Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Thanks for the compliments.

Adding normals, with real bumpy spots likewise the ones on the fuselage of a real old plane ,doing some manual editing on the obj-files to create gloss , making speculars in the normals to prevent de-icing-boots from shinyness, creating the missing "spotlights" for the registration , thats whats thrilling me.

I cannot fly this plane ( in fact I cannot fly at all ) , I just like to upgrade it ( make it a little McPhattish you could say ).

This time I hardly touched the "default"-paint. Cheers Leen

Edited by Leen de Jager
Posted

I'm on board too Leen, it does look great! The next version of the MU2 will finally come up to speed with normal and specular maps, but till then, you've really done a great job!

-Tom

Posted (edited)

Thanks for the compliment , but why "till then"?

Whats else do you plan to add to the "looks" of the model.

I added normals and speculars , what do you have in mind to add extra`s to this looks?

It might be a major improvement to add normals based on a "thin lines-tiny-rivets" sceme , this however not possible to achieve within the present texture-mapping.

E.g. plate-lines on the fuselage can be made on the normal by using two lines (each one pixel wide , we know thats the minimum to get "bump-effect"), this however results in a quiet heavy and a way to wide effect on the model.

Using multiple textures giving more pix-per-feet solves this problem.

Remapping of the texture (especially the fuselage) onto multiple 2048x2048 files will do the trick, I would be thrilled having such a mapping ,wich enables High Definition texturing on the fuselage the same time.

I realise I am quiet spoiled, being used to having that all for years , sorry for that.

Rivets should look like rivets and not like buttons and thin lines should be thin lines and not be groves to lay a finger in.

If possible, please correct the texturemapping at the fuselage nose , making cheatlines over the nose is quiet problematic and not possible on some positions.(yet)

Cheers

Leen

(Flybike-Paints / McPhatstudios)

Edited by Leen de Jager
Posted (edited)
Thanks for the compliment , but why "till then"?

Because its a lot of work ...and I can not stop what I am doing to work on it at the moment.

Whats else do you plan to add to the "looks" of the model....I added normals and speculars , what do you have in mind to add extra`s to this looks?

More resolution, new textures and new lighting effects. It's @150 px/meter...there's lots of room for improvement of that number and higher resolution means painting new rivets, new lines, new grunge, new spec map, more textures, more layers, more time, etc etc etc...so much to do.

I realise I am quiet spoiled, being used to having that all for years , sorry for that.

No worries, but I've been busy bringing all that to xplane 10 for the last 2 years Leen! (As much as Lamianr would let me anyhow) ;) I develop flight models / 3D models / UV Layouts/ Textures / 3D object library / Custom Scenery / Plugin programming and well.....I'm just a busy guy.

-Tom

Edited by tkyler
  • Upvote 1
Posted (edited)

Thanks for the info Tom.

More pix for more crisp and detail.

Sounds swell.

Making the wings and empannage file twice as big ( four times as much pixels ) is not so hard .

The fuselage needs a total new mapping wich I cannot do being just a humble painter , I`ll have to wait for that.

Cheers

Leen

ps:

would like to have a spot to place an underwing registration.

Edited by Leen de Jager
Posted

I never really got into repaints - in fact I've only made one, and it was for the MU-2. I picked an imaginary registration "VH-XHV" and put VHXHV on the wing underside. It doesn't make a difference that it's a mirror image!

Posted

I've known that I needed to up the Mu2 resolution for a good 2.5 years...and TBH, my skills weren't really as sharp then as they are now. After doing 4 aircraft for laminar...each getting better than the last, I am technically ready to go back and "do it right", but at the same time, the Moo is a challenging shape and I just think, 'Ugh'....but know it needs to be done. Though it will never be as popular as a heavy, I certainly want it to be as visually rich and systems accurate as any product ever was. The Moo was the first fully interactive 3D plane for x-plane and I really want to get it back to the forefront....and in time I will. I am working hard at being able to support myself fully with my own xplane work and towards that end, I am involved in some other work that will hopefully pay the bills a bit better than a 3 year old MU2 model...and sometime after that happens, I will turn my attention back to this guy and "spare no expense". I can assure you Leen...the next version will be much more painter friendly in both UV layout and resolution! I'd seriously look forward to what you would do with it.

-Tom

Posted (edited)

I understand Tom , I must say the MU-2 is quiet painterfriendly as it is now and there is no reason for complaining.

As I said before , I am very spoiled and demanding.

And whats more important I am just a "hobby-painter" not making any money with my painting activities.

I am doing quality-control and research at McPhatstudios , I never touches the brushes there.

When I started painting for X-Plane ( after many years of MSFS and FLY!! ) I knew a lot about painting , speculars and bumpmapping.

About normals and gloss on X-Plane models I did not know a thing and it was not really there in X-Plane.

In time I sharpened my skills and after having succeeded in adding these things to several existing X-Plane models...............whell ehhh you know the rest.

I could not resist starting a livery for the Mu-2 myself.

Still "work in progress" , still a lot to do.

Cheers

Leenmu5.png

Edited by Leen de Jager
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted (edited)

Maybe I cannot promis.

Working on this one at the moment.

Would be great to have an cargo-interior obj file for this one.

From outside its a cargo nevertheless the cabin interior and windows ( seen from inside )remain.

mucolgr.png

Edited by Leen de Jager
Posted

For the cargo version: a screen behind the pilot's seat would be easier than a full-blown freight interior. Don't real freight aircraft have those so stuff can't fly forwards and hit the pilot in emergency situations?

Posted

Thanks so much Leen! I didn't know you distributed it. No changes to the mapping in the 1.5 update. Version 2.0 will be next and probably some time in coming in that it will have new UV mapping, higher resolution texture, new engine model, new 3D cabin etc.

Posted
For the cargo version: a screen behind the pilot's seat would be easier than a full-blown freight interior. Don't real freight aircraft have those so stuff can't fly forwards and hit the pilot in emergency situations?

Some do some don't. The Moos I flew in actually had a bulkhead while others just had a cargo net. A cargo interior is planned for the future also.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...