PAK-FA Project

[cubanace]

with what do you need tips? Applying textures or coding them in dcs or something else?

 

 

i made the textures in 3dx max and exported the 3d model,then i set up the textures in texture folder and code in liveries in dcs world/mods/aircraft/textures and liveries, i need help with the comand lines needed for dcs world to point to the location of the textures i woudl guess i am doing that wrong.

[cubanace]

also i used skin extractor to see whats where and missing and here what its sending back, its like if i had not set up where to look for skins, does not state the name of the texture at all,i think this is why texture is not showing,here is apic of the extractor file of the T-50 .

 

 

- rename it to description.lua

livery =

{

--[[

uncomment lines for customized dds/tga/bmp files

--]]

}

----== below part is not required for cockpit livery ==----

--[[ name your own skin in default language (en)

meanwhile, you can also name the skin in more than one languages,

replace xx by [ru, cn, cs, de, es, fr, or it] ]]

name = "" yes the name of the texture goes here that much i know

--name_xx = ""

--[[ assign the countries

if you want no country limitation,

then comment out below line]]

countries = {""} ru for russia

[gospadin]

i made the textures in 3dx max and exported the 3d model,then i set up the textures in texture folder and code in liveries in dcs world/mods/aircraft/textures and liveries, i need help with the comand lines needed for dcs world to point to the location of the textures i woudl guess i am doing that wrong.

 

the default texture file name is assigned to the material in 3ds max for the diffuse and specular channels

 

livery .lua files are used to override the defaults

[cubanace]

the default texture file name is assigned to the material in 3ds max for the diffuse and specular channels

 

livery .lua files are used to override the defaults

 

standard material i used and named it camuflage, when i look at the pak fa in model viewer it says the name of the skin being used but its black and does not show, the DDS file that i used to texture that dds file goes in the pak fa texture folder correct with same name as camuflage correct?:book: here is apic of 3dx max and the name it says as my texture,its dds texture simple texture just to test.

Edited December 28, 2016 by cubanace

[cubanace]

ok livery shows up in the livery folder,that is a good thing but still does not show up on the model viewer when i pick it,wich means i have to add the DDS texture correct? it is in texture folder in dcs world/mods/aircraft/t-50

[gospadin]

livery name and texture name are not the same thing

[cubanace]

i am such an IDIOT!!!!! LOL i had forgotten to unwrap!!! DUH , ok its working testing is done, i can move into finding the right textures now LOL.

[cubanace]

Figuring out how to make glass canopy:D

[cubanace]

Glass canopy first test in game,still need to darken it more.

[dali]

your learn fast :)

[cubanace]

your learn fast :)

There has been times that i had felt like smashing the keyboard ,i hate unwrapping LOL.

Edited December 30, 2016 by cubanace

[Hawkeye60]

there has been times that i had felt like smashing the keyboard ,i hate unwrapping LOL.

This is looking very nice!

 

I have been following this.

 

You are a quick learner!

 

Patience can be hard to come by sometimes.

 

I will switch projects for a bit to clear my head when I get frustrated.

 

Usually come back to the original work with a new perspective.

 

Keep at it.

 

I can see this becoming a reality some day soon! :thumbup:

 

Best of luck!

 

Hawkeye

[Schmidtfire]

Nice!

[cubanace]

little bit of evolution,glass canopy.

Edited December 30, 2016 by cubanace

[Beamscanner]

i have taken the first step into involving my self with creating a fully module for dcs world,this would be a module of the Pak-Fa and its going to be free,i will post updates in this page as they come along.

 

mod will include.

 

"fully working cockpit" Coded by Cubanace.

"Performance envelope"Coded by cubanace.

"Navigation sistems" Coded by cubanace.

"Byelka AESA radar" Coded by cubanace.

"Thrust Vectoring" Coded by cubanace

"HighDetail Model and Cockpit made by" 3D molier international"

"Fully detailed Pilot,Ejection seat and Helmet made by "Aviakinect"

https://www.facebook.com/Cubanace-Simulations-138020453352341/

 

Saw a video of yours on youtube. It was full of flaws..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKVHWod3dC8

 

You admit the APG-77 has 33% more T/R modules than the N036(about 500 more), and uses more powerful (more efficient/less heat/greater bandwidth) GaN amplifiers than the N036 using it's GaA amplifiers. Yet you somehow conclude that the N036 has a longer detection range.

 

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

You also gave the wrong field of view for APG-77 (its plus or minus 60 degrees, not a total of 60 degrees), but managed to get the N036 field of view correct.. hmmmm.. Do i sense a bias?

 

Plus you mention PAK FA UV sensors detecting radio waves in the X band.. haha

 

A lot of other mistakes not worth mentioning.. Stopped watching half way through.

[dali]

you look stupid making fun of him instead instructing and sharing knowledge

[impeller83]

you look stupid making fun of him instead instructing and sharing knowledge

+1

 

 

Skickat från min FRD-L09 via Tapatalk

[Beamscanner]

not interested in fixing him or making him look stupid (thinking he looks stupid is a conclusion you would have had to conclude yourself, since I threw no insults like "stupid").

 

I just don't like seeing mis-information spread about.

 

Nothing on an internet forum should be taken personally.

 

But sure, I'm the stupid one..:thumbup:

Edited December 31, 2016 by Beamscanner

[cubanace]

Testing out Some custom dark color in the canopy WIP.

[ostheim]

not interested in fixing him or making him look stupid (thinking he looks stupid is a conclusion you would have had to conclude yourself, since I threw no insults like "stupid").

 

I just don't like seeing mis-information spread about.

 

Nothing on an internet forum should be taken personally.

 

But sure, I'm the stupid one..:thumbup:

 

Nothing wrong with Constructive Criticism however you took it entirely the wrong way. Don't point somebody out on something if you are not willing to explain the mistakes they made, especially if you want to sound like a genius in the subject of matter.

 

That being said, this project is coming along, keep it up.

[cubanace]

Nothing wrong with Constructive Criticism however you took it entirely the wrong way. Don't point somebody out on something if you are not willing to explain the mistakes they made, especially if you want to sound like a genius in the subject of matter.

 

That being said, this project is coming along, keep it up.

Thanks for your Support! Will do.

[Beamscanner]

Nothing wrong with Constructive Criticism however you took it entirely the wrong way. Don't point somebody out on something if you are not willing to explain the mistakes they made, especially if you want to sound like a genius in the subject of matter.

 

I am actually a very slow learner. not the point of my post.

 

I believed highlighting the contradiction was enough to dispel the video as fact.

 

But if you are interested

 

MMICs (the TR modules) have limited output powers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolithic_microwave_integrated_circuit

 

The more you have on an array, the higher the gain and output power. Which leads to a higher effective radiated power (ERP), and a more sensitive array for reception. More receivers also allow for superior DSP methods (though that is not necessarily related to detection range)

 

The more watts you shove in, the less efficient MMICs become at converting current to the desired RF energy, and more of that power is converted to thermal noise.

 

Typical amplifiers on MMICs use Gallium arsenide (GaA) in the conversion process. These amplifiers have unique electrical properties, and were necessary to making AESA radars practical. Previously, silicon amplifiers were the only op[tion for small MMICs. However these offered very little output power and resulted in AESA designs with very low detection ranges (TWT planar array>silicon MMIC AESA)

 

More advanced amplifiers use Gallium nitride (GaN), which are more efficient, at a larger range of microwave frequencies, at converting current to RF energy than GaAs. They can also operate under higher temps with less distortion to the electric properties to the medium.

 

So the output power of a GaN MMIC can be several times higher than that of a GaA MMIC.

 

A UV (ultraviolet) sensor, receives EM energy at wavelengths below 400 nano-meters... Not wavelengths around 30,000,000 nano-meters. (750,000 GHz vs 10 GHz)

 

A "UV" receiver would have to have a bandwidth ratio of 7500:1 to be able to also receive X band energy. No receiver today can do anywhere near this. Current theoretical papers describe ratios far less than that.

 

There is the explanation.

[cubanace]

Having fun while coding thrust vectoring limitations,keeping it at 15 Degrees.

[LevelPulse]

Check your PM Cubanace.

[flanker1]

I am actually a very slow learner. not the point of my post.

 

I believed highlighting the contradiction was enough to dispel the video as fact.

 

But if you are interested

 

MMICs (the TR modules) have limited output powers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolithic_microwave_integrated_circuit

 

The more you have on an array, the higher the gain and output power. Which leads to a higher effective radiated power (ERP), and a more sensitive array for reception. More receivers also allow for superior DSP methods (though that is not necessarily related to detection range)

 

The more watts you shove in, the less efficient MMICs become at converting current to the desired RF energy, and more of that power is converted to thermal noise.

 

Typical amplifiers on MMICs use Gallium arsenide (GaA) in the conversion process. These amplifiers have unique electrical properties, and were necessary to making AESA radars practical. Previously, silicon amplifiers were the only op[tion for small MMICs. However these offered very little output power and resulted in AESA designs with very low detection ranges (TWT planar array>silicon MMIC AESA)

 

More advanced amplifiers use Gallium nitride (GaN), which are more efficient, at a larger range of microwave frequencies, at converting current to RF energy than GaAs. They can also operate under higher temps with less distortion to the electric properties to the medium.

 

So the output power of a GaN MMIC can be several times higher than that of a GaA MMIC.

 

A UV (ultraviolet) sensor, receives EM energy at wavelengths below 400 nano-meters... Not wavelengths around 30,000,000 nano-meters. (750,000 GHz vs 10 GHz)

 

A "UV" receiver would have to have a bandwidth ratio of 7500:1 to be able to also receive X band energy. No receiver today can do anywhere near this. Current theoretical papers describe ratios far less than that.

 

There is the explanation.

wow. . .

Edited December 31, 2016 by flanker1