Sorry, I couldn't resist it!
10-04-2009, 12:12 PM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Coronel SuarezPcia Buenos Aires , ARGENTINA
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I couldn't resist it!
Here is a pic of the Avro Lancaster Mk I (not III as it doesn't have Packard Merlin engines) under construction.
It's been worth the pain. It looks so good. And it suggests how useful Trolley could be.
The fuselage and Trolley are mine. The rest, beautifully executed, is by Daniel (DocDan2005).
My best to all
Mike
It's been worth the pain. It looks so good. And it suggests how useful Trolley could be.
The fuselage and Trolley are mine. The rest, beautifully executed, is by Daniel (DocDan2005).
My best to all
Mike
10-05-2009, 06:37 AM
#3
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Coronel SuarezPcia Buenos Aires , ARGENTINA
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sorry, I couldn't resist it!
The Lancaster model is already flying with an initial TMD file. So it can certainly stand on its own two feet so to speak in AFPD. But it is not possible to see many details even with 3D sceneries. In AFPD all views of the model are radials to the centre point of the fuselage. This is a large model and if the view point is moved close enough to see detail the majority of the model is out of view. With Trolley I can easily move this centre viewpoint to another part of the aircraft and thus gain detail views of any part of the model with whatever line of sight I wish. Without Trolley, I would have to make significant changes to the TMD file. This way is much easier.
I can, of course, obtain similar detail views within the 3D drawing program used to create the model, in this case Metasequoia. But AFPD and Meta use different implementations of the various drawing and rendering algorithms. As well, there are idiosyncrasies in AFPD's drawing and rendering code. Look at the interior of the front turret. There is an annoying shadow effect coming from the top hinge of the turret which does not appear in Meta. Similarly, my own drawing errors at times are much more evident within AFPD. And, of course, the colour tones are different between AFPD and Meta.
I am using a very nice looking set of Russian two dimensional 3 view drawings as my basis. But I am finding that there are subtle errors in these drawings which change the whole character of the aircraft. I have had to struggle with the nose and front turret contours. The more time I spend looking at this area within AFPD as shown by the enclosed pic above, the better will be my model. I might even get the width of the turret framework correct!
Well, Mike. Does that answer your question?
My best to all
Mike
I can, of course, obtain similar detail views within the 3D drawing program used to create the model, in this case Metasequoia. But AFPD and Meta use different implementations of the various drawing and rendering algorithms. As well, there are idiosyncrasies in AFPD's drawing and rendering code. Look at the interior of the front turret. There is an annoying shadow effect coming from the top hinge of the turret which does not appear in Meta. Similarly, my own drawing errors at times are much more evident within AFPD. And, of course, the colour tones are different between AFPD and Meta.
I am using a very nice looking set of Russian two dimensional 3 view drawings as my basis. But I am finding that there are subtle errors in these drawings which change the whole character of the aircraft. I have had to struggle with the nose and front turret contours. The more time I spend looking at this area within AFPD as shown by the enclosed pic above, the better will be my model. I might even get the width of the turret framework correct!
Well, Mike. Does that answer your question?
My best to all
Mike
