CoD disappointing in skinning matters!
 

Hi,

i just like to tell any friend of top quality skins here that there's already a big
disappointment regarding the skinning possibilites in CoD. What's known now is
that i. e. panel lines and rivets are not for editing but hard coded in the game.
Why did the developers not this make an selectable option like the
weathering? No real need to do not, so what's the problem?

The argueing of the developers with 'scrappy' online gaming
skins and historically accurateness is more than poor in my eyes - take a look at the Il-2 sturmovik top quality skins. Aren't they eye-candy for everyone? Each player/online community can select the ones he/they like/s, no need to fly with 'scrappy' made ones.

The possibilities of skinning and my historical interest in the original paintschemes of WWII birds were the main reasons i bought IL-2 once.
There are many offline players who are enjoying wellmade skins for the same reasons like me. I will not buy CoD for the new gameplay alone, the best look with own skins are important for me - and many others too.

... and so it begins ...

and this is all you have to worry about in life?

Never worried about this.

This is by no means new, they told us about this months ago!

Im for/against this.


*nods head left/right up/down*

Surely different layers will be unlocked in the future. I wouldn't worry about it. There is enough on our plate right now! :rolleyes:

+1

:grin:


The motivation behind that choice given few weeks ago was sound. I had a lot of skins that look nice from far but close up were a mess.

Especially the wild ones...

Even some skins that were historical had sometimes rivets oversized or overdone in someway... sure... there were some perfect ones... but if Maddox did their hidden layers perfectly then we shouldn't have trouble.


Of course, maybe later an config.ini option to bypass hidden layers enforcing on server could be added for people that find this utterly important for some reason.

Great to see that the sim will be only as good as the dumbest epileptic ametuer skinner. Level playing field indeed.

Given the other criticisms being thrown around I really think that this one is nonsense. There are absolutely valid and logical reasons for not having panel lines and rivets being changeable and there is no reason why such a feature would prevent us getting great skins.

And it was common knowledge this would be the case.

You wouldn't need them to be editable. If they could just be turned off, then a skinner could add lines of choice. Though I think a problem could then arise because the bump mapping must align with the panel lines. So you would have to turn that off too...Oops

THX for your replies.

Is there anyone amongst you who made skins for Il-2?

I and many others spent a lot of time making high quality skins for the IL-2 community. Fitting historical based campaigns with historical based skins of course is of interest for the single player only. There are many single players only i guess.
Behind all this work there's a lot of research work i think only those involved can imagine really. This is even fun for the bunch of mission builders and skinners, we enjoy the sim in this way too.
Creating each screw, each shadow and line all by ourselves was a real challenge - and looked far better than the most ugly default skins that
came with the game once.
The reason skins were more ugly when zooming in is the resolution of just 1024 x 1024 in the old sim. You couldn't get some details displaying well,
mapping with stretching and warping on some 3D models did their
cause too. This isn't a mistake of the skinner.


I think you all will see the ingame coded skin layers will again not look as well as high quality ones made by skinners. The game generated rivet/panel lines will i. e. always display on top of the skin file, you can't get i. e. selfmade paint chipping or weathering (i. e. exhaust smoke) on top of these then.
This reduces the possibilities of a realistic look.
Of course there are some mapping problems when making lines and rivets by yourself, these were
occuring in the old sim too. There are of course limits in anyway, not in skinning matters alone.

I'm not critizing the fact there is a game generated lines and rivets layer, but
i'm critizing it cannot be turned off optionally (thx major setback!). Why is this nonsense?
Why does it need ignorant or arrogant smelling replies?
They made it with the weathering layers too, can't be a big problem.

The fact it is wellknown for months now to be this way doesn't hinder me
to talk about it, and i can assure you there are many others who dislike this
too. The true reason behind this is to avoid or complicate modding - this is what i think.
I'm a non-modder and i'm quite sure it is just a matter of time when there are mods for CoD too.
The fixed rivets/panel lines will not prevent that.

Hi cheruskerarmin (ive seen your work around :) ) , ive made over 150 historical skins for il2 plus many more for squads etc, & i was thinking of coming out of retirement :) to start skinning for COD but i have heard of this panel line problem & us skinners at ubizoo discussed this very problem a good while ago & they are also not happy , so im just going to wait till i have COD & see what i can do with it skinning wise.

Think about it
 

How in hell would they implement the progressive weathering of aircraft over missions when someone can change the structure(rivets) of the aircraft...

Paint the thing. Thats your interest and your apparent expertise.
Paint goes on top of rivets.

Yes your hard earned expertise at making the rivet layers look good will not now be on display, your weathering will not be on display.

Want them to put in a rivet filter on top of the epilepsy filter to make a game just for you?

Don't panels collapse now too? as in if a new skin shows panel lines that the game doesn't recognize you would end up with really weird mid/dual-panel collapses and what not?

Yeah, like I want to see more bright red or landscape textured planes without panel lines & rivets to really give me that sense of immersion.

I think I would like to stick to the developer's method that at least puts proper panel lines over your Hello Kitty skin up there.

Why are we getting these threads whining about this and that from people who've never posted here before?

Yeah, now it will look like the real plane would if you painted it with a Hello Kitty scheme. :-P

Which is still better than a plane shaped object in Hello Kitty colors ;)

The new system will be great for people who, like me, can make a decent looking skin if they are using someone else's template (I can make my own templates, but they take 10s of hours and still don't look as good as the templates made by the true artists, so I stick to these and sometimes modify them a bit).

Well, I've never created a skin for Il-2, because, while I would like a uniquely identifiable skin, I simply don't have the skill or software to do all of the panel lines, rivets, and assorted hardware that has to be drawn on the Il-2 skins.

I'm not talking "Hello Kitty" or the neon plane either, I'm talking about a slightly different camo job so when we're all lined up in a row, we don't all look like clones.

With this a competent skinner should be able to turn out a good looking skin in an order of magnitude less time, which means instead of focusing on making one fantastic hyper-detailed skin, you can make a unique skin for every aircraft in your wing, and be able to ID everyone by sight, rather than icon, or "Hey Fred, wag your wings."

Try it and see. It is awesome to see.

Thank you very much for your replies.

@Il2Pongo, that's a good point!
But i can turn the ingame weathering completely off - if i like. So it wouldn't be necessary to have a fixed rivets/lines layer.

@buglords
THX, i know your works well :). Surely i am late with my critics but i don't see
any reason to avoid discussing this matter (didn't saw the discussion before, sorry).

@Trigaaar
To your knowledge - made some few posts before and joined these forums
in mid january this year. Do you have something useful to say, 'senior member', instead of offending me because of opening a new thread here? This is a discussion forum isn't it?
Hopefully this isn't the way new members are treated here.

@CharveL
I assume you haven't seen any of my works nor do you know anything about
serious skinning and the efforts required. Did you make anything useful for the IL-2 community too so far? Did i offend you or other members in any way? 'Your Hello Kitty skin' remarking is indicating arrogance and nothing else.

@David603
That's exactly what i do, using templates. Altering things
how i like them or correcting mistakes, adding own stuff etc.
I didn't make own templates so far. Surely the fixed rivets/lines
are making things easier but i finally have to accept how they are done/appear ingame.

@Voyager
Very good points, thank you for this reply. Therefore i am specializing in making squadron skinpacks (if you like take a look at them at axis & allies paintworks), they are in my opinion much more useful than a
single individual one. Creating a base skin and then making some variants. Anyway - maybe you have to be a serious skinner yourself to understand you want to make the best out of a skin you can. I can't speak for anyone but for the most calling themselves serious skinners.


I have no problem if this matter isn't important to others or if you have another opinion. That's what
forums are for, different people - different opinions.

I'm not a member complaining generally about the new game, what i've seen so far looks very well in my eyes, great job. It's just this skinning matter disturbing me - like the very most of the skinners branch. If you would belong to them - it would most likely disturb you too.

ATB

Skinning has added lots to the old IL2 franchise, allowing historical missions to be flown using schemes relevant to the theatre in question.

Personally I think it will be a great shame and possibly a mistake that there will very little scope for custom skins as the only add to the game.

I have concerns over the default weathering program (I will hold judgement until I have the game) but combat aircraft are not clean and shiney, they are dirty and sooty.

Having several default schemes may suit, but even the 'standard' Scheme A&B had differances, be it roundels, panel refits, altered camo etc and it would be nice to have that option available, having clean and dirty sections, replaced rivets etc.

Just my humble two peneth worth

Hi Chris.. how you doing?
Yes, it will be a great shame if we have lost the ability to use custom skins... that ability really helped to extend the believability of a squadron identity online for us in EAF 19, using many of your skins for example.. Get in touch mate, need to catch up, I'm out of the country quite alot these days with work commitments etc, haven't chatted in ages..

Will do Dave, will be on Skype some time tomorrow evening (between 7-8:30ish)

Ok. I apologise for my earlier post. I've used many great skins made for il-2. In fact it was one of the joys of the game to be able to collect and choose between such a great collection of skins created by the community.

I had no idea of potential problems with the new system.

Having said that, I can still see the logic of having panel lines and rivets nailed down as part of the stucture of the aircraft. I really hope that with time and more familiarity with the new system you guys can create something really great for CoD too.

Respect.

What is this "logic" you talk of? Ahh just googled it:

"The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning."

Bahh, it has no place on this forum! Leave your "logic" at the door please.

:rolleyes:

Can someone explan the problem here to me?

You have a Mk1 Spitfire, you can paint it anyway you see fit.

Is this about people wanting to change the body work?

The only real arrogance here cheruskerarmin is yours.

This is a simulator not WOP and you are more than welcome to paint up your 109 in any way that you see fit.

But it's still a 109 and once you start deciding the real panels and rivets should be repositioned your way and not historically then it becomes NOT a 109 and I could care less how good you think you are at it, it still won't be any more a 109 once you're through.

Meanwhile, we would have to put up with every Windows Paint hack out there like some gay disco.

How on earth can it not possibly be enough that you can paint it any way you wish just as if you were actually in a Duxford hangar in 1940 with free reign and millions of colours? You just don't get to redesign the plane with odd-shaped panels and odd sized rivets.

And I'm the arrogant one.

This is the most ridiculous fanboi post yet.

Lets reflect back a few years shall we? The former state of aircraft release skins of many planes by Maddox and 1C was WRONG! The adjustments of skins and the true historical corrections made by the people in this community have perpetuated IL2 for many years. Skinning, Modding and non official patches have kept alive what we so cherish. The ignorance of some of the posts here is amazing to say the least.Sure you can pull the so called "Gay Disco" paint scheme card from your hat and walk away like you said something intelligent or even relevant to this conversation... but its not. Along with the few kid/amateur paint schemes out there ,there are 100's of historical recreations and corrections done for free by history lovers and IL2 enthusiats.

All Armin is trying to say here is that the system that 1C and Maddox has introduced , has taken away from the owners and enthusiast of IL2 the ablility to expand upon it. Just as we have so done for many years in the past. One of the reasons IL2 is still alive and 1C has made money on it still to this day is because of US!!! The Skinners and Modders. I will say with profound respect to the people who have given back to this community by developing FREE add on and upgrades to us for our enjoyment.... Thank You. You leg humpers thats have posted here probably have never given one thing back. As most of you who have bashed this thread,I have never seen your names anywhere for contributing to our community. And it shows by your posts and lack of respect to those who have kept this Sim moving forward years after its release.

I'm not a professional skin maker - but have made a few mostly using other people templates for squadron events and I've made a few modification to existing ones (Chuck Yeager Mustang for example).

I think this feature is great !
It would have saved me hours looking skins templates that match the quality needed. It It means I could have focused on the paint scheme and colors and not worrying about ruining the rivets, for amateur skinners with less skills and in much less time this is great.

Yes, mistakes in rivet placing will not be correctable using skins - but again they will not be in such abundant - and yes - that is exactly what i'm aiming to the fifths rivet on the left engine...and not the misplace one.

@cheruskerarmin - I agree that it would be a cool feature to have, but i fear that in the current priorities of things it will be kinda low...

I'd say that "historically correct skinning" kept the game alive is an extreme exaggeration. That is a inflated sense of self talking right there. I don't give a XXXX if the skin is 100% correct to some specific squad. I fly full ******* switch and don't give two shits if the panels lines are slightly wrong, or the cammo is off. You are too full of yourself. The reasoning behind not having panel lines customizable is simple: a) too many skinners didn't pay any attention to panel lines, b) the in game panel lines match up with the collapsible panels of the game. If you re-panel them then you end up with unrealistic damage that falls between your so-called historically accurate panels and the panels the devs used.

Edit: Apologies if this post offends, but I've grown really sick of the arguments regarding skinning. From what I can tell most players (even full switch) don't really worry that much about the historical accuracy of exact panel lines and paint schemes. In the end I think what 1C Maddox went with (providing accurate damage of panels) out weighs the desire of a few for 100% historical accuracy. I respect the quality skinners of this community, but rivets and panel lines do not a quality skin make.

When the aircraft was ready to paint, did the aircraft painter have the aircraft panels replaced if he didn't like the location and size of the panel lines. The panels are accurately placed and I don't see any reason why you can't do a creative paint job over historically correct aircraft panels.

Hi Guys,

This is my first post here but I have been a long time lurker.

I am a founder of the Axis and Allies Paintworks website. We pride our selves on making historically accurate skins to the best of our ability within the limitations of the virtual world. Il-2 has, for many years, provided us with the best platform to make historically correct skins and this is purely because of it's fully customizable (in most cases) templates.

Some people posting in this thread seem to take offence that we are questioning the means of skinning in this new game and say that we are elitist and "big headed" just for worrying about the future integrity of our hobby. Are we suddenly wrong for wanting and aiming for perfection? For years, people have downloaded our work because of this historical accuracy, the time, effort and research we put into our skins. To then be dismissed by the company which we have supported for the past 10 years is deeply offending and disheartening.

In principal, the idea of having multi layered skins with the panel lines in a separate file is an excellent idea to help new people coming into skinning, BUT, If Il-2 is anything to go by, we have seen that skinning is not a high priority on the list of things to do as some of the original release skins were truly dreadful... Many of you have been saying that "well, the skins have improved over time, look at the 4.09 release". Yes, I agree, but that is because many of them have been done by us. Members of the community who have spent months building these templates to get them as accurate as possible, hours researching colours (Just recently Myself and a friend spent 3 days messing with colours trying to get the most accurate match for the photographs of the aircraft in question), and months researching, reading and searching for information on particular aircraft.

I am not against having the panel lines as being none editable, BUT, as it is possible to turn off the weathering in game if we want, why not make it possible to turn these off? People here are saying that "These panel lines and rivets are 100% accurate, why would you want to change it!?!" Well, that's simple, I can guarantee you that they are not. That is not to say that ours would be 100% either (Perfection is, as they say, something you spend 99% of the time chasing and rarely achieve) however not having these layers as editable means that we would not be able to change opacity of the lines or rivets which in itself can be a major downfall of an otherwise great skin.

As I said, I am not here to say "this sucks, that sucks" and get into a pointless argument over X,Y and Z but surely you can see from the sheer number of downloads of skins over the last 10 years, that skinning is a huge part of Il-2 and really does add to the game... I am all for helping new people get into skinning, the more the merrier, but for us old hands who've been at it for a while, this is a severely limiting factor.

Please do not take this as an offensive post to Oleg, 1C, Ubisoft or any other single individual, myself and my friends here such as Cheruskerarmin who started this thread are merely trying to ensure that our hobby is here for the long term. I realise that many of you out there say that "Most people dont care about 100% accuracy" but the fact is that there are some people that do. I've never heard of anybody complaining about something being too accurate but ofcourse I have heard of the reverse. Remember the old days of Il-2 when people complained of aircraft having porked FM's? This is just as bigger deal as that to us. For all our time, effort and dedication which we put into skinning, to be dismissed as "Horrible 10 minute hack jobs" was extremely wrong.

All the best,

Rob.

www.axis-and-allies-paintworks.com

It's been a long time since I've posted on this forum and from the vitriol being spewed by some of the posters here one can understand why. Geez, and I thought the Zoo was bad.

To those of you who are saying ""I don't care about the skins", "Who cares about 100% accuracy", "Accurate panels and rivets don't make a good skin" I ask YOU this:

Would allowing those of us who DO care about being able to edit these layers break the game?

Would it completely ruin your enjoyment of CoD if a skinner came up with a better set of lines or better looking weathering? Is asking for the ability to fully edit the appearance of the skins unreasonable? Would allowing this change gameplay or allow cheating?

The answer to all of those questions is "No, allowing these changes would have ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on you." It does make a lot of difference to some of us, however, and as we are all potential customers of the game, all of our opinions should matter.

Oh look at you clutching your pearls in horror at my posts like I just kicked your dog.

Please. Playing the drama victim, although hardly original around here, is a bit much. And to be honest, I've never heard of you either amongst the thousands of skin makers out there, but does that make you so relevant to the community that you can just attack anyone that disagrees with you because I'm not as l337 as you seem to think you are?

So back to reality...

1) I'm not a "skinner hater" and in fact loved the incredible work that was done to improve them for IL2 whether they were yours or whoevers. Really. Some impressive stuff was done.

2) I would love for you to have whatever you want in life including free reign to spend hours upon hours looking at faded colours from disintegrating film and photos, determining what was historical. We'll forget of course that our crappy LCD monitors likely will vary that by a higher percentage than your days of tweaking and arguing RGB equivilents amongst yourselves. Knock yourself out, I think it's great and appreciate someone making the effort.

3) Sometimes compromises are made for the good of the community and overall look of the game. So for every .01% of you that are offended by the opacity of locked panels and rivets, the other 99% are even more offended by the fact that people can and will fly without any for whatever reasons. So yes, the fact that 1C's panel lines are slightly less perfect than yours would be I think it's a fair compromise.

4) The assertion that allowing you to change this makes NO impact on the rest of us is wrong (see above) at least as far as I understand it.

5) I'm sorry you are so hurt by my post. Really. And if there is a better way around all of this I will march right behind you but in the meantime I will at least be able to log on to a server and see that ghey flame job with (mostly) proper rivets and panel lines and be able to maintain some immersion.

Now, can I lend you a hand off that high horse so you can mingle with the little people?

@CharveL

Go back to your first post, you started jeering at me ('Hello Kitty Skin') and not viceversa. So don't turn things upside down here now.

Not easy posting here, i never felt disliked and offended in any forum that way.

I again have to repeat i was not offending anyone here! I just started this post to discuss my point of view regarding the fixed rivet/lines. Nothing else.
Many forum members did post their own point of view with some good points - and without any offending or jeering remarkings. THX a lot to those of you, and especially those who did and still do a lot of work themselves for the Il-2 community.

I agree to those who are saying IL-2 is a flight sim in the first place. Many skinners are members in online squadrons too. But there are a lot of offline players too. Amongst these are again a lot who are caring for historical accurateness of paintschemes or even just like to have their missions fitted with matching beautiful skins - for the eye candy. You can choose what you like, don't choose bad or ugly ones. There are enough first class skins available for free, all made with a lot of enthusiasm and time spent, no money earned with.
Download numbers of skins are speaking for themselves.
We just want to have an excellent sim looking very best fitted with excellent skins. And the selfmade ones will look much better than any game generated - if you choose these wellmade ones.

I don't think there is any harm for anyone the developers would make the panel lines/rivets a selectable option. Skinners would be happy - and those who wish to have them game generated too. For a minium effort. So what is the developers problem? I assume it has to do with modding, can't say this for sure because i am not using mods.

@chivas, winny
I explained some posts before that i. e. paint chipping or exhaust smoke, shading, lighting effect has to be on top of the rivets/lines. This isn't possible with a game generated fixed rivet/lines layer, which will always be on top of the selfmade skin. No problem if you use the ingame weathering but skinners are usually making their own weathering effects. The ingame weathering is a selectable option, the ingame rivets/lines unfortunately aren't.

@Kikuchiyo
Making own panel lines/rivets with well looking 3d and lighting/shadow effects were there aren't any on the 3D a/c models is the 'highest art' of skinning - and most difficult like well looking weathering effects.
It's a challenge.
So they cut away our 'highest level' in skinning from the game. You can't make own panel lines and most likely have to use the ingame weathering to get it on top of the lines/rivets. You are reduced to make a camo and some
markings, that's all.
Surely you have to be a skinner yourself to see it that way.

@Jarink, Heerdt, VH-Rock
Thank you very much for supporting my point of views here.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Can't you paint over the rivet, but the rivet should obviously still be visible under your new paint job.

Actually yes changing the panel/rivet layer would as I pointed out. The game is designed so that you end up with accurate weathering and damage along the established panel lines. How accurate would your skin look if a panel was half collapsed as if two separate panels exist, or if the weathering was following a panel line that didn't exsit?

I can understand your sentiments, but the only reason I chimed in was someone claiming that skinning was more or less the sole reason that Il-2:Sturmovik experienced such a long life. I can see how the new state of things may be disappointing for you, and I can empathize, but making such bold and erroneous claims irks me a great deal. I did edit in an apology to my rather harsh post almost immediately after posting. I was worked up, and realized it soon after.

Again I apologize for being overly harsh, but I also hope that you can see how/why editing panel lines in this new sim may actually dimish both the quality and accuracy of both your skinning and the sims attention to detail.

It's probably already been said but I'm not worried one bit about skins. I'm sure all skinners will be over the moon when it comes time to start making custom skins for COD. From what I've heard the templetes are twice the size of IL-2's?

yep, 2048x2048.
better for details. And sure weathering and ageing still can be painted on the "color".
i guess the most skinners will find a way to work with CoD system :)

the ingame weathering is on a slider, so set to zero, nothing will harm a skinners point of view of weathering and ageing i guess.

just the panellines and rivets are fixed (so far). IF they are correct, what is wrong with that.

If they are, they usually aren't, many weren't on default skins on IL2. Not very surprising, for some planes, the exact position of external features is still open to debate even among historians.

Anyway, COD as it is presented now, is of no interest to skinners. The general consensus this far is that we are better staying on IL2 for skinning. At least that's what seem to be the general idea on the topics about the question i saw made by skinners on some boards.

There are many things that are annoying with this new method. We can't correct the panel lines, we have no control on the weathering option, and the skins will be way more difficult to create for lack of references (panel lines are useful for that).

So we can now make very detailed skins, 2048x2048, lots of color, but whatever we do, we can never do better looking panel lines and structural details. And it's not the overall color that make a great skin, it's those details. Having a camouflage pattern is the easy part of skinning, the hard part is having the panel lines and rivets look as realistic as possible. This is why we needed more detailed skins. If only for the camo pattern, they could as well turn back to 512x512 like in original IL2, it would be enough.

COD seem so far to be a great step backward concerning skinning, which is sad, as it was indeed one of the great features of IL2 1946.

Has anyone actually found any errors with rivet placement or pannel lines?

If so they should back up their find with evidence and submit it as a bug to 1C, Then everyone gets the benfit of the change.

Cheers!

Salute

From my perspective, both sides in this thread have valid points.

I think those who want to see accurate panel lines and rivets have a right to applaud Oleg's decision.

On the other hand, those who want to be able to do the aircraft from scratch, I appreciate their artistry. Some wonderful skins have come out of IL-2.

Personally I think there is probably room for a compromise.

I think the rivet and panel markings should stay as they are.

But the weathering layer should be open to the artists in this community.

And I'll bet, if you ask nicely, Oleg and Luthier give you that option.

Remember one thing:

Oleg has already said the game's engine is going to be opened up for those who want to create their own FM's, aircraft, etc. I am sure the possibility of skins from scratch is going to be included in those options.

If what has been said by Oleg is to be believed, and I don't see any reason to doubt him, it may be that one of the community will be able to do a custom version of rivets and panels, submit it to Oleg, and have it incorporated into the game as an option to the standard version.

Oleg has said he wants to make the community input even stronger than before.

Have some patience guys, the game has just had its bum slapped and is just opening its mouth for its first yell at the world... If it lasts anywhere as long as IL-2, you will have a LOT of fun customizing all aspects CLIFFS OF DOVER... ;)

Yep. Actually I cannot agree more. I think they wanted to limit the wild schemes people used.

There's other considerations, we don't know exactly how all the modeling is tied into the skins yet, no one ever objected to damage model textures being locked in IL-2.

You have far greater latitude in creating a textured and detail based paint jobs. Hammered was a master at paint texture, even between the panels his overall paint technique was most impressive.

It's a fallacy to claim historical accuracy on rivet patterns and lines on even a 2000+ pixel map. You can only simulate or interpolate the feel, no way you can realistically recreate a full set of riveting or precise lines, there aren't enough pixels or sufficient detail on the models provided.

Lets see what can be done artistically first before throwing in the towel, some will find whole new opportunities to exploit their much larger canvas in a far brighter world.

I for one will not mourn the death of the over sized rivets that were visible on 90%+ of all custom skins in IL2.

It will also be nice not to have 20.5 gigs of skins (current size of my IL2 skins folder) taking up space on my drive. Honestly, there is no way you can possibly use all of them. I have a few favorites and the rest just take up space.

Not knocking the work of the fine folks that do quality work, but I have skin overload. Just don't need 'em anymore.

Understand this is way way back and things have changed but Ilya starts to explain the skins at 2:00 minutes. I'm not sure if it's the same now. I know there are still multi files to deal with though....No more black blobby rivets on 109s by some of those skinners


http://vodpod.com/watch/49899-oleg-i...a-about-sowbob

Is this skin in COD still??

- The Bf 109 E lacks a small rectangular panel on the starboard side of the fuselage, under the cockpit.
- On the Bf 110 C engine cowling, the hatch outlined in green located just behind the propeller is only on the port side.
:)

You guys are talking of skinning. I am skinning too. Made quite some skins for ROF and now would love to make some for COD.

Could any of you tell me IF and if yes, where i can download the templates?
If not, has there yet been a statement from developerside as of when we will be given templates to make skins?

Thanks

Winger

I use this IL-2 109 E skin a lot.

Err. Il2 skins had 1024x1024 size if i am right. And i somewhere read that the COD skins are 2048x2048 in size. Also the UV map must be a diffrent one for the much more complex COD 3D-models?!

Winger

I hope so, Winger. The 109 in Il-2 did have its share of FUBAR mapping (junction of wings and fuselage, fuselage top, antenna pole etc).

ROF templates are good but have soome messed up errors too. i.e. the DVIIFs height stabilizer is at the wrong position. Also some portions of the mesh are just flipped at some planes:) Well, nobody is perfect.
Other than that i very much hope the COD templates have the same if not better quality like the ROF templates.

Winger

Hate to ask, but has anyone looked for a skin folder or template within the CoD directory yet? :rolleyes:

The skins folder path is:
C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\SteamApps\common\il-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover\PaintSchemes

Only camouflage layers of 109s, 110, Spits, Hurris and Tiger Moth, 2048 x 2048 .jpg files.

Once in game, these files are compressed, resulting in a very pixellated look, especially on Bf 109s uppersurfaces :(

jpeg? That is odd, I would have expected them to be in dds format.

only thing i want to know, is how do you select skins that you create? i made a copy of a 109 skin, changed its name, looked around in the game, but couldnt see it anywhere.... anyone know where to look?

Perhaps this is what your looking for


http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p298/RDDR/JG2.jpg


Very sad to see this.
After all that waiting.
Not angry,just really disappointed.

The other night I spent close to an hour writing what I believed was an honest evaluation as to what I saw coming down the road for COD .
I didn't expect everyone to agree.
Going back after writing it I reread a number of posts by senor members here then I felt that all was for not ,as there didn't seem to be any real understanding as to what has been lost by thousands of core members who have continually supported 1c from the very inception of Il2.
A few hours later frustrated,I deleted what I had written.

When you lock this Sim down to skinners,as well as adding last minute band aids to COD so as to get it out the door...watch out.
Everything is hopefully fixable in time,however the loss of a mass of potential buyers most often is something that you cant fix. Especially the people who have hung in with Oleg for the last 10 years.
Will COD fracture the IL2 community? I hope not,however the storm clouds
are gathering very quickly.
Over the last few days I've dropped into 8 community sites.Some big others not so big .The news is not good.There is a lot of anger and disbelief.
I truly believe 1c has made a huge mistake.
Just a polite honest opinion

RDDR

Yes, Pierre is right. I can see crude pixels when looking from the fantastic cockpit of the BF109 to the wings outside. Especially the RLM 02 areas look blocky. Feels odd after being used to former skin goodness and seeing the gorgeous RoF skins. Disappointing for a 2011 release to be honest.

A 800 x 600 crop of a 2560 x 1440 screenshot:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v9...l_skin_CoD.jpg

I believe the approach taken was for two reasons: 1) anyone will be able to make their own skin now, absolutely anyone. (Did someone say "Hello Kitty"?) 2) The layer approach requires only the (very) compressed separate paint layer to be sent to the server during multiplayer as the weathering and panel lines are on all clients. (Compressing the markings, chipping and rivet/panel detail to the level currently applied to the paint layer would essentially destroy the skin.)

So it's all about players being able to use their own skins online with a minimum of lag. The planes are going to be limited in how good they can look, but we'll all be flying our own skins. yay

these cammo skins are around 150kb in size :D
i have to reduce qualitiy a lot to get this size from .psd to .jpg :D

anyone tryied a huger one already ? ...

I make textures now and then and I'm a high level photoshop users since several years back.
I've made skins for RoF, and once CloD gets patched up I'll start making skins for it as well..

And I think this makes sense from a technical perspective.
As previously pointed out:

- Now the rivets and panel lines will be the same, no matter what skin.
- Takes less bandwidth online, less memory.
- Weathering is based on rivets and panel lines.
- Damage model is based on panel lines.
- Consistency

But I don't see why they can't allow us to edit the panel lines bump map and the weathering, except for the issue with the damage model.

And having panel lines optional makes no sense. Models look more real with bump mapping, so it would make more sense to be able to edit the bump map instead.

Also I assume the weathering is connected to a specular map, which also makes sense technically..

IL-2 is an old game, it doesn't have specularity maps or normal maps..
The old way only using only texture maps is history..

And I think the reason people are annoyed is because the game is barely playable for most people and here you are complaining about something that doesn't affect gameplay or performance..

The weathering in the game is not bad on some planes.
It will be a lot easier for a lot of people to make skins that look decent in the game now........even artistically impaired like me.:lol:

Some are certainly better than others. The Spit looks okay but the spinner looks bad at high levels. The 109 exhaust looks very poor also.

I'm going to experiment with adding some "painted on" shading and highlights etc and see how it looks. Should be a fun diversion until performance gets sorted.

seiseki: You may be right and the panel line and weathering system as it is now has something for it.

But the 109 wings can hardly stay that way. They look like from EAW in 1999 and not like a step forward. If blockyness of the camo layer is okay for the Multiplayers, fine for them. I for myself want good historical quality at least in my single player game. Have a look at RoF. Make this awful compression an option please, 1C !




PS: Not sure if specular maps are used for surface gloss. But it would be nice if one could edit them for more shiny or more matt aircraft.

My 2 cent worth, I dont think the exhaust stains should be modeled in the weathering as surely the ground maintenence blokes gave em a tub every now and then, I like tattered looking aircraft but the dark black stain just dont do it for me :( Cant wait for the skinners to improve on it, hint hint ;) start with the 109 please :)

How does one select a custom skin anyway? In QMB/FMB, neither seems possible. QMB has no options to speak of and FMB only shows Default in the drop down list. :confused:

Surely there must be some features that work out of the box.

wrong directonary ??

you have to use this one:
C:\Users\Username\Documents\1C SoftClub\il-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover\PaintSchemes

Eye-candy =/= realism.

Most of the flashiest uber-cool pimp-my-'Stang skins in Il-2 could be easily called unrealistic if compared with pictures.

If you have a game that looks absolutely real, and the panel lines are modeled realistically, there's not a single reason to bother about that, is there?

Yes, warbirds sometimes don't look as awesome, as flash or as whatever as seen in game with (brilliantly done, by the way) community-made skins.

Maybe I am indeed talking shite, but one thing to keep in mind is that, no matter what, Cliffs of Dover brings a completely different, new approach - and that's worth for skinning, flying, et cetera. Instead of applying classic Il-2-approved techniques, I'd say it's more interesting to fiddle with what Cliffs of Dover has to offer.

We're talking about a way more dyinamic and complex simulator here, after all, and I'm sure the developers did keep skinning and skinners in mind during the making of this sim, as mentioned in many interviews and posts.

Just my 2p, anyway...

Quality-wise the defaults with their extreme compression are a disgrace for the beauty this engine can deliver. I just made a very quick test and saved a custom texture in Photoshop at max settings and got none of these damned artifacts. It shouldn't be too hard to issue high-quality versions of the current defaults in the next patch. And templates showing the 3D overlay ...

so you say, you dont have to reduce the quality down to get this ~150kb JPG files ?
Full qualitly, so much bigger filesize, also works ?? :)

would be good - so i would make a small one for online play and a huge one for offline :)

Photoshop quality level 12 and a file size of about 220kb work just fine.

Cheers Franky! I was mistakenly using the Steam one. Hopefully there is some way to reassign that destination. I wouldn't want +20gb of skins in my C:/documents folder one day.

Curious... While I had a custom skin selected, I hit the Windows key and jumped out of the game. In the My Documents.../Cache folder is a 12,289kb version of the 95.2kb skin I'd just made. :confused:

It is indeed a fair point. I, and I guess everyone here, would like to have as much realism as possible, if available.

But: one thing most people are ignoring is the new DAMAGE MODEL.

In our beloved Il-2 1946 and previous titles, the visual damage served, roughly, as just a vague way to tell you (both targeted and attacking a/c) what's going on. But that was about it really. So having a new, enhanced set or rivets and panel lines - and yes, those do make it prettier and more enjoyable - was always something incredibly welcome, and kept us flying for a few more minutes and possibly hours, contemplating the masterpieces offered by the community.

In this particular case, however, any damaged caused upon an aircraft causes a reaction that accords to the structure of the victim. No problem so far. So, the panel covering the ammunition belts on your left wing is blown off by some 20mm shell fired by that B'n'Z'ing MoFo that won't let go of you at all. Great, realistic damage, woohoo!

The big issue with changing it is, the lines presented by default are made according to the structure model. Unlike in the "classic" Il-2, rivets, panels and whatnot are brought to us as PHYSICAL parts of the aircraft, instead of the VISUAL importance they held back then.

They have become part of the aircraft itself instead of the pain scheme.

The point where I'm trying to get to is that, basically: by repositioning a rivet/panel-line (or anything implemented in similar fashion), as soon as the aircraft is damaged, it'll be obvious that it was edited, since the lines and the actual panels won't match, and this, as far as I'm concerned, is a way bigger and more noticeable immersion breaker than a slightly mispositioned rivet.

You're less likely to notice the mistakes (and in this case, I'd dare to say they're barely present, if at all in some cases) when the whole simulation around it is coherent than when one issue is addressed but all the surrounding factors are still wrongly depicted.

When everything is according, there is no contrast or whatsoever, whereas when you don't fully fix the problem, all issues are highlighted.

If there's anything to address, I'd suggest letting the developers know so that it can be completely solved in future patches. That'd include any related change to the structure, damage and even flight model that may be needed, and thus everyone would be happy - both skinners and players in general.

Happy flying and skinning everyone :)

I slightly modified "JG53_2.jpg" stock texture:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v9...ro/Emil_53.jpg

Very nice.

How do you select a skin in QMB, I can only change my armament.

AFAIK in QMB the skins are connected with the mission so selecting your own is not possible ATM.

That looks fantastic much better than the stock ones, good work.

you have to edit the mission in the FMB, select the skin - than the aircraft is loaded with the skin in the mission.
totaly weird, indeed :(

I advice you all to check your cache folder. Within you will find the actual dds files of the skins you used during your last session. The dds files are 2.7MB each and there is also a bmp file of a single skin, in my case at least, that is 12MB.

Therefor I am pretty certain that the deal with the skin exchange during online battles will be based on the 150x150 res version of the dds file and only upscalled to 2048x2048 on the recievers end. That is why these skins should be strictly kept as pure camo schemes without any effects or additional markings, because they would look pretty crappy once upscalled and saved as a jpeg.

Please Zorin, where is the cache folder??

C:\Users\XXX\Documents\1C SoftClub\il-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover\cache

I should note I have Win 7 64 bit, this may vary depending on windows version

Thanks bongodriver!

I knew the skinners would start up as soon as this thing came out. All this worry warting and sweating makes me laugh.

Interesting discussion,

If you’ve spent any sort of hours trying to paint up a good skin in the original IL-2, you should appreciate the effort put in by 1C into changing the texturing structure for COD. Long gone is the need to include all panel lines, weathering, stencils. Anyone who wants to make a skin can now make a simple texture without worrying about all the little details – they will be included automatically! The full effect will still not be realised until such time as we get aircraft with polished aluminium from the USAAF.

A comparison on the complexity...

Old IL-2 skin texture excluding damage and cockpit tga’s (1024x1024)

Historical Aircraft – Myskin.tga – User input –> All panel lines, weathering , stencils, lighting effects etc.

New IL-2 skin textures excluding damage and cockpit dds’s (2048x2048 )
– (And isn’t the cockpits and damage so much more defined in COD?);

Historical Aircraft – Myskin.jpg – User Input –> Paint scheme and individual markings.

Main – Diffuse, Normal, Overlay, Specular

Internals - Diffuse, Normal, Specular

Weathering – Diffuse, Specular

So finally we now have standard texture mapping as per any current fps game engine, but in a combat flight simulator.

For anyone to make a historical skin, all you have to do is create a jpg file with the basic colours and lettering, the rest is added in by the game engine. The jpg file format uses loss compression dependant on settings. That is why you see colour artefacts. I can understand the use of the jpg file format as the files go from 16MB down to around 500kb – a big factor in online skin synchronisation. Saving a jpg with no compression should reduce the corruption but increase the file size. (The Bright post processor created colour artefacts as well, if you look close enough).

I am sure that there will be copious amounts of excellent skins created. It just needs a place like the old IL2Skins.com to host them. I am far from disappointed with the progress 1c have made for skinners though.

Cheers,

There should be one slider for dirt and another one for weathering :P

Good point!

+1

(Exhaust stains are my biggest bug bear in any flight sim. Aerodynamic airflow sucks the exhaust close to the wings and fuselage, not up! Exhaust stains have different colours too depending on burn and are not all black! Keep the perspex clean...)

BrassEm:

You make some good points. Seeing specular maps back then in MS FS2004 and how you can create matte, semi matte and high gloss parts certainly gives many more options to the skinner. I am glad that system has "arrived" in Il2. Having panel lines as a fixed layer I also see the benefits of.

However two naggings stay with me at the moment:

1. A dedicated skinner will always be even more thorough than the best graphics department artist for whom a aircraft texture is a job. Is it a given that all panel lines of the models are correct so far?

2. When I buy a new sim with a seemingly superior new graphics system and the first look out of the canopy (BF109) has me seeing artifacted and blocky wing textures I get some severe doubts about the new system ...

Why is the default QMB BF109 skin not of a better quality after so many years to show off the new features and why can't you even choose half a dozen good ones (the selection not working)?

That to me is like having spelling mistakes in your company sign.