|
Post by n334aa on May 8, 2006 6:22:30 GMT
Well I must say I'm very glad that HJG is still standing and standing tall at that! ;D
But I do have a question. Looking at the jets produced by the group you've seemed to outdone ourselves. Excelent work, though my question is what updates if any are going to be applied to the DC-8s? They're great as they are now, but the 707s and CVs have literally surpased them in quality. None the less I'd rather have something than nothing. I'd greatly appreciate any response-Joshua
PS: if there are updates, would they include the thrust reverse on the older cacade types of the DC8s?
|
|
|
Post by Tony Madge - HJG on May 8, 2006 9:51:26 GMT
I cannot see any future developments of the current DC8 due to Dee Waldron going into retirement, it would be nice to find a designer who could carry on Dee's work and provide updates to an already nice example for FS..So if anyone want's a job
|
|
|
Post by chris on May 8, 2006 18:07:42 GMT
Sorry for my ignorance, but what aspect of the dc-8s can we thank Dee for designing? Did he make the visual and flight models? I, for one, was very sad when he announced his retirement from HJG and FS.
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on May 8, 2006 20:20:34 GMT
Dee was responsible for creating our entire inventory of DC8 visual models.
Those models were his much cherished babes !
Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by chris on May 9, 2006 4:00:59 GMT
Another question: What are the HJG DC-8's lacking, as far as the "visual model" is concerned, compared to, let's say the "new and improved" 707 V6?
|
|
|
Post by n334aa on May 9, 2006 5:29:55 GMT
Compared to the 707v6 it's lacking in many visual enhancements. -The thrust reversers on DC8-10 series through DC8-41 series are lacking the buckets, they slide back but within the slide are the reversers. -The landing gear has no suspension, it simply "pop" down on lift off and "pop" up on landing. -The lift dumpers/spoiler simply again pop into position, on landing they "pop" up, no animation as they are on the 707v6 -this is just eye candy, but cargo doors. -The foward air intakes are not accurate to the ones on real DC8s, they seem to "thin" while on real DC8s they seems to have some depth to them. This is about as perfect a photo I could find of a DC-8 TR: www.airliners.net/open.file/0556711/L/That's all, but as I said before...it's better to have something than to have nothing. Many thank to Dee for creating them for us, what would we do without him...*long slow sigh*
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on May 9, 2006 5:57:14 GMT
As I recall, one of the reasons these details were "simplified" was because of the inherent frame-rate hit that may be incurred through anything more complex being animated. As I do 99.9% of my FS flying from the panel (I don't fancy"wingwalking much of DC8's or any other FS aircraft) the other details don't really bother me to any extent. I "ABSOLUTELY" and "TOTALLY" agree Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by garryrussell on May 9, 2006 13:35:22 GMT
Models are made to be run on current machines and compromises have to be made. Some time later new models are made and the machines that are out there are by that time more capable so extra goodies can be added. Also model making tools improve. It is not really fair to compare an old model with the latest and show it to be almost lacking as in fact when it came out it was ahead of anything else at the time. Garry
|
|
|
Post by chris on May 9, 2006 18:21:01 GMT
Wow, thanks for the great responses! I knew about the landing gear animation being "lacking", but the rest I never realized or thought about. The spoilers "popping up" is fine, as the real ones deploy pretty fast anyways.
I also mostly fly from the panel, so I'm pretty happy with the dc-8's. I just did not know if a newer version was even justified, which is why I asked these questions in the first place.
Chris
|
|
|
Post by Dee Waldron - HJG on May 10, 2006 3:32:47 GMT
The oleo struts do work. We just never spent much time tuning it in the Aircraft.cfg file. The spoilers are also fully animated. They are set within the Aircraft.cfg file to deploy quickly, just like the real deal. TR's on the old JT3C, JT4 and RR Conway engines are a waste of time. Unless you were staring down inside the hole, you'd never see them. Cargo doors??? You gotta be kidding me right? Dee
|
|
|
Post by chris on May 10, 2006 4:49:18 GMT
Dee, thank you for your reply, and for all your hard work on the DC-8s. Nothing like getting feedback from the person that knows more of this subject than anyone else. I'm happy to hear the landing gear struts are fully animated. I may have to play with the .cfg file one of these days and see what happens. Although I cannot speak of the real 707, I can say that the real DC-8 spoilers pop up REAL quick. The other Boeing aircraft I am familiar with (727 through the 777) all deploy their spoilers in a far more controlled manner (don't get me wrong, it is still pretty quick). In other words, no improvement in this area is needed. ;D I agree with you 100% in regards to the cargo door and any additional thrust reverser animation being a "waste of time". You have to draw the line somewhere. My first real job was loading aircraft, which was not exactly fun, so the last thing I want to do is open the cargo door and see a pallet! Chris
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on May 10, 2006 4:57:03 GMT
Most folks appreciating "MUCHLY" Dee's past efforts modelling all the major DC8 series, I s'pose what some folks would still like to see is early DC8-20/30 * -40 models with functioning maindeck cargo door .... like was the case on this birdie There were in fact a few early aircraft converted to this configuration. AH .... what the hell ! Just an idea .... among thousands of others Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by n334aa on May 15, 2006 20:21:07 GMT
Thanks for the reply and sorry for taking so long in repsonding, comp had a hard drive crash and I'm still in the process of getting my old files back.
I understand completely. It's not easy to create an FS model, so many many thanks. I do fly from the panel also, but I do like to spend some time outside looking at the little details, that little eye candy really adds to the experience, to see how things work. I'd still really love the TRs but hey we all can't have everything now can we. There's a saying, a friend to all is a friend to none, guess this also applies to this, too much of something is like haveing nothing...since you won't be able to play it on mediocre comps...lol.
Best wishes...Joshua
PS: Best of luck Dee, and I'll check into that landing gear and spoiler...thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Aldo Regozani on May 15, 2006 23:26:51 GMT
i agree with mark on the cargo doors, but its not an major issue. i'd personally like to see more detail on the gear and maybe even wingflex (even if there isnt too much). i just like to marvel around those planes on the ground as much as i like to fly them. and i definately would like to see more poly's used for the entire nose section of the 8. i think that average PC performance has risen to a level that could handle additional smoothing.
|
|
|
Post by johndetrick on May 16, 2006 14:04:50 GMT
Wing flex? How about fuselage flex on the stretch versions? These things are notorious for the elasticity of the wings and fuselage. On ferry flight when were empty, I usually send the new first officer back to the cargo bay to look at the bending and twisting going on back there. It's even worse in turbulence. The wings just flap like a big bird. Gentle up and down cyclic motions. And the pylons especially when two and three are in reverse in flight, ever hear the term wet spaghetti noodle? You've got to admire the old Douglas engineers and the strength through flexibility philosophy. Even though the 61/71 with it's wing is a bit stiffer, I usually refer to the 71 as the stiff winged wonder jet. John
|
|