Jim Wilson wrote:
Are you using ac3d or blender?
ac3d.
Ah ok.
The tips helped a lot:
http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/fokker/
It's starting to look quite good now.
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Erik Hofman writes:
http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/fokker/
It's starting to look quite good now.
Coming along nicely
This is really going to be a nice one.
nit
It is hard to tell but it almost looks as if there is
something going
Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is hard to tell but it almost looks as if there is
something going on with the normals on the wing
panels. ie the shaddowing doesn't quite seem
consistant with that on the fusalage.
I've seen similar effects with FlightGear in the past - after
On 16 Jul 2003 18:11:06 +0100,
Christopher S Horler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
An alternative reason for keeping it is the KLM stewardesses
..you shag 'em using FG??? ;-)
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear
Jim Wilson wrote:
I'd guess that there are 2 sided polys in there. Look at the whiteness on the
wing root (in the shaded area) and what should be the shaded side of the tail
here: http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/fokker/002.jpg
You know what, I had to flip the normals on the horizontal
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Ha, this is the result of three days of practicing for a 3d model of a
fokker 100 (and the aeromatic model to match):
http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/fokker/
Erik
http://www.rekkof.nl/fokker100/index_fokker_100.htm
It looks like you've got
Jim Wilson wrote:
Erik Hofman said:
Ha, this is the result of three days of practicing for a 3d model of a
fokker 100 (and the aeromatic model to match):
http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/fokker/
It looks like you've got the shape worked out correctly. Very nice!
There are still some
An alternative reason for keeping it is the KLM stewardesses (at least
the last time I went on a Fokker 100 I was suitably impressed). I don't
really agree with the article...that's why I had to find alternative
reasoning:-) Although my standpoint has a strong degree of bias.
The model is
Christopher S Horler wrote:
An alternative reason for keeping it is the KLM stewardesses (at least
the last time I went on a Fokker 100 I was suitably impressed). I don't
really agree with the article...that's why I had to find alternative
reasoning:-) Although my standpoint has a strong degree
Erik Hofman writes:
I am probably a bit biased too, but maybe I can convince some others by
explaining that the MD-80 is basically a Fokker 100 before the split
between McDonnel Douglas and Fokker and the Fokker 100 is produced for
the American marked by Fairchild.
I always thought
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Jim Wilson wrote:
Erik Hofman said:
There are still some weir artifacts I can't explain.
First there's the black tail (??)
And if you look carefully you also see there are sections that don't fit
nicely to the rest (the shading differs, for example
David Megginson wrote:
Erik Hofman writes:
I am probably a bit biased too, but maybe I can convince some others by
explaining that the MD-80 is basically a Fokker 100 before the split
between McDonnel Douglas and Fokker and the Fokker 100 is produced for
the American marked by
Jim Wilson wrote:
Ah ok. In that case select the tail object, and on object menu, optimize
vertices and surfaces. Triangulate anything that has a concave surface
(surface menu?). If its still black there after that check to see if there
are any vertices that don't belong. Select invidiual or
Erik Hofman wrote:
There was a need for a replacement of the DC-9 and that's where Fokker
and McDonnell Douglas teamed up. The Fokker 100 is a derived of the
Fokker 28 which needed to be replaced also. I don't know the details of
why they didn't continue but the MD-80 is and Fokker 100 share
14 matches
Mail list logo
