P-51 Propeller Volumeric effect

[Hueyman]

Hi folks,

 

As you may have noticed, the Messerschmidt and Focke Wulfe got their 3D prop disc recently updated with nice effects. We now see the blade shape from side view, getting thicker or thinner according to power demand and so actual propeller blade pitch angle.

 

In our good old P-51, with still have this ridiculous skinny square thing :

 

 

Yes it changes its thickness, but the shape is weird, strange. Doesn't look like a propeller blade at all...

 

This is good shape :

 

 

So, please Eagle Dynamics, for 1.5, could you please re-create a Mustang volumeric 3D prop disc from scratch, that looks like actually looking at a P-51 Hamilton Standard propeller ? I don't think it would take three weeks and that is one of the last improvements that can be done on the Mustang.

 

Thanks a lot,

Hueyman

[RNeves]

Hi folks,

 

As you may have noticed, the Messerschmidt and Focke Wulfe got their 3D prop disc recently updated with nice effects. We now see the blade shape from side view, getting thicker or thinner according to power demand and so actual propeller blade pitch angle.

 

In our good old P-51, with still have this ridiculous skinny square thing :

 

 

Yes it changes its thickness, but the shape is weird, strange. Doesn't look like a propeller blade at all...

 

This is good shape :

 

 

So, please Eagle Dynamics, for 1.5, could you please re-create a Mustang volumeric 3D prop disc from scratch, that looks like actually looking at a P-51 Hamilton Standard propeller ? I don't think it would take three weeks and that is one of the last improvements that can be done on the Mustang.

 

Thanks a lot,

Hueyman

 

This aircraft needs alot of love from ED, but honestly I think that there are more important things to improve on the Mustang first....

[Ala13_ManOWar]

You can't compare fine and coarse pitch, they'll never ever match. Inside module set pitch all the way forward (there's no reason to have it backwards on ground), and see what does look like.

 

RNeves, the module is the best P-51 out there mate ;) .

 

S!

Edited September 5, 2015 by Ala13_ManOWar

[Hueyman]

Ala13, I know that ;-)

 

That's exactly why I wrote :

Yes it changes its thickness, but the shape is weird, strange. Doesn't look like a propeller blade at all...

 

Fine or coarse pitch, it has wrong shape, that's all. ( in DCS Coarse pitch, the width of that effect is just bigger, still it has the wrong shape )

 

Cheers

[Art-J]

Yep, we've noticed - the prop animation was discussed ad nauseam in a couple of threads in the past. Sadly, without dev's response, so I wouldn't hold my breath for getting any this time.

 

Same for incorrect ejection place of spent casings in the wings, the antennas for nav equipment not actually installed on our version of the plane and other issues dragged along since the release in 2012.

 

Maybe when WWII project catches up with modern ones, the Pony will get some attention.

[Hueyman]

Thanks Art-J for your answer.

 

Do you know how such effects are done ? Is it customizable by 3rd parties like sounds, cockpits texture layouts etc ? Or we really have to go deep into the plane system to alter this ?

 

Thanks

[RNeves]

You can't compare fine and coarse pitch, they'll never ever match. Inside module set pitch all the way forward (there's no reason to have it backwards on ground), and see what does look like.

 

RNeves, the module is the best P-51 out there mate ;) .

 

S!

 

Don't get me wrong, I love this aircraft, so as the 190 and the 109... But I think that ED should first of all improve the damage model, for example, on IL2, when you shoot at someone's wing, it can get weakened, and break only when he does a high g maneouvre. Other thing is improving the awful sounds of all 3 WWII aircrafts...

 

Cheers

[Paradox]

For me it's the implementation of the homing adapter that lets the P-51 down.

 

Though the damage model could certainly be better.

[Crumpp]

Like most aircraft that have a significant amount of service history, the P-51 had multiple propeller designs.

 

Which propeller is used by the Mustang in the photo and which propeller is modeled in DCS?

[Yo-Yo]

Hi folks,

 

As you may have noticed, the Messerschmidt and Focke Wulfe got their 3D prop disc recently updated with nice effects. We now see the blade shape from side view, getting thicker or thinner according to power demand and so actual propeller blade pitch angle.

 

In our good old P-51, with still have this ridiculous skinny square thing :

 

 

Yes it changes its thickness, but the shape is weird, strange. Doesn't look like a propeller blade at all...

 

This is good shape :

 

 

So, please Eagle Dynamics, for 1.5, could you please re-create a Mustang volumeric 3D prop disc from scratch, that looks like actually looking at a P-51 Hamilton Standard propeller ? I don't think it would take three weeks and that is one of the last improvements that can be done on the Mustang.

 

Thanks a lot,

Hueyman

Have you tried to make the same screenshot at 7 or 8 km flying at cruise and full power?

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Fine or coarse pitch, it has wrong shape, that's all. ( in DCS Coarse pitch, the width of that effect is just bigger, still it has the wrong shape )

Yes, but,

 

Have you tried to make the same screenshot at 7 or 8 km flying at cruise and full power?

That's exactly what I mean, IIRC I've seen the very same you show in the real picture in the module, so even though some things can be enhanced (yeah, I know and agree) prop can't be so wrong, don't you think? Just I watched inflight.

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I love this aircraft, so as the 190 and the 109... But I think that ED should first of all improve the damage model, for example, on IL2, when you shoot at someone's wing, it can get weakened, and break only when he does a high g maneouvre. Other thing is improving the awful sounds of all 3 WWII aircrafts...

Yeah but you are blaming just P-51 for that while every module works like that right now. We all know about (visual) damage model, but that's aesthetics only because systems damages are quite good and detailed, and no Il-2 wasn't that detailed without systems modelled :lol:.

 

S!

[Hueyman]

Okay, sorry if it sounds harsh or whatever but :

 

- This thread is not a feature request thread

- It only talks about ... the title of the thread. It's not about IL-2, nor the DCS damage model nor the homing adapter... not even engine sounds :lol:

 

Now, the P-51D has, like Crumpp said, several propellers along it's service life. I'm not a Mustang expert at all, but am a propeller one. AFAIK, it mainly uses the Hamilton Standard paddle four bladed, constant speed, Hydromatic propeller.

 

- Cuffed ( with blade shank " housing ", like both the DCS one and in the photograph above )

 

- Or the standard one, the prop we commonly see nowadays on airshow's Mustangs : http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/5/7/9/1464975.jpg

 

But both pics I uploaded in the Original Post talks about the same prop.

 

Yo-Yo, the screenshot is not from me I took it from a member here. But taking it at any altitude or power setting doesn't matter. Yes it will change the appearance ( width ) because of actual blade pitch angle at the time of the screenshot/photograph, but the fact is, even in finest pitch, the visual we should have is closer to the real photo than the screen I posted.

 

Just compare both.

 

We could enter in long useless debates talking it can't be compared because it's not same FoV, same RPM, FPS, density altitude, variant model or anything, but theres no point.

 

The current DCS P-51D prop disc is just way off. The question now is, will it be re-done in the future ? Or, can we, the community, can have easy access on the particular file that generate the 3D appearance of prop according to RPM, blade pitch, side view angle etc.

 

That's all :thumbup:

[msalama]

First off, I'm not saying you can't be right. Au contraire, you may well be, for all I know. But still:

 

but am a propeller one

 

How? Care to show us your quals?

 

DCS P-51D prop disc is just way off

 

How? Based on your feelings?

 

because it's not same FoV, same RPM, FPS, density altitude, variant model or anything, but theres no point

 

How? Because you, as a self-appointed prop expert, say so?

 

I'm sorry lad, but in order to convince anyone you really DO need more than this.

[Paradox]

I can't find a picture of the same prop at fine pitch from an angle that shows its relative "thickness"

[Hueyman]

How? Care to show us your quals?

How? Based on your feelings?

How? Because you, as a self-appointed prop expert, say so?

I'm sorry lad, but in order to convince anyone you really DO need more than this.

 

I never speak when have nothing to say or solid background dude, and I know what I'm talking about when speaking about prop, sorry if that hurts you.

 

You want " more than this " ? OK - that's totally off topic but you guys seems to like confrontation and selfish attitude more than everything else so I'll try to fill your vacuum.

 

While I hate to expose myself publicly ( no one need to know who I am I don't feel such important ), I will tell you :

 

I'm a real world pilot, fixed wing and rotary, have extensive knowledge on power plants, airframes, propellers, helicopter dynamic assemblies, XMSN and flight laws. Started an A/C dev for another sim some years ago but had to stop due to real life occupations as I'm in Naval Aviation.

 

As hobby I develop and built authentic scale propellers for RC models, with working feathering and reversing mechanism of Hartzell and McCauley props, to say the least. I also provided a wide range of 3D props models for various addons on different platforms ( Il-2, FSX, X-Plane )

 

You may see some of my work below. It goes from simple wooden made two bladed fixed pitch prop, up to the most complex single/dual acting prop, with feathering and reversible ability. I'm in touch with good, knowledgeable people from aviation industry such Hartzell people who are very interesting guys to discuss with. They know about their job, and are pleased to share their knowledges.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't only know how they are made and how to build them both IRL and in pixels, I also know how they works : have a little read if you don't mind http://hueyman.overblog.com/propellers-propellers

 

 

Is that enough for you, now, can I post and be heard by such precious people like you ? Thanks !

 

BACK ON TOPIC

[Mike Busutil]

That may be the greatest burn even in the DCS threads... Nice!

[msalama]

Hey Hueyman, no need to get upset. It's just that this board has its share of people who demand changes based on nothing much but hunches, so in order to know where we stand as regards any particular complaint it's often wise to ascertain the credibility of the claimee him or herself upfront, you know?

[ESA_maligno]

something like this

 

do not?

 

 

 

 

 

this is what we have now:

 

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2015 by ESA_maligno

[Hueyman]

Yes ESA Maligno, something like this A2A Mustang looks better.

 

In the screens of " what we have now ", none of them are taken from perfect side view, this making false judgment

 

A correct 90° side view is the screen I borrowed from a member here ( see original post ) and the other side comparison real world photograph, where the photo was taken perfectly in the propeller plane of rotation, avoiding any elliptical prop disc effect.

[[DBS]TH0R]

@ ESA Maligno: the angle is off in your screens. A2A has a basic prop animation that works but is perhaps a bit exaggerated.

 

This thread I started a while a go covers what is wrong with the prop animation in DCS P-51D:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=132185

 

Not to mention it also provides insight how the prop pitch system works with some interesting links people have posted there.

 

 

Have you tried to make the same screenshot at 7 or 8 km flying at cruise and full power?

 

High speed, low speed or altitude the prop pitch barely changes thickness. It does, but frankly its negligible. Especially in comparison with 190 and 190 animations.

[joey45]

What prob settingis was used in all screanshots?

[Art-J]

Just for the record, as Yo-Yo asked for screens, here they are. The first one - max MAP and RPM above 7 km, after waiting for the plane to accelerate somewhat. The second one, dropping like a rock, with RPM set to min, which, in these conditions, should give the most coarse setting.

[Hueyman]

Thanks T}{OR, you got the point

 

No need to know what prop settings was used or anything... Because the physic is already there, only the visual is off.

 

The 109 and FW got recently updated with nice prop animation, correct side blade shape and thickness variation according to actual pitch.

 

That's all I ask for the Mustang, a new texture that looks like the P-51D Hamilton Standard cuffed blade shape from side view.

 

Thx

[msalama]

No gents, you seem to be entirely correct, there's almost no difference so it has to be off somehow. S!

[Hueyman]

No difference in what ? Between fine and coarse blade angle ? There is as you stated but too slight.

 

But the main problem is the lack of proper blade shape, this in coarse or fine pitch settings.

 

I'll try to illustratte what I mean by superposing DCS and real world prop

 

 

We clearly see what could be improved... the ridiculous DCS side prop view feels laughable behind the real, thick and curved ( due to blade twist ) and elegant blade shape