Bright Plugin

[Chalenge]

Does anyone have a current link for the Bright plugin?

Using Photoshop CS 5.1 currently.

[VonMessa]

I believe that you can get it at http://www.simmerspaintshop.com/

[Chalenge]

Yeah.... not finding it.

[ink]

Yeah.... not finding it.

give me your Email, I will send it to you.

[The Fugitive]

How about this one http://www.simmerspaintshop.com/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=36&act=down

[Chalenge]

The DOS utiity that Ink has works. I cant get that plugin to work and Im not sure if its a version problem or not. I may be using it incorrectly.

I have Photoshop CS 5.1 and CS5.1 Extended.

Looking through the skins that have already been submitted it appears that most people are painting? Why is that?

[ink]

The DOS utiity that Ink has works. I cant get that plugin to work and Im not sure if its a version problem or not. I may be using it incorrectly.

I have Photoshop CS 5.1 and CS5.1 Extended.

Looking through the skins that have already been submitted it appears that most people are painting? Why is that?

what do you mean?

glad that worked for ya....

it does not matter what you are using for the image program.

[Chalenge]

I mentioned the versions I am using because as a plug-in I think it must be built for a specific version or else I am using the plug-in incorrectly. It doesnt work as part of the exporter.

As to the painting... I can think of three methods for working on skins of which painting is only one. It seems to be the most common though. Last night I was playing around with Illustrator to create a 3D spinner for one skin and then imported it into Photoshop for color application. This allows you to more properly control the highlighting and of course it much faster to get it right.

Also... I went by Krusty's tutorial which really helped getting things lined up for the entire process. He indicates that the standard resolution is 1024x1024. However, there isnt any reason to restrict yourself to that during creation. I increased the starting resolution to ten times that scale during creation and then scaled it down for saving. The results were much better and allows for more detail in miniature. Some of it disappears during the color reduction process but enough remains to make it worthwhile.

Finally... I think ideally it would be nice to start with super-high resolution images of a real aircraft. Im thinking on the order of 72 megapixels of separate section of the aircraft. Getting permission to take images in a museum (which would probably be the only place for some airplanes) would be difficult. The idea being that the results would be even more spectacular.

I know its not worth all that to a lot of people. I am going to give it a shot though. Bear in mind this school quarter just started and Im not likely to be concentrating on skins right now but I thought I would see what your thoughts are.

[ink]

I mentioned the versions I am using because as a plug-in I think it must be built for a specific version or else I am using the plug-in incorrectly. It doesnt work as part of the exporter.

As to the painting... I can think of three methods for working on skins of which painting is only one. It seems to be the most common though. Last night I was playing around with Illustrator to create a 3D spinner for one skin and then imported it into Photoshop for color application. This allows you to more properly control the highlighting and of course it much faster to get it right.

Also... I went by Krusty's tutorial which really helped getting things lined up for the entire process. He indicates that the standard resolution is 1024x1024. However, there isnt any reason to restrict yourself to that during creation. I increased the starting resolution to ten times that scale during creation and then scaled it down for saving. The results were much better and allows for more detail in miniature. Some of it disappears during the color reduction process but enough remains to make it worthwhile.

Finally... I think ideally it would be nice to start with super-high resolution images of a real aircraft. Im thinking on the order of 72 megapixels of separate section of the aircraft. Getting permission to take images in a museum (which would probably be the only place for some airplanes) would be difficult. The idea being that the results would be even more spectacular.

I know its not worth all that to a lot of people. I am going to give it a shot though. Bear in mind this school quarter just started and Im not likely to be concentrating on skins right now but I thought I would see what your thoughts are.

holy crap 10 times larger   my system would just...stop....

seriously though, I thought about that, but just going up to 2048...but was happy with the results of 1024, so didn't bother...

the thing with using images....that's what you mean right using an image of a real plane to skin it????

I could be reading it wrong but I think it would be just too hard for the right skins, no way you could get the pics....maybe I am reading that wrong.

I use GIMP its free and easy to use, works with layers, everything needed.

was natural for me to paint, I use a tablet which makes it much easier.

[Chalenge]

Yes I have a tablet too.

The idea would be that the best photo would be without paint on the plane which of course means catching one being restored. However, failing that it is possible to use a blend (several blends) to remove all hints of color by taking the photo to grayscale first and working from there. I will make a test run with a few dozen images at 80 MP and see how it goes. I have access to P-51 P-47 B-17 B-25 and C-47. Im trying to monitor the Colorado P-38 being rebuilt but its hard to get out that far.

Working with a 1 TB scratch drive you should be able to work at 1024 MP up to fifty layers?

[ink]

Yes I have a tablet too.

The idea would be that the best photo would be without paint on the plane which of course means catching one being restored. However, failing that it is possible to use a blend (several blends) to remove all hints of color by taking the photo to grayscale first and working from there. I will make a test run with a few dozen images at 80 MP and see how it goes. I have access to P-51 P-47 B-17 B-25 and C-47. Im trying to monitor the Colorado P-38 being rebuilt but its hard to get out that far.

Working with a 1 TB scratch drive you should be able to work at 1024 MP up to fifty layers?

not sure about that, I just have a 300 gig, never had an issue, although I don't think I have ever used that many layers at once,

I use

1 layer for rivets
1 layer for panel lines
1 layer for metal
1 layer for base paint
1 layer for plasma clouds (to break up the paint, sometimes 2 layers))
1 layer for nose art....and  insignias
1 layer for exhaust
1 layer for dirt/grime

while I am making each layer I may use 6-10 layers to build up that one then flatten it down to one layer.

a lot of times I will duplicate say the Paint layer and play with the duplicate, so I always have a fall back layer.

also now with the bump mapping I will have a couple more.

[Chalenge]

Ah, well there are always many ways of doing things of course.

Of course the way I am heading each individual object would have its own layer (say inner_gear_door) and then it would have separate layers for each color used. Then each of those layers would have selection masks applied for each color, which would make it easy to come along later and chenge colors if you needed. Of course, alternatively each object could be in a completely separate drawing which is more likely how I would go about it in the end.

Doing it your way the only things that would have to change, of course, are the base paint and nose art layers, which I like. That's how I would like to do it with a base aircraft being untouched by paint and go from there.

[ink]

Ah, well there are always many ways of doing things of course.

Of course the way I am heading each individual object would have its own layer (say inner_gear_door) and then it would have separate layers for each color used. Then each of those layers would have selection masks applied for each color, which would make it easy to come along later and chenge colors if you needed. Of course, alternatively each object could be in a completely separate drawing which is more likely how I would go about it in the end.

Doing it your way the only things that would have to change, of course, are the base paint and nose art layers, which I like. That's how I would like to do it with a base aircraft being untouched by paint and go from there.

that would be insane

kinda overkill with the graphics engine.

but you are right, there are many ways to do it....none incorrect as long as the results look good.

[Chalenge]

Yes but Im not talking about final graphics but just the creation. So once you have the gear door made you move it to the common image and so on with wheels and tread and fuse sides and so on.

[ink]

Yes but Im not talking about final graphics but just the creation. So once you have the gear door made you move it to the common image and so on with wheels and tread and fuse sides and so on.

ya I figured that's what you meant, but with the graphics in AH, I honestly believe it wont make 1 bit of difference...and will look just as good....but way easier and faster.

if AH used, say 4096 textures then it would be noticeable, otherwise I think you will be just wasting your time, especially because you have to convert it, which will lose color detail.