Aztek

Sweet Rod. Makes me want to work on mine.

I dunno, the wear may be a little too uniform. Maybe more wear on the feat, hands and pivot areas. A few blast marks and it should be kosher. Remember, this is a HANDS ON utility destroid. That why SK gave it hands instead of cannons. They should be filthy right now ...

Are you still using Combat FS or have you switched to FS2002?

David, I know of only a couple fwd swept wing aircraft. Are there any references you know of that the -19 could have it's flight model designed after? I think that an old valk made for FS2000 was modeled after the -14 flight model. Maybe with some references for a similar aircraft he can get a decent model working. If I remember correctly, the only fwd swept aircraft I've seen was single engine. This may impact it's performance when rolling as opposed to a twin engine aircraft.

You might try posting in the movies and tv section with a link here. There's been alot of cats kicking around the type of information you are looking for over there. David Hingten is one of the bigger aviation buffs around the forums. He may be able to come up with really good guesstimates of the info you need with our canon references for the physical characteristics of the -19. I'm getting ready to get FS2004, I'd love to see the -19 when it's ready ...

last

minor update

Texs need tweaking, but yeah ... good spot to pilot a valk.

Cockpit WIP .... EARLY WIP ...

I have my entire valk collection in my 8 year olds room. On a 1x8 foot shelf about 6 feet off the ground with no access to them save for a ladder. That's as close to the toys as they are going to get. I bought some bootlegs a while back, that's as close to playing with a valk as the are going to get. I do think the 1/48 WOULD hold up to child/toy interactions. Save for the smaller parts getting lost - not broke. I.e., flaps, heat shield, gun pod, hands. After 6 months of use the valk would be a handless, pilotless, defenseless robot incapable of landing on a carrier at less than 300 knots.

The material your using looks so plasticky claylish. For lack of a better word. Your valk gives me a chub Dat. Add a pair of "radomes" to the chestplate and texture it pink and I'll love you forever man! Seriously, you have one of the best valk meshes I've seen.

Looks beautiful bro. Is the bottom "pad" removable in case some poor valk pilot soils it ???

... what he said. JK Good insight Chrono, I overlooked alot of the info you brought up when weathering, mainly the paint ripping off at panel lines exposed to airflow over the length of the aircraft. It's normally NOT found on panel lines parallel to airflow, and on panels reasonably flush with adjacent panels. Thanks!

... and a detail of the DYRL cockpit ...

...

Here's some refs, not ortho, but enough to detail up those Hase pics.

Do you remember your scores TWDC?

It's funny hearing the cross talk from diff branches of service. The big picture is that not one cannot function without the others. So like ChrisB said no matter what your called it all ties together, whether your fixin' tanks and planes or beach landing on a rock somewhere, we all support the same cause.

Damn, there's alot of detail not on the Hasegawa kit. I'll post some scans.

Also, Gorgon, what's your background in aviation? Not alot of people are familiar enough with egress systems to differinciate between different systems, i.e., ACESII.

In Macross Design Works, there are some good ortho views of the ejection seat. If you need better ones, PM DG and he may render you some ortho shots for refs.

Gorgon, You should check out Doktor Gonzo's ejection seat for the VF-1. I'm not sure where the VF-4 falls in the official timeline, but I'd suggest using the VF-1's seat as there are numerous references for source material. The DYRL version already accomodates the HOTAS style controls and has the macross feel for continuity. Egress systems that use the ACESII seats are HIGHLY different than what would be needed on a VF-4.

Good pic, and like Mech said if you were going for THAT look, good on ya man, you got it. As for painted/unpainted - chemically treated surfaces ... some surfaces depending on their function ARE unpainted. Certain sensors, control surfaces and intakes areas are unpainted. These surfaces aren't clear coated, but treated with some form of corrosion inhibitor (like alodine, a light yellow, almost goldish tint to aluminium). I'm assuming the leading edges of the -22 are bare for either friction or stealth properties. The valk is FAR from the -22, but I'm sure the composite make up would probably have been shared. Gorgon posted some kick ass pics of -14s a page ago and by far those are some of the best refs for realistic weathering on an existing aircraft. Here's an example he posted of a fresh and old -14. Notice the top one is the clean version one would want to texture with little focus on weathering. The second or lower of the two in the pic, has been around the block a few times and is probably at the extreme end for what weatherers are trying to achieve (minus battle damage itself). I myself would like an in-between of the two extremes mostly because most aircraft I've encountered fall somewhere in the middle themselves.

Air Force Tech Sergeant here, all day every day. I'm an Aircraft Mechanic (Aircraft Fuel Systems Repair - Fuel Muth F&@kin' Cell) and have been one for 8 years now. I love my job. Wouldn't change a thing. Aviation got Kawamori to do Macross, Macross got me to do aviation. No doubt about that. I've served in Operations Allied Force, Northern and Southern Watch, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. I've been all over Europe, Southwest Asia, Alaska and ALL over the States. I've yet to go to Asia itself, but I'm PCSing (Permanent Change of Staion) to Misawa, Japan in a few months. I've worked KC-135s, EC-130s, A-10s and now F-16s. We'll see where military takes me now ... so far it's been good. Az

DG, I really dig the "style" of your texture but something about it seems too metallic. Real world aircraft like most autos have bare metal, primer, and base coat layers. I know for a fact that during depot maintenance when the aircraft are painted, some degree of prep and strip occurs then anywhere from 1 to 3 coats of paint are shot. All new labels and stencils are applied, and when the aircraft returns to home station, tail flash and local markings are added. I started out with a basic layer in PS using the skin color I chose ... an off white with minor noise and gaussian blurred for texture (flat). All markings, stencils and other colors of paint are layered over the base and each has seperate weathering and blending effects applied. I tried to work with what I KNOW happens in the real world and apply it with what I think should happen to create a realistic anime paint job. Your textures are leaps ahead of where I'd like mine, but something is screaming 60's style bare aluminum aircraft to me. I'm not as versed it the ways of texturing as most here are, but I'm sure with a few tweaks it would look less "metal" and more aircraft. Case in point. Most modern aircraft are becoming less metal and more composite materials and alloys, combinations that are inherently NOT SHINY. Unless it's detail in the intake or cockpit glass and components, the bulk of our valks are dull and somewhere between flat and soft gloss finished. Soft gloss is reaching ... cause after a few aircraft washes, mostly using scotch pads and non abrasive detergent (go figure), most if not all gloss is lost. This post is half rant, half critique, half useless info, and half me - half asleep. It's all envy though cause the compositing is looking good. I'm gonna try and get some shots of the flightline here and get them to you. I'd love to see your valk parked on some tarmac - parked on my desktop. later ... Az