FastCargo

Okay, I think I understand. You're trying to do something similiar to make something to add to a cockpit. But sometimes you can see it, and sometimes you can't after you export? FC

Well, I can tell you that that view in an F-105 (or most century series fighters) is in fact unrealistic. So most clipping issues are artifical in nature. FC

I'm unclear as to what the problem is...can you restate? FC

What makes this even more interesting is the idea of a 'generic' cockpit. I believe Lexx you had brought this up already somewhere a while ago. The problem with moving stuff around to make a cockpit 'fit' inside an aircraft using either the Lexx 'clip' distance method or the 'OpenCockpit' method is that: A) Because of the way the cockpit is constructed, certain parts that you want out of the way may take parts that you want to keep (the F-105 cockpit is an example)...or worse, the mesh is of one piece, not 2 pieces. B) You can normally only move the particular mesh you want in one axis (ie you cant move a guage left/right AND up/down, and/or rotate). However, what I would propose is something fairly radical. The idea is that future aircraft would be built as I stated above in the first post, except more detailed. There would be the proper dimensions, functioning flight controls, HUD, dashboard, glareshield, etc. Non functioning switches, (if you really want) etc. But no functioning gauges. And that there would be 2 LODs....one with all those details, one without, so as to not bog down machines with all the extra textures and polygons (limited to one aircraft). And then, there would be the cockpit LOD. It would be generic...no walls, controls, seat. All the guage bezels would have invisible links behind them, to allow arrangement in all 3 dimensions with cockpit.ini edits ONLY. You could literally build your own cockpit with ini edits. The really hard part about the whole thing is the initial build of the generic cockpit, with all the different guage types. But after that, anyone with a modicum of knowledge could use the cockpit. But after the initial effort, any future modeler of aircraft could get a reasonable emulation of their aircraft's specific cockpit just by building the frame work in the external model...and then using the 'generic' cockpit, ini edits, and texture edits to get a functional version of their aircraft's cockpit...eliminating the eye bleeding detail needed usually needed to build a cockpit from scratch. Musings from a mad modder... FC

Not quite the same thing. Parts can be added by building separate LODs and adding them via the FakePilot method. However, they'll do nothing but sit there. What I show is different. You can actually enhance cockpits by providing working controls...as long as you can include them in the original aircraft LOD. And most importantly, you do not have to have access to the original cockpit MAX file. FC

Did you bother crediting the original creator of the cockpit included? FC

Moved to correct forum. Provide a readme and maybe you can upload it here. FC

BB, I believe you. But it doesn't matter how it looks in MAX if the exported file is all screwed up. Also, triple check your links to make sure they are heirarchied correctly. FC

Those displays are from the F-35, but that cockpit is an F-22. FC

Okay, you've got a transform problem. First, make sure your animation controllers are all TCB (you'll find this under the Animation tab...the tab has a picture of a wheel rolling). Select the particular mesh that is animated, select the Animation tab (wheel rolling), then you'll see a subtitle called Assign Controller. Click on that, and the window will expand and you'll see 3 entries that say Rotation, Scale, Position. On each one, click, then click the little question mark button above it. A window will come up, allowing selection of TCB. Do that for each of the parameters (Rotation, Scale, Position). Now, the transform problem. You are going to have to unlink ALL the troubled meshes, then find and run Reset XForm (located in the same place the TW exporter option is at). Save before you Reset XForm each part...sometimes there are strange results. Then make sure your pivot points are in their proper locations (you may have to use the Hierarchy tab to Transform and then move and align your pivot points again), then relink, then you may possibly need to reanimate. FC

Not a bad idea...use the weld function for vertices within .001 meter. FC

Okay, start adding the parts one group at a time to narrow which group, then specifically which part. Then we can go from there. FC

As a person who has built a cockpit, and who has been a Bone pilot, it might be easier to start with something a hell of a lot simpler than a Bone cockpit. Otherwise, one of two things will probably happen: 1) By the time you are done with the cockpit, the 4th generation of TW sims will be out, making your work obsolete because all the conventions will be different or 2) You will throw your computer through the window in frustration. Just a thought. FC

No...all the newer F-111 models were built by hiding and unhiding parts...one MAX file to cover several different F-111 models. FC

Or, as the poster in YouTube, you could not allow messages AT ALL. I have that option enabled on the YouTube videos I've posted. No video responses, no comments, no messages allowed. Problem solved. FC

Okay. Lets start from square one. Hide the objects you changed (assuming they are at the end of the hierarchy), then reexport and check. If that works good, then start unhiding the objects until you find the offender. FC

I think so. I believe only thing the other programs are good for is to make the basic model. Most of the time, mappings, animations will need to be done by someone with 3ds Max. FC

Mirrored...did you mirror as a group? Or individual objects?

Folks, to be clear, the ONLY 3d program that works natively with the ThirdWire exporter is 3ds MAX. ANY other 3d program's output will require the file to be translated to the .MAX format for someone with 3ds MAX to output it to the .LOD format that the ThirdWire sims use. Which usually means a resultant loss of something, usually mappings, animations, etc. FC

KnX, Any of your ideas for the B-1B aren't realistic either. The TF system doesn't work that way or look that way in a Bone. The EO thing would be good when you mount a sniper pod, for targeting weapons...but again, not used for TF. In other words, you're trading one unrealistic way for another. It's actually more realistic in a Bone to have the ground mapping radar going and be looking outside to hand fly. FC

If it's in Campaign, that should happen automatically. If it's in a Single Mission, go to the Loadout screen and you'll see a drop down menu to select each of your wingmen, and the 'skin' for each of them. FC

Nope, a HANS device wouldn't work as it currently is formed. The primary force during an ejection is compression, not lateral shearing. Also, race drivers may look left and right, but for damn sure they're not looking straight up and back. A HANS device would be a huge hinderance to checking six. Hell, 'horse collar' PFDs are bad enough. Better to shrink and lighten the equipment. FC

Great, guess I should go back up my stuff... FC

That's funny as hell! Copied right down to the lettering... Hell, even those dual missile rails look just like the ones that carry Slammers on the Supa Hornet... I expect to see mockups for the F-35 soon... FC

I like the way you think! FC