Print

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

[blockhaj]

Looks freaking amazing. I wonder, is the performance card made by u or did u find it somewhere?

[locopiston]

The technical characteristics that I put as real are verified in the publication "The wings of the peron", the magazine "series air force n ° 22 IAe 27 pulqui and IAe33 Pulqui II" and the files of the "Factory of military aircraft" FADEA.
What I call speculative data (lap time versus TAS to 1 km) is built by me, with only one data of the prototype, the curve of the flaps is assumed. taking as an example the Mig-17 similar in engine and weight
(Roc vs. TAS @ sea level) was built by me with maximum speed data; takeoff speed and maximum climb rate.

According to everyone, it was very promising for the year 1954.

thanks for comment!

[locopiston]

At last I could pass smooth to the 3d Studio!
I managed to take out the facets!

now the process of naming the pieces begins ...
Slow, but progress.

[blockhaj]

The technical characteristics that I put as real are verified in the publication "The wings of the peron", the magazine "series air force n ° 22 IAe 27 pulqui and IAe33 Pulqui II" and the files of the "Factory of military aircraft" FADEA.
What I call speculative data (lap time versus TAS to 1 km) is built by me, with only one data of the prototype, the curve of the flaps is assumed. taking as an example the Mig-17 similar in engine and weight
(Roc vs. TAS @ sea level) was built by me with maximum speed data; takeoff speed and maximum climb rate.

According to everyone, it was very promising for the year 1954.

thanks for comment!

That really amazing. U really put a lot of work into this. Ive been looking for data for this plane and its variants/prototypes for a long time but since i dont live anywhere near Argentina all i can do is scan over the internet for other people to find stuff and upload it.

Will u do some of the prototypes as well when u are finished with this (which is assume is the preproduction/production variant), like the first prototype which was apparently armed with 2x 20 mm mg151/20's?

[locopiston]

The armament of those of preserie and the only operative prototype that went into combat in an internal revolt took 4x Hispano Swiss 404 20mm as the first series of 10.



There are many hypothetical versions of immediately following series dedicated to all-weather interceptor with air-to-air missiles, possibly de haviland firestreak.

There are several data on where the radar would be mounted; in the tail and chin, in the front up, in the center of the air intake.
according to where the radar goes, the armament is reduced to 2 cannons.
There is also a hypothesis to lengthen the fuselage to add an afterburner and even the version with the Avon engine. (which is very similar to the HF-Marut that tank ended up doing in India)



Once I can make flyable the one that really flew maybe do some of them.

[danperin]

Beautiful plane and work, mate! Wow 

[AtomicSteamEngine]

Very nice, I love Kurt Tanks designs and this will be a nice addition once finished.

[locopiston]

Hello friends!

Lately I'm with very little time ...

Therefore, the little free time I have is dedicated to trying to revive this project.

I was playing with the ligh of the cokpit for night trap.
The pulqui II had the interior of the cabin illuminated by some UV lamps but I have no idea where they were so i try this.



I also started to damage it a little.



I tried to work directly in 3Dmax but my daily program is AutoCAD ..
I find it very difficult to learn a new program, since i know how is done in the other ...
Also, as the compatibility between both is full, it allows me to modify the amount of polygons of choice in the 3Dmax since the cad works with vectors not with faces.

I think I have the process of naming the parts. 00_D0 done!
Now I'm with the damage models 00_D1 and 00_D2
Then I will start with the models of less detail 01 02 03 04 05

The amount of objects that this entails is incredible ...



That's why I want to ask someone to know if I'm doing things right.

Is the name of the parts okay?
Is the amount okay or is it exaggerated?

Any formula?
Any advice?


Tanks in advance!

[gereloco_22]

It´s so beautiful!!!!!!

[western0221]

Hi, locopiston.

I missed this substantial Works-In-Progress topic.

Your last post was November 26, 2018 , do you continue this project and need assistance still now ?
I'm afraid my finding is too late for you ....


By the way,
Damage models' level are limited by total hierarchy nodes count "254" in IL-2 1946.
Not to reach the limit number, almost all planes' main parts have only to _D2 level damage models ..... no more _D3 / _D4 / ....
And small parts have only _D1 models --- no _D2 models --- , and inconspicuous smaller (or almost behind) parts like landing gear joints / Airbrake hydraulic cylinder have no damage models == only _D0 models.

LOD separation are decided on consideration the part's each LOD 's viewed distance and size, detail.
Small parts don't need so many LOD models _03 / _04 because of they are looked like a micro Dot in the game screen from far like 500m ~ 800m ~ 1500m.
Even flaps or ailerons, last seen distance meters maybe 500m (some planes are set more closer distance) and merged to the wing model for far-er distances.
For them, how separate middle distances are  --- Sense of the modeler own --- an example like ~100m (LOD0) ~200m (LOD1) ~500m (LOD2) , in this time LOD3 and 4/5... models are not needed to make.
If more smaller parts never seen from 210m distance, only LOD1 model is needed like ~100m (LOD0) ~200m (LOD1) .... that's all for the part.
So, LOD numbers are not static one. Decided by each parts' size / detail / merged by big parent one or not / etc.

[locopiston]

Gracias gereloco!

[locopiston]

Thanks western! 

I continue with my work in my spare time ... (which lately is little)

I understood perfectly the detail and damage models.
I was only going to do damage for D0; D1 and D2.

What I have no idea is how many polygons each LOD must have ...
I will continue using those that are in the modeling bible.


Unfortunately my job is leaving me very little time.

Thanks for the advice!

I hope soon to have something with the correct amount of polygons to be able to upload it and share it