WIP: F-14 B/D
-
That wasn’t crying man that’s telling it how it is. I loved every one of those 300hrs lemme tell ya
On that issue I was thinking is there actually any instance in which it makes sense to have objects/bodies connected into one mesh (for instance the vertical stabs which I painstakingly integrated into the topside of the fuselage) or is that totally unnecessary?
-
Fortunately, with the Phoenix it is always dropped, so no compromise to make I made a 0.5s delay for ignition, which is quite true to the
.Awesome! Thanks for the info.
-
And I ran into the first problem, the kind I was hoping to bring out with the bones exercise. As you can see the support beam geometry is off. They’re supposed to fold like a scissor and then jointly move up with the landing gear.
The upper part is attached to the fuselage in RL and is fixed here as well (at the base), both parts are locked in size and cannot deform and they track each other. In and of itself this system works perfectly.
Through parenting the MLG moves up and the main actuator extends as it should, the lower beam folds toward the MLG and the upper beam tracks it BUT as it moves up the folding stops to work because
a) location of fuselage pivot point of MLG or beam or both is/are wrong
b) the beams have the wrong size
c) all of the aboveBack to the drawing board :). I might play with the bones until I have a setup that works and then modify the objects accordingly or really just do a tech drawing and calculate the positions and use that as a basis. The blueprints don’t help here.
-
Well if it folds in as it should and doesn’t show externally, it’s not a problem. Like who cares if it fits in or not.
Also those movements u will have to redo in 3dsMAX to set the dofs correctly. Sure having the model in correct order and measures will make it easier but just saying it might be double work, where only the last is needed actually.
Sent from TapaTalk
-
Well if it folds in as it should and doesn’t show externally, it’s not a problem. Like who cares if it fits in or not.
Sent from TapaTalk
Cuz it would lead to visual distortion. If I leave it like that the beams will appear disconnected in-game which would not be very realistic. On the other hand if I have the beams deform they’d actually stretch out and compress which is even less realistic.
Sure having the model in correct order and measures will make it easier
Exactly.
You gotta remember that this whole structure of the lower MLG will rotate on its own axis in addition to the general ‘retract’ rotation…
-
In 3ds you link them so they will stay connected.
No bones manipulation, I don’t think bones will work in 3dsMAX for falcon.Sent from TapaTalk
-
In 3ds you link them so they will stay connected.
No bones manipulation, I don’t think bones will work in 3dsMAX for falcon.Sent from TapaTalk
They stay connected here as well if I set it up like that and that will result in deformation. Blender as well as 3ds or any other 3d software manipulates objects based on rotation and constraints. In this case the geometry itself doesn’t work meaning either they’re connected and that results in deformation (because the program runs into a problem if one point is fixed in global space and another point has a distance greater than the default length of the rotated object). On the other hand if you fix the length/size of the object the program will disconnect them in order to stay within its rules.
This is all to be expected because my model is faulty in this area. I’ll correct it and then I can rig it with bones or the 3ds/Falcon or any other way and it will work because the model represents RL proportions :).
See here…
LOL looking at this it becomes obvious why mine doesn’t work, the pivot points of the strut and the beam have to be at the same height. Should check my own references more often :D.
-
Main strut is even slightly below so that (I guess) the main strut folded is exactly placed in the volume created by the difference.
-
@SEG:
Main strut is are approximately at the same level than the main leg, and even slightly below so that, you should earn some volume to place de main strut (folded)
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-F2bkHGQK2Ek/VbIVRZ8d1AI/AAAAAAABjDA/DgtjWEUXIkc/s640/ModelGrafix%2B8%2BFinemolds%2BF14%2BTomcat%2B%252825%2529.jpgYep…also visible here the rotating beam up front. That’s one crazy assembly :). Thanks for the image man!
-
More MLG pics - hopefully this will work ok.
same as SEG’s but a slightly different angle
Saw this one though and it looks like the hydraulic piston here is compressed, but in the mesh it looks extended. Maybe that’s an issue? Idk, still can’t really wrap my brain around how this massive thing gets so flat.
-
This post is deleted! -
it looks like the hydraulic piston here is compressed, but in the mesh it looks extended. Maybe that’s an issue?
Unfortunately, lower part just extends and rotates thus doesn’t affect the geometry of the upper part’s movement.
-
More MLG pics - hopefully this will work ok.
same as SEG’s but a slightly different angle
Saw this one though and it looks like the hydraulic piston here is compressed, but in the mesh it looks extended. Maybe that’s an issue? Idk, still can’t really wrap my brain around how this massive thing gets so flat.
Yeah that piston has very little travel check this video:
http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-gearmain.htm
That can all be corrected later on. For now I just wanna get all the parts in line. In case you’re talking about a piston other than the one attached to the support beams please let me know
Thanks you guys! I have all these shots but modelled the gear based on the Grumman blueprint BUT most of those parts are not visible behind the doors and other parts…
-
@SEG:
Unfortunately, lower part just extends and rotates thus doesn’t affect the geometry of the upper part’s movement.
Correct
-
Echoing on yesterday’s discussion this video is quite interesting and I use it for reference:
Note how the problem I describe above is manifesting here. The guy solved it in that he left the upper beam attached to the lower one and at half time you can see how the upper one folds and thereby ‘disconnects’ from its pivot point on the main fuselage. Looks like he’s having the beams track to eachother without deforming which is how I did it as well. The rotation is beautifully done in this example.
This is an interesting solution but I plan to modify the model in such a way that it folds AND stays in place. Parenting the upper beam to the main strut while leaving it in global space makes sense and with the right proportion should work in terms of folding. More to come…
-
Yep. The guy simply erased the problem by ignoring the upper beam
If you look sharply IRL, the beam of the upper strut is not on the same axis than the ones on the lower strut. That is to say there are two different rotation’s axis acting in two times :- Lower beams > folding the two struts
- Upper beam > rotating at the end of the sequence (once struts are folded) to follow the gear’s global rotation.
-
Yea exactly, you can see the ball bearing on one of your pictures. The cool thing is when the geometry works without cutting into eachother the rigging should take care of the rotation by locking the lower beam’s rotation to the local y axis, parenting it to the main strut and then leaving the upper one without lock and simply set the base of the rotation (on all axis) to the global pivot point on the fuselage. That way when they track eachother the rotation of the main strut will force the rotation of the upper beam.
I know that the main strut rotates 95 degrees inward. So really the only question is the length of the beams and the angle they have when extended. I’ve already figured out the pivot point locations.
For now I’ll ignore the inward rotation and simply deal with the main axis, once that works I can test clearance for the rotation.
-
… just saying before you cry about wasted time again…
Check the post (which you later quoted). He said that he WANTED to cry. Not that he DID cry.
WANTING to lick Donald Trump’s gonads and LICKING Donald Trump’s gonads are NOT the same thing.
Ara’
-
WANTING to lick Donald Trump’s gonads and LICKING Donald Trump’s gonads are NOT the same thing.’
Well thank you for THAT mental image, I will sleep well tonight :rolleyes:
-
Argh, Gorn, coming here for a rare BMS visit to see such an…analogy lol. Great job on the Tomcat, Stingray!