Constructive comments on BOB historical accuracy in Acft skins/markings

[JG52Krupi]

Is this a joke?

The community skinners create specific skins and usually to a much higher quality as they spend a lot of time and effort making them.

Its unreasonable to ask for this, generic skins should be available from the start.

What they should do is something like ROF have a historic skin and fictional skin pack which is updated with every patch.

http://riseofflight.com/en/community/usefulmaterials

[Flying Pencil]

excellent research!!

Originally Posted by DoolittleRaider

Also, I do not believe that any 110's of any LW unit had the Code letters on the fuselage forward of the cockpit...that is a purely historically inaccurate placement.
The BOB update screenie:

I too saw that, and think it is a dynamic application of codes, and in this care the AA is meant to be a staffelwappen stand-in.

Remains to be seen.

[csThor]

Guys ... Again!!!

The code letters simply show that something can be placed there. Why? Because Stab/ZG 26 and Stab I./ZG 26 are known to have used fighter-style markings there.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by DoolittleRaider

Recent SOW:BOB update showing a Bf110 of Zerstorergeschwader 76, in this case the code letters indicating this would be the mount of the ZG76 II Gruppe staff adjutant


What it should look like...note the shark teeth, specifically, which were on all II./ZG76 110's from the Battle of France onward, and also the camouflage paint scheme...a scheme of multi-green colors specifically dictated by RLM rather than the later browns and other colors in various theaters:

If the marking/skins system is anything like il-2, the 'discrepancy' is down to the use of an initially limited set of 'generic' skins for each aircraft. The player can choose to select any skin and apply any unit markings on top - the result in most cases will not be 100% accurate historically, but it gives a reasonably economical way of covering a vast number of aircraft and units.

The solution for the accuracy fiends - as in il2 - will be when skinners make dedicated 100% accurate recreations of individual aircraft (or whole squadrons )

Also, I don't think Luthier (?) was necessarily trying to nail a particular aircraft in accurate detail - it's probably more of a rough thrown-together illustration.

Similar comments on the Spits too I think.

The marking system is more complex than il-2 regarding postioning and options but still generic - for the final word in accuracy it'll be down to the skinners.

[DoolittleRaider]

Originally Posted by jameson

Doolittle, whilst in broad agreement with your proposals, I have to say that your "catholic" rules regarding Spitfire lettering are a bit over the top...

I agree that I may have made too "catholic" a statement on 'alignment' of Spit code letters. To clarify...one point of reference, data source, here at Wings Pallette shows over 300 Spitfire Profiles, of which perhaps only a half dozen (in the 39-40 timeframe) have extremely non-aligned/stepped third Letters. I now note a 610Sqdn Spit profile in addition to 19S and 92S. However, the overwhelming (90%) majority of the profiles (of that same limited timeframe) show aligned letters. Later on, 41 onward, it seems alignment was even more uniformly applied.

In contrast, the fact that all the Spits in the WIP updates showed non-aligned Third letters caught my eye...even if these are just placeholders so that users can apply whatever letter they choose, I question whether the location of the third letter in the skin/template will be flexible for mission builders/skinners. If not, then I should think going with the 90+% aligned scheme would be the best choice for being mostly accurate.

If you look at the photographs here:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

you will see that you will need to add other squadrons to those of 19 & 22, which had stepped lettering.

True, there are additional non-aligned Spit photos, 603 Sqdn for example. I find it interesting that at your linked document, there is a photo of 610Sqdn DW-T extremely Non-aligned supposedly in May '40, yet further down there is a photo of two other 610S Spits, DW-O and DW-K with very neatly aligned letters supposedly in June '40.

Even those squadrons which had even lettering, had aircraft within them with slightly eccentric application, probably due to time constraints or inexperience of the lad that painted them on. I suspect that if it could be clearly read, it got passed as ok.

I agree. I've seen other indications that in general standards/dictates of all sorts were loosely applied/implemented, certainly early on in the war.

If you wish to enforce rules...

I have neither the authority nor desire to "enforce" anything. I've simply made some observations which I believe could be considered in order to preclude any significant historical errors at time of SOW:BOB release. I also made no claims to being an Expert on the subjects at hand.

Photos of warbird repaints and pretty profiles will not do if accuracy is your aim.

I agree that not every Profile will be perfect, but they come from various sources and they seem to be based on reasonable research/documentation. In almost every case where I have compared a Profile (from the Wings Pallette collection, for example) with an available photo, they have been consistent in details. For example, at your linked document, there is this photo of 602S Spit LO+G.

Here is the Wings Pallette Profile.

Here is the SOW WIP placeholder LO+G.



Also DW+Oand DW+K profiles



The DW+O and DW+K photo. Note that even the somewhat uniquely and seemingly extremely slanted angle of the DW+K is accurately reproduced in the Profile. :


I repeat that I did not start this thread to be critical of the SOW:BOB team, but rather to offer additional historical information, hopefully well-founded, on matters which appeared in the updates to not have been taken into consideration.

Aside from SOW:BOB, an exchange of views and supporting data/references is, in any event, an interesting endeavor for some of us who are historian hobbyists...on this matter of WWII aircraft markings as well as on many other subjects.

If everything is coming along perfectly in the accurate skinning of SOW:BOB aircraft, that is absolutely wonderful. My comments and 'evidence' can be completely disregarded as having been unnecessary. No harm done.

S!

[DoolittleRaider]

Originally Posted by kendo65

If the marking/skins system is anything like il-2, the 'discrepancy' is down to the use of an initially limited set of 'generic' skins for each aircraft. The player can choose to select any skin and apply any unit markings on top ...

The solution for the accuracy fiends - as in il2 - will be when skinners make dedicated 100% accurate recreations of individual aircraft (or whole squadrons
...
The marking system is more complex than il-2 regarding postioning and options but still generic - for the final word in accuracy it'll be down to the skinners.

The increased complexity/detail of the SOW:BOB marking system is a Big Plus and a welcome feature....and I agree that ultimately skinners will win the day in the end. I think part of my comments have reflected a concern that some basic 'positioning' and 'optional' markings/colors might not yet have been incorporated...therefore, I commented on the need for the 'correct' balkenkreuz for 1940 LW acft/operations, and on the 'postioning' of the third letter on Spits, and I think suggesting/hoping that items such as the II.ZG76 Shark teeth (and wasp for III./ZG76) be included as options from the get-go.
Perhaps in a future update a sampling of such optional markings might be shown

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by DoolittleRaider

With IL-2, it took a 3rd party person to create "Mat Manager" which provided historically correct tactical markings, varied insignia and markings by nationality and timeframes, etc... I can't recall the creator's name, but his contribution was invaluable to those of us concerned with historical accuracy and detail. Will SOW:BOB include the variety of historically researched markings for selection by the user, as did Mat manager?

On another note, some of my comments/observations referred to placement/locations of certain markings/code letters...If the locations are wrong, then i assume the "skin Template' might be wrong and not allow the user to make an historically correct skin by himself.

Hope I am continuing to sound positive, and supportive of Oleg's Team.

Many people use MAT manager in IL2 just for the weathered markings. To put it quite bluntly the default markings in IL2 are ugly and look like model airplane decals. The IL2_MAT manager lets you replace them with something that looks more like what you see in actual photo's (the alternative of course is to use skins with markings provided bu the skinner).

So far the markings in SOW still have this stick on decal effect however I am pretty sure I read somewhere weathering effects are being implemented in the final game.

The other issue with default placements is that RAF markings seem to vary as to whether the right hand side placement reversed the order of Squadron ID and aircraft ID or just mirrored the left side.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by DoolittleRaider

...
I think part of my comments have reflected a concern that some basic 'positioning' and 'optional' markings/colors might not yet have been incorporated...therefore, I commented on the need for the 'correct' balkenkreuz for 1940 LW acft/operations, and on the 'postioning' of the third letter on Spits, and I think suggesting/hoping that items such as the II.ZG76 Shark teeth (and wasp for III./ZG76) be included as options from the get-go.
Perhaps in a future update a sampling of such optional markings might be shown

Good points there. I didn't comment about them in my post in order to keep it short, but correcting the balkankreuz and changing the letter positioning to what seems to be the more common style would both be good ideas.

Would also be nice to see dedicated shark teeth skin too - if it applies for whole gruppe then can make a good case for having it.

WTE_Galway, I think the SOW markings are much better than the stock il-2 (which I agree were poor - I used Mat Manager too). SOW may not have shown much weathering on the markings (or on the skins either for that matter), but they integrate really well into the paintschemes. I really disagree that it is a stuck-on decal effect. I thought that they'd done a really good job.

[DoolittleRaider]

Originally Posted by kendo65

...
Would also be nice to see dedicated shark teeth skin too - if it applies for whole gruppe then can make a good case for having it.
...

Yes, based on input from true experts, I think we can very definitely conclude that all aircraft of II./ZG76 had the shark teeth.

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by kendo65

WTE_Galway, I think the SOW markings are much better than the stock il-2 (which I agree were poor - I used Mat Manager too). SOW may not have shown much weathering on the markings (or on the skins either for that matter), but they integrate really well into the paintschemes. I really disagree that it is a stuck-on decal effect. I thought that they'd done a really good job.

SOW is definitely better than IL2 in this regard but the WIP photos still have unnatural markings. For example the balkencruz on the left wing in this shot from earlier in the thread: