Constructive comments on BOB historical accuracy in Acft skins/markings

[TheGrunch]

From what I remember reading BoB allows the mission creator to type whatever serial numbers/apply whatever squadron codes they want. I imagine it is more going to be a question of whether the mission creator bothers. From the comments that team members have made it appears that the markings will generally be as accurate as people want to make them. How detailed the scope of this is remains to be seen, i.e. whether squadron letters and insignia can be edited and suchlike.

[baronWastelan]

What part of "increadible detail and excruciating historical accuracy" didn't you understand?

[DoolittleRaider]

Originally Posted by baronWastelan

What part of "increadible detail and excruciating historical accuracy" didn't you understand?

Please don't move so quickly to turn this thread into a conflict...an all-is-good vs all-is-bad waste of time.

I tried very hard to make it clear that I am trying to offer positive suggestions for improvement on one facet of BOB. I never commented on any inaccuracies in the cockpit..that's not my forte or expertise or interest. Nor is the Cockpit relevant to the matter which I raised, which is aircraft national and tactical insignia and markings.

I also made it Very Clear in the first sentence of my original post that "I believe that a great selling point for SOW:BOB (as with IL-2) is the great attention paid to historical accuracy and detail…aircraft modeling, flight modeling, damage modeling, aircraft armament, and a myriad of other details".

What part of that statement didn't you understand, mate?

FYI: The definition of "myriad" is: constituting a very large, indefinite number; innumerable; composed of numerous diverse elements or facets. Excruciatingly accurate cockpits are clearly a praiseworthy element or facet of BOB.

[csThor]

Apart from the fuselage Balkenkreuz (which indeed needs to be the later broader type) I do not agree that SoW is going to be incorrect. As it is Ilya is the one taking screenshots and he simply did not bother to select the accurate combination of colours because he didn't have the time for it.

It will be up to the mission maker to select the proper colours and markings (since AFAIK any kind and colour combination can be used for any kind of unit, that solution seems to have been easier to code and allows greater flexibility for later marking changes). I most certainly provided Maddox Games with accurate information on camouflage & markings on the german units (except the bombers and recon units, which I could not finish due to real life issues).

[baronWastelan]

Originally Posted by DoolittleRaider

Please don't move so quickly to turn this thread into a conflict...an all-is-good vs all-is-bad waste of time.

I tried very hard to make it clear that I am trying to offer positive suggestions for improvement on one facet of BOB. I never commented on any inaccuracies in the cockpit..that's not my forte or expertise or interest. Nor is the Cockpit relevant to the matter which I raised, which is aircraft national and tactical insignia and markings.

I also made it Very Clear in the first sentence of my original post that "I believe that a great selling point for SOW:BOB (as with IL-2) is the great attention paid to historical accuracy and detail…aircraft modeling, flight modeling, damage modeling, aircraft armament, and a myriad of other details".

What part of that statement didn't you understand, mate?

FYI: The definition of "myriad" is: constituting a very large, indefinite number; innumerable; composed of numerous diverse elements or facets. Excruciatingly accurate cockpits are clearly a praiseworthy element or facet of BOB.

You are making suggestions based on development screenshots; Oleg has made it clear that those do not represent the level of "historical accuracy" that will be in the final product. You have a lot of excellent info but at this stage of development these exterior markings are all to be taken as "place-holders".

A very good post though Doolittle, It would be nice to see the correct paint schemes, but at this stage of the development its probably not that important, I would imagine these will be corrected later when the game is optimized etc.

[jameson]

Doolittle, whilst in broad agreement with your proposals, I have to say that your "catholic" rules regarding Spitfire lettering are a bit over the top, given that these were applied locally by groundcrew to comply with some broad interpretation regarding aircraft identification, (The Air Ministry or Duxford may know what these were).

If you look at the photographs here:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

you will see that you will need to add other squadrons to those of 19 & 22, which had stepped lettering.

Even those squadrons which had even lettering, had aircraft within them with slightly eccentric application, probably due to time constraints or inexperience of the lad that painted them on. I suspect that if it could be clearly read, it got passed as ok.

If you wish to enforce rules then please supply photographs of the aircraft of every squadron that flew Spitfires (and Hurricanes!), and for each month of the battle as it's likely that markings varied over the months, (replacement aircraft being painted by different people as one example). Photos of warbird repaints and pretty profiles will not do if accuracy is your aim.

Yours constructively.

[JG52Krupi]

Is this a joke?

The community skinners create specific skins and usually to a much higher quality as they spend a lot of time and effort making them.

Its unreasonable to ask for this, generic skins should be available from the start.

What they should do is something like ROF have a historic skin and fictional skin pack which is updated with every patch.

http://riseofflight.com/en/community/usefulmaterials

[DoolittleRaider]

Originally Posted by jameson

Doolittle, whilst in broad agreement with your proposals, I have to say that your "catholic" rules regarding Spitfire lettering are a bit over the top...

I agree that I may have made too "catholic" a statement on 'alignment' of Spit code letters. To clarify...one point of reference, data source, here at Wings Pallette shows over 300 Spitfire Profiles, of which perhaps only a half dozen (in the 39-40 timeframe) have extremely non-aligned/stepped third Letters. I now note a 610Sqdn Spit profile in addition to 19S and 92S. However, the overwhelming (90%) majority of the profiles (of that same limited timeframe) show aligned letters. Later on, 41 onward, it seems alignment was even more uniformly applied.

In contrast, the fact that all the Spits in the WIP updates showed non-aligned Third letters caught my eye...even if these are just placeholders so that users can apply whatever letter they choose, I question whether the location of the third letter in the skin/template will be flexible for mission builders/skinners. If not, then I should think going with the 90+% aligned scheme would be the best choice for being mostly accurate.

If you look at the photographs here:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

you will see that you will need to add other squadrons to those of 19 & 22, which had stepped lettering.

True, there are additional non-aligned Spit photos, 603 Sqdn for example. I find it interesting that at your linked document, there is a photo of 610Sqdn DW-T extremely Non-aligned supposedly in May '40, yet further down there is a photo of two other 610S Spits, DW-O and DW-K with very neatly aligned letters supposedly in June '40.

Even those squadrons which had even lettering, had aircraft within them with slightly eccentric application, probably due to time constraints or inexperience of the lad that painted them on. I suspect that if it could be clearly read, it got passed as ok.

I agree. I've seen other indications that in general standards/dictates of all sorts were loosely applied/implemented, certainly early on in the war.

If you wish to enforce rules...

I have neither the authority nor desire to "enforce" anything. I've simply made some observations which I believe could be considered in order to preclude any significant historical errors at time of SOW:BOB release. I also made no claims to being an Expert on the subjects at hand.

Photos of warbird repaints and pretty profiles will not do if accuracy is your aim.

I agree that not every Profile will be perfect, but they come from various sources and they seem to be based on reasonable research/documentation. In almost every case where I have compared a Profile (from the Wings Pallette collection, for example) with an available photo, they have been consistent in details. For example, at your linked document, there is this photo of 602S Spit LO+G.

Here is the Wings Pallette Profile.

Here is the SOW WIP placeholder LO+G.



Also DW+Oand DW+K profiles



The DW+O and DW+K photo. Note that even the somewhat uniquely and seemingly extremely slanted angle of the DW+K is accurately reproduced in the Profile. :


I repeat that I did not start this thread to be critical of the SOW:BOB team, but rather to offer additional historical information, hopefully well-founded, on matters which appeared in the updates to not have been taken into consideration.

Aside from SOW:BOB, an exchange of views and supporting data/references is, in any event, an interesting endeavor for some of us who are historian hobbyists...on this matter of WWII aircraft markings as well as on many other subjects.

If everything is coming along perfectly in the accurate skinning of SOW:BOB aircraft, that is absolutely wonderful. My comments and 'evidence' can be completely disregarded as having been unnecessary. No harm done.

S!

[Theshark888]

Originally Posted by jameson

I have to say that your "catholic" rules regarding Spitfire lettering are a bit over the top

Speaking of over the top.............Thank goodness he wasn't being "anglican!"