PDA

View Full Version : Grumman Hellcat hodgepodge



KIMURA
10-09-2004, 06:41 AM
Just found some things in the Dev.update related to the Hellcat which seems not accurately modelled. The pic sems to show the same Hellcat-type ready for take-off on a flattop. The 1st surrounding in pink - fuselage rear view windows - fits for both types. But the green mark show the new shaped windscreen for the F6F-5, whereas the other pink cowling marking shows the exhaust bulges which was cancelled after the 1500th F6F-3. The new windshield and exhaust bulges can't be shown on the same model.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



http://mypage.bluewin.ch/a-z/kimura-hei/Hellcat.jpg

Yellonet
10-09-2004, 07:14 AM
Good catch. Tell someone who can change it.

KIMURA
10-09-2004, 08:02 AM
does someone know Oleg's e-mail address, so I'll point him to that thing.

stansdds
10-09-2004, 08:19 AM
Shouldn't be too hard to change, it went gold just a few days ago, how many retail copies could they have possibly pressed in just a few days? Pull 'em all, time for a re-write!

Actually, there is the distinct possibility that these shots are still from a beta build. Let's wait to see the final version before passing judgement.

SkyChimp
10-09-2004, 10:05 AM
I agree Kimura, good catches.

Additionally, in most cases with the later F6F-5 windshield where the bulletproof glass was an integral part of the windshield, the gunsight used was the Mk8 Mod6 which projected its image directly onto the windshield:

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/mod6_1.jpg
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/mod6_2.jpg

Up until then, the Mk8 Mod 8 with reflector assembly was used:

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/mod8_1.jpg
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/mod8_2.jpg

LStarosta
10-09-2004, 10:36 AM
Who cares?! Most people will just hit Ctrl-F1 anyway.

AtomicRunt
10-09-2004, 11:31 AM
OMG...LOL...I have an Idea!!! lets wait until we actually get to fly the darn things first,that way, we can all B*tch about the entire line-up of aircraft. If the developer of the GAME ever hit the level of realism alot of people in here wanted, you would be flyin' the real thing LMAO!! Take the game for what it is and what it offers. After reading Jippo's latest post on what it takes to model these things,and being a Plastic Injection Mould Designer using the latest software available, I can live with "exhaust bulges" as I attempt to enjoy my free time.

SkyChimp
10-09-2004, 07:43 PM
I guess we could consider the windscreen a retrofit.

http://www.air-and-space.com/20021026%20Edwards/10%2001%20F6F-5%20N1078Z%20left%20side%20l.jpg

KIMURA
10-10-2004, 08:41 AM
AtomicRunc, seems you missed to understand the intention of my post. All I want are correct 3D-models (and FM,DM too) of the game we spend money for.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If the game is released, the chances for a visual correction of the a/c we'd like to fly becomes smaller than it is before the release. And IMHO, I'm surprised, that someone who models an a/c, is doing that with not that much knowledge of the Cat series(so its the impression after a rough looks at those screenies).http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

wickedpenguin
10-10-2004, 11:03 AM
KIMURA - I don't know if you've ever built a game vehicle model before, but I've built several for Unreal Tournament 2004.

Once the model is skinned, textured, boned, animated, and imported in-game, it becomes exceedingly difficult to make structural changes. In UT2004, at least, to make those changes would involve the following:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>Undo all existing animation and skinning (attaching of aircraft skin to its skeleton)
<LI>Redo the geometry for the fixes.
<LI>Remap the UV map (which tell the textures where they need to go)
<LI>Redo the textures
<LI>Reskin the aircraft (reattach the airplane skin to its bones)
<LI>Re-animate any custom animation: landing gear, tailhook, etc.
<LI>Save each animation as a "clip" or "track" so that it can be called from code.
<LI>Export the model and the animations to the game's format.
<LI>Export all textures to proper format
<LI>Insert all textures and models to their appropriate "packages"
<LI>Export collision meshes
<LI>Attach the collision meshes to the model
<LI>Adjust programming as needed to incorporate the new meshes
<LI>Import into game
<LI>Test
<LI>If it doesn't look right, restart list, rinse, repeat.
[/list]

It's not as easy as just tweaking a polygon and hitting "Save".

Honestly man - just let it go. The changes you are calling attention to are extremely minor. It's not like they gave it an in-line engine and bubble canopy...

Snootles
10-10-2004, 12:11 PM
Would they really need to re-do the tailhook and gear animations and the damage model in order to get rid of that little bulge?

wickedpenguin
10-10-2004, 02:36 PM
I'm not sure about for PF, but everytime you de-skin a model for Unreal, you're basically detaching the polygons from the bones. Since the bones are what provide the animation, you're killing the animation.

The damage MODEL doesn't get hurt -that's largely programming, at least in Unreal. I'm talking about the actual mesh that's overlayed on the actual model to determine whether a bullet/ground is hitting it or not.

VW-IceFire
10-10-2004, 09:19 PM
KIMURA, I'm not going to dispute what you're saying directly and I'm not sure if I have centered exactly on what the problem is but I'm not sure that your right.

According to my Squadron Signal Hellcat book, the only book that I have that has details on the Hellcat that cover things like this, The F6F-5 had a new cowling without the bulge. It makes no mention of any F6F-3's without the bulge.

It also mentions that the canopy was changed halfway through production.

So that says to me that we've got a F6F-3 Late and that its not any problem at all. According to the information I've got nothing is wrong at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The new windshield and exhaust bulges can't be shown on the same model. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
From what I can tell...the new windshield was introduced halfway along and the exhaust bulges were a part of all F6F-3 models with a new cowling being designed for the F6F-5.

Perhaps our information differs?

LEXX_Luthor
10-10-2004, 10:50 PM
Didn't bother following this, so trivial. But if the poster is saying the external and internal models differ, then you fly a different factory number than the other AI planes. For the onwhine dogfight servers, there is no need to discuss "realism" anyway.

Ruy Horta
10-11-2004, 09:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KIMURA:
Just found some things in the Dev.update related to the Hellcat which seems not accurately modelled. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Silly buggar, you still mention such stuff after years of Fw 190 experience??

Can hardly believe that these are the only "detail flaws" you'll find in the series.

The day they are changed/corrected, probably a cold one in Hell http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Ruy Horta
10-11-2004, 09:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wickedpenguin:
KIMURA - I don't know if you've ever built a game vehicle model before, but I've built several for Unreal Tournament 2004.

Honestly man - just let it go. The changes you are calling attention to are extremely minor. It's not like they gave it an in-line engine and bubble canopy... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You give an EXTREME example of what needs to be done. I once made a production skin for a not to be mentioned online game, I redid a lot of it multiple times, but the differences suggested by Kimura are to a great extend VERY superficial.

Its BS that the whole skin needs to be redone because a exhaust bulge is removed...

Agreed that it will be more work once the a/c is ported to the game. Cockpits are more work.

horseback
10-11-2004, 10:34 AM
Gee, let's be real picky and point out that the red suurounds on the insignia make them early production models (red surround US insignia lasted on Navy fighters no later than October '43). Where are the fairings over the gun barrels?

I can't see a view from the pictures that proves it conclusively, but the antenna may not be mounted on the proper side of the spine (need to check the serial numbers for those, but the antenna moved around a bit from S/N Block to Block). Other identifiers are the location of the landing light on the port wing, cooling flaps on the underside of the cowling, intrument panel layouts, and panel lines on the undersides of the wings...

These are distinctions that should be left at the IPMS (International Plastic Modelers' Society) meetings, along with arguements about whether RLM 83 was a dark or a bright green.

The Hellcat was in a constant state of evolution from day one. Grumman may have had the most efficient fusion of engineering and manufacturing practices of all the aircraft manufacturers of WWII. As soon as an improvement was identified, proven and approved by the customer, it was made part of the production run.

As a result, while generalities can be made about dash number differences, the main difference between the Dash 3 and the Dash 5 is that the Dash 5 was much more likely to be painted overall gloss dark blue, and could mount rockets. Most other detail differences were blurred by the constant improvements, retrofitting of surviving earlier models, swapping of parts from 'hanger queens' and so on.

All I care about is that the general cockpit is right, and the FM matches. If it's quick, turns well, takes a lot of abuse, dishes out a similar level of punishment as the P-40/P-51D and is easy to master, I'll be thrilled.

cheers

horseback

IL2-chuter
10-11-2004, 10:48 AM
I seem to recall that the Smithsonian's Hellcat has the cowl bulge on one side only (mixed cowl panels). As noted above, sim people are not IPMS people, and that's a (insert: good/bad, your choice) thing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Flight models are much more important, though more subjective. GTR (race sim, not out yet) is unique in simming by basing ALL performance perameters of all vehicles in game on telemetry. I'd like to see someone do that with modern warbirds . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Ruy Horta
10-11-2004, 10:49 AM
Ah, but these are excuses.

Anyone mention the AEP Spits lately?

Of course you must make allowances, but you model the AVERAGE - as in most generic example of a type - once you start making up excuses why a model does not conform to the most produced sub-type you are missing the point.

But this also explains why:

1. why Ubi doesn't bother (since we don't care, right?)
2. why you make such a point...

Does the Hellcat look nice, sure (don't care about skins, since they are the least fixed item), but Kimura certainly has a point. Lets not turn things around nor start make excuses before someone from Ubi had time to react.

Bottomline answer: ITS JUST A GAME

END OF DISCUSSION...END OF THIS FORUM AS WELL.

VW-IceFire
10-11-2004, 01:25 PM
Whats that about the AEP Spitfires? I don't get your point?

I believe the Hellcat here, maybe markings aside, represents a fairly typical middle to late run F6F-3. Having looked at what I have on the plane...it appears to be just fine.

wickedpenguin
10-11-2004, 05:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Its BS that the whole skin needs to be redone because a exhaust bulge is removed... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you're misunderstanding me:

SKINNING = Attachment of the polys to the bones and adjusting how much influence a specific bone has over a specific set of polys. For instance, in Maya, you bind(specifically called "weighting") certain groups of polys to individual joints. For instance, you would bind the strut joint to the strut polys, the wheel polys to the wheel hub joint etc.

If you're adding a separate piece, you need to detach any already-attached polys from the skeleton (since it's already a character) and then rebind all the parts together.

TEXTURING = The "paint job". Obviously you wouldn't need to redo the whole thing, but it will need to be tweaked to accomodate the added /deleted / resized polys.

Note: that's for Maya and Unreal 2004. Like I said, PF probably does it differently. I know in CFS3, for instance, you just named specific parts in Gmax (aileronLeft, LandingGear1, etc.) and when imported they would function automatically based upon their parameters in the configuration file.

The whole point of my reply was to illustrate that sometimes simple fixes aren't quite so simple, and to give some of those who are unaware of the game design process an idea of the steps involved.

Ankanor
10-12-2004, 03:55 AM
The bottle is half Empty, kimura? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Honestly, I don't give an ant's butt about a exhaust bulge. Unless it is a one-bullet-kill spot for the engine, which I doubt. I don't think those little incorrections will make adifference. And it's not worth it redoing it. We have pharmacy companies selling medicines that increase the possibility of heart attacks, car companies not pulling cars for fixing bugs "just because it's cheaper to compensate the survivors" Now, THAT is scary! Just my 2 eurocent

KIMURA
10-12-2004, 04:10 AM
Ankator, I know the lobby for people who don't care about details or accuracy is very large.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
But the latest A6M5b cockpit shots do confirm that Olegs sources and templates are far away from good quality.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ruy Horta
10-12-2004, 10:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wickedpenguin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Its BS that the whole skin needs to be redone because a exhaust bulge is removed... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you're misunderstanding me:

The whole point of my reply was to illustrate that sometimes simple fixes aren't quite so simple, and to give some of those who are unaware of the game design process an idea of the steps involved. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did not misunderstand you, but only answered half of your remark by sticking by what I know best, but the guy I worked with who made the models, made such corrections almost on the fly. THe main problem here is that at one point a design is "frozen" so it can be entered in production.

Ankanor
10-12-2004, 05:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KIMURA:
Ankator, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

copy and paste, is that so hard?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

VW-IceFire
10-12-2004, 05:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KIMURA:
Ankator, I know the lobby for people who don't care about details or accuracy is very large.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
But the latest A6M5b cockpit shots do confirm that Olegs sources and templates are far away from good quality.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Whats wrong with it exactly?

It seems to be along the lines of what I figured it would be...I doubt that I'd really notice the difference if it were wrong. But what are the sources...are yours different than theirs?

SkyChimp
10-12-2004, 07:18 PM
I'd like to have the plane modelled properly as well. But more importantly, I'd like to have the F6F-3's and F6F-5's FM properly done. If that's done right, I'll be happy.

AtomicRunt
10-13-2004, 02:55 AM
I agree Chimp, I can live with the small visual nuances. Its a darn good looking Hellcat regardless. Same goes for most if not all the cockpits.

LEXX_Luthor
10-13-2004, 03:46 AM
I agree AtomicRunt, I can live with the small visual nuances. Its a darn good looking Hellcat regardless. Same goes for most if not all the cockpits. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

JG53Frankyboy
10-13-2004, 04:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KIMURA:
Ankator, I know the lobby for people who don't care about details or accuracy is very large.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
But the latest A6M5b cockpit shots do confirm that Olegs sources and templates are far away from good quality.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Whats wrong with it exactly?

It seems to be along the lines of what I figured it would be...I doubt that I'd really notice the difference if it were wrong. But what are the sources...are yours different than theirs? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well , most sources in books (3 i have) and Inet ( for example http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/zerofacts.htm ) are saying that a A6M5b should have two MGs in fuselage , one light MG left, one heavyMG right. in the picture the left position is emtpy . that would be an A6M5c , but there fore the additional hevyMGs in the wings are missing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

KIMURA
10-13-2004, 04:49 AM
excactly Franky.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The 52b was the only IJN-fighter which had to been load with 3 kind of calibres of ammo.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Such thing states and confirm US, as well as Japanese, datas.

VW-IceFire
10-13-2004, 07:04 AM
Where is the Heavy MG going to go then? Did they perhaps put it as a hub firing MG and leave the other MG in the cowling?

I doubt they would just ommit it without some reason for it.

JG53Frankyboy
10-13-2004, 07:10 AM
well, they simply replaced the right lightMG with a heavyMG in an A6M5b. same position with some minor modifications.
the left lightMG was left at his place, as i already said.

in the A6M5c the removed the left lightMG to save some weight . they added one additonal heavyMG in each wing , outside the still beeing there 20mmCanons.

but perhaps maddox has some newer info http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AtomicRunt
10-13-2004, 09:48 AM
Interesting....missing weapons,a 13.2mm at that. Now that will make a difference.Just did a quick search. Is this info correct?

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/zerofacts.htm

DuxCorvan
10-13-2004, 10:31 AM
I agree LEXX_Luthor, I can live with the small visual nuances. Its a darn good looking Hellcat regardless. Same goes for most if not all the cockpits. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Zmir88IAP
10-13-2004, 11:01 AM
In early versions its possible that the same cockpit is put on different planes to test the flight modell and functions of the plane.

And I saw correct 3D-modells of both F3(different windscreen-this picture doesnt show anything from the windshield) and F5-you should see this too on different development updates...so it would be logical that this was a classical WIP screenshot:
F6F3 outside modell-with a F6F5 cockpit...
...look at the beautiful screenshots about the new cockpits which are added daily-everythings alright and beautiful.

NO PANIC!

Ruy Horta
10-13-2004, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
I'd like to have the plane modelled properly as well. But more importantly, I'd like to have the F6F-3's and F6F-5's FM properly done. If that's done right, I'll be happy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course the FM is most important (next to the DM), but I always see the a/c model as a visual benchmark. If the easy bit is off, what can we expect the hard part to be...