Screenshots!

[gecko]

LOL Yea tell me about it Dan, it's one the two wild one's you asked me to do! here's the other, which will fit nicely into MAW!

Dang, I should have looked closer, I didn't realize that one was so complex! Both are looking great though!

[eddie]

Thanks Foute Man and John, appreciate the information!!

[Foute Man]

i have two very interesting articles by peter scott about the september markings. so from this point i'm only the messenger

- markings were applied from september 7th on, and in some occasions were carried untill november 1940.
- no luftwaffe record found (so far) with the order to paint the markings, so exact purpose (of the variation) of the markings unknown, but most likely to mark their place in the big formation
- there's is photographic evidence that suggest that a complete unit would have carried the same markings, however there's also enough evidence that shows variation of the markings of the same unit of the same day.
- black and white pictures and crash reports would suggest the markings to be white only, there are just to many examples in crash report by british intelligence officers about pink markings to mark them as incorrect. and why questioning an officer's observation if every other observartion he made can be confirmed or labeled as plausible..... no photographic evidence of yellow markings, but again several records in british intelligence reports... still enought reports with markings "white". so markings could either be applied in white, pink and yellow.
- correct value for pink is unknown, as there is no 1940 ral color chart (according to peter scott - fm). one suggestion is that the pink paint was borrowed from the wehrmacht (in use to stencil unit markings on vehicles). in a november 1940 crash report the pink is described as "salmon pink", and that value is know in allied 1940 color charts. the pink could be field mixed, but without written order no known formula..... so the exact shade of pink is still speculative
- markings appear to be on luftflotte 2 bombers only, seen on do17z from kg 3 and i & iii./kg 76, ju88a from kg 77 (and probably also from ii./kg 76) and he111 from kg 1, kg 26 and kg 53
- the theory is that the number of markings on the rudder would be repeated on the wing. this cannot be proven in all occasions, as the markings don't show on photo'son wing and rudder or the markings weren't mentioned in crash report. (british crash reports weren't written according to an exact protocol (yet), so it is possible that an officer did not label the markings as relevant and therefore did not mention them)
- in general do17z had vertical markings on wing (outboard of the balkenkreuz) and a horizontal mark on rudder/fin, ju88a and he111 had horizontal markings on the wings (inboard of the balkenkreuz) and vertical markings on rudder/fin....but as always, there are confirmed exeptions to the rule

attached some screenshots of works in progress

[Bravo/4]

Thanks Ton, very interesting stuff!

[Foute Man]

Thanks Ton, very interesting stuff!

if interested in the articles, pm me your email and i weil send them to you (or send you a link), or perhaps you might have them somewhere in your digital library....

there is article in the october 2004 issue of Model Aircraft Monthly called "mystery markings" and a second one as a chapter in "On Target Special 09 - The Battle of Britain" published in 2010

[BorekS]

beautiful heinkel images, it is harder and harder to recognise which game such kind of screenshots came from is it really CFS3? not WT or IL-2 Battle of... ones?

[mongoose]

Some work in progress He111's of the BoB era from Ton 'Fouteman' The plan is for a series of w40, BoB, and Blitz H types as well as some P types. Seems some cooperation might be called for.

[Frosty]

Dan has done a bit of editing, looks so much better now with glass!
Also doing a few Eastern Front schemes.

Fingerlicking good, John!!

Daniel, care to share your 'glass recipe'? I can't seem to find convincing values for glass in gmax... (well, Perspex, actually)

[gecko]

I don't know if it's "mine" really, Steve's been doing almost the same thing for a while. How this translates to gmax I don't know, but here's the specs (all values in hex):
Reflective - on
Color RGB - 96 96 96
Transparency - 35
Specular RGB - e5 e5 e5
Glossiness - 00 00 00 44
No textures applied

Here's how it looks in the m3d:
00 00 FF 00 - 96 96 96 35 - 00 00 00 FF - E5 E5 E5 FF - 00 00 00 44 - FF FF FF FF

Works well for most applications on the exterior, glass in the VC usually needs to be toned down more.

Those are looking good Ton, I like the overspray pattern on the pink bars - definitely field applied!

[mongoose]

Thanks Dan.

[Frosty]

I don't know if it's "mine" really, Steve's been doing almost the same thing for a while. How this translates to gmax I don't know, but here's the specs (all values in hex):
Reflective - on
Color RGB - 96 96 96
Transparency - 35
Specular RGB - e5 e5 e5
Glossiness - 00 00 00 44
No textures applied

Here's how it looks in the m3d:
00 00 FF 00 - 96 96 96 35 - 00 00 00 FF - E5 E5 E5 FF - 00 00 00 44 - FF FF FF FF

Works well for most applications on the exterior, glass in the VC usually needs to be toned down more.

Thanks!!
I 'll see if I can translate that to gmax in some way.

[BorekS]

Ive already tried yesterday.

the Specular RGB match gmax gray 229 229 229
the Glossiness Ive set as to gmax 90 44 0.1. could be a wrong decision of course.

but the final ingame result depends VERY hows the user personal game config file tweaks.

[mongoose]

Thanks to Dan for adding the 'glass' effect to 2 of Ton's standalone beta 2048 texture aircraft.

[Frosty]

Ive already tried yesterday.

the Specular RGB match gmax gray 229 229 229
the Glossiness Ive set as to gmax 90 44 0.1. could be a wrong decision of course.

but the final ingame result depends VERY hows the user personal game config file tweaks.

Thanks Borek,

I 've found that RGB value as well but hadn't decided yet on the glossiness values. I 'll give yours a try. I 'm building for stock ETO (no file tweaks) so the rest is up to the end user.

[BorekS]

good luck, mate I was hunting for some proper gmax settings by past.

unfortuantelly each gmax model maker does it its own way and the final ingame result depends on combination of many other game gonfig related factors... yet some people hacks the m3d to match their personal feeling.

to find any proper material settings is a mission impossible.

[wiekniera]

Many new things lately..Great pics guys !

[wiekniera]

[wiekniera]

[wiekniera]

WIP Boreks AR-234 B2

[wiekniera]

[MajorMagee]

Simply Beautiful! I really need to finish getting my rig running again.

[BorekS]

Thank you for the shots, Wiek
Ive got the latest changes from the Ar 234 project support team, so its should be really ready for the public release soon. Very very soon

[wiekniera]

Thanks majormagee !

@Boreks
your welcome mete ! and thank you for this new sexy lady !
Im thinking boreks will do rebuilding our old ME-262 and GO-229 !

[BorekS]

Oh yes, Wiek,
If there is not a better Me 262 and Go 229 as what stock CFS3 or Firepower offers, then its not too far from my plan. That is also why Ive asked whats the content of ETO or such megamods - without success.

Now I know most of users would prefer to fly the real german jets then some "paper" planes.

[rtoolooze]

Oh yes, Wiek,
If there is not a better Me 262 and Go 229 as what stock CFS3 or Firepower offers, then its not too far from my plan. That is also why Ive asked whats the content of ETO or such megamods - without success.

Now I know most of users would prefer to fly the real german jets then some "paper" planes.

+1 Yes please!