The texture sheets are going to look close to identical, just because the 3D model has a common origin (Carenado Aerocommander). The UV mapping has to be the same and if the colors are drawn from a real life model, those are going to be pretty much the same also. It's a curious coincidence that is explained by the small amount of latitude that multiple painters have when doing the same repaint.

To be honest Rich, I see do see some differences between the two paints...

 

- Your version has a fair bit more space between the 3 horizontal blue stripes that run from the tail forwards along the body, and almost converge behind the cabin doors, where the middle line disappears. If you'll note, the one from the .org has very little space between the stripes.

 

- The upper-most blue stripe, where it meets the horizontal stabilizer - your version is even with the stabilizer but looks like it ends forward of where the stabilizer meets the fuselage, whereas the one from the .org ends right at that point.

 

- Your font on the tail is bolder than the one used on the .org, and the positioning of the font (and overall tail art) is different as well. On the word 'STATE' - I can see that on your version the S and the T are both on the rudder, with the rudder hinge being right underneath the A. On the one from the .org, only the S is on the rudder, and the top rudder hinge is right above the S.

 

- The colors look to be slightly different, in particular the blue.

 

Sorry mate, I don't believe at all that they're the same. I think you may in fact owe an apology to the author of the one on the .org, if indeed you did post something there accusing him of copying your work.

I'd say you're correct. I see the same.  Over at the org. it's well known that Leen de Jager has been doing quality repaints for a long time.  He certainly isn't, just a "half decent painter".   I too, think it's just another rendition of the actual aircraft. Although I haven't seen the real one. But still, the differences in paint lines & artwork on the tail are without doubt, different. 

There are a LOT of differences between these paints. Quite frankly, I would be a little more careful throwing accusations like this out there. 

Yeah, sorry Rich, the spacing between the stripes on the fuselage is clearly quite different. Might be good to give Leen the benefit of the doubt on this one?

No, more like 70 at the last count and they are all now busy reworking stuff for P3D 64 and Aerofly.

 

70 Programmers ? Wow ok, that is twice the amount of the aces team that did FSX. And they are all employed by OrbX ?

 

Isn't more like independent little studios that get contracted to make an airport for a fixed price? And form those 70 Programmers 65 are more likely scenery artists that create the airports, landclasses and know how to modify some xml files. And those are capable of writing plugins in the depth of the code of x-plane ?

 

My point stands no company has the human resources needed for the whole landclass thing sitting around doing nothing.

 

 

I mean come on this was a public stunt from the beginning. Do you belive that a company will make an public announcement about mayor "r&d investment etc. etc" without ever looking into the issue before? Without contacting Laminar not even once beforehand? I mean Austin found out about it on Facebook. And then one week later you find out that it is not working?  They added x -plane to their plans, gauged the public interest and profited from the 1 week complete media coverage.

 

 

They added x -plane to their plans, gauged the public interest and profited from the 1 week complete media coverage.

 

I think XP has profited more from this announcement than ORBX because people actually had one more reason to buy XP11 early and fool around with it - and some may stick with it despite ORBX backtracking. ORBX in turn gained next to nothing apart from bad reputation among the XP community. So, thank you, JV!