It's a matter of theory vs reality.

Richard Petty was a pretty good NASCAR driver but I'll bet he didn't know squat about the laws of thermodynamics.

If we do it your way, standing on "principle", we should only make models after we learn the very arcane principles behind BPS. Some of us like to do other things besides make models and don't have the desire to learn that. For that reason the piggyback functions MUST be included in any 3dz Studio improvements.



One example to make my point.

I wanted to make a P-47N. Same as the P-47D except for much longer wings.

I attempted to get the R/S to work on the wing but due to limitation in the R/S program it was very time consuming. For one thing you have to remove all the inserts for the landing gear and then move the gear to a "neutral location" before even trying to get a working R/S. When and if you do get an R/S you then have to move the gear back to it's correct location. ( Quite a PITA.)

Then it still wouldn't work so I had to start deleting elements to find the offending one. After chopping up about 1/4 of the wing I said the heck with this. So I stretched the wing, added a piggyback to fill the gap and in a 10 minutes it was done.

I see nothing wrong with this approach.





BTW, I have also made a model from scratch so it's not like I don't have experience with that approach. After every 5 or so added elements you have to leave the 3dz program and run the R/S program or you run the risk of making a model that doesn't pass the R/S and you have to tear it apart to find the offending element.

I just can't see the advantage for most of the EAW models.

I certainly agree that new entirely new models must be done this way but not upgrading or modifying existing models.

Hi Rotton50,

I guess it comes down to if one want to understand the tools, or if one just wants to use the tools available to produce an outcome.

This is the part that I normally have issue with.

If one understands BSP(RS) techniques then that step is not necessary.
One just roughly designs the model with pencil and paper and looks at the parting plains. Then one starts creating the model within 3dz Studio one parting plain at a time to divide space into workable regions.(not one aircraft part at a time as many try to do). One has therefor divided space into safe BSP areas that are isolated from each other. Then and only then does on fill in the regions to complete the model.
If one uses a structured approach and some planning, it is not even necessary to test for working BSP until major parts of the model are done, or until the whole model is done. One only has to understand how BSP works and build the model in a BSP compliant manner. One should be able to build their new model and write out manually the BSP(RS) sequence as they are creating the model without even using a BSP(RS) tool. This is where bulkheads become a very valuable tool.

All the problems you are facing stems from a lack of knowing enough about the BSP sequence, because you can always rely on Piggybacks.

Regards Syddy

Hi Ray.

Wings are very simple models, but to make the RS work, you need to remove the offsets for the folding gear, so it stands in the correct position.

All I do is remove the 1/2's from the nodes for the gear, keeping a copy in text, so I can paste back the folded node positions. Then it's just a question of moving the gear back. Then the only other thing you need to do is replace the bulkhead element in the middle of the wing, and your ready to get a new RS.

Not difficult.

Syddy,

The point is that almost no one wants to be bothered with learning BSP when the other way works. If the other way DIDN'T work 100% of the time then it would have died out long ago and we'd be forced to learn BSP theory.

I mean we've got people playing this game continuously for ten years and there's never been a complaint related to piggybacks. LACK of piggybacks when there is an R/S issue, yes but piggybacks in and of themselves cause no practical problem.

They only cause shivers for theoreticians.




Another case in point.

We have a core of users that have been begging for a hi-res Beaufighter.

I'm in the middle of upgrading the old lo-res model. It will take about week to 10 days and that core group will have something new to play with. To build a new Beaufighter would require months of work in which time I wouldn't be doing anything else.

Yes, it does have some piggybacks but so what? The guys aren't going to know the difference and they don't care.

My method avoids some of the R/S issues by making an empty F.3dz with nothing in it but the hardpoints for the other 3dz files. The F.3dz does pass the R/S calculation thus guaranteeing that the other files will not have a problem interfering with each other. They still can have R/S problems with other parts of the same file but that's where the judicious use of piggybacks comes in.

Of course I give up one file for the skinners to work with but anything up to a standard twin engine model still looks fine. I could post pictures here and you wouldn't be able to tell which of the models used the old method and which used the new method.

I've already updated the DH103 Hornet this way which took a week. Next will be the Mosquito and the ME410.

So in the space of say 6 weeks we will have four hi-res planes that we didn't have before.


I'm prepared to agree to disagree in principle while in reality I wouldn't be happy if the piggyback function is left out of any upgrade. Since I'm the only one issuing new models I should think my opinion carries some weight.

Hi Ray.

You'll find, as I did, you can only piggyback so far, and then you'll reach the point where, you simply can't fix the model without redoing the RS.

I'm working on a case in point now, where cannons were piggybacked onto a wing, and showed though each other, because the wing did not have a split in the right place.

In these sort of instances, everyone who wants to work on models, needs to know how to fix these types of problems.

Absolutely. No argument there, John. I've encounter that same problem.

That's still no reason to chuck the piggyback functions in any 3dz studio upgrade.

Next we'll be reading that EAW 2.0 will have a check to prevent piggybacked models from loading.

Oops, I've said too much.

It's a good thing Gurney bailed when he did.. He'd probably be pulling his hair out by now.



What was wrong with 3DZ Studio again?

Simple. There are some folks that want to do away with perfectly functional parts of the program because it doesn't fit a theoretical ideal.






Kinda like doing away with democracy if your side doesn't win the election.

Some places that happens. It's called a dictatorship.





You think he was pulling his hair out BEFORE. HA!

Hi Ray.

Who said piggybacks were going to be dropped?

In some cases where we are adding damage elements to an existing fully RS compliant model, the use of a simple swap piggyback element is the solution.

So, I see no reason to drop piggybacks from an upgrade of the Studio.

Didn't you read any of Syddy's posts? He wants piggybacks banned from the universe.

The reason I bothered to post is that when one or "maven" here makes a declaration about something arcane like R/S and BSP's it becomes written in stone. I've seen it time and time again and I've found through experience that many times it just ain't so.

I wanted to make sure that all sides of the issue were discussed in detail so if a programmer decides to help out with a new 3dz Studio he would have a comprehensive list of the programs functions.

And ONE guy doesn't get to determine what's allowed and what's not.