JYAI C-130J Specials

[Greg]

Looking at those fantastic screenshots, I wonder if we should still "paint" shadows on aircraft, like on the area below the wings.

With the rapid advancements in P3D, they have become obsolete since aircraft now cast shadows on themselves, and in P3Dv4 I even find it distracting to see the vague "painted" shadow below the wings even when the light doesn't come from directly above the aircraft and then the dynamic shadow in another direction. It really annoyed me when I was testing the C-5 conversion in P3Dv4, but those are old textures. Now seeing them on a brand new model with brand new textures makes it different...



Now I realise that in FS9 and FSX, painting them is the only option, so it would probably require three texture sets and again means more work (if one wants to keep supporting all sim versions). And in the end it doesn't take anything away from how gorgeous the new C-130 model is. It's just one of those details that bothers guys who like details.

[John Young]

I did in fact paint the shadow below the wing Greg and then deleted it when I realised that P3Dv4 was making a much better job of it, even rendering the shadows from the prop blades. I'm retaining the Ambient Occlusion layer in the texture though (it's gererated by the model) because it creates a better roundness to the fuselage and it also creates the small shadows in the joints between surfaces like the wing and the fuselage and between the sponsons and the fuselage.

The more I work with P3Dv4 lighting the more I like it but it's difficult to get right, particularly with clouds casting shadows. FSX is much better than FS9. FS9 is so limited these days.

[DaleRFU]

The more I work with P3Dv4 lighting the more I like it but it's difficult to get right, particularly with clouds casting shadows. FSX is much better than FS9. FS9 is so limited these days.

Dare I say, is this another reason why FS9 and to a certain extent FSX not be developed for to reduce developer workloads etc?

[Greg]

You were ahead of us again, John.

I would also keep AO since that should only affect parts that are difficult to reach by ambient light anyway and indeed adds more depth to the texture.

Dare I say, is this another reason why FS9 and to a certain extent FSX not be developed for to reduce developer workloads etc?

There is still a demand for FS9 stuff, but I wonder if we're not keeping up the demand artificially by continuing to deliver products for it. I'm sure some people would still be on Windows 95 if developers and manufacturers didn't stop supporting it at some point. But that's my personal reflection and at the moment we (MAIW) still leave the it to every developer to make their own choice.

[Tranquil]

John, we are very blessed to have you in this simming community, each and every model gets better and better, you maybe the more mature of simmers/designers but you have not lost these special skills to produce stunning work over and over again!

Much thanks

Mark

[John Young]

Thanks Mark.

On the dilemma of 3 sim versions, there's probably about a 6 hour overhead in producing both FS9 and FSX models plus some added time in making two sets of textures depending on how wide ranging the project is. I need to produce FSX models anyway since Gmax doesn't have a P3Dv4 native exporter game pack. The only added work there is if an embedded afterburner is required, otherwise FSX native generally works in P3Dv4 - until LM cease some more critical backward compatibility that is, but then there's always MCX to fall back on.

The secret I've found, is not to try and eat elephants in one bite by getting bogged down in long "factory" processes after the initial modelling and painting. That's why I want to keep the C-130 project contained and to only eat another bite if I'm still hungry.

Making a retrospective change which could involve 6 of the 7 LODs in each model x 2 for FS9 and FSX/P3D can sometimes be a pain too. I can also forget sometimes which mode I'm in, or should be in and that can cause some head scratching. Having said that, I've just changed out the 4 engines on 8 models x 4 LODs x 2 for FS9 and FSX/P3D. That's not too tedious once there's an efficient process in place. Better to get it right in the first place of course.

I share the same thought as Greg about artificially inflating the demand for FS9 products, but I keep coming back to not wanting to disappoint some people here who also contribute to the community with FS9 products, by discontinuing my FS9 versions. For them it's not just about switching sims as a user, it's also about learning to design in the new versions too and FSX/P3D is quite a bit different.

I'd also miss Giorgio's wicked sense of humour when he wants something made in FS9!

John

[Firebird]

I think we are approaching a tipping point for a conversation about supported sims but I think we should turn back this thread to the original subject of lovely models.

[bismarck]

I'd also miss Giorgio's wicked sense of humour when he wants something made in FS9!

Thanks John, I know you do not want to see me "crying for an entire week"
(referring to a PM for the Tornado project's )

I'll spend my two cents about supported sims, in a dedicated thread, if someone open it.
Long live to FS9!

Giorgio

[RKE]

Looks like there's some descent FSX scenery for Harrisburg already made by Matthew Derr, hopefully the AFD won't need too much work to make room for the Commando Solos

[John Young]

Getting there.

These are the 403rd Wing "J's" at Keesler AFB. The wing comprises the 815th Airlift Sqn (Flying Jennies) and the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Sqn (Hurrican Hunters).

C-130J-30 "Flying Jennies":







WC-130J "Hurricane Hunters":











Something a bit more colourful next.

John

[bvanhout]

Awesome

[John Young]

I promised a bit of colour. These are the USCG HC-130J's destined for Elizabeth City:













I've had a look around for suitable scenery and the best I found is Jim Cork's for FSX, that also works well in P3Dv4:



The FS9 AFCAD in the original MAIW package also works of course in FS9 but buildings are quite limited. Does anyone have better options for scenery than the two I have suggested please?

Also, I was going to substitute the new HC-130J's into the existing MAIW flight plans and also convert them for FSX/P3Dv4. However, I'm sure someone has a more recent set that might better be updated. Are there any that I could update and include with my upload please?

My next step was to make the 6 HC-130J's for Davis Monthan. I can't use the USCG model because it is quite different. However the USAF HC-130J looks remarkable similar visually to the MC-130J, apart from perhaps the missile warning sensors near the nose wheel doors. I'm not sure it's worth another set of models.

What I do want to do though is make the MC-130H (with the "beaky" nose) and the AC-130U gunship.

Once those are done, I can start the process of packaging up.

John

[clickclickdoh]

Great work there John. Those USCG HC-130Js are actually from the USAF, with a bunch of extra new bits bolted on. But I agree, the USAF HC-130Js are almost indistinguishable from the MC-130Js.

[lowlevelRAF]

Fantastic work as all John! They look superb

Matt

[John Young]

These are part of a batch of 16 MC-130H Combat Talons that I've made to accompany some "J" variants that exist together in projects that Brent is working on:













Just one more variant to do, for the same reason, - the AC-130U "Spooky" - and I'll then I'll be putting this all together.

John

[Victory103]

Always thought the specops A/H/M Hercs just looked cool. AI CV-22 pilot might want to extend his IFR probe, amazing pics.

[Trevytt2004]

John, youre a star...so pleased to see the old 4bladers....

awesome

[flyerkg]

Yes! The getting the MC-130H Combat Talons will be almost a life-changing event for me.

[Trevytt2004]

John, will there be other 4 Blade variants? I know your original project was for the bendy props(J's)

just asking what many are thinking.....

[John Young]

If I can limit the work to say one or two generic 4-bladed airlifters with a sample paint each plus a paint kit, that might be a useful thing to do. The problem is all the small variations of lumps and bumps on the airframe and I'm up to 17 models in the complete package already.

If I could get an indication of what would people want in terms of 4-bladed models apart from the MC-130H and the AC-130U I'll give it some thought.

John