PDA

View Full Version : Shining versus flat military aircraft. The undisputable truth!



tigisfat
October 30th, 2009, 21:05
Hello everyone, Tigisfat here; and this thread has been coming for a while. It's about time this got settled, because I've heard perfectly good sets of textures from great painters questioned over this.

I'm in military aviation. In my side of the house, (and it's similar in most modern militaries and branches, just at different time intervals) our aircraft get painted every six years, coinciding with more serious scheduled inspections. Paint jobs are planned just often enough to make the most of taxpayer dollars; The oldest paint gets so old it looks horrible, but still protects from corrosion, the primary purpose of painting anyway.

Getting more to the point: Six year old gunship gray is so light it's almost white and ghostly, and it's baked on looking and flat. Brand new gunship gray is so bright it's almost blue. Furthermore, the brand new gunship gray looks varnished and lacquered it's so shiny. In recent years they've experimented with even shinier coatings just to see how they hold up. Do you remember the first Alphasim C-17 screenshots? They were right on for a jet right out of the paint barn.

Instead of telling people they painted a jet the the wrong color, take it from me that as long as it's close, they got it right. Different painters look at different photos; many painters simulate brand new aircraft and others go for weathered. The current real world fleet where I work (all gunship gray) has just about every color of gray imagineable. I promise. This is true even in military aircraft that aren't painted gunship gray. Some super Hornets are painted a lighter almost tannish gray, and they start out shiny for the first few years as well.

Thank you for your time. :ernae:

falcon409
October 30th, 2009, 21:15
But, I can also tell ya, that on the AF side for aircraft like the F-16 and F-22 shiny is a no no. When our aircraft came back from Hill after going through Depot to be repainted, among other things, the paint surface was a matte finish, so putting a shine on most AF aircraft (Fighter types) would be incorrect.

MenendezDiego
October 30th, 2009, 21:27
The current real world fleet where I work (all gunship gray) has just about every color of gray imagineable. I promise.

Couldn't agree more. I was on the flight line at Robins AFB today. C-130's, C-5's, C-17's, from all over the place, with all different shades of gray.

I like the 'used' look myself

calypsos
October 30th, 2009, 23:40
But guys, you forget MSFS is not real!!!

I although I agree with you 100% (I flew in matt military aircraft for the whole of my air force career), some people here want 'shiney' and if they re-paint them themselves I guess that is up to them!

Helldiver
October 31st, 2009, 03:36
I can't say anything about these oil burners. I can only attest what it was in the US Navy at the end of the war from 1944 on when they flew real airplanes. All Navy planes were as shiny as a new car.
Now I don't know what the Army Air Corps used as recyling time. But in the Navy it would be anything from a month to six menths and back to A&R it went. The longest one I saw was eight months. You can only bang an airplane so many times on a flight deck and it's bound to get bent.
The Navy found there was no advantage in flat paint and on the F6-F there was a gain of 12 MPH with the smooth finish.

PRB
October 31st, 2009, 03:43
Not to mention the infinite variety of light levels that affect how we view the color. I've agreed with this viewpoint for some time. Finding the correct paint chip RGB value is good to find a place to start, but from there, "art" takes over.

Up until the early 1980s, US Navy planes were painted a glossy white and grey, not the ugly flat grey they are painted now.

IanP
October 31st, 2009, 03:45
When I spent a short period of time around the RAF, they used exactly the same, very matte, rough, paint that we used to repaint tanks and Land Rovers, whenever they had to change the colour of an aircraft in a hurry. The darned stuff peeled off after even a short period of time tearing around at >M1 on Tornados by all accounts, but it was exactly the same paint.

Aircraft came out of the paint shop all shiny, then go into a warzone and get painted matte. Because they were less worried about fuel efficiency than the possibly could have been, the fact that the surface wasn't smooth wasn't a worry at all. With that much thrust to play with, if you shove open then throttles, it will accelerate quickly.

That didn't apply to WW2 aircraft, which didn't have anywhere near as much power to play with - but the military expediency of "what paint is available to change the colours" strongly applies. IMO the "shininess" of paint isn't massively critical when compared to other things about a model that I'll notice a lot more.

centuryseries
October 31st, 2009, 03:50
For an FSX built aircraft the repainter can repaint to his hearts content since glossy and specular settings are held within the textures!

Matte becomes shiny anyways in bright sunlight! Note shiny not glossy.

Its all personal preference anyway.

dswo
October 31st, 2009, 04:01
Thanks for the comments, gentlemen: this is helpful.

JIMJAM
October 31st, 2009, 06:22
I just wished a fraction of the time spent on exterior paints/details was spent in the cockpit.
I know you guys LOVE repainting but I rarely even look at the outside.
A weathered,lived in cockpit that many a pilot have spent 1/2 their lives in adds alot more to the immersion imo than a paint.

falcon409
October 31st, 2009, 06:59
I just wished a fraction of the time spent on exterior paints/details was spent in the cockpit.
I know you guys LOVE repainting but I rarely even look at the outside.
A weathered,lived in cockpit that many a pilot have spent 1/2 their lives in adds alot more to the immersion imo than a paint.
ewwwwww, blasphemy, lol, lol. I am the same on this one JIMJAM. I know the bump mapping and specular stuff is all the rage and being able to see dimples in the exterior and every single rivet is cool, but I don't really purchase an addon for that reason. . .for me it all has to do with the VC, and especially if it looks lived in, lol. I don't fly from outside the airplane and aside from quick looks to get a screenshot or two, I don't spend any time outside the cockpit until after I've landed and then I take a quick look at my approach and landing to critique that part of the flight.

Just as a side note, when I purchase or download an aircraft and it has twenty liveries and 200 loadouts. . .I delete all the liveries save one or two and from the loadouts I keep a clean version and one with Aim9's and everything else gets trashed.

Francois
October 31st, 2009, 07:04
For what it's worth, I hardly look at aircraft in much detail at all (unless I have to publish them), because I'm a scenery guy..... the color of the grass and rocks is much more important to add to the realism as the little speck in the world that an aircraft is :bump::bump::bump:

Okay, so flame away........ :icon29:

Piglet
October 31st, 2009, 20:07
This thread has been around, subject wise, since airplane models were first made. Colors and finish are just those things that can't ever be argued and resolved.
Just like arguing religion or politics, or who has the best sports team....:isadizzy:

jmig
November 1st, 2009, 03:02
:jump: *Raises his hand from the back of the room* :jump:

My turn, my turn!

For me it is all about immersement and suspense of disbelief. Like Falcon and Francois, I fly from inside the cockpit. My most memorable times flying my sim have been the moments where I forgot I was flying a sim and felt like I was once again in a real cockpit in the air, all alone with God.

It is moments like these that keep me coming back and pouring money into my hobby. I have flown clean and dirty birds, I have flown depot fresh, no dead bugs, aircraft and beat up, dented, ones with chipped paint.

I have been in cockpits with panels missing (not important ones) or new ones installed, seen modifications to the panels that made them look different from the pictures in the Dash-1.

It is not about the details for me but, the total experience. I can honestly say this total experience is getting better and better, thanks to the hard work and talents of so many of you.

:medals: + :icon29:

PRB
November 1st, 2009, 04:02
This thread has been around, subject wise, since airplane models were first made. Colors and finish are just those things that can't ever be argued and resolved.
Just like arguing religion or politics, or who has the best sports team....:isadizzy:

Yep, and long before that, the plastic modelers were (are) arguing over the same issue. Glossy or flat? With plastic models, an added issue is size difference between the model and the real thing. The large size of the real planes, even when painted with flat paint, make them appear shiny. Some even advocate painting OD green aircraft models with at least a semi-glossy paint to make them shiny(er).

:d ;)

tigisfat
November 1st, 2009, 07:04
This thread has been around, subject wise, since airplane models were first made. Colors and finish are just those things that can't ever be argued and resolved.
Just like arguing religion or politics, or who has the best sports team....:isadizzy:

There is a definitive answer. That's what I'm saying, at least for aircraft painted gunship gray, like bombers and tranports. It's both. They appear bluish and shiny as well as pale and flat depending on the age and mixture.

This isn't a debate thread. I'm telling everyone that I've been around these aircraft every day for 9 nine years and this is how it is. Personal preference be what it may, but the real aircraft come in both variances.

falcon409
November 1st, 2009, 07:30
Where are you stationed tigisfat?

MudMarine
November 1st, 2009, 07:33
It's about what pleases my/your eye not anyone elses. It's about the artist and how he or she wants to represent their creation. FS aircraft to me are a work of art. The real ones which I'll never fly are sitting on a flight line somwhere in the real world.:engel016:

PRB
November 1st, 2009, 07:39
I can't think of a better way to start a debate (a.k.a. "food fight") in a thread than to declare that it isn't a debate thread because "I'm here to tell ya the way it is!" :d And Mud is right. Real airplanes these are not. So, the debate will continue as long as artists are "painting" them.

MudMarine
November 1st, 2009, 08:06
Debate is always good......it's just that no one knows how to do it anymore! Opposing opinions are too often taken as personal attacks. I always look at diffrent opinons as a learning experience!:engel016:

Bomber_12th
November 1st, 2009, 09:04
I have found that unfortunately "shiny" has been taken to mean "reflective" sometimes, which is a different thing, and adjusted in a different way. You will be hard pressed not to find a plane with a matte/flat finish, that still has a good amount of shine to it, at varying levels of course depending on the make-up of the paint - how thick it is, how faded it is, etc. Concentrated light on a matte surface, can most often times look just like a glossy surface under the same conditions, especially from afar. I have seen some very shiny aircraft as well, with next to no reflectivity, because of the make up of the paint - an example of this is the overall dark-sea blue used on Navy aircraft late in WWII. Thankfully with FSX materials, all of this can be adjusted as far as the developer's heart desires, more specifically to each paint scheme instead of each model like it was in FS9 and before.

fsafranek
November 1st, 2009, 09:54
Tigisfat is down at Dyess AFB in Texas. Bone country. (sorry to steal your thunder :icon_lol:)

Fresh paint on a Mirage is definitely matt when fresh but over time starts to take on a satin and sometimes glossy finish. This is from the air friction.
:ernae:

falcon409
November 1st, 2009, 09:57
Tigisfat is down at Dyess AFB in Texas. Bone country. (sorry to steal your thunder :icon_lol:)

Fresh paint on a Mirage is definitely matt when fresh but over time starts to take on a satin and sometimes glossy finish. This is from the air friction.
:ernae:
Ahhh, ok. . .I used to take a drive with the PMEL Supervisor about once a month out to Dyess to drop off all our equipment that required calibration. He didn't like driving alone (it's about 2hrs from Carswell), so he'd ask around to the different shops to see who wanted to tag along, lol.

tigisfat
November 3rd, 2009, 07:16
I can't think of a better way to start a debate (a.k.a. "food fight") in a thread than to declare that it isn't a debate thread because "I'm here to tell ya the way it is!" :d And Mud is right. Real airplanes these are not. So, the debate will continue as long as artists are "painting" them.

Well.....

I may very well be wrong, but I don't think there's anyone else here who works on gunship gray aircraft every day. I started this thread to tell the cold hard facts about what the real life jets look like. There really isn't a debate.

However, People can debate, make and buy FSX aircraft however they want them and feel they're right because it's a hobby, but this is how gunship gray is (B-52, B-1, C-5, C-17, C-141, KC-10, F-15E....).

I've also enjoyed the perspective from those like falcon409 who've shared their fighter experience.

MudMarine
November 3rd, 2009, 07:32
I can share my Marine Corps airwing years around hundreds of "grey" aircraft. I can safely say that they were gray......you betcha!:icon_lol:

Sundog
November 3rd, 2009, 15:15
Just an FYI, the F-22 and the newer V-22s are not flat grays, in the typical sense. They're using the new metallic paint which apparently reduces IR signature. I thought it was to reflect more diffuse light at a distance, sort of a passive yehudi lights effect, but I think it looks cool anyway. Here are some pics so you can see what I'm talking about.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Marines/Bell-Boeing-MV-22B-Osprey/1407232/L/

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Marines/Bell-Boeing-MV-22B-Osprey/1461329/L/

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Lockheed-Martin-F-22A/1577970/L/

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Lockheed-Martin-F-22A/1504160/L/

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Lockheed-Martin-F-22A/1475820/L/

Lewis-A2A
November 3rd, 2009, 16:03
indeed mud.

Tig's remember theres rather a large amount of members here that are active or ex-active armed forces personnel from around the world :kilroy:

And remember your cold hard facts are from aircraft you have been with, and I doubt many of them were wearing RAF liveries, Luftwaffe liveries, greek etc etc. :engel016:

tigisfat
November 4th, 2009, 17:26
indeed mud.

Tig's remember theres rather a large amount of members here that are active or ex-active armed forces personnel from around the world :kilroy:

And remember your cold hard facts are from aircraft you have been with, and I doubt many of them were wearing RAF liveries, Luftwaffe liveries, greek etc etc. :engel016:

I know very well that there are many people here with great aviation experience, in quite a few cases exceeding my own; that's why I must again insist that I'm only talking about gunship gray. I don't think there's anyone else here with experience on gunship gray aircraft. Well, I guess that depends on how long ago our BUFF troops were on the line. There were a few painted gunship gray in the late 80's. Modern gunship gray is different anyway.

PRB
November 4th, 2009, 17:59
Well, my experience working on FA-18Cs and A-7Es painted grey is that they were more shiny when the paint was older. When freshly painted, the flat paint looked, well, flat. But after being scrubbed day after day the finish took on a more shiny appearance. Perhaps the rough finish associated with fresh paint got sort of “polished” over time by the plane captains rubbing on them with rags and cleaning compound, but whatever the cause, the freshly painted ones were “flatter”. Go figure.

MenendezDiego
November 4th, 2009, 18:40
Just an FYI, the F-22 and the newer V-22s are not flat grays, in the typical sense. They're using the new metallic paint which apparently reduces IR signature. I thought it was to reflect more diffuse light at a distance, sort of a passive yehudi lights effect, but I think it looks cool anyway. Here are some pics so you can see what I'm talking about.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Lockheed-Martin-F-22A/1577970/L/

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Lockheed-Martin-F-22A/1504160/L/

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Lockheed-Martin-F-22A/1475820/L/

Dear Milviz/FSD...please take these into consideration when making the paints for the F-22

fsafranek
November 6th, 2009, 20:32
Well, my experience working on FA-18Cs and A-7Es painted grey is that they were more shiny when the paint was older. When freshly painted, the flat paint looked, well, flat. But after being scrubbed day after day the finish took on a more shiny appearance. Perhaps the rough finish associated with fresh paint got sort of “polished” over time by the plane captains rubbing on them with rags and cleaning compound, but whatever the cause, the freshly painted ones were “flatter”. Go figure.
Just look at the keys on your keyboard. Those that are used a lot or where you rest your hands will have an almost mirror-like surface.

jmig
November 7th, 2009, 05:11
Using my best Helldiver imitation:

Back in my day when we had real airplanes and real pilots, not electronic toys and techo wizards as pilots, they were all painted jungle camouflage.

They were also often dirty. No time to wash an airplane when you have to turn it for the next mission while dogging VC mortar rounds.

Sorry HD :) You know we all love and respect you. I am in one of my silly moods and couldn't pass up the chance to tease you.

:medals: