Paintkits: Help me out here, guys and gals !

[Francois]

I keep reading about paintkits, and more often than not complaints about them not being included, or not being usable.
Since I am a mere publisher and writer and not a painter, I am at a loss, so help me out here:

1) WHAT does a usable paintkit mean (I know it is textures on a 2014 x 1024 piece of digital paper)

2) WHY are some paintkits not regarded as usable (.png, .jpg, etc) other than not being layered?

3) HOW important is it really? Alright, that's a rhetorical question, since obviously only aircraft painters would answer that one, and I'd know the answer :-)

Thanks for enlightening a poor publisher....... and maybe helping future products improve.

Francois:salute:

[stiz]

simply put, the paintkit is a layered .psd (or .psp) file containing:

base layer (so grey/white)
example paint (so basicly a scheme used on the aircraft)
panel line layer (which, suprise suprise, contains the panel lines)
rivits layer (contains the rivits)
dirt layer (so any paint chips, mud etc for a quick "dirt on" "dirt off" paint)
any misc parts (contains any parts that prolly wont ever be painted, tires, gear struts etc)

the above is good because you can change anything that will effect the paint, so say you wanted to do 2 version of the same paint, one with rivits and dirty, one without rivits and clean, its just a matter of ticking off or on a few layers and hey presto. It also allows you to change how visable the dirt/rivits/panel lines are. Now if the kit was just a flat .bmp file you couldnt do that with ease at all.

a good way of finding out what makes a good repaint kit is to take a ganders at the a2a ones (you can get the latest spitfire kit from here - http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=23846 ) , not singleing out any developer, its just that i know those are set up good :icon_lol:

[Francois]

Okay, I understand. So basically you would want the original author use layers (as I would myself when designing product artwork) and not use a flat texture.
That means doing that from the start, and not 'adding' something in a later phase.

[stansdds]

I think Stiz pretty well nailed it. I've downloaded "paint kits" that were little more than the basic image of the aircraft. Painting it meant covering the panel lines, rivets and details. Separate layers in .psd format typically makes for an easy to use kit. Adding in a wire frame layer can sometimes help too as does labeling the various parts displayed in the image, where possible.

[falcon409]

Stiz has pretty much hit it on the head. One difference for me is that as you mentioned Francois, needing the textures to be 1024x1024. That no longer holds true for FSX. . . .when I do my own paint kits, I make them 4096x4096 and convert to dds directly from the paint program. The clarity is as good as it gets and thus far, the larger texture size has no fps impact at all that I can see and I have a plain vanilla system that most would consider outdated by current standards.
The drawback to that size paint kit is the amount of the final files, lol. Rather than a single texture being 1 or 2 meg, a 4096x4096 texture can be as much as 16meg. Imagine if every aircraft you owned was done with that size texture. A single livery would be 60 meg as opposed to a normal size of around 16-18meg. . . . .but they do look good in the sim, lol.:salute:

[OleBoy]

Your topic and comment made me laugh Francois. I am one of those painters who has complained. And I agree with all said above.

Some (most) modelers do their textures right in the modeling program. That way they see what and where things are basically in real time, and they can make adjustments to the mapping directly so everything lines up as intended. Generally, by the time they get their repaints finished within the modeling program, they've created layers that stiz and standds mention. Then to get the textures to a viewable format withing the sim they have to create .BMP or .DDS files. So they save them as such. By the time they've created the repaint, they've also created the layers on the template. So basically all they have to do is save the template to whatever format their painting program reads (Photoshop or Paintshop)


I've done several repaints by just having the unfolded mesh when the model was mapped in the modeling program. Then created my own repaint by adding the layers above that. It can be done, but it is time consuming. And sometimes the mesh is so complex due to the models shape, it takes ages to get the first decent paint done because you end up having to feel your way through the mesh to see where everything is.

The layered templates are far more user friendly.

[2Low]

I keep reading about paintkits... -SNIP-

3) HOW important is it really? Alright, that's a rhetorical question, since obviously only aircraft painters would answer that one, and I'd know the answer :-)

Thanks for enlightening a poor publisher....... and maybe helping future products improve.

Francois:salute:

Although it is down on my list when considering a product, it is still on my list. I don't paint though. (I have tried and still experiment a bit.)

Many others that don't paint still have it fairly high on their list. Some collect paints, some want a specific livery, some for screen shots etc. When there is a good paint kit you know to expect many liveries to be availible after your initial purchase. With no paint kit, or a poor one not many repainters will be interested so less liveries are shared.

I have read a few threads with a simullar question asked and they are what led me to the above conclusion. Not only repainters find it important to have a paint kit included many others do too.

[Francois]

Thanks for all answers, I appreciate it. As you know I am a scenery publisher first and foremost, but things change in life, so learning remains important ;-)

[jeansy]

Thanks for all answers, I appreciate it. As you know I am a scenery publisher first and foremost, but things change in life, so learning remains important ;-)

theres not much more to say than whats already been said

but I would like to say thank for taking interest in the guys who paint, and listening to what we see as basic requirements in a paintkit to assist us in our hobby,

its much appreciated :guinness:

[Francois]

You're welcome Matt. The way I see it "we're all in this together" ;-)

[Tako_Kichi]

In addition to everything above there is one layer that's been forgotten, and it is forgotten in many paint kits too.

Having a layer containing the UVW mesh layout is vital for a repainter. How can you paint the parts if you don't know where they are?

I can't count the number of times I have been working on a repaint only to discover a 'flood filled' area on a layer has six or more parts hidden under it. Using 'trial and error' methods of detection to find out just where a missing part is can add many hours to the time it takes to make a repaint.

Thankfully modellers are now moving away from shared textures (another pet peeve of mine). There is nothing worse than having opposite hand parts sharing the same space on the texture sheet as it means some styles of repaint are impossible to achieve if the left side is mirrored to the right or the top to the bottom. This is especially true if you are trying to do a non-symmetrical paint like a camo pattern on a warbird. I read about this issue again today with regard to the recently released Bell 47. You can't paint a name/word on the left fuel tank as it also appears upside down/back-to-front on the right tank.

[jankees]

I agree with all of the above, though I must say that the system used by Carenado (provide one white texture completely devoid of markings) works well for me too. Others may disagree on this.
Still, there are also a few models that actually do come with a paintkit, but nobody bothers to do paints for them, or very few.
I stuggled with one paint recently, where there was a layered paintkit, but some of the layers were actually merged for some reason, with the grey background layer also containing the panellines (you know which one I mean, Matt!), making it very very hard to get the colors right. So, very few paints. There was a similar problem with the Storch btw, which is why I stopped after one paint, it is virtually impossible to get the colors right. If the base texture would have been white, all would have been fine, but it is grey instead, unfortunately..
Another problem occurs when the textures are cut up in lots of little pieces, making alignment of colors/stripes a nightmare, especially if these bit and pieces are all on a different scale. Very unpleasant, and thus very few paints.
Mirrored textures are also a nuisance, or one piece of texture that is used on several spots on the model. The older Carenado and default aircraft have this problem, making it impossible to do certain paints because your letters will be mirrored.
On the other hand, there are some outstanding paintkits out there, A2A has been mentioned, and I also want to praise John Terrell. His paintkits, including those he did for others' models are all a dream to paint. Carenado and Aerosoft also have good ones ( though for some reason they always cut the fuselage to little bits and pieces), and Piglet has nice ones as well, thank you guys, not only for the nice models, but for making live of a painter easier as well.

[Bjoern]

Texture mapping is *very* important. A plane that has its fuselage split into twenty parts just isn't fun to paint.

[Tako_Kichi]

Another problem occurs when the textures are cut up in lots of little pieces, making alignment of colors/stripes a nightmare, especially if these bit and pieces are all on a different scale. Very unpleasant, and thus very few paints.
This is exactly the issue I ran into on the Iris PC-9 paintkit and the reason why I only attempted one repaint with it.

[OBIO]

I'm just an FS9 paint slinger.....but to me, the presence of a paint kit is off little to no value. I make my own layered paint kit in 97% of the cases. In those times I do use a supplied paint kit, I modify it to suit my way of painting. I am working on some paints for the freeware Alphasim Mig-25 and a member who had the plane as a payware item sent me the Alphasim supplied paint kit. I found it to be totally useless for doing anything but overall gray paint schemes.....which is why every add-on paint job I have down loaded for the plane have been overall gray. Phooey on that...I don't want or need any more gray Mig-25s. So I created my own paint kit, one layer at a time, and am doing up nice colorful camo pattern schemes for the Mig-25.

I find the creation of the layered paint kit to be the most enjoyable aspect of doing paints....I'm more scientific than artistic, more methodical than melodious (except after eating a big holiday meal, then certain parts of me become very melodious LOL). I have a rather nice collection of paint kits that I have done....many of which I have never used to do a single full repaint. Just making paint kits for the sake of doing paint kits....well, that and my Adult Attention Deficient Disorder and Hyper-Activity kicking in and not being able to stay focused on one project long enough to complete it.

OBIO

[anthony31]

Over on the aussiex forums my Tiger Moth has 12,297 downloads with the paintkit being downloaded 933 times. So your probably looking at between 5 and 10% of your users downloading the paintkit.

Having said that, I don't enjoy making paintkits (so much fiddling about) but they are great to use.

I also have a slight OCD condition. There is nothing I love more than clicking on the merge all layers buttons. Taking an ugly mass of layers and shrinking it all down onto one nice neat layer makes me so happy. So much neater :) .

[Tako_Kichi]

I also have a slight OCD condition. There is nothing I love more than clicking on the merge all layers buttons. Taking an ugly mass of layers and shrinking it all down onto one nice neat layer makes me so happy. So much neater :) .
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's sacrilege and desecration of a revered object!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :violent:

:icon_lol:

The more layers the better as far as I am concerned. :icon_twi:

[jeansy]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's sacrilege and desecration of a revered object!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :violent:

:icon_lol:

The more layers the better as far as I am concerned. :icon_twi:

yep, same, the more adjustable things to suit the paint the better

IMO the main layers that should not be merged are, panel lines, rivets, shadows, grime, decals and details

these are the main layers that need to be adjusted no matter what the colour of the paint, nothing is worse that having black panel lines or decals the same layer as shadows or grime it looks horrible on a light colour background when these layers can not be adjusted

easiest way i think to sum it up is, just do the reverse what nemeth do with their paintkits

[Tako_Kichi]

easiest way i think to sum it up is, just do the reverse what nemeth do with their paintkits
I've never worked with a Nemeth paintkit but that comment just made me literally laugh out loud! :applause: :icon_lol:

[Francois]

There's a problem of course when the modeler is just that.... a modeler, and not a painter :kilroy: One of the reasons so many products these days are made by 'teams' of people, all with specific skills. And a reason why so many products become so expensive, too.

There's pro's and con's to everything I suppose. In any case, good discussion and good information.

Thanks !

[UKMIL]

There's a problem of course when the modeler is just that.... a modeler, and not a painter :kilroy: One of the reasons so many products these days are made by 'teams' of people, all with specific skills. And a reason why so many products become so expensive, too.

There's pro's and con's to everything I suppose. In any case, good discussion and good information.

Thanks !

that is so true, and unfortunatly, it is the consumers own doing. Whilst we strive for better products, the payware companies have to employ more people who specialise in these areas, and the cost then goes up.

I myself, still do the modelling, and painting, and the testing, the packaging and releasing, so it can be done as a one man band, just. Yes my priducts are not payware quality, but not far off, and they are free.

Anyway, back to the thread, paintkits NEED to be in layers to be painkits. I have downloaded many kits in the past, that claim to be so, and all you get is a plain white singe layered set of textures. These are fine in such as they give you a black texture, but no use if you want to create complex textures, as you have to re-do most of the panel lines etc as layers.

[Kavehpd]

Pretty much everyone has given you the same answer. But here's mine anyway:

1) Full size layered PSD!
2) Because they are not full size layered PSDs!
3) Unless it's a freeware, I will not purchase any product that doesn't come with a paint kit. Carenado aircraft for instance come with blank flat textures. C208B was their one and only product I bought. IRIS C-27J is another example, I'm told there is a paint kit, but it's not full size 2048x2048 and it looks like there will be no more updates for it.

From a customer/painter point of view, it is none of my business why developers chose to do this is. It is my business/decision, however, not to spend my money on their products.

[falcon409]

. . . . . . .
2) Because they are not full size layered PSDs!
3) Unless it's a freeware, I will not purchase any product that doesn't come with a paint kit. Carenado aircraft for instance come with blank flat textures. C208B was their one and only product I bought. IRIS C-27J is another example, I'm told there is a paint kit, but it's not full size 2048x2048 and it looks like there will be no more updates for it.
. . . . . . . . .
Aside from my initial post, you're the only other person to mention the size of the textures. I don't think I've seen many (if any at all) paint kits that exceed the FS9 standard 1024x1024 which is useless for quality FSX repaints. Even 2048x2048, which is better, is limited in the amount of detail that can be applied and held once it's converted for the sim. Also, taking a lesser sized layered paint kit and just enlarging it to say 2048x2048 or 4096x4096 is a no-no because, obviously, all you get are "fatter" versions of the original layers that look out of focus and useless for detailed liveries.:salute:

[Kavehpd]

Aside from my initial post, you're the only other person to mention the size of the textures...
Good to know I'm not the only nitpicking anal-retentive painter around here!! :ernae:

[hairyspin]

This is an interesting thread from the amateur modeller's point of view too. There have been a number of ways devised over the years to map a model and it's no surprise some are more successful than others. However, with the mapping tools in 3ds Max or the .MD3/LithUnwrap method for gmax there's no excuse for inaccurate mapping as long as the modeller takes the trouble to learn them. As an amateur I found modelling quite daunting to learn, then I tried to map the thing and found I had another hill to climb!

I'd say a decent paint kit must include the mapped mesh lines and all the bits should be labelled (on another layer). For the amateur with gmax and LithUnwrap that's actually easy to do since paint programs supporting layers are quite cheap - or free! Paint.NET and Gimp for example. Texture sizes are easily specified at the LithUnwrap stage and they can always be made smaller later if needed, like for FS9. Mine are 2048 for CFS3....

[Francois]

I know what a 3DS opr Gmax mesh model looks like..... I have no idea how that translates into a texture sheet? Could you explain, and preferably SHOW that ?

[hairyspin]

Certainly! This is a texture sheet produced with LithUnwrap from the Gmax model and I've attached the original Paintshop Pro X file. All the mesh lines translate to the unwrapped mesh of the model, although obviously they aren't shown on the final painted skin. This is what was sent to the painter who skinned this model for me. Hope this helps!

[falcon409]

Certainly! This is a texture sheet produced with LithUnwrap from the Gmax model and I've attached the original Paintshop Pro X file. All the mesh lines translate to the unwrapped mesh of the model, although obviously they aren't shown on the final painted skin. This is what was sent to the painter who skinned this model for me. Hope this helps!
Man, that would be so nice if paint kits went to that extent.:applause:

[Bjoern]

Certainly! This is a texture sheet produced with LithUnwrap from the Gmax model and I've attached the original Paintshop Pro X file. All the mesh lines translate to the unwrapped mesh of the model, although obviously they aren't shown on the final painted skin. This is what was sent to the painter who skinned this model for me. Hope this helps!

A prime example for an excellent base for a paintkit.



- Edit:

Texture mapping methodology for GMax:
http://www.fsdeveloper.com/wiki/index.php?title=Texturing_complex_models_in_GMAX

[Tako_Kichi]

The beauty of the mesh layer is that you can see exactly where the modeller built his mesh and you can use that to accurately align the paint. Painting bands that wrap around a fuselage can be a bear to line up if the mesh is in four parts (left side, right side, top and bottom) but if you can see the mesh you know exactly where to paint to on each part.

Likewise for camo paints. If the camo goes along the wing and then wraps over the fuselage in a continuous manner getting the wing to match the fuselage can take literally hours of trial and error without the mesh. With the mesh it's just a matter of finding the point where the meshes align and painting up to that point on each part.

[Tako_Kichi]

Good to know I'm not the only nitpicking anal-retentive painter
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.

I've spent the last year or so building my first flyable FSX model (I have made hundreds of static models though) and I can't count the number of times I've gone back and re-worked parts and textures because they weren't right. I don't think there is a single part on the plane that has not been re-made or seriously edited at some point.

[NickB]

IMO the main layers that should not be merged are, panel lines, rivets, shadows, grime, decals and details


Stiz and Jeansy have described what I consider to be a "paint kit". I don't have the skill of some of the artists I've seen here, so I always look for a layered paint kit especially if I'm buying.

I recently wanted to do a repaint of a post war (JF (AH?)) Mosquito and was disappointed to see that the supplied paint kit was pretty useless. I just don't have the time to re-do the panel lines and rivets and I've never really mastered weathering.

If it wasn't for layered paint kits I wouldn't enjoy this hobby half as much as I do.

Nick.

[anthony31]

Does anybody else use the Windows Snip tool to copy meshes from their modelling program into their paint program?

I used to use the method where you would take a screenshot of the mesh in the modelling program, paste that into the paint program (I usually pasted as a new image), select the part of the screenshot you need, invert the selection, delete, then copy and paste that back into your texture.

Now I just use the snipping tool. All you do is select new, highlight the mesh on screen and then switch to paint program and press Ctrl+V to past as a new layer.

Saves me a whole bunch of button clicking and I reckon I takes me half the time to do it.

[Tako_Kichi]

I use Lith Unwrap with GMAX.

p.s. I'm a Luddite still using XP. :icon_lol:

[hairyspin]

...There have been a number of ways devised over the years to map a model ...

Does anybody else use the Windows Snip tool to copy meshes from their modelling program into their paint program?

Like I said...

FWIW, that method ties the modeller to planar mapping only, whereas cylindrical mapping is more convenient in suitable cases. But that would make this a modelling thread, not a paintkit discussion so I'll shut up now...:icon_lol:

[OleBoy]

Certainly! This is a texture sheet produced with LithUnwrap from the Gmax model and I've attached the original Paintshop Pro X file. All the mesh lines translate to the unwrapped mesh of the model, although obviously they aren't shown on the final painted skin. This is what was sent to the painter who skinned this model for me. Hope this helps!

I just finished a photo-real paint for Milton, on a mesh layout just like that. The Avia 156 over in the FS9 forum. If someone does not release a layered template set, at a minimum, PLEASE, include the mesh.

[hairyspin]

Uncle Milton taught me how 'tis done! :applause:

[Bjoern]

Does anybody else use the Windows Snip tool to copy meshes from their modelling program into their paint program?

The PRINT SCREEN key and "New file from Clipboard" in Gimp is usually enough in Gmax.

3DS Max eliminates a few steps of this procedure with its "Render to texture" function.

[fsafranek]

I haven't read this whole thread. This response fits in with the first page of discussion.

A good paint kit means there will be a few dozen repaints within the first month or so. And I'll selfishly say that good paint kits are all I have ever produced when I make them from scratch.

A bad paint kit (and I've had to deal with a lot of them that were provided by the modeler and try to make a good paint kit out of them before release) means that after a couple of years there will be maybe one or two repaints made by some diehard fan of that aircraft who had the patience to put up with a multi-layered but still unusable "paint kit".

Over the years I've put together a description of what makes a good paint kit (a set of guidelines if you will) that I give to the modeler when a job starts. But it's more for inhouse use.
:ernae:

[NickB]

Frank,

I believe that you may be responsible for the paint kits on some of my favourite Alphasim models so I would like to take this opportunity to say thank you very much for your work over the years.

:applause:

NickB

[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 ! :wavey:

[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.