Skin question to all skinners

[Steven190]

I have a question on how to save a skin.
I am skinning onone computer that when I use that skin on my game computer the color is different, it is much darker and brighter than the origanl skin which looks good on the computer that I am doing the skin on.

I am using Nvidia's dds program, what DXT is used?
DXT1- no alpha
DXT1- 1 bit
DXT3
DXT5

or one of the bit selections
32 bit ARGB
24 bit RGB
on of the 16 bit's

[greycap.raf]

DXT1 is essentially the same as DXT1 - no alpha as alpha channels aren't usually used on main texture sheets. DXT3 and DXT5 are good when you actually need those alpha channels but for "normal" skinning you don't. For higher quality try DDS 565 16 bit which still compresses the texture a bit but much less than DXT1 and results in a file four times the size of it, or DDS 888 24 bit which gives you full quality with the great expense of file size - more than six times the size of DXT1.

Having said that, the problem isn't likely to arise from the actual file but the fact that the computers have different displays and settings, and that the lighting in CFS3 changes the colours quite a bit.

[ndicki]

And that just about sums it up. I usually use DXT1 simply because when you do a high-resolution 2048x2048 skin, any other form becomes unmanageably large.

When you find the shades which you find satisfactory, make yourself colour palettes which you can call upon whenever you paint - so you'd have an RAF Northern Europe one, and a Luftwaffe Tropical one, and so on. That way you've got your base colours easily to hand.

[hairyspin]

Awfully useful forum, this! I'm starting to mapping, wondering which DXT format to use, and someone just goes and supplies the answer.

Thank you all! :salute:

[MajorMagee]

There's a nice collection of color swatches available here.

http://www.simmerspaintshop.com/

[ndicki]

I wouldn't if I were you! Most of them are far too highly saturated, and that's those which are actually in the right register - which is not that many. They do have lots of useful decals and fonts, but I really do not recommend their swatches.

If you make model kits, you'll know the right colours anyway, and if you don't, it's almost worth going to your local model shop (after consulting somebody who does know his way around!) and buying a handful of little tins to make your own real-life colour charts. Squadron-Signal also do sheets of colour chips which I understand are very good.

[Stratobat]

I am skinning onone computer that when I use that skin on my game computer the color is different, it is much darker and brighter than the origanl skin which looks good on the computer that I am doing the skin on.I've had this problem between CRT and LCD displays. On the CRT display the colour is much darker, on the LCD it looks more realistic.


If you make model kits, you'll know the right colours anyway, and if you don't, it's almost worth going to your local model shop (after consulting somebody who does know his way around!) and buying a handful of little tins to make your own real-life colour charts. Squadron-Signal also do sheets of colour chips which I understand are very good.Personally, I just play with the colour until I think it looks accurate.

So much has been said over the accuracy of colour reproduction that it's hardly worth one's while trying to be 100% accurate.

Regards,
Stratobat

[ndicki]

So much has been said over the accuracy of colour reproduction that it's hardly worth one's while trying to be 100% accurate.


Perhaps, but a great many skinners would do well trying to be, say, 98% accurate... A lot of what's in the skins section is simply wrong, usually too bright or oversaturated. I agree though that one's own eye is usually the best way to judge - if it knows what it's supposed to be seeing!

[Stratobat]

Being too bright or overly saturated does not necessarily make a skin wrong. Is the flaw a fundamental one or is it more an issue of different hardware, creative license or taste?

As I said earlier, not all screens display colour exactly the same. Apart from the CRT colour being darker than an LCD there is also a difference between matt and gloss screens. Without knowing the hardware configuration of the texture artist's machine, one has to assume he's tried his best to be as accurate as he can be with the resources at his disposal.

Regards,
Stratobat

[ndicki]

The basic tonality of the paintwork is not - despite a great deal of drivel which tends to say the contrary - that widely open to discussion. The colours are known, and enough equipment is still lying around with its original paintwork on, well preserved, that we do really know what they look like. I have a propellor blade from an FW190A here by my desk, and the original RLM 70 is beautifully preserved, to give you an idea of the sort of thing I mean. I'm not talking about obscure colours such as the theoretical RLM 84 Graublau - which did not exist officially - but about common or garden colours such as Ocean Grey or Olive Drab 41. Admittedly, the ANA series are open to some interpretation, but of all the widely used official colours, they are among the few. Even there, in fact, there is widespread concensus based upon observation of surviving equipment that for example, ANA Dark Green was somewhat colder and bluer than MAP Dark Green, while ANA Dark Earth was slightly redder than the MAP original. There is some room for interpretation, but not that much. Weathering also tones the original colours down quickly, which I think also adds to my opposition to excessively bright base colours.

Your comments about monitors though are entirely justified! When I switched from a CRT to a flat screen, it took me ages to get the colour balance sorted out to my taste. As colour is something that will make or break a sim, for me at least, that was important...

[MajorMagee]

I'm working on a three screen set-up and no matter the adjustments I can never get more than two to match each other. One will always end up a bit warmer or cooler. When I'm working on a texture I usually move the image back and forth to see the effect and make a judgement about splitting the difference for the average screen it might be seen on by others.

I have determined that the colors need more fidelity than accuracy. By that I mead they need to harmonize with the simulation environment. If you have a catoonish landscape, dropping a photo realistic skin on the model makes it stand out like a sore thumb.

[greycap.raf]

I have determined that the colors need more fidelity than accuracy. By that I mead they need to harmonize with the simulation environment. If you have a catoonish landscape, dropping a photo realistic skin on the model makes it stand out like a sore thumb.

We have people using the stock terrain textures, some using Winding Man's scenery, some using those of by Johno_UK and some using OFF or some other add-on scenery. Many of us use MAW too. As a result you'd need at least five different colour palettes to cater to the needs of everyone. Realistic colours all the way, cartoonish (read: stock) scenery or not...

[Stratobat]

The basic tonality of the paintwork is not - despite a great deal of drivel which tends to say the contrary - that widely open to discussion. The colours are known, and enough equipment is still lying around with its original paintwork on, well preserved, that we do really know what they look like.I agree with you but the problem that creeps in is when you bring those colour swatches into the virtual environment as no two simulators seem to display colours the same.

To add to what MajorMagee said, perhaps the feasibility of creating a set of tailor made colour swatches for the CFS 3 environment based on real life colour swatches should be explored if there is enough interest from the community.

It could be one way of introducing a standardised format everybody could adopt if they so chose.

Regards,
Stratobat

Edit: http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/digitalcolourchartswm_1.htm

[Steven190]

I agree with you but the problem that creeps in is when you bring those colour swatches into the virtual environment as no two simulators seem to display colours the same.

To add to what MajorMagee said, perhaps the feasibility of creating a set of tailor made colour swatches for the CFS 3 environment based on real life colour swatches should be explored if there is enough interest from the community.

It could be one way of introducing a standardised format everybody could adopt if they so chose.

Regards,
Stratobat

Edit: http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/digitalcolourchartswm_1.htm



I would agree with this, a standard colr for CFS3 would be great. All the skins I have done no two are the same color, in game.


I try to match the colors to Monagram's color chip for the Luftwaffe color chart. But on one computer they are brighter and more green.

[ndicki]

We have people using the stock terrain textures, some using Winding Man's scenery, some using those of by Johno_UK and some using OFF or some other add-on scenery. Many of us use MAW too. As a result you'd need at least five different colour palettes to cater to the needs of everyone. Realistic colours all the way, cartoonish (read: stock) scenery or not...

Entirely agree. If the word "simulation" has any meaning, then we are trying to get as far away from cartoonish as we can. And if you look at the most recent scenery, namely Johno's with the ACC airfields and buildings, we are a great deal closer to something reasonable. If somebody else's skin looks at all cartoonish, I delete it. If I even bother to download it, which is rare...

But I admit that some of my early ones could have been better; one learns as one goes along... There's a fine line somewhere between encouraging those who have the potential to do really good stuff, and wasting your time on those who don't. The trick is seeing which are which, because when any of us started skinning, we were crap at it!