S:44 Dump

[Gota]

They don't repaint aircraft after each mission...

[Argh]

During the strain of a long war, aircraft often show signs of heavy use. Again, I'm estimating based on period photos- you can see scratches and discoloration on front wing surfaces, smoke stains around the engine manifolds, etc.









Note that many of these shots are from the Desert War.

I couldn't find any that were from the Russian Front- I'd imagine that the Stukas there were probably in really shabby shape by 1944. Not that there were a lot of Stukas left, period, by that date in the war.

All that said, looks just fine to me, Spiked

[SpikedHelmet]

[Hoi]

Looking good :)

[SpikedHelmet]

[FLOZi]

The crawling is so awesome

[smoth]

the shots you are basing your statement off of are horrible grain pictures. I am stopping there.

[Argh]

They're period pictures, shot during the war, Smoth. I didn't exactly spend all day looking for them, I just looked for stuff that was in-theatre and was period-correct... and most of them are, well, old photos, taken outdoors with old cameras. If you can find better shots of the aircraft in question, that are during the war, that aren't just recruiting shots... let's see 'em. You can find a fairly large amount of decent color photography of American aircraft from this period, and the candid shots (not the posed-crew shots or shots of the half-naked girl on the side of a bomber) tend to also show real wear and tear.

I really don't understand why you think that weapons and tools used during a war don't get really filthy, man. The last priority of pilots and flight crews flying multiple sorties in a day is to keep the planes clean, except, in the very modern era, for stuff like the B2, where any imperfections may ruin the stealthiness... even fricking airliners have to get washed on a regular basis, to save on jet fuel, because otherwise they get filthy- the air's full of dust, pollen, bugs, and other wonderful crap...

[SpikedHelmet]

Well technically none of them are from the correct theatre or from the correct time period or the correct models.

The first image are B-2s, it's a relatively famous propaganda photograph of Stukas flying over France in 1940.

The second is of an Italian B-1, probably taken in 1939 or 1940.

The third is, as it says, from North Afrika, and is a D-series. It also looks like it may have been damaged, perhaps in the fighting that captured that airfield. Of the four photographs this is the closest to resembling our version (the G version was based off of the D version, mostly by removing dive breaks).

The last is either a B-1 or B-2 taken during 1941-1942. It's also a bad example because that particular plane is very well taken care of.

So yeah, only one of those pics is from the desert war

In any case you're right, they could use some weathering. I often skip putting any effort into real weathering. I really should do, but I'm usually too lazy.

[SpikedHelmet]

Here's a shot of some of the new infantry models from a farther perspective with a tank

[Warlord Zsinj]

heh, the camo is a little too good methinks >_>

[smoth]

looks good to me spiked, I just don't like the trend of making things "more real" by lots of excessive wear and tear. Also since the wear and tear is uniform on all units it strikes me as odd. I know it is hard to do variants but would consider having a random function to at least use a mirrored version of the aircraft so that as a group they do not all have the same wear and tear at least having some variation when you see them at different angles?

could you turn on AA for some of the shots?

[SpikedHelmet]

Damn, good idea.

[Masse]

and while your at it do other clothes and faces for soldiers too cause this is not clone wars

[Warlord Zsinj]

Hey, we are doing clone wars and our soldiers have different faces

The infantry are looking really nice spike, though I do recommend trying to do some face variants. They're quite easy to do and add quite a lot to the closeup shots, even if the only real difference is a hue difference.

Also, I'm behind giving things a bit of a worn look. They don't need to look like they've been sitting out rusting for the last three decades, but I believe that units look far more part of their environment with a bit of wear and tear to show that they've actually been used before are far more immersive and make the battlefield much more believable.

[SpikedHelmet]

Variations for infantry faces are just not a high priority. Variations for vehicles, yeah, maybe. But infantry in S:44 have a bit lower an individual role than in IW, and anyway, it's just not important at all. Although I had planned on having slight clothing variations (well, namely, some soldiers wearing the tan-coloured field jacket with others wearing simply the field shirt as those shown above) but I'm too lazy now.

Anyway, so far I've redone all US infantry except the Sniper and the Flamethrower:



I also edited the colouring a bit to make it more tan/olive rather than green. The original green made them look too Vietnam-era.

[FLOZi]

I don't see any BARs

[smoth]

I think you are fine on infantry, at rts scale I suspect very rarely will people see the faces at the distance I am seeing you play at. Also the helmets cover their heads to a point that from the standard angle most people cannot see much of the head anyway.

[SpikedHelmet]

BAR's there. Near the middle, behind a guy. BAR has noticably darker woodwork than the others. Nub.

I'm happy with them.

[clericvash]

Looking awesome as always, nice to see good looking infantry :)