Second Build

Which one(s)?

  • Total voters
    11
  • Poll closed .
I don't know gentlemen. An-225 is calling my name really loudly right now and parts are getting built. The Lancaster may have to wait
 

Attachments

  • an-225.jpg
    an-225.jpg
    106.1 KB · Views: 11
Umm... oops?
 

Attachments

  • ScreenShot1452290514.jpg
    ScreenShot1452290514.jpg
    321.1 KB · Views: 13
  • ScreenShot1452290608.jpg
    ScreenShot1452290608.jpg
    473.5 KB · Views: 13
DangerZone said:
AMAZING



One day MiG 21, one day :rolleyes:;):D:p
Click to expand...

Thanks. Although the An-225 was built for the USSR to carry their space shuttle rip off. Now it is a civilian airplane now used only for airlifting the stuff the An-124 can't handle as far as size and weight.
 
I know you already have a backlog of projects for several months and the poll is closed but it just occurred to me watching some videos that there is no A-1 Skyraider on the swaps. After the Lancaster this seems like a logical choice.
 
It was tried before. 3 different build threads that I found and all of them are incomplete. The skyraider with everything that's hanging off the wings, is going to push the poly limit. Much like the A-10 Boof did. It doesn't have a cockpit for that reason. Perhaps legoman has a few tricks, but a proper Skyraider needs all of that ordinance. Maybe if the poly limit is lifted for version 8, a proper Skyraider could be created.
 
Last edited:
For a couple month I have had some Lancaster work done not much to show other than a basic outline and two flyable versions one on a b-17 graphics (wingload and power tests) and another on a crude FSX port that's has no landing gear or moveable parts to skim under the poly limit.
 
What I think would be a good idea is a Mikoyan Gurevich MiG 9, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, Su-7, 9, 11, 17, 20, 22, Yak 23.
 
Last edited:
Should I build the Lancaster for RF-X or 7.5? Because If too many people can't run RF-X, what's the point in teasing it. I am still working on the reverse compatibility for RF-X aircraft. I have done it before for 7.5; I can do it again for X (assuming the original airplane is less than 65335 triangles).
 
My thinking would be to build it for 7.5, assuming X users can import from previous versions, which I believe to be case right now with the updates, that possibly could kill two birds with one stone. if not, then it`s kind of a toss up at this point. Then again, I`m not sure how the graphics and physics play with each other between the two versions??? Haven`t heard any report on that yet. but as you stated, tri count would come into equation as well.
 
legoman said:
Should I build the Lancaster for RF-X or 7.5? Because If too many people can't run RF-X, what's the point in teasing it. I am still working on the reverse compatibility for RF-X aircraft. I have done it before for 7.5; I can do it again for X (assuming the original airplane is less than 65335 triangles).
Click to expand...

New aircraft for RF-X would be great. 7.5 aircraft in RF-X look funny when they are imported, mainly due to the colorscheme but some also don't work at all. The detail with the larger poly count it gives you would mean better models coming out from everyone. I know that I personally will only build models for RF-X, mainly because I can use any version of Max, but what I want to build, I don't need to really worry about the poly count. You can still support the old software if you want though but I would like to see at least a few push that new poly limit. I might get there someday. :eek:
 
uncle twist said:
My thinking would be to build it for 7.5, assuming X users can import from previous versions, which I believe to be case right now with the updates, that possibly could kill two birds with one stone. if not, then it`s kind of a toss up at this point. Then again, I`m not sure how the graphics and physics play with each other between the two versions??? Haven`t heard any report on that yet. but as you stated, tri count would come into equation as well.
Click to expand...

Has to have a collision mesh to work in RF-X. Many aircraft don't have them and it is unusable. The biggest issue I see though is some older models need better colorschemes and compared to some of the new stock models they kinda remind me of the free add-ons in 7.5 and what they look like.
 
To my knowledge ????, ALL the planes MUST have a collision mesh, in order to brake apart, and sit on a runway/grass field without sinking, and in order for them operate as expected in the sim, If not,THEN, they are unusable, I don`t think you can get one into the sim without one (I could be wrong there), but you`d be stupid not to include one, they don`t take long to create. Modelers can create their own mesh, or opt to have one generated (somewhere during the process of modeling), but, that`s not generally the better of the two options to my understanding. I certainly agree with the making of a model with a bigger poly count for RF-X, would be interesting to see the detail, Legoman does great work
 
Last edited:
uncle twist said:
To my knowledge ????, ALL the planes MUST have a collision mesh, in order to brake apart, and sit on a runway/grass field without sinking, and in order for them operate as expected in the sim, If not,THEN, they are unusable, I don`t think you can get one into the sim without one (I could be wrong there), but you`d be stupid not to include one, they don`t take long to create. Modelers can create their own mesh, or opt to have one generated (somewhere during the process of modeling), but, that`s not generally the better of the two options to my understanding. I certainly agree with the making of a model with a bigger poly count for RF-X, would be interesting to see the detail, Legoman does great work
Click to expand...

I'm stupid none of my planes have a collision mesh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top