Tom's Cat
-
As there are an estimated 20 combat ready Tomcats left with another 20 airworthy aircraft I’m looking to skin maybe 6-8 Cats in total covering all camo schemes and historically relevant BuNos.
Like this@@?
-
For the first time I’ve actually used paths for the camo. Like a year ago Ron ‘Red1’ Nair told me to feather the edges of the camo elements but without paths that is a pain in the ass:) So now I’ve finally been able to deploy that technique. Makes camo elements look more like they’re actually painted on the panels.
Nice job on the tails.
Paths in PS is a good thing for this kind of work.
Now Pete, try the following on your tail…
- Create a new layer and stroke your paths with 1 pixel black.
- do a gausian blur of 1-2 pixel on that layer
- set transparency of that layer to 10% or less (depends on your colorscheme)
As result it should make the edges of the camo elements just slightly darker and blured.
Additionally, … did you know that you can use the paths also for creating the panels and rivets?
To stroke the panels is similar to the techinc described above.
To stroke the rivets is also similar, but I use a 1 pixel pencil tool,
and it’s brush spacing set to 1000% for example (press F5 to set the brush spacing)You might experiment with those settings which fits best for your skin.
I hope these little hints will help you to make your skinwork even better.;)
Cheers,
LS -
Lazystone,
Thanx forbthe valuable input. How fitting that urs was the 300th post:).
I’ll definitely try the ‘smoked’ camo.edge thing.
As far as paths for panels go I’ve used the classic way of actually drawing them with the pencil/brush tool. A path has to be closed and that doesn’t work well with panel lines which often just run out. One could then stroke them and delete the surplus parts but I find drawing them as done one the 18 actually pretty quick and effective. I’ll try it anyhow:)
The rivet tool u describe is awesome, the thought of using the spacing didn’t even.enter my mind. Thanks man!
@KL,
Awesome looking skin there, even carries the Iranian missile! Very nice!
Still don’t get what ure trying to say though…I can’t find any Iranian skins anywhere so if all of this is already done and available, great! Post the link and we’re all happy. I’m skinning these cats not because no one ever skinned them before but because I wanna skin them. I’ve worked on over 50 different Tomcats in 6 years and now I wanna work on Iranian ones
-
How fitting that urs was the 300th post:).
A path has to be closed and that doesn’t work well with panel lines which often just run out.
Uhmm, … really?
… then I did it wrong all the time.Pete, those path tools in PS are a little odd at the beginning,
but once you’re familar with them, you’ll use them often,
… especially to stroke a path to multible layers, to use differently blur effects, colors, tranparency, … etc.IMHO, it’s worth the effort.
BUT BE WARNED !!!
Do never ever cut or delete a part of your LAYER while a PATH is still selected.
This will result in a deleted PATH.Cheers,
LS -
Awesomeness my man! As you see I’m still learning all this shit
Thanks a bunch for the input! Will post my progress here as I go along…
-
The only B variant Tomcat produced.
I’ve no able to build the prototype long-probe for it,also the PW-style exhaust as of what featured F-16,sorry!;-)
-
The only B variant Tomcat produced.
I’ve no able to build the prototype long-probe for it,also the PW-style exhaust as of what featured F-16,sorry!;-)
That’s interesting although not entirely correct. I’ll stop asking you what exactly you wanna tell us with your posts, as you’ve ignored my previous two attempts.
You can ask, comment, contribute, critique, make a joke, talk about F-14 related issues >here< (historical tidbits, FM or whatever as the number of interested people is too small to open a different thread for everything) BUT for your own work which I have nothing to do with please feel free to open your own thread. Otherwise it just confuses the hell out of everyone and, in addition, slightly annoys me.
Thank you.
-
Yeah …
Cheers,
LSHahaha, nice that for yourself…
So and with my thanks, you have now 600.
Means, that I ROCK. :rofl:
Nikos. -
Lazystone man,
I spent last night creating countless rivet brushes and paths for all the panels. You have saved me probably 1000s of hours :D. Again many thanks for the valuable input! The Cat appreciates it as well…as you shall soon see
-
-
So and with my thanks, you have now 600.
Means, that I ROCK. :rofl:
Cheers,
LS -
BTW.
Cheers,
LSHahaha, that was great fun mate…
And just think that i’m a civil engineer in real life, so i really RULE :rofl:
Nikos. -
Finally, after few weeks of “fasting”, i got some quality time with my BMS installation. I started the AFM tests again and today i managed to test the 1, 3, 5 and 6.5g entry and sustained mach points on the F-14A at 53-55000 lbs of gross weight at 0-1000ft altitude. Because of the test setting (at full AB) each test had to be run only for a short time (2-3 minutes). The 3, 5 and 6.5g sustained turns per mach were as far as i could compare with the available data and my stick discipline, spot on (within 0.1-0.2g). Next, i went to the on the deck dash and level flight envelope test, as well as the landing speed. The AFM turned out less precise here. The absolute dash consistently hit the wall at 1.08 and it should have gone to around 1.14 for the configuration flown. The stall speed is also too high. For the same load it should have been around 100-110 KIAS (0.145-0.16 mach region) and the in-sim the Turkey doesn’t fly below 0.2 mach (at least i could not find a value for AoA that i could sustain to keep it level). Somewhat better, but still a bit too high is the landing speed, or approach AoA (depends on which value you use when landing). At 10.5 degrees the speed is around 140KIAS and at 12 degrees it is around 128-130KIAS, while it should be 130KIAS at 10.5 degrees. Again, my stick discipline may be a bit off here. Still the difference is smaller then the min-max level flight issue. It would be nice if someone could replicate the tests.
The next time i have some free time, i’ll be off to angels 5 and 10 and see how the AFM fares there.
Happy flying guys! -
Just a short update on the tests, instead of going to angels 5 and 10, i stayed on sea level to test the CL max values. The AFM’s is more precise here as the mach increases again, and less precise as the mach drops, thus effecting the low speed nose pointing of the cat in the left most part of the envelope. Has the current AFM been moded to incorporate some safety measure? It seams there is no buffet onset so it is possible. All the values i got as you’ll soon see, stop at least 1/2g before the buffet could develop. This are the entry points i tested: mach 0.28, 0.38 and 0.46 that should give instantaneous pulls of 3, 5 and 6.5g. Instead i got 2.3, 4.5 and 6.1.
My impression is that the energy retaining and maintenance are better modded then the aerodynamic features. Maybe it’s the engine limitations? Only one thing remains to be tested and it’s the roll rates. Does anyone have any idea what those should be per mach value/wing sweep?
Happy flying and clear skies!P.S. While exporting the FM data i noticed the F-14A thrust per mach uses the data of 17000+pds per engine as static thrust on sea level. MATS lists this value as the static thrust value for the F-14A, but the same site rates the TF-30 engines at 20900pds of static thrust and pretty much every brochure i found on the net follows suit. At first i thought the engines were detuned to extend service life, but and 81-82% tune would be a bit excessive especially on a naval platform when every pound counts. Does anyone knows what should the static thrust be at sea level? Time to consult the flight manual i guess.
-
Update 3
Over the weekend i finally had some free time on my hands. Not enough to measure acceleration and top speed, but quite enough to complete the 1, 3, 5 and 6.5g sustained and instantaneous pulls at 10 and 20k.
First the results on sustained g’s. As with the sea level test, both 10kft and 20kft results are very precise. Even with the lesser accuracy of my test (it’s more difficult to calculate how much fuel you need to start with in order to climb at angels 20 and still have enough for few minutes at test gross weights) the results are well withing 0.1-0.3 g’s of the desired values.The CLmax on the other hand was again less precise. The stall speed at 10 and 20kft were 0.4 and 0.3 true mach numbers above my reference data. The 3g pulls were off by 0.3 and 0.4g at the same mach respectively which leads me to the conclusion that medium altitude AoA performance is a bit more precise then low altitude AoA. At least the 3g pulls. The 5g and 6.5g were less precise. The first was 1 and 0.7g off the chart and the 6.5g, 1 and 1.3g off. And when i mean off, i mean less, as in the F-14 was unable to reach the desired load even for a fraction of a second for the given IAS/TMN.
Next on schedule, exit points for the sustained g loads, top speed per altitude and acceleration tests for different fuel loads.
My overall impression is that the high AoA behavior needs some rework (stall speed CLmax curve).
What do you guys think? Should i continue these tests up to angels 50? They will be less an less precise as the altitude increases. Unless someone figures out how to create a mission with the plane stating with a fraction of the mac fuel that is. Each time i set it to given value and altitude it resets to full tank at the start. The only way i found to start with custom fuel is to start on the ground/carrier. Does anyone have a solution for this? -
The only way i found to start with custom fuel is to start on the ground/carrier. Does anyone have a solution for this?
Hit a tanker? Or dump fuel.
-
Does the Tomcat support air refueling in BMS?
Q2, as we don’t have a working pit for the F-14, i have no idea how much fuel i have at any given moment -
Don’t forget the TF-30 as installed in the F-14 develops 30000 lbs of thrust per engine at Mach 0.9 at sea level. I have no idea if the game engine can support varying thrust regimes for specific altitudes and airspeeds.
-
Does the Tomcat support air refueling in BMS?
Q2, as we don’t have a working pit for the F-14, i have no idea how much fuel i have at any given momentyou can always substitute the f16 pit in the 14 to get fuel values.
i am very interested in your work here, one thing i also have noticed, is a high g turn, into a cloud (where the plane starts bouncing with turbulence) sometimes results in a depart from controlled flight, unable to recover…
-
Don’t forget the TF-30 as installed in the F-14 develops 30000 lbs of thrust per engine at Mach 0.9 at sea level. I have no idea if the game engine can support varying thrust regimes for specific altitudes and airspeeds.
yes, the flight model takes altitude and airspeed into account for thrust values.