Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[WxTech]

I've finished placing the bullet hole textures, which required tweaking every one.

The stock pair of silly holes on the armored glass have been replaced with two more representative impact crackings imparted to armored glass.

It seems one or more internal hull holes on the rear bulkhead may need to be slightly moved in order to make them visible again.

The oil spray on the canopy glass needs its vertices all repositioned.

When this work is completed, I think I might just release it as an 'add on', instead of packing up the whole shebang yet again. Unless you guys don't mind a third installation?.....

[karo]

Well, WxTech. I put the new cockpit to the test... It is nice, but I have to admit, that it looks a bit strange to me too. It is hard to explain why. I know that the new one has more accurate frames. Probably, that's because I've got used to the old cockpit after so many years Anyway, thanks you for your work and time you spent to do this!

Ps. I think, that it would be a good idea to put two links: one with the old version of your cockpit and the other with the new cockpit. People would be able to choose one of them.

[WxTech]

I'd have thought that the more accurate version would be the one everyone would choose without a moment's hesitation. Especially when it actually *improves* visibility by obstructing less. (If the situation were reversed, wherein the more accurate model worsened visibility, I could somewhat understand a reluctance to adopt the new.) If nostalgic attachment to the old was to hold any sway, then I suppose I should never have added the formerly missing vertical bars in the Dash-3.

Besides, after creating a reliably working improvement I tend to discard or overwrite the undesirable older material. I don't maintain a history of all intermediate versions as a rule. I have enough of a burgeoning collection of working files in process to keep me busy organising.

[karo]

Especially when it actually *improves* visibility by obstructing less. (If the situation were reversed, wherein the more accurate model worsened visibility, I could somewhat understand a reluctance to adopt the new.)

I think that a good visibility is important, but more important is a special "ambience" in the cockpit If you know what I mean...

If nostalgic attachment to the old was to hold any sway, then I suppose I should never have added the formerly missing vertical bars in the Dash-3.

Come on! It sounds like a regret You have done a great thing and everybody is happy of that. No doubt!

Besides, after creating a reliably working improvement I tend to discard or overwrite the undesirable older material. I don't maintain a history of all intermediate versions as a rule. I have enough of a burgeoning collection of working files in process to keep me busy organising.

Luckily, I did a copy of it on my hard disc

Ps. The very strenght of the first version of your cockpit was a glass (a dirt on it). I have got a feeling that you forgot about it in the second version... It is just too "clean" for me.   

[WxTech]

I did tone down the degree of extra perspex 'dirtiness' along the frame edges, which is still more prominent than the larger interior portions of the perspex (the latter of which I did not change at all.) If folks prefer the stronger effect of dirt, I can go back to that. But then, the ideal would be to supply different versions the user can select from...

Any comments on the collimating lens reflection? To reiterate... Until I tried my idea of a separate texture, the only such reflections I'd seen were incorporated into the reflector plate texture. This is limiting, for normally one wants the reflector texture to change but little over all lighting angles. But the lens reflection is in reality much more dynamic, varying very considerably in intensity depending on the angle of sunlight striking the lens. Hence my notion to make this reflection a completely separate texture, floating in space ahead of the reflector itself.

I don't know if this element is incorporated into BoS, but if not it should be.

[karo]

I did tone down the degree of extra perspex 'dirtiness' along the frame edges, which is still more prominent than the larger interior portions of the perspex (the latter of which I did not change at all.) If folks prefer the stronger effect of dirt, I can go back to that. But then, the ideal would be to supply different versions the user can select from...

This is a good idea. I order a very dirty glass

Any comments on the collimating lens reflection?

I love the collimating lens reflection. I hope, you will provide this visual effect to your previous version of MarkVIII gunsight for Hellcat too.   

[WxTech]

So, I guess I'll go back to some 'extra extra' perspex edge dirtiness, seeing also how no one has complained about it after the first release.

I just finished tuning the oil splat texture vertices, to fit exactly the glass. And I reversed the surface normals, just like I do for the canopy glass, so that the effect of light refracting through the edges of the droplets/streaks when in the up-Sun direction looks much better.

One rear bulkhead bullet hole texture had disappeared due to the bulkhead moving forward a fraction of a millimeter after I raised its peak height. That hole appears again, now.

I found an embarrassing oversight... I had forgotten to raise the -4's mirror and its mount base. In the meantime, you can open hier.him and simply copy the entries for [MIRROR] and [BASEMIRROR] from the -3 to the -4.

I am *contemplating* undertaking the effort to make the upper canopy curves smoother. Doing this with a spreadsheet is labor intensive, and I'll have to see if I can overcome my laziness. So... No promises!

Given the number of tweaks performed, I might just release a full version 3 pack...

... but I'll not rush it, to give myself time to consider that canopy rounding work you damanding guys clamor so fervently for.

[karo]

I spent several hours in a new cockpit yesterday. I like it more and more I did a simple trick before my flying: I replaced a new glass with the old one (from the cockpit ver1) and it helped a lot of.

These are my final comments:
1. Frames should be curved. I hope that you will gain the knowledge how to do this, so it will not be depending on anybody else. 
2. Could you take a look at the default cockpit night illumination? It is not possible, that in a red spotlight the gauges shine in green.... I think that they should shine in red too (maybe pink or yellow, but definitely not green).   

Thanks and good luck!  

[WxTech]

Make no mistake, I know *exactly* how to make a segmented section more smoothly curved. Haven't you noticed that's what I did for the rear bulkhead--which is simple given the fact of just a single plane surface to be concerned with. It's just a matter of working up the energy to go at it with a spreadsheet as my tool. I haven't started using any 3-D modeling software to ease my workload.

But I have been sketching out in my head a procedure to create mathematical formulas do some of the grunt work for me. And so I just might undertake the task, but only so far as doubling up the segments, not going crazy and tripling or quadrupling!

On the matter of the green instrument lighting when the red light is switched on. I always rationalized this as representing Radium-based paint that glows by itself, or some other luminous substance that glows for a time after exposure to light, it being seen whenever suitably dark for it to show up. In that context, the flicking on of the red light is not actually 'triggering' it to illuminate; the red light is only for such tasks as chart reading, etc.

But if indeed there was no such green illumination, I'd gladly make things reflect the real thing.

If you want, you can experiment yourself. Open with Notepad (or any text editor) any of the .mat files for the instruments, such as GP_02.mat. Find the line for ColorScale, and change one or all 4 of the numbers. These numbers are for red, green, blue and opacity, respectively, and can range between 0 and 1.

Bright, fully opaque white would be 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Almost fully opaque middle grey:0.5 0.5 0.5 0.9
Semi-transparent red:1.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
Fully opaque, bright yellow: 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0
Fully opaque black: 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

Now, if the instruments were indeed in no fashion treated with luminous paint, then the red light is probably already well enough illuminating things. In such case the night version textures would not be required at all. But a little extra reddish-white color with a small degree of shine applied might be a worthwhile addition if certain and sure visibility is desired.

[karo]

Make no mistake, I know *exactly* how to make a segmented section more smoothly curved. Haven't you noticed that's what I did for the rear bulkhead--which is simple given the fact of just a single plane surface to be concerned with.

Ok, my mistake. I am sorry

But if indeed there was no such green illumination, I'd gladly make things reflect the real thing.

I couldn't find right photos, but I found a movie regarding this problem. I believe it shows the truth. Watch the first 3 minutes of it (or just from 2:00 till 2:15 with sound). It is about Hellcat, but I don't think that in Wildcat it was solved in the other way (the same Grumman company).   

If you want, you can experiment yourself. Open with Notepad (or any text editor) any of the .mat files for the instruments, such as GP_02.mat. Find the line for ColorScale, and change one or all 4 of the numbers.

I did this a few days ago, but that time, I was 100% sure that I had to edit ColorScale in night.mat files. So as you can guess the result wasn't fine and I gave up Tonight I will try to do this again, but with the correct mat files. Thanks for your help! I will inform about the result    

[WxTech]

Oops! I did intend to specify the _night versions of the instrument textures.

I truly hope my previous post was not taken as projecting any snarkiness; none was intended. But I realize that my writings, in their focus upon fact and detail, can come across as coldly frank, or even haughty. But trust that only the best intentions motivate and drive me.

That Dogfights episode represented the instruments as glowing red *by themselves*, without aid of other internal illumination (the panel itself, and the rest of the cockpit, was completely dark.) That's strange, and not quite believable, unless some specific scheme was implemented just for night ops in '44/'45. Now I'm going to have to undertake more research.

That matter of red illumination notwithstanding, the small amount of not particularly bright green that instruments so treated would emit should not be a notable impediment to night vision, at least in the context of predominantly day fighter ops in the earlier war.

If I find out anything of note, I'll relay it here. I do desire historical accuracy to at least the extent of not making gross misrepresentations.

On other matters... I am currently making those curves smoother, by doubling up the poly count. I'm structuring the relevant vertices in an organized way in a working file, and applying some math to place the new intermediate vertices.

[WxTech]

Well, I did some online skulking, but found little in the way of detail. But enough to suggest that no luminous green paint was in use. And so I made the ColorScale data for all instrument _night textures read:

1.0 0.5 0.0 0.3

Which is an orange-red of 3/10 opacity (mostly transparent).It provides just enough of a boost to the background texture to bring the gauges and needles into decent enough visibility. I like it, and it has the advantage of consistency in behavior. Unless proven incorrect, I'll stick with this.