Paintkits: Help me out here, guys and gals !

[fsafranek]

That is a job requirement for every painter (and modeller too for that matter) if you want to be good at it. As always the devil is in the details.

Absolutely. I feel that in addition to the modeler the painter should, if he is doing his job right, know that subject aircraft inside and out -- moreso than anyone else on the project. And that means being an anal rivet counter. "Hi. My name is Frank and I'm an ARC."
:ernae:

And thanks NickB! You're welcome.

 

[ronvking]

Interesting thread, thanks.

I've never tried modelling or repainting although I did once look at a couple of Just Flights kit because I thought the weathering they put on the Connie's and Mossie's was terrible. You could see the same pattern of lines down the body which had done so badly you could see clear divisions between muck and clean and they didnt even conform to the law of gravlty on some aircraft. I wanted to clean the aircraft up but found the paint kit was a single layer. An email to them asking of a psd version produced no reply, no surprise I suppose. Gave up with their aircraft after that, models look quite reasonable but the coats are third world.

Cheers Ron

 

[Francois]

Thanks very much to everybody in this thread, great information.

So good that I now have my developer (Simon) telling me he will try and prepare some basic layers IF I can find us a free or commercial but in any case affordable painter..... (we don't want the price of our models go through the roof, now do we?).

So if anyone here knows anybody, let me know. I'll also start looking in other places.

Thanks again, great thread !

 

[HenryW]

I prefer a painkit as simple as possible with very few details. Perhaps some rivets and panellines as i like to make my own paintkits, weathering, markings, etc, etc... There is really not much fun in just pasting some nationality markings or change some colors and then be worshiped as a painting guru. The real gurus are of course those, often anonymous creators, that create the paintkits provided with the model and have already done 80% to 90% of the work.

 

[Desert Rat]

A good painkit is always a good idea. I understand what Henry means, as I do the same. But, 95% or so just want a simple to use, ready made paintkit.

Beneficial to devs to. Good paintkit = more paints (initially a glut, slowing to a steady trickle or such) = continued interest = more sales of the product (I can recall dozens of times I've read folks here saying they are going to buy a plane after someone does a few nice paints for it) = happy days all round.

Jamie

PS. I's obviously not quite that simple, but we tend to over complicate things and over analyze adum finitum.

 

[DagR]

I prefer a painkit as simple as possible with very few details. Perhaps some rivets and panellines as i like to make my own paintkits, weathering, markings, etc, etc... There is really not much fun in just pasting some nationality markings or change some colors and then be worshiped as a painting guru. The real gurus are of course those, often anonymous creators, that create the paintkits provided with the model and have already done 80% to 90% of the work.

Fully agreed. The gazillion layer paint kits by recent developers wilth highly photoshop-specific layer effects/blending options witch I found was a nightmare for Corel Photo Paint for instance, does not fancy me. Milviz T-38 kit and F-15E kit comes to mind. Ot all use Adobe.
An UV layer with wireframes, some basic panel lines and possibly a baked shading layer is more than enough. Then again, I have retired ;-)

 

[Francois]

So many hobbyists, so many opinions ;-)

 

[Sieggie]

More can always become less. But the other way around, not so easy.

Dave

 

[GrinningJester]

Fully agreed. The gazillion layer paint kits by recent developers wilth highly photoshop-specific layer effects/blending options witch I found was a nightmare for Corel Photo Paint for instance, does not fancy me. Milviz T-38 kit and F-15E kit comes to mind. Ot all use Adobe.
An UV layer with wireframes, some basic panel lines and possibly a baked shading layer is more than enough. Then again, I have retired ;-)

This is not as easy as it sounds.
You risk losing detail and destructively merging layers if you try to simplify the .psd too much.


Complex textures have hundreds of layers, everything from weathered rivets, to larger rivets, to skinwrinkling from rivets & panellines, etc etc etc.
It's not as simple as "Toss all the panellines and rivets on one layer and the dirt on another".

Providing a UVW layer is getting a bit antiquated as well, since most exteriors are GI baked nowadays. This means that the parts are easily discernible on a black background, and you do not need the mesh topology.

 

[DagR]

This is not as easy as it sounds.
You risk losing detail and destructively merging layers if you try to simplify the .psd too much.


Complex textures have hundreds of layers, everything from weathered rivets, to larger rivets, to skinwrinkling from rivets & panellines, etc etc etc.
It's not as simple as "Toss all the panellines and rivets on one layer and the dirt on another".

Providing a UVW layer is getting a bit antiquated as well, since most exteriors are GI baked nowadays. This means that the parts are easily discernible on a black background, and you do not need the mesh topology.

Okay ;-)

 

[TeaSea]

So many hobbyists, so many opinions ;-)

Yeah, but I'm glad you asked the question....

I've learned more from this thread than any of the multiple web sites I've gone to. Mostly because those sites assume you have basic knowledge (which I don't) and go to the graduate level straight away.

This is most interesting.

 

[fsafranek]

Fully agreed. The gazillion layer paint kits by recent developers wilth highly photoshop-specific layer effects/blending options witch I found was a nightmare for Corel Photo Paint for instance, does not fancy me. Milviz T-38 kit and F-15E kit comes to mind. Ot all use Adobe.
An UV layer with wireframes, some basic panel lines and possibly a baked shading layer is more than enough. Then again, I have retired ;-)

I have to agree. If you can't even get the thing open it's pretty much a complete waste of ones and zeros. Not impressive at all. Keep it simple. I always found it best to make them compatible with Photoshop 6 or Paint Shop Pro 7. And the number of repaints reflects this. Just sayin'
:ernae:

 

[Bjoern]

Yeah, .psd is basically the way to go when publishing paintkits.

Gimp's .xcf compresses better though. Wish it was more popular.