Handley Page HP52 Hampden

[Asheshouse]

This is the first model I have attempted.

http://www.asheshouse.btinternet.co.uk/Render6.jpg

I'm making slow progress. I guess my greatest difficulty is understanding how to structure the mesh to achieve the required shape with the optimum number of vertices. I suppose that comes with practise.

Hopefully this meagre offering will be superseded soon by something that is a bit more advanced, but at present I keep deleting bits to try again.

Any comments will be gratefully received.

[Skyraider3D]

Welcome to MilMesh! :cool:

This is one of the best subjects I have seen thusfar! Good luck! :)

[kevjon]

For a first model, this is looking pretty good. British bombers always make great subjects.

[Zorin]

Glad to see you followed my advise :)

Everyone around here will gladly try their best to help you with their knowledge and skills.

[Deetz]

Welcome to MilMesh :) Great subject, looking good for a first model! Have fun with it and don't rush it, take time to redo parts until they're right, you'll learn a lot.:)

Deetz

[bzhyoyo]

If you want us to help with the efficiency of the polycount, you should post wireframe renders of the mesh.
Looks good so far, and interesting subject. Good luck ! :)

[JerryBoucher]

The Hampden is a pretty tricky design to build in 3D if it's your first model, so good luck with it!

[Asheshouse]

A bit more work on the nose and the wing roots thickened up.

http://www.asheshouse.btinternet.co.uk/Render7.jpg

[Nils]

Nice subject. I started this one too long time ago, never finished it though, but I have some good reference material if you need it. Just drop me a line. :)

[Vespa]

Nils, our TT Dev team needs to start this model too so any references would be really appreciated.
Is it possible to get your material?

[Nils]

Yes you can :) what's the TT development by the way?
Need an e-mail adress..

[pontius]

TT means Target Tobruk for the targetware-engine :)
LINK (http://targetware.net/)

[Asheshouse]

Nils, our TT Dev team needs to start this model too so any references would be really appreciated.
Is it possible to get your material?

I assume you are looking at this for Target Tobruck.

Do you have any info on Hampdens used in the Med theatre?
As far as I know they only operated from UK and briefly Northern Russia, plus one supplied to Sweden.

[Asheshouse]

Added the engine cowling and spinners.
The line of the joint between the cowling and top wing surface doesn't match the drawing but seems to be a reasonable match to the photos I have.
Maybe the wing cross section needs adjusting?
Changed the rear fuselage to the proper square shape with rounded corners but there seems to be errors to resolve - needs more work.
Also need to sort out the wing tips,which currently have a hole.

http://www.asheshouse.btinternet.co.uk/Render8.jpg

[Asheshouse]

I'm up to 8250 polys already, using Meshsmooth modifier.
Here is a shot of the wireframe.
I could probably have been much more economic with the mesh.
The cockpit canopy and bomb aimers nose canopy seemed to take a lot of mesh to do smoothly.
Any suggestions how it might be rationalised a bit?

I haven't properly merged the wings, fuselage, engine cowlings etc so there will be some saving when this is done but I guess that will get used up and more with fillets and chamfers at the join.

http://www.asheshouse.btinternet.co.uk/Wireframe1.jpg

[Nils]

Looks good Asheshouse. Are you modelling for a game? BoB maybe..
If not, 8000 polys is not an alarming high polycount. I'd say you've got alot out of your polys. It looks smart :)
But if you are, remember that landing gear and engines alone can take some polys to finish, plus visible interior .

[bzhyoyo]

I think using a meshsmooth modifier for a low-poly model is a very bad method as you don't have enough control on where you really need extra edge loops, etc... you'd better use connect or cut tools to add extra edge-loops where needed, and only there.
The wings seem quite a bit poly heavy too but it's quite hard to see on your render.

[Zorin]

These pics should give you an idea on how to face certain areas on your mesh in terms of efficient use of polys: http://forum.sukhoi.ru/showpost.php?p=889358&postcount=65
http://forum.sukhoi.ru/showpost.php?p=892450&postcount=93
http://forum.sukhoi.ru/showpost.php?p=893918&postcount=104
http://forum.sukhoi.ru/showpost.php?p=894134&postcount=106
http://forum.sukhoi.ru/showpost.php?p=894543&postcount=112
http://forum.sukhoi.ru/showpost.php?p=895015&postcount=120
http://forum.sukhoi.ru/showpost.php?p=895972&postcount=122
http://forum.sukhoi.ru/showpost.php?p=898503&postcount=130
http://forum.sukhoi.ru/showpost.php?p=912390&postcount=146

[Asheshouse]

bzhyoyo - I think I agree with your comment. I can see looking at the mesh that there seem to be a lot of poly's which are not really required. I guess there is no shortcut other than to manually insert additional poly's where they are required and to delete the Meshsmooth modifier.

Nils- It was the upcoming SoW BoB sim which got me started on the Hampden. There were a lot of squadrons equipped with them at the time of BoB and the contribution of Bomber Command at the time tends to be over shadowed by Fighter Command. Having the Hampden and Fairey Battle included would just about complete the RAF resources for a realistic Battle of France campaign, in addition to the raids on the channel ports during BoB. I guess with the Blenheim and Wellington already being modelled there are unlikely to be any other RAF bombers officially included. Whether my model would ever reach sim standard I don't know, I dont really have the knowledge to do it at present. There is an incredible amount of detail to put into these models even after the physical model is completed, in order to include the animation of all the moving parts, the damage models, and special effects. Still - one step at a time.

Zorin - Thanks for those links. They seem to give a good indication of the amount of internal structure which needs to be included. I already have a cut away drawing of the Hampden which will provide much of this detail.

[Vespa]

For any info about our Sim you can che our web site: http://www.targettobruk.net

You can find any reference to send material and docs.
Really thx for any help.

[Asheshouse]

Started work on the windows. Rear upper gunner position is about right I think but need to adjust the hooped glazing bars at the front, which don't run through properly.

Question? -- Should I recess the window panels, or is this best done with the texture on a low poly model?

Now that I have two materials on the fuselage I have detached the windows from the main fuselage "object". This introduces problems of vertices at the edge of the windows not being moved with the fuselage when I adjust things. Should I keep it as a single object but use Multi/Sub-Object Materials? -- or is there another way to keep vertices linked between objects?

Edit:-- I've now changed the fuselage to a single object combining the windows with the body, using Multi/Sub-Object Materials. Life is now much sweeter. Also sorted out the nose framing lines. Probably need to refine the mesh to get rid of the angular appearance in some parts.

Why is the render now fuzzy?

http://www.asheshouse.btinternet.co.uk/Render12.jpg

[Asheshouse]

One month into the build. Gradually coming together.
5100 polys at this stage.

http://www.asheshouse.btinternet.co.uk/Render12b.jpg

[Psy06]

One month into the build. Gradually coming together.
5100 polys at this stage.
At your order only 15k, use them wisely, young jedy :p

Remember that that aircooled motors consume approximately 1500~2000K and the chassis and gunner stations on 1000k for each peace :)

[Asheshouse]

Psy06 - Thanks for that vital information.

So the polycount estimate is:-

Fuselage to date 5100
Engines x2 4000 (inc. spinners and props)
Wheels x2 2000 (+ tail wheel assembly)
Crew Positions x4 4000 (inc. 6 machine guns)
Added detail ?

Total 15100 (+ detail enhancements)

Looks like I need to be more economical to stay below 15k

[Psy06]

Psy06 - Thanks for that vital information.

So the polycount estimate is:-

Fuselage to date 5100
Engines x2 4000 (inc. spinners and props)
Wheels x2 2000 (+ tail wheel assembly)
Crew Positions x4 4000 (inc. 6 machine guns)
Added detail ?

Total 15100 (+ detail enhancements)

Looks like I need to be more economical to stay below 15k
Oh, I have forgotten 2000k it with cowlings, ehausts and a motor-frame
For an interior you have gone too far, approximately it all about 2000k, plus 1000 on a turret, the rest depending on that how many remains.
Add still bomb bay with its contenss, and contents of wells the chassis, It goes on account of a fuselage. But not so bad, please post some wires, I think you overdetail some places. And it is necessary to acquaint you with the some geometry optimization tecnics.

But do not try to alter all at once, do while is better as it is done, it will be much more convenient for you to estimate mistakes after the model will be more less ready, this method certainly not fast, but yet will not learn to count triangles "on the fly", it is effective.

[Skyraider3D]

Looking pretty good from as far as I can tell.

[Asheshouse]

Please post some wires, I think you overdetail some places. And it is necessary to acquaint you with the some geometry optimization tecnics.

Here is a wireframe image. I will not show the tail because I think I will probably model it again now that I know more. The wings, apart from the fillet at the fuselage joint, are nearly ready for adding flaps, airlerons etc. I will still need to add the internal structure, fuel tanks etc. but I thought to do that when everything else is finished.

http://www.asheshouse.btinternet.co.uk/Render12c.jpg

[bzhyoyo]

I think it's pretty neat for the moment;
the only places I would try to optimize are the back turret (but it may be because I can't see it so well) and above all the wheels.

[Asheshouse]

I am struggling with keeping the polycount down on the radial engines.
This rough mock up is already up to 1400 poly's.
Of course with 9 cylinders every detail is x9 on the polycount.
I guess I just have to cut the detail and make everything more angular?

http://www.asheshouse.btinternet.co.uk/Pegasus_1.jpg

[Zorin]

I am struggling with keeping the polycount down on the radial engines.
This rough mock up is already up to 1400 poly's.
Of course with 9 cylinders every detail is x9 on the polycount.
I guess I just have to cut the detail and make everything more angular?

http://www.asheshouse.btinternet.co.uk/Pegasus_1.jpg

Those thin struts shouldn't all together exceed 45 polys or else you did something wrong.

[Nils]

Also, do you need a curved backface of the cylinders or can you steal some polys there too?

[Asheshouse]

Those thin struts shouldn't all together exceed 45 polys or else you did something wrong.

Ok --- Seems I don't properly understand how 3DS works. -- No surprise there!
In the mockup shown only the Crankcase/Lower Cylinders/and Reduction Gear cover were Editable Polys. This bit had a polycount of 306.

All the rest were still left as Standard Primitives and had not been attached to the main model yet. Useful to keep them as Primitives until I have adjusted the proportions a bit more.

If I delete all except one of the thin struts (valve push rods) it has a poly count of 20, but this drops to 7 when I convert to an Editable poly. 5 sides plus two ends, which will be deleted eventually. The pushrods are a bit too thin and will need to be fattened up but should still be ok as 5 sided.

The 18 sided cylinder heads which are also Std Primitives have a polycount of 72 each at present. This drops to 20 when I convert to an editable poly.

I didnt realise how important it was to get rid of standard primitives, but I guess I would have stumbled across it eventually. I presume the polycount for a Standard Primitive is based on breaking it down into triangles? Whereas with an Editable Poly quads are allowed.

Thanks for the help again.

[Asheshouse]

Also, do you need a curved backface of the cylinders or can you steal some polys there too?

I think the rear detail may be required. Based on other bomber models I have been looking at I need to include the engine support frame, oil tank above the engine and adjacent fuel tanks. I probably will not include the various engine related components immediately behind the engine in any detail but will model a shaped block to fill the void which could be textured.

[bzhyoyo]

Don't be fooled by the polycount based on editable poly. What counts in a game are tri's in general, so the polycount should be based on what you get with an editable mesh object. That's how most game engine works AFAIK.

If we can't see the head of the cylinders, I think you can make them 6 sided at most as they will be visible mostly from the front, and with the same smoothing group, they will look cylindrical anyway.
The same can be said about the thin struts.

[Asheshouse]

Don't be fooled by the polycount based on editable poly. What counts in a game are tri's in general, so the polycount should be based on what you get with an editable mesh object. That's how most game engine works AFAIK.

I still don't understand.
In 3DS I can display Statistics for "Polys" or for "Tris" in the viewport.
When Psy06 refers to a max limit of 15000 Polys for Twin Engined bombers, which Statistic should I be working to, Poly or Tris?

[Psy06]

Of course tris.
I guess I just have to cut the detail and make everything more angular?

Ok, look as the motor-gondola with two-rows star looks, all motor-gondola with a motor-frame, cowlings, ehausts, spinner, oil tank and radiator weighs 2k triangles
http://forum.sukhoi.ru/showpost.php?p=870028&postcount=22
http://forum.sukhoi.ru/showpost.php?p=871694&postcount=32
http://forum.sukhoi.ru/showpost.php?p=895015&postcount=120

About the mesh:

[bzhyoyo]

generally you should be working with tri's but it may change for the particular game engine you're working for. I'm not knowledgeable enough to tell you more. Maybe you could check this on forums dedicated for the sim you're working for?

[Asheshouse]

Of course tris.


Ah ha! :err:

This minor matter will delay progress for a while.
Many thanks for the detailed comments on the Hampden image, and the examples of engines which were linked. This will help considerably.

[Asheshouse]

Back on track I hope. Counting Tris not Polys.
Incorporated Psy06's comments and refined the wings and cockpit framing etc.
Also took Meshsmooth off the engine cowling, so it looks a bit cruder now.
Level of detail of the front of the engine looks about right. Still got the exhaust manifold and the rear of engine components to add but I wanted to get the appearance at the front correct first. Also need to refine the joint of the wing with the cowling and fuselage a bit.
Just over 11000 "Tris" at this stage. Need to redo the undercarriage struts which are too detailed at the moment. Also need to optimise the tail. Should save about a further 2000 Tris when I've done that.
http://www.asheshouse.btinternet.co.uk/Render13.jpg

[Psy06]

Need to redo the undercarriage struts which are too detailed at the moment. Also need to optimise the tail. Should save about a further 2000 Tris when I've done that.
The main undercarriage struts should be octahedral, all weels should consist of a disk and a tire separately (in the sim of a wheels will burst from bullets and punctures)
The number of faces in motogondole must match the number of cowl flaps, or else you will not be able to make good transition between engine cowl and cowl flaps

[digiartist]

You know for an aircraft thats considered a failure, it's still a pretty sweet looking aircraft...nice work so far!

[Asheshouse]

You know for an aircraft thats considered a failure, it's still a pretty sweet looking aircraft...nice work so far!

Yesterday I found a copy of an old book "How it is Made" first published in 1939/40. Its kind of a childrens encyclopedia of technology. Pg 51 features a full page with illustrations on how the Hampden is assembled. To quote the book " The Hampden is one of the finest specimens of aeronautical engineering to be seen in any air force in the world" Another quote "Vickers Wellesley bombers --- have done such excellent work in long distance bombing raids over enemy territory".
I think the publishers may have been a little biased. Nice production line shot of six "Vickers Supermarine Spitfires" nearing completion.
I was hoping to find a nice illustration of the detailed workings of a Hampden type undercarriage but no luck with that.

[digiartist]

You know with this model being low poly and you mentioning the production line, you could do an amazing render of a line of these aircraft in the factory. Difficult one to pull off but would look incredible.

[Zorin]

http://www.wf.weltkrieg.ru/color/alair/foto/065b.jpg

[Asheshouse]

Nice image that one. Here's my response.
http://www.asheshouse.btinternet.co.uk/Render15.jpg
I'm slowly progressing the engine/undercarriage assembly.
Had to redo the cowling to get the mesh in the correct format for the cooling flaps.
Not much to show for it yet. Still looks much the same.
Rebuilt the exposed part of the undercarriage this afternoon, working off photos.
Looks totally different to the drawing I was working from --- A salutory lesson.
I don't think I've got the rear fuselage rounded enough, and I need to round of the tail fins a bit, but all of that is pretty easy to do. I want to focus on getting all of the bits on the model and then tweek them later.

[bzhyoyo]

by comparing the pic posted by Zorin and your last screenshot, it seems to me that the glass nose shape is a bit different (more rounded, less pointy) too, but that could be because of the angle. The glass area between the fuselage and the metal struts on the side seems larger on the model than on the pic.
Your model still looks like a Hampden, don't worry ! :)
Anyway, it's an aircraft I don't know much about but I like its lines.

[Asheshouse]

The model looks a bit more pointed because of the shadow on the bomb aimers window. The side windows are too big though. The glazing bars which separate them from the nose need to be pulled back a bit, but this in turn will make the nose narrower in order to keep the glazing bars on the correct fore and aft line. This is another case of the 3-view drawings not matching the reality of the photos. I will need to address this before progressing work on the cockpit internals.

[Psy06]

The model looks a bit more pointed because of the shadow on the bomb aimers window. The side windows are too big though. The glazing bars which separate them from the nose need to be pulled back a bit, but this in turn will make the nose narrower in order to keep the glazing bars on the correct fore and aft line. This is another case of the 3-view drawings not matching the reality of the photos. I will need to address this before progressing work on the cockpit internals.

Similar drawings on which you work it is necessary to throw out, certainly the model is similar on the prototype, but distortions are significant and with it it is impossible to count on certification in MG. Try to find drawings of better quality.

Sorry for such hard words.

[Asheshouse]

Similar drawings on which you work it is necessary to throw out, certainly the model is similar on the prototype, but distortions are significant and with it it is impossible to count on certification in MG. Try to find drawings of better quality.

No problem with the harsh words. I'm glad the standard is set high. I don't think I am likely to find more drawings but I need to make increasing use of photographs for checking the details -- which must be better than relying on drawings. The overall shape of the nose looks about right. I think its only the glazing bars which need pulling back a bit.
The slightly pointed nose can be seen clearly on this shot -- http://www.canadianflight.org/collect/col_11.htm

But I guess since this is a museum reconstruction it needs to be cross references with WWII images.
They may not have built it correctly?

[Psy06]

No problem with the harsh words. I'm glad the standard is set high. I don't think I am likely to find more drawings but I need to make increasing use of photographs for checking the details -- which must be better than relying on drawings. The overall shape of the nose looks about right. I think its only the glazing bars which need pulling back a bit.
The slightly pointed nose can be seen clearly on this shot -- http://www.canadianflight.org/collect/col_11.htm

But I guess since this is a museum reconstruction it needs to be cross references with WWII images.
They may not have built it correctly?
of course it may be, but overall shape seems correct.

Glazing is smaller on what it is possible to pay attention, that is much more important that the general contour of the plane incorrect, your model at overlapping with a photo should coincide completely, by the way it is one of tricks advanced modellers.

Try to find factory or service documentation.