Hi all, Just been looking for a Lynx and noticed two things. Firstly it is so hard to find aircraft with all the consolidated sheets. Maybe we should look at saving aircraft as individual files. Its very easy to find the westland_lynx.png file in a folder rather than looking through heaps of sheets to find the one aircraft.
Also just above the Lynx in one of the sheets is a Seasprite and a Puma. There is no way a Seasprite is bigger than a Puma. There must be something seriously wrong with this drawing. This might have been fixed already and being a newb who comes and goes I've missed it?
TurretHead wrote:Hi all, Just been looking for a Lynx and noticed two things. Firstly it is so hard to find aircraft with all the consolidated sheets. Maybe we should look at saving aircraft as individual files. Its very easy to find the westland_lynx.png file in a folder rather than looking through heaps of sheets to find the one aircraft.
Also just above the Lynx in one of the sheets is a Seasprite and a Puma. There is no way a Seasprite is bigger than a Puma. There must be something seriously wrong with this drawing. This might have been fixed already and being a newb who comes and goes I've missed it?
I am working on new sheets, but it's a long hard slog that simply takes a lot of time.
Consolidated Sheets are better than several thousand small files (and yes it would end in the thousands), but the sheets I am working on are smaller than the prior sheets.
The Puma is the one that is out of scale in this case - and there are more recent versions of the Puma out there.
I agree that this is a major issue, but going forward, it is being addressed.
I am working on new sheets, but it's a long hard slog that simply takes a lot of time.
Consolidated Sheets are better than several thousand small files (and yes it would end in the thousands), but the sheets I am working on are smaller than the prior sheets.
The Puma is the one that is out of scale in this case - and there are more recent versions of the Puma out there.
I agree that this is a major issue, but going forward, it is being addressed.
All good points. I stand ready to help. If there is anything you want me to do? Short of go through each aircraft drawing and check for scale!
I am working on new sheets, but it's a long hard slog that simply takes a lot of time.
Consolidated Sheets are better than several thousand small files (and yes it would end in the thousands), but the sheets I am working on are smaller than the prior sheets.
The Puma is the one that is out of scale in this case - and there are more recent versions of the Puma out there.
I agree that this is a major issue, but going forward, it is being addressed.
All good points. I stand ready to help. If there is anything you want me to do? Short of go through each aircraft drawing and check for scale!
I'll let you know. The program is on hold for the rest of the month so I can finish classes.
I still didn't like the look of that Seasprite, the nose just looks so big. So I went and scaled in a three view and it is quite a bit out of scale. Airframe is just too big plus the nose out of shape. I think the problem with helos is there is no simple measure like length because this often includes the rotars which often aren't drawn at full length. But using the US Navy's SH-2F Standard Aircraft Charcteristics form (I've added a link on refernces to a page with lots of these) I've found a fuselage length from nose to aft of tail boom but not including rotors of 40.5 feet.
I've started to draw a new LAMPS I Seapsrite but am only from the tail to the fuselage and will include some of the early versions, top view and a tail down landed view, plus the later SH-2Gs. At the top of my aircraft to do list but like Timothy won't be quick because of exams. Though I like to draw as a study break.
TurretHead wrote:I've started to draw a new LAMPS I Seapsrite but am only from the tail to the fuselage and will include some of the early versions, top view and a tail down landed view, plus the later SH-2Gs. At the top of my aircraft to do list but like Timothy won't be quick because of exams. Though I like to draw as a study break.
Sounds like a plan.
I welcome help in getting aircraft fixed that are out of scale.
TimothyC wrote:The SH-2F looks good! No more edits (or it will drive some of us mad!)
Yes. Its just on the previous one I had the tail rotor stuffed up a bit and the undercarriage and its bays. Also the blue colour for the hivis was to light.
I will only add a few more SH-2Fs (lovis, RNZN) and then draw the early (UH-2A/C) and later versions (SH-2G). Plus the top view for the carrier drawing file.
