Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Terrain Editor => Topic started by: United on January 31, 2004, 07:31:31 PM
-
I was wondering how some of you impliment layers. Do you make a new layer for each panel on the plane? By this I mean taking one "panel" of sheet metal on the plane, and making it a layer. By doing this it would make each panel of metal on the plane completely able to be edited yet not affect the surrounding panels.
Just a thought I had...
-
you create a new layer for each panel and or add you make .
its easier to fix mistakes this way .
(its not uncommon to have 20-40 layers befor the final merge/smoothing)
-
Originally posted by Roscoroo
you create a new layer for each panel and or add you make .
its easier to fix mistakes this way .
(its not uncommon to have 20-40 layers befor the final merge/smoothing)
Thanks, thats what I thought.
-
I keep separate layers roughly like this, from top to bottom:
details (grilles, wheels, etc.)
panel lines
weathering
markings
paint scheme*
original skin as template
*or several paint scheme layers for multi-colored camouflage. This way you can tweak each individual color.
Having each panel as a separate layer could work, but why bother? You should be able to marquee (select) a panel at a time, but still keep them on a common layer.
Whatever works for you, stay with it. :)
-
Originally posted by Dux
I keep separate layers roughly like this, from top to bottom:
details (grilles, wheels, etc.)
panel lines
weathering
markings
paint scheme*
original skin as template
*or several paint scheme layers for multi-colored camouflage. This way you can tweak each individual color.
Having each panel as a separate layer could work, but why bother? You should be able to marquee (select) a panel at a time, but still keep them on a common layer.
Whatever works for you, stay with it. :)
I think Ill try it that way, I dont like having to go through my 20 some layers trying to find the right panel.
-
United said:
I was wondering how some of you impliment layers. Do you make a new layer for each panel on the plane? By this I mean taking one "panel" of sheet metal on the plane, and making it a layer
Nothing so complex ;).
I start with the stock skin as my background layer at 100% opacity.
On top of this, I make a layer called "Panel Lines" on which I trace the stock skin's lines. This is also 100% opacity. Then I delete everything on the background layer except things like wheels, etc., that I want to keep. This makes the background pretty much solid white. The stock panel lines are usually very significantly wrong, so I trace them just to have a point of reference. Then I spend a fair amount of time correcting the panel line layer. This involves many partial fixes, checking them in the game, taking screenshots showing what's still wrong, and repeating. I use 0/0/0 for removeable panel lines and control surfaces, and 120/120/120 for fixed panel lines. Finally the lines are in the right places.
Then (for AH2 anyway) I create a 3rd layer for rivets. I draw these in as lines of 150/150/150 and then erase them leaving only like every 3rd or 4th pixel. It depends on what the "rivets" are supposed to be. Bigger fasteners are spaced further apart than small ones. My standard rivet is just 1 pixel in 150/150/150, but for dzus fasteners I use a 2x2 pixel square of 0/0/0.
Sometimes at this point I merge the panel line and rivet layers, especially on the fuselage skins. This makes it much easier to copy them to the other side.
On top of this, I put the main paintjob. This is how it's done in real life, and I think putting the paint over the panel lines and rivets gives a more realistic effect. In the stock AH2 skins, the panel lines are over the paint and look really wrong IMHO. The camo paint layer is about 85% opacity, which not only lets the lines and rivets show through, but also "lightens" the paint colors so they look better on a small model. I then erase pixels of this to do the paint chipping. The white of the background shows through and works well for this.
On some planes, I put another paint layer on top of this, also at about 85% opacity. This is for like late-war German planes with a lot of overspraying here and there, or like that Malta spit5 I made with the US blue on it.
On top of this, I make 1 or more additional layers for markings. National insignia, nose art, etc. Sometimes this gets oversprayed so just how these markings layers and the overspray layers intermesh depends on the plane I'm doing. The markings layers are about 90-95% opacity. The panel lines still show through and the color balance is about right for the job.
Finally, on top of everything, I put the stains. Gunsmoke, exhaust, fluid leaks, etc. This layer is about 20% opaque, depending on what I'm doing.
Once I've got all this stuff in place, I blur the camo to make it look sprayed. Then I erase the camo under the markings, merge the markings with the camo, and carefully blur the markings so they blend with the camo instead of having a "decal lip" around them.
Thats about it.
-
Good stuff bullet. I'm especially grateful for you putting opacity's because I couldnt figure out how to get a background layer with panel lines showing through. I'll give your way a shot, I bet ill get some good results. :)
-
Excellent explanations, thanks. Not sure if I'll ever get into doing any personal graphics, but explanations like these are really helpful for overall understanding and time saving as well as specific implementation.
-
oryginal
(http://www.dweebs.de/ramzey/egz1.jpg)
custom camo
(http://www.dweebs.de/ramzey/egz2.jpg)
panellines and haches
(http://www.dweebs.de/ramzey/egz3.jpg)
dirt and shadows
(http://www.dweebs.de/ramzey/egz4.jpg)
and still alot work ahead
;-)
-
IMHO, putting the panel lines and rivets on top of the paint just looks wrong. It makes them WAY too obvious. I spent a number of years building and repairing real planes so I kinda think I know what I'm talking about here ;).
In real life, fixed skin panels have a gap of about 1/8" between them. However, this gap is almost always filled with a rubbery sealant that makes the gap essentially flush with the metal on both sides. This sealant is put on both to smooth out the skin for aerodynamics and to keep water out. Paint goes over this sealant, so on painted planes the fixed panel lines are nearly invisible. There's just a very small surface discontinuity that catches just a tiny bit more light or shadow than the surrounding skin. Unless the light's hitting at just the right angle, you don't see fixed panel lines at all on painted planes.
The sealant between the panels is usually black. Thus, on unpainted planes, you have very fine black lines all around the fixed skin panels. But even so, you shouldn't have any 3D effect on them, because the sealant is level with the sheet metal. So fixed panel lines should never look like trenches, nor should they ever appear as black on painted planes.
There are a couple of exceptions to the above. Some fixed skin panels are thicker than their surroundings. Examples are doublers, patches over damage, etc. Because these stand proud of the surface, you have a definite step around their edges, so a 3D look is appropriate. Also, early-war Russian planes often didn't have sealant in any gaps, while very late-war German planes often didn't have sealant at major sub-assembly joints due to shortages and time constraints. An example of the latter is where the tail unit joins the fuselage on the Dora. These parts were built in separate factories and each major chunk had its gaps sealed, but the joints between them were often just heavily oversprayed with dark paint instead of having sealant.
Lines around removeable panels (engine cowlings, gunbay doors, inspection panels, etc.) are much more visible. Usuually, these panels get bent slightly from repeated used so don't seal up tight after a while. So you'd have some 3D effect around their edges here and there, plus usually a distinct 3D gap between them and the surrounding fixed panels.
Most WW2 planes had flush rivets. These are even more invisible than fixed panel lines in most cases, so on painted planes really ain't worth the bother of doing. The fastener head is within a few thousandths of an inch of being flush, so primer and topcoat paint usually totally obsucre them. On unpainted planes, the flush rivets catch the light slightly differently so are just barely visible.
Again, there are exceptions. Late-war German planes often weren't built very well (****-eyed rivets and the skin dented in around them), nor were they given as many or as thick coats of paint. So their rivets, especially on the fuselage, were sometimes fairly visible. Also, on any plane, the harder the curve of the sheet metal, the less the flush rivet head matches the contour, so the more distinct it is in the proper lighting condtions. Finally, all planes had a few dome-head rivets here and there, especially where the sheet metal was VERY thing like around the tail. Or around damage patches. But for the most part, rivets ain't worth the trouble of doing.
-
Go here and download one of these templates and you can see how they are made to work. You want to create as many layers as necessary. Once you have a layered template you can produce skins much faster.
Stuff like panel lines, rivets, markings weathering etc are best done on seperate layers.
These are 512 x 512 for Il2 FB but you can see how they are done.
http://www.flugzeugwerk.net/xflugz.htm
-
Bullethead
its artistic point of view, and really depends from autor
all what you need is balance it and keep good looking
obvious is you cannot do it like real
-
Ramzey said:
its artistic point of view, and really depends from autor
all what you need is balance it and keep good looking
obvious is you cannot do it like real
Well, obviously opinions differ and this IS art of a sort so artistic interpretations are fine. However, IMHO there's a difference between artistic license working toward a realistic appearance and doing something rather inaccurately and justifying it by calling it artistic license.
For instance, we base a lot of our work on color profiles. Obviously, we have no idea what the upper surfaces of the wings looked like. However, we can make educated guesses based on the type of plane, it's age vs. the year of the war, the theater it was in, the unit it was in, and examples of upper surface paint on other, similar planes, etc. Then we can make our best guess as to camo patterns and colors for this plane. This is artistic license working toward realism and is not only OK to do, but absolutely necessary.
However, doing something inaccurately because it "looks good" is an abuse of artistic license. For example, suppose you don't like the solid OD upper surface on a US plane and think it would look much better with a Luftwaffe-style camo scheme. I think a P51 would look very cool painted this way, but it's totally inaccurate and cannot be justified by artistic license.
I see no difference between that example and making highly visible panel lines and rivets on painted planes. It is just as inaccurate to have highly visible panel lines and rivets on painted planes as it is to put a German paintjob on a US plane.
I mean, think about it seriously. Rivets and their skin panels are usually made out of the exact same material so paint sticks to them exactly the same way. And the engineers, factory workers, and quality control guys usually spend a lot of time making sure the rivets were within a few thousandths of an inch of being perfectly flush. So in most places, you're just not going to see them on a painted plane. Fixed panel lines are just slightly more visible.
I think a lot of people have misconceptions of how these features should look because they haven't had the chance to look at many real planes up close and personal at details like this. Instead, they probably built a lot of cheap plastic models when they were kids, that had protruding rivets all over them that really should have been flush. I know I thought rivets and lines were a lot more visible from this before I got into actually building real planes and saw how smooth they were.
-
well, you are absolutly right about "custom" camo
brand new painted aircraft have not much rivets visible
thats why i can call som attempts as "licencia artistica"
all this visible panellines and rivets should be done for good looking
cuz from 30 yards you cannot see them in real life
I agree som people missinterpret and missbalance "thin" line between good taste and bad taste.
Thats why HTC wil accept skins for popular use. Everything what you will do for your own use is OK. And depends only from your look at artistic part of project.
Thats not mean everybody must love it and use it.
I cannot say i hate this all "1 hour" skins, cuz people made them for fun. Thats not mean i will download them and use on my own PC. But i cannt say i love it too ;-)
Im sure made them was fun for author, and thats is all about.
ramzey
-
ramzey said:
well, you are absolutly right about "custom" camo
brand new painted aircraft have not much rivets visible
thats why i can call som attempts as "licencia artistica"
all this visible panellines and rivets should be done for good looking cuz from 30 yards you cannot see them in real life
30 yards is way further than you can usually see flush rivets and flush panel lines under paint in real life. This is true even on old planes that have sat outside as hulks for years :).
So to me, making these features highly visible doesn't make it "look good", it makes it look wrong. But a lot of people expect to see these features because they mistakenly think that's more realistic :(.
I cannot say i hate this all "1 hour" skins, cuz people made them for fun. Thats not mean i will download them and use on my own PC. But i cannt say i love it too ;-) Im sure made them was fun for author, and thats is all about.
Yeah, I doubt many of these skins people are cranking out these days will ever see the light of day in the arena. But I'm glad everybody's got the ability to make skins now. Many people are having fun with it and some new talent is emerging.
-
Well with the military aircraft I work on it seems that in some instances the panel lines are very visible especially ones that are removed quite often. And very few panels require sealant on them, only in high stress areas.
Rivet lines are still visible as they have a tendency to accumalate oils and dirt over periods of time. Thus making them quite visible to the human eye even at a fairly moderate distance. Doing a recessed look to these rivets in the paint itself would look realistic. Rivet lines on bare metal surfaces are ofcourse very visible.
To get away with making these panel lines very visible they'd have to be high use panels. Use some variance in which ones are more visible than others. Nicks and scratchs around these panels would be something that you could use too. I highly doubt they were very stringent on paint jobs during WWII especially at forward deployed locations. And I also doubt they were doing constant washes on them either. Even in todays birds they don't get washed constantly. Hence why you see alot of oil/hydraulic streaks on the under body and wet streaks where fuel cells are located.
I think weathering a paint job is a good thing as these are fighters not public transport aircraft. These weren't made to look pretty and dull spots in areas to indicate some kind of touch up over time and patches would be something to think about. The problem is how far to go when weathering. Too much makes it look fake and too little just doesn't look right either.