Jaguar - plan and progress

Discussion in 'Gallery & Designs' started by Arjun, Feb 5, 2008.

  1. Arjun

    Arjun Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    My forthcoming design is a Jaguar airplane. I'll be doing two variants- the strike and maritime attack versions. I will be using Blender to model the aircraft, and the Inkscape/GIMP combination for scaling and texturing. I will be documenting the whole procedure here, with screenshots of progress.

    First, I need to plan the parts to be constructed. This is one odd-shaped airplane, so I'll need a few hints from experienced designers here.

    For instance, I had initially tried to model everything monolithic. I ended up with some odd shapes for the wings, and the tailplane was tough to align. Moreover, there was that annoying phase above the engines, behind the canopy towards the tail, which holds the wings. I need a solution for that. Here's the problem area marked.
    [​IMG]
  2. Arjun

    Arjun Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have finished constructing the fuselage. Now I find a very nasty problem- I make the wings and they don't fit, no matter.

    Somebody please help me with this aircraft. Jaguars are not easy to model!
  3. Lex

    Lex Dollmaker

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,930
    Likes Received:
    0
    Any pics? I mean, a computer-designed model shouldn't give any fit problems... or would it?
  4. Arjun

    Arjun Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just deleted that scene. I'm starting all over again. This time, I'm using the cross-sections from that blueprint, and calculating the optimal number of vertices for the fuselage. Then I'll construct a cylinder with as many vertices (x2) and delete the other side, then make as many cross-sections as there exist in the blueprint. This will not include the canopy, wings, stabilisers, intakes and exhausts. The exhaust will terminate in 2x-six-sided cylinders.

    Again, I'm doing this using polygon modelling. The splinecage/NURBS module of Blender is tough to use. I will start in ultra-low-poly mode, then apply subsurfacing (Mesh Smooth in 3ds Max, don't know what is used in Rhino) and then edge-crease (tighten) the cross-sections.
  5. Arjun

    Arjun Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's the fuselage I've done, with no subsurfacing/meshsmoothing.

    Attached Files:

  6. Arjun

    Arjun Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    That one looked so un-developable, so I reset the scene again. Now, comes question of the dreaded triangle. Those three-sided faces are no problem, until you apply smoothing, and then they run in all sorts of directions. This recent model started off with near-zero triangles, but just to get the parts to unfold easily, I had to collapse a few sides in or create new triangles. Should my model have no triangles?
  7. Arjun

    Arjun Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]
    I've finished the model in 3-D stage. All parts unfold neatly. The fuselage can be wrapped around to be assembled, and I've even prepared an inner frame.
    [​IMG]
    The model was done by skinning edge loops from cross-sections and then subdividing and tweaking. Horizontal stabilisers were extruded from the fuselage, and the vertical stabiliser, from the extension of the canopy to the tail.
    [​IMG]
    I've even prepared a very rough seat/dash from the canopy.
    [​IMG]
  8. Lex

    Lex Dollmaker

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,930
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't worry Arjun, you're making great progress!!

    --I suspect the unfolder script only deals with your un-subsurfaced mesh? Please correct me if I'm wrong...
  9. Arjun

    Arjun Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    If I apply a subsurface, it will result in several cuts lengthwise that confuse the unfolder, or are a pain to clean up.
  10. Lex

    Lex Dollmaker

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,930
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yea... I suppose it's only good to manually add more polygons for smoothness
  11. Arjun

    Arjun Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Another option would be to clean up by removing edge loops. Anyway, this is the fully textured model, which I intend to unfold using the Paperizer plugin.
    [​IMG]
    This plugin is no Pepakura, as it will only unfold one mesh at a time. Initially, I had a hard time putting all sub-meshes in place during UV-mapping of this model, but once done, I unfolded all sub-meshes and exported all at a time to SVG. Here is a snapshot of unfolds from the plugin, and what I've done to a few of them.
    [​IMG]
  12. Lex

    Lex Dollmaker

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,930
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nice!! I'm eager to see how this model comes out in paper :)
  13. Arjun

    Arjun Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    I tried a beta build a few hours ago and didn't like the look of it.
    • The paper was thick, and soft.
    • I printed on it in "Fast Draft" mode (my printer is HP D2360) and the panel lines were barely visible
    • My model has an inner cross-section frame.
    • I had used white glue to assemble the pieces.
    • The whole model, in beta build, would be a little over ten centimetres long. I am aiming for 1:120, which would be 14 centimetres in length.
    That build looked so bad into the fourth (or so) section that I didn't take it any further, and have taken no photos of it. I may change the paper (use thinner and stiffer paper) or upscale. The model has not yet been coloured.
  14. Lex

    Lex Dollmaker

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,930
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry to hear that... But I suppose for a testbuild the model doesn't have to be to scale, does it?
    Um... question here... Are we not supposed to use white glue...?
  15. Janx

    Janx Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    1
    Keeping plugging away Arjun your efforts will be rewarded, making the physical side I find alot harder than the 3d stuff so I can appreciate the hard work going into make it build right.
  16. Arjun

    Arjun Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm still reading that thread on how to build tiny models. At that scale, the Jaguar I've designed is a tiny model. I'm still thinking, should I build without tabs? I'm still undecided about choice of paper, though everyone recommends cardstock.
  17. Lex

    Lex Dollmaker

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,930
    Likes Received:
    0
    Cardstock isn't suitable for small models at all... The smaller the model, the thinner paper is needed
  18. sjsquirrel

    sjsquirrel Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Messages:
    835
    Likes Received:
    22
    Cardstock

    Arjun, I have to disagree with Lex about cardstock and small models. TheWoodEngraver always builds with 110 pound, no matter what the size, and cardstock comes in many weights.

    I go back and forth between 60 and 110 pound, using the 60 for smaller stuff and 110 for larger. I made Gearz Tiny Viper in cardstock, and the whole model is only 3/4 inch long.

    I think it's best to develop for cardstock, then let the builder choose their favorite weight. Regular paper isn't very strong, but even light cardstock is plenty strong for a small model.

    SJ
  19. Arjun

    Arjun Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    I tried using some breed of cardstock (it seemed to be very thick, so I'd estimate at least 110 pound, but it was soft), and that's where the problem started. First, the print was a Fast Draft, which made panel lines barely visible. Then, there were several tiny folds which were tough to do at that scale, given the thickness of the paper. I tried folding with a set-square and scale, but that didn't help matters much- only added rough creases on the folds. I didn't even use the inner frame pieces, as they did not fit in, even without tabs. Was I using the right kind of paper there? If not, what could have gone wrong?
  20. Lex

    Lex Dollmaker

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,930
    Likes Received:
    0
    Arjun, I'd say try folding with the edge of your tweezers. ;) About the fit problem, see below

    Off Topic:

    sjsquirrel, That's what I have been saying. Because thicker cardstock causes problems due to paper thickness (e.g. formers won't fit), especially on a small scale, and that most CAD designers don't take paper thickness into account (it is very difficult to do so on a virtual level), therefore a thinner paper should give a better fit. :)

    Regarding strength, my 1/33 aircrafts were always made with A4 printing paper (80 gsm), and suffered no problems because of lack of strength... --I mean, no one is going to strike a model with a hammer... right? :D Or did I get your definition of "cardstock" wrong...