Timmy

FC Not trying to be dense but do you use 11-20 to animate from the extended position? Full extension on frame 11 and full compression on frame 20 with the gear extended? Obviously I haven't tried that yet - too much bouncing plane syndrome as of yet. (My main gear wheels are out of round and have to be re-made.)

In TK's many descriptions of the gear animating sequences he always states the following: At frame 0 the gear should be fully retracted and uncompressed. It should start this way in key frame 1 (or 11 or whatever) and end in frame 10 with the gear extended and compressed. Is this all that needs to be done for shock stroke in max? I see a couple of paragraphs that explain that shock animation can de done seperatly. Could this be done with key frame 41 extended, uncompressed and frame 50 extended and compressed? Or is it in the same frames as retraction? I'm having problems with the shock animation because of the canted stance of the main landing gear - simple linear motion throws the oleo out of the pison so I was thinking about animating the shock stroke. I'll probably be able to answer my own question with trial and error - but any input would be appreciated. TD

I generally take an aircraft that is similar in size or shape (no help there) and change the .ini files to match my model. For instance - I used the F-86K with the Lansen model. I renamed all the meshes and changed the positions of the pilots - afterburner - guns - the radius of the wheels. That will get it into the game. Then you will have to fix the rotation angles of the ailerons, elevators, flaps, rudders etc... Truth be told, I know nothing about getting the aircraft to perform properly, but I can get it into the game. There is a program out there by p10ppy called min-max that will give you a great deal of information that you'll need regarding your model to get it working properly in the game. This program is invaluable and p10ppy was not only nominated for a Nobel Prize for his efforts, but was also cannonized by the Order Eels Keen on Hovercraft. You can find min-max here: http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autoc...p;showfile=5125

3D Studio Max. The best way if you don't have a copy of Max laying around is to do the 3D work in something like GMax and then send the completed file to someone with Max so they can create a .lod for it.

I figured I'd keep everyone up to date as to where we are with this project. Here are some screen renders. I've got it in game so Lexx can work his magic on it - but she still needs quite a bit of 3D work. You know the drill. Two weeks. I'm happy to fix things that aren't right so if you want to complain that something is wrong - do it now.

Keep asking questions. I'm happy to help. If I can't answer your questions - someone else will help you. I've been where you are and the modders in this community helped me out every time I had a question or got stuck. Keep plugging away!

Lexx - You've got mail!

Click on the hammer looking tab in the upper right corner. Click on the "More" button and select the Thirdwire exporter from there.

The learning curve is pretty steep - but there are lots of people around here that will help if you get stuck. Stick with it and you'll be cranking out new stuff in no time!

This is what the burnercan looks like now. It's the can from the B as that's what my drawings show. However, I've seen lots of pics that show a different can. Look at the can on this pic that is listed as an A. So is this one... Here is what I have so far.

I've got a great walkaround of a B. The thing is - the more I research, the more confused I get as to what I'm looking at. Some of the information out there is inconsistent. Welcome to the WWW...

Thanks Lexx, PM inbound. The real questions I have are the rear of the fuselage - some have a shroud that goes from the camo demarcation to the base of the tail - and some don't. I don't have enough reference material to figure out which version is which. I'm thinking that's the A and the B has no shroud. Verification would be appreciated.

Guys I'm about two weeks away from having the Lansen model complete but I have a few questions. I'm planning on making an A and a B model. There are modest changes between the two types structurally. I'm currently working on the J-32A bomber model but am having problems finding some detail on the engine section. I've got plenty of pics of the E with it's funky afterburner can - but what did the tail pipe of the A look like? Or the B for that matter. Am I thinking too much about it? (Stigler need not reply) Would everyone be happy with a generic J-32 or are you interested in a seperate B with the cannon shell deflecting fins and different tailpipe shroud from the A, C and E? Anywho - any help and or input would be greatly appreciated. TD

I have a J-32 in the works - but it's more than 2 weeks away. Real life has been a real bastage recently.

That really is cruel.

Do you need me to set the relative x-y-z values of the sign differently so the legs will show up? I think I centered it so it is be 4 metres high but the center is 2 m high. I can switch the center wherever you want easily so just let me know... TD

Your sign is on the way....

Julhelm is right. Mapping is boring but not difficult with newer versions of Max. Doing a good job is critical for having good skins. That being said, I'll help map something if you so desire.

I've got a book called "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War" which has some pretty good information regarding what Japan had decided to concentrate on building from 1946. I have been planning on building some of the aircraft as some of them are really interesting.

You'll have to send the file to someone with 3D Max to create the .lod file. And don't bother with the animations as they don't carry over from Gmax to Max.

When someone tells me that I have a "pure gamer attitude" about a game I'll take that as high praise indeed, even if it wasn't intended as such. I hate to tell you this, but I also play with non-historic loadouts!!! I've added sparrows to my Drakens, mavericks to my Tunnans and put a vulcan in my Super Mysteres! OH THE HUMANITY!!!

The point is valid. I have no qualms about it. Simply stated, I build aircraft for this series for my own personal use. I build things that I want to fly or fly against. When I play the game, I almost never look at the cockpit - I turn it off so as to have a better view. My opinion is that a real pilot can see something like 180 degrees - with the cockpit in place I feel as though I'm looking thru a tank driver's slit. Therefore, I don't waste my time on building something that I'll never use. If anyone wants to use my MAX files to build pits - I'll be happy to send them - but I'm not going to spend a great deal of time building something I'll never use when I could be off building something that I will, like another airframe. So to sum up - you shake your head at me for releasing aircraft without pits and I shake my head at you for having a problem with that fact.

I may be a "piss-poor modeler" but yet, the only thing I see you contributing to the community is your opinion which is worth nothing. Have a nice day.

I don't care about cockpits. I've built a couple of aircraft and I'll never build a cockpit. If that makes me a bad person, so be it. If you don't like it, why don't YOU make complete and accurate cockpits for all of the aircraft that don't currently have one? Some people are real mother (shut yo mouth)

I think watching Top Gun should be a pre-requisite for joining the site. Mods - get on it.