Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Arts & Talents => Topic started by: Unknown Target on February 20, 2008, 03:21:37 pm
-
...beware, beware ye mortals of the Mecha Fly!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/UnknownTarget/mechafly.jpg)
and the control mesh, if anyone's interested:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/UnknownTarget/mechaflycontrol.jpg)
Yea, the poly flow is bad :( But it was just an hour or so playing around.
-
:lol: I am permitted to laugh at this, right?
Good modeling skills though, just a weird idea.
-
And here's the GTF Mara Mk.2, with new upgraded thrusters for even more all-axis control!
-
And looks just as weird too!
-
Now with larger cockpit for all around vision!
-
Order today and get your own free Carl pilot!
While supplies last. UT not responsible for death and/or mauling by Carl. Bring lunch at your own risk. Batteries not included
-
And some progress with another project...
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/UnknownTarget/Untitled-1-7.jpg)
-
Looks like a cross between a plane and a rocket car. :P nice.
-
Reminds me of a P-40 Warhawk.
-
Reminds me of a P-40 Warhawk.
Or a Hawker Typhoon, but the front looks kinda weird. In WWII fighters (well, this looks like one), the pilot was positioned directly behind the engine.
-
More progress...
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/UnknownTarget/Untitled-1-8.jpg)
-
:yes:
-
Reminds me of a P-40 Warhawk.
Or a Hawker Typhoon, but the front looks kinda weird. In WWII fighters (well, this looks like one), the pilot was positioned directly behind the engine.
Really? All of them? What about the MiG-3? :P
-
Focke-Wulf FW-190 D-models had spectacularly long nose, Bell P-39 models had the engine behind the pilot, and several planes (most, actually, now that I think of it) had fuel tanks and/or other stuff between the engine and the cockpit. There are other long nosed airplanes too, like the Italian Macchi C.202 and Romanian IAR-80... and many others. WW1 fighter planes (mostly) had the cockpits closer to the engines compared to WW2 fighters.
Commenting the model itself, the propeller blades' highest angle of attack area close to the spinner seems a bit too pronounced, but since it isn't really visible from all directions (I'm looking mostly at the topmost blade), I could be wrong.
The following assumes it's supposed to be a fighter plane. If it's supposed to be something else (like an aerobatic plane akin to Sukhoi Su-29 or Extra 300), some of the following won't apply...
Those exhaust manifolds will be a bloody nuisance for the pilot, mostly due to lessened visibility by both blocking some of the forward view physically and (inevitably) spitting oil, smoke and flames upwards to the sides, where it will more likely be spread to the canopy by turbulence than it would if they were pointed downward. I would put them down and if you still want to have something on the recession you obviously left for them, fill it with guns. 12.7mm (.50-cal) MG's or 20/30mm cannons along with a 30/40mm spinner mounted cannon sounds fine as far as armaments go. Could be complemented with wing mounted cannons on the pylons that seem to exist on the wings.
The nose has a flat cross-section next to the spinner on it's both sides, increasing air resistance quite a lot. If you could streamline that part to the spinner's shape and round up the intake edges, it'd look better IMHO.
Also, from aerodynamic point of view, it's centre of gravity looks awfully forward compared centre of lift. Could be perspective though, but I suspect that either the nose is too long or the tail too short. Or both. Could be the perspective, though, so I'll leave a rain check on this. On the same regard, the elevator control surface area seems pitiful compared to the vertical stabilizers - why three of them? On a plane like this, one in the middle would suffice... and be technically much more feasible and less prone to malfunctions. Two on the ends of the horizontal stabilizer/elevator would probably look cooler.
If you reduce the airframe length (shorten the nose by N, lengthen the tail by ½N), the plane should gain increased pitch maneuverability and improved weight distribution, which leads to less need for correcting the down pitch tendency at low speeds with elevators, which leads to lessened drag from elevators, which leads to better ability to maintain airspeed while maneuvering...
And, for visibility's sake, make the whole cockpit a bubble canopy. You already have the cockpit extruding upwards from the airframe; I don't think there's any reason to keep the back portion of it solid... well, with the exception of slightly better armour, but as a net effect, better visibility is more important for a fighter plane.
Could you post orthographic shots from sides and above (and perhaps from the front as well)?
As a whole, it looks really cool, though.
-
Um...thanks, but it really was a doodle, and not supposed to be functional in any way. Think more Crimson Skies than WWII :p
-
Um...thanks, but it really was a doodle, and not supposed to be functional in any way. Think more Crimson Skies than WWII :p
Rats. :p
-
There there :D I've got a realistic one that I have to do soon, I'll make sure to post it here for your approval :D
-
That is awesome, are you making a WWII piloting game? i can't find any good ones it seems...
-
That is awesome, are you making a WWII piloting game? i can't find any good ones it seems...
There aren't any good ones that have Win on their names. :p
Otherwise, try IL-2 Sturmovik: 1946. It is the best currently available WW2 flight simulator.
-
That is awesome, are you making a WWII piloting game? i can't find any good ones it seems...
There aren't any good ones that have Win on their names. :p
They don't have "Win" in their name, but the Combat Flight Simulator series is made by Micro$oft :P (like Crimson Skies, but that is more like a slightly more realistic Ace Combat in WW2, at least the PC version since I haven't tried CS2)
-
i've played all of the CFS games, but they're old, and SUPER CPU intensive.
-
More progress...
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/UnknownTarget/Untitled-1-8.jpg)
Great model but i profer it without those extra rudders, they just dont look right for some reason.
-
Any updates?
-
If he had updates he'd post them. Be patient.
-
Robutts for a flash project in class, texture WIP:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/UnknownTarget/robot-1.jpg)
And a test run bumpmap:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/UnknownTarget/robot2.jpg)
-
Whoah.
-
Does it have a purpose too, or is it just 'decoration'?
The bumpmap is nice BTW.
-
It's for a flash animation in class - I'm too lazy to draw it so I decided to animate it in 3D...
Test walking loop (nixed the extreme bump map though) - not very good, but my first animation with modo. Freespace doesn't support keyframe animation, right?:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/UnknownTarget/th_Robutt.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v56/UnknownTarget/?action=view¤t=Robutt.flv)
-
It's for a flash animation in class - I'm too lazy to draw it so I decided to animate it in 3D...
Yes I know, but I mean does it have a practical purpose? Like cleaning or research?
Test walking loop (nixed the extreme bump map though) - not very good, but my first animation with modo. Freespace doesn't support keyframe animation, right?
It doesn't really look like it's walking...
-
because he hasn't given it a path yet. If you give it a path to translate along and then play the walk cycle as it's moving it'll look right. er... provided the step size of the animation actually lines up with how fast it's moving, else you'll get a MW2 effect. :nervous: