Need a modeler?

[TrashMan]

Well, what's the latest stable exe? And does anyone have it lying around. I don't want to go compiling the code now


B.t.w. - I have something you might be interested in. Something of a side-project of mine (experimenting a little), but might be usable for UFO:AI.

[ghosta]

http://ufoai.sourceforge.net/?page=Download

[TrashMan]

ERm...yeah..what about those links? I already got both the 2.2.1 release AND trunk.

[BTAxis]

You asked for the latest stable. That's 2.2.1. If you want 2.3, there are some installers around but they'll be outdated daily. If you want to be sure you'll always have the latest version, you're going to have to compile the source. If you don't mind working on a 2.3 snapshot, look over in the Windows forum.

[TrashMan]

Look where? All I see is a 450MB installer.

Compiling takes time and I have to download all sorts of libraries and stuff. Can't someone just build a exe and put it up somewhere?

[BTAxis]

No. The thing with dev versions is that the code changes as well as the accompanying data files. If you just downloaded some arbitrary executable, you might have wrong maps or script files causing all sorts of problems. So either you compile your own executable or you download an installer. Take your pick.

By the way, if you use the prepackaged C::B version for UFO:AI compilation isn't that hard or time consuming. And you don't have to manually download any libs either.

[TrashMan]

As I said...result of a little side experiment of mine:


[attachment deleted by admin]

[Mattn]

i like it, but keep in mind, that we also might need the landing gear - but i'm not the right person to answer here, that's winter or btaxis.

[Winter]

We already evaluated those models and decided against using them, they really don't match the feel of UFO:AI. They simply don't look like in-atmosphere craft, and we won't be featuring any dedicated starfighters.

Regards,
Winter

[TrashMan]

ERm...this isn't the old model.
It's a new one, but uses the same central hull shape as the old one.
This one actually has WINGS to fly in atmosphere. It's a in-atmosphere craft inspired a bit by the Blackbird.

[Winter]

ERm...this isn't the old model.
It's a new one, but uses the same central hull shape as the old one.
This one actually has WINGS to fly in atmosphere. It's a in-atmosphere craft inspired a bit by the Blackbird.

It's not enough just to have wings, the engines are located on the weakest part of the wings and in a way that maximises the drag they produce. They would rip the craft to pieces trying to get off the ground. The squarely angled nose would also produce lots of drag, causing extra stress on the airframe and limiting speed.

The only way I could see this thing working in UFO:AI is as a UAV, with the engines moved closer to the central body and the cockpit removed.

Regards,
Winter

[TrashMan]

It's not enough just to have wings, the engines are located on the weakest part of the wings and in a way that maximises the drag they produce. They would rip the craft to pieces trying to get off the ground. The squarely angled nose would also produce lots of drag, causing extra stress on the airframe and limiting speed.

Apparently, some of the people that made real-life working planes haven't partaken of your wisdom. I'm surprised their planes fly.

[Winter]

Apparently, some of the people that made real-life working planes haven't partaken of your wisdom. I'm surprised their planes fly.

Wow, y'know, I didn't think the Osprey had jet engines that drove it at Mach 3+. I wonder what would happen to it if it did.

Never mind the fact that its wing design is massively reinforced and completely different from your craft.

Regards,
Winter

PS. The Osprey is also an unreliable deathtrap known for going down and killing everyone on board. Not the best example of a well-designed aircraft.

[TrashMan]

But also not the only design that's a bit weird or has engines that are placed on wings. The F-117 needs special electronics to keep it in air. The blackbird has eninges on the wings and it's as fast as hell.

I would appreciate if you would not presume to tell me how reinforced/strong the wings on craft I designed are. Last I checked you were not a certified aircraft engineer.
If you don't like it, just say you don't like it - I won't mind. Say it sucks - I won't mind. Say it's the ugliest thing you've ever seen - I won't mind.

What I do mind is when you throw some questionable quasi-scientific reasons with little to no real basis.

[Winter]

But also not the only design that's a bit weird or has engines that are placed on wings. The F-117 needs special electronics to keep it in air. The blackbird has eninges on the wings and it's as fast as hell.

I would appreciate if you would not presume to tell me how reinforced/strong the wings on craft I designed are. Last I checked you were not a certified aircraft engineer.
If you don't like it, just say you don't like it - I won't mind. Say it sucks - I won't mind. Say it's the ugliest thing you've ever seen - I won't mind.

What I do mind is when you throw some questionable quasi-scientific reasons with little to no real basis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird.jpg

Look at the size and configuration of those engine mounts. For one they're not mounted square on paper-thin wings. The Blackbird is by no means comparable to what you produced, and just because you don't have a basic grasp of physics and material stresses doesn't mean everyone else doesn't either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:F-117_Nighthawk_Front.jpg

Wingtip-mounted engines on the F-117? No. They're inside the fuselage, where they can be hidden and where the structure of the craft is strongest.

In fact, let me just run this whole thing by my friend who is an actual aeroplane engineer. See what he says, eh?

Regards,
Winter