PDA

View Full Version : Attention Oleg:B-17G Error's



XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 12:42 AM
Hello Mr. Maddox,

I was working on a skin for the B-17G when I found a few error's in the external model. In my marking's book I have profile of a B-17G-40. Now I'm not exactly sure which version of the G that we currently have. I noticed that the starboard waist gunner position is located in the wrong place. It should actually be located directly across from the port waist gunner position. Currently it's not located directly across from the port side. The other thing I noticed was that the aileron's are cut off a bit to early. They should end at the last panel line near the wingtip's. I only wanted to bring this to your attention to keep this simulation as accurate as it can be. I will post screenshot's on these error's later tonight. =S=

(People,please don't flame me for bringing this up. I'm only trying to improve the accurate model of a plane.)

Semper Fi!! Carry On!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Squirral aka Wolf_Fangs

<marquee>Wolf Pak Squadron</marquee>

<center>http://www.sanfords.net/DarK_Wolfs_free_demonic_graphics/wolf15.gif </center>

<center>The King Is Coming! Do You Feel The Fear?</center>

Message Edited on 12/11/0306:58PM by Squirral

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 12:42 AM
Hello Mr. Maddox,

I was working on a skin for the B-17G when I found a few error's in the external model. In my marking's book I have profile of a B-17G-40. Now I'm not exactly sure which version of the G that we currently have. I noticed that the starboard waist gunner position is located in the wrong place. It should actually be located directly across from the port waist gunner position. Currently it's not located directly across from the port side. The other thing I noticed was that the aileron's are cut off a bit to early. They should end at the last panel line near the wingtip's. I only wanted to bring this to your attention to keep this simulation as accurate as it can be. I will post screenshot's on these error's later tonight. =S=

(People,please don't flame me for bringing this up. I'm only trying to improve the accurate model of a plane.)

Semper Fi!! Carry On!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Squirral aka Wolf_Fangs

<marquee>Wolf Pak Squadron</marquee>

<center>http://www.sanfords.net/DarK_Wolfs_free_demonic_graphics/wolf15.gif </center>

<center>The King Is Coming! Do You Feel The Fear?</center>

Message Edited on 12/11/0306:58PM by Squirral

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 12:48 AM
"waste gunner"?

Those Ami heavy bombers had *everything*....they even had gunners to spare, which could be jettisoned along with weapons in an emergency...

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Windows 98SE
Athlon 1700+ 1.4GHz
Mobo: FIC AU13 (TFA42 BIOS)
nVidia onboard sound
1GB of 2100 DDR memory
Video Card: ATI Radeon 8500 128MB w/Catalyst 3.5
Cougar HOTAS
CH Pedals

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 01:06 AM
Stiglr wrote:
- "waste gunner"?
-
- Those Ami heavy bombers had *everything*....they
- even had gunners to spare, which could be jettisoned
- along with weapons in an emergency...
-
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
- Windows 98SE
- Athlon 1700+ 1.4GHz
- Mobo: FIC AU13 (TFA42 BIOS)
- nVidia onboard sound
- 1GB of 2100 DDR memory
- Video Card: ATI Radeon 8500 128MB w/Catalyst 3.5
- Cougar HOTAS
- CH Pedals

Hello Stiglr,

Whoopsie!! Guess I better go back to english class. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif =S=



Semper Fi!! Carry On!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Squirral aka Wolf_Fangs

<marquee>Wolf Pak Squadron</marquee>

<center>http://www.sanfords.net/DarK_Wolfs_free_demonic_graphics/wolf15.gif </center>

<center>The King Is Coming! Do You Feel The Fear?</center>

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 01:07 AM
Stiglr wrote:
- "waste gunner"?
-
- Those Ami heavy bombers had *everything*....they
- even had gunners to spare, which could be jettisoned
- along with weapons in an emergency...

I heard they shot the crap out of the LW :>


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 01:15 AM
Waste gunner lol, the words are more apt than you could imagine........

The guy has a point. The B-17 in FB is a G-10-BO. Were the staggered waist positions not introduced in the G-50-BO?

Of course, that assumes the info in the viewer is correct.. and that I have the correct model with G-50-BO.

Anyone else know what model of the G introduced the staggered guns?


"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg


Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 01:40 AM
NegativeGee wrote:
- Waste gunner lol, the words are more apt than you
- could imagine........
-
- The guy has a point. The B-17 in FB is a G-10-BO.
- Were the staggered waist positions not introduced in
- the G-50-BO?
-
- Of course, that assumes the info in the viewer is
- correct.. and that I have the correct model with
- G-50-BO.
-
- Anyone else know what model of the G introduced the
- staggered guns?

Is it possible that some of them were 'upgraded' to G-10-BO specs after the main structure had been finished? It wouldn't be the first time a 'real' but nonetheless rare model has been used as a basis for a common type by Maddox. See the G6 cockpit canopy, etc.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 02:10 AM
Wasn't it the case that the later versions of the G had one one man for both waist gun positions (and thus moving the two positions to the same location)?

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 03:22 AM
There were B-17Gs with staggered waist positions. What exact version, I'm not sure. As for the ailerons, AFAIK the ailerons correspond to the diagram I was using, though it might not be absolutely precise.


Message Edited on 12/12/0302:27AM by FennecP

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 03:50 AM
The aileron should end at the 3rd rivet line from the wingtip(top view). The 4th rivet line is where the re-inforcing doubler is placed and this is just inboard of the end of the aileron.


http://www.f1boat.com/03/images/start.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 05:16 AM
Hello Guy's,

As I said earlier I would upload some screenshot's. Well here's a few screenshot's of what I'm talking about.

The yellow line show's where the aileron should end.
http://www.tazsdesignshop.com/wolf/B-17G-1.jpg

The yellow line's show where the aileron's should end.
http://www.tazsdesignshop.com/wolf/B-17G-2.jpg

As you can see they end a bit short. In the three profile's in my marking's book they end in the same location,or very close to it. On the B-17G-40 they end where the yellow line's are shown. Also on the earlier B-17F-40 they end in the same place.

There is one other thing that I noticed. The upper mid window's should wrap around the side. In the current model they aren't visable from the side view. The G-40 only had the last three upper mid window's. The fourth window wasn't there. Another thing about the G-40 is that the mid side window's weren't there. Here's a screenshot showing the upper mid window's (Sorry I forgot to circle what I'm talking about).

http://www.tazsdesignshop.com/wolf/B-17G-3.jpg

Now don't get me wrong. I am very happy to have the B-17 in FB. I appreciate the hard work put into the model. The damage model also seem's to be very accurate. She sure can take a beating and keep on flying. I will scan the profile's from my marking's book and upload so you can see what I'm comparing. The only real thing that bother's me is the offset waist gunner position's. Plus the US marking's look a bit silly on US skin's. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif =S=



Semper Fi!! Carry On!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Squirral aka Wolf_Fangs

<marquee>Wolf Pak Squadron</marquee>

<center>http://www.sanfords.net/DarK_Wolfs_free_demonic_graphics/wolf15.gif </center>

<center>The King Is Coming! Do You Feel The Fear?</center>

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 11:27 AM
Your using drawings from a 'markings' book???

You have the outboard end of the aileron with too much curvature. You have the aileron ending at the 2cd wing rib from the wing tip. The 1st rib is >>just<< inboard of the end of the de-icing boot.

The aileron ends 2 aileron ribs outboard of the 4th wing rib from the tip. That is, at the 3rd wing rib from the tip.


What is wrong, is the detailing of the 4 outboard wing rib postions. Also the port national insignia should not be so far forward on the fuselage. There was barely any overlap of the wing with the 'bar' portion.


http://www.f1boat.com/03/images/start.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"



Message Edited on 12/12/0305:56AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 03:02 PM
The thing with the national insignia is explained un the readme file accomanying the patch.

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 03:41 PM
Hello MiloMaorai,

Yes I'm using drawing's from a marking's book. Actually a few. Believe it or not they are more accurate than you may think. However,I miss placed the yellow line's. They should actually be halfway between where they are now and where the existing aileron end's. The aileron on the model has no curvature. It end's just before the wing start's to curve.

You are correct about the national insignia. With the offset waist gunner position it messes up the placement of the US insignia. That is the reason why I brought this to attention. If you use the in-game national insignia for the Russian's you will notice that the starboard red star is placed behind the waist gunner window. If the waist gunner position's were placed directly across from each other the placement of the insignia's would be better suited. Us skinner's would be able to place the national insignia's in the correct location's for more accurate skin's.

If the external model could be reworked a bit and included in the pay add-on that would be great. The damage model and flight model wouldn't need to be altered. Or at least not to my knowledgement. We would then have two version's of the B-17G and both could become flyable if and when the internal's are finished. =S=

Semper Fi!! Carry On!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Squirral aka Wolf_Fangs

<marquee>Wolf Pak Squadron</marquee>

<center>http://www.sanfords.net/DarK_Wolfs_free_demonic_graphics/wolf15.gif </center>

<center>The King Is Coming! Do You Feel The Fear?</center>

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 04:22 PM
clint-ruin wrote:
- Is it possible that some of them were 'upgraded' to
- G-10-BO specs after the main structure had been
- finished? It wouldn't be the first time a 'real'
- but nonetheless rare model has been used as a basis
- for a common type by Maddox. See the G6 cockpit
- canopy, etc.

That is a good point.... it seems entirely possible that it could have been the case..... but I do not have any information to hand regarding the modification of existing B-17 frames up to the standards of later specifications.....

Anyone else have anything on this?


"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg


Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 04:49 PM
I prefere a better (realistic) behaviour of AI - B-17 flying in formation (no rolls, no steep banks etc.) under attack. I think it is far more important than a very small graphical error



Message Edited on 12/12/0304:49PM by VVS-Manuc

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 04:52 PM
VVS-Manuc wrote:
- I prefere a better (realistic) behaviour of B-17
- flying in formation (no rolls, no steep banks etc.)
- under attack. I think it is far more important than
- a very small graphical error
-
-

Yes and no Stuka like dives into the landing flair for the AI. The a/c should be sticking to each other like glue unless haven taken enough damage to force then from formation. The USAAF was much better disciplined than to break formation like seen now in FB.



http://www.f1boat.com/03/images/start.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 10:32 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- VVS-Manuc wrote:
-- I prefere a better (realistic) behaviour of B-17
-- flying in formation (no rolls, no steep banks etc.)
-- under attack. I think it is far more important than
-- a very small graphical error
--
--
-
- Yes and no Stuka like dives into the landing flair
- for the AI.

The 'stuka dive' usually happens as a result of having a waypoint at high alt followed immediately by the landing waypoint.

For the 17s you are going to have to work out some way of getting them back down. I find a ring of progressively lower waypoints in a gentle circle around their base works well.

Of course this is of no help in the QMB.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 11:02 PM
That is correct clint, no help at all in QMB, which has to be fixed by 1C/Maddox Games./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://www.f1boat.com/03/images/start.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
12-13-2003, 12:25 AM
OIC now. Nice catch. Now see if u can find the other errors http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-13-2003, 12:37 AM
Usually on the return leg of the days bombing missions, somewhere over the channel was located the departure point. This point was the last "grouped" waypoint of the bomber stream. From this point all bomb groups were to make progressive loss of altitude until they were in range of their respective bases and were then to hold at 1k feet and preform their landing procedure.

Read the following from landing in Vee and enjoy.


http://home.earthlink.net/~tphadden/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/formation6.jpg


http://home.earthlink.net/~tphadden/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/formation7.jpg


http://home.earthlink.net/~tphadden/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/formation8.jpg



BTW ... there is a website called http://www.oldmanuals.com that carry B-17F & B-17G Technical manuals as well as some other good reading.

XyZspineZyX
12-13-2003, 01:06 AM
Snuffy_Hadden wrote:
-
- BTW ... there is a website called http://www.oldmanuals.com that
- carry B-17F & B-17G Technical manuals as well as
- some other good reading.
-
-

This guy won't send the manuals out of the US. Has anyone here in the UK got a copy?

Cheers!

<CENTER>

http://www.apqa16.dsl.pipex.com/sigpic.jpg
</CENTER>

XyZspineZyX
12-13-2003, 04:01 PM
from http://www.lancer.dial.pipex.com/b17/spec.htm

One failure was the YB-40. A proposed gunship variant and heavy fighter killer, the YB40's were a dismal failure. Incorporating enhanced armour and increased armament, the YB-40's were supposed to fly amongst bomber formations and pick off the fighters attacking them. However, once the bombs were dropped, the YB-40's could not keep up with the bombers they were supposed to protect and the project was abandoned. The two innovations retained were the chin mounted power operated turret and staggered waist windows. These became a standard feature in late model F's and early model G's.

"if you're a story teller and someone listens while you tell that story you're an artist...
If you're a story teller and no-one is listening while you tell that story you're schizophrenic...
I like to consider myself a story teller... if it weren't for you i'd be crazy"

"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
-- Robert E. Lee

Virtual Movie Forum at http://www.blacksheepwebdesign.net/VirtualWarCinema/


http://jrjacobs.mystarband.net/images/squad%20logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-13-2003, 05:53 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Also the port national insignia
- should not be so far forward on the fuselage.

That's already noted in the readme isn't it?

XyZspineZyX
12-13-2003, 09:57 PM
Maybe this should go in the painter's threads but seeing as how the opening post started with a comment about painting.

The following are from a book called. "The Mighty Eighth, Warpaint and Hearldry" by Roger A. Freeman, (we all know who he is.)

I hope this helps.

http://home.earthlink.net/~tphadden/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/insignia0.jpg


http://home.earthlink.net/~tphadden/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/insignia1.jpg



BTW ... an interesting point there on the staggered waist gunners on the prototype YB-40.

:salute:



Message Edited on 12/13/0308:58PM by Snuffy_Hadden

XyZspineZyX
12-13-2003, 10:21 PM
- VVS-Manuc wrote:
-- I prefere a better (realistic) behaviour of B-17
-- flying in formation (no rolls, no steep banks etc.)
-- under attack. I think it is far more important than
-- a very small graphical error

You know, EVERY TIME somebody finds a construction problem in a model, somebody says this. It's like pointing out that the sky is blue, OK? It's precisely that informative. The point is, this guy found what he thinks is a mistake, and he's posting it, with evidence to back it up. Is that somehow wrong? As a modeler, I'm extraordinarily grateful for such efforts. Given the wide range of quality and care in third-party output, any safety net is a good safety net.

Anyhow, the best solution, as always, is to find photos of the real thing, and cross reference them with manufacturer's drawings or high-quality technical drawings (always in short supply). Always assume that the drawings are wrong. They all have something wrong, somewhere. A set of photos of two planes, one definitely confirmed to be a G-10 and the other a G-50 (let's say the data panel is visible in some of the photos) would help a lot.

BTW Squirral (squirrel?), speaking of English and on the topic of nitpicking:

yellow line's
aileron's
profile's in my marking's book
upper mid window's

These are nouns, not posessive adjectives (is that the right term?). No need for the apostrophe. "Markings" does not "own" the "book", etc. Just a consistent mistake I noticed. I don't know if English is your second language of if the bastards just never taught you.

English Nazi, out.

XyZspineZyX
12-14-2003, 03:30 AM
Majesty5K wrote:
- BTW Squirral (squirrel?), speaking of English and on
- the topic of nitpicking:
-
- yellow line's
- aileron's
- profile's in my marking's book
- upper mid window's
-
- These are nouns, not posessive adjectives (is that
- the right term?). No need for the apostrophe.
- "Markings" does not "own" the "book", etc. Just a
- consistent mistake I noticed. I don't know if
- English is your second language of if the bastards
- just never taught you.
-
- English Nazi, out.

Hello Majesty5K,

Did you have have the thought that "Squirrel" was already taken when I signed up? As a resault of that I used an "A" instead of an "E". Now as far as english being my second language,no it's not. Some things just don't take while in school. That was about 6 year's ago by the way when I finished. Needless to say it wasn't one of my favorite subjects. So I don't remember what the apostrophe means. Who gives of darn in these forums. Now can we get back on the topic please? Thank's. =S=

P.S. That was spoken in a normal tone of voice. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif




Semper Fi!! Carry On!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Squirral aka Wolf_Fangs

<marquee>Wolf Pak Squadron</marquee>

<center>http://www.sanfords.net/DarK_Wolfs_free_demonic_graphics/wolf15.gif </center>

<center>The King Is Coming! Do You Feel The Fear?</center>