace more offten than a F-15 or F-16, it becomes a hefty price tag. There are also folks in Congress who are opponents to the UAV/UCAV as well. So seeing these things quickly replacing our pilots might not actually happen (at least during the first half of this century). There is a lot more technology that has to be developed before that takes place. I personally feel that several more aircrafts will come in the next 10 to 20 years to replace the F-117/B2 and possibly the F-22 (give about 15-25 years).

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

I think the hud is going to be projected into the Pilot's helmet, either that or its like the F-14 projected on the forward glass.

 

I meant for the model Server's producing. F-35's gonna be the first modern aircraft built without a hud, but I'm intrigued as to how this can be integrated into the game. Because if it can... Think of all the HMD mods to existing aircraft that'll suddenly be in production!

 

These will probably be the last inhabited aircraft that we see for some time. The powers that be think that the Uninhabited Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV) will be the wave of the future.

 

Hogwash! This statement's been given a lot of press in the media but it's unfounded. The UAV related technologies are evolving, as is the infrastructure necessary to to support it, but it'll remain in the realm of battlefield support for a long time yet! Plus, there are many characteristics, such as intuition, that can't be artifically reproduced. We'll see this century end with manned military aircraft , no question, but UAVs will be much more dominant than they currently are.

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

I personally feel that several more aircrafts will come in the next 10 to 20 years to replace the F-117/B2 and possibly the F-22 (give about 15-25 years).

 

We're predicting about 30 years at least for the Raptor here at ASPI, 40 for the Eurofighter...

[Skelator56 0]

These aircrafts maybe uninhabited, but they are still monitored and controlled by man, via remote control. However, the praticallity of replacing conventional manned aircraft with remote drones has not yet been an easily feasible option. Right now their main specialty is short range s&d or recon missions. Here are the main factors limiting these things to become the wave of the future for aerial combat: 1.) training, 2.) cost, 3.) limited capability, 4.) survivability. When I was at Indian Springs AFB in Nevada (where they train the officers to pilot the predator drones) I saw quite a few of these things crash when just only attempting to land. Also, these things are getting shot down quite frequently in the AOR. As an individual model, they're cheaper than the next gen manned aircraft. However, if you add up to how many we have to replace more offten than a F-15 or F-16, it becomes a hefty price tag. There are also folks in Congress who are opponents to the UAV/UCAV as well. So seeing these things quickly replacing our pilots might not actually happen (at least during the first half of this century). There is a lot more technology that has to be developed before that takes place. I personally feel that several more aircrafts will come in the next 10 to 20 years to replace the F-117/B2 and possibly the F-22 (give about 15-25 years).

 

I understand the limitations of the Predator aircraft but what I am talking about is the X-45 project. The survivability and capability problem was solved with this very stealthy design and will evolve with the larger capability that the X-45B and X-47 will have. I was stationed at Edwards AFB during the development and test phases I, II, and III of this program. I also have ties to El Mirage and Nellis. It had it's problems along the way (like all new project) but quickly overcame them. The control vans that the crews are in are really something to behold. It will come to a point when the aviator will be in a synthetic cockpit many miles away from the actual aircraft. This can happen within the next decade. Wright Patterson and Brooks are already testing these advanced systems.

 

These birds are flown the same way that the Global Hawk pilot/computer/aircraft interface works. But I agree with you in that our legislature will not allow UCAVs to go into combat completely unaided. Believe me, it will be a sad day when we take the human out of the cockpit.

 

You are doing great on the F-35. I posted the cockpit pictures for the F/A-37 folks. They seem to like the redhead!

 

I tried to down load some other three views from Code One magazine. It has all the versions in a planer view form. Maybe you can get them to transfer.

 

I look forward to flying your F-35!

 

Check Six

 

Skelator

[serverandenforcer 33]

Well, I've run into a few problems here with the mesh. I'm trying to do a boolean cut into the wing to make the flaps. When I use my "cookie cutter" to cut out the portion of the wing where the flap is supposed to go, the is supposed to be a cut out in the wing and solid material around the perimeter of where the cookie cutter was on the wing, creating a perfect indention to the form of the cookie cutter. Instead, I get empty space in that perimeter area. Now, I've done boolean cuts before, so I know what I'm doing, but I've never had this problem. So if anybody out there knows what needs to be done, please send some advice this way. I can't go any further with this model until I've gotten this taken care of. I've gone through the tutorials at Mc Fly's site to see if he did anything different compared to how I build my models, and I've basically done the exact stuff that he has done (in regards to boolean cuts). So please, help is needed. Thank you.

[+Zurawski 33]

Well, I've run into a few problems here with the mesh. I'm trying to do a boolean cut into the wing to make the flaps. When I use my "cookie cutter" to cut out the portion of the wing where the flap is supposed to go, the is supposed to be a cut out in the wing and solid material around the perimeter of where the cookie cutter was on the wing, creating a perfect indention to the form of the cookie cutter. Instead, I get empty space in that perimeter area. Now, I've done boolean cuts before, so I know what I'm doing, but I've never had this problem. So if anybody out there knows what needs to be done, please send some advice this way. I can't go any further with this model until I've gotten this taken care of. I've gone through the tutorials at Mc Fly's site to see if he did anything different compared to how I build my models, and I've basically done the exact stuff that he has done (in regards to boolean cuts). So please, help is needed. Thank you.

 

Well... could be a couple of things:

 

1.) The faces of the "cookie cutter" are flipped. The residue faces of your cut will be the same as their origins facing... So if your using say a box and you do your cut, the residue faces will appear to not be there. Try flipping your faces on your cutter, then cut.

 

2.) Make sure your A and B use the same material. I've had instances there dissimilar materials caused weird things like this to happen.

 

3.) Make sure your NOT subtracting...

 

At the moment... that's all I can think of.

Edited March 10, 2007 by Zurawski

[serverandenforcer 33]

LOL, I replied to the PM that you replied to me about this before looking at this topic. Well, it seems that all of the above (except for number 1) that you mentioned maybe the problem here. When I'm up tomorrow, I'll see about working on them. Thanks for the advice.

[serverandenforcer 33]

Well... could be a couple of things:

 

1.) The faces of the "cookie cutter" are flipped. The residue faces of your cut will be the same as their origins facing... So if your using say a box and you do your cut, the residue faces will appear to not be there. Try flipping your faces on your cutter, then cut.

 

2.) Make sure your A and B use the same material. I've had instances there dissimilar materials caused weird things like this to happen.

 

3.) Make sure your NOT subtracting...

 

At the moment... that's all I can think of.

 

Well, I've tried all techniques and I haven't had any success yet. Oh, and why not subtract? That's what I've always done. Infact, that's what even the tutorials from Mc Fly Aviation website say to do.

Edited March 10, 2007 by serverandenforcer

[+Zurawski 33]

Well, I've tried all techniques and I haven't had any success yet. Oh, and why not subtract? That's what I've always done. Infact, that's what even the tutorials from Mc Fly Aviation website say to do.

 

Subtracting removes the faces... leaving you to have to rebuild them. Personally, I prefer to cut the polys by hand... not as messy as boolean (useless-vert creator) and far more precise.

 

You might also try collapsing the edit stack of both objects before trying the boolean...

[+Zurawski 33]

Subtracting removes the faces... leaving you to have to rebuild them. Personally, I prefer to cut the polys by hand... not as messy as boolean (useless-vert creator) and far more precise.

 

You might also try collapsing the edit stack of both objects before trying the boolean...

 

 

Ignore everything I've said to this point... I'm an idiot.

 

You do want to subtract... "subtract A-B" to be most precise. I was thinking "cut" in my previous responses.

 

Boolean is just an inherently unstable modifier... One can do 100 projects with no boolean issues and others can't ever get it to work properly. I've personally noticed "involved/intricate" operand "A" can cause issues with the cut especially then the B is relatively simple.

 

...I know it sounds stupid, but try exporting your model into .3ds open that and try your boolean compound again... I've solved a few boolean issues with this solution. (You can go back and save it in .max after your done if you wish)...

 

You can also try using a higher poly-count operand "B" (like a 10 poly box -vs- 6)

 

Sorry... trying like hell to help out here... Like I said I usually hand-cut my stuff.

Edited March 11, 2007 by Zurawski

[serverandenforcer 33]

Ignore everything I've said to this point... I'm an idiot.

 

You do want to subtract... "subtract A-B" to be most precise. I was thinking "cut" in my previous responses.

 

Boolean is just an inherently unstable modifier... One can do 100 projects with no boolean issues and others can't ever get it to work properly. I've personally noticed "involved/intricate" operand "A" can cause issues with the cut especially then the B is relatively simple.

 

...I know it sounds stupid, but try exporting your model into .3ds open that and try your boolean compound again... I've solved a few boolean issues with this solution. (You can go back and save it in .max after your done if you wish)...

 

You can also try using a higher poly-count operand "B" (like a 10 poly box -vs- 6)

 

Sorry... trying like hell to help out here... Like I said I usually hand-cut my stuff.

 

To me, hand cutting is more work than doing boolean operations. I used to do the hand cut stuff myself before I found out what boolean operations do. I guess in this case it's to each his own. I'll try the import stuff tomorrow. I gotta get going to bed cause we turn the clocks ahead tonight. I liked it better when you turn the clocks back and get a few more hours of sleep - unless your the sucker working the mids shift and have to work an extra hour.

[+drdoyo 2]

I liked it better when you turn the clocks back and get a few more hours of sleep

 

 

LOL, I'm originally from NE Indiana, I like the idea of leaving the clocks alone much better .

 

Nice work on the F-35, you might even make me (former F-4E, F-16C, C-130H mechanic and Grumman fanatic amature NAVAIR historian) a believer. The last time they tried that concept of one-for-all the good that came to being was the Tomcat she'll be missed .

[serverandenforcer 33]

Well I tried what you said and it still didn't solve the problem. Perhaps I didn't build this thing right. I guess I'll have to try hand cutting it. Ugh, this is going to take a lot longer than I originally anticipated.

[serverandenforcer 33]

The problems that I had encountered in the modeling process have been resolved and contruction has resumed.

[+Zurawski 33]

The problems that I had encountered in the modeling process have been resolved and contruction has resumed.

 

Resolved?!

 

Do tell!... Your resolution will likely save many future modders a splitting headache (myself included).

[serverandenforcer 33]

Well, due to my lack of experience with max, there are some features that I'm not aware of in regards to boolean operations. So what I will say may seem like old information to a lot of you. Thanks to wpnssgt, he explained to me that my problem could be simply solved by clicking on the "cap holes" modifier. This will fill in those "missing polygons when you do a boolean subtract operation. However, you have to connect the appropriate vertices because it won't fill in those missing polygons very nicely. He also explained that this action should be done after the model is totally complete and that all segments (i.e. wing, nose, fuselage, etc...) have been detached. Basically, you don't want to have a "whole" model. Things need to be in pieces so that the aircraft can operate correctly in the game. So far, I got all control surfaces and the front landing gear doors finished. Now I need to work on the rear landing gear doors, the speed brake, the weapons bay, the hinges to all of the moving parts, the actuall landing gears, completely model in the canopy (it's just an extrusion off of the fuselage right now), and build the cockpit. I believe it's safe to say that there is probably even more stuff I have to do to the model... oh yeah, the cannon and some other cosmetic features. This is one of the most involved models I've ever had to deal with. Now I know why it takes so long for these things to be built.

Edited March 13, 2007 by serverandenforcer

[+Zurawski 33]

Well, due to my lack of experience with max, there are some features that I'm not aware of in regards to boolean operations. So what I will say may seem like old information to a lot of you. Thanks to wpnssgt, he explained to me that my problem could be simply solved by clicking on the "cap holes" modifier. This will fill in those "missing polygons when you do a boolean subtract operation. However, you have to connect the appropriate vertices because it won't fill in those missing polygons very nicely. He also explained that this action should be done after the model is totally complete and that all segments (i.e. wing, nose, fuselage, etc...) have been detached. Basically, you don't want to have a "whole" model. Things need to be in pieces so that the aircraft can operate correctly in the game. So far, I got all control surfaces and the front landing gear doors finished. Now I need to work on the rear landing gear doors, the speed brake, the weapons bay, the hinges to all of the moving parts, the actuall landing gears, completely model in the canopy (it's just an extrusion off of the fuselage right now), and build the cockpit. I believe it's safe to say that there is probably even more stuff I have to do to the model... oh yeah, the cannon and some other cosmetic features. This is one of the most involved models I've ever had to deal with. Now I know why it takes so long for these things to be built.

 

Thank-You for explaining... In hindsight I owe you an apology as well. Why because I "assumed" you had detached your parts... and I also assumed you were looking for the boolean to fill the cut void (Or I would have suggested capping the objects well)

 

Personally I cut my model after I have it completely mapped. I then hand-cut the doors, control surfaces etc by using the panel lines of the texture... Basically I like the control of where new polys are created. Boolean is okay... but it creates an ungodly amount of verts and it's decision of "where" to place new polys is pretty subject.

 

Basicly... I find myself doing more work with boolean after the fact than I would perform doing it myself.

 

Just different schools... nothing wrong with that!

 

P.S. Welcome to the brotherhood of "Now I understand why new projects take so long"...

Edited March 13, 2007 by Zurawski

[Hawk MMS 0]

Uhhhh, ok. See that is why i was always an operator. tech stuff is a little out there for me. Just wanted to say that all of the guys who create add-ons, skins, etc are to be commended for really great work. I love this game now. When i bought it i wasn't impressed too much. it actually made me miss my old FA. Downloading all of these great add ons has changed all of that. Thanks again.