Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Hanriot Dupont HD1


  • Please log in to reply
320 replies to this topic

#81 O_WolfPac

O_WolfPac
  • Posts: 1294

Posted 12 July 2010 - 23:18

yep NZ is amazing place :)

Talking of Beers !!!! Smili , you coming down south for a visit its my 40th on the 2nd August

Thanks for the file downloaded and i think i might try to get it into a post so the french people can actually see the file without having to download it to read it , maybe this way we can get the translation done smoother , but Thank you J.j i can see the part you have seen about HD120 , if only my french was more used i can read some words but not all unfortunatly
  • 0

#82 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 13 July 2010 - 05:34

@Gapmaker: This also concerns Wolfpac so I am asking here: I can't quite tell from the .dds files but it seems to me that the texturing of the machine guns and possibly of the rotaries as well seem to be part of separate .dds files and perhaps even are separate models, is this correct?
Another question: will engines and machine guns from existing planes be accessible or part of the SDK so they do not have to be made again (assuming they already exist :))?

The latter part might not apply to Wolfpac but we only need Spandaus and an UR.II which we could borrow from the Dr.I :)
  • 0

#83 O_WolfPac

O_WolfPac
  • Posts: 1294

Posted 13 July 2010 - 11:22

I can only give my opinion but i think you are spot on and correct seperate items model and dds textures :) WELL DONE nice to see someone else is looking as closely as me :D

We will have to wait and see what comes with the sdk , but till that day im not building the engine or machine gun because i like the idea of keeping a uniform quality and plus i do like the ones ingame really nice artwork

I have made the engine and machine guns in the past for other flightsims but not for a rise of flight :) i will keep my fingers crossed that its the uniformed consistancy of the sdk
Image
  • 0

#84 O_WolfPac

O_WolfPac
  • Posts: 1294

Posted 02 August 2010 - 12:41

i figured tackle something HARD !!!

Have a go at creating the internal airframe structure of the external model…

My word i have alot of respect for Gapmaker after attempting this , it is the most laborious tasks i have encountered and i know Gapmaker will be laughing about me asking if i could proboolean the wingribs :)

you just can not do it , its all manual place-ment and each and every wingribs has got to be placed within the outerskin but in the correct place inside to keep accuracy at ROF quality.
It was a hypnotic TASK and im sure, i went into several levels of trance whilst attempting this task hehehe

Unfortunately i did not see next weeks lottery numbers !

Anyway , i stopped for a Birthday and yep its been a Great day n night :)

Wingribs are in RED and wingspar is in Green and i have made the outer skin of the wings slightly transparent so you can see the little Devils , i hope i never have to see them again lol

Image

Best Regards
O_Wolfpac
Tony
http://www.Oceanicwing.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">www.Oceanicwing.com Recruiting Rise of Flight pilots
  • 0

#85 Hellbender

Hellbender
  • Posts: 3321
  • LocationMadrid, Spain (originally Brussels, Belgium)

Posted 02 August 2010 - 18:55

Waaaah, I'm missing a lot of cool stuff here.

That render looks terrific!

:shock:



I've also read the article, I'll translate it as soon as I'm back home.

It's especially interesting to read that the Belgians felt the Hanriot's performance was only slightly better than the Nieuport 23 (an improved version of the 17), but that it was more pleasant to fly and had better visibility.

Even more shocking to read that the Hanriot squadrons refused their Camels – passing them on to the 11th "Paper bird" – even though the Camels had better performance and were armed with two machineguns. Not completely true, actually, since most Belgian Camels had one machinegun, not two.

In the end, I only know of Jan Olieslagers who flew the Camel consistently after a while, even though the rest of his squadron – the 9th "Thistle" – kept on using Hanriots, on account of their pleasant flying characteristics.

Well, I feel I'll be entitled to a lot of bitching if we get underperforming Hanriots that behave like the Nieuport 17 behaves now.

:roll:


As for Olieslagers, he was a star in every sense of the word, a pre-war athlete, pilot and daredevil. I'm much more interested in humble Willy Coppens and his meteoric Hanriot career, becoming the number 1 balloon buster of the war. He lived in my former hometown of Watermaal-Bosvoorde (near Brussels), so I'm sure there must be some extra information I can collect. Perhaps even some old photographs, I can always hope…



Coppens' "Blue Devil" HD.1

Image



1st (later 9th) Thistle squadron HD.1

The latin motto of the Order of the Thistle "nemo me impune lacessit" should be written on the back of the plane, behind the pilot.

Image
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#86 O_WolfPac

O_WolfPac
  • Posts: 1294

Posted 03 August 2010 - 05:27

Heres a good question :)

Look at the pictures above post :) and then , look at the picture and write up below
Image


Heres the Question ,,,


SIDE mounted Machine gun

or

TOP front mounted machine gun


Which do you want ! dont say BOTH ! please


The HD1 only had one machinegun BUT i have many many photos which show the mounted machine gun in TWO places !

One being the front top so you are looking down the Sights and aim through the front window
the other option is mounted like the N17 on the left side of the nose using the support struts as mount braces ….
if unclear i can show some photos but first to answer with a…..

good reason… wins :D
  • 0

#87 Sensenmann

Sensenmann
  • Posts: 381

Posted 03 August 2010 - 06:10

Model is looking good, mate.

You know, you could possibly do both gun positions, as it may be just a simple matter using an alpha channel to turn one or the other off. (then again, it gets a bit tricky with the internal cockpit, so maybe not?).

If not that route, perhaps consider what would have been the most convenient for the pilot (as in cocking, clearing jams, etc). In that case, top mounted seems the way to go.
  • 0

#88 catchov

catchov
  • Posts: 3986

Posted 03 August 2010 - 06:18

Front and centre old boy for symmetry's sake if nothing else ! Have pity on those addicted to symmetry please, (Se5a excluded of course because she's just so beautiful) :)
  • 0

#89 O_WolfPac

O_WolfPac
  • Posts: 1294

Posted 03 August 2010 - 06:28

ok BUT ,,,, while ive been waiting for a reply i have had time to consider ,,,

If it was SIDE MOUNTED or offset left
Then further updated model Handriot HD2 and Cockpit would be very easy because the HD2 has TWO machine guns BOTH side mounted one either side :D

So its a complicated question , but very good answers , as always
  • 0

#90 catchov

catchov
  • Posts: 3986

Posted 03 August 2010 - 06:41

the HD2 has TWO machine guns BOTH side mounted one either side :D

Ahhh …. but wasn't she severely affected performance wise and thus not very successful ? I have no hard evidence of course :)
  • 0

#91 Sensenmann

Sensenmann
  • Posts: 381

Posted 03 August 2010 - 06:53

Well, here is my thinking (but I could be mistaken):

The Albatros D.II early and late variants both appear to have the same (internal) cockpit, save for the radiator placement, so it stands to reason that it might be possible to model both gun positions for the HD.1 and go with the twin gun positioning on the HD.2

We are in uncharted waters here, and might be able to pave the way as we go, so something to consider…

But for now, I would say, go with the side mounted gun, as it is best suited to cover all eventual possibilities.
  • 0

#92 O_WolfPac

O_WolfPac
  • Posts: 1294

Posted 03 August 2010 - 07:04

ok :D side mounted
  • 0

#93 Hellbender

Hellbender
  • Posts: 3321
  • LocationMadrid, Spain (originally Brussels, Belgium)

Posted 03 August 2010 - 07:47

As far as I know, the machine gun was usually mounted in the center.

Here's a picture of a reproduction at the RAF museum.

Image


And here's a real survivor, at the museum of Brussels. Unfortunately no machine gun mounted at all, but it does look to me like a part of the cowling behind the engine is missing where the machinegun would have been mounted in the center.

HOWEVER, if we are to believe historical accounts, who speak of much improved FORWARD visibility compared to the Nieuport 17, a side-mounted gun doesn't seem far-fetched. The side-mounted machinegun displayed in certain pictures could be the high-caliber gun used to fire phosphorescent bullets at balloons, though, while the center-mounted machinegun is simply the Vickers.

Another pertinent question: will a side-mounted gun cause the plane to wobble all over the place when fired, as is the case with the Nieuport 28?

As for two machineguns, the article mentions it made the plane lose 200 to 300 meters of operational ceiling and the idea was abandoned, at least with the Belgian Air Force.

If need be, I can go to the museum next week and take additional pictures if you need a few details photographed. I think it'll be especially useful to get the paintscheme done right.

On this one you can clearly read the motto "nemo me impune lacessit" behind the cockpit.

Image
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#94 O_WolfPac

O_WolfPac
  • Posts: 1294

Posted 03 August 2010 - 10:24

Hellbender, ive close on 100 photos of that plane , the gun position hmmm its a good question
  • 0

#95 sgran

sgran
  • Posts: 102

Posted 03 August 2010 - 10:42

I'm glad to see this project going strong. Woflpac, I've noticed both you and Sensenmann have been made modelling team members lately. does this mean you've officially joined the team? If so, what do the rest of ROF think about your efforts so far? I guess it has to be a bit of a steep learning curve to get this up to the same standard as the rest of the aircraft on offer. Good luck with this!
  • 0

#96 O_WolfPac

O_WolfPac
  • Posts: 1294

Posted 03 August 2010 - 11:25

I love a challenge :)
Modelling Team Member ! i thought the Orange name was for turning 40 :D
Its a steep learning curve , the quality standard of Rise of Flight is a challenge and im giving it a go as you can see.
  • 0

#97 Hellbender

Hellbender
  • Posts: 3321
  • LocationMadrid, Spain (originally Brussels, Belgium)

Posted 03 August 2010 - 13:20

Hellbender, ive close on 100 photos of that plane , the gun position hmmm its a good question

The answer can be found at the top of page 11 of Windsock 012: "Position of Vickers machinegun on early HD.1s". The offset position was only on early models and prototypes, meant for the French Air Force (who never used them). The actual operational models in 1917 used by the Belgians on the Western front, had the machinegun in the center.


I can only urge you to produce the model of a plane that saw actual service on the Western front, and not based off a prototype or based off the non-floatplane version of the HD.2, which saw no action at all on the Western front.

This said, whichever way you choose to produce the plane, I'll be extremely grateful to see it take shape in RoF. I'd be lying if I said that I didn't have great expectations for it. It's a true icon of the Belgian Air Force.

Thanks again for all your hard work!


I'm on my tiny netbook with low resolution on holiday in the middle of Norway at the moment, but I'll post a screenshot of the page in question of Windsock 012 (page 11):

Image



And a picture of Coppens in the cockpit of his Hanriot, machinegun clearly positioned in the center.

Image
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#98 J.j.

J.j.
  • Posts: 1959

Posted 03 August 2010 - 14:19

Given the fact that the HD-1 was also used by Italian pilots, we should alos look at Italian Hanriots.
Informations I have (Italian Aces of WW1, Osprey- good book btw) show that the machine gun of the Italian Hanriots were often mounted on the left side of the plane. BUT, it appears that, when machines guns needed to be stripped off the plane, some pilots managed to make them replace at the centre of the plane, to ease rearming - things and unjam procedures. Also, some italian pilots managed to make another machine gun mounted on their crafts.

Here a page of an article (sorry, in French again - we've a lot of good stuff about air forcew in WW1, contrary to WW2):

Image

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


L'armement se compose d'une mitrailleuse Vickers, d'abord montée sur le côté gauche du nez, dans le creux du V formé par les mâts de cabane. Elle va ensuite être montée juste devant le pilote, pour faciliter son pointage et son réarmement en cas d'enrayage. Dans certains cas exceptionnels, l'avion pouvait recevoir deux armes, comme dans le cas du HD 7517 de Silvio Scaroni.

Translation (mine): the armament is composed of one Vickers machine-gun, first installed on the left side of the nose, in the middle of the "V" formed by the masts of the wings. Afterwards it would be mounted just in front of the pilot, to ease aiming and rearming in the cas of jam. In some exceptionnal cases, the plane could receive two guns, like with the HD 7517, Silvio Scaroni plane (A/N: Silvio Scaroni was one of the best Italian ace, with 26 confirmed kills, whom 11 were obtained in collaboration).
  • 0

#99 Hellbender

Hellbender
  • Posts: 3321
  • LocationMadrid, Spain (originally Brussels, Belgium)

Posted 03 August 2010 - 15:04

Given the fact that the HD-1 was also used by Italian pilots, we should alos look at Italian Hanriots.

It's amazing how much digital ink can flow over the positioning of a machinegun…

Well, I'm happy to see people are at least this interested in the little Hanriot.


About the Italian Hanriots, I agree, with three remarks, however.


1) Most (some 831) Italian HD.1s were license-built by the Società Nieuport Macchi in Italy (source: Windsock 012, page 1). They're quite easy to distinguish from actual Hanriot-built models, as they don't have the small central inverted-V struts (only the larger noninverted-V struts). We all know the French simply didn't use the Hanriots at all and passed them on to the Belgians, who placed the machinegun in the center. As far as I can see, WolfPac has made the 3D model for the actual Hanriot-built machines.

Counterpoint: if the idea is to create a "what if" plane where it is an actual "factory fresh" machine used by the French with French roundels, then by all means let's have it how Hanriot originally meant it to be for the French Air Force: offset to the left, although these machines never actually fought for the French. I would still be okay with this reasoning, just as long as the offset machinegun doesn't cause the plane to become completely unstable (seems unlikely to me that it would).


2) As much as I want everyone to experience his favourite part of the Great Air War, Rise of Flight is currently based on the Western front (Southern Belgium and Northern France), not the Italian front. Reading the recent interview neoqb gave to SimHQ, they don't have immediate plans to expand the sim to other fronts. This isn't to say that the Italian-built HD.1s should be discarded, I'd love to see all possible versions of the plane in the sim at some point, including the Hanriot with two machineguns.


3) Centering a single machinegun is still the most esthetically pleasing to me, plain and simple. Of course, I'm biased here. I'll leave this point open to artistic freedom. It's also how Windsock depicts them, clearly stating that the offset position was only on the early models (Position of Vickers machinegun on early HD.1s).

Case in point to illustrate the (to me) "prettier" centered version:

Image
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#100 Hellbender

Hellbender
  • Posts: 3321
  • LocationMadrid, Spain (originally Brussels, Belgium)

Posted 04 August 2010 - 09:03

As far as I'm concerned, I'm convinced after WolfPac's pm to me: let's go with the offset to the left version.

I'm Belgian, I know how to compromise…

:roll:


It's, after all the Hanriot-Dupont "factory fresh" version, neither Belgian nor Italian. We can even have a Hanriot factory default paint scheme with French roundels (like we have the Sopwith factory default paint scheme for the Camel), which will also resolve possible further bickering whether the default paint scheme should be Belgian or Italian.

Ahum… Are we all happy with that?



Oh and um… A twin-machinegun version too… Please?

The Belgians at least tried it…

:lol:
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#101 O_WolfPac

O_WolfPac
  • Posts: 1294

Posted 04 August 2010 - 09:09

no Hellbender after reading the reply and looking at all the scripts here in archive fair points the top centre mounted gun is the most well known version and i will have to work around that if a different version is made in the future ,,,

top centre mounted makes more sense.

I didnt jump in with two feet for a easy ride
  • 0

#102 J.j.

J.j.
  • Posts: 1959

Posted 04 August 2010 - 12:09

which will also resolve possible further bickering whether the default paint scheme should be Belgian or Italian.
I want both of them! :D

Oh and um… A twin-machinegun version too… Please?

The Belgians at least tried it…

And the Italians used it! :)
  • 0

#103 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 04 August 2010 - 12:30

Perhaps the two different machine gun positions could be realised by making them seperate planes (like the Alb D.II) or somehow via the loadout settings? It will be some extra work but it might be more satisfactory than living with a compromise :)
  • 0

#104 Hellbender

Hellbender
  • Posts: 3321
  • LocationMadrid, Spain (originally Brussels, Belgium)

Posted 04 August 2010 - 12:55

no Hellbender after reading the reply and looking at all the scripts here in archive fair points the top centre mounted gun is the most well known version and i will have to work around that if a different version is made in the future ,,,

top centre mounted makes more sense.

I didnt jump in with two feet for a easy ride

Thanks, WolfPac, I think this way we'll have the most common version for the Western front and, as J.j pointed out, the preferred version of the Italians, with ease of aiming and unjamming. It will in any case guarantee that we don't end up with fictitious aiming reticles, such as the ones on the Nieuport 28.


which will also resolve possible further bickering whether the default paint scheme should be Belgian or Italian.

I want both of them!


Of course we need both!

Well, we're probably getting ahead of things here, but the default paintscheme will be something to consider.

I would still advise to use the French factory paintscheme, even if it never saw service, just not to get into any arguments with Italians.


As for Belgian skins, we should definitely have the default 9th "Thistle" and very slight variations of this one for Coppens' and Olieslagers' plane. Other squadrons that operated the HD.1 in smaller numbers were the "Comet" and "Paper bird" squadrons.

Personally, while I can definitely help on the skins (I have some very high resolution pictures of the numerous emblems taken from photographs at point blank range, which I also used for the Belgian Camels), I frankly don't have the skill to make a paintscheme from scratch. Working with an existing template, the easiest part of the job, is all I can do.


On a fun sidenote, the "Thistle" squadron (previously 1st, then 9th, then again 1st after the war) recently celebrated its 90th birthday and repainted the tails of their F-16s.

A very fitting tribute to the Hanriot.

(Taken from: http://www.baha.be/W... 1 Squadron.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.baha.be/W...ges/Navigator/N … uadron.htm)

By the way, you may notice something about the positioning of the machinegun on this particular HD.1…

:roll:

Image
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#105 O_WolfPac

O_WolfPac
  • Posts: 1294

Posted 04 August 2010 - 13:41

:) Done

On your tail plane photo they added a lower aileron missed off the cross wires on the wing and the inside wheel spokes ,several wingribs and ofcourse just to put a smile on our faces the TWO gun version :D hahaha

Good answers gentlemen thank you
  • 0

#106 150GCT_Veltro

150GCT_Veltro
  • Posts: 715

Posted 04 August 2010 - 13:47

Yes, this is (would be) a must have for the italian front (also a fictional one), as for the Spad VII, the Aviatik and off course the albatros D.III (OEF). We did fly Hanriot in a great number and with good success. Macchi produced itself the Hanriot in Italy (901 aircrafts).

Image
  • 0

#107 1PL-Lucas-1Esk

1PL-Lucas-1Esk
  • Posts: 1038
  • LocationPoland/Warsaw

Posted 04 August 2010 - 14:26

and off course the albatros D.III (OEF).

http://img134.images...72005635734.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://img134.images....us/img134/8403 … 635734.jpg ;) 8-)
Screen taken in FSX. If someone could port it later into RoF and finish the cockpit…
  • 0

1PL-Lucas
CO of 1.Pułk Lotniczy
http://1pl.boo.pl


#108 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 04 August 2010 - 14:30

Please no ports!!!

Great work on the Hanriot, really curious how this modelling process will continue and also to finally seeing this in game!
  • 0

#109 1PL-Lucas-1Esk

1PL-Lucas-1Esk
  • Posts: 1038
  • LocationPoland/Warsaw

Posted 04 August 2010 - 14:43

That oeffag was built for other combat flight sim. It has damage model, it is mapped on the single texture sheet with bumpmap and specular map. I put it into FSX engine to check the advanced materials.
But if you think it is not worth…
I am sorry for the OT, Guys, let's continue on subject.
  • 0

1PL-Lucas
CO of 1.Pułk Lotniczy
http://1pl.boo.pl


#110 WF2

WF2
  • Posts: 1485

Posted 04 August 2010 - 16:40

and off course the albatros D.III (OEF).

http://img134.images...72005635734.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://img134.images....us/img134/8403 … 635734.jpg ;) 8-)
Screen taken in FSX. If someone could port it later into RoF and finish the cockpit…

…. did you know the swirl pattern was printed fabric? It was printed just like the lozenge fabric.
  • 0

#111 O_WolfPac

O_WolfPac
  • Posts: 1294

Posted 04 August 2010 - 20:15

1PL-Lucas-1Esk
Its my nature to assist good causes i will help , dont worry :)
need to learn how to do it first.
  • 0

#112 1PL-Lucas-1Esk

1PL-Lucas-1Esk
  • Posts: 1038
  • LocationPoland/Warsaw

Posted 04 August 2010 - 20:36

OK Tony, she will be yours :)

WF, yes I know. I prepared a 70cm x 70 cm pattern, then I rescaled it and placed on the texture:)

Back on topic, I really wish that the Devs could supply you with the common parts, such as the engine or machineguns for external and internal model. Just like Imperator wrote: some parts are shared and some need own texture because they have base material with some transparency.

Great work so far!
  • 0

1PL-Lucas
CO of 1.Pułk Lotniczy
http://1pl.boo.pl


#113 O_WolfPac

O_WolfPac
  • Posts: 1294

Posted 05 August 2010 - 13:12

i know this is off topic but arr its 3d modellers talking to 3d modellers in a 3d objects forum so….

Lucas was it hard to import into FSX ? i have seen the sdk and the file format but was it a complicated process ?
  • 0

#114 Huetz

Huetz
  • Posts: 1589

Posted 05 August 2010 - 13:36

As long as it has the same quality as the RoF-Models (stock) I dont mind if you port it into the game. Actually this might really be a nice addition, just makes me wonder what series you want to use?

The 253.xxx series was capable of doing more than 200 km/h :)
  • 0

#115 1PL-Lucas-1Esk

1PL-Lucas-1Esk
  • Posts: 1038
  • LocationPoland/Warsaw

Posted 05 August 2010 - 14:04

von Huetz,

that is Oeffag Ba.253 with 225HP Austro-Daimler :)
Although she is carrying my country's markings, I have prepared the "factory fresh" skin of the KuK AF:
http://img23.imagesh...3/1382/329x.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://img23.imagesh...3/1382/329x.jpg
http://img36.imagesh...10213515190.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://img36.imagesh...us/img36/9782/2 … 515190.jpg
Note that this is early WIP "flat" texture without reflections and normal maps (those making 3d illusion on flat surface) We had her completed in our mod "War over Poland 1920" for Targetware engine and she proved to be formidable oponent. She was pretty nose heavy on take off and low speed due to heavy engine and was pretty tricky with spins, but the climb was about 7-8 m/s and top speed at 202 km/h. Not to mention two 8mm Schwarzlose guns… She was not able to outturn Nieuport 24, but once such bird appeard in her gunsights… well, don't even ask :)

Tony,
it is not so complicated task. What i had to do was to run gmax through FSX gamepack, import model via 3ds format. Then, I had to apply fsx materials availble after starting gmax from fsx gamepack. The uv mapping works, so it is only about to set some basic properties and apply the texture. Then, I had to create specular and normal maps and attach it to the material as well.
When goes to animate, you have to separate some parts from the model and set their pivots. Then, we have to animate parts and define what kind of animation is it via special tool avialble in fsx gamepack (like "aileron" or "wheel" or you can write some custom one in xml). Also, model hierarchy is important as well.
The instruments can be done in 2d (so called gauges) or in 3d - and then you have to animate the needle and write a cript for it. FSX allows bone animations (just like the springs in D.H.2 or wings in the E.III)
I have partially ported over one plane without instruments which were added and animated by my friend. The Oeffag was to be second, but i stopped working on her year ago. Porting over some scenery objects is less complicated job and it takes me about half an hour to finish the task. But a plane requires some time…

Again, sorry for small OT,
Lucas
  • 0

1PL-Lucas
CO of 1.Pułk Lotniczy
http://1pl.boo.pl


#116 Huetz

Huetz
  • Posts: 1589

Posted 05 August 2010 - 18:46

Some very nice work on that thing Lucas! And actually you seem to have gotten its FM correct, as it was not only the fastest of all Albatros Fighters built, but alos the heaviest, with a weight of a little bit over a ton, thus not as manouverable as the more nimble fighters.

I'd love to see this in game :)
  • 0

#117 O_WolfPac

O_WolfPac
  • Posts: 1294

Posted 06 August 2010 - 07:02

I was chatting with a friend today and he said a quote i though was worth posting ..

"One thing about 3D modellers is the creator of a 3D model is the worst and hardest critic"
  • 0

#118 O_WolfPac

O_WolfPac
  • Posts: 1294

Posted 19 August 2010 - 21:31

Image
Image
Image
Image

Sorry not been around for a few days , just had flu, anyway a good friend O_Magpie did some nice pictures for our new website ,so i hope you dont mind some cleaner less fuzzy photos :)
The internal wing ribs are being placed inside the wings , not an easy process and the TOP Wing is being cut and joiners built.

Started building the internal fuselage airframe structure and tidy up the tailplane area , and work started on the pilots eyes internal cockpit.
The cockpit is slightly harder to build but its actually my favourite part of 3D modelling because its harder.

Best Regards
Tony
O_Wolfpac

http://www.OceanicWing.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">www.OceanicWing.com
  • 0

#119 catchov

catchov
  • Posts: 3986

Posted 20 August 2010 - 01:49

Almost done Tony :) Looking good.

Guys, you should also check out the wip Zep pics at Tony's Aussie/NZ squadron http://www.OceanicWing.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.OceanicWing.com. Tony is a very busy lad …. but revels in it ;)
  • 0

#120 Hellbender

Hellbender
  • Posts: 3321
  • LocationMadrid, Spain (originally Brussels, Belgium)

Posted 21 August 2010 - 02:10

:shock:

Stunning!
  • 0

J5_Hellbender



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users