Rypley's Hangar
-
@Rypley Epale Gabriel good afternoon, I have documentation of the real plane and photos of the instruments of the Real plane, receive my direct message and I will support you with what you need… I can even give you an experience in that F-16A
-
@AlejandroFAV-0 Long time no see Hermano! Right away my man!
-
Here’s a quick comparison regarding the current remodelling i’m doing to almost everything, as you can see, I’m taking details more seriously (and willing to sacrifice the tri count for it), as well as using measurements of panels that would equal to real life counterpart for an overal 1:1 replica of the whole cockpit (something that I’ve disregarded or didn’t take seriously as seen in the height on the panels), hopefully all of these will make it more realistic and make do for the lack of normal maps.
OLD-Left
NEW-Right
-
@Rypley
Hi Rypley long time no see. I’m glad you’re ok, I was strarting to worry about you.Check with @I-Hawk about tri-s limits and other upcoming goodies in upcoming u4. AFAIK u3 with new model format already handles much higher tris/ply-count. U4 is supposed to bring full PBR support, ‘tho’ i’m not sure if normal-maps are included too (in definition it should as normal maps are part of PBR pipeline). It would be cool if you pit, (which looks amazing btw) would take advantage of all of the cool stuff devs brought to BMS recently.
-
@Rypley before you continue, I think it would be advisable to be sure that the HUD physical dimensions and head position (± where the seat is, which is defined by physical length of the pit) are ok.
If these dimensions are not 101% correct, rendering of HUD symbology will be wrong later. Likely with incorrect FOV…symbology may land outside of the HUD …“cut”. -
@tiag Yes thats a good point! The headposition in the current BMS cockpit is also not perfect, but it matches the HUD at least.
-
+1 on what has been said on correct scale/position. Also VR mercilessly exposes all of the mistakes and omissions so take your time and make sure mesh is in correct size and as detailed as possible.
-
@Xeno said in Rypley's Hangar:
@Rypley
Hi Rypley long time no see. I’m glad you’re ok, I was strarting to worry about you.Check with I-Hawk about tri-s limits and other upcoming goodies in upcoming u4. AFAIK u3 with new model format already handles much higher tris/ply-count. U4 is supposed to bring full PBR support, ‘tho’ i’m not sure if normal-maps are included too (in definition it should as normal maps are part of PBR pipeline). It would be cool if you pit, (which looks amazing btw) would take advantage of all of the cool stuff devs brought to BMS recently.
Hopefully @I-Hawk can say the limit (or is it in the wiki?) but yeah, PBR would definitely make some of my wishes com true (Fluffy seat where you at!!)
@tiag said in Rypley's Hangar:
@Rypley before you continue, I think it would be advisable to be sure that the HUD physical dimensions and head position (± where the seat is, which is defined by physical length of the pit) are ok.
If these dimensions are not 101% correct, rendering of HUD symbology will be wrong later. Likely with incorrect FOV…symbology may land outside of the HUD …“cut”.I’ll have to look for a tutorial on how to measure that, good thing you mentioned it though because I would’ve probable never factored that in until I added the model into BMS and encountered the issue so big big thansk
@Xeno said in Rypley's Hangar:
+1 on what has been said on correct scale/position. Also VR mercilessly exposes all of the mistakes and omissions so take your time and make sure mesh is in correct size and as detailed as possible.
Making sure the models are fully closed in is actually something I really want to do because with VR, the cameras can be moved much further than the standard controls iirc, and that could expose some “empty spots” made from no creating faces on places that won’t be normally looked into, I believe that’s one of the issues the current BMS viper cockpit has with the back parts of the ACES II seat since it casts a weird shadow when the sun is in the back of the pit (NO I’M NOT DISSING)
-
I believe I’ve achieved a decent amount on details, but what do YOU think? should it have more? Please let me know.
(do keep in mind that this is just the plain model with a material asigned to distinguish everything.) -
@Rypley What’s the tri count, and are you baking the normals onto the mesh? I would very much recommend that…
-
@Rypley Looks very promising!
Maybe you could correct the top of the toggleswitches to better match the real one. Also I’d add more details to the DZUS studs. Here are some refference pictures for you. If I can help out with more detailed pictures or overall measurements just tell me.
-
@Korbi The lightplates are screwed to the backplates and the edges of the lightplates are not directly matching the backplate edges, the lightplates have a slightly smaller footprint on the outline than the backplate.
-
Hey @Rypley Here are some HUD refs that might be useful for you getting it the right size etc.
Seems like the main HUD unit itself is 175mm wide.https://rochesteravionicarchives.co.uk/collection/head-up-display-hud/f-16a-b-hud-pilot-s-display-unit-1 (Page includes some dimensions that might be useful?)
Also from the extended description of that page.
“The Total Field of View of the F-16 A/B PDU is 20deg but the Instantaneous FoV is only 9deg in elevation and 13.38deg in azimuth because the combiner to eye distance is quite large due to the highly angled seat.”
The 20deg will be the total FOV that the HUD can project symbology into, say if you brought your head much closer to the HUD. But from where the pilots head is normal placed he can only see 9 x 13.3 degrees which will be the Binocular IFOV.
“Instantaneous FOV (IFOV) — The union of the two solid angles subtended at each eye by the clear apertures of the HUD optics from a fixed head position within the HUD eyebox. Thus, the instantaneous FOV is comprised of what the left eye sees plus what the right eye sees from a fixed head position within the HUD eyebox.”
I think from the above data you might be able to model where the HUD eyebox should be. I think the average IPD for males is 62mm.
-
I don’t know if it’s useful but there are two museum F-16A cockpits in the Cockpit 360 app for iOS that you can pan around / zoom in on the detail etc.
-
More HUD info!
https://cdn.rochesteravionicarchives.co.uk/img/catalog/ZZ_1358967113_DDBR0012+(O%26A-1b).pdf
Also there is this which gives you a great idea of the width of the HUD glass+frame - 165mm.
https://rochesteravionicarchives.co.uk/collection/head-up-display-hud/f-16a-b-hud-combiner-glass -
@okayasugf said in Rypley's Hangar:
@Rypley What’s the tri count, and are you baking the normals onto the mesh? I would very much recommend that…
Tri count for both Consoles (the only thing I’ve gotten done since the start of the remodelling process, og cockpit with 80% done was around 120k) is roughly 15k, I’ll have to get back to you on exact numbers a little later today.
…And no, I haven’t touched any normals as of now, but figuring blender allows me to bake normals from meshes, I’ll start creating iterations of switches and what not in very high detail, uv unwrap bake the normals, take em and drop them on a final much lower poly version and then instance those object to avoid unnecessary repetitions in textures. (This is a very very WIP idea since I’m waiting for the BML exporter and the supported 3ds max version to test this theory, if not possible, then I’ll just export the base model and instance inside 3ds max instead)
Taking on normals and uv unwrapping id going to definitely be a helluva challenge since I’m not used to PBR, but there’s always a first time aye?
PD: idk the max tri count for bml but hopefully it can handle 200k which is what I expect the whole cockpit to be.
-
@Korbi said in Rypley's Hangar:
@Rypley Looks very promising!
Maybe you could correct the top of the toggleswitches to better match the real one. Also I’d add more details to the DZUS studs. Here are some refference pictures for you. If I can help out with more detailed pictures or overall measurements just tell me.
@Korbi said in Rypley's Hangar:
@Korbi The lightplates are screwed to the backplates and the edges of the lightplates are not directly matching the backplate edges, the lightplates have a slightly smaller footprint on the outline than the backplate.
Will do, maybe a bevel on the DZUS studs will do? hopefully once normals are added I’ll be able to minimize polygons by doing dents and similar on normal maps.
Will also remodel the panel plates based on your suggestions since it’s far easier, for measuring I’m using the xflight.de site that has almost all panel measurements (some i eyeballed them since they’re not on the site) but I’m still lacking the main “tub” measurements and angles (I could’ve swear I’ve had that picture before)
@SOBO-87 said in Rypley's Hangar:
Hey @Rypley Here are some HUD refs that might be useful for you getting it the right size etc.
Seems like the main HUD unit itself is 175mm wide.https://rochesteravionicarchives.co.uk/collection/head-up-display-hud/f-16a-b-hud-pilot-s-display-unit-1 (Page includes some dimensions that might be useful?)
Also from the extended description of that page.
“The Total Field of View of the F-16 A/B PDU is 20deg but the Instantaneous FoV is only 9deg in elevation and 13.38deg in azimuth because the combiner to eye distance is quite large due to the highly angled seat.”
The 20deg will be the total FOV that the HUD can project symbology into, say if you brought your head much closer to the HUD. But from where the pilots head is normal placed he can only see 9 x 13.3 degrees which will be the Binocular IFOV.
“Instantaneous FOV (IFOV) — The union of the two solid angles subtended at each eye by the clear apertures of the HUD optics from a fixed head position within the HUD eyebox. Thus, the instantaneous FOV is comprised of what the left eye sees plus what the right eye sees from a fixed head position within the HUD eyebox.”
I think from the above data you might be able to model where the HUD eyebox should be. I think the average IPD for males is 62mm.
Ok… So it should be more of a XYZ from the main camera thing right? I’m still wrapping my head around FOVs lol, really appreciate the info
@wazza69 said in Rypley's Hangar:
I don’t know if it’s useful but there are two museum F-16A cockpits in the Cockpit 360 app for iOS that you can pan around / zoom in on the detail etc.
It has been recommended before but nevertheless thank you! It’s still useful for basic geometry of some parts.
-
This post is deleted! -
@Rypley said in Rypley's Hangar:
This is a very very WIP idea since I’m waiting for the BML exporter and
@richionizor should I do the honors or you?
-
@I-Hawk is tri-count stated below within a limits for 4.37.u and 4.38?
@Rypley said in Rypley's Hangar:
[…]Tri count for both Consoles (the only thing I’ve gotten done since the start of the remodelling process, og cockpit with 80% done was around 120k) is roughly 15k, I’ll have to get back to you on exact numbers a little later today.
…And no, I haven’t touched any normals as of now, but figuring blender allows me to bake normals from meshes, I’ll start creating iterations of switches and what not in very high detail, uv unwrap bake the normals, take em and drop them on a final much lower poly version and then instance those object to avoid unnecessary repetitions in textures. (This is a very very WIP idea since I’m waiting for the BML exporter and the supported 3ds max version to test this theory, if not possible, then I’ll just export the base model and instance inside 3ds max instead)
Taking on normals and uv unwrapping id going to definitely be a helluva challenge since I’m not used to PBR, but there’s always a first time aye?
PD: idk the max tri count for bml but hopefully it can handle 200k which is what I expect the whole cockpit to be.