geezer205

And precisely why do you presume to dictate to me how I should spend my precious spare time? You seem to fancy yourself the self-appointed guardian of fidelity? If it is so important to you, why do you not offer to build these cockpits for the benefit of the community?

FYI, I have been building an aviation technical library since the late 1960s - the required shelves take up most of my den's wall space, and are one of the reasons why packing is such a chore. I have ample info on the P-26's interior from about half-a-dozen publications - such specialist publications are still the best way to obtain data, as internet data can be erratic at best. Note that I specifically said in my post that I had research problems with OBSCURE 1930s aircraft, which the P-26 is not. An example of some stuff that I HAVE been able to track down is a cockpit shot of the export Curtiss A-12 Shrike (20 used by China). However, even Japanese sources are unable to provide data for such aircraft as the nakajima A2N. Japanese Instrument Panels Your snide remarks have no basis in fact.

To paraphrase a comment of yours in another post - "You ain't wrong. brother!" Everyone has their own preferences about fidelity, but this is a hobby so it is a mistake for someone to impose their preferences on others. I understand that most everyone appreciates a well-detailed, accurate cockpit but few people appreciate that it takes significantly more work to produce a cockpit than it does to produce the aircraft! Because of this, the 1930s aircraft that I have been working on will not have "accurate" cockpits for two reasons: 1) I frequently could not find any data on such obscure aircraft. 2) Any effort to produce accurate cockpits would greatly delay production of everything else. I hope to produce two generic 1930s cockpits that will speed production and allow guys to add cockpits to other aircraft models that lack any cockpit at all. This will undoubtedly cause some purists to scream and gnash their teeth, but they are not the ones who are doing the work. As this is all new and unexplored territory for me, I welcome any CONSTRUCTIVE comments from the CA grognards about what might be useful/desirable in a "one size fits all" cockpit model. WIP shot below of a tubular truss cockpit - I will also produce a semi-monocoque version.

Yes, it DOES look nice! :yes: The P-35s delivered to the Philippines were initially in natural metal, but were hastily camouflaged shortly before hostilities began. That explains photos of cammo'ed and bare P-35s - it depends on when the photo was taken. I have seen at least one photo that shows an extreme amount of the OD paint weathered off a Philippines P-35. The effect was much like the extremely weathered and chipped look of some WW2 Japanese aircraft - apparently, the OD paint jobs were a little TOO hasty!

I looked through what references I have for the Lancer, but couldn't find many hard answers. China received 107 P-43A-1 fighters, which had "improved" armor and self-sealing fuel tanks (which leaked). China also received 18 P-43A-1s that had been converted to photo recon, and designated P-43C. All my refs list the armament as 2 x .50s over the engine, and 1 x .50 in each wing. I suspect, but can't prove, that many internet sources are wrong about ALL Chinese aircraft being painted Russian-style dark green. One of China's biggest problems was inadequate logistics, so it is likely that aircraft-grade paint availability was just as bad as aircraft parts availability. Many photos clearly show US aircraft with finishes that resemble the notorious weathering of Olive Drab. These shots of Chinese lancers also have Olive Drab-style weathering. Chinese Lancers The US actually used THREE different Olive Drabs during WW2 - the type specified in USAAF production orders was often unavailable, so the type specified by Army Material Command was frequently substituted. This type faded very quickly due to the absence of cadmium, which was used as a stabilizer - the steel industry had priority for cadmium to make armor plate. Russian colors varied wildly for the same reasons: paint manufacturers could not consistently obtain the pigments they needed so they made frequent substitutions. Locally manufactured Chinese paint - if it was used at all - would almost certainly have had the same problems. Bottom line: the Lancers may not have been painted dark green. Many otherwise excellent references inaccurately show Olive Drab as green, and the Lancers would almost certainly have been delivered in Olive Drab, because the US aircraft industry had been directed to standardize on paint colors - many aircraft built for the British were not painted in Ministry Of Defense colors, but in their nearest US equivalents.

Per our email traffic, I've DL-ed the missiles and given them a quick eyeballing in Max. They are excellent 3D models, but don't seem to have any UV mapping, hierarchies, etc - they are just models, nothing else. I'm in the middle of packing up for a job transfer, but I will start UV mapping them as and when I can. This may take a while. I have no idea what else is needed for a functioning game missile - what kind of parent-child hierarchy is required, if any?

Thanks for that observation - it's much appreciated when coming from an experienced guy like you. It's just my luck that I am in love with the aircraft from the "Golden Age" of aviation - I've often thought it should be called the "Golden Age Of Sheetmetal" because of all those gorgeous teardrop shapes and fairings. Looks like they are the most time-consuming subjects to UV map?

Shouldn't the recruiting poster have a shot of the required attire? Jodhpurs, riding boots...but where's the white scarf!?!?

Go to this site and click on map for a period look at Shanghai in the 1930s. Shanghai Map

Hmm.....that never occurred to me! No reason why not, though the different wheels/spats and tailwheel/rudder used by the US Navy would require a new model and new texture maps. Lemme think about that - maybe using multi sub-objects in Max will allow me to just make one model? Will get back to you.

Got some more work done - the overall configuration now matches the more accurate drawing. The drawing shows the US Navy version and I am now checking photos to identify the differences between the export versions and the US Navy version.

Yes, it did. The Curtiss Hawk used two different wheel/fairing sizes - the US Navy mostly used the large wheels, so that is what most drawings show. However, the website above shows that Chinese Hawks used small wheels. Thank you!

I have learned the hard way why many model aircraft, vehicles, etc sometimes have subtle distortions. Shot below shows the Curtiss Hawk II that I have been making using data and drawings DL-ed from the internet. I also ordered a good dead-tree reference that FINALLY came in the mail, and was I surprised when I looked at the high quality 3-view drawing! The model must be extensively modified to be accurate.

Looks like the UV mapping got screwed up? I understand your frustration, but you are not the only texture guy who has problems like this. I am actually a texture artist who drifted into model making because of these kinds of issues - I realized the only sure way to work on texture-friendly models was to make them myself. Understand that I have only recently learned the three-step process to produce a good model: build the 3D model, UV unwrap the surfaces into a flat pattern, and then paint the textures (using the flat pattern as a guide). My impression is that the second step - UV unwrapping - is where the process often goes wrong. On a complex model, making the UV unwrap flat pattern can be EXTREMELY tedious and time consuming. Consequently, this is where many guys cut corners to get the job done and move on to something else, leaving the poor texture artist to cope as best he can. I know a number of prominent texture guys who often give up in frustration because of poorly thought-out or badly-done UV maps - any results they may achieve just won't be worth the effort required. I suspect the reason is that the guy doing the maps doesn't really know what the texture artist needs to produce first rate artwork, and - in some cases - doesn't WANT to know.

Most of those look perfectly usable, though there may be a need for more realistic airfield stuff? After consulting a bunch of old photos, it seems that many airfields in China and Burma should look a bit more improvised - more quick and dirty construction using boards and corrugated roofs. Also, it sounds like you could use a "Bridge On The River Kwai" bridge? Also, for tropical locations it looks like there is a need for REALLY improvised structures with palm frond roofs?