Smilo,
I agree with Hubba, But I really think the tail would look better if the back ground screen shoot was from Corsica and Italy 1941 !!
Looks great...for a tail I guess.
Luv ya dude :mixedsmi:
Dave
Smilo,
I agree with Hubba, But I really think the tail would look better if the back ground screen shoot was from Corsica and Italy 1941 !!
Looks great...for a tail I guess.
Luv ya dude :mixedsmi:
Dave
Hi Smilo,
Looks pretty good to me. You are right though: You have a serious overkill thing going here.
- Ivan.
Look who's talking...Originally Posted by Ivan
Torture numbers and they'll say anything.
Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.
now boys...don't get started.
actually, this example was done out of frustration
after weeks of working with just the drawings,
i had a real need to produce something 3D.
i'm almost tempted to play with texturing.
just for the halibut.
i think i'll go take a nap, instead.+
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
as usual, a comment gets me going.BTW; nice tail! Once painted, it will look as smooth as a newborn touchy...
i want to see that newborn touchy...
ad2k has a nifty little feature
that makes texturing a snap.
it actually took less time than writing this post.
within the model editor,
each subassembly offers a choice
of what the polygon type will be,
lines and simple polygons,
or shaded and textured polygons.
selecting lines and simple polygons
allows one to select basic colors
as in the previous examples.
if shaded and textured is selected,
a bmp must be dropped into the working folder,
texture limits must be created in the graphics editor,
then selected and applied in the model editor.
the model is compiled and the results can be seen in cfs.
at this point, i could say
that i'm getting way ahead of myself,
but then again, sooner or later,
the texturing process will need to be done.
besides, by doing it as i go along,
i won't have to come back
and redo the simple polygons later.
all i'll have to do is insert a better bmp.
EUREKA!!!
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
Hi Smilo,
Perhaps you have a different method, but I believe you should consider using the same scale across all the Fuselage Components which means the Tail Cone you just created probably isn't going to be the limitation that sets the scale for all the other Fuselage Pieces.
Hey Hubbabubba,
Whadyamean about overkill??? I try to work within AF99 for the most part which is hardly gonna be overkill cuz there aren't enough resources to really do that.
- Ivan.
Hey Ivan, you know that we are both a bit, shall we say, compulsive when it comes to over-doing it. We go into modifications that only us see. If it ain't overkill, then what is it?
When I was working within AF99 boundaries (I was tempted to say "chains"...), I would over-do some parts intentionally, using them as reserve-sorta for the future. This way I was less frustrated when being in a pinch for polygons.
smilo, it does look like a derrière de bébé, but the color suggest a good dose of Zincofax or Desitin is in order!
Torture numbers and they'll say anything.
Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.
smilo, it does look like a derrière de bébé, but the color suggest a good dose of Zincofax or Desitin is in order!
now, that's funny!
thanks H, i needed a chuckle.
in self defense, i used a 256x256 bmp
that came from the ad2k tutorial ugly100 project.
next, maybe i'll drop in the grid you sent me.
but first, i need to clean up that tail section.
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
just to let you know,
my daughter has been visiting
for the past week or so.
needless to say,
i haven't spent a lot of time on the 196.
although, i did mess with it a bit yesterday
and plan on giving it some time today.
i have redone the tail cone area
and spent an inordinate amount of time
on the junctions with the cone area
and the vertical and horizontal stabilizers.
ad2k has a feature to do this in the wing area,
but it won't work in the tail area.
i won't go into the bloody details,
unless someone really wants to know.
now, i need to put the all pieces together
and then, the fun part, work on the coding
in order to get everything to work visually in cfs.
as i've said before, this is the key to the whole project.
until i can get this process down pat,
the parts are just a jumbled mess.
that is, unless i want to use the project in fs2000,
then it's accomplished automatically....dang
i need some coffee and then it's off to work.
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
arrrgh...
after spending hours in a futile attempt
at trying to figure out the visual coding,
i was treated to this wonderful visual display.
suffice to say, the program froze
and all work was lost.
note that all menu items
and the buttons are grayed out.
fortunately, when i began work today,
i made a file backup and moved it to another machine.
the bad news is, i didn't make backups
as i went along today,
so all is lost from this session.
i would be really pissed
if i had been successful today,
but as it is,
nothing of importance is gone,
just time.
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
Darn. That must hurt.
- Ivan.
Well what we do down here in the South, IS SHOOT OUR COMPUTER, KICK THE DOG, PUT THE OLD LADY TO BED,OPEN YOUR MOST FAVORITE BOTTLE OF RIPPLE PINK, and then start kicking some@#$% why that showed up in blue I have no idea?
Dave
yup, it was mildly annoying,
but like i said,
there was nothing of great worth lost.
just time, and i did get something out of the deal.
if nothing else, i'm learning to save
and stash the main file early and often.
it's like any learning experience,
trial and error....mostly error.
i only wish i knew what i am doing wrong
so i could stop whatever it is
that seems to irrate the program.
i actually took a break and then,
went back at it for a few more hours.
still no luck with the coding sequence.
i guess i'm just a glutton for punishment. :greenf:
or not.
i'm done for the night.
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
The format looks to me like "Access Violation at address 0x0????? in module <Something or Other>
Keep in mind that I don't know French and am only guessing.
I get those fairly often but usually they are from CombatFS itself.
- Ivan.
That's pretty much it, Ivan.
Access violation at address 004CFC84 of 'AD 2000.exe' module. Writing of the address 00000004.
That's all it says. The address itself is basically at the very beginning but, beyond that, I'm powerless. I'm curious to know, smilo, how your work is preserved. In AF99, for example, parts are written in XYZ.afp, components in XYZ.afc and assemblies in XYZ.afa. How does AD 2000 stores work in progress?
Now that No Dice has convinced Abacus to re-sell AF99, it could be a good alternative, don't you think?
Torture numbers and they'll say anything.
Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.
as far as i can tell,
ad2k work is stored in a .3DM file
within the specific project folder.
for extra security, i copy it
and move the copy to another computer.
what i need to learn to do
is make copies more often.
there are no parts, components,
or structures as in af99,
only chains and lines,
which are a series of points.
i am having a problem understanding
this address access violation business.
i had just created a new sub assembly
and attempted to move a part,
or group of chains into it
from another sub assembly.
i have taken this action
on several occasions with no problems.
it is a standard procedure
that even has a menu listing.
as for purchasing af99,
no need, i already own a copy.
my past experiences with it
have left me less than ecstatic.
i may be a glutton for punishment,
but reached the line with it long ago.
i decided to leave it to you guys.
i just didn't have the patience
to fight with it anymore.
i'm actually amazed that i've stuck
with ad2k this long.
heck, this is even my second go round with it.
truly amazing.
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
Hi Smilo,
Basically what is happening is that most likely there is a bug either in your application (AD2000) or one of the library routines it is calling. An address is most likely getting corrupted and the result is that the computer tries to access (write) to an area of memory that is not writable or is a secure part of the computer's system software.
It is a bug or corruption of some type.
I don't know there is a proper fix.
- Ivan.
I really do not have a clue, but can you try the 2K2 fix for the hell of it.
Dave
about all i can say is, so it goes
and keep making back ups.
lots of them.
also, i am able to build individual sections,
each as a master project, such as the tail,
the wings, floats and so on.
then later, when it's time to put it all together,
i can import the individuals into the main project.
this should be more secure and save space.
but that's way down the road.
i don't know about the ad2k2 fix
or if it can be used in ad2k.
i will check it out this weekend.
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
Hey Smilo,
How are things coming? With the discussion of AIR files, if you send me the visual model, I can try to slap together something for you to start tuning.
- Ivan.
funny you should ask. great timing actually,
i was just thinking that i should post a project update.
after much frustration with the tail section,
i decided to move on to the mid-fuselage,
which is the aft gun-station/cockpit area.
it also includes the windscreen and canopy.
asper usual, i've encountered a few problems,
but, what's new?
we learn from our mistakes, right? right.
suffice to say, after days of working,
i decided that i didn't like
the way the fuselage looked
and i didn't like the way
i had the bulkhead templates laid out.
sooo, late yesterday, i tore it apart and redid it.
actually, i should clarify,
i started to redo it.
fortunately, so far, the canopy still fits.
although, i did take some artistic license.
i am still having problems with
the way cfs views parts,
which leads to visual overlapping,
or what are known as the dreaded bleeds.
what i am having trouble understanding
is just how this works.
i mean, i can build, say, the tail section.
i know that the sim draws the part
most distant first, then closer and closer to the POV.
basically, if one is out of sequence,
it bleeds through the others,
so, one must be very careful
to build in the proper sequence.
that's all well and good if you are viewing
say, from the forward/left to the aft/right,
but, what about looking from another point of view?
the sequence has changed,
and there are the damn bleeds!
aggravating, to say the least.
needles to say, i have pushed this problem aside
in hopes that i will come up with a solution later.
much later, i fear.
a few days ago, i did make an interesting discovery.
when compiling a model in ad2k,
an option is given to build in fs98/cfs or fs2k/cfs2.
since i am attempting a cfs model,
i've always chosen the fs98/cfs option.
just for the heck of it, i went with fs2k/cfs2,
just to see what would happen.
basically, not much that i can see.
the model now shows in both, cfs and fs2k.
and of course, the model has no bleeds in fs2k!
which got me to thinking,
what does fs2k have that cfs doesn't have?
mainly, i believe, it's z buffering.
whatever that is.
granted, by any stretch of the imagination,
i am not a programmer, but if i was,
i would try to figure out just what z buffering is
and find a way to make a cfs z buffering upgrade.
yes, i know, i'm a dreamer. so what?
and yes, i know there is a cfs z buffer upgrade.
it's called cfs2.
but, i don't want cfs2, damn it.
for the most part, i prefer cfs,
but i want cfs with z buffering to stop the bleeding.
so, how are things going with you?
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
My understanding of the differences between CFS and FS2000 and later is that FS2000 and later use the relative locations of the objects to determine which should be in the foreground. In other words, it determines the viewing planes (Glue) on the fly, though it CAN be tricked by having objects for which relative locations don't indicate viewing priority. An example of this would be the Pilot and Canopy Frame. Both are similar distances from any viewpoint, but generally we prefer to NOT have the pilot show through the Canopy Frame.
With FS98 and CFS, WE determine where the viewing planes (Glue) are to some extent. Unfortunately most folks don't really understand how to use "Glue" to set the viewing planes. Also, there are application limitations such as serial listing of Pieces and Glue which don't allow for the flexibility of SCASM. There is also not the possibility of setting Pieces as ALWAYS being in the background.
Hope this makes sense.
As for how things are going, Anna Honey got back from Seville, Spain yesterday. She is watching kids today while I am at work.
I am working on repainting my P-40C to have the British Camouflage and AVG markings. (You really can't have a P-40 without a Shark Mouth!) There will also be an alternate "U.S. Army" paint scheme which is easy. I am still messing with the P-47D-23 to see what the rolling issue is all about. Veltro, Stuka, Dauntless, and Spitfire are all gathering at the door to the Paint Shop. The B-25C is in line for a minor rework for the Forward sections to use AF99 Template Parts to see if I can make the internal view of the Cockpit look better.
- Ivan.
AF99, GLUE, SCASM, and Z-BUFFERING in a nutshell.
Let's imagine that we have a train with, from front to rear, has 1) a locomotive; 2) a tender; 3) a wagon, and; 4) a caboose.
Let's imagine that each section (locomotive / tender / wagon / caboose) is a "bleed less" section for whatever reason.
AF99 works a bit like a giant three-dimensional tick-tack-toe. It ask first if your POV is above, level, or under the train (remember that AF99 deals normally with aircraft, not train...), then if it is front or aft of the train, then if it is right, left, or center of the train. Depending on your POV position, it will refer you to a showing sequence that should, in theory, prevent bleedings. But in practice, it doesn't always work. For example, if you're POV is between the tender and the wagon and AF99 "decide" that it is a front position, it will send you to the showing order caboose / wagon / tender / locomotive, making the locomotive bleed through the tender. If it "decide" that you're aft, the showing order will be locomotive / tender / wagon / caboose, and the caboose will bleed through the wagon. The problem here with AF99 is that it has only front and aft choices, no "center" position.
You can "cheat" AF99 by creating glue parts. Glue parts are invisible "walls" that extend indefinitely in space; you are either on one side of the wall or on the other side of the wall. Depending on the side you're on, the showing sequence is toggled. For example, you could place a glue part between the locomotive and the tender - imagine an infinite wall standing vertically between them - that would show the locomotive / tender sequence when behind the wall and the tender / locomotive sequence when standing in front of the same wall. If you repeat the same procedure with the wagon and the caboose, you can now stand between the tender and the wagon without bleeds because the the glue parts are "forcing" the sequences to show correctly.
SCASM can do even better. In AF99, you can glue the locomotive to the tender, the tender to the wagon, and the wagon to the caboose, thus making the whole train bleed-less in an "Ivan's conga" fashion. But AF99 will still go through the tick-tack-toe charade, each time pointing to your "glued train", no matter where the POV is. SCASM can get rid of the tick-tack-toe and the gluing sequence can be done in various ways. In the case of the train, SCASM can do;
- locomotive / tender / wagon / caboose (AF99 too);
- caboose / wagon / tender / locomotive (AF99 too);
- locomotive / (wagon / tender) / caboose (AF99 can't);
- (wagon / tender / locomotive) / caboose (AF99 can't);
- (tender / wagon / caboose) / locomotive (AF99 can't);
- (tender / locomotive) / (caboose / wagon) (AF99 can't);
- (caboose / wagon) / (tender / locomotive) (AF99 can't);
And a few other combinations where "/" is a glue part and "()" a section that can be treated as a whole section. SCASM is therefore more flexible when it comes to gluing sequence. With the train, the advantage is academic, but it is quite useful for more complicated objects. I'm not sure, but I think that AD2000 works a bit like that; ordering within a group that is glued later to another group.
Now Z-buffering. From FS2K on (CFS2 included), the visual engine enters all visual polygons in a buffer and shows them in a sequence that goes from the farthest to the nearest, no matter glue parts or not. This works pretty well, but not always. For example, a roundel on the top of a wing may flicker if it shares the same plane as the upper wing surface itself; they're both at the same distance. A bended polygon can also cause problem, like the "pioneers' tools" on the left side of my jeep. In CFS1, the shovel is intentionally bended like any decent shovel should be, but CFS2 considers that part of the handle is behind the side wall of the jeep and makes it disappear...
This was, in a nutshell, what I know about the subject. I hope it helps you understand what you're doing and why it works... or not!
Torture numbers and they'll say anything.
Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.
thanks gents, that was informative.
what is bugging me is the pov.
i can make it work from one pov,
but it's all screwed up from the others.
i can see that i will need a lot more trial
and error before i figure it out...mostly error.
another thing i need to do
is translate AF99 terms to ad2k terms.
there is no "glue", there is a technique
that seems to do the same thing.
i can't remember its name right now
and i don't want to fire up
my other machine just to refresh my memory.
also, as i recall, i can build an assembly,
say, for the wings, floats or whatever,
save it, then add it to another assembly.
there are certain limitations and rules for doing it,
but i'm sure it can be done.
i plan on using it later on,
but for now, i just want to build assemblies.
in ad2k a master project is called a master assembly.
a master assembly is made up of sub-assemblies
which contain say, the tail cone, aft fuselage,
vertical stabilizer, horizontal stabilizer, rudder, etc.
i just remembered the term!!!
seal planes are used in ad2k fs98/cfs models
as, i believe, "glue", is used in af99.
the trick is figuring out the proper way to use them.
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
Hey Smilo,
In my mind there is no question that AD2000 can do more than AF99. It is fairly easy to tell by just looking at the end results. Since you are leading the way with AD2000, I don't think you can really expect any help from those of us who have not played with this tool. I may play with it eventually, but got too much stuff going on and too little time to experiment at the moment.
- Ivan.
Members who have read this thread: 16
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks