-
Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.
-
IMPORTANT DOWNLOADING INFORMATION - ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ
Please see this thread for updates. Update Thread
SOH ADMINISTRATION
Sky Unlimited Bf109F. New texture and panel.
- Thread starter Morton
- Start date
misson
Charter Member
Sorry Morton! u are right. In fact i had to edit the model in xeditor to delete their g_lights state to use them without the error sim1sim.
I thought u talking about the model G
I´m glad , that i was wrong.
So ,
Cheers
Mario
VERY NICE, Morton!
Very Nice!
Very Nice!
miamieagle
Charter Member
[SUB]THANK YOU 
[/SUB]
[/SUB]mk_SU_BF109F_X-7.zip
A new entry has been added to Add-Ons Library, category CFS 2 Aircraft - German
Description: This is a complete package with 7 new skins for the SU BF109F which maybe is the most beautiful Friedrich for CFS2.
To check it out, rate it or add comments, visit mk_SU_BF109F_X-7.zip
The comments you make there will appear in the posts below.
A new entry has been added to Add-Ons Library, category CFS 2 Aircraft - German
Description: This is a complete package with 7 new skins for the SU BF109F which maybe is the most beautiful Friedrich for CFS2.
To check it out, rate it or add comments, visit mk_SU_BF109F_X-7.zip
The comments you make there will appear in the posts below.
Sarg Willy
SOH-CM-2014
Thank You Mort , just outstanding ~
alpha_1
Charter Member
Very Nice, Morton
Man! You do nice work!
I have a question. How do these panels line up with the default gunsight? I've tried them before and find that the top of it seems to show just over the top of the panel. I'm colour blind so can't see the sight on most of your panels. I've taken to going to paint.net and trying to change them but that's not really satisfactory. By raising or lowering the eye level it really throws out the sights. Trying to line up the sights with Aimit after that becomes quitei a challenge because the centre is so totally different. This becomes very noticeable for rockets in particular. Is there a work around for this?
I'd like to use your panels more but I have trouble reading the gauges. They seem to be quite a bit smaller than stock as well. I think there's a zoom that I just thought of, perhaps that's the answer for the gauges?
Cheers,
Man! You do nice work!
I have a question. How do these panels line up with the default gunsight? I've tried them before and find that the top of it seems to show just over the top of the panel. I'm colour blind so can't see the sight on most of your panels. I've taken to going to paint.net and trying to change them but that's not really satisfactory. By raising or lowering the eye level it really throws out the sights. Trying to line up the sights with Aimit after that becomes quitei a challenge because the centre is so totally different. This becomes very noticeable for rockets in particular. Is there a work around for this?
I'd like to use your panels more but I have trouble reading the gauges. They seem to be quite a bit smaller than stock as well. I think there's a zoom that I just thought of, perhaps that's the answer for the gauges?
Cheers,
kelticheart
Charter Member
Beautiful skins!
Hi Morton,
spectacular repaints as usual!
On the other hand, I am not so sure this Friederick is better than Paul Rebuffat's model, both ETO and tropical. This is only a personal opinion, but Rebuffat's Bf109F-2, F-4 and F-4 Trop look more streamlined to me, while this one does not match scale and proportions 100%. Besides, some details are missing.
Cheers!
KH
Hi Morton,
spectacular repaints as usual!
On the other hand, I am not so sure this Friederick is better than Paul Rebuffat's model, both ETO and tropical. This is only a personal opinion, but Rebuffat's Bf109F-2, F-4 and F-4 Trop look more streamlined to me, while this one does not match scale and proportions 100%. Besides, some details are missing.
Cheers!
KH
miamieagle
Charter Member
Thank you!
bearcat241
SOH-CM-2023
As usual, nice work Morten...and you also Gaucho on the panel...all of your panels.
If i may be permitted, i'd like to offer some constructive critique on using 3D imaging for 2D paneling. As pleasing as this approach may be on the eye, its limitations can be quite aggravating for a panel editing junkie like myself. See, i'm the type who likes to appoint an instrument or switch from my extensive gauge collection to every position shown on a 2D panel bmp. But with 3D imaging, some vital gauge positions are either hidden, semi-hidden or blocked by switches, handles or other cockpit assemblies, e.g. an attitude gauge, compass or clock should not be blocked by a gunsight assembly in 2D mode. Or, in some cases, like both magneto switches shown above, a bit too much eye distance perspective is added to the image, so a standard, flat 2D BF109 magneto switch has to be placed with more insane oversizing to cover up protruding background parts of the 3D image behind it. Take the above ignition switches in both examples also...they're partially covered by the edges of the center panel plate. How would a switch gauge placed here look if it's boundaries extended over the edge...not cool.
For those like myself, a "fully functional" 2D panel is part of the free flight immersion, i.e., every shown gauge unblocked and readable, every mouse-able switch accessible and all of these items in realistic placements, perspective and proportions. But as a guy with an artistic background i can also appreciate 5-star bitmap artwork. Why not have both? Is this even a practical consideration for your respective methodologies? I realize that sometimes the approaches that an artist must take to achieve a certain end result can also have inevitable limitations in detailing. I also realize that none of this matters much when the shooting starts in combat flight simming, but for me this sim is not just about air combat. Its a junior scenery version of the civie sims with active weaponry placed in historical war settings.
Thanks to both of you for hearing me out and keep up the OUTSTANDING work
If i may be permitted, i'd like to offer some constructive critique on using 3D imaging for 2D paneling. As pleasing as this approach may be on the eye, its limitations can be quite aggravating for a panel editing junkie like myself. See, i'm the type who likes to appoint an instrument or switch from my extensive gauge collection to every position shown on a 2D panel bmp. But with 3D imaging, some vital gauge positions are either hidden, semi-hidden or blocked by switches, handles or other cockpit assemblies, e.g. an attitude gauge, compass or clock should not be blocked by a gunsight assembly in 2D mode. Or, in some cases, like both magneto switches shown above, a bit too much eye distance perspective is added to the image, so a standard, flat 2D BF109 magneto switch has to be placed with more insane oversizing to cover up protruding background parts of the 3D image behind it. Take the above ignition switches in both examples also...they're partially covered by the edges of the center panel plate. How would a switch gauge placed here look if it's boundaries extended over the edge...not cool.
For those like myself, a "fully functional" 2D panel is part of the free flight immersion, i.e., every shown gauge unblocked and readable, every mouse-able switch accessible and all of these items in realistic placements, perspective and proportions. But as a guy with an artistic background i can also appreciate 5-star bitmap artwork. Why not have both? Is this even a practical consideration for your respective methodologies? I realize that sometimes the approaches that an artist must take to achieve a certain end result can also have inevitable limitations in detailing. I also realize that none of this matters much when the shooting starts in combat flight simming, but for me this sim is not just about air combat. Its a junior scenery version of the civie sims with active weaponry placed in historical war settings.
Thanks to both of you for hearing me out and keep up the OUTSTANDING work