Ok so I've nearly quit

[Jesters-Ink]

Tinker tinker . . .

As you do . .

[Papa Roach]

Like it!!! Is this made of your FW Template??

Kind regards,
Papa Roach

[Phas3e]

Is that a few new elements to your dora?
It has a touch of FBS looking at the 3d effect and such around the engine and cockpit.

I really like the JV44 machine it has alot of 'RED 1' about it with a touch of 'Red 13'.... I've spent enough time studying photos for the pack im doing to tell them apart blindfolded now

[Jesters-Ink]

I suppose it’s bound to happen . . . “The” FW190 template has always been mine, not FBS’s. His “new” template as stated in all of his “readme”s was based on my “old” 190 template. He asked me if I minded, I said “no”. Sadly the “credit” layer as ever got replaced. Now, down to details, I took a look at FBS’s additional work and checked it against new books I have. I also have a Trumpeter 1:24 scale Dora model (un-built) which I have been using too. Turns out there was a lot missing from my original template. So . . she got a face lift .
Rest assured, as much as it looks close to FBS it is not his work. Overlay the two templates and you will see that they are far from the same.
Every pixel has been drawn by my own fair hand except for the cockpit and some of the mechanical layer (credits given on the template).

As for the skins, they are demo only. Quite right of you Phas3e to notice their resemblance to JV44, they are “based on” historic profiles from the book “Doras of the Galland Circus”, a very fine book indeed.

I might make the "new" template public, if I ever find the time to finish it

[WarWolfe]

Tinker Tinker........I suggest you quit some more

[BLOWHARD]

Very NICE work!
Two thing though; on the underside, you've painted most of the access panels darker. I understand what you doing but they end up looking recessed quite a bit from the surface of the wing. They should be flush with the surface or at worst a little raised. Maybe try taking some of the darkness off of them and maybe putting your highlighted edge on the edges of the access panels instead?
Also, your fabric looks really cool but it doesn't look anything like the real aircraft fabric at all.


These aren't D9 wings but here's my solution on the access panels and fabric-

Not better but more realistic on those 2 points even though my fabric has WAY too much detail considering how smooth these were in real life :P

[1.JaVA_Platypus]

The skin is stunningly good! But the 3D effects around the cockpit is superior!

[adlabs6]

Nice example pics Blowhard. I recall making some effort years ago at creating fabric, rivet and panel lines that were in scale with how they are perceived by the eye (in my experience) inside 50 to 100 feet or so.

Most of the comments I got were along the lines of "where are the details??"... so I dropped it.

I've found it quite interesting how the taste varies with each simulator audience. Skins that are considered 'excellently detailed' in IL2 would be called 'vastly over done' in the MSFS circles, and some of the very excellent skins for aircraft in MSFS would be called 'undetailed' by IL2 players.

Still your example pics bear out what I had in mind those years ago.

[Jesters-Ink]

I recon that’s one of the best things about simmers.
Good constructive criticism, with evidence to back it up, nice one Blow.
I’ve seen this argument from both sides though in the past and have tended to sit on the fence a lot and then just go my own way.
It’s not easy pleasing all, so I tend to please myself.

I’ve had a lot of conversations with a lot of skinners over the years and in the end it all comes down to one thing, taste. Let’s face it, we can’t make historic skins with the canvas and skin maps we have on most of the models, so what do we do?. I agree with what you are saying a lot of the details on my template are overstated. I used to like the understated look at one point, but at the moment I favour the sharper look. I think it makes the 190 look mean.

Another thing, one of my worst faults is to take it for granted that the void has the basic details right. I should never do this. It’s not even close on most things.
Now that you have pointed it out to me though, I might take another look at them.
The original template was made back in the days when I had very little knowledge of the 190, so maybe I can be forgiven for being a little slack in some areas.

Thanks for the comments guys, very much appreciated.

[kristorf]

As I said last night mate, very nice work (I know diddly squat about Axis schemes so cannot comment on points raised)