Nyghtfall

C'mon on, seriously? Why delete your post then? (The one I quoted) I'm cool again, thanks. Learned a lesson or 2 on Photoshop and others. Over and out.

I took a look lately and you are correct. These things are in my skins. Actually I never noticed, that they are still in a jpg. I though PS removes such tings. So I stand corrected. But...it changes nothing except a few bytes, if I'd removed them for the cost of a lot of time for all skins I've done. So feel free to not use my stuff, if you don't like such bad practice. I won't spent hours and days to remove guidelines for you. Sorry for that! I don't like things also...for example changing my well-thought stuff to something not so well-thought. But each his own.

I'm interested. Do you have a source for the info, that they might cause problems, although they are invisble on a picture itself? As for the size-increase I was intrigued...I have run some tests (1 guideline, 10 lines, 30 lines, horizontal/vertical) and the actual size of 1 guideline is 5 bytes. I guess with todays HDDs this is manageable. Bad practice? Yeah, maybe. They can be removed before exporting probably. But in the end most people won't ever notice their existence... Proper naming of layers on the other hand, is a thing, at least for me.

My impression is, that the recent Photoshop acts strange sometimes. I am working with layer functions and recently it occured, that I deleted lines from a layer with a function and the effect was still there, although the actual line was deleted. Another issue was with transformations, where PS does not always use the actual border of something on a layer like previous versions. Instead it select some additional empty space around it on random sides. There are more examples, where PS is either buggy or it was changed from the well known behavior of older versions...I am not sure which is it actually.

Would be interesting to hear from professional artists, how they do it and what the reasons are.

That sounds a bit like the 50's. Everything has to be nuclear driven...from a car to a toaster, because THAT's the future!

For VF-41 I would do an all grey base skin and do the markings with decals. That way you can use color and grey markings side-by-side. For VF-84 I would do 2 different skins for the whole squadron each - A single-gray one like the CO/XO planes with color and grey markings like the VF-41s and another one with the other camo (looks like 2 different greytones), again with color and grey markings.

I have to admit, that I don't understand the problem...tired from work, etc. But I think I get the general direction. You either have 1 camo for the whole squadron and want CAG (color) and line birds (grey) together - this can be done with some effort with decals (have a look at my Vietnam-Skyhawks to see, how it can be done) Or you want different camos for different planes of the squadron together. This can be done, if you do the actual camo as a big decal. There are several issues though. The decal-files will probably be huge and, from my limited experience with it, different to place exactly. For myself it's not worth the effort, but others have more experience with it and work that way. If a squadron changed the camo over time (from highviz gullgrey/white to tps for example), you can also use a date switch as an easy workaround. Hope that helps a bit.

Mail-Bomber You learn something knew every day - the pod has only 1 door, but can be carried on both pylons by simply turning it around to always get the door outboard. Maybe anyone has infos about the CNU-264/A Cargopod's weight? Unfortunately I didn't find anything so far...

Anti-Shipping...

S-3A/B-templates for Foxmonters old model - only weathering, some details and generic markings missing yet. If someone has pictures and infos on maintenance-stencils, please PM me. Thanks.

Far more work than expected, but getting there.

Why not just add an invisible skid? Just add this under the landinggear section of the planes data.ini and adjust the ContactPoint-values and it should work. luk1978 posted this as a solution for belly landings a while ago and it works very well. [Skid] SystemType=LANDING_GEAR Retractable=FALSE IsSkid=TRUE NoContactOnGround=true HideGearNode=true ModelNodeName= ShockStroke=0.05 SpringFactor=0.2 DampingFactor=2.1 ContactPoint=-0.64,-2.5,-0.85 RollingCoefficient=1.0 MaxLoadFactor=25.0

Progress...

new Paintjob...

I guess "Scr" is simply "Source", so LightSrc = LightSource.

Wow, that looks really nice! Good to see a company repaint their planes rather than let them (optically) rotting away.

Seriously...the guy HAS more or less abandoned the game already. He came out of nowhere with the crowdfunding-thing und disappeared nearly as fast. I guess he wanted to keep open the possibility to squeeze out the last bit of money from SFx to keep his other (mobile) stuff running. It's his stuff, so he can do with it what he wants, but fooling customers only works once...and I still don't believe that he really had intentions in reviving/continuing/fixing/whatever SFx. And yet I was stupid enough to give him my hard earned money. ;) Real interest in continuing SFx would need him to add atleast a tiny bit of new stuff or fix stuff, that is already known to need a fix. And I'm sure there's enough stuff, that even he would consider to need a fix. Was there any form of support from TW for SFx in the last years? No bullshit here...I honestly ask that question, because I don't know. I cannot remember that anyone that contacted him about anything gamerelated, got an answer that was helpful in any way. So IMHO there's nothing to lose...as it is lost already. P.S. I don't have Discord and have no plans in changing that. ;)

What was your useful contribution to this community lately? Oh right....NOTHING. So stop complaining with that arrogant attitude. What about fixing this by yourself if it's that important for you? I'm sure the boards contain all the information about how it's done.

Sorry for the hijack, but I always wondered, why no B-52E found it's way to Vietnam...only older Ds and newer Fs and Gs. Was there any particular reason for this?

Exactly the same for me, although mine works for W10. Pro: - You can draw stuff with different thickness by changing the pressure of the pen (No equivalent when using a mouse). Con: - I guess you need to invest some time to get used to it. It just works very different from a mouse. - The pen works (of course) different from a real pen...you have to click a button on the pen to actually draw. Don't know, if there are other methods out there, but that behaviour makes it somehow difficult to use for me, if you'd like to draw accurate. It still has some uses, but I'm still a mouse-user.

the difference is just in the data.ini - H_67 and J_67 have countermeasures, whereas H and J don't.

In my opinion the Bird looks so much better, because he simply isnt just plain black or grey. Nice comparison.

You are missing the textures, so you have to map or re-map the model.