EagleSkinner

Part two... been looking at airliners netYour normal diffuse map will have the major areas of the white paint slightly grey (as in my example above) and the highlight areas (SAS Text etc) much whiter (but not 100% white). On the alphas, you reverse things - the major areas of white paint will be light grey (15% to 20% black) and the highlight areas darker (20% to 25% black)Now - on the specular sheetsIf you use the darker white for the major areas of the "white paint" and make the "highlight white" with that "mother-of-pearl" on the spec diffuse... then make the major areas of the "white paint" a mid-grey and make the "highlight white" parts a grey-scale cutout of the m-o-p on the spec alpha...That should do the trick

Ummm... I don't do tubes, but that white... would it be a bit like the US Airways white - sort of "mother-of-pearl" shimmery? Hnag on, let me see airliners net... AHHH yes... USAirways grey and white is similar. I see what you mean. Well when I do whites, here's my experience:On the diffuse use a light grey tone - around 5% black for starters - RGB somewhere around 246, 246, 249 (note the slight splash of blue there?) The diffuse alpha channel could be around 15% black for the white paint - that will increase reflection. Surprisingly I find my favourite white is actually RGB 230, 230, 245 (but as with all paints, it does depend on the modellers reflection settings) BUT it does leave you breathing space" for this SAS and USAirways whiter than white effects on top.On the specular, paint the white areas a sort of "oil spill on water rainbow effect" - bend the hues towards blue and make the white area of the alpha fairly dark - charcoal or even anthracite. That spreads the light drop-off and diffuses the shimmer. You might need to experiment with the "rainbow" saturation too - not to strong in colours.But of course - as in all cases... it depends on the reflectivity values fixed by the 3D model maker when the mdl was exported to FSX format. The best tip is "experimentation".Here are some images to demonstrate - of course I paint the Eagle (is there anything else as good? :D ).1. The diffuse texture and 2. the alpha channel. Notice how dark my white really is... if you paint white too white, you lose all definition when the model flies in sim. 3. the specular texture and 4. the spec alpha channel. 5. How this looks in flight. (This paint will be released soon - it's the Viper Airshows livery. I am just sorting out a copyright acknowledgement statement) Note - in this paint I am tending towards pinkish irridescence in the white mother of pearl effect. As you can see, the low sunlight reflecting off the wing causes the shimmer. If you hue it towards blue - you'll get a silvery shimmer.

No, I didn't misunderstand... I just didn't answer clearly - my bad. Let me see if I can give an example... Ah yes. The bumpmaps of this Eagle are SHD at 4096. I did the texture in 4096 too - but I wasted space because there was no need for the high level of detail on the paint - the bumps, however, well - in 4096, you can get a lot of fine detail in!On the other hand - this one with a US Flag style really does need the 4096 diffuse textures:But in summary, we agree - Detail is great, wasting space isn't ;) Hmmm... the strange thing is that I haven't made HD speculars yet, although I do create metallics, flip-flops and hue shifter paints using spec and Fresnel. But I just don't need the detail in the spec - in fact the 1024 is just fine.

I must admit to a suppressed grin when I read that Leen... I could get just as "itchy" when I see the British "Union Flag" done wrong. I also totally agree about the "space wastage" of HD paints - even in my own I tend to forget to remind the user to set their FSX.cfg to 2048 or 4096 (or use TML Editor) becuase without setting the config, absolutely no one gets the benefit of a hi-res texture.In fact, if we painters offer HD paints at 2048 and 4096 pixel squares and don't tell about the config settings, our "users" will not get any benefit from our work because the FSX rendering engine resizes to 1024 anyway. More to the point is that FSX's "shrink" algorithms aren't even as good as Photoshop/Corel/GIMP and so our HD stuff can look worse than a normal 1024 paint.A good timely reminder Leen and thanks.

I guess that first of all it depends which aircraft and which textures you mean.To help - and to add a bit to your first post - imagine looking at a real plane and taking a photo of it. The plane's fuselage is (just as an example) 10 ft in diameter and round. On the photo the fuselage is flat and uses scaled image that is 10 (scale) feet high. A texture is like a photo - flat - and this is taken by the computer and stretched on to the 3d model fuselage. So the bits facing you will appear well drawn, but as the texture gets stretched over the top of the plane, those parts will stretch. Hard to imagine without a sketch, but it is a case of stretching a flat image over a curved surface - the bits that touch the curve first are displayed as shown, but the bits that belong at the top and bottom get horribly stretched.This is not caused by FSX though. It is how the model maker "maps" his texture to his plane. Some create four views of the model (top, both sides and underneath), some distort the image by stretching the texture. So perhaps the texture fades to white because that particular model would otherwise have stretch marks? Only the very best model makers pay attention to how they "unwrap" their 3D model for painting. Many make a great 3D model and absolutely kill it for repainters by creating poor texture maps. If you look closely at some of the FSX models' textures, you will see that the Microsoft team's painters stretch the textures to get as much detail in as little space as possible.So the summary answer would be to look at as many different makers' textures and see as many different methods as possible to see ho others have done it. Repainting shouldn't be rocket science, but you do need to think a little bit about the physics of transferring 2D onto 3D.

Sorry folks, there's a hold on this download while I sort out the copyright issues.Oh, and Joe...:D

If I may be so bold...Photoshop and Corel Draw suite may be too expensive perhaps, but you might consider editing your graphics with GIMP - it has everything Photoshop has (well, sort of). You might appreciate the extra possibilities GIMP offers over paint.net - if you can stay on the learning curve that is. I confess I don't use GIMP, but what I have seen looks good - it' just that I have used the Corel programs for almost 20 years now at a guess...

I was pointed in the direction of this website by a fan and immediately fell in love with that multi directional flip-flop effect. So I just had to do it...She's readyHave a play and then compile your list of faults for meYou can find this download at the bottom of this page.This one was an interesting challenge to repaint for the sim. First of all, the real world one is a Pitts and there are now really suitable Pittses for FSX - YET. Secondly, the real livery is all flip-flop paints and really irridescent.(I know, I should also upload this to the Avsim Library, but ever since the hackattack, my backlog is almost three hundred paints to be checked and re-loaded. I need a "round tuit")I haven't done the owner full justice, but it's "NADITS" (near as dammit is to swearing) AND with his permission. (That last comment about "permission" is really importantant folks - I know many painters don't ask, but you should. Not just because it's polite, but you really get to know fascinating people that way)

Biting tongue....Those previews are excellent! I discovered MAAM too late for FS9, so now I am champing at the bit for these high detail FSX models!

Very nice, amazingly nice even. Especially that detail of the door handle. But....Please forgive the nit-picking (whoever did this)... the but? Take a look at the lighting on the rivets. The light is either:a. coming from underneath and wrong because modern airliners use countersunk (flat) rivets- or -b. coming from vertically overhead and wrong because that implies indented rivets. (Whatever that would be)On the other hand, I DO know that this is difficult to get right. You really have to go look at a real aircraft skin to see why rivets are so difficult to get right. Countersunk rivets are always the same height as the aircraft skin - that is because they are countersunk and thus flush (sorry - sucking eggs here). In many cases on new planes you won't even see most rivets except as a faint circle (only the outline is visible). As the plane ages and flexes, some rivets will loosen and you'll see darker circles as the paint splits and dirt gets in. But what you won't see is a bump. Unless the makers actually used dome head rivets.And then there is the mechanical spacing of rivets. The "pitch" between rivets (generally eight times rivet stem diameter between centres) and the "land" between a panel edge and the row of rivets (generally four times the rivet stem diameter). The rivets here look like they are barely half an inch between centres - that would have a "tear along perforations" effect if one rivet failed.I know, I know, even my paints suffer(ed) this at times. Another issue with the bumpmap effect is that most painters (even me) tend to stick with one lighting direction. I use "from top front". So when the model just happens to have rotated textures on one sheet, you get one side rivets lit correctly and the other side will look like it's coming from the opposite direction. Take a look at the Aerosoft Twin Otter - the port/rear section of fueslage was mapped from the same direction as the starboard rear - but the texture is inverted on the paint. The net result is that the plane looks really weird to look at from the rear left quarter. And of course, using the "noise" effect to make the painted surface look slightly rippled also causes a bad effect. It looks like there is a severe orange peel effect caused by too much paint being applied to the aircraft skin. Modern airliners have a paint finish measured in microns and even so, an Airbus A380 still has 600 Kilos of paint to carry around. No commercial aircraft manufacture would deliberately want an "Orange Peel" effect on his planes. Paint sprayers can loose their jobs for that. Sorry to put a damper on this, but bumps on sim textures are difficult to get right. You have to remember the physics of light and colour and even then bump maps are only a compromise. THE BIG CAVEATI do realise how this reads. Sorry. I also know that I make the same mistakes every time I paint a model too. I have written this as much to myself as to the painter who made that beatiful America West skin. Despite my words, that is still a good effort.

This can be very subjective, but I for one, have chosen to leave them off. Occasionally Icrete two sets of a skin, one with and one without mipmaps - after all, it's no big deal to create a clone of a plane... I think it also depends in part, on how the maker has exported his mdl file as to whether mips are usable or not. Some folk will tell you yes, some will say no. As processors get better, I tend to the no-mips faction in most cases, but as you know, the further away you get from the plane, the less detail you need to display, so you can make the computer work less by having mips. This can make a difference in MP flight for instance.So you either paint for your tastes or you paint for the weakest PC.Maybe even a graphics card driver update can help sharpen your display?

I have also uploaded this paint to the Avsim library in a bundle with 6 others. Search "Chris Brisland" (that's me)...

Those who know me, know I am not exactly a "Tube" painter. Here's one I am currently working on - it still needs better bumps and a spec sheet or three. I'd say it's about 25% so far.OK, here we go: Oh... and don't say "Jaggies" - it's my card and DX10 and a 1920 x 1024 Monitor and I am not yet using UHD textures. These are 2048s reduced by DXTbmp. The Beaver will look a lot slicker once I have saved the textures as TGA and I reload in DX9.

I couldn't get FSR to work without the sim installed - it askes for the FSX directory on install. Mind you, I can see how a "dummy" install would work - just the path...But then that isn't my idea of fun. I like to fly my paints too. Still, as I said... nothing wrong with FSR for the basic work. Mind you, last time I looked, it didn't show specular and bump.

'fraid not. I's like active camera. But the biggest failing it has in FS is that I can't find a way of moving around the plane while it is moving - only while paused.On the other hand - why paint planes if you don't have them installed. Or if you don't have FS? And even so, you need both planes and FSX to use the Abacus FSR

For my 2c worth, if the paintkit doesn't have them, I always extract a copy of all the alphas from the dds files. I personally prefer to have alphas as separate images and add them later at the dxtbmp stage.Why? I often paint the alphas with different shades and varying degrees of reflection. I don't like shiny dirt for instance - strange to see all those "dirty" paint jobs and the painter has forgotten to make the alpha white under the dirt... ;)

Hi Ray,I know you have probably already chosen a painter program...However, I can recommend Corel Draw Suite. Been using it for more than fifteen years now. You don't "need" the latest and most expensive iteration of the software. I first bought V5 when it was to be had for around 50 Euros (or even cheaper) and now I wait at least two generations before upgrading. Why Corel when "everyone" swears by Photoshop? I can't answer that, but I do know that after 15 years, it simply isn't worth changing. It's got everything from a great vector graphics drawing capability through some impressively useful colour management options to a professional photo manipulation). I have The Gimp anyway, but even though I have to make my bump maps by hand with the Corel suite (The nVidia plugin doesn't work) I have found I can answer all my painting needs with Corel. And secretly I often ask myself just how many of those photoshops out there are licensed :( So if you do get hooked, try an older version of Corel if you feel you need a professional program. As for the abacus tool - I have it too, but now that I am working with UHD textures I find that FSR does not give me enough detail and I can't juggle my points of view around as well as I can with the DBS walk and follow tool (I recommend this tool to all painters who want to get close to their paints...)

I know the model leaves a bit to be desired, but the real world is full of gorgeous repaints for her. Here's another (only very slightly different to the RW one, but that is "painter's license" You can get her be following the link in my banner below or simply clicking here for a direct link to the DL. Only thing - no readme in the DL - I keep a generic one on my website... :(

And don't forget the global environment maps... You'll get a paint looking good in one situation and absolutely wrong elsewhere. My approach to bare metal is to hand paint each time. Photo textures can look good, but if you are using sources such as airliners.net, you are likely to be in breach of so many copyright rules that it is not worth the effort.Besides, I personally think phototextures look terrible unless they are done by an expert with his own camera and with access to the real plane being modelled. So I hand paint - it's often a nuisance, but the results are more satisfying. For me.The worst thing to do though is to do what some painters do and that is to use "noise" on the bumpmaps to distort that horrible FSX reflection of the environment. Bare metal is a pain... The real plane is really mirror-like and this FSX model is a re-vamped FS9 one, so the original model has a lot to do with bare metal too.And then there's the consideration of metal flake paint...Metal finish can also be affected by the specular textures of a model as well - leave the old ones in and odd things happen...And of course - metal skinned planes are not smooth. Some panels will ripple (Although who'd skin a plane in 24 carat gold sheet?)...And then again, some bare-metal planes tend to rot if not cared for...Getting metal even anywhere near my even amateurish idea of "right" means playing with all three texture sets - the UV, the bump and the specular - but in the end it is fun and can be rewarding. The only thing that spoils a good payware though, is when the makers don't activate bumpmaps and/or speculars. Without either or both, your FSX model deserves nothing more than to be comissioned to the reject locker. The whole thing about my comments is that you'll need to take a different approach almost every single time you want to make a new metal-skin paint on a new aircraft. Nausea can be such fun at times

Without knowing your folder layout, I can't be sure...But this looks odd: Aren't paints folders supposed to be in the same directory as the aircraft.cfg? Or are paths allowed for textures as well? If yes - is the spelling correct? Because if the paint follows the norm, then it would be in a folder called "texture.PJ-WIH" If textures are in the same directory as the aircraft model itself, then FSX looks only for the name after the "texture." Alternative thoughts - I hope they help

We have been waiting too long for the Avsim Library to reopen. Guys I really sympathise. I am so "fixated" on Avsim that I won't load elsewhere - after all, many other sites simply copy from you anyway so us painters get plenty of distribution...So while we wait, if you want this:then click this:http://www.eagleskinner.com/misc/texture.nzff.zipRead the included readme! Credits and all...

It feels strange reading this. I upgraded from ASX 6.5. In fact I have upgraded ever since my first Active Sky in June 2005.I "know" that on my PC ASA is gentle on resources and I even get an FPS boost using AS. But then again I did read the handbook from cover to cover during the first few days. There are a few interesting changes (even if only slight) since ASX.I am not saying there are no bugs - I have had a couple of CTD in ASA and the thermals tend to stay put when I clear them in the "winds" window. But most of my troubles are caused by "Extreme adjusting". For instance: try setting the outside air temperature of a wind layer at (for example) 25000 feet to plus 20

As a glider pilot, I will have a go here...1. Rising ground such as cliffs or a line of hills2. A good stiff breeze blowing at the slopeI did set up some wind conditions for this during the review and as I did encounter lift, I did not comment negatively here. BUT I have not made that many ridge lift attempts.This link might help understand ridge lift a bit more. Note particularly: So you have to consider where on the ridge you are too.Don't forget - always turn away from the terrain as you soar along a ridge, and turn as flat as possible. There are some good ridges just north of SanFran that should take a good 12 to 20 knot sea breeze and lift you comfortably. I'll go check...

I too have installed just the "pay" download and it is working fine on my system. I have published a review on the simFlight.com website (sorry for the shameless lug, dear Avsim :( As reviewer I had absolutely no problems with the "basic" product as purchased. I have not installed the beta, but I will keep an eye open for the patch and add commentary to the review when the time comes. Despite what some unlucky users are reporting here, this still is a "Must Have" addon. I do realise there is some emotion from the affected customers, but as an outsider, I can only recommend patience - the HiFi guys will come up with the goods, I am sure....and yes, even during the review I had a CTD or two - but that is not surprising, considering I was trying to do adiabatically incorrect things to the atmosphere... :(

P.P.S.Historical weather data... the ASA window says "Simply select your desired historical date and time (since 2005) below and press the Apply button!"BUTWhen I select Thussday 9th March 2006 (for instance) I get an alert box saying "Invalid Date/Time Selected" and that I must choose a date after 1st of January 2007.Conflict? Or just that the database is not large enough?