PDA

View Full Version : Setback's Ju-87B skin for TF4 light (TF4 lighting and plane-shine)



major_setback
Nov-07-2014, 13:53
Setback's generic Ju-87 skin.

Generic Ju-87B skin for TF4 (to work with TF4 light, and 'plane-shine' that was implemented with TF4).
There are lots of small stencils and warning signs on this skin.


Download:
http://airwarfare.com/sow/index.php/downloads/viewdownload/44-ju-87b-2/798-generic-ju-87-skin-for-tf4-light-plane-shine


I thought it would be impossible to get good colours for this in TF4. I'm quite happy with the result though, even though it took a lot of time and very many edits (over 80 different edits just for the top 2 colours). Hopefully I will be able to find time to adjust my previous skins for TF4 too.
In-game weathering doesn't work well with the skin...it darkens it, and that means more shine, in TF4. A shiny worn aircraft looks wrong.
I'll eventually get around to doing a weathered version of this (not sure when though).



Click on all images for full size:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/Ju87comp3.jpg~original (http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/Ju87comp3.jpg~original)


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/Ju87compa1.jpg~original (http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/Ju87compa1.jpg~original)


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/Ju87compare2.jpg~original (http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/Ju87compare2.jpg~original)


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/Ju87B093GreyLighterS14.jpg~original (http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/Ju87B093GreyLighterS14.jpg~original)


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/Ju87B093GreyLighterS15.jpg~original (http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/Ju87B093GreyLighterS15.jpg~original)


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/Ju87B088strut2s.jpg~original (http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/Ju87B088strut2s.jpg~original)


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/Ju87B092GreyS10.jpg~original (http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/Ju87B092GreyS10.jpg~original)


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/Ju87B093GreyLighterS12.jpg~original (http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/Ju87B093GreyLighterS12.jpg~original)


I've tried to improve the stencils and warning markings. Example – antenna (zoomed inset):

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/ant.jpg~original (http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/ant.jpg~original)


I hope you like it.
Cheers, Setback

Kling
Nov-07-2014, 14:14
Love it!

ATAG_Freya
Nov-07-2014, 14:55
:thumbsup:

ATAG_Lolsav
Nov-07-2014, 15:30
:thumbsup:

Peter Lynn
Nov-08-2014, 09:42
Hello Major,
I have been attempting to update my skin collection of your work but am unable to open the Airwarfare pages at all! I am getting an almost blank white screen with a reference to Facebook and the actual address shown is lalallalulla.com and comes complete with a vocal rendition of Lalalala sung by a vocal group! This has been happening for the last week or so.
Do you have any ideas as to what is going on? Your work is quite extraordinarily accurate.....quite outstanding!!

Thank You

Peter Lynn

hnbdgr
Nov-08-2014, 09:57
Did anyone else see the "FORSICHT" on the default skin? The new skin has it right though!

major_setback
Nov-08-2014, 10:02
Thanks all very much for the feedback and comments. It is very encouraging.

Peter; I haven't had any problem at all with the airwarfare site...maybe you could try the link to the downloads page instead of the main site page:
http://airwarfare.com/sow/index.php/downloads32

I think the site is run by the Mission4Today people, so you might try asking advice there:
http://www.mission4today.com/
..or try their link to Airwarfare, on this page:
http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=WeblinksPro&l_op=viewlink&cid=3
or here:
http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=WeblinksPro&l_op=viewlinkdetails&lid=10

Good luck with it... and thanks a lot for your compliment, it is good to know the work I put in is appreciated.
Cheers, Setback

Peter Lynn
Nov-09-2014, 08:29
Hello Major,
Thanks for your attempts to help. I tried using all the email addresses you provided but they all responded with this thing hijacking the addresses so I can't even ask Airwarfare what this thing might be. Perhaps I need to thoroughly clean my computer! Your interpretation of colours 70 and 71 on this new skin looks perfect for the fading of the fugitive pigments used in the paints of the time!

Cheers

Peter

major_setback
Nov-09-2014, 09:38
Hello Major,
Thanks for your attempts to help. I tried using all the email addresses you provided but they all responded with this thing hijacking the addresses so I can't even ask Airwarfare what this thing might be. Perhaps I need to thoroughly clean my computer! Your interpretation of colours 70 and 71 on this new skin looks perfect for the fading of the fugitive pigments used in the paints of the time!

Cheers

Peter




Thanks again for the comment.
Sorry you can't get the links to work. I'm not sure why that would be.

I'll put the download it in my dropbox folder and send you a link tomorrow, when I'm back at my home computer.


If there is any other skin you want then let me know. Or I can just send you the lot if you want them all.
Bear in mind though that I'll probably start re-doing them for TF4 light soon, so you might want to wait with me sending them. Most of the He111 skins have green/green camo', and maybe the colours I've used for the Stuka will work welll with them (it's not a certainty though). If so, I might be able to change them quite quicky for TF4, depending on how much work needs doing lightening the markings and artwork etc.

Anyway, if you want any sent others sent, let me know which ones.
Here are some screenshots of my skins from the download pages at Airwarfare:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/6%20may%20onwards/Clipboard01-2.jpg~original (http://s4.photobucket.com/user/major-setback/media/6%20may%20onwards/Clipboard01-2.jpg.html)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/6%20may%20onwards/Clipboard02.jpg~original (http://s4.photobucket.com/user/major-setback/media/6%20may%20onwards/Clipboard02.jpg.html)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/6%20may%20onwards/Clipboard03.jpg~original (http://s4.photobucket.com/user/major-setback/media/6%20may%20onwards/Clipboard03.jpg.html)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/6%20may%20onwards/Clipboard04.jpg~original (http://s4.photobucket.com/user/major-setback/media/6%20may%20onwards/Clipboard04.jpg.html)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/6%20may%20onwards/Clipboard05.jpg~original (http://s4.photobucket.com/user/major-setback/media/6%20may%20onwards/Clipboard05.jpg.html)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/6%20may%20onwards/Clipboard06.jpg~original (http://s4.photobucket.com/user/major-setback/media/6%20may%20onwards/Clipboard06.jpg.html)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/6%20may%20onwards/Clipboard07.jpg~original (http://s4.photobucket.com/user/major-setback/media/6%20may%20onwards/Clipboard07.jpg.html)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/6%20may%20onwards/Clipboard08.jpg~original (http://s4.photobucket.com/user/major-setback/media/6%20may%20onwards/Clipboard08.jpg.html)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/6%20may%20onwards/Clipboard09.jpg~original (http://s4.photobucket.com/user/major-setback/media/6%20may%20onwards/Clipboard09.jpg.html)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/6%20may%20onwards/Clipboard10.jpg~original (http://s4.photobucket.com/user/major-setback/media/6%20may%20onwards/Clipboard10.jpg.html)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/6%20may%20onwards/Clipboard12.jpg~original (http://s4.photobucket.com/user/major-setback/media/6%20may%20onwards/Clipboard12.jpg.html)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/6%20may%20onwards/Clipboard14.jpg~original (http://s4.photobucket.com/user/major-setback/media/6%20may%20onwards/Clipboard14.jpg.html)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/6%20may%20onwards/Clipboard15.jpg~original (http://s4.photobucket.com/user/major-setback/media/6%20may%20onwards/Clipboard15.jpg.html)


The following are the only ones that I've done for TF4 light so far, except for the Stuka:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/6%20may%20onwards/DClipboard01.jpg~original (http://s4.photobucket.com/user/major-setback/media/6%20may%20onwards/DClipboard01.jpg.html)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/6%20may%20onwards/EClipboard11.jpg~original (http://s4.photobucket.com/user/major-setback/media/6%20may%20onwards/EClipboard11.jpg.html)

Let me know which ones you want, if any (or all).
I'll Put the Stuka in my dropbox and send you the link by Private Message tomorrow regardless of whether you want any of the other skins.

Cheers, Setback

Peter Lynn
Nov-09-2014, 21:06
Again, my thanks.
When you have finished them would be fine....I have been collecting all your work for some time now and the revised Stuka was the only one missing so far. Some time ago I built and super detailed the Airfix 1/24 kit T6+KL and it now resides in the Perth Air Museum together with the rest of my Battle of Britain aircraft collection. It took around 18 months to build and I have long had a soft spot for the type (probably because I was never on the receiving end of one!)

Best wishes

Peter

major_setback
Nov-10-2014, 03:26
Again, my thanks.
When you have finished them would be fine....I have been collecting all your work for some time now and the revised Stuka was the only one missing so far. Some time ago I built and super detailed the Airfix 1/24 kit T6+KL and it now resides in the Perth Air Museum together with the rest of my Battle of Britain aircraft collection. It took around 18 months to build and I have long had a soft spot for the type (probably because I was never on the receiving end of one!)

Best wishes

Peter

I sent a download link to you via Private Message.

I'd be interested in photos of your Stuka model if you want to post them here, or send by PM. I have a distant background as a model-maker. These days I just have an ever increasing stash of kits that take up far too much cupboard space, and that I never get around to starting.

Cheers, Setback

BOBC
Jan-07-2015, 23:29
Seeing these skins which are far from the real thing colour wise being far too light for normal lighting, would it not be better (aimed at coders) to fix the TF4 lighting coding so that it doesnt overdarken aircraft ? Else it means all the accurate coloured skins are of no use, and we have to try and create light versions of all aircraft to suit faulty coding. and maybe ground equipment, pilots where does it end ?

BOBC

Mysticpuma
Jan-08-2015, 11:36
Seeing these skins which are far from the real thing colour wise being far too light for normal lighting, would it not be better (aimed at coders) to fix the TF4 lighting coding so that it doesnt overdarken aircraft ? Else it means all the accurate coloured skins are of no use, and we have to try and create light versions of all aircraft to suit faulty coding. and maybe ground equipment, pilots where does it end ?

BOBC

Hi BOBC. This is all down to our main coder and the time he has available. Please understand we haven't taken over the software from 1C, we don't have the source code, this is all down to trial and error and a vast amount of talent on behalf of our main programmer.

Here's an image:

14601

Now have a good look at it. Now in that image somewhere is a special leaf. That Leaf is made up of 10,000 lines of code and in that code you will find the line that you need to change to change the lighting. But changing that line will change the way the light works through the day....and that code is in another leaf....and when you find that code and change it, it will change something else, and on and on and on.

With the Source Code is would be simpler but still most likely have a chain reaction of affects. This is why we leave that stuff to our resident genius and each department works on their own area of expertise.

So in answer to your final few words "where does it end ?" , well this is an ongoing process and if you look at the original IL2 modding....it ends when there is no-one left to carry the torch.

We have real lives outside of this mod and we do what we do when we can but we do listen and can only do what we can if the code is located and that all comes down to our talented coder as and when he has time.

Cheers, MP

major_setback
Jan-09-2015, 16:14
I'm doing quite a lot of skins for TF 5.0.

I also asked the same question within TF. I have been told by the expert on lighting within Team Fusion that plane-shine is the problem, as it is with other games too. Implementing the shine has caused the problem with dark skins. Lightening the skins works very well to combat this problem, so it is in itself not an issue.

If you look at old skins that work perfectly in pre 4.03 patch the skin textures (out of game when viewed alone) are very dark and this is difficult for a skinner to work with. Skins done for TF 4.30 look a lot more natural out-of-game.
All we need to do is change the skins. This is a time consuming job, but very do-able. Any new skins made should be made lighter to suit 4.03. They will look fine. So we don't have a problem. I have a big job ahead of me adjusting all the skins. Very big. But I can't see that there is any other way to go about this.
Eliminating plane shine would be a step in the wrong direction, especially when we have such an easy fix as changing the skins. If this game is to last for very many years it will be of little significance that the earliest skins made are too dark when viewed in the game.

Changeing skins is just a matter of time and effort. There are a lot harder things that need to be accomplished in the game's development. At least this is doable in a relative easy way.

I plan and hope to replace all default skins before TF 5.0

Cheers, Setback

Peter Lynn
Jan-10-2015, 04:36
Hi Setback,

In a posting above you expressed an interest in some shots of the 1/24 BoB collection that I built and later donated to the Air force Museum a number of years ago. Well, here they are! Based on the Airfix kits, they were super detailed- the Hurri took almost 2 years!
The Hurricane was of special interest to me as it represents YB-D from 17 Squadron flown by the then Sergeant Len Barlett on 11/9/40 who at 16.10 hrs had a minor mid air collision with his wingman when bounced by 110s. I came to know Len quite well during the 80's but have sadly lost touch since. All the models were carefully researched. Hope you and others enjoy seeing them! Captain Farrell saw these photos back in the 90's when EAW was still quite young....unlike me :)
Can't wait to see your skins for 5.0!1463814639146401464114642146431464414645

Cheers Peter Lynn

major_setback
Jan-10-2015, 12:00
Hi Setback,

In a posting above you expressed an interest in some shots of the 1/24 BoB collection that I built and later donated to the Air force Museum a number of years ago. Well, here they are! Based on the Airfix kits, they were super detailed- the Hurri took almost 2 years!
The Hurricane was of special interest to me as it represents YB-D from 17 Squadron flown by the then Sergeant Len Barlett on 11/9/40 who at 16.10 hrs had a minor mid air collision with his wingman when bounced by 110s. I came to know Len quite well during the 80's but have sadly lost touch since. All the models were carefully researched. Hope you and others enjoy seeing them! Captain Farrell saw these photos back in the 90's when EAW was still quite young....unlike me :)
Can't wait to see your skins for 5.0!1463814639146401464114642146431464414645

Cheers Peter Lynn

Thanks for your interest Peter and for posting those photos. Unfortunately though they don't show. I just get a message saying 'invalid attachment'. You have no fault in this - there is a problem on the forum with uploading pictures - sometimes it works and sometimes not. The best way to do it is to upload them to a photo hosting site like Photobucket and link to them from there...but that it a lot of trouble, I know.

EAW..I presume is European Air War...which is from around the time I started flying sims, or maybe before that. I didn't play that particular game though. My route was:
Fighter Squadron Screamin' Demons (excellent)/Jane's WWII Fighters(excellent)/CFS2/CFS1/MSFS/(CFS3 not so good)/IL2/Forgotten Battles.

Thanks for your encouragement. It is appreciated.

[Edit: I may not be doing Bf 109 or Bf 110 skins. I think maybe Capt' Farrell will do those.]

Cheers, Setback

SorcererDave
Jan-10-2015, 13:08
I'm doing quite a lot of skins for TF 5.0.

Are they all going to look like these ones? I have to ask because they just look wrong to me, colour-wise. I don't know if it's my monitor or what but, for example...

Here's a photograph of a real life Hawker Hurricane (I saw this aircraft myself at the Flying Legends airshow):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Hawker_Hurricane_XII_Z5140_XR-T_(G-HURI)_(6997015024).jpg

Here's a screenshot of my skin I currently use in the ACG campaign:

http://i.imgur.com/QWswtJg.jpg

And here's a screenshot of your Hurricane skin for comparison:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/HurricaneDTHa53LighterCodeRoundlsS02.jpg~original

Here's the thing, I appreciate your work, setback, and you're a far more talented skinner than I could ever hope to be, but I'm not sure I like the idea of mustard-coloured RAF planes becoming the default in TF5.0

major_setback
Jan-10-2015, 16:30
Are they all going to look like these ones? I have to ask because they just look wrong to me, colour-wise. I don't know if it's my monitor or what but, for example...

Here's a photograph of a real life Hawker Hurricane (I saw this aircraft myself at the Flying Legends airshow):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Hawker_Hurricane_XII_Z5140_XR-T_(G-HURI)_(6997015024).jpg

Here's a screenshot of my skin I currently use in the ACG campaign:

http://i.imgur.com/QWswtJg.jpg

And here's a screenshot of your Hurricane skin for comparison:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/HurricaneDTHa53LighterCodeRoundlsS02.jpg~original

Here's the thing, I appreciate your work, setback, and you're a far more talented skinner than I could ever hope to be, but I'm not sure I like the idea of mustard-coloured RAF planes becoming the default in TF5.0

The brown is a little too light on the Hurricane, I agree. I think I said this when I posted the skin.

Regarding your comparison photo/screenshot - you are comparing a photo of a plane in shade with a screenshot of a plane in sunlight. My skin screenshot is also in sunshine. If viewed in the shade it would be a lot darker.
It could be that your monitor is a little bright. Mine is quite well calibrated, though not perfect, and I usually check my skin screenshots on 2 monitors (one CRT on LCD) to check that the colours aren't too far off what I'm trying to achieve.

One thing to remember is that you must make sure you don't have SweetFX or any other post-processing program going.

Thanks for the feedback, it is essential. I hope others will comment on the light/darkness of the skin. I need to know whether it is right or not, and I will keep your comments in mind.

Hurricane photohttp://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/painting-questions-tutorials-and-guidebooks/206141d1302429222t-hurricane-mkii-colors-bc-hurricane-165.jpg

Cheers, Setback

SorcererDave
Jan-10-2015, 17:32
That photograph was not of a plane in "shade". However if that does not satisfy you, have a look at these:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Hurricane_mk1_r4118_fairford_arp.jpg

http://hqwallbase.com/images/big/hawker_hurricane_mk_ii_a_fighter-1575812.jpg

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2012-9/13/236732.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/5/8/6/0921685.jpg

In all these photos the brown and green are both darker and of a slightly different tone to your skin.

Here is a reference for RAF aircraft colours as of June 1940 using the paint schemes, names and references of the day:

http://www.jpsmodell.de/dc/schemes/raf_day40a_e.htm

(You will note that the official names of the paints used are dark earth and dark green)

Further to this I have viewed these skins on my second monitor, and my television in addition to this and I've found the result to be exactly the same. I do have SweetFX installed but I am purposefully disabling it for the purposes of this. In addition the screenshot I provided was taken before I had even installed SweetFX, so you're looking at vanilla CloD colours and lighting.

Edit: Is that a scale model of a tropical Hurricane you're using as a source?!

zionid
Jan-11-2015, 06:51
I have to echo what Dave has said here about the RAF skins. Having seen 1940 spitfires and Hurricanes up close and in sunlight midsummer it is still not like that. The last refernce photo you show is also what appears to be a model.

I have NOT tried you skin in the current edition of Clod and understand as such that the screenshot might give the wrong impression.

Anyways- I know that skins are too dark in the current edition. Like you I have also argued and discussed this very fact with people in my squadron.

So I agree completely.


But these colours are not only to light- the colour is simply wrong in its tone and contrast. I don't consider this my personal opinion either. THe source material speaks for itself- accounting variations that might occour with screen calibrations.

Like Dave pointed out: Dark earth- dark green-

http://i1.birminghammail.co.uk/incoming/article297765.ece/alternates/s615/PM2528581@GD4330925.jpg

http://www.mindartdesign.com/warbirdsatduxford/airshows_2012/july_2012/flying_legends-2012/spitfire_i_lq3.jpg

http://mccoy.nu/spitfire_mkIIa.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Hawker_Hurricane_10.jpg


Tons of other pictures- but I think this suffice.

Note that the second picture is taken in full sunlight.

I am not bashing here- but since you might carry the torch for a lot of us (doing the default 5.0 skins) it would be wrong not to say something I think.

I sincerely hope you will take this into consideration and not as an insult or petty disagreement- as it absolutely is not.


Thanks for helping patch 5.0 on the way. Best of luck and looking forward to your work!

Osprey
Jan-11-2015, 07:08
Hi Setback, I think that picture is of a scale model, and also it has a Vokes filter on it which means it's a tropicalised version not used in the Battle of Britain skies but later.

I too thoroughly respect work for TF but it all must be correct. Just to clear my head on it, are you saying that your in game shots will look like real life (as in look like the images SorcererDave posted) in TF5 and that they just look different here? Or are you saying that this is how they will look in TF5? The latter is of great concern. Kindest regards

~S~

major_setback
Jan-11-2015, 08:16
Agreed, I hastily posted a picture of a model after a quick google search yesterday. My mistake.

The Hurricane skin should be seen as a work in progress. As I stated earlier I already said as much when I released the skin. I also specifically stated that the brown was too light. So we are agreed.

Quote form my original thread:
"I tried to get the brown a little darker, but it didn't look quite right. I'll maybe try and improve it a little bit, before I do a generic version." (The relevant skin thread: http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13122)


I have been asked by the TF team to do some skins for TF5. They see updates of my skin work. That is all I have been asked to do regarding skins.

I would also like to re-do the default skins as these are unsuited to the light in the game since plane shine was introduced. I will work on as many of these as time permits and submit these to TF leadership and they will decide if they want them. I can't make that decision myself.

The hurricane is a WIP. I did a quick finishing job on a skin that was done a long time ago for an earlier version of the game and was much to dark to release as it was. I also stated this when I released the skin. So please do not use this as a measure of what is to come.

Please understand that editing the colours of the skins is a very tricky business.

I personally don't think the Hurricane brown is too far off being correct:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/HurricaneDTHa53LighterCodeRoundlsS03.jpg~original
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Hurricane_mk1_r4118_fairford_arp.jpg

The skins have to look good in-game in both shade and in sunlight and at different altitudes. All of these situations give very different looks to the skins. At the moment some of the default skins look almost black when in shade. Try the Stuka skin above and compare to the default skin when in shade, and you will see what I mean. And the default RAF skins look brown/brown rather than brown/green, also even in full sunlight, (as has been pointed out by other members).

Comments are welcome on the Stuka (this is a Stuka skin thread after all :-)).



Thanks for the feedback.
Cheers, Setback

BOBC
Jan-11-2015, 12:55
Hi,
Stuka skin, default skin looks very good, not perfect, the greens should be a little more nearer each other for it to be BoB stuka. They are dark enough. Its a fact that BoB stukas RLM70 and 71 were nearer each other colourwise than those on Ju88 and He111 and Do17Z. The splinter pattern is difficult to see in b/w on stukas compared to the other three mentioned.

What is very wrong is the reflections, like frost covering the colours, as opposed to a lightening of colours, we even have snow on the wings. That stuka typifies the wrong reflectance I am now seeing. This reflectance things is wrong, very wrong. I saw the previews of COD whilst it was under development, the first photo realistic sim aircraft for the BoB. Something has happened in 4.0 to give me grave worries. I have been following the screenshots people posted since it hit the shelves, but noticed a significant change and loss of realism in recent ones some now being rendered non photo realistic with this frost. If we are to see all these lovely accurate skins altered to cope with issues the reflectance is giving, I personally say revert to when the reflectance was realistic, when we could create skins to correct rgb colours for these aircraft, when the sim lighting engine made a colour go lighter and not receive a layer of white.

Here is a CoD shot giving true colours:-
http://s277.photobucket.com/user/Mysticpuma/media/2014-11-26_00034_zps65d3661c.jpg.html

For some examples I posted of the frosty coating, see my post at :-
http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9357&page=10

The stuka default in your thread would easily be at the bottom of the league regards the reflectance.

Also note that RAF aircraft were Type S matt, Luft were satin sheen. RAF aircraft at airshows now have a slightly less matt finish, developed for easy clean purposes as near to original as was possible, so a sheen seen on them, and as you can see there is little reflectance, IS EVEN LESS ON THE REAL BoB AIRCRAFT !!! certainly not what the revised reflectance is giving.

I will be skinning to correct Luftwaffe RLM shades and to correct RAF colours, then I expect the sim to fly them and lighten the colours a little where the sun reflects, not coat them with a second layer of white. The white is too opaque.

Bottom line is the screen shot should match the shot of the real thing. Simple. screen capture the sim aircraft in the same angle as the real aircraft. It can be flown and tilted until the sun is in the same place, P for pause...and camera view angle adjusted to easily match the real thing (tip...hit delete key then zoom out [right mouse button and move mouse]..end and pagedown buttons give fish eye lens and silly enlarged wings and tailplanes nearest camera). Place the sim pic alongside the real thing and post the result. If they match then thats it, reality.

The Stuka modded skin to combat the new lighting engine making everything dark, strewth....never ever seen stukas like that. I have photographed the correct colours in sunshine, shade etc, also the colour charts, never seen anything looking as light as that.

Here is another clue, turn that picture into B/W (photoshop Image menu greyscale then pipette (sample more than 5x5) the grey in a wartime picture and the sim, they should be the same shade of grey. comparing grey values will establish if the darkness matches. Then all you have to worry about is the hue and saturation.

Hurricane, far too light, but its the green that requires even more attention than the brown, neither are right. see http://s277.photobucket.com/user/Mysticpuma/media/2014-11-26_00034_zps65d3661c.jpg.html again.

use same two comparison methods as above to obatin the true colour. Why when we had colours such as this spitfire are we having to throw it all away. ?

I go with the other posters commenting on these as being far too light, especially if as you mention these are to be the new default skins. It is vital this far into the development of CoD that default is as good or better than the original concept and the often photo realistic colours seen up until mod 4. I was more than happy with how things looked reflectance wise but having now acquired the sim, and knowing that somewhere things have gone a bit odd, I am with 4 separate installs, modding each one up to the next mod version than the last one, so I can stay with the one that gives correct reflectance. I didnt realise that reflectance meant having to change all the accurate skin colours to vastly different colours, that makes creating a custom skin impossible, or is it just a question of adding in an adjustment layer in photoshop for lightness and increasing the lightness, such a layer can be deleted or turned off to reveal the correct colours. These colours I see are not just RAF dark Green with lightness applied, its as if the hue has changed as well. a yellowy green results. If one alters lightness for RAF Dk Green and RAF Dk Earth to the same amount , either by overlaying a white layer and altering opacity, or using adjustment layer, the actual relationship between the two stays the same, here the green is becoming the same greyscale value as the brown and that isnt right.

Now if redoing every single skin, and all the custom skins we also have access to, is required, along with vehicles skins, and any other skin that is affected by this reflectance coding , requires just the lightness value changing in photoshop, thats one thing, but if it requires a change to hue and maybe saturation, .....it will make custom skinning let alone redoing all the skins a complete nightmare. We are likely to lose accurate colours and gain...frost. CloD had the potential to be photo realistic, I see this slipping from our grasp. I have just installed CptFarrel skins, he has the rlm02 just right, neither a grey or a green, its borderline between the two, try getting that again if everything has to be altered and who will do that ? Tail wagging the dog.

Hope the advice helps. display result alongside a true example in same light.

By the way, note..spitfire AR213 (seen on the tarmac at Duxford in sunlight) has the wrong green. I noticed this when first seeing its repaint. Spitfire Mk1 P9374 has the right green and brown, matched to Air Min colour samples. RAF Museum Series British Aviation Colours of World war Two, Vol 3 1976 ISBN 0-88254-407-1 Arms and Armour Press is THE BOOK TO GET. has a paint chip chart in the back, i.e. paint, not printed. It matched P9374 and also the Spit Mk1 at Cosford. The restoration guys made sure of this. I personally feel the reflectance is wrong, results don't match reality anymore and they used to, and consequences are skin colour reality has to be altered now to work with it. I had plans for really accurate skins, getting the rlm70/71/65 as it truly should be, but having to create skins that look so very wrong in photoshop to go with the reflectance engine....oh dear.

BOBC

major_setback
Jan-11-2015, 16:05
Reflections are not my department. I have no more input regarding them than you do yourself, so I can't comment on any possible changes in that area. The same goes for the 'frosting'.
There are a number of issues with the skins.

Your 'CoD shot showing true colours'.
The greens are not green, they are brown. Here is that same screenshot where I sampled the colours using the colour picker in Photoshop Elements:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/6%20may%20onwards/skinpicker.jpg~original

This is the problem with a lot of the default skins...brown/green camo looks brown/brown and too dark. I have been asked by other members to address this issue.

In answer to another question: Changing skin colours is a lot more complicated than just adjusting an existing skin. If a skin is lightened or darkened the hue also changes. It is very much a question of trial and error, and just changing colours (no other editing done) takes very many hours of trials and restarts. Each aircraft type also differs, so a correct colour for a Spitfire cannot be transposed onto a Hurricane. I am not sure why that is, but presume there are hidden layers that affect the colours (example- the wear layer).

I don't believe vehicle skins have shine. I may be wrong though. The shine issue is limited to aircraft as far as I know.

As you say redoing the skins is a nightmare. But that is the situation we have right now. Any new skins that are made must be made to work with the latest version of the game. Skins can't be made that only look good in an outdated version of the game. As I wrote earlier, it is merely a matter of time and effort to change the skins. You would not believe how little of an effort that actually is compared to some of the time put in to other areas of the game by Team Fusion team members. This is a very simple thing in comparison.



Cheers, setback

Peter Lynn
Jan-11-2015, 22:10
Gentlemen, if I may make a few further observations on this topic:


An issue with all aircraft finishes at this time was the creation of as smooth a finish as possible, which involved a surface that would offer minimum reflection while at the same time avoiding a completely matt finish which would be detrimental in terms of surface drag, coupled with paint technology which would stand the ravages of exposure to the elements.
RLM 70 and 71 certainly was a smooth finish on leaving the factory but exposure at ever forward airfields would both fade and reduce reflectivity. 70 and 71 were colours that tried to blend with coniferous forests native to continental Europe while the splinter pattern tried to emulate the cultivated boundaries between forest, pasture and other vegetation, (and they certainly seem a lower contrast that the 70 and 71 used on 111s and 88s). It was therefore quite specialised, like the high 65 Hellblau demarcation line on the fuselages of 109 and 110s was designed for air to air concealment with an altitude advantage.
Like any other type, Stukas were subject to the ravages of the elements and fugitive pigments in the green colours chosen. (The blues used in the US Navy also quickly faded to greys because of the same reasons.) One of the problems with CloD is that while weathering and wear is modelled in exhaust stains and paint chips, the colours remain too glossy and too dark which is quite unconvincing. The same colour will look darker beneath a gloss overcoat than a matt one. All will look different again in direct sunlight, shadow or even an overcast, wet or dry!
Setback has made a most valuable contribution to how these colours should be represented given all the variables extant.
Some years ago I asked an old Lutwaffe ground crew member about what colour paints they used for touch up work and the implementation of the many directives issued to change areas of colour in the field. His reply was simply "Paint? Schmaint!" He pointed out that often it was almost impossible to achieve a match because different batches of the same colour were more often than not different and more often than not, they would have to try to mix from other colours.
I apologise for the lack of any clear decision or otherwise concerning the colours on Setback's Stuka, but I certainly think that he is on the right track. The game standard colours to me are just too dark! And as for the RAF! That is a topic all of it's own!
(Still trying to post the model photos, by the way...Setback, if you could relay your email address I should be delighted to send them on...)

Cheers

Peter Lynn

BOBC
Jan-11-2015, 22:29
Hi,

Peter...agreed on luft colour but cant agree that the new stuka is correct. The stuka default pic is ok for colour, the new stuka just far too light, I actually thought when first seeing these WIPs that they were BEFORE the sim lighting had its effect on them. I have rare colour shots of stukas and they are not that light. yes colours faded, pigments changed, the RAF Dk green for example saw the blue pigment fade so it went a bit more yellowy green, but I am looking at rare wartime colour pics of Spits in the BoB and they havent gone like the hurri, the stukas are much like the default, though the difference between the two colours is less.

As mentioned darkness is easy to assess, sample the greyscale of a wartime shot and the sim shot. This is vital in this process and assessment.

I have 'taken at the time' panels from BoB stukas, and they match the charts in Kookaburra and Merrick books and which are the colours we see in profiles in Classic Publications, in Kookaburra, and other top class profiles.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/57561701463150648/ is indicative of the colour during the BoB.

see also middle top pic http://www.asisbiz.com/Ju-87-Stuka.html

captured stuka http://www.angmeringvillage.co.uk/history/Articles/WartimeAng.htm see the greyscale values of the uniforms to the stuka, the new stuka is similar to those uniforms in terms of greyscale.

superb shot Ju88 70/71 scroll down page http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=ForumsPro&file=viewtopic&t=14427&start=255&finish=15&printertopic=1

http://thirdreichcolorpictures.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/heinkel-he-111-in-color.html whilst He111 shows the darkness, note the sheen by the way of the codes, quite common in fact on bombers.
http://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/aircrafts-2/junkers_ju88/ju88-color-photo-7/ JU88s in rlm70/71
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/WW2-German-Luftwaffe-USAAF-Captured-Ju88-FRANCE-2-COLOUR-PHOTO-/390809187590 nice shot of 70/71/65

<<This is the problem with a lot of the default skins...brown/green camo looks brown/brown and too dark>>

I am sure others given this picture would say RAF dk green and dk earth, looks like P9374 etc to me. I wouldn't say thats two shades of brown, and too dark, not for one minute.

...maybe others might care to comment on this spit.

I have sampled this spit, which to me seems correct, I see green and brown, my eyes/brain are auto allowing for the lightening that is going on, on surfaces facing upwards.

Note my samples, the green matches yours, then I sample where reflectance is minimal, where one should select colours, not shadow or highlight but midtone, and I see green brown. I would expect the green to go the colour it is going on the areas you sampled, so they are fine. The thing to do is to take such a screen capture and compare it to the real thing in the same light and angle, that is how we can be sure it looks like the real thing. That is the test that has to be done.
I am not colour blind, I have a calibrated screen and when I see this shot up spit the green brown does not say 'NO' to me, but the current WIP hurricane does, and we must acknowledge its a WIP. compare screen captures like for like to the real thing for the true test. The other pic in that thread of mine, top view of a banking spit,

http://s277.photobucket.com/user/Mysticpuma/media/4K-3_zps1c099e95.jpg.html

colours look spot on to me, and I have been looking at Spit pics for 30 yrs now.

To sample the sim aircraft either do so on mid fuselage sides when flying straight and level at midday or bank hard port or stbd to get wings vertical then sample wings, but as stressed, capture an image to match one of the real thing, P9374 or N3200 will suffice as they have had research applied to the colours.

I am not so sure the tail should wag the dog, is the current reflectance better than pre mod4, if the reflectance is now giving us truly realistic sheens then tail must wag dog, we will have to create skins that in photoshop look terrible but look accurate when flown. The sheen on this spitfire is correct though, but its well before mod4, I cant get that out of mod4. I must try 4.312 to see if the bad sheen I see on that Ju87B has gone.

The Default stuka, sheen ignored, has far more accurate colours than the modded skin, but they should be more similar as mentioned. Best of luck.

<<If a skin is lightened or darkened the hue also changes>>
Thats not so in photoshop, as lightness and hue sliders are separate, hue is not affected by lightness. Do you mean in the sim a lightened skin sees the hue change, as if so, thats a nightmare.

All this for reflectance, this reflectance had better be worth it. I saw nothing notably wrong prior to mod4.

Are you just taking the correct rgb values for rlm 70 and 71 then lightening both the same amount. is the modification just a case of adding lightness, if so then thats not so bad, but if we have to alter hue and saturation, eeeek !

http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n489/DBenz601/ShotupSpit_GreenBrownSamples.jpg (http://s1136.photobucket.com/user/DBenz601/media/ShotupSpit_GreenBrownSamples.jpg.html)

BOBC

major_setback
Jan-12-2015, 11:19
Hi,

Peter...agreed on luft colour but cant agree that the new stuka is correct. The stuka default pic is ok for colour, the new stuka just far too light, I actually thought when first seeing these WIPs that they were BEFORE the sim lighting had its effect on them. I have rare colour shots of stukas and they are not that light. yes colours faded, pigments changed, the RAF Dk green for example saw the blue pigment fade so it went a bit more yellowy green, but I am looking at rare wartime colour pics of Spits in the BoB and they havent gone like the hurri, the stukas are much like the default, though the difference between the two colours is less.

As mentioned darkness is easy to assess, sample the greyscale of a wartime shot and the sim shot. This is vital in this process and assessment.

I have 'taken at the time' panels from BoB stukas, and they match the charts in Kookaburra and Merrick books and which are the colours we see in profiles in Classic Publications, in Kookaburra, and other top class profiles.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/57561701463150648/ is indicative of the colour during the BoB.

see also middle top pic http://www.asisbiz.com/Ju-87-Stuka.html

captured stuka http://www.angmeringvillage.co.uk/history/Articles/WartimeAng.htm see the greyscale values of the uniforms to the stuka, the new stuka is similar to those uniforms in terms of greyscale.

superb shot Ju88 70/71 scroll down page http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=ForumsPro&file=viewtopic&t=14427&start=255&finish=15&printertopic=1

http://thirdreichcolorpictures.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/heinkel-he-111-in-color.html whilst He111 shows the darkness, note the sheen by the way of the codes, quite common in fact on bombers.
http://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/aircrafts-2/junkers_ju88/ju88-color-photo-7/ JU88s in rlm70/71
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/WW2-German-Luftwaffe-USAAF-Captured-Ju88-FRANCE-2-COLOUR-PHOTO-/390809187590 nice shot of 70/71/65

<<This is the problem with a lot of the default skins...brown/green camo looks brown/brown and too dark>>

I am sure others given this picture would say RAF dk green and dk earth, looks like P9374 etc to me. I wouldn't say thats two shades of brown, and too dark, not for one minute.

...maybe others might care to comment on this spit.

I have sampled this spit, which to me seems correct, I see green and brown, my eyes/brain are auto allowing for the lightening that is going on, on surfaces facing upwards.

Note my samples, the green matches yours, then I sample where reflectance is minimal, where one should select colours, not shadow or highlight but midtone, and I see green brown. I would expect the green to go the colour it is going on the areas you sampled, so they are fine. The thing to do is to take such a screen capture and compare it to the real thing in the same light and angle, that is how we can be sure it looks like the real thing. That is the test that has to be done.
I am not colour blind, I have a calibrated screen and when I see this shot up spit the green brown does not say 'NO' to me, but the current WIP hurricane does, and we must acknowledge its a WIP. compare screen captures like for like to the real thing for the true test. The other pic in that thread of mine, top view of a banking spit,

http://s277.photobucket.com/user/Mysticpuma/media/4K-3_zps1c099e95.jpg.html

colours look spot on to me, and I have been looking at Spit pics for 30 yrs now.

To sample the sim aircraft either do so on mid fuselage sides when flying straight and level at midday or bank hard port or stbd to get wings vertical then sample wings, but as stressed, capture an image to match one of the real thing, P9374 or N3200 will suffice as they have had research applied to the colours.

I am not so sure the tail should wag the dog, is the current reflectance better than pre mod4, if the reflectance is now giving us truly realistic sheens then tail must wag dog, we will have to create skins that in photoshop look terrible but look accurate when flown. The sheen on this spitfire is correct though, but its well before mod4, I cant get that out of mod4. I must try 4.312 to see if the bad sheen I see on that Ju87B has gone.

The Default stuka, sheen ignored, has far more accurate colours than the modded skin, but they should be more similar as mentioned. Best of luck.

<<If a skin is lightened or darkened the hue also changes>>
Thats not so in photoshop, as lightness and hue sliders are separate, hue is not affected by lightness. Do you mean in the sim a lightened skin sees the hue change, as if so, thats a nightmare.

All this for reflectance, this reflectance had better be worth it. I saw nothing notably wrong prior to mod4.

Are you just taking the correct rgb values for rlm 70 and 71 then lightening both the same amount. is the modification just a case of adding lightness, if so then thats not so bad, but if we have to alter hue and saturation, eeeek !

http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n489/DBenz601/ShotupSpit_GreenBrownSamples.jpg (http://s1136.photobucket.com/user/DBenz601/media/ShotupSpit_GreenBrownSamples.jpg.html)

BOBC

Yes, I mean in-game when I say that lightening or darkening a colour changes it's hue. For example on the stuka, if you change the dark green hue to -1 point of brightness in Photoshop it will change hue. If you then you change the lighter green by minus 1 point of brightness it will also change hue but in a different way. And it is also very sensitive. I usually don't change hue/brightness by 1 whole point, I change it by making a duplicate layer above it, reducing that layer (say by 1 point of brightness or hue), and then reduce it's opacity by varying percentages to try and achieve different hues. It can still suddenly shift from quite a vivid colour to a grey, lacking most of it's saturation.

It isn't possible to take the true colours from colour swatches and use those in Photoshop to make a skin. It doesn't work, they will look wrong in-game. The same goes for taking sample colours from photos - they become the wrong colours in-game. It doesn't help lightening them, they are completely wrong.

The Stuka - again, if it is took dark it will look very wrong in the shade. Remember it is mostly in full sun in the screenshots. Colours in full sunlight appear quite light, even if they are quite dark shades really.
For example: This is quite a good photo of a hurricane. The dark earth looks quite light in direct sunlight.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/6%20may%20onwards/hurrRCAF20Hurricane205625ed.jpg~original

That brown is quite light. Even a dark brown looks a lot lighter in full sunlight. Even more so when it has been weathered.
I agree with you (if this is what you are saying ) that the colours we see in-game should match photos taken in similar conditions. The skin should look like the photo, and not what we think the skin should look like, with an overly dark brown.

I have looked at many colour photos of the Stuka. I spent a lot of time searching for them (on the internet and I also have a large number of reference books and ebooks). They are few that are of good colour quality. I think the colours can always be debated. It will be difficult to come to a definitive conclusion about them. I agree that many photos of the Stuka show it looking browner than my skin. I don't think the green skin I've done is implausible though (the photos are admittedly museum pieces. I'm not at my home computer or I would provide references):
http://www.cybermodeler.com/aircraft/ju87/images/rafm_ju87_11.jpg
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3807/11488229863_99415710da_b.jpg

Cheers, Setback

BOBC
Jan-12-2015, 15:13
Hi,
I have been sampling restored and correctly painted P9374 (to Air Ministry 1940 spec, much work went into that paint job)...as opposed to just using what had been used in the past !
Looking at that aircraft in sunlight and in shade, we see the effect of sun, then compare the greyscale of the green and brown to wartime. As you can see the effect of sun and shade, as you so rightly conclude, sun lightens, even the midtone area, an area not pointing up or down, lit at 45deg with sun. I go by the midtone area as must you for the basic colour match.

What we see here is an aircraft taken with a camera that does not suffer any vagiaries of wartime film and the effects of time on the image taken, dyes change, chemicals change.

I have also sampled the yellow as its a known colour, again I can refer to that paint chip chart in the book mentioned (arms and armour press) as confirmation of the area sampled and lighting conditions. I can tell you the colours I see are as per that book. The sun one is a bit lighter as you can see. Match that spit and we are there.

The spitfire pics are taken by a pro photographer and the colour balance was just right, going by grass and other reference points, note the white isnt tainted.

Note the reflectance areas see the green greying up, its similar to the shotup spit.

Taking the non sun photo and comparing the darkness values (greyscale ) of P9374 to the WW2 picture samples I think one can say its a match.

http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n489/DBenz601/ComparesunandshadeonRAFcoloursandgreyscale2.jpg (http://s1136.photobucket.com/user/DBenz601/media/ComparesunandshadeonRAFcoloursandgreyscale.jpg.htm l)

Getting the difference in darkness value between the Green and Brown is vital. There are many WW2 spit Mk1 B/W shots to choose from, use those that appear well taken, in lighting that matches, though as I did, I simply used the lightness slider to darken the WW2 paired sample until it matched P9374. (I had the green and brown on one layer so the lightness adjusted both together)..picture by the way is captured from a movie.

Stuka colour. forget totally that photo you have of the stuka at hendon, there is all sorts of things wrong with its lighting, aberations, colour noise. I can tell you its not like that, having stared at it for hours. hendons lighting is artificial and unless these aircraft are lit with large prefessional kit, they will not show their true colours. Also that is not a Ju87B, weneed to stick to 1940 or pre 40 paint. Also it may well have been repainted post war by its captors.

I can also tell you that the Ju88 doesnt look like that at all. Classic example of what happens with flash, I can stand there and make that look so different to that colour again.

One must put that colour shot of the Ju88 in the revetment as to be used, versus that crummy colour screwed up hendon pic.

All pics used MUST BE DAYLIGHT and be of reliable quality.

That Hurri shot has green way different to those I have, I would not use it as the only ref shot. Its not 1940 by the way ! Its greyscale values ratio, (ratio important..how the green relates to the brown) is well away from the hundreds of 1940 spit and hurri shots I have. I advise you to ignore it and go with the majority. With pics taken under modern standards as mentioned.

We must stick to daylight shots and those we know to be original paint or correctly reproduced paint.

Making the sim stuka match the hendon stuka shot you have here is a big mistake. Drop that idea right now please ! Go by the Luftwaffe colour charts, by how these look in daylight. I shall try and find you more correct colour pics but I found you two in my previous post. My monitor by the way is calibrated using Eizo Colour navigator and a spyder 3. I also have as mentioned items from the real thing, stukas and Ju88A, also spit and hurri, I have photos of taken at the time RAF dk earth and Dk Green, same as that paint chart.

I also went through the colour blindness test and passed 100%, though I know I am not colour blind.

http://www.quizzyn.com/how-color-blind-are-you.html

I see the sim is a journey into hell, if adjusting lightness alters hue, all this to suit the reflectance tweaks, end of the day the aircraft must match real ones seen in colour in dependable pictures (that hurri pic is not), Charles Brown took some great shots in WW2, we have P9374 and modern cameras, even then I have seen some create colours that are not that aircraft..

Best of Luck. The Stuka honestly has to change, it just isnt right, you now have wartime He111, Ju87B and Ju88A colour pics showing the rlm70/71 colours as they should look.

Another reference is correctly painted models photographed in daylight, at height of the day. many model paints though get 70/71 wrong.

I shall see what other dependable reference shots I have.

BOBC

SorcererDave
Jan-12-2015, 15:17
Setback, that's a 1942 Mk.II Hurricane with what I think is mediterranean camouflage, so that's a pretty bad example. See below:

http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/aircraft/Hurricane_MkIIC_87sqdn_RAF_NorthAfrica_1942_profil e.jpg

Here's a replacement for the default skin which I knocked together in GIMP in about 5 minutes, which I feel is spot-on colour wise. You folks may disagree:

http://i.imgur.com/nPaL6iZ.jpg

The unmodded default skin for reference:

http://i.imgur.com/LyrKK40.jpg

Point is, seback, I'm afraid that your RAF skins look almost like desert ones to be honest. They're just far too bright no matter what lighting conditions you put them in.

BOBC
Jan-12-2015, 18:29
Here's a replacement for the default skin which I knocked together in GIMP in about 5 minutes, which I feel is spot-on colour wise. You folks may disagree:

Is the lower the gimp 5 min job ? I thought it was a genuine aircraft, the upper has that slight white coating all over and looks sim-like, the colours are ok, just the reflections or whatever that white film is. But that bottom pic, FANTASTIC. the reflections are superb ..it truly looks real. What is the bottom one and which mod is that ?

If thats the reflections that are the cause of this redo of the skins then yes justified, but if the upper one is the reflections, give me the lower one and ditch the skin revamps !

If I were to be picky, maybe a tad more olive in the green.

how is it that 5 mins creates this and setback yours are too pale, and just dont look right... caution with the pics you are using. ditch stuka, hurri, ju88.

I thought for a moment that lower one SorcererDave was the real thing !!! setbacks are miles away at the moment from real, CoD is photorealistic....and still can be, if we are careful with the skins. Hope this helps you Major_Setback. if Dave can GIMP a fix in 5 mins its not that difficult to sort this out.

BOBC

SorcererDave
Jan-12-2015, 20:07
lol, the bottom one IS the vanilla one. I made the top one. I was trying to make the green more olive, as you say. The shiny coating is just an unfortunate side effect of the screenshot being at a slightly different angle from the sun in-game. Anyway I tweaked it a bit (made the green a tad darker) and tried to get the best possible lighting angle and this is the result:

http://i.imgur.com/x4lHVss.jpg

Tried to make it look as photorealistic as possible, but it's tricky because if you move the camera even a bit the reflections mess up and it no longer looks realistic.

BOBC
Jan-13-2015, 16:56
lol, the bottom one IS the vanilla one.
Why are we trying to improve on what looked real ? I truly thought that bottom one was real.

I made the top one. I was trying to make the green more olive, as you say. The shiny coating is just an unfortunate side effect of the screenshot being at a slightly different angle from the sun in-game.
Not shiny coating as such, and this is the problem, its instead a fine white powder over the entire skin, reflections wouldnt occur over 100% of the surface, it should be on upper facing surfaces, as per my sampling the fuselage datum area should be devoid of reflections, RAF aircraft were matt, even a sheen on a surface doesnt reflect and see a lightening occur if lit at 45 degrees. I have used a camera and light sources to copy photos, with lighting set at 45deg no reflection occurs. Those spits at duxford see only reflections on the surfaces angled upwards.

Anyway I tweaked it a bit (made the green a tad darker) and tried to get the best possible lighting angle and this is the result:


Tried to make it look as photorealistic as possible, but it's tricky because if you move the camera even a bit the reflections mess up and it no longer looks realistic.
So the reflections are not suitable if they do that.
What mod number was the 'Vanilla' one, the same mod as the tweaked one ? Is this in 4.312 ? How become it looked real, and if it looked real, why do we need to change it ?
I look back at the skins created at the start of this thread, that spit versus the vanilla, or your dusty spit.
http://i.imgur.com/x4lHVss.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/6%20may%20onwards/DClipboard01.jpg~original
BOBC

major_setback
Jan-17-2015, 08:06
Setback, that's a 1942 Mk.II Hurricane with what I think is mediterranean camouflage, so that's a pretty bad example. See below:



Point is, seback, I'm afraid that your RAF skins look almost like desert ones to be honest. They're just far too bright no matter what lighting conditions you put them in.

http://ipmscanada.com/ipms/Reference_Photo/RCAF_WWII/RCAF_WWII_Image/RCAF%20Hurricane%205625.jpg

What makes you think it's a Med' camouflage? The caption for the photo is :
"CF Photo PC-2359 An RCAF Hurricane, serial 5625, flying over Canada. Note the late war markings mixed with the early war camouflage colours of Dark Green, Dark Earth, and Sky."
from http://ipmscanada.com/ipms/Reference_Photo/RCAF_WWII/RCAF_WWII_Page/RCAF%20Hurricane.html

Regarding the colours of my skin: I already stated that the brown is too light on the skin I did. Please read above.

Cheers, Setback

major_setback
Jan-17-2015, 08:31
I want to illustrate what I mean (as I stated before) when I say that there seems to be what looks like a brown filter on some of the aircraft skins since the introduction of plane-shine.

It is visible on some skins more than others, but I still think it is noiceable in this screenshot (TF 4):

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk71/Mysticpuma/2014-11-26_00034_zps65d3661c.jpg

It looks like a badly reproduced photo such as this one:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/6%20may%20onwards/avro-anson-701998.jpg~original

When the picture should actually look more like this (though it isn't perfect):

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/6%20may%20onwards/anson3070983238_54014d9c09_o.jpg~original

There is a subtle difference between the two. Without the second photo as comparison it is easy to think the first one is correct.


I have done other Hurricane skins for TF4 that are darker. I just happen to have thought they were unrealistically dark, and wished to represent lighter/worn camouflage. Here is one of mine (TF4 light), made on request:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/6%20may%20onwards/DognoseBiggera05movedsc.jpg~original
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/6%20may%20onwards/DognoseBiggera05movedsc1.jpg~original

Note that the greens are true greens compared to the first screenshot in this post which have brown in them.

By the way - I have done a second version of the Stuka over the past 2 days. This one has reduced amount of saturation in the lighter green (which is also darkened). I agree was a little too strong in colour. This one will have a light blue underside, rather than the grey of the first one. I will upload it within the next coupel of weeks (I need to do a few more screenshots first).

Thanks all for the input,
Cheers, setback

SorcererDave
Jan-17-2015, 10:01
See now that Hurri skin looks superb in my opinion. Incredibly similar to Hurricanes I've seen in real life. And yeah the greens are definitely dulled when viewed in-game for some reason.

BOBC
Jan-17-2015, 14:05
Hi,
Major_Setback, and certainly anyone needing to see THE ACTUAL RAF COLOURS USED, AS PAINT CHIPS.

Snap one of these rare books up.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/British-Aviation-Colours-World-R-A-F-Museum/dp/0853682712

ACTUAL PAINT CHIPS in the rear, well mine are, I have the original book, RAF museum series, see details in thread above.

I have photo'd the chart after establishing correct exposure for 'average scene aka kodak grey card, using expodisc, adjusted for any light temperature difference from 6500degrees K 9true neutral midday light summertime, kodaks now grey. result in shade lit by large expanse of sky is this (shows first two thirds of the chart, held mostly upright ):-
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n489/DBenz601/_MG_07_5049_RAFcolourChipsChart_RAFmuseumBook_koda ksOk.jpg

WW2 colour pics are at best indicative but not to be taken as to be matched.

AS STATED BEFORE, you MUST use P9374 which features the actual air Ministry paint as was applied in the BoB and pre BoB. also N3200 and also the Spitfire Mk1 K9942 at Cosford. for this one you will need photos of it taken in daylight, NOT taken inside Cosford. repeat NOT taken at Cosford. As such it was in daylight briefly on handover day to RAF Museum, the ceremony saw it indoors again. here is that day, albeit a dull rainy day:-
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n489/DBenz601/314_29K9942incorrectAirMinDkGreenDkEarthAfterResto ration.jpg

Pics you use must be free of colour variations due to wartime stock, forget photoshop adjustments, I have tried all that, it can better a pic BUT NOT GIVE US THE COLOURS. Chemical change over 70 yrs etc does funny things and in different ways to different colours.

I have one of a Spitfire Mk1 with Battle of Britain pilot at its front, despite careful adjustments his tunic will not go to the colour it was in WW2, whilst tweaking the photo using that and also grass and the sky as reference. The anson is also the same, the RAF blue grey trousers and tunics are nothing like WW2 ones, and I own the real thing and study them so I know.

To refer to WW2 pics as exact true colours is very wrong. DO NOT USE THEM TO MATCH TO. The only way to see how the actual air min colours (using P9374 etc) appear is to have a digital pic taken with quality digital camera in light that is 6500 degrees kelvin, so later in the day yellow sun shots are not admissible, likewise early morning. if not Pro digital then slide pic (latter on stock known to be accurate, so forget Fuji !) Kodachrome 200 and 64 was accurate.
Again I shall state the following...P9374 and N3200 have a sheen that WW2 RAF didn't, this is to facilitate cleaning as happens after airshows, the paint is created with a different surface finish. The Cosford Spit Mk1 however didnt have a requirement for such and the paint finish on that is as WW2. matt !!!!!

Reflections give your location away to the enemy, it also slows up the aircraft. Luftwaffe went for satin so a bit more speed though it glinted a bit more.

MOD 4.312 I have just installed and I was expecting RAF matt surface reflections (i.e. hardly anything) and Luft sheen reflections. I shall post some results in due course but the Mk1 spitfire is in high gloss and I didnt notice it as dark, maybe a tad darker than 3.01, my exact comparison shots that I will do at same location, same weather, same direction, between the mods will show what has changed, again this will take a while. If we are having all this trouble to suit the supposed good reflections in 4.312 we need a rethink. My 4.312 spit is like BBMF spit in the 1970s, with gloss varnish .

I have photographed the chart from the book I have, the original published run in daylight, in 6500k, exposure same as for an average scene, established using kodak grey card and also a special lens mounted device. so its not under or over exposed. It will give us the rgb values for all the WW2 RAF colours.

I can tell you now just looking at the RAF dk green, its an olive green , tha means its a browny green.

You seem to assume that the word green means its definitely a greeny green...NO...its still a green but has a hint of brown about it, sorry if that dissapoints but thats how it is. I see that olive nature both in P9374 and also the shot up spit. The greens went more yellowy green after much exposure to sunlight, the blue pigment was the first to fade.

Here is the Dk Earth and Dk Green from the RAF colour chip foldout at back of the RAF Museum Series book. I compare them to samples from the pictures as shwon below again. The chart was photographed using correct exposure, that was established with an expodisc fitted to lens. Horizontal and also vertical were tried, vertical being best as it replicates the fuselage side wall. less reflection from sky above.
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n489/DBenz601/CompareRAFpaintChart_P9374_CoDspit_.jpg
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n489/DBenz601/CompareP9374andCoDtoRAFcolourChips.jpg
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n489/DBenz601/Maj_setbacksHurricane_HeSaysTooDark.jpg
note the match to P9374 after exposure adjusted and slight saturation tweak. P9374 was painted in these colours. These are the colours used on BoB aircraft.

Again dont overlook the greyscale advice I gave to ensure the darkness ratio is there for whatever mixes you make. Using the RAF colour chips will get the colour and ration correct, they are the bible after all.

Sampling the colour chart with 101 x 101px we get :-
DARK GREEN RGB 72 74 65
DARK EARTH RGB 109 89 70

It is all about accurate references, not ww2 colour pics which have suffered from early stock chemical balance and whatever, you must heed this !!!! Also even for such, look at MANY, not a few. I have never managed to adjust one yet to get rid of the colour casts and have the uniforms and grass looking correct.
I have now found my Freeman RAF colour pics book, not one picture can be used to show the colours, they all have a colour shift or corruption due to age and film stock and processes at the time.

Your Hurricane is in fact not bad, green needs darkening and bit more brown, its a very grassy green type green as opposed to the dk olive green they used but if we are unable to see anything else from your pc, I would settle for that though its not right, its far better than the faded ones, however it is possible to get this right. My default skins look ok in 4.312, so I see no need to even change things, just need to fix the GLOSSY reflections because for a Matt RAF finish, they are atrocious.
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n489/DBenz601/shot_20150117_000338_SpitDefaultSkin_Mod4312.jpg
green brown is acceptable to my eyes, dk olive green evident here as should be. DkGreen and Dkearth in bright sunshine. I dont see how this is too dark and in need of lightening.
I do see a need to rethink the reflections currently coded, as this is NOT RAF matt paint, its even too glossy for Luft who had satin.
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n489/DBenz601/shot_20150117_000433_DefaultSpit_CoDMod4312.jpg

For this reflectance to be accepted as best CoD has had and have it dictate that we lighten all skins to me is odd.

We seem to be seeing things so vastly different to how you see them. A lot of effort is going into this from us all, It is now necessary to check the monitor calibration and greyscale as well as also just check for colour eye perception, seriously we must ensure we are singing to the same hymn book to avoid a tail chase here.

What do you use to calibrate the monitor ?

the eye colour check I posted earlier, do give it a go, at least then it will eliminate anything that might account for such differences in perception.
http://www.quizzyn.com/how-color-blind-are-you.html is the link to it.

BOBC

major_setback
Jan-20-2015, 07:50
I do know about colour charts and paint chips. They can be misleading. Aircarft in use would fade. It might be nice to have some skins that look perfectly new and bright, but mostly that would look wrong. Secondly if the skin is painted dark this emphasises paint shine, and that itself looks unrealitic. To combat plane-shine I have tried to make my skins look faded and worn. Dark skins equals a shiny appearance. Thirdly the Spitfire skin that I have been critisised for (and it's related generic skin) had in reality a relatively light brown paint. A simple google search for 'Spitfire' and it's code number will lead to a colour photo of it. I also showed the same photo of this aircraft when I originally posted this skin in the skin thread. http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12956 So I really do not understand those questioning my own thoroughness (oh, and I'm not colour blind, and did my final paper in colour perception when I did my degree):
Here it is:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/spit9_81d3.jpg

Admittedly it varies a lot from my first offering, and I have spent time improving it. There was a very light weathering layer (of my own) that I had missed, and was throwing off my colours...I changed it now. I will soon upload it, though it might not be seen as satisfactory because the green is too light. The colours have to be made to work in the game though. It will not be 100 percent perfect. If you go by the colour chart exactly it will also be off, and too dark and shiny, or dark in the shade. There has to be a compromise...even regarding different lighting conditions, as mentioned before.

Note: Weathering is my own and not in-game weathering.

Click twice on images for full size.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/SpitHanda024HuesDarkerMarkings8pointsLighterS27.jp g~original (http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/SpitHanda024HuesDarkerMarkings8pointsLighterS27.jp g~original)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/SpitHanda024HuesDarkerMarkings8pointsLighterS25.jp g~original (http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/SpitHanda024HuesDarkerMarkings8pointsLighterS25.jp g~original)


The Hurricane skin I posted earlier (above) with the darker greens and browns has too much shine in-game. It doesn't look good.


The Stuka. I have reworked this skin too. I darkened the lighter of the greens. It looks it's worst from above, so don't judge too much by that screenshot. From the side or any other angle it is darker overall.

The darker of the greens is the same, even if it looks slightly different in this screenshot. It is at a slightly different angle to the sun so it doesn't appear the same on both aircraft. It is identical though, I double-checked it in Photoshop. The difference is only in how we percieve the colours (the colour next to it affecting our perception).

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/Ju87compare3.jpg~original (http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/Ju87compare3.jpg~original)


I'll upload it as this skin with markings. Note that it now has a light blue underside. I will not upload this as a new generic skin though, I might make some small changes to colours first.


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/Ju87F1AR04Spat2S39.jpg~original (http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/Ju87F1AR04Spat2S39.jpg~original)

cheers, Setback

SorcererDave
Jan-20-2015, 13:11
Looks alright to me. No complaints here. That Spit is particularly nice in fact. Jolly good work, Setback.

ATAG_Lolsav
Jan-20-2015, 13:25
This is a very colourfull discussion :)

Volunteer
Jan-20-2015, 14:31
This is a very colourfull discussion :)


Being a photographer this thread is for me doubly fascinating historically and as an instance of colour perception. You guys are extremely talented! :thumbsup:

Black034
Jan-20-2015, 16:58
Reminds me of the endless discussions about late war RLM colours.

These are some nice skins though, that 87 is gorgeous!

DUI
Jan-20-2015, 18:15
[...] this thread is for me doubly fascinating historically and as an instance of colour perception. You guys are extremely talented! :thumbsup:

+1! Thanks for this interesting read and the nice pictures!

I would not have imagined that there are people putting so much effort and "heart blood" into realistic skins. I always thought there was a lot more of "creativity" involved, especially if it comes to the colours.

Peter Lynn
Jan-20-2015, 20:04
Thank you Setback!

The Spit is quite breathtaking...as is the Stuka, of course! (The Spit now graces my desktop!) Can't wait to see them in game!
Interesting to hear the debate still continues on late war Luftwaffe colours...it was going full steam 35 years ago too.
Since we have both the Tiger Moth and Gladiator either available or on the horizon as flyables, I wonder how many know about the use of Light Green and Light Earth on the upper surfaces of the lower wings and below the central fuselage stringer on the Gladiator I think...not sure about the Tiger! An attempt to make the surfaces often in shade to match the rest of the upper surfaces..

Cheers

Peter Lynn

BOBC
Jan-22-2015, 22:01
Hi,
As can be seen from the paired samples from current spits in the correct paint scheme, and the Hurricane, that the hurricane is in a different league colour wise, thus not matching pictures of the real thing. Some may have been faded a bit, however studying yet another ww2 colour pic which you are using as a true representation, I have first tried to adjust it to rid it off its various colour inacuracies , which as stressed already, are par for the course with these ww2 pics, one can see its now with less of the colour cast, removing red and yellow which was present as witnessed by the Luft tunic. Its still miles away from being useable.
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n489/DBenz601/SpitCapturedAdjustedbestPoss.jpg

The spit was faded,...no...

FF 5-1-40 24MU 16-1-40 234S 15-4-40 reported shot nr IoW was damaged and force-landed in Cherbourg France 15-8-40 P/O Hardy PoW aircraft had Daimler Benz eng fitted.
look at the b/w pic of the wing camouflage, thats as healthy and dark as ever there was, see the black cross on the wing.
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n489/DBenz601/azhpart4.jpg


This is not a K or L spit, its also not a P or X, so midway in production. fade would not be that noteable.

You are right in that they were not all brand new, see the colour samples taken from your spit versus those of the airshow spits, and of the captured spit. Its still too light. No way can that captured spit be used to indicate colours. Its green has in fact a bluish look. We have to go by the real Air Min colour, how it looks on aircraft today, and we have but P9374, N3200 and K9942, yes they are with as new paint, so make allowances WITHIN REASON for fade, and truly ask ourselves does it look real in a screenshot, the lightening has to be done with realism in mind, but they are too light. Turn the picture into greyscale and compare to many ww2 greyscale pics, that will also test this, again I mention this but it is a test it has to pass, not circumvent !

here is CoD looking real !
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n489/DBenz601/big_wing_alpha%20obtmikmak.jpg


and here is a ww2 spit with far less colour issues going on in the chemistry than those you refer to, which I have already posted as an image, it shouldnt get ignored, though i stress yet again,..DONT USE WW2 PICS as gospel.
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n489/DBenz601/Spit-Colour%20Life%20mag%20sample%20Green%20Brown.jpg

follow the rules, greyscale, ww2 pics caution, fade within moderation, not desert conditions. Does it truly look real in screenshot ?

When I get 5 mins I shall post the Luft colours as well but meanwhile have regard to that Ju88A in the revetment I posted. DONT IGNORE IT, its ww2 but has little if any colour issues in the pics chemistry. its what they actually looked like. I have a correctly painted stuka in daylight I shall post.

Peter...the airmin book with the raf chart I am using mentions the light earth and light green, for lower wings, idea being the shadow from the uppers on them made them match dk green and dk earth, those colours are also visible in my chart I posted. the spit here appears to be in those colours or lighter.

On a different note, flagging up the deep orange of the spit roundel..what goes on there, should be trainer yellow as per pics.

yellow fuselage band of the stuka, what actual BoB picture is that from, I am interested, as far as I know, no use of such in the BoB period.
so beware using it as default skin. We must be sure that the schemes are BoB accurate. I have never seen a profile of a BoB stuka or a picture with a fuselage band yet.
I have 1500 books and 30yrs on the subject under my belt but always open to new evidence.
I googled the code and found this:-
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n489/DBenz601/A-color-photo-Junkers-Ju-87B1-Stuka-7.StG77-F1AR-Arad-Romania-1941-01.jpg
so it appears to be Romania according to the pictures caption. Note the darkness of the 70/71 compared to yours though its a bad pic, darkness is still apparent. Relate it to the 'black' of the radiator interior (such deep shadow areas are useful clues) and the crosses.

BOBC

SorcererDave
Jan-22-2015, 23:08
If all you're going to do in this thread is repeatedly tell everyone that the default skin in CoD is correct, then you might as well give up, because I don't believe that to be the case, clearly neither does Setback, and neither do ANY other skin-makers I've come across within this community. Setback's latest skins look worn, faded, and battle-hardened. Further to that the undersides and roundels are also much better coloured. The default RAF skins in Cliffs look like airfix models or freshly-repainted restored planes you'd find in a museum rather than the definite article as it would have appeared at the height of the Battle of Britain. Further to that it's no secret that colours, and even roundel designs varied a great deal within the RAF. There was rarely a totally agreed on consensus on exact colour schemes, and erks would simply work with what they had to hand at the time. Aircraft appearance varied hugely from squadron to squadron, which is not the case with the default skins you continue to praise - in fact even the font on the letters is wrong. My only complaint was that Setback's ORIGINAL skins did not represent any known BoB era configuration. He has since remedied this.

major_setback
Jan-26-2015, 11:17
Thank you Setback!

The Spit is quite breathtaking...as is the Stuka, of course! (The Spit now graces my desktop!) Can't wait to see them in game!
Interesting to hear the debate still continues on late war Luftwaffe colours...it was going full steam 35 years ago too.
Since we have both the Tiger Moth and Gladiator either available or on the horizon as flyables, I wonder how many know about the use of Light Green and Light Earth on the upper surfaces of the lower wings and below the central fuselage stringer on the Gladiator I think...not sure about the Tiger! An attempt to make the surfaces often in shade to match the rest of the upper surfaces..

Cheers

Peter Lynn

Thanks!

I've made quite a number of skins for the Gladiator. They are in the pipeline.
As you say, the upper surfaces of the lower wing were lighter than the upper wing. I reflected this in my skins. The present default skin also shows this difference (on at least one of those aircraft you mentioned). I hope to get around to doing some Tiger Moth skins too.

Cheers, Setback

major_setback
Jan-26-2015, 11:48
The same Spitfire.

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/captured-wings/images/f/fb/Spitfire_N3277_under_guard.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140628120232

(See a bigger picture in the link http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/captured-wings/images/f/fb/Spitfire_N3277_under_guard.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140628120232)

Only the tail shows colour demarcation in BW from this angle.

Other photos of this same aircraft:

http://falkeeinsgreatplanes.blogspot.se/2012/11/spitfire-az-h-n3277-dirty-dick-234-sq.html

Cheers Setback

LizLemon
Jan-26-2015, 16:36
Perhaps a spin off thread is in order? The discussion of accurate colors is worth it I think. And I'd like to discuss scw 109s!

Anyway one thing to keep in mind when trying to convert screenshots to grayscale for comparison with period photos is that most b&w film of the time was orthochromatic. In essence red response will be very low to non-existant,and typically blue will be too strong and green about right.

I did some conversions of clod screenshots to b&w using proper levels and a few other tricks. I was pretty impressed with how spot on I managed to get. Sadly a hard drive dying means I no longer have them.

BOBC
Jan-30-2015, 23:35
Hi,
SorcererDave...agreed some would have be faded, some near new, to have all as faded,

such as http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n489/DBenz601/MS_lightSkinspit.jpg is not realistic.

Turn that b/w, even allowing for orthochromatic, its far far paler than b/w pics I have , and i have thousands.

if we have a choice of ckins then we can choose, but I am scared of such desert faded examples being now standard.

do stills with that in look totally believable...no.

the three hurris I posted are believable, yes newly delivered, but believable. somewhere between faded and those maybe is best.

just out of factory, true and acceptable, faded also acceptable , not overdone though.

The Hurri is well faded

use of ww2 pics i was saying beware, they dont indicate true state of colour.

The stuka I see is too light, my b/w and colour refs are far darker. the Ju88 I posted far far darker .

I have taken at the time paintwork items (metal etc) , far far darker,

BOBC

SorcererDave
Jan-31-2015, 06:36
Actually, to be entirely fair to Setback, I was at Duxford the day before yesterday, and right at the gate as you drive in is an old Hurricane with a very faded paint job that looks exactly like Setback's early skins. In any case I'm quite sure those skins are not going to be the new defaults. I do however, after having spent the better part of a day looking at and taking photographs of real BoB era aircraft at Duxford, think that the current defaults are also far wide of the mark.

BOBC
Jan-31-2015, 10:40
....I was at Duxford the day before yesterday, and right at the gate as you drive in is an old Hurricane with a very faded paint job that looks exactly like Setback's early skins.

Hi, I have seen that Hurricane quite a few times, frequentinf Dux airshows :-) each year it gets worse. Hurricane has been exposed to more sun than any BoB aircraft ever was, its been there many yrs, not months, so if Setbacks skins match that, then the fade is inaccurate, as such the pics he has put out since the early super faded are on that scale of fade also a little too cooked. getting there though.

the lightness of the paint in the fade can be compared to wartime b/w pics to some degree by greyscaling them.

In the thread below Larry69 excellently recreates the well known 610 sqdn spits in flight using CoD 4.3 and then greyscales the result.

Here it is in a compaarable montage.

Notice the ww2 pic green is a darker grey relative to the brown than the CoD Skin. Now if Setbacks green is lighter than that green then its wandering further away still from what green CoD and Larry69 used on the skins. I can see that the CoD skin there has a green a tad less dark and nearing the brown, it needs to come up a tad or two on contrast, just a bit. but not go the other way !

http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n489/DBenz601/Larry69%20610sqdn%20recreation%20compare%20to%20or iginal%20patch43.jpg

Is this orthochromatic film and not compaable to greyscaling in Pshop, no its normal..

Wikipedia on orthochromatic film:-
Orthochromatic photography refers to a photographic emulsion that is sensitive to only blue and green light, and thus can be processed with a red safelight. The increased blue sensitivity causes blue objects to appear lighter and red ones darker. Pic of union jack saw the blue triangles a very pale grey and the red cross dk grey.

Here we see the RAF finflash which is red white blue front to back, as such, so not ortho.

some of his other RAF shots can be also seen in the thread...
http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9357&page=5

Comparing greyscale ratios, we see the lesser contrast (lighter green ) of Larry69/CoD and the much lighter colours of Major_Setback.

http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n489/DBenz601/Larry69%20610sqdn%20CoD%201940%20compareGreysSampl es%20patch43.jpg

However when opening pshop levels and darkening them (slide black slider to right) aiming to match the browns, (the greens are also at the same darkened the same amount, being on the same selection or layer) we can make eventually Major_Setback's greys match those of 1940, whilst Larry69/Cod has a bit lighter green.
his required +41 and MS a lot more, +127 almost half of the sliders max progression .

Thus Major_Setbacks spit skin H.AZ has the right ratio of darkness of green to brown, just much lighter than 1940 i.e just much more faded than 1940, using greyscale to compare lightness.

BOBC

SorcererDave
Jan-31-2015, 11:01
It's worth pointing out that Larry's coloured screenshot is photoshopped. I have the original (un-photoshopped version) as my desktop background, so I ought to know, lol. So you're not actually seeing TF4.3 lighting there.

Black034
Jan-31-2015, 11:07
It's worth pointing out that Larry's coloured screenshot is photoshopped. I have the original (un-photoshopped version) as my desktop background, so I ought to know, lol. So you're not actually seeing TF4.3 lighting there.

Could you post it? I'm curious to see it.

LARRY69
Jan-31-2015, 11:52
...;)
http://i1364.photobucket.com/albums/r739/larry691/146_zpsa6a1ea51.jpg~original

by the way... a shot from the otherside!
http://i1364.photobucket.com/albums/r739/larry691/151_zpsb094d166.png~original

Larry

SorcererDave
Jan-31-2015, 11:55
Ah, my mistake, I actually had it confused with this one: http://puu.sh/fhCjh.jpg

The above screenshot posted should be the in-game lighting. I think. You'd have to ask Larry I suppose. He does like to do different iterations of his screenshots.