Military AI Works

I already started working on a "Dark Vark" scheme for the current models for the 380th and 509th.

It might be worth holding off on that, Matt, until John looks at whether he will do the FB-111 version or not. The reason being that the FB/G is 2 feet longer so you may well find that the paintkit needs modding.

true that...I have compiled all of the nose art and associated serials though...will hold for now.

I think Steve is right, I will need to re-work the layout of the texture sheet for the FB/G and re-do some of the mapping. The longer wing span is not an issue but the added 2ft on the fuselage might be complicated if it disturbs any of the animation. I'll certainly give that a go and I never give up easily, especially now that I have been sent some fantastic reference information. I'm just finishing off the the correction to the right wing root glove. That looked very straightforward to do, but in fact it turned into a right pig. I've managed it though without disturbing any of the other mapping so the "E" and "F" repaints that have been done will still register completely.

Give me a few days and I'll let you know how I am getting on.

John

LEBTowerGuy wrote:I already started working on a "Dark Vark" scheme for the current models for the 380th and 509th.

Matt
I've also done the early SAC FB's for both YPG and PSM

John Young wrote:I think Steve is right, I will need to re-work the layout of the texture sheet for the FB/G and re-do some of the mapping. The longer wing span is not an issue but the added 2ft on the fuselage might be complicated if it disturbs any of the animation. I'll certainly give that a go and I never give up easily, especially now that I have been sent some fantastic reference information. I'm just finishing off the the correction to the right wing root glove. That looked very straightforward to do, but in fact it turned into a right pig. I've managed it though without disturbing any of the other mapping so the "E" and "F" repaints that have been done will still register completely.

Give me a few days and I'll let you know how I am getting on.

John

John
ALL AF F-111's were EXACTLY the same length !!! The C and the FB had the 2 ft extra wingspan

Thanks for that. I knew about the extra wingspan, but I read Steve's post wrongly as meaning the fuselage length. I would have discovered the true dimensions in any case once I had studied the documentation I now have.

John

Having started the confusion I thought that I had better help sort it out.
I knew that the FB-111A was longer but when I looked into it it appears that the first test FB-111 had a 2 foot longer pitot tube which is what caused the somewhat well known confusion. The fuselage length is the same length as the other versions.

The wingspan of the FB/G/C is 7 feet longer.

Hopefully it is all clear now.

Firebird wrote:Having started the confusion I thought that I had better help sort it out.
I knew that the FB-111A was longer but when I looked into it it appears that the first test FB-111 had a 2 foot longer pitot tube which is what caused the somewhat well known confusion. The fuselage length is the same length as the other versions.

The wingspan of the FB/G/C is 7 feet longer.

Hopefully it is all clear now.

7 FEET !! That must have been a requirement to get the heavier Australian crew airborne
HOWEVER, it must have been wishfull thinking , as the "C" model had the same wingspan as the FB-111A .You can see this in any Australian F-111C pic's where the wings are fully swept back .

Yeah I know the longer wings are 70' spread and 33' 11" swept whilst the default models have 63' spread and 32' swept.

The longer wings were developed for the USN, F-111B, which were also chosen by the RAF, F-111K, RAAF and SAC.

Apologies for any initial confusion.

As a side issue what I found really bizarre was that the extra wing pylons for the FB-111 were non-swinging. As I understand it if they were loaded then the wings had to be swept forward until the load and pylons were jettisoned.

If this is true then fully loaded it had to have been a real dragmaster.

I've spent a few hours today just studying the FB-111A, especially the photographic links that Mike M posted. I'm Ok with the modelling I think, particularly after the really useful information and 3-view that Brian sent me. it's actually the painting that's still a bit hazy. The older SAC camo scheme appeals to me, but I guess most people will want the darker and less contrasty later scheme. I might do both. I've found one diagram for the camo pattern but's it's not good quality and it's hard to follow - in fact it's so bad, I'm not sure which one it is yet. I'm also trying to find out what the colours are called (old scheme and later scheme) and their RGB values.

Most of the pictures I have seen, seem to suggest a 2 or 4 drop tank load-out, or other wise just unloaded pylons. I can do those but I'd like to do one model with something a bit more exotic. Not sure what yet.

John

John

'something a bit more exotic'

What about one of those hats with the fruit and flowers on. Didn't carburandum wear one?

Chris

I read a post on John's thread at FS Developer hypothesizing that the bouncing and smoking experienced by some users with the original JYAI F-111 might be caused by the lower FS9 FPS experienced on older PC's.

My original tests on Monday where I saw absolutely no sign of any bounce or smoke with the original JYAI F-111 were all done on a new, very fast PC workstation that I recently built, so I decided to repeat the tests on my older, much slower PC workstation at the same FS9 airbase to test this hypothesis. I intentionally set AI traffic density high to keep the FPS down and sure enough I observed a large amount of the bouncing and smoking, especially on takeoff and landing. When I reduced the AI traffic density and the FPS went up, the bouncing and smoking diminished. This result seems to support the hypothesis that some of us never observed the bouncing and smoking by the JYAI F-111 because of the speed and relatively high FS9 FPS generated by our newer PC's.

Now that I can observe the bouncing and smoking, I am going to study this problem more thoroughly. At the very least I now will be doing a final test on all my AI FDE's developed on my new PC, on my older PC in order to assure that this problem is not present.

Clockwork PC's (like mine)

Upper Heyford scenery now released;

http://www.militaryaiworks.com/newforum ... 66#p128366

mikewmac wrote: I intentionally set AI traffic density high to keep the FPS down and sure enough I observed a large amount of the bouncing and smoking, especially on takeoff and landing. When I reduced the AI traffic density and the FPS went up, the bouncing and smoking diminished. This result seems to support the hypothesis that some of us never observed the bouncing and smoking by the JYAI F-111 because of the speed and relatively high FS9 FPS generated by our newer PC's.

Mike, at least for me, this is absolutely not the cause of the bouncing problem. As I wrote before I had the same behaviour at any airport, including my test airport where there are just the aircraft. (ok....also the runway... )

Giorgio

bismarck wrote:

mikewmac wrote: I intentionally set AI traffic density high to keep the FPS down and sure enough I observed a large amount of the bouncing and smoking, especially on takeoff and landing. When I reduced the AI traffic density and the FPS went up, the bouncing and smoking diminished. This result seems to support the hypothesis that some of us never observed the bouncing and smoking by the JYAI F-111 because of the speed and relatively high FS9 FPS generated by our newer PC's.

Mike, at least for me, this is absolutely not the cause of the bouncing problem. As I wrote before I had the same behaviour at any airport, including my test airport where there are just the aircraft. (ok....also the runway... )

Giorgio

Giorgio,

Hmmmm, that's interesting. What were the FS9 FPS when you saw the JYAI F-111 bounce and smoke?

Ray- For you LN Varks. Could you tell me what serial numbers go with what units, as i am trying to put callsigns for each of the correct varks. I dont normally guess on callsigns since i know most of them today but i didnt grow up with the vark but callsigns used for the 493rd-Yellow tail band was ?slam or nail?, 492nd-Blue tail band is ?Bolar? and 494th-Red tail band is paws(as i heard in a video on youtube).

to be honest i dont know ? i got my serials and colours from Airliners and http://flickrhivemind.net/Tags/f111f

Mike I can't remember exactly, when the aircraft were parked the FPS was at 20 for sure (blocked at 20 in my setup).
Can't remember where it was when it started to bounce.

Giorgio