F-18 Hornet WIP
-
@Radium i follow real life pictures too radium, but the problem with them is usually they use different fov of lenses for their cameras, and because of that the image becomes useless, i still use images for small details but unless i can also find the size of lens used for image aswell then, i will use that image as my main reference
-
@okayasugf - I was about to say that your cut at the small radome under the chin was a bit on the large side, but it looks like you’ve since fixed it and it’s much better! Note that it’s also not round, but a bit teardrop shaped, fore to aft - I can’t tell if you’ve caught that or not.
My put would be to go ahead and build your mesh as fine as possible, and to you satisfaction - then optimize it for panel count to produce a final product once you are satisfied with shape and level of detail - then archive your finer mesh work. That way you’ll be able to more readily do other sim-specific optimizations based on your original work, down the road.
-
@Stevie it is still using a mesh modifier called a subdivision modifier which essentially increase mesh details with more polygons, so i model at a high subdivision(level 3)(around 500k triangles) and then once im satisfied with the detail, i check subdivision(level 1)(100K triangles) and check if im not ruining my mesh details.
-
@okayasugf - sounds like you’ve got it handled…just don’t lose all your hard work!
I agree about pictures of real jets - it’s really hard to find pictures that are taken as a truly orthogonal angles to get accurate detail from. Your best bet is to get hold of 3-view and illustrations from plastic model kit directions and use those drawings.
Revell of Germany released F/A-18E and F kits in 1/32 last year (that I have both of) that have some pretty nice drawings in them. In a lot of cases, the model companies may get their drawing(s) directly from the manufacturer to produce their kit from - look for ones that carry “under license of x” labelling, and that will be more likely to be the case. The instruction sheets for the Revell of Germany kits are available online, for free.
Just about all Super Hornet plastic kits in production these days have something wrong with them, shape or detail wise…from undersized landing gear, to problems with the shape of the spine and/or aft fuselage, to the jet just being too small when compared to a C/D. The RoG kits are actually about the best in 1/32, from a shape/size standpoint…even if there are a lot of people out there complaining about fit - which IMO is because they are trying to follow the instructions instead of fitting them together in a way that actually works!
-
@Stevie The spines of every F/A-18E/F kit ain’t right. There’s something going on with it.
-
@Stevie said in F-18 Hornet WIP:
@okayasugf - sounds like you’ve got it handled…just don’t lose all your hard work!
I agree about pictures of real jets - it’s really hard to find pictures that are taken as a truly orthogonal angles to get accurate detail from. Your best bet is to get hold of 3-view and illustrations from plastic model kit directions and use those drawings.
Revell of Germany released F/A-18E and F kits in 1/32 last year (that I have both of) that have some pretty nice drawings in them. In a lot of cases, the model companies may get their drawing(s) directly from the manufacturer to produce their kit from - look for ones that carry “under license of x” labelling, and that will be more likely to be the case. The instruction sheets for the Revell of Germany kits are available online, for free.
Just about all Super Hornet plastic kits in production these days have something wrong with them, shape or detail wise…from undersized landing gear, to problems with the shape of the spine and/or aft fuselage, to the jet just being too small when compared to a C/D. The RoG kits are actually about the best in 1/32, from a shape/size standpoint…even if there are a lot of people out there complaining about fit - which IMO is because they are trying to follow the instructions instead of fitting them together in a way that actually works!
Hi,
this is really the worst thing to do to make a 3D model, for the following reasons :
-
No final manufacturer give their plans or drawings to model companies, mostly due to industrial IP., even when there is a license. They make their own, with their 2D/3D artists. This is why some models have a lot of mistakes.
-
All 3 views drawing (especially the ones that are used at the decals chapter are wrong, because companies don’t want their competitors to get their source angles. Hasegawa is for example very good at this 3 views alterations.
-
A nice model is always made from photos, time, and adjustements. It’s totally wrong to believe that you can get 95% of the model may be done in one dash. It simply does not work like that.
-
@okayasugf is just following the good path : he makes a basic model, and bring it to evolve, by adjusting, to reach the final design, that will still change even during unwrapping, because it’s like that. Transforming 2D into 3D is a complex task, and is not only about following guides : it’s also about understanding, and feeling the final aircraft.
By the way, @Stevie , you look to have knowledge about 3D, and advises as well. What about helping the community by creating models, like us ? It’s good to learn from each other, and new ways of working is always interesting !
Radium
-
-
@Radium If we want the kits to be exactly like the real aircraft, we need to persuade the companies to give us exact specifications(length, wingspan, height, width etc). There are ways.
-
@LIGHTNING35 hahaha you can try but they have more to lose than any real gain ! Royalties would not be a lot compared to retro engineering.
-
@Stevie https://downloads.revell.de/Manuals-Modelkits/03997.pdf
you’re right, actually found a manual of the model jet, im thinking of modelling the gear door mechanism like the real model haha. Very good reference if i need blueprints but @Radium is also right about blueprints, different blueprints dont have a sense of cohesion, they increase or decrease length of the airframe or the wingspan and it gets annoying trying to make everything fit together, thats why my front profile of the f18 is done from real life pictures only -
@Radium Yes, never care about the aviation enthusiasts. They’re a disappointment when it comes to not giving public access to exact specifications.
-
sorry for taking a while, real life is also keeping me busy so i dont have much time but i redid the cockpit, it looks much natural and i removed that protrusion in the canopy
-
@LIGHTNING35 - some of them are far worse than others…the new RoG kits ain’t bad with its spine - maybe a bit too “square”. But a lot of the biggest problem I see is in capturing the blend from the intakes into the after-body on the underside.
…and in thinking the A-D landing gear and the E/F landing gear are the same and same size - they are not. They aren’t even the same mechanically.
-
@Radium - I have to retire before I can actually do more than I do…mea culpa…
-
@okayasugf - hunt up the NATOPS (which I think you’ve got already?) and use the overall dimensions from there. Then take your details from the RoG kit instructions…you can also do things like read dimensions for the wheels off the sidewalls of tires, if you find a good picture or reference…and you might be surprised at just how many “exact” dimensions are out there, without being readily accepted or realized.
OTOH, model companies DO take liberties with some dimensions in order to make working production molds…but not as much these days as in the past.
I also scale details from “known” other parts that I can find a spec for - like the size of a marking, forex. You can find the diameter of a National making and use it to make a scale “ruler” to measure other item in a drawing…I did this to scratch build a MAD boom for a 1/48 PBY-5 model I built…I used the decal sheet instructions drawing to figure out how long it should be.
BTW - the nose of your jet seems a bit short in your latest…which hasn’t been the case. Not sure why this should be…but you may want to check.
-
@okayasugf - one more thing - check those instruction sheets on the shape of your pylons…the ones on stations 2 and 10 are not the same shape as the ones on stations 3/4/8/9. They are smaller, and more trapezoidal, not shoe-shaped.
-
@okayasugf Hello,
it starts to look really nice !
Here is some proposals of update :
Again, please do not take as a reference printed matters, guides or scaled plastic model reference…
They are always so wrong, and you can’t really know at first what is acceptable or not in these references.
Radium
-
@Radium thanks for the suggestion, i had planned to do that because animations wouldnt work if i didnt haha.
@Stevie i’ve tried finding the wheel dimensions before but honestly very image i’ve tried finding isnt as detailed on the wheels. Thats why i had to eyeball and still not sure if i got the scale right, i did use this natops for the scale of the whole model
https://info.publicintelligence.net/F18-EF-000.pdf -
@okayasugf look at your F/A-18E now… do you see why we must only work with photos and never with blueprints ? ️
-
@Radium haha yes, absolutely right on this one, i had to move the vertices without any axis to make it look real, and it gave good result
-
Hello everyone, front landing gear door are done!
this part was new for me haha but very fun to do. Next one would be rear landing gear doors.