FS2004 Falcon 900

[Here for the Beer]

Some LOD-ing to do, 'cos it's an AI aircraft. It borrows much from my earlier Falcon 2000 and saves me a lot of time.

 

[Heretic]

I don't think we've had one of those for AI purposes before, so it's a welcome addition!

 

[Here for the Beer]

I don't think we've had one of those for AI purposes before, so it's a welcome addition!

Well, we have the John Rogers F900 made for Project AI in the dim and distant past, but nobody seemed very keen on it, and certainly not for painting any number of variations. I guess most people don't like painting a one-off - preferring fleets. I think it is why groups like the wonderful UltimateGA do most or all of their own repaints? I'm inclined to volunteer so's to get the CitX out the door, since I'm getting a little better at painting from making p/ks! Well, okay, IMO.

I made the Falcon 2000 to replace the one I was using for AI in my setup, Mike Stone's nice model (as part of a larger aim to get UI planes out of my AI system). After that, the 900 is only a few small steps away (wings, gear and forward fuselage all the same as the 2000 - except the wings are set further back. That made it convenient to refresh an AI plane, otherwise I'd have left it alone.

Next up will be the Socata singles, probably starting at the lighter end, TB-9/10/20/21. There's an RV-8/8A waiting in the wings with a small texturing "thing" I need to look at before it goes out.

In the meantime I've made a start on the tail section for the 900D models and later, when Dassault subtly reshaped the tail intake (as well as updating the avionics I've decided my AI pilots can do without). Probably some area ruling tweak, I would guess. Fortunately I made the tail as a separate component.

There's be 2 models per configuration as before, but this time the nose camera (and a bunch of tail aerials) can be hidden by the repainter and won;t be a separate model. Instead it'll be 900-900C as one model and 900D+ as the other, and the configurations are as for the 2000, antenna/antenna-winglets/winglets/neither. I try never to go over 8 variations - if they drive me insane I'm sure they do the same for everybody else.

Some pix of the 900D+ (some WIP on the shading below the intake, which is okay but not fine).

Some of the F900 improvements will be fed back into the F2000, maybe for a v2 that will take v1 repaints.

 

[Heretic]

I think I might be using the F900 as a F50 stand-in for my Retro AI.
Not many old AI bizjets out there.

 

[Here for the Beer]

I think I might be using the F900 as a F50 stand-in for my Retro AI.
Not many old AI bizjets out there.

Well, the F50 is still around and was being produced into the "noughties", last one was delivered in 2008 after being completed late in '07.

I might make it next year's bizjet, since (surprise) it shares the F2000's wing - well, okay, the other way around since the F50 was made first! Its tail is a bit F900ish too and probably borrows a lot. Since the Falcon 7X is a ground-up creation for me I will wait until I get a clear run at it, which won't be for 18 months. I really want to create about 4 small GA planes per bizjet, maybe more, since that is where a lot of my interest lies.

The other interesting bizjet would be the Corvette, or, thinking about it, the Hansa Jet, with its great forward sweep of the mid-mounted wings. That would be a fun shape in our skies...

Having said all that, I did wonder about making an A350, except that I expect the Fruit Standers are covering that plane far better than I could.

I use Yannick Lavignes UI model in a stripped-down format for my F50 - it is a bit scary on the framerates though.

 

[gapeters]

I am digging the refined number 2 inlet!! Looks better now.

Greg

 

[Here for the Beer]

The #2 intake got some work to create the version that beautifies Falcon 900s from the D series onwards. The previous one is for the F900/A/B/C versions of the F900 that has a flatter top to the intake. I assume some Dassault area-ruling guru refined the intake and the D & E Falcon 900s now have a slightly more bulbous #2 fairing around it. Its a very subtle difference but, once you've stared at enough F900 intakes (ahem) you can spot it a mile off.

Fortunately this was one ulterior motive for making the tail as a separate item, normally I attach it and the fuselage together to ease mapping the single object. It does also mean I can use the F900/A/B/C version as a start point for the Falcon 50 empennage sometime in the future.



The other change is canting the tailplane forward as it should be. I should also have done this for the F2000 and will have to issue a V2 (incorporating several F900 improvements) to the existing F2000 when I make the Falcon 2000S immediately after the F900 is done. The F2000S adds the F900s inboard slats which will allow them (when they enter the market) to fly the 5.5 degree LCY approach that ordinary F2000's cannot. It's been interesting for me to see how the second project has fed back into the first; I think it has benefited both.

Note that the mains are sunk into the ground because I'm using the a/c as UI - so the weights of crew, fuel, pax etc are being taken into account (I assume that's the reason - it works fine as AI). Presently sits at 3800 polys.

One query. When I move the a/c into slew mode it jumps up about 3 feet above ground and settles back down when I exit slew. Why would it do this? ACM shows it sitting on the ground line just fine.

 

[n4gix]

One query. When I move the a/c into slew mode it jumps up about 3 feet above ground and settles back down when I exit slew. Why would it do this? ACM shows it sitting on the ground line just fine.

Check your static_cg_height= xxx.xx to make sure it's reasonably close to the main gear's //3 Vertical Position (feet) entry.

When in slew mode, the a/c will assume the static_cg_height distance.

 

[Heretic]

The other interesting bizjet would be the Corvette, or, thinking about it, the Hansa Jet, with its great forward sweep of the mid-mounted wings. That would be a fun shape in our skies...

Or a Jetstar. Or a Sabreliner. Or...

 

[Here for the Beer]

Or a Jetstar. Or a Sabreliner. Or...

Those would be worth swapping out that weedy AI generic (Lear-ish?) engine sound that FS uses for some serious AI noise! I saw a few back in the day but now, in England? No nimby-way!

I was once at Woodford airshow (near Manchester) many years back when the EE Lightnings were still flying, and one powered up for takeoff on full afterburner and let the brakes go (after the nose oleo had been crushed down to what looked like half its original length). I was right by the threshold in "geek pole position" and experienced for the first in my life an uncontrollable urge to break down laughing at the racket - a completely involuntary reaction! The sound was just insane. I had the same reaction years later when I mistakenly bought display fireworks and set them off in my back garden. We watched from behind double-glazing and saw the glass bowing under the blast waves and, again, I just fell about laughing, just couldn't help it. Mind you, that time it was actually funny too, the Lightning was just frightening in an "are my innards going to liquefy under the sound pressure?" way.

To have those older bizjets pootling politely around in FS using generic noises would be kind of insulting!

@Bill - Thanks! I will check those settings when I turn that stuff back on tomorrow. They were okay until I put the plane through ACM, and obviously I did something even more stupid than usual (which takes some effort, I can assure you, I'm always lowering the bar).

Presently I'm out in the garden typing on a lappie (and just watched a Dreamlifter pass over at FL350, HHN-CHS - I might not be a spotter but I do like to know what those dots are thx to FR24).

Collecting POHs for my next projects, the small Socata singles, in between bouts of gardening.

 

[Here for the Beer]

Hi Bill -

Thanks for the advice - I always appreciate your input. It worked fine after a little adjustment for the compressing gear oleos.

It's a variation of the problem I had when making the Jodel a couple of years ago, except that in this case the drop doesn't cause the aircraft to vanish (tricycle gear seems more fragile, for reasons I can't fathom). I worried that it might affect the aircraft's really nice touchdown behaviour, but it seems to make no difference, which is also nice.

The aircraft is looking more finished now, in several ways.

 

[Heretic]

Those would be worth swapping out that weedy AI generic (Lear-ish?) engine sound that FS uses for some serious AI noise! I saw a few back in the day but now, in England? No nimby-way!

Well, you can still assign sounds to AI aircraft on a per-aircraft basis, so a noisy early Lear or Jetstart isn't much of a problem.

 

[Here for the Beer]

Well, you can still assign sounds to AI aircraft on a per-aircraft basis, so a noisy early Lear or Jetstart isn't much of a problem.

In FS9? That's where I live (I have FSX now, just waiting for some unexpected wealth so as to buy something to run it on).

 

[Heretic]

In FS9?

In FS9 as well (IIRC).


You just treat AI aircraft's "sound" folder like any other sound folder.

 

[Here for the Beer]

I tried that years ago without any success. Perhaps I need to try again.

Meanwhile the Falcon hasn't changed visibly today, but was almost completely remapped due to one tiny fault in the previous mapping. Frustrating to spend an entire day correcting one tiny triangle that wasn't taking the right texture - which meant changing the paint kit which meant remapping fuselage, tail. etc, and tail antenna & engines too since they had to shift slightly within the image - and all those things bar the antenna are mapped separately per side, so lots of aligning and micro-positioning (where I'd prefer to be using 3DSMax instead of Gmax, which doesn't seem to allow really ultra-fine positioning (in fact working at max magnification in Gmax gave my system a BSOD - luckily I'd just saved my WIP). Tomorrow I have the different tail of the early-model F900s to bring into line with the very slightly shifted RHS fuselage position. Then, after 2 days, I'll be able to make progress again.

Noticed this evening that all the wheels have acquired a wobble, so I'll need to reset all their axes in the next Gmax session. So, even more "running to stand still" to come.

 

[Here for the Beer]

Getting nearer to LODing. Just the central engine cover made today (vanishing using XML, although I can't remember why I check both the nav lights and the body velocity now - I just do it because it works).



Not sure whether to make the #1 and #3 engines have covers. As often as not the F900 has just the central #2 cover on, perhaps because that engine is too tempting for the wildlife...

Edit: Changed my mind, doing all 3. 2 models per variant just in case people don't want the covers appearing (or appearing on every plane). Variants will be winglets/winglets-antenna/antenna/vanilla. "Antenna" means the unit atop the tail (M1911A).

 

[ricardo_r]

Ahah, nice choice! Bolivian F900 doing the rounds of the day.

Great piece of work!

 

[Here for the Beer]

Ahah, nice choice! Bolivian F900 doing the rounds of the day.

My sim was the only place it could refuel.

(I painted it a couple of days prior to the recent debacle, btw).

 

[n4gix]

Getting nearer to LODing. Just the central engine cover made today (vanishing using XML, although I can't remember why I check both the nav lights and the body velocity now - I just do it because it works).

Um, how about engine combustion? Using just nav lights and body velocity, the cover would still be blocking the intake with the engine running, while still stationary on the ramp...

 

[Here for the Beer]

Hi Bill -

It seems to be working okay. The nav lights for this AI jet are on several minutes prior to departure (I'm displaying the covers when the nav lights are off). I'm not sure whether I can get away with just "nav lights = off" and forget any other check, since if the lights are on then the a/c is active no matter what it is doing - and the covers would likely be off if the electrics are powered up.

I'm just using the code verbatim from my RV-8 of last year and can't remember why it was suggested to use body velocity = 0 as a second check. However body velocity does seem to have an effect because I notice that at airports where there are a few terrain adjustments made by the sim (resulting in bouncing of the aircraft as the ground level gets adjusted) the covers flicker on and off, so the nav lights alone don't seem to have any effect. Either that or the body velocity is breaking the condition when the aircraft gets bounced by the terrain shifts and it'd be more solid without. I'm hopeless with reverse Polish (and I cut code for many years before I decided to get out of that business, but rev Polish was the first thing I forgot, with a huge sigh of relief!). Well, I actually lost rev Polish beforehand because it was never used by me in about the last 15 years in IT.

The actual code is
" (A:LIGHT NAV, bool) (A:VELOCITY BODY Z, knots) 0 != || " and seems pretty solid. It was either Rainer's or Tom's idea originally.

The nice thing about this is that the covers disappear several minutes before the aircraft actually starts up, which suggests an aircraft being prepped for flight.

If there is a better way, I have a bit of time to come up with it since I'm about to start in on the LOD work and I'm stalling like mad because I'm just not in the mood right now (sunny weather & feeling a bit burned out with Gmax anyway, so I have to pace myself).