|
Post by lyoung on Feb 16, 2014 23:27:52 GMT -5
I have the second hangar in the line nearly done; this one originally owned by Curtiss Flying Service. I know that Curtiss no longer owned the hangar in 1959, but the only pictures I have of the hangar from around this time are so bad, that I can't make out what it says. Therefore, I'm going with the original Curtiss paint. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by jacklyon on Feb 17, 2014 1:57:10 GMT -5
very nice!
|
|
|
Post by lyoung on Feb 20, 2014 23:35:29 GMT -5
I have finished the Curtis hangar (sort of, but good enough for now). I have to rework some of the textures a bit to get the scale right, but that won't take too long. As stated above, I don't have many decent pictures of this hangar, and almost all are from the front 3/4 view, nothing from the back and I am only guessing at the other side based on the fact that the side wall is mostly glass.
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Feb 21, 2014 14:33:57 GMT -5
Was it really that orange? Basic primary colors are rare on buildings, especially in the Vintage and Classic eras.
|
|
|
KCMH1959
Feb 22, 2014 11:47:45 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by lyoung on Feb 22, 2014 11:47:45 GMT -5
Tom, I agree that orange doesn't seem like it would be correct, but I have neither a color picture nor any other information about the colors other than the brick on the towers and sides. I just went with Curtiss' colors. I'll put up a picture of the hangar tonight. If anyone can give me a better idea for the color, I'll gladly change it.
|
|
|
Post by Dennis the menace on Feb 22, 2014 20:17:09 GMT -5
Hi, Its often difficult to find color photos of old airports, especially hangars and such. I would be suspicious of this color orange. Usually any steel framework around doors or windows was a medium dark gray or a blueish gray. Sometimes it would be a form of blue, but VERY desaturated as this paint contained huge amounts of lead in order to help prevent the formation of rust. In this old 1930s postcard you can see that the framework around the door is that dark gray color. The framework around the windows looks to be white. The building itself is either white or some type of cream color. Here is a better color postcard showing that cream paint scheme with a red roof (tile?....did they use Spanish red tile in roofs in Ohio?) and a dark gray framework on the doors and around the windows. The cars in front of the hangar look to be late 1930s and early 1940s vintage. Here is a color photo dated 1967, showing that same dark framework on the doors, a more bright white paint on the hangars, and it looks like white on the framework around the windows. You will have to look at the effect in FS to see if the white or dark gray around the windows looks best. Its basically a give or take, it was gray in the early 1940s, and it was white by 1967, so for 1959ish....who knows. The massive iron framework around the windows on the door was must certainly dark gunmetal gray or a very desaturated blueish gray. Of course, any company logo on the building itself would be whatever color it normally was. It looks like it started out as TWA in the mid 1930s, then became Lane? Aviation Corp. by World War 2, and by 1967 it was plain. Other photos on Airliners.net show it without any logo by 1967. Hope this helps
|
|
|
Post by lyoung on Feb 22, 2014 22:40:40 GMT -5
Here is the picture of Curtis that I have been using. It is from just before the opening in 1929. Attachment DeletedEdit AttachmentsThe brickwork on all three of the original hangars and the administration building (i.e. the original terminal) was buff and the accent brick was black as stated in a newspaper or magazine article from 1929. So, I at least know that I have that correct. The same article mentions that the roofs "are of a composition construction." I'm guessing that it means something tar-like. I don't know if some sort of rubber composite would have been available for use at this time or not. Today, the roof of the TAT hangar is nearly white. It appears the hangars underwent some renovations in the early to mid 1960s, giving them the appearance that they have now (the white color and general disguising of any interesting architectural features). Here are the TAT and Columbus Municipal Hangar (the origins of CMH) for reference:
|
|
|
Post by lyoung on Mar 16, 2014 22:58:41 GMT -5
After some home. work, and vehicle issues that needed attending to, I am back at work. Just after deciding what to do with the Curtiss hangar, Photoshop died on me, so I have moved on to modeling the Curtiss Wright/North American/Air Force Plant 85 building. I just started on it tonight, but it shouldn't take too long. I would show a screen shot, but I am using an old Mac keyboard at the moment so the print screen button is non-existent and I have no other graphics program at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by lyoung on Mar 21, 2014 23:49:34 GMT -5
I'm still operating on the Mac keyboard, but I have finished the modeling of the plant and have starting on the texturing. Here is a quick screen shot looking at what would be the south side. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by jacklyon on Mar 22, 2014 1:35:14 GMT -5
i like a lot bravo!
|
|
|
Post by lyoung on Mar 22, 2014 14:15:53 GMT -5
The plant is huge (just over 1400' long), but it has very few intricate details to worry about. I spent more time getting dimensions that actually modelling it. I believe there are pictures of the north side of the plant on Airliners.net that I can use (I already have pictures of the south and east sides). The west side of the building will largely be a guess. Surprisingly, the building hasn't changed a whole lot since it was built. It has been updated on the outside, but they seemed to have kept it fairly close to the original design. Therefore, I will try to use Google Maps Street view to get a picture of the west side. I would just drive down there myself and get a few pictures, but there is no where to stop and get a picture. Once I get this finished, I'll go back to working on the hangars.
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Mar 22, 2014 17:39:53 GMT -5
If it is still present, you can measure it with the Ruler in Google Earth, for example.
|
|
|
KCMH1959
Mar 23, 2014 19:00:32 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by lyoung on Mar 23, 2014 19:00:32 GMT -5
I did just that. I've been lucky so far in that just about every building I'm doing still exists or I have the actual dimensions. It has been a life saver.
|
|
|
Post by Dennis the menace on Mar 29, 2014 10:06:02 GMT -5
That measuring tool is worth it's weight in gold. If you are using GMAX to build objects, you can use the tape measure tool to get just the right measurements on buildings, etc. I also use it to measure the height on doors and windows once the texture is applied to the object in GMAX, and then I can adjust the size of any doors and windows accordingly. This way, they will be perfectly in scale. When creating textures, try using layers in your paint program. For the base or first layer, I have just the bare walls. The second layer is where I have the doors and windows. The third layer is where I have any other small details such as writing or signs, etc. With this method, it is an easy and simple task to scoot doors and windows around, or to resize them. Once you have the object textures on the object to you liking in GMAX, export the object into FS and then have a look. If you satisfied, merge the layers and you're done. If you need to quit for the day, save the layers as a .psp file, then when you want to start working on them again later on, they will still be in the layers format.
I have also found over the years, that due to FS, if you overscale any object by 5 to 8 percent over its true size, it will look "just right" in FS. Its some type of bug with FS and they way its built. Not everything MS put into FS is in a true world scale.
|
|
|
Post by lyoung on Apr 3, 2014 23:52:21 GMT -5
Finally, a little more time to make some progress. The North American Plant is done. I had to make some blind guesses on some walls for which I have no pictures whatsoever, but, I don't imagine too many people will be paying all that much attention to this particular building. The textures are about as minimal as they could be and yet still get decent detail. I will see how well this translates to actually being in FS when I get a little more time.
|
|