brianacooper11

I have that exact same trumpeter model for reference!

I respectfully disagree with the spirit of that. It is true, I probably know the nuts and bolts of the project better than the customer, and will listen to myself on the details. But as regards to features, payment, and what the customer feels like he gets for his money, 'the customer is always right'. I'm American. It's the 11th Commandment from God. This project is a niche within a niche within a niche. Costs are relatively high, and customers few. It makes no sense to do marketing studies, touch base with a few preferred customers (we don't have any), and deliver a product that we 'think' will make everyone happy. A closer conversation between us (Black Cat) and you (potential, post-Third Party License customer) is called for, and I've chosen to do that on this forum. I can't go find every potential customer and ask them what they want. But for those who are here, on this forum, you can bend this developer's ear, and he will consider what you all say in aggregate. This will be YOUR airplane. I will probably be quiet until we are close to submitting information to ED for third party status. But if you have a question feel free. I watch this thread. Brian

Anyone else care to voice their opinion on that?

So, first off, the flight model is not part of the balance between speed and level of detail. There will only be one flight model, a high fidelity EFM. Ever. Period. I'm principally talking about the AI, the effects of battle damage on certain systems beyond on/off, air conditioning, nuclear blast shields, etc. I don't want those types of things holding up the first release. Most of those things I listed will be free upgrades. But the AI I intend is going to require so much effort that either we bake the cost into the module up front, or we charge for an upgrade later. To keep the moderators happy, again this is all supposition until we get a license. Brian

I don't have any pictures to share. I consider that Oleg and Dimitry's turf but I can post some facts and updates. We now have a fourth person, Ed Wilson, to help with systems programming. Ed did all the systems and gauge programming for the Eaglesoft Citation X. I've known Ed for a few years, but I had no idea had done any programming for FSX until a few weeks ago. He programs professional simulators by day, and I knew him as that. I want to roll back some things I have said. I had said that I wanted to strike a balance between the extreme detail of modules like Black Shark 2, A-10C, and the faster development time of FC3 aircraft, while still retaining a detailed external flight model. For the first release, we will be balancing detail and speed of development. But I have been advised by those who have gone before us that it is unwise to tell the customer "what he is going to get", rather than "you will get what you want". There are many that want an extremely high level of detail, similar to the A-10C and BS2, and to them I would now say, you will get that, but give us some time after the first release to get there. 'Core experience' stuff comes first. I now take a similar position about the AI. I had said that given the nature of the aircraft and how it is used in combat, the AI would be a bit primitive, and the user(s) would be expected to do much of the work. Now I would say the goal is to make the AI so competent that uncrewed by any user(s), it will be a thoughtful, creative opponent to those on the ground, in the air, or at sea. AI is hard to get right, period. We've all seen that in DCS. So. The AI will be much more advanced, and count on having a good way, in the form of some kind of HUD, or keeping track of the positions you do not presently occupy, and be able to direct them to some degree. My intention is to continually improve the aircraft after release, and any reasonable requests WILL be added to the to do list. Realistically, we will do this through paid upgrades for the bigger improvements that are labor intensive. Regular bug fixes and improvements will be free. As always, this is all dependent on obtaining the Third Party license. It's taking us a while, but we are putting together a demo package of the things they asked for that is so good, it will be an offer they can't refuse. This IS about money (we have to eat), but it's also a labor of love. I will argue (and win) that this is the greatest, most practical and useful bomber ever created by mankind, and trust me, it will convert some fighter guys. Throw down! Brian

We're at the stage in the project where there is lots to do, and not much time to talk about it. Rest assured, we are still alive and kicking. We are waiting for some expensive computer memory to arrive for photogrammetry and CFD purposes to arrive. I'm working on a thorough cockpit design document. Brian

Cockpits, main and nose gear. We did some with the Kh-20 racks, I don't remember if they were successful or not. The bomb bay was gutted, so we will use other references.

Hey, I ressemble that remark :cry:

Yea, I used too many words. What he said.

As Oleg (3DArtistExtreme) says, the results he shows are purely the result of photogrammetry based on the images he took. No spatial position information at all. The scanner results (which I can't post process until back in the USA) produce spacial coordinates with 0.5 mm accuracy. However, the scanner struggles with reflective and/or black surfaces. So it will also produce a 3D model, but will have texture issues and some missing surfaces like behind a glass instrument face, or gaps on a tire. Dirty, dusty surfaces scan much better than a cleaned surface, and sometimes I use powdered chalk or rosin, and 'dust' a surface so it picks up. Markers, little stickers or dots placed on the objects can help both methods improve accuracy. Both approaches, the photogrammetry purely by imagery, and the Artec EVA scanner produce models with issues, but those issues are separate and distinct. The hope is that when both are fully post processed, we can merge them into a unified model with precise uv and excellent textures.

His Stoli is just outside the view...:(

BTW, I'm in Moscow until Saturday. I'm not expecting much information, since the Tu-22M3 is not retired here. The big thing for me is to see Monino. Going to try the Tupolev museum too. If anybody wants to go sightseeing this week, ring me up on Skype: brianacooper11.

We did it! Oleg and I had a successful trip in Ukraine. Most of our activity was at the museum in Kyiv (Kiev, take your pick). This was the first time they had opened up the cockpits since receiving the aircraft, I am told. All of the locals remembered when the US came in and paid for all the Tu-22M's and Tu-160's to be cut up. It was heartbreaking for them (me too), and I think they were grateful for all the attention we gave their Backfires. I think they liked the opportunity to peek inside, too. The cockpits were in exceptionally good condition. All of the windows, including those for forward visibility, have roll-up shields against nuclear blasts, and they were all in place, so the sun had no opportunity to degrade anything. When the aircraft was delivered to the museum, only one or two black boxes were removed from the rear, and I think the front was untouched. They gutted the avionics bay, though. I believe one box removed was the control panel for launching Kh-15's, but there are pix on the internet of that, so it's fair game :music_whistling: We took two approaches 'scanning' the cockpits. One was normal photogrammetry using the thousands of pictures Oleg took. The other are the direct scans using my Artec Eva scanner. We took some quick looks which were promising, but both methods require a lot of time post processing. to get good results. Oleg was upside down taking pictures of the space/junk between cockpits, and his photogrammetry software picked it up, so the final model should be good. Oleg left before I went to Poltava to look at more stuff and talk to the crewmembers, but he didn't miss anything. The Poltava Long Range Aviation Museum is now closed to foreigners, so I didn't get to see anything. I also caught 'travelers butt' and didn't meet personally with the Tu-22M3 crewmembers, though I will be in touch with them. The State Aviation Museum in Kyiv was very professional, and provided substantial assistance in terms of aircraft access, information, manpower, etc. We are definitely going to help out the museum with a portion of sales, and it's going to be an ongoing partnership. For those who donated, know that I gave $1000 upfront, so that's where all the money collected so far went. As far as documentation, I did get some more, but not everything. Having crewmembers to consult is a huge gain, however, and there is enough information to make a simulation with the performance and handling fidelity I wanted when I started this project. So, what was the airplane like? When you look at it next to the Tu-142 (navy Tu-95), it doesn't look so big for a bomber. When you compare it to an F-15 or MiG-25 in your head, it appears absolutely huge. My mind went back and forth. Sitting in the front feels like an airliner with poor visibility and a pointy nose. The rear feels like being in a submarine, especially if the 'shades' are drawn. Not claustrophobic, at least for me. Everything felt sturdy, strong. There are switches everywhere, in places you can't even see when seated. You just have to know where they are. Little things strike you. The nuclear blast shields on every window. Right next to a very sophisticated data link (for the time) is a big Morse code telegraph key. The rear crewmembers have little mirrors that let them see behind them. The tail gun controls are 'cool', and also identical to Tu-95. The Tu-22M2 has mounts for four JATO rockets (the M3 deletes these). The nosegear has brakes, though only used to hold back the aircraft on takeoff, when the engines are run up to full AB. There is some wood used, around the canopy sills. Some switches are mounted in rotatable boxes, to make space for more switches behind them (we're definitely not going to simulate everything!). They had a FAB-9000 on display that the M3 could carry. Big! Walking on the fuselage and wings, I was careful where I stepped, but it still felt like I couldn't hurt it. And to stand there and look at the M1, M2 and M3 in a row was beautiful. Brian

You should get a VR headset too :pilotfly:

Thanks DirtyFret!

Thank you kobac, I am at the airport on my way to Kiev now! Will be stopping in Poltava, and then on to Russia. Thanks, Brian

I just realized, if I need an English-Russian translator, I can post my request in English on a Russian forum. I've got to look so stupid :music_whistling: Brian

Before someone asks why I can read a Russian manual, but I need a translator for the forum: I can translate the Cyrillic alphabet, many technical words make sense, but everything else I use Google Translate and a Russian-English aviation dictionary for. I don't even know how to ask where the bathroom is. I will look that one up before I go.

ruskybeaver, Could you translate onto the Russian forum for me? I have no idea how well Google Translate would translate what I said. 3DArtistExtreme and I are already going to a museum in Ukraine to do a bunch of scanning and photography for cockpit modeling, and some exterior. Travelling so far, I decided to go further. It also takes more information to produce a detailed simulation than you might think, i.e. getting into the nitty gritty of the navigation computer, radar symbology and functionality, etc. If I don't have something, I know enough to make it up and be close to the mark, but if I can have the correct information I will take it. We have great drawings, a detailed aerodynamic study, pilot conversations, etc, some maintenance manuals, but some details are lacking. I'm trying to plug those holes any way I can. Another complication with the Tu-22M3 is that no two are alike. They have cockpit variations between batches, and it seems like many modifications they didn't have panel space, they just made up a box and threw it somewhere. Crazy airplane. There are switches on the bulkhead behind you. I am not modeling it, but you can't program the INS while seated; you put in lat/long in a box behind the seat before you get in. There are photos of the RWR for the pilot in three different places, with two different shapes. Stuff like that comes up. If I can see another Tu-22M3 cockpit at Monino, or Ryazan, or wherever, I get a better picture overall, I think.

To gather more information for the Tu-22M3 project, I'm going to Russia. I don't speak Russian. I'm taking pictures of military aircraft, and asking very technical questions. Being pushy. "May I get in the cockpit, too? Spaciba, tovarisch?" Would any Moscovite be willing to escort me for a few days in the Moscow region? It would be really nice to have someone translate to the nice officer that I am not a spy, and that I don't like Russian prisons any more than Russians do. It would be sometime during the week of August 7-13, and the big thing is travelling to Monino. I have tried having someone ask the Central Air Force Museum about better-than-outside-pictures access, but he got a strange 'no' that he wasn't sure was final. I would like to try again. I would also like to go to the Tupolev museum, explain the project, and see if they might be able to share any helpful information I don't have yet. Not trying to steal state secrets, just details on a thirty year old example, I can be specific. For a project like this there is never enough information. Anyone's help with any of this would be much appreciated. I'm basically going with no firm offer of information or assistance from anyone, but I'm hoping I might get something by appealing in person. It doesn't hurt to try, and I've been wanting to go to Russia for a long time anyway. Brian

We will definitely be telling the story of the entire trip with photos, etc. For me, it is a once in a lifetime thing. Although it is probably my favorite part of the world excepting my home in North America, I am never going to be able to travel to Eastern Europe/Russia very much. I don't expect the 3D scanner to be a complete solution to the task of modeling the subject components. My hope/educated guess is that it provides a substantial net reduction in overall time and expense, and is a help to the modelers. It is not something I want to build a trade secret for Black Cat around, so I intend to share some data, tips, and the overall strengths and weaknesses with others. If it is a complete disaster, I will share that too, but I'm 99% convinced it's going to work well. Brian

Update: - bought the 3D scanner. - leaving for Ukraine on the 27th. - decided I couldn't stand going so far without seeing Monino, so I'm going to Russia too. - still alive Backfires rock. Brian

A couple more things. My intent is that this be a heavily Russian thing, so even though I only speak English, the cockpit will be in Russian, documentation will be in Russian and English (uboat and others welcome to expand i18n and markings to other languages). For the bilingual Russian and English speakers, do you have any suggestions for keeping Russian-only types in the loop on this thread? I hate for them to be excluded. Much of my familiarity with the Tu-22M is from flying the Project Tupolev Tu-154 extensively in FS9 and FSX. The Tu-22M and Tu-154 (along with the Tu-144) have roughly similar development dates, so they have many systems commonality. Perhaps this is true with most Soviet aircraft, but I don't know others as intimately. Anyway, the PT Tu-154 is insanely detailed, and the English documentation is very good. A thorough reading of the documentation, and a few (attempts at) flights would go a long way to making you familiar with many, many Tu-22M3 systems and switches. Just a thought. Plus, the PT is freeware, probably the best there is. Brian

CiberAlex, That is an awesome haul, thank you many times over. I'll take whatever you have, by PM or post here. My main interest at the moment is having proper identification and functionality for every switch in the cockpit, for as many switches as I can prior to visiting Ukraine. This will help a long way towards that. Darkwolf, we want to at least try the scanning to see if it speeds up the process. ExtremeArtist3D has high hopes. Brian

A lot of people have asked about AI and multi-crewing. Here are my current thoughts. The airplane is not a dogfighter. Limit G is +2.5/-0, and wing loading is very high. If a threat is close enough to see, there is nothing you can do about him, apart from the tail gun whose performance is unknown. The Tu-22M3 is meant to largely be flown by autopilot during the bulk of a mission. If the player selects an alternate position (bombardier/navigator, for instance), if the autopilot is already active, then nothing happens. If he was hand flying, he can preset the autopilot to hold pitch and roll attitude when he is away. There is an independent RWR in the front cockpit, similar to SPO-15. The RWR in the rear is 'large airplane' style where you can plot power and frequency vs azimuth, evaluate pulse shape and repetition and decide for yourself if you might have been seen or not. It is much more informative than the receiver up front, plus you have a directional jammer, so you can jam a threat directly, play ground bounce games, etc. If you are in the front cockpit, manually flying at low altitude, a simplified display of the rear RWR might come up so you can make an initial evaluation of the threat, and reject it if you don't think you've been spotted. Otherwise, you need to move to the back and deal with the threat. That's pretty much going to be it for AI. Can you come up with scenarios where a single player can't do everything? Yes. Do single player missions have to be that way? Certainly not. It's my firm belief that for this airplane, making the 'crew' AI any more complicated is going to cause trouble and drag out development for little gain. If you want to have a 'Flight of the Old Dog' experience Soviet/Russian style, then make friends. Not that it was a realistic mission anyway, but we all have our fantasies. I expect there to be four hotkeys for the four crew positions. In a multi-crew environment, a player can control a crew position on a first come, first served bases. Others who select a given position are 'ghosts', who can observe but not control. Thus it's up to the players to coordinate positions via TeamSpeak or however. I think others will figure out solutions to coordinating controls in multi-crew before I get to the issue, but if not, I don't expect it to be too big of a deal. My concern is throughput limitations across the internet, but if that is the case I would 'schedule' different cockpit arguments to update based on criticality, so important stuff updates often, relatively unimportant stuff less frequently. That is what is done with data buses in my previous experience. I'm interested to hear if there is something I'm not considering, so please, debate is invited. Brian