RAH-66 Untextured model up for grabs.

[rksl-rock 1301]

Ok this is an ancient project that just never really went anywhere. I've been cleaning out my old projects drive and found a few interesting old projects. Some have gone to new homes others remain orphans. So because I don't like to see anything all alone out in the cold, homeless and hungry I thought I'd release it as is:

I made it for OFP, then used it as a test bed for ArmA1. Its really nowhere near done. But if anyone wants it help yourselves.

Things you should know:

• Its Free to use in ArmA.
  
• Its UNFINISHED
  
• Its un-textured
  
• Its partially animated
  
• Its quite low poly, as I said, it was meant for OFP
  
• It has an ArmA1 config and will need reworking.
  
• I will not support it in anyway.
  
• I'm not interested in collaborations I just don't have the time.
  
• If you do decide to finish it and release it I'd appreciate a link in the read me put its not compulsory.
  

DOWNLOAD @ RKSL Studios - 536kb

Have fun

Rock

Edited February 21, 2010 by RKSL-Rock
WTF is wrong with this forum and images?

[[aps]gnat 28]

Thanks Rock!

But I can't say its on my priority to-do list yet ;)

[takealready 1]

THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!!!!!:yay::yay:

[ziiip 1]

http://www.armedassault.info/index.php?game=1&cat=news&id=3008

[TimRiceSE 10]

http://www.armedassault.info/index.php?game=1&cat=news&id=3008

whats your point? This thread is about Rock's model. Not that one. Unless that actually IS Rock's model. Making me very confused.

Edited March 1, 2010 by W0lle
quoted images

[manzilla 1]

whats your point? This thread is about Rock's model. Not that one. Unless that actually IS Rock's model. Making me very confused.

I was wondering the same thing. Rock's looks better in my opinion.

[[frl]myke 14]

It is obvious that these models aren't identical. Just see the weapon pylons on Rock's model and the weapon bay on modEmMaik's model. They differ in general already and surely will even more when going into detail.

@Rock,

thanks for giving this model to the public. Hopefully someone will grab it and finish it.

[VXR 9]

I was wondering the same thing. Rock's looks better in my opinion.

It already says enough when he doenst say anything else with it, just showing something to show off.

I think it is quite unique already that Rock is willing to share a model with the public as a open source, looking at the countless things that happend in the past relating to the attitude of some in the community.

[miles teg 1]

I agree with VXR. It's rude in the extreme to post pics of someone else's work of the same type of vehicle in another person's thread about a totally unique addon that just happens to be the same type of vehicle. It serves no purpose whatsoever. If there are two different Commanche models in ArmA2, then fantastic. More choice for the users, just there as there are a ton of infantry addons and a ton of weapons addons often of the same types of units or weapons.

[HDlaeppli 0]

Just great! :cool:

thx for this RKSL

[da12thMonkey 1943]

It is obvious that these models aren't identical. Just see the weapon pylons on Rock's model and the weapon bay on modEmMaik's model. They differ in general already and surely will even more when going into detail.

The one ModEmMaik converted is the old DKMM Commanche from OFP that was based on a much earlier prototype for the helicopter.

Rock's model is based on later designs, from just before the RAH-66 project was canned by the US. It's a better representation of what the Commanche could have been.

Nice gesture of Rock to release the model, though I personally have no interest in having a RAH-66 in ArmA. However, if someone would finish that TSR-2 model that he made available in a similar fashion that would be, well... awesome :D

[max power 21]

The one ModEmMaik converted is the old DKMM Commanche from OFP that was based on a much earlier prototype for the helicopter.

Rock's model is based on later designs, from just before the RAH-66 project was canned by the US. It's a better representation of what the Commanche could have been.

Nice gesture of Rock to release the model, though I personally have no interest in having a RAH-66 in ArmA. However, if someone would finish that TSR-2 model that he made available in a similar fashion that would be, well... awesome :D

This makes me interested in what the differences were.

I was considering starting a new Comanche because I want to play the first mission of Eagle Wing the way it was meant to be played. I think there's a mixed loadout that would satisfy the aircraft and tank hunting missions better than the sidewinder armed Apache.

P.S. It's clear that ziiip is a troll.

[ziiip 1]

I was thinking that "someone gets fired up by that model and just cant wait to try it then theres one already playable".

A modder might take the benefits of both models and make it into one(cuz that one aint finished either).

"Please do not stop any projects, because someone else released a similar looking. This chopper is focused on A1 (1'st LOD includes 3.2k faces only), so you can focus on A2 features (hit effects, wrecks, super shader etc.)."

Edited February 28, 2010 by ziiip

[max power 21]

I was thinking that "someone gets fired up by that model and just cant wait to try it then theres one already playable".

A modder might take the benefits of both models and make it into one(cuz that one aint finished either).

I agree its a very nice thing that modder post stuff they have no time to finish and I love what RKSL has done so far.;)

I think that if that was true, you would have included some text in your post. Maybe next time.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

This makes me interested in what the differences were.

IIRC they added additional vertical stabilisers to the outside of the tailplane to reduce vibration on the later prototype, having previously made a series of other modifications to the tailplane for the same reason.

Production aircraft were also meant to have a larger rotor diameter, with differently shaped blades.

I'm sure Rock can give you a big list of the differences.

[rksl-rock 1301]

IIRC they added additional vertical stabilisers to the outside of the tailplane to reduce vibration on the later prototype, having previously made a series of other modifications to the tailplane for the same reason.

Production aircraft were also meant to have a larger rotor diameter, with differently shaped blades.

I'm sure Rock can give you a big list of the differences.

If you don't mind I'm just going to answer a load of questions here in no particular order and to no one in particular:

I originally made the model in 2005(?) because the DKM one wasn't accurate. Don't get me wrong the DKM Comanche was one of my all time favourite addons for OFP. I think the DKM team should all be sculpted and put on a plinth in the OFP/ArmA hall of fame for being just fucking brilliant. Their addons were so far ahead of their time it was fantastic. But in this case the model just wasn't very accurate.

OK, DKM vs RKSL model differences.

• DKM appears to have used the computer game LHX as a reference. This model is not really the RAH-66 design. Its the Sikorsky LHX concept design from the 70's and 80's. It is what the RAH-66 evolved from from but the eventual flying prototype design is quite different.
  
• The DKM model's proportions are wrong.
  
  • The tail rotor is too large
    
  • The sensor cluster on the nose is too small.
    
  • The angle of the fuselage sides are wrong making it too wide.
    

  [*]The DKM models rotors an hub are wrong even for the Sikorsky LHX concept.

  [*]Its missing the Tail plates as da12thMonkey correctly points out

  [*]The cockpit and displays, while pretty close are also out of proportion.

I used 2 main references for the schematics to make the model:

• The first was an Italieri plastic model kit, 1:72 i think. The paint sheet was used to produce the basic mesh.
  
• The 2nd source, which I got later was in a book about the RAH-66 programme. Unfortunately, I don't have it anymore I gave it to a friend's son some years ago. This included a more detailed schematic and 200+ external and internal reference pics of the final prototype*. These were used to adjust the mesh to a more accurate representation. Its still not perfect by anyone's standard - the tail rotor shroud needs work - but its closer to the real aircraft than the DKM model was.
  

*(I don't have much of the original ref material I used but I have a collection of pics and diagrams if people want them. PM me.)

RE: the EFAMS (Enhanced Fuel-Armament Management Subsystem - RAH-66 Comanche) or the little stubby wings. These are detachable. Actually you can jettison them on the real aircraft to reduce the RCS. They were designed so that the Comanche could be fitted with long range fuel tanks or more external stores. I added them because at the time I was going to hang as many, missiles as possible off them. These days I think I would probably make them an option but I doubt I'd want a helo with 14 Hellfires on it. It would be a bit of a game play killer imo.

And finally the question of the "mushroom thing on top of the rotor". Its the RAH-66's version of the Longbow radar of the AH-64D.

Edited March 1, 2010 by RKSL-Rock

[max power 21]

I'm confused. The computer game 'LHX' used the Bell / Boeing superteam's drawing as a reference.

I'd really like to see Sikorsky's LHX concepts from the same time period. That would be a real treat. All I'm aware of are the S-75 helicopters, ACAP and SHADOW.

[rksl-rock 1301]

I'm confused. The computer game 'LHX' used the Bell / Boeing superteam's drawing as a reference.

Yes they used the *concept* drawings. The actual airframe that flew is different. Whats to be confused about?

I'd really like to see Sikorsky's LHX concepts from the same time period. That would be a real treat. All I'm aware of are the S-75 helicopters, ACAP and SHADOW.

Thats probably best left for the Addon Request thread isnt it.

Edited February 28, 2010 by RKSL-Rock

[max power 21]

Yes they used the *concept* drawings. The actual airframe that flew is different. Whats to be confused about?

You said that DKM used the computer game LHX as a reference. I meant to say that the dev team for LHX used the McDonnell Douglas/Bell drawing for the basis for their LHX helicopter. That's what I'm confused about.

How could this have contributed to their model? Hopefully now you see how I'm confused.

Thats probably best left for the Addon Request thread isnt it.

I didn't say I wanted to see an addon. I said I wanted to see the concepts as in the designs. All I'm aware of Sikorsky's early work is the S-75 stuff and those are more like technology demonstrators than actual precursors to the RAH-66 design.

Edit:

Seriously, Rock, if I really wanted to see an addon I'd just make it myself. I don't actually really use addons or mods at all. You ought to be familiar enough with my forum behaviour to know that addon requests in general make me fucking livid, especially when someone is spamming some other topic with that shit.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Max Power

[rksl-rock 1301]

You said that DKM used the computer game LHX as a reference. I meant to say that the dev team for LHX used the McDonnell Douglas/Bell drawing for the basis for their LHX helicopter. That's what I'm confused about.

[MG]http://www.aviastar.org/foto/mcdonnell_lhx_1.jpg[/img]

[MG]http://games.softpedia.com/screenshots/1-3570_2.jpg[/img]

[MG]http://www.bhlegend.com/screenshots/LHX%20Screenshot%2002.gif[/img]

How could this have contributed to their model? Hopefully now you see how I'm confused.

Perhaps I'm thinking of Comanche 2 or 3 then. The LHX game reference was used in a conversation I had had prior to posting in this very topic.

*Theatrical sigh* I just wish I still had the book as it shows all the development artwork that inspired a number of PC games to fully explain (I doubt you will ever accept anything but fully documented evidence signed by the designer himself). The point I was making regardless of whether it came from that specific game or not is that the slab sided design used by DKM was a pre prototype visualisation not the actual final prototype. So is wrong.

Seriously, Rock, if I really wanted to see an addon I'd just make it myself. I don't actually really use addons or mods at all. You ought to be familiar enough with my forum behaviour to know that addon requests in general make me fucking livid, especially when someone is spamming some other topic with that shit.

Seriously then why do you bother posting? Yes, sadly we are all familiar enough with your habit of pedantic argument. This thread was for this particular model, not requests or questions about other possible contenders for the LHX programme.

I don't actually see why you always have to be so annoyingly pedantic at every post. Give us all a break and post ONLY when you have something constructive to contribute. And not in an attempt to pick apart everything we say.

Anyway back on topic...

I'm happy to announce that some friends of mine, several DAR-V members have picked up the model and are planning on bringing it up ArmA2 spec.

Edited March 2, 2010 by RKSL-Rock

[[aps]gnat 28]

I'm happy to announce that some friends of mine, several DAR-V members have picked up the model and are planning on bringing it up ArmA2 spec.

Great to hear. :)

@Max Power

especially when someone is spamming some other topic with that shit

I think thats what you're starting to do.

[max power 21]

Perhaps I'm thinking of Comanche 2 or 3 then. The LHX game reference was used in a conversation I had had prior to posting in this very topic.

*Theatrical sigh* I just wish I still had the book as it shows all the development artwork that inspired a number of PC games to fully explain (I doubt you will ever accept anything but fully documented evidence signed by the designer himself). The point I was making regardless of whether it came from that specific game or not is that the slab sided design used by DKM was a pre prototype visualisation not the actual final prototype. So is wrong.

Seriously then why do you bother posting? Yes, sadly we are all familiar enough with your habit of pedantic argument. This thread was for this particular model, not requests or questions about other possible contenders for the LHX programme.

I don't actually see why you always have to be so annoyingly pedantic at every post. Give us all a break and post ONLY when you have something constructive to contribute. And not in an attempt to pick apart everything we say.

Anyway back on topic...

I'm happy to announce that some friends of mine, several DAR-V members have picked up the model and are planning on bringing it up ArmA2 spec.

Well, hopefully now you can see why I was confused. You said LHX. I, knowing what I'm talking about when I reference LHX (and I guess doing your best to know what you're and other people are talking about is being a pedant around here), couldn't figure out what you were saying, so I asked. I'm pedantic, you're a drama queen. I guess we both have problems.

Gnat;1581514']Great to hear. :)

@Max Power

I think thats what you're starting to do.

He was talking about how well researched it was and how much better it was that DKM's stuff. I wanted to know more about what he was talking about. I didn't actually bring up ANY of the issues here. I was just looking for clarification.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Max Power

[Rexxenexx 0]

I remember vaguely playing the Comanche game that was in Voxel 3D YEEEEEEARS ago. ;) Switching from (if I remember correctly) Hellfires, Mavericks, Main Gun, and I think some kind of missle pod similar to the Hydras in ArmA2. I could be mixed up in that. But one thing I'll never forget is calling fire missions with the map. "Fire mission over"............................"Fire mission out".....................*BOOM!* *BOOM!* *BOOM!* *BOOM!* *BOOM!*. That was very memorable. Hats off to all involved, hopefully I'll get to recreate that when it's all done. ;)

[rksl-rock 1301]

Well, hopefully now you can see why I was confused. You said LHX. I, knowing what I'm talking about when I reference LHX (and I guess doing your best to know what you're and other people are talking about is being a pedant around here), couldn't figure out what you were saying, so I asked. I'm pedantic, you're a drama queen. I guess we both have problems.

Sorry for the delay in replying but it took so long to choose a dress and wig for the occasion that time just sliiiipped by.

I'm glad you admit you have a problem. Its the first step to getting better.

We all wish you well in you recovery.

...Actually I really don't see why you made such a drama about it? I did have a nice detailed reply for you but i read this on the DAR-V forums and I think it just says it all:

What i dont get is why that Max power dude is making a fuss why didn't he just do what the rest of the sane world did and go compare the real Comanche with the pics of both models?

Why the big fuss whats the kid trying to prove?

He was talking about how well researched it was and how much better it was that DKM's stuff. I wanted to know more about what he was talking about. I didn't actually bring up ANY of the issues here. I was just looking for clarification.

Looks more like you were making a request for addons than info to me and others.

...I'd really like to see Sikorsky's LHX concepts from the same time period. That would be a real treat. All I'm aware of are the S-75 helicopters, ACAP and SHADOW.

You do seem to have a "need" to seek clarification of every point don't you.

Nice Kitty btw.

Edited March 3, 2010 by RKSL-Rock

[Honeycutt 10]

I used to play Commanche4 and Enemy Engaged Commanche Hokum ages ago those were great games and the models were pretty decent.

Unfortuantely EECH terrain was absolute crap (too little detail) and made it impossible to tell how low you were just by looking at the ground. Making NOE flying very difficult unless you stared at the altimeter constantly.

gutted when the rah-66 got cancelled but with UAVs and such a recon "stealth" helo makes no sense today. Isn't the jet ranger being used for a off-the shelf recon helo?

great model Rock anyhow