JU 52

[gyrene81]

It is NOT the same as taking a "base model" and morphing it into two entirely different airframes, which by the way is NOT how 3D modeling works.

You haven't seen or done much with 3d mesh frame modelling software have you? With some of the better programs you can take a base 3d frame and "morph" it into a similar shape or by adding/subtracting from the orginal shape turn it into something totally different. Perhaps I'm using the term "morph" in the wrong context on this but essentially I know it's possible to take a base 3d wire frame model and change it's shape.

Simplistic example of what can be done using geometric wireframe shapes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ8U8Km3JlU&feature=player_embedded

If two airframes don't share common components then you wouldn't take the model for one and change it into another (Brewster and I-16 are two ENTIRELY different models, with nothing in common between them). You'd build two separate models entirely.

As far as the programmed characteristics of the model and the way it works in the environment that is true but when it comes to the base wireframe model, it can be changed. I'm nowhere near the ability that Pyro has in 3d modelling but I do know what is possible.


The Brewster and I-16 aren't that far apart in base model shape:

This is an I-16


This is a Brewster


Please tell me you don't see any similarity in the base shape.

You have no idea what you are talking about.  The Brewster and I-16 share nothing graphically.

Yup, you're right Karnak...uh huh.

[Saxman]

You haven't seen or done much with 3d mesh frame modelling software have you?

 

Only about 10+ years. Almost all of it stuff for myself and nothing professional, but yeah, I would say I DO. And if I were modelling two different objects, I wouldn't reuse anything but the absolute most BASIC geometric shapes between them (simple cylinders and boxes ONLY).

[OOZ662]

It would generally take more time to figure out the math and dimension changes needed on a complex shape to make it a new shape than it would to create it from scratch...

[Karnak]

It would generally take more time to figure out the math and dimension changes needed on a complex shape to make it a new shape than it would to create it from scratch...

This.

gyrene has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to the work to add aircraft.  You cannot simply dash out a Ju52 with only slightly more effort than it took to do the P-47M.

[gyrene81]

Only about 10+ years. Almost all of it stuff for myself and nothing professional, but yeah, I would say I DO. And if I were modelling two different objects, I wouldn't reuse anything but the absolute most BASIC geometric shapes between them (simple cylinders and boxes ONLY).

There are some differences between wireframe modelling and 3d object modelling. With your experience you should know sometimes just changing a few basic shapes is more than enough to save a lot of time in creating a new model vs building one from scratch (sans overlay and animation programming). And that's basically all I'm talking about doing.

It would generally take more time to figure out the math and dimension changes needed on a complex shape to make it a new shape than it would to create it from scratch...

Depending on the complexity and differences between the 2 models being considered...true.

[gyrene81]

This.

gyrene has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to the work to add aircraft.  You cannot simply dash out a Ju52 with only slightly more effort than it took to do the P-47M.

Wow...make up your mind Karnak. First you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about because the I-16 and the Brewster aren't similar now you're saying I don't know anything about with 3d modelling.  aaaaaaalllllllrrrrighty then.

All hail Karnak the magnificent.

[OOZ662]

First you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about because the I-16 and the Brewster aren't similar now you're saying I don't know anything about with 3d modelling.

Sounds to me more like you're grabbing straws for a retort...I mean, I read those as saying the same thing.

[StokesAk]

I highly doubt that this is on HTC's agenda to do right now, but i would fly it. +1

[gyrene81]

Sounds to me more like you're grabbing straws for a retort...I mean, I read those as saying the same thing.

No offense but...did you actually read his posts within the context they were written or is that conjecture on your part?

[Karnak]

Wow...make up your mind Karnak. First you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about because the I-16 and the Brewster aren't similar now you're saying I don't know anything about with 3d modelling.  aaaaaaalllllllrrrrighty then.

All hail Karnak the magnificent.

You don't know what you are talking about in this context.  I have made no claims at all about your knowledge of 3D modeling in other contexts.

I am basing my claims explicitly on things HTC has posted over the years regarding issues with adding certain aircraft, not hypothetical situations.

EDIT:

Let me expound a bit.  I do not think it would be easier to reach HTC's 3D accuracy goal by altering an existing model into an entirely new model, with specific polygon count limits, break points and all, rather than building each model from scratch.  This is also affected by the fact that HTC normally has one artist do an aircraft and another do a different aircraft.  Pyro is not one of their artists, he is the producer and does flight models and model research.  An HTC poster, Pyro if I recall correctly, said that the H8K2 was unlikely to ever be modeled due to the sheer amount of 3D work that would be involved in that aircraft due to its large size and many compartments and gun positions.  Doing the H8K2 would take as much work as doing many entirely new single engined fighters.

[gyrene81]

Thank you for clarifying Karnak...I do sincerely appreciate it.  

Let me expound a bit.  I do not think it would be easier to reach HTC's 3D accuracy goal by altering an existing model into an entirely new model, with specific polygon count limits, break points and all, rather than building each model from scratch.

Agreed. It would be difficult...and to the degree of taking something such as the Ju-88 and turning into an He-111 or B-25 it would be easier to just start from scratch, whereas the transition from a P47N to P47M is just a few tweaks and some programming corrections.

However, let's take the example of the H8K2 and looking at the base design (try to visualize a 3d wireframe model)...aside from some of the really intricate details, a transition from the B24 framework shouldn't be impossible. Take a look the specs between the 2 airframes.

H8K2:
Length: 28.15 m (92 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 38.00 m (124 ft 8 in)
Height: 9.15 m (30 ft)
Wing area: 160 m² (1,721 ft²)
Powerplant: 4× Mitsubishi Kasei 22 radial engines, 1,380 kW (1,850 hp) each




B-24
Length: 67 ft 8 in (20.6 m)
Wingspan: 110 ft 0 in (33.5 m)
Height: 18 ft 0 in (5.5 m)
Powerplant: 4× Pratt & Whitney R-1830 turbosupercharged radial engines, 1,200 hp (900 kW) each




IMO this would be more difficult to do from scratch:

[Karnak]

Specifically Pyro mentioned the interior compartments.  I have photos of the H8K's interior on my computer that I saved when Mitsu posted them as part of an effort to get the H8K2 added and it is in an entirely separate category in terms of graphics work compared to any aircraft in AH.  The B-29 or Short Sunderland might be comparable.

[Rich46yo]

Just watched Valkyrie again and saw the beautiful JU-52 used in the movie. Once again I'm a big  for Iron Annie in AH.

[Saxman]

No way in hell I'd try to take the B-24 model and convert it into an H8K. The only similarities between them are the number of engines and the high-mounted wing. They're two ENTIRELY different airframes otherwise. It'd be easier to remodel the existing B-24 into the PB4Y-2 than to convert the B-24 into the Emily.

[Motherland]

Agreed. It would be difficult...and to the degree of taking something such as the Ju-88 and turning into an He-111 or B-25 it would be easier to just start from scratch, whereas the transition from a P47N to P47M is just a few tweaks and some programming corrections.

However, let's take the example of the H8K2 and looking at the base design (try to visualize a 3d wireframe model)...aside from some of the really intricate details, a transition from the B24 framework shouldn't be impossible. Take a look the specs between the 2 airframes.

From what I understand, they start from scratch even when converting old 3D shapes to new 3D shapes, so I would imagine they don't try to morph anything at all unless it's almost identical.
Also consider that they didn't redo the Ta 152 at the same time as the rest of the 190's (rather a LONG time later) nor the Tempest at the same time as the Typhoon. I think Pyro's also said that the Yak 3 is too different to use the existing Yak's as a base.