[V3N0M1300]

I posted this question on mission 4 today but I haven't got any answers yet. Where is the line between an authentic looking skin and a funky one? Are there any specific places that have to be camo or bare metal for it to be realistic? Were there regulations for what pilots could and could not paint on their planes?

Somewhat related, would i cross the line if I painted a big star against a camo background on top of the plane, sort of like the one on one of the A-wings in this pic?

[Guest]

As far as painting skins go, there are no rules - its up to you - you can paint it pink with yellow daisies if you want - in fact that's a skin already in existence for the Storm of War Blenheim :wink: viewtopic.php?t=15957&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=
The only thing you need to do if you upload such a skin, is to let people know what category it would be: historical/fictional/fun/racing/whatever...... :wink:

[rossmum]

I think he's asking just how much leeway the pilots had when it came to painting their A/C, so a line can be drawn between semi-historical and total fantasy.

[Bearcat]

Well the line between historical, semi historical ., and fantasy is not blurry so it should be pretty clear. It is your skin paint it how you want to.. Usually in servers that demand historical skins the skin download feature is turned off.. My skin on the Mustang in my sig would be considered semi historical... the above skins would be considered fantasy... but if that's what you want then .. no one really cares.. (No offense.. just how it is..) It is not an issue.

[pursuivant]

I posted this question on mission 4 today but I haven't got any answers yet. Where is the line between an authentic looking skin and a funky one? Are there any specific places that have to be camo or bare metal for it to be realistic? Were there regulations for what pilots could and could not paint on their planes?

Each country and service had its own regulations for camouflage patterns, size and shape of national markings, squadron or group markings and visibility "flashes." Regulations for personal markings varied from country to country, service to service, and on the rank and reputation of the pilot. That's why plastic and RC modelers, as well as skinners, spend so much money on books of photographs and artists' profiles of aircraft. The best way to get a sense of historical markings is to look at books and web sites which have lots of historical profiles for the plane you're interested in modeling/skinning. Once you get a sense of what "looks right," you can improvise. The Google image search function is your friend.

The big thing to keep in mind when making pseudo-historical skins is that warplanes weren't painted to make a personal fashion statement - they were painted to prevent corrosion, for camouflage, to aid identification of a particular aircraft, and to prevent "friendly fire" incidents. Personal markings were generally unofficial or "semi-official" and implied that a pilot or crew consistently used a particular airplane and had the time and money to apply personal markings. Since markings of any sort also assume a reasonable lifespan for the plane and take time and effort to apply, pilots and crews generally didn't make the effort when conditions were really bad. That's the reason that 1941-42 Soviet markings and 1945 German markings are usually boring.

With any sort of historical re-creation, there are different levels of accuracy ranging from absolute authenticity (direct copying of primary sources using the materials and techniques documented for the period - or for skinners - the markings and colors for the era based on pictures of actual aircraft) to fanciful extrapolations loosely based on historical documentation. As an artist, you have to strike a balance between the two. When you decide to be creative, however, you should mention that fact to avoid annoying the authenticity freaks. If you call your skins "semi-historical" you should briefly explain why your skin isn't a complete work of fiction (e.g., "Go229 with RLM 1941 Desert Camo for a hypothetical Desert 1946 campaign", "Brewster 229 Buffalo with Italian 1941 markings and "smoke ring" camo, as a hack for the Macci C200 Seatta.")

The sort of semi-historical skins that I find most useful are "generic" skins which follow historical conventions for markings and camouflage but make intelligent guesses about the stuff that can't be documented. (e.g., "B24 with the markings of the 3158th Composite Meteorological Squadron, based on written documentation of squadron colors and black and white photos of aircraft from a different squadron in the same Group." "Bf109K with "wild sau" nightfighter camouflage, based on RLM 1944 specifications").

[US_GRANT]

Well the line between historical, semi historical ., and fantasy is not blurry so it should be pretty clear. It is your skin paint it how you want to.. Usually in servers that demand historical skins the skin download feature is turned off.. My skin on the Mustang in my sig would be considered semi historical... the above skins would be considered fantasy... but if that's what you want then .. no one really cares.. (No offense.. just how it is..) It is not an issue.

It's like BEARCAT says, for the GAME, I would say most folks go with the semi-historical schemes, because, well, let's face it, we all like to let others know who we are and one of those ways is to use a historical skin with our own personal ID. Most of the planes I use follow that rule and sometimes I'll go totally fictional and make up whole squadrons when playing an offline campaign in DCG just so all the planes have a "uniform" unit color scheme.

Pursuivant also makes a very valid point. Historically, operations didctated paint schemes. Pilot and/or crew considerations were secondary and believe it or not, in some rare cases, personal ID was forbidden. One thing about war though is that often times the rules get bent on these things and generally, if the personal markings aren't absolutely outrageous, the "Brass" looks the other way.

Today, the noseart issue is still being played out in, at least, the US Air Force, "Heavies" (Bombers, tankers and cargo acft) are authorised noseart, but strict guildelines are issued as to what type of art is acceptable. In the fighter world, noseart is allowed, but only on certain acft for very specific reasons. For instance, The F-15's that I worked on at Langley AFB, VA had only two or three acft allowed to have noseart. One of those was an F-15 in the 27 FS that was called Maloney's Pony in commemoration of a WW2 pilot.

Another instance of this is the famed 23rd Wing. They are the only unit in the AF that are officially authorised to wear sharks teeth. That is because they have their direct parentage from the flying tigers of WWII. Even their heavies have them (even though they look kinda funny).