Julhelm

Yeah, and I stated in the thread that the problem with the model is that you've stretched the fuselage "tube" to create the canopy when in reality it is rather a second tube merged with the main fuselage tube. Look at the wires of my F-1 to get the idea: You can see that there is a thin but definitive demaraction line right below where the canopy starts. The easiest way to do this IMO is to simply model the beginning of the "hump" on the top of the fuselage (where it blends together with the usually boxy intakes) and then simply extrude edges down towards the nose to create the basic shape of the canopy, and then creating polys to connect everything together.

See, we got off on the wrong foot here. I'm very sorry if I come across as an arrogant ass but I'm really honest about helping people with tips. And no, I never had l337 sk1llz back when I started with Milkshape. So I apologize if I sound like a prick at times. That said, I have told you in several different threads here and on simhq to check your models meshflow and to post wires of it. Why post wires? Well to begin with it's way easier for everybody to find errors in the modelling and in the odd case you have a kickass correct model, someone else can look at your wires and say "so that's the way to do it!". Hence I usually try to post wires of my stuff. Finally, you should be aware that a lot of online modelling communities are nowhere near as civil as this one - Just ask anyone who's ever done models for Counter-Strike. And another thing: If you have troubles with modelling technique, it's never a bad idea to go to places such as www.threedy.com where there are lots and lots of amateur- and professional artists who can offer advice.

I can help with a few things on that list. I could also draw some menu graphics.

As for the guy who wanted the TU-142: I have one modelled and animated, but someone needs to unwrap it and then texture it. So, whoever feels he has the time and inclination to pick up either of these skills, step up.

@Craig: Whenever you feel interested, drop me a line and I'll send the Eagle your way, k?

Well the thing about Veltro is that he doesn't really seem to pay a lot of attention when you try to explain to him about meshflow and interpreting geometry. I'm quite convinced I'm one of the "rivetcounters" in question.

Hey if you're interested, I have a TSR-2 modelled that only needs unwrapping and a skin.

Cruise throttle is somewhere between 70-90% on this one, so I tweaked the range to allow that. OTOH I was originally planning for a pack of specially tailored weapons for it, but couldn't come up with good designs for them. Perhaps adding a hump tank and tuning the engine for more juice would solve things? As for ground radar I can't add that since it'd break the HUD unless TK changes the avionics. @Saganuay: If I didn't want you to release skins for the plane I wouldn't have included the template with the download now would I? :)

Here's a fix for the fuel mileage - just extract it into the Kestrel folder. KestrelPatch.rar

What's a FEBA?

Thanks for the kind responses chaps :) I'm currently in the process of tweaking the data file to bring out some more range of it. Though the optimal mission for it is probably CAS or scouting missions - It is quite lethal with Hellfires and VTOL tactics, hehe.

Exactly.

Yeah I always do it from the highest lod. To help framerates you can omit (that is, "model over") unnecessary s**t like cockpits and that stuff.

Just make sure there are no holes in your base mesh. Also, the shadow itself is just a "hull" around the real model, so if the lod you export the shadow from has less sides on external parts it will not match the highpoly lod.

All we really need for this 117 to go ingame is for vrkuboy to create a new simple model of the plane and retaining the cockpit from the high-detail one. As for the pilot, here's a wip render:

I have a high-detail pilotmodel who just needs a proper skin.

Make a new model with a 15000 poly budget.

Yeah, but the landing gear features the same kind of anal-retentivess I was specifically talking about before. There is no need to model tiny itsy-weenie detail like that because noone will ever see it, and if they will, it'll probably look just as good painted into the texture. About the only thing on my landing gears I put any great detail in is the suspension, and even then it's just to have proper animations and I always keep it as basic as possible. You have to weigh performance against detail, and from the looks of it, you have 150% detail and no performance at all.

The guy's HD fried and he lost all his stuff.

Yeah, and I'm saying it's too much. I noticed you've actually went and modelled all the meshes for the intakes and vents. Instead of modelling superflous detail like that just paint it on and it will look just as good. Likewise with the super-detailing on the landing gear and pylon assemblies. The landing gear especially has 20x the amount of polies it needs for ingame purposes: There's simply no reason to have it that smooth. So yeah, optimize and I'll see about unwrapping it for you then ;)

There is no way a model with that kind of polycount (close to 170000 tris) is ever going to work ingame. IMO you should leave out all detail that can be painted on, and optimise the entire mesh in order to bring it down something more reasonable like 10-15000 tris. The cockpit is bloody excellent though, so I'd say keep that.

It does look like it has the wrong shape just infront of the intakes below the canopy. How about posting some wires?

Check out your settings in the Catalyst Control Center. It's possible you have a setting there which screws with the game: I recommend going through every setting on it manually to tweak performance. Also, it'd be helpful if you posted your system specs, as it might be another component locking up the game.