P-40 External 3D model

[Venturi]

I have noticed for some time that the only, to date, American aircraft in the sim seems disproportioned to a fair degree. 

 

Recently, in the P40 engine thread, one of the Russian community members, Vachik, kindly compared some dimensions of the real aircraft against the current external 3d model. http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/21234-p-40-engine-settings-i-found-them-bit-weird/?p=376646

Edited August 28, 2016 by Venturi

[19//Moach]

well, you can't really overlay an orthographic 2d view over a 3d rendering and expect everything will line up - remember that the game is rendering it from a perspective projection - so it's not gonna match perfectly anyways

 

 

Curious fact:

 

The P40 was actually somewhat large for that general class of fighter - particularly in the BoS fleet we got, you'll find it to be the largest of the fighters here - Russian and German planes were in fact quite smaller

 

it's a yankee plane - much like their cars, quite generously sized compared to their European counterparts 

Edited August 22, 2016 by Moach

[MiloMorai]

http://genemcguire.com/Images/P-40D.jpg

 

According to this drawing the position of the tail wheel and antenna do not match.

[Venturi]

Compare the D/E external model, should be the same.

 

And I found by googling, after 5 min a really neat drawing of all the types, broken down into scale.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Venturi

[Venturi]

1. The main gear struts seem to be too extended under load.

 

2. The rear gear is down too far when under load.

 

3. The exhaust headers are too low on the cowling.

 

4. The upper fuselage is too tall including the top of the cockpit, however the cockpit glass is not "deep" enough from top to bottom.

 

5. The lower fuselage behind the oil cooler is not deep enough.

 

6. The tail is too tall and does not have exactly the correct shape.

 

7. The antenna mast is too far forward and is too short.

 

8. The propeller is located too far back on the spinner.

 

9. There needs to be more of a transverse "pinch" between the top aspect of the oil cooler bulge and the bottom of the engine cowling.

 

10. The wing does not seem to dull enough at the trailing edge where it meets the fuselage.

 

11. The wing shape (both leading and trailing edge, perhaps washout as well) and location fore-aft on the fuselage are off, see plans pictures.

 

12. The cross section of the fuselage seems wrong, see plans pictures.

 

13. The tail planes are slightly wrong in shape on the trailing edge.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Venturi

[Venturi]

well, you can't really overlay an orthographic 2d view over a 3d rendering and expect everything will line up - remember that the game is rendering it from a perspective projection - so it's not gonna match perfectly anyways

 

 

Curious fact:

 

The P40 was actually somewhat large for that general class of fighter - particularly in the BoS fleet we got, you'll find it to be the largest of the fighters here - Russian and German planes were in fact quite smaller

 

it's a yankee plane - much like their cars, quite generously sized compared to their European counterparts 

 

Yes, that's fine. But, it is not proportioned correctly, some dimensions and angles are off.

 

The plane does not look "right".

Edited August 22, 2016 by Venturi

[MiloMorai]

Your last scale drawing in Post #4 Venturi is the same as the one I posted in Post #3.

[Venturi]

Your last scale drawing in Post #4 Venturi is the same as the one I posted in Post #3.

 

Yes it is, thank you for the source.

[Danziger]

There are actually still a few things on the MiG-3 that need to be corrected

 

The devs responded so quickly the first time that I hadn't had time to post everything.

 

I also tried overlaying the in game model against some 2d plans and it doesn't work very well. It always depends on camera position in game. I found it more accurate to find wartime photos of the MiG-3 that showed the parts I needed to show to devs and I would replicate that photo in a screenshot.

 

Right now the word is that the 3d modellers are very busy (I hope with a LaGG-3-4, Yak-9...) so it cannot be worked on for now.

[Venturi]

There are actually still a few things on the MiG-3 that need to be corrected

 

No doubt, but the P40 is so off.... just look at the wing position fore-aft.

 

The devs responded so quickly the first time that I hadn't had time to post everything.

 

I also love the Mig 3. But the P40 really needs some work.

 

I also tried overlaying the in game model against some 2d plans and it doesn't work very well. It always depends on camera position in game. I found it more accurate to find wartime photos of the MiG-3 that showed the parts I needed to show to devs and I would replicate that photo in a screenshot.

 

I think if you do the correct angle and show it to scale, comparing the drawings with the in game shots can be very helpful. I agree photos are good, too, but they are not always available in the right angle.

 

Right now the word is that the 3d modellers are very busy (I hope with a LaGG-3-4, Yak-9...) so it cannot be worked on for now.

 

Hope you're wrong. The P40 really looks awful.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Venturi

[19//Moach]

as for the fore-aft position of the wings - if you take a look at the left side picture of the ingame versions overhead view,  notice that the plane is yawed ever so slightly to the left, relative to the camera's vertical axis - line up one wingtip with the top bar of your browser, and look at where the other side tip is... 

 

the camera angles plays tricks on the eye, this does not invalidate any of your claims, but do not take those comparisons by the letter or the proportions will end up even worse off... I've modelled aircraft in 3d before -- these angles will melt your brain if you go about comparing it this way

 

 

I, for one - do not find the proportions to be at fault, except perhaps in the extension length of the gears loaded suspension, that's clearly too tall when sitting, making it unusually nose-high on the ground (which is a dangerous thing for taxiing)

 

as for the rest of what seems off, I believe it has more to do with the precision of some of the curves - while most of the key reference points do line up, the curvature of the sections between them are out a bit - see the underside of the oil cooler cowling, that curve appears a bit heavy towards the nose on the ingame model, whereas the photos show it a bit less "harsh" with a more constant derivative along the cowling

 

the vertical stabilizer leading edge is also closer to the vertical than it's historical counterpart, which is what looks the most strange there

 

now - my main pet peeve is another:  the spinning propeller texture does not completely fade off before the rim of the 3d "disk", this is clearly visible as an uncanny sharp line where light catching off the blade abruptly cuts off - this evidences the "disk" and I very much find that in doing so, it breaks the illusion of fast spinning blades all but completely... 

 

all other models have the propeller spin-disk edges fade out completely, and it is not possible to see their rims...

[Danziger]

I have to agree. I tried this way overlaying onto 2d drawings and it just made me more confused and to see things that weren't really there. I also found with MiG-3 that not all drawings are equal. I had to look for drawings more accurate to photos. Lucky for me there is a wonderful website dedicated to MiG-3.

 

I still use some drawings but not overlayed. I use them only to point out details that sometimes do not seem so obvious in photographs.

[Venturi]

as for the fore-aft position of the wings - if you take a look at the left side picture of the ingame versions overhead view,  notice that the plane is yawed ever so slightly to the left, relative to the camera's vertical axis - line up one wingtip with the top bar of your browser, and look at where the other side tip is... 

Yes, it is slightly off. however it is less than one degree. How do I know? I rotated the entire picture 1 degree at a time, back and forth, to see.

 

Additionally, all one has to do is look at the reference lines some of which line up EXACTLY on the Allison drawing (far right) with the 3D model. Obviously they can be compared directly.

 

Also, note. The line is taken from the wing root on the 3D model. Look where it intersects the other drawings' fuselage. At least a foot beyond their wing roots. Rotation would not affect this.

 

the camera angles plays tricks on the eye, this does not invalidate any of your claims, but do not take those comparisons by the letter or the proportions will end up even worse off... I've modelled aircraft in 3d before -- these angles will melt your brain if you go about comparing it this way

I do not agree with your statement. Yes, one must be careful in positioning the camera, and not everything will align in all situations. But there are ways to mitigate that. 

 

The position of the 3D camera in comparison to the drawings I've compared are obviously correct. We are not looking at 1 degree or 2 degrees of being off, here - these are big problems in the 3D model, not minor nuances. 2D drawings are instructive in this situation, especially with flat planes such as wing shape, and when looking at positions of one structure relative to other structures on the aircraft.

 

 

as for the rest of what seems off, I believe it has more to do with the precision of some of the curves -

Yes, agree. But also and mainly, the wing location fore-aft is very off. It needs to be more aft. 

 

while most of the key reference points do line up, the curvature of the sections between them are out a bit - see the underside of the oil cooler cowling, that curve appears a bit heavy towards the nose on the ingame model, whereas the photos show it a bit less "harsh" with a more constant derivative along the cowling

Yes, agree, as I've noted, above. http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/24637-p-40-external-3d-model/?p=379687

 

the vertical stabilizer leading edge is also closer to the vertical than it's historical counterpart, which is what looks the most strange there

And the trailing edge, which is also too vertical. And the tailplane whose trailing and leading edges are also not correct. And the wing...

...which does not have enough chord, whose tips are wrong, which is located too far forward on the a/c, etc.

Edited August 23, 2016 by Venturi

[19//Moach]

one thing still puzzles me though - how come this fore-aft offset of the forward wing root does not repeat on the lateral views comparison you posted first?

 

there's something not completely right there - I can't tell if it's the model or the pictures

 

 

the "scientific" way to go about this, since there's a bit of error in every individual screenshot and a bit of inaccuracy to every line drawing, would be to brute-force a consensus from a larger sample group

 

this means - lots of screenshots, lots of drawings, compared across as many combinations as possible... the more, the better

 

 

but really, you don't even need a huge number of those to see the benefits - say, instead of one single comparison, we try some three or so... that way at least the errors have a chance to cancel each other out

 

 

 

that is the only way you could start to remove the doubts of parallax illusions and tricks played by (even minor) angle imprecisions

 

the other way - would be to have the model open in something like 3ds max - then set the camera to orthographic and compare it to an orthogonal plane textured with the sketch (this is common practice in flightsim modelling when starting any new model)

 

 

alas - these line sketches are as unreliable as any 3d model - unless you actually have access to the original blueprints somehow  -- which I would not be surprised if you could actually pull out of the internets, really... though that may take a lot of patience to find

[Venturi]

Uh, it doesn't disagree on the lateral views. Look more closely.

 

Somehow, I get the feeling you wouldn't be convinced, no matter what the data showed, Moach. 5 posts in and most in this thread...

Edited August 25, 2016 by Venturi

[19//Moach]

it's not that I'm not convinced - it's just that I'm not sure if I'm really seeing it or not... 

 

sometimes when you think you see something, you'll see it even if it's not really there - I'm trying to be positive that's not the case - and also, playing devil's advocate a bit in order to bring about as much evidence as possible and this reveal exactly what it is that's off

 

it's a matter of "what's off" not "if something is" - I too think there's something to it that's not quite satisfying to the eye - but I cannot put my finger on it and can't help but to second guess any one single comparison without at least a second to match and confirm

 

there's too much error on both screenshots and sketches - I really believe the only way to be sure what exactly it is that looks "weird" would be to compare at least a few screenshots with as many drawings

 

 

this is a puzzle - don't get me wrong - I do agree something's off, but I'm not positive we've nailed down just exactly what

[Venturi]

Fair enough, we can agree things are off.

 

Look at the real pictures as compared to the 3d model, and you will see everything I have mentioned is there, and more... no drawings involved.

1. The main gear struts are too extended under load. They are also too thick. The main gear wing housings on the leading edge are too large in cross section. The main gear tires are too thick compared to the hub.

2. The rear gear is down too far when under load.

3. The exhaust headers are too low on the cowling. They are also too far forward. They also are spaced too closely together and thus they do not have the correct overall length.

4. The upper fuselage is too tall including the top of the cockpit, however the cockpit glass is not "deep" enough from top to bottom. It also does not extend far enough rearward.

5. The lower fuselage behind the oil cooler is not deep enough.

6. The tail is too tall and is not the correct shape - it does not have enough "chord" and the trailing edge is not at the right angle, the base of the tail should extend farther.

7. The antenna mast is too far forward and is too short. Actually it should just be removed as it seems to be on half the P40 photos I see and this is easier.

8. The propeller is located too far back on the spinner.

9. There needs to be more of a transverse "pinch" between the top aspect of the oil cooler bulge and the bottom of the engine cowling.

10. The wing does not seem to dull enough at the trailing edge where it meets the fuselage. There is not enough of a "gull wing" at the wing root.

11. The wing shape is far off: The tip is too narrow, the wing does not have enough chord, the leading edge is not swept back enough, the trailing edge is not eliptical enough, there is too much dihedral and not enough washout at the root, and the wing is set too far forward on the fuselage.

12. The fuselage cross section behind the cockpit should be more "pear shaped", not oval. The top should have a narrower cross section than the bottom.

13. The tail planes do not have enough chord and the shape on the trailing edge is wrong slightly.

14. There is not enough of a "nose" past the inlet for the oil radiator.

15. The headrest should be narrower, see the cross section of the headrest through the rear part of the canopy on the photo.

16. The oil radiator air scoop should be slightly "swept back", it is not square.

Edited August 27, 2016 by Venturi

[Venturi]

Here is a picture of the wing dihedral, thickness, and washout...

Note how sleek the aircraft looks compared to the current 3d model...

Another one showing the same things I've already said...

One showing the trailing wing root taper and fuselage blend, which was very notable.

Note that the fuselage is quite pear shaped at the trailing wing root...

[Venturi]

Also, the propeller does not change pitch visibly.

Here is a picture of the cockpit.........

[19//Moach]

I'm noticing there's a bit of a mismatch on of the engine air intake - on the ingame model, it appears somewhat more humped than on the photographs, where it has a more slender contour, being almost parallel to the longitudinal axis as the surrounding cowling gently tapers down towards the spinner in a constant curve (it should match the profile more clearly seen on the sleeker B and C models)

 

on the model, the nose section is made out "square" around the contour of the upper cowling surrounding the air intake -- this compounds the odd curvature of the oil cooler cowling and makes for a rather blunt semblance to the whole nose section

 

notice how the ingame panels shouldering the air scoop do not curve towards the spinner anything as elegantly as seen on the photographs - this is what I believe completes the cumbersome and boxy appearance of the model

 

 

also very notable, is how the ingame depiction of the front end of this same air intake is heavily canted - it leers ahead with an aggressive angle far in excess of the one seen on the photographs - this "little detail" largely contributes to the "rude" aspect of the forward airframe

 

 

I also believe Venturi has very much nailed it in pointing out that the profile of the oil cooler opening under the spinner is not perpendicular to the centerline, but has a slight forward angle as it rises to meet the spinner

 

the rudder chord, gear extension length and the wing fairing curvature issues complete the bulk of the visual inaccuracies of the model - there may be a few more details, but as far as can be seen from the side this pretty well sums it up

Edited August 27, 2016 by Moach

[Danziger]

What I can see is the whole spinner and prop are mounted too high. Use the exhaust to draw a straight line to the spinner tip. On the 3d model it lines up while the real one is above the centreline of the spinner. This may account for inconsistencies in upper nose sculpture.

 

It also looks like the trailing wing root isn't quite right as well as how it blends into the fuselage.

The wheel discs look a bit small as well.

I also agree with Moach about the angle on the chin air intake forward edge.

[Venturi]

The cockpit shape and height, and in fact the total fuselage thickness from top to bottom from the cockpit all the way back to the tail, is very noticeably too thick in the current P40 3D model.

That is a huge inaccuracy as it makes the entire aircraft appear much too boxy, when in fact the rear part of the fuselage was quite slender.

Add in the fact that the tail is too high and of the wrong shape, and the nose is wrong and not streamlined enough, as well as the wing as I have noted.

Edited August 27, 2016 by Venturi

[Danziger]

I don't think rude remarks will get the result you are looking for

 

Someone has put a lot of time and effort into making these models and it is not very easy. Imagine how you would feel if someone was making insults to your work. You would probably get angry and refuse to look at the comparisons being made.

 

I know it can be frustrating when your most favorite plane that you've been waiting for forever finally shows up only to have some mistake on it.

[Venturi]

Fair enough, I am not trying to make rude remarks, that is not the point.

 

I am just trying to emphasize the importance to the 3D model of the aspects I have pointed out.

 

I do not think I am getting paid to do this, I am only using the internet and finding pictures and then looking at the model. 

It is a very important aircraft and it really does not perform or look as good as it should.

[TP_Jacko]

Well reading though this text it soundx a disater which it is not. What mark out of 100 would you give it.

[Danziger]

It's not very far off the mark at all. Just a couple of minor bugs is all I see for sure.

 

You also have to remember this isn't WT with an unlimited budget and an army of workers. This is a small team that has a lot to get done in a small time. I doubt the 3d modeler gets the chance to study hundreds of pictures of every detail from every possible angle of every aircraft. I know the MiG-3 is very complicated and it took months of studying for me to get it figured out. Even with all of their vast resources, the WT models are still not perfect.

[Venturi]

Well reading though this text it soundx a disater which it is not. What mark out of 100 would you give it.

 

It isn't??

 

 

It's not very far off the mark at all. Just a couple of minor bugs is all I see for sure.

 

You also have to remember this isn't WT with an unlimited budget and an army of workers. This is a small team that has a lot to get done in a small time. I doubt the 3d modeler gets the chance to study hundreds of pictures of every detail from every possible angle of every aircraft. I know the MiG-3 is very complicated and it took months of studying for me to get it figured out. Even with all of their vast resources, the WT models are still not perfect.

 

Really? Says the guy who wants the right side radiator on the Mig3 moved back three inches. That's hilarious!

Edited August 28, 2016 by Venturi

[Danziger]

Are you 12 years old?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if you get ignored. Nobody wants to deal with people like you and your selfish attitudes with no respect for other's work.

 

A polite and respectful request followed up with concrete evidence is much more likely to get a positive result than simply insulting people's work, demanding changes, and providing little and poor evidence to support your claims.

 

From everything you've posted, I've seen a total of four inconsistencies between the 3d model and the "real thing". However, this is after only a couple of days looking. I've had months of studying the MiG-3. I wouldn't call the P-40 a disaster at all. That just sounds like childish rantings of someone upset over the plane not meeting their own wants...

[Venturi]

Are you 12 years old?

 

And who is now devolving to personal insults? In my own thread? I understand you want the Mig 3 to be priority and you want the Devs to only look at your project, but the Mig 3 is nearly perfect.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if you get ignored. Nobody wants to deal with people like you and your selfish attitudes with no respect for other's work.

 

You would like that, wouldn't you?

 

A polite and respectful request followed up with concrete evidence is much more likely to get a positive result than simply insulting people's work, demanding changes, and providing little and poor evidence to support your claims.

 

I have provided much evidence and a list of the problems.

The P-40 is VERY off and it is obviously so. That does not mean I have to sugarcoat the problem.

 

From everything you've posted, I've seen a total of four inconsistencies between the 3d model and the "real thing". However, this is after only a couple of days looking. I've had months of studying the MiG-3. I wouldn't call the P-40 a disaster at all. That just sounds like childish rantings of someone upset over the plane not meeting their own wants...

 

And you are the expert now on my own thread? Sounds like your own ego is getting pretty large.

 

Edited August 28, 2016 by Venturi

[Bearcat]

Sorry but this is a ridiculous thread..