New 3d toys? XXIII

PumpyHead · Post by **PumpyHead** » 2003-08-19 18:04:00

Hehe,

Whatever it is, it sure is ugly!

Is that a Russian transport?

-PumpyHead

icebrain · Post by **icebrain** » 2003-08-20 00:18:00

Yes... it's the Orynolok (sp?)... a wing-in-ground-effect (WIG) transport...

Spike · Post by **Spike** » 2003-08-20 06:23:00

Do i use a Sidewinder or a Maverick to toast this baby?

Kewl model ccc.

ccc · Post by **ccc** » 2003-08-20 10:38:00

maverick hehe

87th_striker · Post by **87th_striker** » 2003-08-20 20:37:00

Think I read somewhere that none of these monsters are "airworthy".

Swede · Post by **Swede** » 2003-08-21 01:53:00

Wait til you see it in a tight furball

twaelti · Post by **twaelti** » 2003-08-22 08:12:00

quote:Originally posted by icebrain:
it's the Orynolok (sp?)

It's the Orlyonok (or Orlenok), an ekranoplan

Spike · Post by **Spike** » 2003-08-22 08:15:00

Goodbye Fulcrum, hello Flogger!

Have finally started to work on the '23. Still in an early stage, will try to press on the progress throttle. ccc, TNX for the 3ds-mesh, excellent stuff.

ccc · Post by **ccc** » 2003-08-22 10:49:00

Spike- nice shot, correction- the 3ds model is created by Orion, not me.

be sure to have all flogger variants ready- and hope they could be adapted/well-supported by database.

another preview shot..

Spike · Post by **Spike** » 2003-08-22 13:16:00

That's the Pucara, is it? Mud-moving in a prop plane was always more fun to me, really can't tell why.

I will keep my focus on the Mig-23MF, as it is already implemented in the SP3 database. Other variants should be a snap though.

ccc · Post by **ccc** » 2003-08-22 13:52:00

[quote]quote:Originally posted by Spike:
That's the Pucara, is it? Mud-moving in a prop plane was always more fun to me, really can't tell why.

Spike · Post by **Spike** » 2003-08-25 18:09:00

A little progress update on the Su-35. I have added only one squadron to my campaign and they're eating up my whole airforce (no Raptors around). Good, they're not in service yet. :p

ccc, may i take a look at your Su-33 textures? I would like to check on the layout of the LERX.

ccc · Post by **ccc** » 2003-08-25 23:35:00

nice shots. file on your way.

BTW- AFAIK- su35/37 got some features like-

twin nose gear
bulging and extended tail boom
no pitot tube on radome tip
re-shaped radome
enlarge IRST crystal ball
360 degree IRWR crystal ball on dorsal spine
14 slots for weapon
vector thrust nozzle- hope you can add this, i've not solved the "slit" when nozzle section rotating.

Spike · Post by **Spike** » 2003-08-26 07:11:00

Got the files. Thank you for the feature-list, i forgot to remove the pitot-tube, will have to fix that. Are you sure, there are 14 hardpoints on the Su-35?

They're slamming me all over the place, even with 12 slots.

ccc · Post by **ccc** » 2003-08-26 10:56:00

http://www.airforce-technology.com/proj ... index.html

WEAPONS
The Su-37 can carry up to 14 air-to-air missiles and up to 8000kg of ordnance. The twelve external hardpoints can carry air-to-air missiles, air-to-surface missiles, bombs, rockets and an ECM (electronic countermeasures) pod. The aircraft is fitted with one GSh-301 30mm gun with a maximum rate of fire of 1,500 rounds per minute.
======================

it said 14 AAMs.

Spike · Post by **Spike** » 2003-08-26 11:33:00

I think the Su-27 has the capability, to carry an double-rack with AA-8s on the 3-8 station. In this case, 12 hardpoints with 14 AAMs sounds reasonable to me. Will try to verify this.

ccc · Post by **ccc** » 2003-08-27 14:24:00

Tazz · Post by **Tazz** » 2003-08-28 02:51:00

CCC - you rock man. You just rock! Any ETA on these wonderful updates?

Daws · Post by **Daws** » 2003-08-28 11:29:00

Good work, ccc!

mirv · Post by **mirv** » 2003-08-28 20:07:00

Screenshots are all fine and dandy, but...

Are you ever going to make these models available? I hope they're not just going to be available to just one specific group or anything.

ccc · Post by **ccc** » 2003-08-29 00:25:00

they'll be available. just take time to insert into database. if you eagarly need specific one for your own use, drop me a line. - note- the only thing you got is lod and rough texture files, you'll have to organize it yourself.

Tazz · Post by **Tazz** » 2003-08-29 10:19:00

CCC, does that also include that excellent Super Etendard you showed us many moons ago?

mirv · Post by **mirv** » 2003-08-29 19:21:00

quote:Originally posted by ccc:
they'll be available. just take time to insert into database. if you eagarly need specific one for your own use, drop me a line. - note- the only thing you got is lod and rough texture files, you'll have to organize it yourself.

Well ok...here's a legitimate question. Which database? FF2, SP4, which? And here is another concern of mine, of which I've brought up a couple of times on the F4UT mail list...no one seems to care though.

It seems to me, that both FF and SP4 are becoming bloatware. Think about it. I'm not putting down both groups by saying this, but think about what it is both groups are doing. When will both groups stop adding models to the dB?

I see that SP4 has FIVE versions of the Mirage 2000. I mean come on, FIVE?! Is it really necessary? How many users out there really know the differences between the five, or even care?

I'm not trying to put your down either CCC, because I think you've made some legitimate, great models that all the groups need (especially SAM systems), but I'm just wondering when people will stop making new models or at least put a cap on it so that groups can actually finish the dBs. Everytime I turn around, there are just more models added. When does it stop? The scope is becoming too broad.

Imo, I don't think a/c such as that wing-in-ground-affect even belong in F4.

ccc · Post by **ccc** » 2003-08-30 04:59:00

mirv, modelling hobby doesn't necessarily be tied with database editing. Database geeks have full control to pick or drop something, i think your worries do exist, though better aim at those in charge it

Frankly, i found DB guys are pretty good at setting up basic files, whatever the quantity of new items is. As for gearing up to a more realistic level, FM and avoncis/radar and signatures edits are the priorities. Regretfully it counts on few capable guys that already overloaded by existing stuff.

mirv · Post by **mirv** » 2003-08-30 07:17:00

Yeah, you're right...sometimes I wonder what they're thinking :F

Vietnam era a/c, multiple variants of B-52, F-105, F-4, Mirage 2000, etc.......a little ridiculous imo...just creates more unnecessary work.

Tazz · Post by **Tazz** » 2003-08-30 08:57:00

I think the Mirage 2000 is a very useful addon to Falcon 4.0, it can be used in many theaters.

Personally, I'd rather see remakes of models we already have in Falcon 4.0 such as the MiG-23, MiG-25 etc. Luckily, we're getting pretty close to an all over re-make of the models in F4.. we've got loads of new models either released or coming up.. such as the F16, F4, F5, F15, F14, F18, F111, B52, KC135, KC10, MIG21, MIG19, MIG29, MIG31, SU27. (I dropped the dash in between .. because Im using a GERMAN keyboard here and its very frustrating looking up keys every 2 secs).

Can models be released as seperate addons, like Mike Rivers excellent F111? It would be better than having to wait for a new Sp or FF version each and everytime.

Personally I think its highly regrettable that FF isnt sticking to the SP3/4 database. it just seems to make things a lot more complicated.

87th_striker · Post by **87th_striker** » 2003-08-30 10:30:00

Five versions of Mirage 2000 doesn't sound that bad. It's a fighter that have been developed in paralell to the F-16, and exported to a lot of nations. You also have 1 and 2 seat versions, so there should be at least 4 versions in the SP4 DB. Adding different versions of the planes to the DB sounds smart for long term developement of Falcon 4.0. I must admit thouugh, that I do not have the slightest idea of the amount of work necessary to add a model to the DB.

mirv · Post by **mirv** » 2003-09-01 19:31:00

This is true in a sense Striker, but also poses a lot of problems. It's this very "look" at doing things that has helped plague the release of SP4.

It's the overall "idea" of replacing pratically every model. We're biting off more than we can chew. I agree with Tazz, in that we should be updating existing models (which has happened for the most part), but there are some models that haven't been touched (MiG-23 for example).

I would say once ONE model of the Mirage 2000 has been added, and then we move on to something else, it would be ok to add more later--AFTER all the proper research has been done to know the differences between variants. Ed_1 has done a pretty good job at doing this, but with so many models and variants, it's overwhelming and thus just pushes back the release. I'm surprised he's still working on it like he is.

At the same time, having 5 versions would be a little useless unless someone wants to do the research in who has what version. How many people really know the differences between the versions? How many care?

Most of the Falcon community's jaws drop when they see screenshots of eyecandy, not the fact that someone has "accurately" reproduced realism between variants of aircraft. And even then, we're still stuck with F-16 type avionics!

mirv · Post by **mirv** » 2003-09-01 19:36:00

And it is my opinion (and I know some other share it as well) that we are on the downhill on the 3rd party development side of things. If FF and F4"UT" don't unite, I think we're just going to hurt F4's survival in the long run. That is, until exe editing can resume (which is more of what I'm interested in). New models for an aging engine doesn't impress me like it once used to. I wish people would put their differences aside and work together.

We all know people like Snakeman and Widmak bust their asses for such a crappy community, trying to make enjoyable theaters for us all. I hope you guys will stick to it until we can start exe editing again. Or at least not totally leave the scene.

87th_striker · Post by **87th_striker** » 2003-09-02 06:13:00

Being an outsider on SP stuff, I do not know how these matters are handled. I thought someone ( a group ?) was continuosly harvesting information about new planes, radars, weapon systems etc, etc.

But, I do agree, Mirv. First, get the necessary stuff right, then you start adding other in doable, incremental steps.

ccc · Post by **ccc** » 2003-09-02 16:05:00

Another pure non-plastic modeling fun, can somebody show me a real pic with dragchute deployed? or no chute equipped?

T_Rex · Post by **T_Rex** » 2003-09-02 17:13:00

The "problem" with so many variants, though, from what I understand, is that its SO easy to do each one.

For instance, once the MiG-21 is done, its only a matter of changing specific things to get different variants. I think modellers (not just CCC) see a "bang for the buck" opportunity and make a whole "new" plane with relatively little effort.

I think the release of "modules" that contain variants would be a good idea. For instance, there is alot of interest in the French F4 community in the Mirages. So, have a Mirage module that has all the Mirages anyone would want! Similarly, there could be Vietnam, ODS, Europe -1980s, Europe -Modern, etc, modules.

I guess what it comes down to for me is that I wouldn't want someone to turn away from F4 modding simply because they wanted to do an obscure model. The question is how many obscure models to put together with more mainstream models, I think.

Quake · Post by **Quake** » 2003-09-02 18:09:00

CCC are without end!

Tazz · Post by **Tazz** » 2003-09-02 18:23:00

Wow CCC that's just frigggggging awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone doing a MiG-23/27 next ... or perhaps an even more detailed MiG-21? A new MiG-25 would also be awesome. These are just my favorite Russian aircraft .. I hope some of you 3D-Gods would feel the same.

ccc · Post by **ccc** » 2003-09-03 04:58:00

Spike's on most migs.

Spike · Post by **Spike** » 2003-09-03 08:56:00

quote:Spike's on most migs.

More or less, my friend. I'm currently keeping my focus on the Su-35 but the Mig-23/27 is also in the works. A further refined Mig-21 MF/PFM model will be part of the FF2 release, if everything goes well.

I can post some pictures, when our server is back up running.

Tazz · Post by **Tazz** » 2003-09-03 13:53:00

pics would be good. yes very good .. yummy.. drool.. pics yes drool!

)

aabhutta · Post by **aabhutta** » 2003-09-04 16:43:00

Can it go into FF2 or even for personal use only..Please some one...can some one do it..I really suck at lodeditor as i tried it..
The new JF-17 co-developed by China and Pakistan took to the skies yesterday. It will form the backbone of PAF and replace all the old Mig series for PLAAF during the next 5 years. Will have Russian based engine, Italian/French Radar and avionics along with some Israeli input (maybe). Will deploy Russian, US, French and Chinese AAM's and AGM's. Here are the pics from the test flight. Will post the detailed specs later tonight. I am not good in 3d modelling but even a rough model would be great for future campaign's. Bunch of pictures..
http://www.geocities.com/aabhutta

ccc · Post by **ccc** » 2003-09-05 14:52:00

i have a super-7/FC-1 3ds model, created by Jane's USAF modder MAX. the 3ds looks pretty good..though no plan to work on it in near future. for PAF, you can have F7P/F7PG/F6/A5 and mrg5..more than enough for the time being.

Who is online