[3D] - BMS AV-8B Harrier 3D discussion
-
Hi,
I was quite happy when I learned that an AV-8B Harrier II would be implemented in BMS.
When the 4.33 went out, I of course tried this aircraft… and was much impressed by the vectored thrust capabilities that were coded in the sim. Not much simulators are capable of handling that, and really not much coders are able to implement it correctly (try to fly the Razbam AV-8B under FSX/P3D to see what I mean…).The cockpit was quite decent, not at the level of the Viper’s one but… well BMS is a F-16 sim.
The only black point was for me the exterior 3D model, as seen on external view and from the cockpit.
The Harrier shape is quite caracteristic and a lot of points are currently not acurate.To talk about a few :
L/G : the size of the wheels are false, the ground angle of the aircraft on the ground is false.
Canopy : the real Harrier has a very large canopy, like a bubble. Obviously an error that is found on many Harrier 3D models. The position and angle of the arch is very important.
Horizontal stab : position problem
Wings : wingspan problem, probably a diedral problem also.
Front view : there is a massive problem there, with the intake front section being false. I used it as a basis for the comparison, you see that if I match 3D fuselage front section and blueprint (or photo) one, everything is messed up.
The points above are probably the most important, and working on details is futile as long as the big issues are not corrected.
Don’t mind the tail air intake, my blueprint comes from a night attack bird, so it has the “short” intake. The BMS II+ bird has the long intake, it"s normal. Same for the nose, of course.
I hope to open a constructive discussion… to help improve a BMS aircraft which deserve it.
NOTE :
I used screenshots for this first post, which is obviously not the best way to proceed. Normal views from the 3D model editor would be necessary to conduct a precise work on the corrections to make. -
Holy cow, there are a lot of geometric discrepancies!
-
Hi Pepe!
I do not fully understand your report!(?) … I can’t check here on a clean 4.33, but as I see on my Dev install, I see no symmetrical issues on those models! (?)
-
Just re-installed a fresh 4.33.5 … I do not understand what you mean (?!)
AV-8B
AV-8B+
… Do you confirm that you have an non-modded version?
About blueprints, be-careful! : Radium can tell you that some are not correct and sometimes needs deeper studies based on many pictures to get the right dimensions.
-
Most probably it could be a blueprint issue, like which is valid?
What is valid are official measurements for example for the comparisons that PePe is doing.In LE hold sift and drag to measure distances like start end. Then compare to real ones.
If those are ok then you must find valid blueprints and “calibrate” them like if the current 3d model is ok and the blueprint is valid merge those two with respect to measurements like height - length - width etc.
Then you can come up to close to valid assumptions.Also actual photos like side ways which are easier to find can help to compare. still there can be an angular differentiation but we’r not talking about a few cm’s here…
-
Hi,
No symetry problem, I don’t see where I would have wrote such thnigs.
The problems come from proportions mainly on the front section with, to put it simply, proportionaly too big air intakes, and too short wings.Here is a try using my blueprint and your normal view (thanks for it !). The blueprint is perhaps not perfect, but I was able to make it fit quite accurately on real photos. However I concede that there is not a quantity of good drawings of the AV-8B availalble online… and even in books about the Harrier (and I have some…). Even the actual manuals are quite poor in drawings.
I chose on this pic to match on the intake section (intake lips and fan front section). The nose section mismatches a little, but it is the other parts of the aircaft which are completely out of scale.As I said before, when I see the front section of the BMS AV-8B, it seems to look closer to an 1st gen Harrier (GR3, AV-8C) with short wings than to a second gen Harrier (GR5-7-9, AV-8B).
Again, I guess there are many problems, most are small but the proportions issues would have to be solved first, before moving forward.
Hope this helps !
-
I just measured the length of the wings and it’s OK.
Internet says 9,2m I measured 9,14m so the blueprint has something seriously wrong.Unfortunately LE can’t display the 3d model of the LOD1, but LOD2 will do just fine I believe.
-
I just measured the length of the wings and it’s OK.
Internet says 9,2m I measured 9,14m so the blueprint has something seriously wrong.Unfortunately LE can’t display the 3d model of the LOD1, but LOD2 will do just fine I believe.
Could it be that the wingspan is OK, but the size of the body is too large?
I Measured a frontal photo of a real AV8B’s wingspan and also the tip of the nose to the top of the canopy. It’s 1780px and 240px, divide the first with the second gives 7.4167.Did the same with the screenshot in the OP, there it’s 444px to 74px, divide again, gives 6 (!). So something does indeed not seem to be to scale.
-
well there is surely something wrong…
Wireframe is from LOD2 of the 3D model from LE
And now the strange thing:
-
Thanks Arty, the first pic is exactly the one I used for the measurements.
The lowest picture is not scaled to the wingspan, but to the aircraft’s body. That is why it seems OK, but you cannot see the wingspan from that angle. If you were able to pan to the front of that image, the wingspan would be too small again.
-
Does anyone know the length of the airplane?
The 3D model Length is aprox 46.52ft = 14,18m.
according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_AV-8B_Harrier_II
length seems ok.Height according to this: https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/av-8.htm
seems okish… just 1ft taller is the 3D model. I measured about 12.60ft = 3,84mSo the issue must be just with the intakes and the body, how fat it is or not.
General characteristics
Crew: 1 pilot
Length: 46 ft 4 in (14.12 m)
Wingspan: 30 ft 4 in (9.25 m)
Height: 11 ft 8 in (3.55 m)
Wing area: 243.4 sq ft (22.61 m²)
Airfoil: supercritical airfoil
Empty weight: 13,968 lb (6,340 kg)
Loaded weight: 22,950 lb (10,410 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: ** Rolling: 31,000 lb (14,100 kg)
Vertical: 20,755 lb (9,415 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Rolls-Royce Pegasus F402-RR-408 (Mk 107) vectored-thrust turbofan, 23,500 lbf (105 kN) -
Here are the best measurements I can get :
AV-8B day/night attack
AV-8B radar
It comes from the A1-AV-8BB-NFM-000 ( march 2008 )
It may probably (note how I am affirmative ! hard to tell without access to the model) be the ratio between the front section and the rest of the body. I haven’t noticed big problems on the side view, beside an obvious mess with the gear which leads to a big error concerning the angle the aircraft makes with the ground.
I did chose to match the intakes on my first test, but I could have started by matching the wingspan. That’s the same problem, the only way to get it is to compare the numbers. Apparently the measures are good for the span, so the front section could very well be the problem.
-
gr.3 =L 46ft 10in 14.27m
t.4 =L 55ft 9.5in 17m
SH FRS.1=L 47ft 7in 14.5m
Av-8c= L 45t 7in 13.89m
AV-8b/gr.5= L 46ft 4in 14.12m H 11ft 7.75in wing area 230sq ft 21.37m squaredSource : B. Gunston , Royal navy,and RAF stat sheets. Easily find all this in a few books off the shelf. The internet is wrong commonly.
-
as a side note, what keyboard callback toggles between cruise and STOL on the left panel near flaps?
-
No symetry problem, I don’t see where I would have wrote such thnigs.
Certainly nowhere. It is surly just my brain.
Unfortunately, I don’t think it is something easily addressed. I guess it would need a new 3D model or an almost total rebuild (?) … Hayab is no more active for now. So can’t tell you what will be its future knowing that there are a lot of other 3D modes that need more love than the AV-8 at present time.
-
This is pretty funny. You guys are going to use a wireframe from the DB and super-impose it over a picture of a real aircraft to prove there is an issue??
Where’d you get actual measurements and scale of the real picture?? Or the measurements and scale of the wireframe??
This is not the way to go about it!!
C9
-
Let me twist that for u.
Most models are build that way.
So?Στάλθηκε από το MI 5 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk
-
Let me twist that for u.
Most models are build that way.
So?Arty, you know you can’t just take some random photo and try to compare it to something in the game when you’re dealing with size and scale comparisons, it just doesn’t work. There’s no way to figure out at what zoom or spacial area it is at.
But yeah, sure, you can use a picture to help build a models details, but that’s totally different. And I disagree, most models that are built by good modellers are done with blueprints.!
You guys are using the scale and the length of the wings to make your assumptions that the air intakes are off, way off.
What if the wings are wrong/off?? Then what?
C9
-
Lol why blueprints are better than photos?
C9 if I tell u that many details are done by the eye, cause it just feels right?
C9 u sound like u just discovered America.
Modelers would love having valid - accurate blueprints, even for the subparts of the models. But that’s not the case.
Few examples? Google Earth… The master of distortion specially if u don’t follow some basics.
Blueprints of scaled toy models.
Photos where u use elements of the photo to come close to measurements… Like a vehicle and a human standing next to it… Hmmm he is Chinese… What is the average height of Chinese man? Ok I now can have in approximation the measurements for the model I want to build.Just to give u an idea…
Στάλθηκε από το MI 5 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk
-
C9 u sound like u just discovered America.
That’s a pretty ridiculous statement.
I didn’t say they didn’t use other things.
My point is you cannot use a photo like you did and take the wireframe from the DB and make a comparison.
You didn’t even answer my question, you just went on a tangent about something else. But that’s ok, it’s what you do every time you don’t have an answer!!!
C9