14 replies to this topic

[IBtheSarge]

On approach to land Rwy 1R (default terrain substituted to left of runways/ramps to simulate part of the base infrastruture):


Sitting on one of the B-52 alert pads at the Christmas Tree to the SE of Rwy 1R:

Edited by sarge, 21 November 2005 - 12:48 PM.

[TaterSalad]

sarge, on Nov 21 2005, 12:47 PM, said:

On approach to land Rwy 1R (default terrain substituted to left of runways/ramps to simulate part of the base infrastruture):


Sitting on one of the B-52 alert pads at the Christmas Tree to the SE of Rwy 1R:

Nice Sarge, I have noticed you fly that plane ALOT Whats the story behind it?

[Skydvdan]

Quote

Nice Sarge, I have noticed you fly that plane ALOT  Whats the story behind it?

Probably used to crew it?

[IBtheSarge]

Skydvdan, on Nov 21 2005, 08:24 PM, said:

Quote

Nice Sarge, I have noticed you fly that plane ALOT  Whats the story behind it?

Probably used to crew it?

Nah; that's "Sleepy Time Gal" (tail #69-6510).  She was assigned to the 380th Bombardment Wing (Medium), Plattsburgh AFB (SAC), New York.  She was decommissioned in 1997 and scrapped.  Fine lady, excellent flight record.  Never missed standing her turn at nuclear alert from the day she was cert'd until the day her SIOP missions were terminated.

When the 'Vark first made its appearance in the Air Force inventory, it was a dog -- really.  It was the first CAD military aircraft (thanks to SecDef Bob "I know everything!" McNamara and his team of whiz kids) and had so many problems it wasn't funny.  Such as the TFR that, when flying over water, would read the bottom of the lake bed or river bed instead of the surface of the water; several were lost over water before someone figured it out.  Then there was the case of the engines trashing themselves at the most inopportune time -- I was on the mishap investigation board that discovered an O-ring in the 17th compressor stage that deteriorated and was ingested by the engine.  Solution?  Take the O-ring out -- it wasn't needed.

The F/FB-111 aircraft were workhorses, though.  I was greatly disappointed when USAF retired the last one.  But I was equally pleased that the Oz zoomies (RAAF) continued to fly them and they still did everything that was asked of them.  I didn't like the aircraft initially, but they all did their jobs and made my job a lot easier -- I never had to stand watch while the nukes I helped monitor were put to use.  Those birds, and their crews, did the job of "deterrence" better than its ever been done before, or since.

But you won't believe my next "baby" -- making her debut as soon as Loring AFB is completed.      In fact, she'll be the inaugural flight of Check Six! Designs' KLIZ v3.0 package.

Edited by sarge, 21 November 2005 - 08:17 PM.

[TaterSalad]

Nice story there Sarge, I knew youd give us a good one Cant wait to see this mystery bird

[ucantcme]

I love that plane!

Awesome pics too!

Well off to work I go...HARDWARE STORE!

[IBtheSarge]

ucantcme, on Nov 22 2005, 02:25 PM, said:

Well off to work I go...HARDWARE STORE!

Are you one of those "helpful hardware" men with the red apron?  

[IBtheSarge]

Initial fly-in's commencing:

[ucantcme]

Shaping up very nicely sarge!

[IBtheSarge]

Thanks; only problem is that AI -- it's a framerate killer.  Looking for substitutes.

Current:  Kitaro Akikawa's B-52.  Replace with ALPHASim's B-52 AI.
Current:  Roc Dolenec's KC-135.  Looking for made-for-AI KC's.

The current AI are basically flyable aircraft that I've removed the panels and other things that aren't needed for AI; but they're still polygon intense.  Hoping the ALPHASim B-52's do better since they're made-for-AI models.  Also have some other made-for-AI aircraft that I might be able to substitute for the fighters, and trash-haulers.  But need similar models for gas-passers and people-movers.

Or a way to create static aircraft from FS2002/FS2004 aircraft MDL files (no such thing so far).  It's especially essential at a base like Loring, where there was always a high level of traffic.  To represent that takes a lot of flightplans, so low polygon aircraft are required.

If it was up to me, every aircraft designer would have to make three versions of his/her aircraft before it could be made available -- flyable model (with all the bells and whistles), AI (framerate friendly), and static version (scenery object).  

[IBtheSarge]

Winter in New England .....  

Real-time weather at Loring AFB as of 13:47 24 Nov 2005.

[IBtheSarge]

Taxiway/runway/ramp signs installed; object placement continuing, plus some additional tweaks to the default terrain.  Beta testing scheduled to commence o/a (on or about) 05 Dec 2005 with a targetted release date NLT 20 Dec 2005.

Edited by sarge, 27 November 2005 - 10:24 AM.

[IBtheSarge]

Loring AFB Base Operations & Control Tower (installed):


Also discovered that Rok Dolenec's KC-135's are okay for AI (fps hit is -10.0 with four in view).  The big killer is those B-52's; will try using the ALPHASim B-52G and B-52H made-for-AI models to see if the framerates become a bit more friendly.

05 Dec 05 still looking good for start of beta testing KLIZ.

[Skydvdan]

-2.5 fps per aircraft?  Ouch!!

[IBtheSarge]

Skydvdan, on Nov 29 2005, 10:10 PM, said:

-2.5 fps per aircraft?  Ouch!!

Yeah, I know; unfortunately, there are no made-for-AI KC-xxx aircraft out there.  Rok's models are flyable (low polygon compared to other flyable models) that I took out the panel and a few other "niceties" that aren't needed for AI.  But they still hit the framerate pretty hard.  The scenery itself is still holding at -0.2 to -1.2 fps ... it's the AI that's a killer.  UPDATE:  Just did a quick check; it doesn't matter if there are 2, 4, or 6 KC-135's in view -- fps hit remains -10.0 for any number of them; don't know if it will go up if I go higher on the number of a/c.

Like I said, it would be tremendously convenient for designers if the aircraft folks would produce three versions of their aircraft -- flyable, AI, and static (scenery object).  Unfortunately, they produce flyables OR made-for-AI (and very few of those re: military aircraft); and, no one produces a static version of their aircraft to fill in the parking spots.

But, my job is scenery design; as long as I can keep the fps hits where I've got 'em now (-0.2 to -1.2), each individual will have to determine how much AI they want to install.  Thankfully, since this is a B-52 base, ALPHASim -- i.e., Dave Friswell -- was considerate enough to make specific AI models of the B-52G and B-52H and included them in the total B-52 package.  Populating the base with the primary combat aircraft should result in acceptable framerates (but, the B-52 is payware, which is going to limit how many people use them).  If you don't want a LOT of BUFFs coming and going, then Kitaro Akikawa's flyable model can be used.