Douglas DC-4

I added the vstab today so here's a render for you. I also wanted to mention I'll be reworking the Nacelles to make them look a bit more scale.
 

Attachments

  • Douglas DC-4 12.jpg
    Douglas DC-4 12.jpg
    290.4 KB · Views: 18
I started reworking the Nacelles this morning but didn't get very far before I broke off and looked for a better set of drawings. I ended up finding a better quality set of the same drawings I've been using so a little research paid off. Plus this set had one more drawing I hadn't seen before

The one thing I did was rotate the Nacelles to make the top and bottom flaps in the center that makes the top and bottom intake centered on them. I borrowed the Nacelles from the Clipper so they needed to be rotated. Next I'll reshape the front of them to match the curved look of the DC-4 Nacelles. I also need to make them longer so they have room for the main gear to retract in them. I don't know how perfect I'll get them so I might need a Hall Pass on that part.
 
I rounded out the Nacelles to match the DC-4 they're not perfect but much better than they were before. Next I'll rework the intakes.
 

Attachments

  • Douglas DC-4 13.jpg
    Douglas DC-4 13.jpg
    56.3 KB · Views: 13
Donamy said:
Incredible work on the detail. Will the FPS be ok with an average system ?
Click to expand...

it is usually more to do with the Physics complexity (aka the number of aerodynamic objects) than the total triangle count for fps. so yes it will be fine on an average system as long as he does not make the engines react to air
 
Donamy said:
Incredible work on the detail. Will the FPS be ok with an average system ?
Click to expand...

Normally it's like legoman said but this plane and the last plane I did is hitting systems fairly hard because of the high triangle count. RF7.5 had a 27,000 triangle limit but RF-8 upped that to 135,000 so the last plane I did is hitting 105,000 triangles and does hit systems harder than anything I did before. But BrokeDad said he runs it fine on his built-in graphics so I think you'll be okay too. But it would be nice to know what processor and graphics card you're using. And if you want to try my last plane out there's a Beta of it at the link below. The DC-4 should be about the same as the Realflight Clipper beta at the link. Let me know how it works for you. Thanks

Here's the Realflight Clipper beta link.

https://forums.realflight.com/showpost.php?p=296186&postcount=323
 
The Clipper flies fine on a 3D field using my cheapo All-in-one Dell PC with built in Intel graphics so I'm sure it will be fine on most systems. Many of legoman's intricate ones though require me to use a photofield.
 
technoid said:
Normally it's like legoman said but this plane and the last plane I did is hitting systems fairly hard because of the high triangle count. RF7.5 had a 27,000 triangle limit but RF-8 upped that to 135,000 so the last plane I did is hitting 105,000 triangles and does hit systems harder than anything I did before. But BrokeDad said he runs it fine on his built-in graphics so I think you'll be okay too. But it would be nice to know what processor and graphics card you're using. And if you want to try my last plane out there's a Beta of it at the link below. The DC-4 should be about the same as the Realflight Clipper beta at the link. Let me know how it works for you. Thanks

Here's the Realflight Clipper beta link.

https://forums.realflight.com/showpost.php?p=296186&postcount=323
Click to expand...

I downloaded the latest RF clipper and ran it though a couple tests with the B-52. and on my computer the b-52's performance is CPU bound and the Clippers performance is GPU bound
 
legoman said:
I downloaded the latest RF clipper and ran it though a couple tests with the B-52. and on my computer the b-52's performance is CPU bound and the Clippers performance is GPU bound
Click to expand...

Yep that makes sense. The Clipper was 125,342 triangles before I removed all the triangles I could and it went down to 105,330 after, so I saved 20,012 triangles. I could even tell the change on my system (with a GTX1080) in RF-X it was a decent improvement in FPS. So the clipper hits the rendering engine hard where your B-52 hits the CPU hard because of the physics.

But since BrokeDad can fly the Clipper fine on his Dell All-In-One PC with RF-8 most people should be fine with the Clipper or the DC-4. But that's why I ask him what processor and graphics card he's using. An older built-in graphics might have a problem with either of them in 3D fields if the graphics isn't as good as BrokeDad's.
 
I wasn't happy with the shape of the Nacelles and for some reason I couldn't get them the way I wanted so I took a day off and played some games . So today I took another crack at it and I think I have what I want now. I still need to rework the top and bottom intakes so I left them out of the picture today. But I guess that's next on the list so I'll get to them soon. If you look close you'll notice I flattened the top cowl flap that's because the top and bottom intakes cover up those flaps so you don't see them and they need to be flat so the intakes will fit properly over them. Anyway here's what I ended up with.
 

Attachments

  • Douglas DC-4 16.jpg
    Douglas DC-4 16.jpg
    54 KB · Views: 11
I think the DC-4 will need more triangles than the Clipper because the landing gear and wheels will take more triangles than the floats did. So I went back to see if I could get rid of any more polygons on the back of the engines where you can't see them in the cowl. I ended up recovering another 3,408 triangles that you can't see so that will help create the gear. To get the tires and wheels to look nice and round takes a lot of triangles to add more segments, and there's four of them on the main gear. I want to keep the total triangle count around the same as the Clipper which I'm not sure I'll be able to do with four 9 cylinder radials. I could end up needed to make them 7 cylinder radials.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top