Conspicuous by Their Absence

[hubbabubba]

Hi Ivan

When we bought this PC, it came with a 15" CRT monitor. Probably to prolong the life of the screen, Compaq (now absorbed by Hewlett-Packard) had very dark settings. Being our first PC, we simply left it at its original settings. Internet sites were looking all gloomy and ugly but, knowing no better, we coped with it.

Then, I bought CFS1. Some missions where simply "mission impossible". The Breadstick Convoy mission, for example, had Ju-87 going under my Hurricane unnoticed; you can't shoot what you can't see. So, out of exasperation I guess, I started to tweak properties to boost Gamma, but only for the game; my wife was afraid that it would "burn-out" the screen (she was right BTW).

To make a long story short, my "CFS1-only" Gamma settings became so popular with the rest of the family, especially when they were browsing the WEB, that the factory settings were practically dropped. The heck with screen burning...

But boosting Gamma is only an expedient. It does make darker zones lighter while keeping lighter zones pretty much the same, narrowing the overall brightness palette. When I was following courses at Joint Ops, I had to tell the instructor to not use dark red lettering on a black background if he wanted me to be able to read what he was writing. AAC Ripe was built under such conditions incidentally, and smilo could tell you how "funny" some of my buildings were looking, particularly the camouflage of my quonset huts; to him, they were "lollipop fluorescent" while I was seeing them dark to medium green. To adjust all that, I had to borrow my daughter's XP machine (that PC went belly-up six months ago BTW...).

The actual 22" panoramic ACER LCD monitor I bought as a replacement was money well spend. All that to say that monitors DO make a lot of difference in what anyone perceives. Unfortunately, SOH attachment system reduces large images, which impairs legibility and colors' recognition. I had hoped that it was still large enough but, obviously, it was not, at least for you Ivan.

This one, coming from my ImageShack account, should help;



To help further, I have included the RGB of each pairs of Browns and Greens. Only the upper wings are repainted, and only one RGB was used for each color. The original textures were put to full 256x256x256 standard supported by CFS1. My past experience with a crummy monitor had at least one advantage; I never take what I see on the screen for granted. I have the highest opinion of Saint Paint, especially when it comes to palette management. I can take pretty much any "true colors" photo and let the program turn it into a 256 colors picture with practically no loss in quality. But since a picture is worth a thousand words...



I found this image with Google ImageSearch. I choose it simply because of its colors. These are tulips' fields btw.



This is a screen capture of the original picture (A) followed by three 256 colors palette renditions; (B) is a "4 Value (Floyd-Steinberg)" method, (C) is using "2 Value Dither" and (D) does a "Best colour match (no dither)".

The last method is the one I use when I'm trying to get the "essence" of a color. When my own eyes are in agreement with Saint Paint logarithms, I'm pretty confident that WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get).

Now, returning to the first picture, I will try to answer your last post.

I actually don't see much of a difference between my DuPont scheme and MAP scheme. (...) Now that we sort of agree, I just have to figure out WHICH screenshots are MY MAP and DuPont schemes.... (...)

The "Ivan DuPont scheme" is the bottom one while the "Ivan MAP scheme" is the second from the bottom. They are based on the attachment you made in post #424;



Surprisingly, the MAP scheme looked, overall, like a tone-downed version of my own scheme. I say "surprisingly" because, when comparing the samples, it was the other way around. That is what I would call "putting things in context". I suppose that CFS1 rendering has something to do with it.

Rato Marczak has done, IMHO, a very fine job. His scheme (second from the top) is "close enough" to the British Temperate Land Scheme, as all expert agree upon, while being a bit different. My own scheme is a "weathered-down" rendition and your MAP scheme is even more subdued, making the demarcation less "distinct" as you say. Terrell Clemens scheme is based on a site HERE where FS values are attributed. My main problem with it is the brown which looks more like pink salmon. The Ivan/DuPont scheme is simply too dark and doesn't match photographic evidence. All this, BTW, would have been worthy of a thread of its own, don't you think?

[Ivan]

Hi Hubbabubba,

Perhaps this SHOULD be a separate thread. I never expected this discussion to go quite this far, but am glad we are taking some time to go over it. FWIW, the wings on the P-40E are the same as the P-40C except for a few panel lines.

The MAP and DuPont colours I posted earlier were just what I found on the Internet. They aren't "MY" colours and so far I have been sticking to the standard FS5 Palette. I need to do a comparison between the options I picked from the FS Palette to the ones shown here.

I believe that a lot of the differences we are discussing are because we are taking different conditions of paint as the "correct" scheme. There is factory fresh and there is seriously sun faded.

When I put together the BMPs which are attached, I got the impression that the Hubbabubba scheme and to a slightly lesser extent, the Rato_Marczak scheme had Gray intstead of Brown. The Ivan_MAP scheme looks like a sun bleached / faded version of either Terrell_Clements or Ivan_DuPont.

The link you posted earlier had a museum plane and I believe the paint on THAT plane was much darker than anything here except for the "Ivan_DuPont". The Brown on that plane also seems more Red than is in the DuPont scheme here.

Need to get home and meet my family for dinner.
- Ivan.

[smilo]

if you all want to start a new "colors" thread,
i can move the related posts into it.
just let me know.
to avoid errors, it might be best if you
give me a list of the posts
you want moved by post #s.

[hubbabubba]

if you all want to start a new "colors" thread,
i can move the related posts into it.
just let me know.
to avoid errors, it might be best if you
give me a list of the posts
you want moved by post #s.

It would be a good idea, smilo. You have my vote. As a new title, how about "Ivan's Tiger in need of colored stripes"?

I hope Oregon coastline was as scenic as Washington coastline, I really envy you.

Hi Hubbabubba,

Perhaps this SHOULD be a separate thread. I never expected this discussion to go quite this far, but am glad we are taking some time to go over it. FWIW, the wings on the P-40E are the same as the P-40C except for a few panel lines.

(...)

I used it to get an idea of how CFS1 would "interpret" the palette's textures. For a moment, I thought of using your Eindecker to do so but, realizing I had one of your P-40...

(...)
The MAP and DuPont colours I posted earlier were just what I found on the Internet. They aren't "MY" colours and so far I have been sticking to the standard FS5 Palette. I need to do a comparison between the options I picked from the FS Palette to the ones shown here.

(...)

I would like to know your sources for the MAP and DuPont color charts. I've found DU PONT COLOR STANDARDS - To MINISTRY OF AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION COLOUR STANDARDS color chart and, since it is one chart only, Dark Green (71-013) and Dark Earth (71-035) should be exactly the same.

(...)
I believe that a lot of the differences we are discussing are because we are taking different conditions of paint as the "correct" scheme. There is factory fresh and there is seriously sun faded.

(...)

If you want "factory fresh", then don't paint sharks mouths on them because those were only applied 4 to 7 months after the planes had been delivered. They arrived crated in three batches at Rangoon in May-June-July 1941, the last assembled Tomahawk reaching Toungoo late November. Once out of their crates, the airframes and parts were most of the time in open air. Hangars were primitives and only used for assembling and major repairs. Pilots Charles R. Bond Jr. and Erik Shilling started painting their respective mounts with sharks mouth on the 16th of November 1941.

(...)
When I put together the BMPs which are attached, I got the impression that the Hubbabubba scheme and to a slightly lesser extent, the Rato_Marczak scheme had Gray intstead of Brown. The Ivan_MAP scheme looks like a sun bleached / faded version of either Terrell_Clements or Ivan_DuPont.

(...)

This is exactly why I always go beyond "impressions". Gray (or grey) is, in "RGB parlance", an equal dose of each three. For example, R= 100, G= 100, B= 100, is a grey tone. "Pure grays" are quite rare, but many self-proclaimed grays are still more-or-less equal in RGB. Brown, again in "RGB parlance", is always predominantly red and always have less blue than green. If you check the five scheme, you will note that they all comply, so they're all browns. The gap between red and blue and the relative value of the green in between those two will determine how "reddish" or "yellowish" that brown will be. The lightness of the color is basically the average RGB, which makes Marczak and mine the lightest ex-aequo at 105, followed by Clement (89), Ivan/MAP (85) and, closing the march, Ivan/DuPont at 68.

So why does the Ivan-MAP scheme gives the impression of being "faded" when its brown is the second darkest of them all? I would suggest that it is because its "green" (which is really a brown btw) is closer to the brown than any other combination, dulling the contrast between the two.

(...)
The link you posted earlier had a museum plane and I believe the paint on THAT plane was much darker than anything here except for the "Ivan_DuPont". The Brown on that plane also seems more Red than is in the DuPont scheme here.

Need to get home and meet my family for dinner.
- Ivan.

Are you talking of this picture;

?

It was taken indoor with a flash, as you had observed before, and the paint is only said to be original, which I doubt. Why? Go read this thread HERE.

[smilo]

hello hubba,
as i see it, it's not my place to start
or, for that matter,
name a new avg "color" thread.
that's Ivan's business.
i am, simply, capable of moving relevant posts,
which i am happy to do upon request.

[hubbabubba]

hello hubba,
as i see it, it's not my place to start
or, for that matter,
name a new avg "color" thread.
that's Ivan's business.
i am, simply, capable of moving relevant posts,
which i am happy to do upon request.

Totally agreeing with you, smilo. I was just making a suggestion.

[smilo]

me, too.

[hubbabubba]

If you're interested in this particular aircraft, Ivan, here are a few links;

-HERE- first picture is quite interesting as it appear to have been taken in "natural light" coming from roof windows rather than a flash.

-HERE- good pictures, but dark

-HERE- what is remarkable in this one is that it was taken outside and that all the chipping and scratching is gone!

-HERE- same photographer using, presumably, the same camera with the same flash and getting so many greens and browns that even my beloved Saint Paint would cry for mercy!

-HERE- again, one of the pictures show a pristine starboard cowling side!

-HERE- still pristine... with some historical background

-HERE- not necessarily the same aircraft, but a good overview of the conditions under which they stood for 50 years!

-HERE- another series of good pictures (as far as lightning is concerned), with this very interesting view of the starboard site;

The National Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola has a small-mouthed P-40 painted in the colors of Robert Neale. It carries Bob's fuselage number, the Flying Tiger sharkface, the green apple emblem of his 1st Pursuit Squadron (the Adam & Eves), and the Chinese sun recognition symbol on the wings.

The plane is owned by Don Brooks of Brooks Aviation in Douglas, Georgia, pending formal transfer to the museum. The rebuild was done by Tom Wilson of the Hawk Factory in Griffin, Ga. Don told me that parts of two Tommis went into the final product, one from the Murmansk area and another from around Archangel. "You have to understand that the Russians went at them with pickaxes, trying to find something worth salvaging," he said. The job also involved some original castings for parts of the cowling, which work was done in collaboration with the folks who are on the Chino P-40C.

In 1999 I had a chance to inspect this plane in the company of Ben Schapiro. According to a spreadsheet provided by Don Brooks, it contains 37.7 percent original materials from the Tomahawk IIB (RAF serial AK255) that it supposedly was restored from), 22.1 percent from "the same type aircraft," 10.4 percent "remanufactured parts from the same type aircraft," and 30.3 percent newly manufactured parts. The impression we got, however, was that the plane was pretty much built from the ground up, with lots of pop rivets, plastic automobile fasteners, iron pipe (for machine guns), and newly bent sheet metal.

from http://www.warbirdforum.com/tommi.htm

[Ivan]

Hi Hubbabubba,

I found more photographs also. Attached are some screenshots I took this morning after doing an "Eyeball Average" of the DuPont and MAP colours. Until I can find a good utility to edit a BMP colour table, I will stick with the FS5 Palette.

I believe the result here is not quite Red or Orange enough for the Brown colour. The Green isn't quite right either, but it is the same shade I used for the last couple paint tests.

The last shot is just because I think the Shark Mouth looks kinda cool from various angles.

I do understand the thing about authenticity in having a factory fresh camouflage AND a Shark Mouth. I also have never claimed to have VERY authentic paint jobs. I try to do them as they appeal to me. (I don't think any aircraft ever carried a "Anna Honey" logo in real life.) The real AVG aeroplanes also had a small white tactical number near the Eyeball. I don't like the look of it, so it won't appear in my paint job. Most of the paint jobs I have seen thus far have a mismatched Rudder and Fin. Mine won't have that either. Many of the AVG planes started with RAF roundels and had those overpainted with Brown. It can be seen as a circle interrupting the camouflage. Mine won't have that because I think it is ugly. Other than "Old Exterminator" flown by Robert Scott, I don't think they typically had Yellow Spinners either, but that is what this one will wear. (Perhaps it will end up as Red?) The Chinese AF serial number on this plane has a personal meaning to me and doesn't match any aeroplane I know of but isn't far from the actual serian number range. The Tactical number will have some meaning also. The underside Gray isn't quite authentic either, but I am reasonably satisfied with it. The Port side Cockpit area also doesn't quite match the RAF "B" scheme and it is intentional. To make it match is actually easier, but I wanted to test matching up the demarcation lines between different texture files. The real planes often didn't really match up in this area because the Fillets are typically painted separately. The Shark Mouth is entirely hand drawn and uses some colours that were not seen on the originals. (The background of the opening was the original camouflage colour. Mine is Dark Blue.) I also don't claim it matches any particular plane but the style looks right to me.

I believe these screenshots show pretty much what a RAF paint job would look like. The problem is that I don't believe the real planes actually had RAF paint jobs.

Attached is also an image from the cover of a Polish book about the Flying Tigers. I believe the colours here are more or less reasonable. They also match up pretty well with the restored P-40C at Chino.

- Ivan.

[hubbabubba]

Hello Ivan

That last scheme is not that bad, not bad at all. As long as you will be confined to FS5 palette, this is probably as close as you will get.

Concerning artistic license, this is entirely up to you. My Taifun is pretty clean, and my jeep has only a bit of dirt on the floor (and saggy seats with butt prints...). I've always admired plastic modelers who give their models that "worn look", but I don't thing I could go that far with CFS1.

I've seen that last picture somewhere, but, IMHO, brown has been pushed way too much. In fact, it look like fresh-cast bronze. And I worked in a foundry for about ten years, so I know what bronze looks like...

[Ivan]

I believe that the "Bronze" Brown is what the shade should be. On the screenshots here, the Green is unmodified. The Brown is probably a shade too dark, but looks more or less right to me.

- Ivan.

[hubbabubba]

Camouflage is a method of concealment that allows an otherwise visible animal, military vehicle, or other object to remain unnoticed by blending with its environment.

-Wikipedia

I can't fancy how fresh cast bronze would help "blending with the environment". I also can't believe that RAF/MAP inspectors at Curtiss would have tolerated such departure from TLS. But since it appears that you have made your mind, I only have to wish you and your family a
Very Happy New Year!

[Ivan]

I am a lot less committed to the colours than you might believe. Here is yet another try.

Happy New Year.
- Ivan.

[No Dice]

Looking pretty good to me Ivan,

Have a Safe New Years Eve

Dave

www.thefreeflightsite.com

[Ivan]

Thanks No Dice.

I think it looks fairly good, but what I noticed when flying last night just past Midnight is that some of the inboard ribs in the Port Aileron disappeared during the texturing and re-texturing. I had to go back and redo those.

In getting out of the aeroplane (with partially retracted Flaps) after landing, I noticed a rather severe bleed of the Flap in board section through the Wing Fillet. This is bad. It might need a serious rework.....

Attached is a screenshot of someone else's idea of a AVG camouflage scheme.

Here is a little bit of additional information:
The AVG was made up of three squadrons
1st - Adam & Eve (The FIRST Pursuit, Get it? ;-)
2nd - Panda Bears
3rd - Hell's Angels

I have been looking over the kills attributed to the squadrons. The total number of kills that the Chinese government accepted and paid for was 296. The actual number of Air to Air kills described in combat reports is more like 225 to 230. Of those kills, from what I can tell from the squadron assignments of the pilots we have the following (with scores of about 4 pilots not counted because I do not know their affiliation):

1st Squadron - 100 kills
2nd Squadron - 50 kills
3rd Squadron - 70 kills

My numbers may be a bit off, but probably not enough to change the standings to any great extent.
I believe my plane will be wearing the colours of the 1st Pursuit Squadron. (Sorry, No Dice.....)

- Ivan.