|
|
#31
03-26-2011, 06:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
|
#32
03-26-2011, 12:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 Last edited by VH-Rock; 03-26-2011 at 12:14 PM.
|
|
#33
03-26-2011, 06:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#34
03-26-2011, 07:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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?
|
|
#35
03-26-2011, 08:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
@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.
|
|
#36
03-29-2011, 06:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#37
03-29-2011, 06:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
#38
03-29-2011, 06:48 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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?
|
|
#39
03-29-2011, 09:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#40
03-29-2011, 11:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
