Fw 190D-9 3D model dihedral?

[robban75]

Hi everyone! My first post here. Although I'm not new to the sim world, or the Fw 190. :)

 

This may be a trivial issue, but as I love the shape of the D-9 I often tend to just throw it around the skies while admiring the external 3D model. The problem for me is the dihedral. It is too low. The v-shape should be more pronounced.

 

Not a big issue perhaps. The 3D model is close to perfection as it is. However, would it be possible to give it the correct v-shape? Or would it mean major surgery on the model?

 

Any feedback on the matter appreciated. :pilotfly:

 

Robert

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

As far as we know, the model is based on an actual Dora from which measurements were taken. So it may be your eyes cause I'm not seeing it. Maybe you're thinking of an early snub nose FW

[robban75]

AFAIK all 190's had the same dihedral. I could be wrong though.

 

The drawing used for comparion is from Jerry Crandalls book on the yellow 10. It is made by Koichiro Abe.

 

It's not perfectly superimposed, but should give a close enough comparison between the in-game 3D model and the drawing.

 

The difference is not large, but it's there. This is hardly a deal breaker for me. I love the 3D model! :)

 

Just thought I'd see if it was easy to adjust it, or if it would mean serious surgery.

 

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Not only dihedral, nose cowling is way too "paralel" with a rounded curve in the nose. Real cowling is more parabolic. And gear legs angle (not the fairings, the legs) are also too vertical. Told a lot of time ago, but I didn't wanted to start a search of documents, photos, and so to "prove" it. Anyway all of that is pretty clear in my eye.

 

S!

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

Im not sure what to say here other than this must be an incorrect blueprint, angle , position or separate sub model of the D-variant. I'm not botching your work or anything but most blueprints don't match up to even each other some times. I do see your point tho and that unfortunately is a problem that would need to be internally reviewed by ED. This presents a problem as DCSW2 and other modules being released soon, I don't see ED taking that much time and effort to go back over the Dora and re-doing everything. Because remember not only would they have to change the 3D model, but the FM, DM and other such PITA's that come with modelling and creating a high fidelity aircraft.

[robban75]

Doesn't sound like a easy fix. As I said, it's not that big of a deal. Overall the 3D model is gorgeus. I just wanted to know if increasing the dihedral would be a quick fix or not.

 

Thanks for the answers! :)

[Echo38]

The drawing used for comparion is from Jerry Crandalls book on the yellow 10. It is made by Koichiro Abe.

 

Is it not possible that the sketch in the book is wrong, instead? It seems to me that seeking more sources might be wise, to confirm that it is the 3D model that is in error and not the sketch. Generally, I would expect a flight sim to be more prone to error than a well-researched book, yes; however, I have known books to be quite wrong regarding this sort of thing, and some artists just try to eyeball the thing they're drawing. Just an observation--I don't have any reason to assume that this is the case here, but I raise the possibility.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Echo38

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Is it not possible that the sketch in the book is wrong, instead?

Negative mate, that drawing is pretty good, also matches other very good drawings, and if you look at the real photos you will realize how good are them. Not to mention D9 wings are the very same as A model so you are plenty of examples out there. My modeller eye see that things pretty clear... you have to nail them in a model.

 

S!

[fastfreddie]

AFAIK all 190's had the same dihedral. I could be wrong though.

 

The drawing used for comparion is from Jerry Crandalls book on the yellow 10. It is made by Koichiro Abe.

 

It's not perfectly superimposed, but should give a close enough comparison between the in-game 3D model and the drawing.

 

The difference is not large, but it's there. This is hardly a deal breaker for me. I love the 3D model! :)

 

Just thought I'd see if it was easy to adjust it, or if it would mean serious surgery.

 

 

The areas that are superimposed look closer to the FW190 original documents in FW190 Volume 3 by J Richard Smith and Eddie Creek. Are those the images of the 3D model in DCS? Its hard to tell from real pictures of the Dora because they usually show the Dora in a 3 wheel stance and not level like the drawing.

[Yob]

If the Dihedral is wrong in game, i hope it is only a graphical problem. Due to the Dihedral being directly related with lateral stability.....

 

Only hope its not affecting the flight dynamics.

 

And your right about modeler eyes..... Modeling is a great way to become familiar with the air-frame of XXXXXX aircraft.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

We talked about those thing when AI model was released. I think some details were polished, but still many didn't change. I don't know if 3D looking affects FM, and probably not because Dora flies great and pretty close to the charts I think, but Dora shape is quite a beautiful one and wings particularly in DCS are awful to look at...

 

S!

[Echo38]

Again, I've known eyeballed 3D models to be horrifically wrong before. Operation Flashpoint comes to mind; some of the dimensional errors were as high as ~20%. IL-2, also--the dihedral for the P-40 was horribly wrong, by a much larger margin than the discrepancy between the two superimposed pictures posted in this thread. Eyeballed drawings and eyeballed 3D models are both susceptible to this; the question is, which one was eyeballed in this case?

 

As I said, I have no reason to assume that the sim is correct--if it's wrong, it needs fixing--however, I am reluctant to see a single drawing from a third-party source used as claim that it's "obviously wrong." Someone posts an original, official technical drawing, then I'm convinced. A hand-drawn sketch from a non-official book I don't know? Not so much.

 

Not to disrespect the author of the book, mind you, or detract from the validity of third-party sources; Warren Bodie's book has a foreword from Kelly Johnson, with a high recommendation--but then, Johnson also mentioned in the same piece that Bodie was the only author who ever contacted him before writing a book about his airplane. Other books had factual errors which didn't match Bodie's better-sourced info, see.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Echo38

[Ala13_ManOWar]

As I said, I have no reason to assume that the sim is correct--if it's wrong, it needs fixing--however, I am reluctant to see a single drawing from a third-party source used as claim that it's "obviously wrong." Someone posts original technical drawing, I'm convinced. A sketch from a non-official book I don't recognize? Not so much.

We should look for old thread. We compared to different drawings and even to RL photos. And even if that drawing is not perfect it's pretty close to the real thing while the awful DCS wings with so wide root and thin tips is clear and plainly wrong. The difference is not a tiny bit, DCS model is so far from the real thing.

 

S!

[Echo38]

Well, some of the P-51 textures in DCS do seem to have incorrect rivet lines (I haven't actually counted the rivets, ha-ha, but even the lines appear to be in the wrong places, assuming my reference model was using original lines--I assume all individual P-51D's originally had the same rivet lines--I don't know much about the manufacturing process), so I wouldn't be surprised if you're right. Still, I can't regard a hand-drawn third-party sketch as convincing, by itself.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Talking of models... Different drawings and real photograph, if you want to check, but just google and see yourself,

 

http://www.model34.com/index.php?topic=1922.0

 

S!

[Echo38]

Same deal; sorry, mate. I'm not trying to be difficult; I'm not trying to blindly defend the sim. But that's a plastic scale model site. I used to own a plastic scale model P-40 that was hilariously wrong in its dimensions. P-38, too. I'm gonna need something more official to settle my mind one way or other; right now, it is in question whether the DCS model is in error.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Difficult to find a perfect front photo but...

 

 

 

 

 

S!

[Echo38]

I wonder: Is the 3D model for the FW 190 in DCS the same for people who don't own the module, as it is for people to own the module? I'm going to fire up the sim and try to get a screenshot from the same angle as photographs, but I don't own the module, so I'll need someone who owns the module to try to match the same angle afterward, just to be sure that downloading & installing the module doesn't add a new model.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

I've found some photos I uploaded with IA aircraft thread,

 

 

From quite credited Kagero books, scanned myself, A8 but Dora wing is the very same,

 

 

 

Same book, factory wings, compare to drawings,

 

 

 

And something like a "blueprint" from 190 handbook, not so detailed but look at shapes,

 

 

 

And IA Dora back then, not so far from now,

 

 

 

 

As something previously said, I think they will probably not change it at least in the short term because that means almost a completely new external 3D model. But anybody is able to deny the wrong shape we have.

 

S!

[Ala13_ManOWar]

I wonder: Is the 3D model for the FW 190 in DCS the same for people who don't own the module, as it is for people to own the module? I'm going to fire up the sim and try to get a screenshot from the same angle as photographs, but I don't own the module, so I'll need someone who owns the module to try to match the same angle afterward, just to be sure that downloading & installing the module doesn't add a new model.

Indeed mate. Don't you know we already have external DCS F/A-18C 3D model since quite a while? :thumbup:

 

S!

[Echo38]

Damn; I can't get an angle anywhere close to right, in the sim, without knowing the FoV of the camera in the original photograph. I'm always at the wrong X angle and/or Y angle and/or distance and/or FoV; adjusting the camera deflection angles et al. to fix one thing looking out of place just makes something else fall out of place.

 

Inconclusive--might be able to do it for a 100% head-on shot, because then only two degrees of variability (distance & FoV), but right now I'm trying to do it with four degrees of variability, and I just can't do it, not without a reference point (e.g. the same background in the sim-world as was in the original photograph, or distance & FoV of the camera in the original photo).

Edited May 7, 2015 by Echo38

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Well mate, something close would make it. No need to be perfect.

 

S!

[Echo38]

Well mate, something close would make it. No need to be perfect.

 

The discrepancy in dihedral angles between the two superimposed images posted earlier is somewhere between 1% and 2% of a 90-degree angle, as best as I can tell using Windows Paint pixel-counting instead of a compass. This is indeed a significant (I'd say "large") discrepancy, given that the difference is something like 25% of the dihedral angle itself; however, when we're talking about trying to eyeball it, ~1.5% of 90 degrees is a small enough difference that the reference picture does need to be "perfect," or close to it, because most humans can't accurately eyeball a ~1.5-degree change.

 

With my screenshot attempts, my own X&Y&dist&FoV errors are larger than 2% (cumulatively and even individually), and that alone rules out my screenshot attempts. You can't use a reference image that has larger errors than the margin of discrepancy between the other two image, see?

 

This is the problem with eyeballing it. I wish 3D modellers and 2D sketchers alike would stop doing it. Accurate diagrams are needed, and must be superimposed for an exact match. In manufacturing, thousandths of an inch are used for fine measurements, not "finger's widths."

Edited May 7, 2015 by Echo38

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Well, I don't mean it's small or large difference, I mean for you to check and realize it's wrong don't need it to be perfect.

 

Anyway keep looking sources and talking on the subject is worthless if ED don't plan to fix it.

 

S!

[JST]

Well, some of the P-51 textures in DCS do seem to have incorrect rivet lines (I haven't actually counted the rivets, ha-ha, but even the lines appear to be in the wrong places, assuming my reference model was using original lines--I assume all individual P-51D's originally had the same rivet lines--I don't know much about the manufacturing process), so I wouldn't be surprised if you're right. Still, I can't regard a hand-drawn third-party sketch as convincing, by itself.

 

About textures, the K-4 was released in a pretty sorry state with some major inaccuracies, but the artist did mention it was done according to actual blueprints of the bird.

 

Of course, no Tank or Messerschmitt is alive to set things straight, and authentic birds are almost non-existent, but I certainly hope that in some cases ED doesn't just use what's considered "official".

 

Nothing wrong with using a little eyeball. Just be smart about it.