Can adapt artwork to accommodate any changes. Biggest of these is to establish separate imagemaps / mapping for the forward fuselage and the tail so that these are not mirrored.
Which begs the question - can we fix it (albeit temporarily) - by having an identical file to 1fusefront.jpg called 2fusefront.jpg, and edit the .ac to use that map for that side. Repeat with 1tail.jpg for the Vstab. 2 more textures, but I can keep file sizes manageable. Is that a viable fix (for now)?
Mirroring takes a shit on authenticity of the artwork - reversed decals and limited camo options are fugly.
If you lived with my brain you'd begin eviction proceedings...
14 Jan 2019 11:24 - 14 Jan 2019 13:08#41595by ScottBouch
The tailplane / elevator axis of rotation of the real aircraft is aligned with the tail plane / elevator leading edge.
These images of the Cosford Lightning will help you see the pivot where it joins the airframe and the angle it's at. The curved slot is where the actuator in the airframe manouvers the tailplane around the axis of the pivot via a linkage.
These wings are also of the correct shape for the T5 and earlier Mk's (straight leading edge, and alieron balance horn). The current wings of the FGUK T5 model are for the F6 (kinked and extended leading edge, no alieron horn).
14 Jan 2019 18:18 - 14 Jan 2019 18:18#41611by hans05
I did a quick import from the hangar version .ac file to Blender and the result was a bit frustrating. Like in the EC665 the mesh is a bit of a mess AND while the geometry of the tail is only a bit off, the geometry of the wings is quite far off.
So now the question is what to do.
Shall I try to get the mesh straightened out?
Should I correct the geometry of the wing? Since that change would be quite a big one, I am afraid that the livery is in danger of needing to be changed as well.
Should I correct the geometry of the tail?
I understand that at least the pivot for the tail should be adjusted.
I feel the most obvious improvement for this model would be the elevator pivot angle, for the biggest gain vs least knock-on work.
What do you think?
I'm going to start an airframe project tonight, beginning by gathering up as many known correct dimensions as possible, for beginning to take a modular approach to the Lightning airframe, as suggested in the other thread. Unfortunately as Stuart pointed out, this would result in pretty much starting a fresh with a new model.