• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Shockwave Aircraft

Status
Not open for further replies.
ICDP said:
I don't think we need to resort to any personal insults here. Everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as we agree to disagree :)

This thread was started by someone asking for help installing the Shockwave Fw190A. Lets leave it at that please.
Click to expand...


ICDP, airplane painter and now the peacemaker :ernae:

With high res textures like those you did ICDP, the old bird certainly has plenty of life left in it despite its age.
 
Ok guys...

Lets look at this with my set of eyes....

Its just a sim...They are planes...They look good to some and not so good to others,.....

Build the textures till the cows come home..The thing called FSX still does not look real world anyway.....Why argue a mute point....? LOL


Lets get back on topic of the question asked please...
 
ICDP said:
The bump mapping on my CH Fw190A is working fine... it just doesn't look that good IMHO. What I find wrong is the fact that every single line is recessed when some research on the real Fw190 panels show that quite a few of them overlap and have raised panels.

Incidentally the texture max load parameter does not effect any textures that do no include mipmaps so the Fw190A textures are not effected by this parameter.

Here are a few photos to show what I mean (I know one is of a P-40 but it shows how panels are often overlapping)
Click to expand...

Hija ICDP,
as has been said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
We did our best though to represent the second generation design the Fw190 was as close as possible (which btw is very different from the P-40), that means flush rivets and panel lines for the most part which are barely visible unless you stand fairly close to the plane. Where there are overlapping panels they are usually 3d-modelled such as the gunblisters and the upper nose cover, that is whenever the dimensions justify the extra poligons. Having said that we have received glaring commends both from users and colleague-developers alike esspecially on the bump mapping but apparently it's not up to everyone's expectations how it should look.

The Flugwerk Fw190A-8/N in your photo shows some significant differences over the historical counterpart due to different production methods and security considerations, most notably the upper nose MG 131 cover which is made of a single pressed sheet on the original unlike the Flugwerk one that has a separate riveted piece to shape the bulges.
BTW, we are building exactly this one for our follow-up as we speak in cooperation with Flugwerk. I had the opportunity to watch her flying during her test flight early March and I can asure you that you don't see that much riveting when standing next to her.
 
Mathias said:
Hija ICDP,
as has been said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
We did our best though to represent the second generation design the Fw190 was as close as possible (which btw is very different from the P-40), that means flush rivets and panel lines for the most part which are barely visible unless you stand fairly close to the plane. Where there are overlapping panels they are usually 3d-modelled such as the gunblisters and the upper nose cover, that is whenever the dimensions justify the extra poligons. Having said that we have received glaring commends both from users and colleague-developers alike esspecially on the bump mapping but apparently it's not up to everyone's expectations how it should look.

The Flugwerk Fw190A-8/N in your photo shows some significant differences over the historical counterpart due to different production methods and security considerations, most notably the upper nose MG 131 cover which is made of a single pressed sheet on the original unlike the Flugwerk one that has a separate riveted piece to shape the bulges.
BTW, we are building exactly this one for our follow-up as we speak in cooperation with Flugwerk. I had the opportunity to watch her flying during her test flight early March and I can asure you that you don't see that much riveting when standing next to her.
Click to expand...

Hi Mathias,

I think your Fw190A1-A4 is a great addon, I have stated as such in a few posts here on this thread. It has a great cockpit (one of the best), stunning detail on the 3D model and IMHO a great FM (as in it matches real world data and descriptions). The only area where IMHO it is slightly let down is in the texturing, bumps and specular maps. Also I am not referring to the riveting on the bumps, just the panel lines. I have many photos of real WWII vintage Fw190s and some of the panels have the effect of overlapping.

In the past my work was criticised for looking bad in many areas and I know it can hurt when you first read that criticism. In particular my work on the B377 was rightly criticised for not looking metallic enough, it looked drab and dull. So I did some research on how reflections work in FSX and found that messing with the cube map and alpha channels made a massive difference. I am my own biggest critic and when I look at the work on the textures and bumps on the A2A P-47 I think, I could and should have done better.

I guess I am saying sorry if my criticism is too harsh, I hope it is taken as being constructive. My intention was not to insult anyone who worked on the CH Fw190 textures. I was just voicing my opinion that I felt the textures and bumps could be improved.
 
ICDP said:
Hi Mathias,

I guess I am saying sorry if my criticism is too harsh, I hope it is taken as being constructive. My intention was not to insult anyone who worked on the CH Fw190 textures. I was just voicing my opinion that I felt the textures and bumps could be improved.
Click to expand...

Naaa, you're more than welcome to add critics. After all that's how things can improve and progress. If my response sounded like a Primadonna I appologize. I just tried to talk a bit our design phylosophy behind it and why we did things the way we did it, since everybody seems to talk CH Fw190 in here. :)
 
I love the FU 190...Its beautiful and flys like a dream.....
 
As far as I can recall, I am so far the only one who actually tried to give rewasiuk an answer on his original question. In addition to this I tried to give him some honest advise based on my own experiences.

With the risk of being called 'asholish' again by rwmarth; my advise was based on my own experience. As rwmarth nor Martin Catney (ICDP/A2A) were not able to provide a link to any pictures from the external model from the , I presume the last part from remarth's advise was based on nothing more than his imagination.

Furthermore I have my personal thoughts about one payware designer critisising the work from one of his colleagues in a public thread about a totally different subject. But to avoid futher escalation, I will keep these thoughts for myself.

Regards,
Huub
 
huub vink said:
As far as I can recall, I am so far the only one who actually tried to give rewasiuk an answer on his original question. In addition to this I tried to give him some honest advise based on my own experiences.

With the risk of being called 'asholish' again by rwmarth; my advise was based on my own experience. As rwmarth nor Martin Catney (ICDP/A2A) were not able to provide a link to any pictures from the external model from the , I presume the last part from remarth's advise was based on nothing more than his imagination.

Furthermore I have my personal thoughts about one payware designer critisising the work from one of his colleagues in a public thread about a totally different subject. But to avoid futher escalation, I will keep these thoughts for myself.

Regards,
Huub
Click to expand...


I didn't need to post a fix for the SW Fw190 as you already posted it. All I did was confirm it. I never once mentioned the A2A Fw190 in this thread so please don't accuse me of failing to provide a link to it as some sort of failure on my end or victory on yours! I do NOT belong to A2A nor do I speak for them in this thread, so your efforts to associate my opinions to be representative of those of A2A are totally unwarranted. I paint and that's it and I will criticise constructively when I see fit (that includes my own work). What I have said on this thread is my personal opinion and nothing more.

Just for clarification, this thread was opened asking about the older Shockwave Fw190 in FSX. Your reply answered his question and then went on to state your opinions on both the SW Fw190 the CH Fw190A. I agreed with your opinions but stated I felt the CH Fw190 textures and bumps "were not that great, IMHO". When I made those comments you had already brought the topic in another direction from the original question.

For the record I think the CH Fw190A is a great addon (I have repeatedly stated this). I would totally recommend it in FSX over the old SW Fw190 in all areas. We are not enemies here Huub, we just have slightly different opinions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top