A Beauty: Wingnut's ROLAND D.VI by Ray Rimell

[Olham 164]

WINGNUT have a Roland D.VI now - it looks great, when it's built by Ray Rimell, as you can see here:

 

http://www.wingnutwi...42C2C53DE4CEF97

 

Also, check the other models Ray has built - he is a real master.

If we could have these in OFF (hint, hint!) - I'd promise I would fly them a lot!

 

 

Edited March 15, 2011 by Olham

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

I've not seen one of those before!...Nice looking Aeroplane

[Hasse Wind 46]

Just like the Albs and the Pfalz D.III, that Roland is one of the most beautiful aircraft of WW1. It was nothing special when it came to service in 1918, maybe slightly better than the Albatros D.Va, but definitely not as good as the Fokker D.VII and the Pfalz D.XII. Still, the Roland saw service in some Jastas and is one of the late war aircraft that I hope to see in OFF some day, along with the better and more numerous Pfalz D.XII.

[+Polovski 458]

Yeah we can have one Olham no problem :) - the problem as with all craft is when :(

 

Lovely model that.

[Olham 164]

Well, if you'd assure me, that you won't build it yourself within 2011, I could try to build it.

I am quite certain, that Bullethead and others would help me with tips and tricks.

But as I know, 3D modelling is very time consuming and straining, I wouldn't want to get

half through all the work, only to find, you have released one. What d'you say?

[shredward 12]

I can tell you that it wasn't on our order books yet Olham - long list in front of it. But I can also tell you that model building has an incredibly steep learning curve, and many many have started out building one, only to give up in frustration with a half-built model that never sees the light of day....

And we would hate to lose you over something like that.

Cheers,

shredward

[Olham 164]

I know, Shredder - that's why I never touched it yet.

I would only get on with something like that, when I do really like the craft - which is the case with this D.VI.

I don't know, if any of you OFF modellers have ever compiled some advice for which program is best to use,

what tutorials would be best to study; recommended book, etc. ?

[shredward 12]

I know nuffink nuffink nuffink about model building, but I do know that the two Marks always start out with 3 view drawings, and lay out the model on those - it's the only way to go. I think they use Max for most, if not all tasks. Bullet, and prolly others here, will be able to point you to tutorials and stuff - I'm pretty sure there are some good ones here at Combat Ace, as well as elsewhere, but I'll let others point you in those directions. And of course, if you decide that you really do want to go mad, well, I have all the references you would need, and medications to recommend to help control the symptoms.

Cheers,

shredward

[Olham 164]

Okay, that is a very friendly offer, Shredward. I know you could provide me with 3 views of that craft.

Now, the first I'll do is to contact Bullethead about further advice.

Then, I'll have to get the GMax program - I'll search for it..

I'll have to build some simpler forms and objects to get started.

When I think, I got far enough to start, I'll contact you again.

[Lewie 7]

Olham,

 

You recall our first conversation about 3D modelling? I've been at this for a while, I've built numerous models over this time, and with each new venture I've discovered that the learning curve gets forever steeper. With each new platform, I've also discovered there are development limitations, hassles, and leftover 'bugs', that the previous developers didn't fix or documented poorly, and I'm in no way suggesting that OFF has this as a major problem, but to be honest, I believe a lot of volunteer effort sims have bugs, kludges and workarounds. It's the level of the knowledge base and the documentation of the process that will make or break a neophyte's effort in this.

 

. What's going on with OFF right now is that the interiors alone are upwards to about 35 to 50 thousand polys. I just finished a model I that I estimate is pushing 9000 polys for the entire model. I've got many weeks into it, and I've yet to align, import and map the model. The level of detail in OFF steps out out of the freeware/volunteer effort range, in my estimation. Then to add to the complexity, there's the various aspects of damage modelling and flight modelling. Add this all up and in my perspective it would be nice to keep a low poly count aspect to a sim you want to add to in a volunteer manner. Just IMHO.

 

It's a hobby, do you want to continue to have time to fly in OFF? On top of learning to use G-max, (or 3D Max if you want to send the coin,) there's the requirement of getting AirWrench, which I suspect is payware, and learning to use it, for the flight modelling. I'm not trying to dissuade you, as this sim has a lot going for it, but one should be going in with the perspective of what is required time and effortwise, and what has gone on before with others who have given it their best...

 

These are just my observations from the belly of the beast so to speak.

[Olham 164]

Yeah, I knew there is a lot with it, and I haven't yet made a decision.

I think, that the Air Wrench/FM stuff would be done by the dev team anyway, and wanted just to build the plane.

But then there is still plenty of work to do. They use 3 models for three steps of distance to it, which had to be built.

 

And yes, I would very much love to still find time to fly OFF.

[Dej 17]

If you're willing to pay for better software Olham I'd suggest Cinema 4D. I find its interface more intuitive than Max and it'll export in a compatible format for most other software... mind you, so does Max. But C4D is German, so you'd be supporting the home team

 

I second the learning curve point though. I only model for still images like the Fateful Morn pic (which taught me a few things)... wouldn't know where to start on rigging models for gaming!

Edited March 16, 2011 by Dej

[Hasse Wind 46]

Almost sounds like it would be easier to build a real WW1 aircraft than to model it in OFF! I greatly respect the hard work of the devs.

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

I would be happy to help you with the FM stuff, Olham. Although I don't claim to be any where near the expert as anyone on the OFF development team, I think I have learned a thing or two while fiddling with the Albs and N28. The main difficulty would be getting enough good flight information about the real-world performance of the D VI.

[Lewie 7]

If you've read John McKenzie's ongoing thread at The Aerodrome, you'll get an idea of what it's like to build a authentic WWI plane from scratch. He built an FE2B replica for the RAF museum.

 

It's an epic thread and it makes building planes for OFF look almost easy. ( which it ain't..) His handiwork is fantastic, but I swear that the hours and tooling involved would give most proficient metalsmiths, toolmakers and woodworkers fits. He built all of it, including most of the tooling, by hand. The radiator core was made, cell by cell, from copper sheeting and tube. Skills that have not been in use for over a century.

 

I appreciate what the dev's here are doing, every time I open gmax and try to work on my simple, little projects.

[Olham 164]

I don't get it, Dej - that DH-2 looks great. What's the difference to a flying model?

The moving parts, okay - but is that really so much harder to do?

 

Lewie, have you ever had a look at "The Vintage Aviator" ?

There you will find great photodocumentation about building replicas.

 

http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/projects/albatros-dva/albatros-dva-timelapse-construction-video

[Olham 164]

To come back to the Roland D.VI: here is a translation attempt I made from German Wikipedia,

as the English page text was much shorter.

 

In service, the L.F.G. Roland D.VI did certainly prove itself.

Her ample cockpit offered good vision in all directions; the craft did respond

sensitively and climbed impressingly fast: 4.500 m were reached in 25 minutes,

and the craft was still very fast with 160 km/h at this altitude.

 

The beneficial short-takeoff qualities were opposed by a delicate

landing behaviour, mostly caused by the narrow gear.

Also, the Benz engine tended to overheat at higher stress.

On 31 August 1918, about 70 D.VI were in front service.

[Hasse Wind 46]

Yep, it was a good fighter. Stronger wings and a faster speed and climb than the Albatros D.Va, too. If it had come into service about one year earlier, it would have been one of the best fighters of the war. But when the Fokker D.VII was coming at the same time (Spring 1918), the Roland didn't have much to say against such competition. And like all German late war fighters, it suffered from the lack of powerful engines. The best performance of the Roland D.VI was achieved only with the 200 hp Benz engine, but that was not available for all of them, and the weaker 160 hp Mercedes engines (already obsolete at that time) were used instead.

[Olham 164]

I know, I know, but it looks so cute - I sure want one!

And I would really try, how good I could be with it in 1918.

It has some strengths the Albatros doesn't offer.

[Hasse Wind 46]

If we look purely at production numbers and how many Jastas used which aircraft, then the Pfalz D.XII (800 built) would be a better candidate for inclusion into OFF, before the Roland (350 built). It was even faster and tougher, so you could properly imitate the energy tactics of the tough Entente SPAD's and SE.5's.

 

And now my trademark: we need more new two-seaters before any new fighters!

[shredward 12]

The performance of the Roland DVI was not mediocre - some think it as good as or better than any other late war German fighter. This from DSA:

Tailspin:

I don't know where you got the idea they were withdrawn from service. The Rol. D.VIa and Rol.D.VIb served to the end of the war. There were a total of 350 built, the Rol.D.VIa were powered with the latest 200 Ps Mercedes D.IIIaüv

engine which gave it creditable performance. After Jasta 23b was equipped the Fok.D.VII, there were no other Jasta completely equipped with either the D.VIa or the D.VIb,they were scatter to other Jasta in small quantities of 2, 3 and 4s.

LFG Roland was capable of building 120 plus aircraft per month, their effort however was directed toward building Alb.B.IIa training aircraft @ 100 per month followed by the Han.Cl.II(Rol) at the same rate. According to the Idflieg production plan, during this period they were only building 30 or so Rol.D.VIa or D.VIb machines/ month. I can only conclude that the complex fuselage structure was the problem. A total of 150 Rol.D.VIb with the 185 Ps Benz BzIIav engine were ordered in August and September 1918, it was a damn sight better than the Pfalz D.XII and the Mercedes Fok.D.VII and almost as good as the BMWIIIa powered Fok.D.VII! Beats the hell outta me?

Blue skies,

Dan-San

 

and this:

I'll give you the information and YOU make your own decision as to which was the better machine.

Pfalz D.XII Rol.D.VIb

Engine. 180 Ps D.IIIaü 185 Ps BzIIIav

Max A/S @ S/L 180 km/hr 200 km/hr

Climb to 1000m 2' 30" 2"30"

" " 3000m 11' 18" 7'44"

" " 5000m 30' 42" 19' 6"

Service ceiling 7000m 8000m

endurance to achieve range.

1.625 hrs. 2.35 hrs.

Cruising speed: 160 km/hr. 170. km/hr.

Range 260 km. 400 km.

Weights:

empty, 717 kg. 645 kg.

pilot 80 kg. 80 kg.

fuel/oil 67 kg. 129 kg.

military load. 48 kg. 48 kg.

total load. 185 kg. 257 kg.

Flying weight: 902 kg. 902 kg.

Wing area: 21.7m² 22.1m²

Wing loading:kg/m² 41.5kg/m² 40.8kg/m²

Power loading; kg/Ps 5.01kg/Ps 4.87kg/Ps.

 

That being said, and this is not aimed at anyone who might be thinking of taking up modelling...

In that direction lies the path to madness

What Lewie hinted at is very true - if you take up modelling - it will become more than a hobby. And the time it demands will be to the exclusion of all else - just ask my wife about my obsess...err hobby. And while not a modeller, I can tell you that I simply do not have the time to fly Over Flanders Fields - in fact, I never get to fly it except at beta testing time (P1, 2, 3, and hopefully, 4). So if you want to take up modelling, you will need to put away your happy carefree existence as a pilot soaring high Over Flanders Fields....

Be warned!

shredward

[Lewie 7]

If we look purely at production numbers and how many Jastas used which aircraft, then the Pfalz D.XII (800 built) would be a better candidate for inclusion into OFF, before the Roland (350 built). It was even faster and tougher, so you could properly imitate the energy tactics of the tough Entente SPAD's and SE.5's.

 

And now my trademark: we need more new two-seaters before any new fighters!

 

Yes, I agree, at least the Rumpler CIV, Halberstadt CLII, AWK 8, DH4, I'd go as far as suggesting a few late 1915 to 1916 French lattice tails, like the Voison LA2, Farman Horace F40, Caudron GIV, and Breguet Michelin IV.

[Olham 164]

Hasse Wind, I'm sure, both your remark and your trademark are already understood by the devs.

I am pretty certain, that the Pfalz D.XII will be added before the Roland D.VI would.

And also, I think they are working on two-seaters.

I will be quite glad with the Pfalz D.XII - not as ugly as the Fokker D.VII, which I never fly for that reason.

 

But dreams are what keeps us afloat - and I like to dream of having a Roland D.VI some day.