The famous "Enola gay" and "boxcar"

[Krusty]

They are actually talking about something similar in the P40 thread.

We have the "STUD" skin in-game and it was a personal ride for an officer. It never saw combat. 325FG/319FS skin by Octavius.
Juuuuust sayin'.

Not a valid comparison, because that was skinned and submitted under the belief that it was a real fighter skin, from what I recall. I traded PMs with him once or twice and I get the impression he just wanted to make a cool looking skin (been there, done that, nothing wrong with it).

Plus, P-40s are being redone so those skins are all going bye-bye.

[MarineUS]

It's still valid.

The skin is there is it not?

Non combat skin in game. My statement still stands. Just like in court, if it happened and there is proof, it doesn't matter if it was an "accident", it's still there. 

[Krusty]

It's still valid.

No, your comparison is NOT valid. Only recently was it found to be a squadron hack. HTC takes forever to remove skins from a game once accepted.

There is a big difference between making a mistake and having a skin accepted, versus submitting a skin in bad faith or through deception.


Further, that is only half the story when it comes to the B-29s in question. They do not represent our in-game B-29 in any way. They were specifically modified, practically unarmed, could not carry conventional ord, only carried A-bombs. They did not fly anywhere else, fly any other missions except practice runs.

Why are you so supportive of skins that have nothing to do with anything in our game?

[kilo2]

No, your comparison is NOT valid. Only recently was it found to be a squadron hack. HTC takes forever to remove skins from a game once accepted.

There is a big difference between making a mistake and having a skin accepted, versus submitting a skin in bad faith or through deception.


Further, that is only half the story when it comes to the B-29s in question. They do not represent our in-game B-29 in any way. They were specifically modified, practically unarmed, could not carry conventional ord, only carried A-bombs. They did not fly anywhere else, fly any other missions except practice runs.

Why are you so supportive of skins that have nothing to do with anything in our game?

Has nothing to do with the game? As far as I know the game has representations of WW2 aircraft including the B-29. The two made runs in combat situations. Why not? And who made you grand poobah of all that is skinning.

[mechanic]

Those shorts they are wearing definitely suits the aircraft name 

[MarineUS]

See Rule #4

[Agent360]

See Rule #4

[kilo2]

See Rule #4

[AWwrgwy]

See Rule #4

[Krusty]

See Rule #4

[kilo2]

See Rule #2

[Fencer51]

Krusty and Wrongway are correct, there are plenty of B-29A aircraft that deserve to be represented by a skin.  No need to do the A-Bombers.

[AWwrgwy]

Why have a little fun with the skins? I mean this is not a game its serious business.

Why not pink Spitfires, I mean, F4U's?     

 

When I say markings based on squadron, I'm talking about actual WWII squadrons, not AH squadrons.  This is not about having custom markings.  Skins are not submitted for a person or squadron's private use.  Forget the word "custom", that's not what this is.  What it is is the ability of a player to add another skin option to a particular plane that EVERYBODY can use.  The purpose of submitting a skin is for everybody to use it.  If that is not why someone is submitting a skin, then they shouldn't submit one.  Period. 

As I said, there is a criteria that must be met for us to admit a user submission.  Basically, it must be something that we would add to the game ourselves.  A skin may not be added for many reasons- quality, historical accuracy, redundancy, adherance to standards, usefulness, sensibility, and representation(i.e. a pink polka-dotted B-24 might be historically accurate as one did exist, but it is not representative of B-24s as it is a unique eccentric specimen nor is it useful and would not be a paint scheme that we would use).  We'll talk about all of that when we get there.

The real feature here is that each plane can have a selection of skins that a player can use.  The ability of a player to make and submit skins for online use is not the feature, it is the mechanism by which the real feature can be usefully implemented(I'm talking from our point of view, it is very much a feature to the skin making enthusiast, but realistically it's probably generous to say that 1 in 100 players fit that description).  If we had unlimited art resources, the latter part would be unneccessary.  But that is not the case and while we would like to have multiple skins for each plane, our resources are best spent in adding new models and improving existing ones rather than adding more skins.  This is the means to facilitate a win-win situation between everyone who wants more skins and those who want to make them.

[Karnak]

Also, regarding the earlier P-40 line of discussion, HTC is more rigorous in applying their criteria to AH2 models than they were to AH1 models, just as they are more rigorous in the accuracy of the models themselves (goodbye Bf109K-4 labeled as a Bf109G-10 to get a 20mm option and Merlin 61 Spitfire F.Mk IX with .50 cals, rockets or up to 1000lbs of bombs).

Neither skin is really appropriate and, in addition, neither is particularly visually interesting.

[Guppy35]

I get on Krusty more often then not

In this case he's right. 

As for the P40 in Baseler's colors.  We've come a long way since then with skinning and research here.  And for a long time that bird was thought to have flown combat.  In fact it became the CO's hack because it had been damaged in combat a couple of times.  It's also a P40F with a Merlin.  If you want to suggest it be removed from game, that would make perfect sense cause it isn't accurate for a P40E.  We've had some others come out for the same reasons over time.

That is not an argument for doing Enola Gay or Bock's Car on the AH B29