-
Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.
I wet my pants!
- Thread starter ryanbatc
- Start date
K
Ken Stallings
Guest
We are truly having a GA rennaissance for FSX.
Ken
Ken
ryanbatc
Charter Member
So how many of you noticed the misaligned texture under the tail?
This is looking to be the same old Carenado...
Where is the misaligned texture? I'm unable to see it.
Darrell
H
harleyman
Guest
So how many of you noticed the misaligned texture under the tail?
This is looking to be the same old Carenado...
Oh Geessssseeee !
Thats what they use magik markers for.....
T
tigisfat
Guest
So how many of you noticed the misaligned texture under the tail?
This is looking to be the same old Carenado...
I know that I'm the minority around here, because we've had conversations like this before, but I prefer it that way. I'd rather have the edited photoreal look and the problems it comes with than the flawless but cartoony hand painted stuff.
Even with misaligned textures, photoreal still looks, well.....photoreal.
It is difficult to see here because of jpeg compression. If you look at that spot in the original photo, its pretty obvious.
This isn't nitpicking either. Other developers have no problems mapping their aircraft correctly. It is about time Carenado starts doing it right. The awful mapping is the reason I didn't release any paints for the Saratoga. I don't want my favorite GA plane ruined by poor mapping technique.
That isn't my point here. The photoreal textures are fine- it is what Carenado does and I can't do anything to change it. The least they could do is line them up properly!
Matt Wynn
New member
I agree Tig,but i will say photoreal only really works (In my opinion) over photoreal Scenery areas, but i'm a repainter who finds more fun hand drawing than photo-copying onto textures, other repainters may be after you for saying 'cartoony' textures, every artist has a style, for some it's realism and for some it's representative, kinda like comparing Monet to Andy Warhol... another thing that hits me about photoreal.... can they please not try to include the topside shine and underside shadow on photoreal paints... it kinda looks daft at a high bank angle and seeing grey where it should be lighter... *Steps aways after voicing his 2cents*
Hmmmm I wonder what they're putting in here:
Maybe my RXP GNS430W will fit
Yup, it'll fit. It will be the first thing I do after installing the plane.
M
MCDesigns
Guest
yep, after blowing up the image 500% in PSD, you can see that it is a couple of pixels off, but seeing as I will probably never see that area during use, I doubt I'll worry about it, LOL.
Rimshot
Charter Member
Sure it will. It's a Garmin 400 and that has the same size as a 430. By putting in a 430 one of the radios would become obsolete though, so I hope the model allows editing of the panel. I bet the RXP 530 would suit the plane too.
Why does no other addon have that then? Where it is off, there is no seam or anything. I don't buy your explanation, sorry. It follows their pattern from the past. Carenado is notorious for misaligned textures. They did not do that on purpose. The Saratoga had misaligned parts in several spots- to the point where any paint with stripes looked stupid.
Sure, this won't stop me from buying the plane. I've been more eager for a FSX Bonanza than just about anyone. (Those who know me can attest to that) I just don't want this to be another usual Carenado plane with all the usual Carenado problems. I want to be able to paint this plane without the stripes being ruined by their mapping!
