New smoke effect

[Tilt]

Looks nice..............

It would be interesting to wonder what is actually burning when something catches fire in AH

Oil? Fuel? or fuel/oil soaked wooden fuselage?

IMO its oil (& tyre rubber) that leaves the long black plume and a wooden fuselage that may leave slightly more ash as per your grey plume. Seems to me that as we can set light to B17 engines that its oil based with maybe some fuel thrown in.

The length of the fire plume although pretty is tooo long IMO.... I doubt it would be longer than the air craft itself.

I have never liked the fire plumes for buildings.......... they are far too prominent IMO. For me there should be big smoke (as existing) and little smoke (to replace the present tall fire plume) for buildings. Little smoke would contain an inner fire glow no higher than the original building.

[Krusty]

Don't be too hard on Krusty.  He dislikes anything he didn't do himself.  I did find his "unrealistic" comment funny, since I used a picture of real smoke to make it.

You know how easily you dismissed my comments? Well they had substance behind them. I could tell you used a real picture of smoke to make it. It's obvious. It's also not realistic. You used smoke from something on the GROUND burning. A stationary fire. The sun hits the upper parts, the volume of the cloud creates shadows, and you get some kind of effect like that.

I dare you to find any smoke trail from a wind-fueled fire that's moving at LEAST a couple hundred miles per hour, which looks as you have made your smoke effect.

It just doesn't look that way, at all. Despite the fact that most airplanes on fire don't leave black smoke (some do, but most don't) it is a more homogenous consistency and IMO our default appears to mimick it slightly better. I say that actually hating how our current smoke looks, mind you.


One of the few examples that actually has some smoke:



Others that do not:










So the next time you only want yes-men answers, please specify in the first post. Otherwise, please don't dismiss my comments as nothing.

[Nathan60]

I dont know Krusty that first pick the smoke looks awful black(as are all pics I find) and the shape is pretty close to what ranger has. Not as "billowy" but that can be worked on, but  not as unrealistic as  you post seems to make it

[Puma44]

Hey Ranger, stay with it and continue to improve the product.  Your results speak for themselves.  You know that you can always depend on a cheap shot from the negative.

The photos posted below are somewhat deceptive in that there's no way to tell how far into the fire timeline the photo represents.  In other words, the instant the fire flashes there may be little to no smoke.  As the fire progresses, smoke develops and trails.  Of course, it's also dependent on what is burning, i.e., fuel, oil, hydraulic oil, structure, etc and airspeed.

I did find his "unrealistic" comment funny

please don't dismiss my comments as nothing.

Big difference between "unrealistic" and "nothing" versus twisting the meaning and context to support a derogatory comment.

[Nathan60]

maybe streching out the "billows" or what have you migth be worth looking into and might be what Krusty is talkibg bout.

[jollyFE]

having been in aircraft that were on fire at one time or another (HH-60s to be precise) I can say there most definitely is smoke.  In fact it's one of the first things we look for to confirm that there is a fire and not just a malfunctioning fire/warning light.  The color and thickness depend on whats burning and how big of a fire it is.

[TwinBoom]

You know how easily you dismissed my comments? Well they had substance behind them. I could tell you used a real picture of smoke to make it. It's obvious. It's also not realistic. You used smoke from something on the GROUND burning. A stationary fire. The sun hits the upper parts, the volume of the cloud creates shadows, and you get some kind of effect like that.

I dare you to find any smoke trail from a wind-fueled fire that's moving at LEAST a couple hundred miles per hour, which looks as you have made your smoke effect.

It just doesn't look that way, at all. Despite the fact that most airplanes on fire don't leave black smoke (some do, but most don't) it is a more homogenous consistency and IMO our default appears to mimick it slightly better. I say that actually hating how our current smoke looks, mind you.

So the next time you only want yes-men answers, please specify in the first post. Otherwise, please don't dismiss my comments as nothing.

and 

Just because there's a photo of it doesn't qualify its existence, just states that it existed.

[Chilli]

   Here is another experiment for ya.  Some comments on fire being too dark or not enough yellow, I can agree with.  Instead of changing the color bmp, how would it look if you took that same bmp file change it to grayscale and then increase the contrast to different levels and apply experimental levels to the alpha bmps. 

What I am guessing would happen is the darker orange areas would be more transparent and the lighter yellow(ish) areas would bleed thru and brighten up the fire.

Wish that I could do this as effortlessly as you seem to be able to.   

The other experiment would be just to randomly give the fire overlapping swiss cheese alpha.  I would hope that would create more finger like flames, similar to those seen in Krusty's jet flame. 

Likewise, you may find that simply increasing the transparency in those smoke bmps would give wildly differing results.  I sure wish I could help.  They both look much more interesting than what we presently have, and to answer Challenge's question, should come at no cost to low end systems as it should render the exact same way that it already does.

[USRanger]

Good ideas Chilli.  I'll give that a shot.

Krusty, it's not your opinion, it's your usual lack of tact.  I was looking for opinions, good or bad, and was not looking for "yes men", but merely stating "it sucks" (more or less) like your first post is of no help.  Now, your second post, where you actually explain what you mean by it IS of help, which is what I was looking for.  This was meant as a fun thread, so if you want to just come in and be a dick, go elsewhere.  If you have constructive critism like in your second post, then I am thankful for the help.  Btw, as for your dare, the smoke I used was from a shuttle liftoff, so I'm sure it was moving a couple hundred miles an hour.

Maybe the smoke effect I made would look better if used for building/object fires instead of plane fires.  What do you guys think?

[mtnman]

Ranger, I like it! 

Thanks for playing around with it!

I do have to agree with the idea that it may look more in place for structure/ground fires though.

Here are some vid clips of fires int he wind, showing the texture differences that might make all the difference-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCyQD83NLDc

BTW, follow the link from that vid to the one where the blades come apart- pretty awesome, lol!

This pilot was able to make it out ok!  It's a pretty safe bet that our flaming planes shouldn't look much different than this corsair that caught fire during an air race...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc3InHWB1es

[USRanger]

Thanks for the help Mtn.

[titanic3]

Hmm question, will this be tied to a terrain or is it available regardless of map?

[USRanger]

Hmm question, will this be tied to a terrain or is it available regardless of map?

Just tied into a terrain.....for now.

The Chief wanted to see what it looked like when used as ground smoke instead of aircraft.  This is my first rough draft.  If I increase the transparency somewhat, and find the right lightness & contrast for the details to stand out, I think I might be off to a good start.  I hope so anyway.  What began as a 3 minute fun experiment is becoming a real interest for me.

Here is a comparison.  Original ground smoke on top, with my rough draft on the bottom:

[JOACH1M]

Just tied into a terrain.....for now.

The Chief wanted to see what it looked like when used as ground smoke instead of aircraft.  This is my first rough draft.  If I increase the transparency somewhat, and find the right lightness & contrast for the details to stand out, I think I might be off to a good start.  I hope so anyway.  What began as a 3 minute fun experiment is becoming a real interest for me.

Here is a comparison.  Original ground smoke on top, with my rough draft on the bottom:

 

[Mister Fork]

Pyro/Hitech - why isn't Ranger on the payroll...