On Friday 17 Dec 2004 01:30, Curtis L. Olson wrote:

> Dave,
> Is the the "default" aircraft?  The current C172 models are very
> functional, but pretty basic.  They certainly could be spiffed up a
> bit.  I'm not opposed to adding a few polygons if they contribute to the
> model.  Part of the trick of 3d modeling is figuring out the most
> effective places to spend your polygon budget.  As far as I know, no one
> is currently working on updating the c172 3d models, so I would say feel
> free to move forward.   You could always work with a copy, leaving the
> original intact, and then we could vote or if it's clearly better, we
> could just replace the current model.  You will have to send your
> changes to one of the core developers in order to get them committed to
> cvs.
> Best regards,
> Curt.

Yes, its the default 172 which I believe represents the 'P' model.

Initially (while I get used to AC3D) I'd like to just get the geometries right 
compared to photos and diagrams that I have of a real 172P.

I think your idea would be best that I work on a duplicate of the aircraft 
which can later be merged or be a seperate model.

Working on a seperate model would also allow for accidental breakages of the 
model in CVS while the default aircraft remains sound.

I shall get what I can done and then contact a core developer and massage 
their soul into letting my design into FlightGear ;)

Also In the pipeline I've been working out how to produce other variants of 
the piper 'Indians' from the Warrior PA28 in FG. 

A Warrior can quite easily be converted to represent a Cherokee (chocolate-bar 
wing), Arrow or an Apache. A twin-engine Seminole is even possible with 
slightly more intense modifications. Following the methods used by Piper to 
develop the real aircraft, the Cherokee 6 and Saratoga could be derived from 
the same model and that, of course, paves the way for a Seneca.

(Of course, all of the above would take a lot of time so it is something to be 
anticipated for the future I hope).

Hopefully, I will have plenty of time over Christmas to work on the Geometries 
of the 172 - Time I will need as I am only just getting used to the XML model 
animation format used by FlightGear which is thankfully fairly intuitive.

Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to