Alfa

Nice looking schemes Dave! :)

Yeah in my experience it can be quite tricky to get a good result with this technique - especially if you are trying to cut multiple things in one go. I don't know how complex a shape the airbrake panel has aside from the curvature, but you could try making it manually(in a flat profile) and then use "taper" to get the curvature.

Why would you need that? The "asset" in question(external 3D model) has nothing to do with the cockpit and is a generic part of the game. You would need EDs permission to sell a module full stop - whether you would get that for a cockpit mod alone is another matter. Edit: didn't see the last part of your response before replying. Yes I agree - except for the last bit.......the word "simple" doesn't fit in the same sentence as "6DOF/3D functional pit" :) .

I know - but Eagle has done it before.

Actually it has been done before in Lock-on(forget which version) - I destinctly remember there being an experimental MP training feature, where two players could occupy the same cockpit as pilot/trainee via LAN. This went out the window with the elimination of the LAN mode(MP only via WAN) though.

You don't need anyone's permission to make a 3D cockpit for an existing flyable entity - you "just" need the skills and a couple of years of work....depending on your level of ambition(accuracy/fidelity) of course :) .

..."just" indeed! :D

Hi, You can buy good quality/large scale schematics with hull lines of US ships here: http://www.taubmansonline.com/

IvanK - you are a STAR!! :) Thats precisely what I was looking for and I would love to have it in the larger format. I need it for modelling in Max and the larger the scale, the easier it is to work with(making precise cross sections).

Hi, I have been searching the internet for F-18 schematics containing mulitple cross sections, but so far in vain. So if anyone has such drawings or know where they can be purchased, I would very interested. Thanks in advance.

Not sure what monotwix is talking about, but I think he means setting the world scale to 1 unit =1m in max(for correct in-game scale) and orient the model correctly - in your case so that the front of the cockpit is facing to the right in the top viewport.

The first of many... ;) . But its something you really want to get just right - considering its positon. I doubt you will be able to find any - I think you will find that when modelling a cockpit, you will spend most of the time searching for photos/starring at them than the actual modelling :) . I don't think the Su-25T cockpit will be any easier to model though.

Nice start Witchking. Funny thing is that your choice of a first item to tackle is exactly the same I started with :) . As far as modelling techniques goes - rather than starting out with pre-made shapes(boxes, cylinders etc) and trying to modify those, I would suggest to use "line", "circle" etc to draw the outline of an object, learn to use vartex curves and then use "extrude" and "bevel" modifiers to make the objects 3D. You will find that you can model practically anything in a cockpit with these few simple techniques.

Looks good Timghetta! I find that its quite a pain to get those oddly shaped dials on the consoles to look right without spending a gazillion polys on them :D

Ok it was just a guess based on the shape thing mentioned in your error log - I don't have DCS world myself, so I don't really have a chance help you trace down the problem :) . Judging from the code bits you posted, the "categories" CLSID should be correct for SAMs, but I wonder about the "mapclasskey" in your example. In FC2 the Strela-10(if thats the unit you are messing with) has mapclasskey: P0091000086

Just off the top of my head, it looks like a problem with the shape file - i.e. that the mod refers to a 3d model that doesn't exist. If you configure script files to employ a shape file that either isn't listed in any of the shape table files or isn't physically present in the shapes folder, the game will crash at start-up(when trying to load the specified file).

As far as I can see thats precisely what they need - China is not exactly known for sending its fleet to distant shores in support of military operations. What their "naval build-up" is about is simply to establish a navy that can control the seas further out from own shores than they have previously been capable of. But having larger surface vessels of destroyer size further out at sea also brings up the question of providing proper aircover for their operations. While a carrier of the "Kuz class" perhaps doesn't lend itself particulary well to "power projection"(in the sense of land attack capability), it is perfectly capable of providing airsuperiority for the fleet......to the extend that it is being outfitted with aircraft for the purpose of course :)

Many people did Riptide - there was a lot of disinformation spread at the time saying that after having been left unattended for a decade at the shipyard, the condition of the hull had deterioted beyond repair. Even when they, through official channels, pressured Turkey to allow it to be towed through the Bosperous strait and paid $millions to have it brought half way around the globe to China no one seemed to "smell the rat" although it should have been pretty obvious that such a cost would make the claimed "floating casino" a completely unrealistic commercial prospect.

I cannot say what particular teams are like and what they are basing their project decisions on, but I suspect that personal interest has a lot to do with it. There is a tendency to look at flight sim developers as a group of business people in suits making decisions based on market analysis charts, when in reality most are just flight sim enthusiasts like the rest of us, who take the "plunge" and try to make a business out of their hobby. If a developer team consists of total F-15E "freaks", that have spent years collecting every tid-bit of info about that particular aircraft type to the point where they believe they are in a position to do a good simulation on it, then its unlikely that they could.. or would just pick another version(not to mention a Mi-24 or a MiG-29) instead just because the community feels that this would make better sense for the sim as such.

I think it is a misconception that developers working on high fidelity projects for a flight sim, would pick a particular aircraft type based merely on commercial considerations. Given the insane amount of work and knowledge required for such a project, you need a great deal of enthusiasm to see it through and to reach the high standard that everyone expects. So IMHO it is both unreasonable and counter productive to try and "dictate" what individual teams should and shouldn't do based on some general diversity considerations.

Ok found some old airshow photos(from 1992) of MiG-29K, MiG-29M and Su-33. The first one was the only one I could find of the MiG-29K with R-27R, the second and third shows it with X-31 missiles and the fourth the MiG-29M with X-29T - note(most visible on the MiG-29M photo) that even with the large AKU-58 rack and heavy weapons, the adapters are the same small ones as in the previous photo. The last photo of the Su-33 is quite interesting as it shows that even the extra wing pylon of this variant apparently is so close to the engines that the AKU-470 ejector rack is used for the R-27R.

Apparently the RVV-AE also has a different internal designation code, so it sounds like it is considered a different product although the overall design appears identical. Aside from the origin of components, its also quite concievable that e.g. electronics, processors etc are updated. But thats just guesswork on my part :) . Well it was developed with new multirole variants of both the MiG-29(M and K) and Su-27(M) in mind, so at least the weapon station config of the Flanker must have been considered too :) . Yeah they are removable adapters. The adapters have a couple of pins on the upper side that fits into holes in the wing surface and small retaining rings front and aft on the under side that fit into grooves on the varies weapon specific launch racks. I will see what I can find :) Yeah I thought so too and was a little confused about seeing varies different adapter/rack configurations for the same weapon in the same position.

Yup and AFAIK the red painted "dummies" are for actual testing - same weight as the live weapons(probably for testing aerodynamics and missile separation). But like I started by saying, there shouldn't be any technical hinderence for mounting the R-77s on the outer pylons - I am just speculating that it might not be a pratical operational config due to the ejector rack thing....or maybe simply because it is considered more useful to combine the medium range radar guided weapons with a pair of close combat IR ones :) . I have no idea mate - all I know is that during Soviet times Vympel had(or used) a plant in Ukraine for missile production, but what exactly the relationship is/was I don't know. One thing I heard was that the "RVV-AE" name denotes a version of the missile design that is produced using "foreign" components and for this reason so far has been an export item only. I don't know the reason either - I doubt it has anything to do with the fins though. Or maybe its just my guess in reverse - i.e. that it was deemed more usefull to carry short range missiles on outer pylons, so no need to supply a rail launcher for the R-77 for this purpose. At any rate - if the choice is between an ejector rack and rail launcher, the former would seem the more useful - e.g. on Su-27 class of aircraft at least half the weapon stations require ejector racks(due to proximity to engines/weapons mounting config) and for that reason cannot be used for IR weapons. You don't? :huh: - ok the angle is not the best for the purpose since the most inner is partly obscurred by the one beside it, but if you look closer(photo re-uploaded) you can clearly see the rear ends(and two sets of retainer rings) of two adapter blocks. Possibly yes - or the curvature of the wing surface at those points necesitates a different adapter....or the ones they had laying around just happened to be different :D . I have seen photos of the Su-33 using two different types of adapters(one two-piece one like the one used with the APU-470 and another single piece block) with the R-73 on the same wing position. Edit: due to the sweep-back of the wing panel, the most outer wing station is closer to the aileron, so it looks like a higher adapter is needed in order to provide clearence to this. My guess is that they were - i.e. simply the adapters for the APU-470 left in place :) . My point being that while mounting the APU-470+R-27 would require adapters of a certain height in order for the R-27 fins to clear the wing surface, there should be no reason why you couldn't fit the AKU-170 on those adapters as well. I still don't think thats the case ijozic. The two inner wing positions have a much higher weight capacity - IIRC can take up to a ton, which would be the reason why R-27 class of missiles(and heavy ASMs) can only be carried on those, but I don't think there is a difference in the spacing between the attachment holes in the wings.

The Russians did upgrade some of their Su-27s to carry the RVV-AE, but this upgrade involves a whole lot more than just internal software changes - such as a redesigned cockpit environment and other modifications. So the upgrade really constitutes a "new" variant and as such given a new designation("Su-27SM"). The MiG-29S is the only upgrade I can think of, where there is no visual difference(externally and in cockpit) between the base(9-13) and upgraded (9-13S) version.

But are they? - the only photos I have seen of MiG-29 versions with R-77/RVV-AE on the most outer pylons are ones where the aircraft clearly is on some test flight....i.e. carrying red test(dummy) missiles. If you look at MIGs own information concerning loadout options for the MiG-29M & -K.. http://www.migavia.ru/eng/military_e/MiG_29_M_M2_e.htm ...you can see that they only list up to six RVV-AEs, but up to eight R-73s. On the other hand, they do list up to six RVV-AEs for the MiG-29SE(with only six pylons), so I don't know... :) It doesn't look that way to me ijozic ...if you look at photo of the MiG-35, you can see that despite the height of the APU-470+wing adapter, the (front)fins of the R-27 are barely clearing the wing, while the tail fins are smaller and looks about the same size as those of the RVV-AE. I don't think so - if you look at the attached MiG-29K photo, it looks like the same standard adapter block is mounted on both of the inner wing stations, while the blocks on the outer stations, although looking different, don't appear to be any shorter.