Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Hex Camoflauge


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#41 Huetz

Huetz
  • Posts: 1589

Posted 21 October 2012 - 11:36

When you go hunting you don't wear a deer costume.

Hardly a proper comparison. There's nothing wrong with the Brisfit painted red & white. If it has the British markings on it, it's the other pilots responsibility to know what they're shooting at.

Some French aircraft were colourfully painted, The person pulling the trigger is responsible at all times for what they're shooting at. Don't try and shift the blame to the other person for your mistake.

As long as the plane has proper national markings, the blame lies with the person pulling the trigger.

Know what you're shooting at. Shooting at something simply because it's painted painted a certain colour will get you court martialled every time.

Much like anyone else with a single bit of experience in mutliplayer, I shoot based on shape and camo. Nothing more nothing less, for the simple reasons that there's too many smart kids out there flying planes with opposing markings, so Gav's comparison is in fact right. I am not taking any chances against a two-seater and so do most people.

If you fly a plane that looks Central, heck that is knowingly designed to look Central, its your problem if you get shot in the face by friendlies. You can't expect to come out of a war alive if you decide it's smart to show up in the enemy's uniform.

Sorry, voted no.
  • 0

#42 SupaGringo

SupaGringo
  • Posts: 288

Posted 21 October 2012 - 12:47

hexcamo and german markings, ok, but roundels? I find it just a tad bit silly, sorry I voted no
  • 0

#43 Pierrepoint

Pierrepoint
  • Posts: 293

Posted 21 October 2012 - 13:38

Much like anyone else with a single bit of experience in mutliplayer, I shoot based on shape and camo. Nothing more nothing less, for the simple reasons that there's too many smart kids out there flying planes with opposing markings, so Gav's comparison is in fact right. I am not taking any chances against a two-seater and so do most people.

If you fly a plane that looks Central, heck that is knowingly designed to look Central, its your problem if you get shot in the face by friendlies. You can't expect to come out of a war alive if you decide it's smart to show up in the enemy's uniform.

Sorry, voted no.

Then you're guilty by your own words. The Brisfit has a unique silhouette, and if you can't tell the difference, you shouldn't be shooting at it. Flying a enemy's plane with your markings is a completely different scenario to the one presented. Unless the plane has fired at you, there is no excuse for you to fire at them without ensuring you are sure of what you are aiming at.

Your explanation is ridiculous. Once again you're blaming your incompetence on someone else. That's not an acceptable reason for shooting at friendlies, and in WWI you would have been court martialled and probably shot (especially if you did it more than once).

You are responsible to ensure you know what you're shooting at. The buck stops at your trigger finger, if you're not sure you don't shoot. Plain and simple. You can always disengage.

Planes have national markings for a reason. To identify friend or foe. Use them. Just because you choose to fire based on shape & colour is your problem, you need to change your rules of engagement. Firing at a plane that looks like a friendly, by your own standards makes you guilty in anyone's eyes.

If someone is using the enemy's equipment and not placing proper national markings on it, they are responsible if they are a victim of fraticide.

The British in WWII used captured Panther tanks, the Germans used captured T-34's.
  • 0

#44 AndyJWest

AndyJWest
  • Posts: 1284

Posted 21 October 2012 - 13:46

Pierrepoint, this is a game - cut out the crap about court martials. Or be consistent, and admit that bogus hex-pattern Entente camouflage doesn't belong in the sim. You can't have it both ways.

The simple fact is that in a dogfight, a pilot may only have a fraction of a second to identify an aircraft, and anything that is intentionally misleading is asking for trouble. It isn't necessary, it isn't historical. It doesn't belong on a multiplayer server, end of story.
  • 0

#45 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 21 October 2012 - 14:33

Look at how nasty it gets when we vote down someone's skin…amazing.

I'll say it one more time: you are free to use whatever skins you like in mods-on mode. Hell, you can paint your F.2b entirely red like MvR if you want to, and we won't stop you.
  • 0

#46 Pierrepoint

Pierrepoint
  • Posts: 293

Posted 21 October 2012 - 14:34

Pierrepoint, this is a game - cut out the crap about court martials. Or be consistent, and admit that bogus hex-pattern Entente camouflage doesn't belong in the sim. You can't have it both ways.

The simple fact is that in a dogfight, a pilot may only have a fraction of a second to identify an aircraft, and anything that is intentionally misleading is asking for trouble. It isn't necessary, it isn't historical. It doesn't belong on a multiplayer server, end of story.

Unless 777 studios rules prevent it, there's nothing wrong with it. Every personal skin isn't historical, so your argument doesn't hold water.

Where have I not been consistent?

Once again, you're blaming someone else for your error. Neither side had a monopoly on camuoflage, nor is it against the rules of war to camouflage your equipment. The British, French & Germans used multi-colour camuoflage on their planes, in the same patterns.

The original poster's skin is so subtle you need to be within 10-20ft of the plane to even notice it. Had it been camuoflaged like a Fokker DVII, then you have a point, just not a valid point for shooting at it. Just because something 'looks' like the enemy isn't a valid reason to fire on it, unless you are sure, or the object has fired at you.

My mentioning of a court martial is historical, that's what would have happened to a pilot that shot down a friendly using the excuse that it was painted 'wrong'.

Just think about what would have happened to you had you shot down Richthofen on his first flight with the Fokker Triplane, and used the excuse that it 'looked' like the enemy.

Richthofen's first victim in the triplane was a RE8. The observer didn't fire at him because of the shape, despite the fact that there were Albatros DV's with him.

Identification requires at least three points; shape, colour & national markings. If you're firing at something without those 3 indentifers, then you are the one in trouble. There is no excuse for firing at friendlies because at least two of the identifers are there.

If you are, then you're bascially telling us you fire at anything that has the wrong 'colour'. Actually you're telling us that you will fire at anything, because in a dogfight, a lot of the time you only have a silhouette to identify, and you've already admitted that you would shoot at a Brisfit with a hex camouflage pattern.

Stop trying to make excuses for shooting at friendlies. You and you alone are responsible for what you shoot at. No one else, just you.
  • 0

#47 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 21 October 2012 - 14:37

Pierrepoint, this is a game - cut out the crap about court martials. Or be consistent, and admit that bogus hex-pattern Entente camouflage doesn't belong in the sim. You can't have it both ways.

The simple fact is that in a dogfight, a pilot may only have a fraction of a second to identify an aircraft, and anything that is intentionally misleading is asking for trouble. It isn't necessary, it isn't historical. It doesn't belong on a multiplayer server, end of story.

Unless 777 studios rules prevent it, there's nothing wrong with it. Every personal skin isn't historical, so your argument doesn't hold water.

The rules are that we get to vote.
  • 0

#48 Pierrepoint

Pierrepoint
  • Posts: 293

Posted 21 October 2012 - 14:44

Look at how nasty it gets when we vote down someone's skin…amazing.

I'll say it one more time: you are free to use whatever skins you like in mods-on mode. Hell, you can paint your F.2b entirely red like MvR if you want to, and we won't stop you.

I have no problem with someone not voting for the skin, but to use the excuse that it would cause them to shoot at it, and using it as an excuse, is ridiculous.
  • 0

#49 AndyJWest

AndyJWest
  • Posts: 1284

Posted 21 October 2012 - 15:04

The skin is ridiculous. You coming out with nonsense about court martials is ridiculous. It doesn't belong in a multiplayer game because it is (a) unhistorical, and (b) stupid, because it will get shot at by friendlies. And people can vote against skins for whatever reasons they like.
  • 0

#50 arjisme

arjisme
  • Posts: 2377

Posted 21 October 2012 - 15:18

MvR's flying circus adopted colorful paint schemes. Why? To make themselves abundantly obvious to each other, wasn't it? On D-Day the allies painted their planes with a distinctive black and white striped pattern. Why? To try to prevent friendly fire against their own aircraft (from land, sea and air).

You can assign blame all you want but it makes little difference to the guy getting shot down. Mistaken identity does happen, frequently when there is little time to complete a questionnaire to triple check your target. Making identity confusion MORE likely is not the fault of the guy who is shooting.

And if you want to argue from history (court martials) then why are we debating about a skin that wouldn't have happened in history?
  • 0

#51 Pierrepoint

Pierrepoint
  • Posts: 293

Posted 21 October 2012 - 15:41

The skin is ridiculous. You coming out with nonsense about court martials is ridiculous. It doesn't belong in a multiplayer game because it is (a) unhistorical, and (b) stupid, because it will get shot at by friendlies. And people can vote against skins for whatever reasons they like.

I'm amazed at all of you who are against the skin because you would shoot at it don't want to accept any responsibility for your actions.

It's the old blame the victim attitude. You shot at it, you made the decision, you are responsible, no one else. If you're not positive what you're shooting at, you don't shoot.

There isn't a court in he civilised world that would accept that excuse.
  • 0

#52 AndyJWest

AndyJWest
  • Posts: 1284

Posted 21 October 2012 - 15:55

I'm not blaming any victims here - I'm blaming someone who wants to use entirely unhistorical Central hex-pattern camouflage on an Entente aircraft and refuses to accept that it is a stupid thing to do. If you want to fly it, fly it offline. It isn't going to be allowed mods-on.
  • 0

#53 arjisme

arjisme
  • Posts: 2377

Posted 21 October 2012 - 16:15

I'm amazed at all of you who are against the skin because you would shoot at it don't want to accept any responsibility for your actions.

It's the old blame the victim attitude. You shot at it, you made the decision, you are responsible, no one else. If you're not positive what you're shooting at, you don't shoot.

There isn't a court in he civilised world that would accept that excuse.
I'm amazed at your continuing inability to understand our arguments and the resulting mischaracterisations you make of them.

My perception is that you prefer look at things in very black and white terms. I think that has a lot to do with your not being able to understand "our" point of view.
  • 0

#54 Huetz

Huetz
  • Posts: 1589

Posted 21 October 2012 - 16:57

I'm amazed at all of you who are against the skin because you would shoot at it don't want to accept any responsibility for your actions.

It's the old blame the victim attitude. You shot at it, you made the decision, you are responsible, no one else. If you're not positive what you're shooting at, you don't shoot.

There isn't a court in he civilised world that would accept that excuse.
I'm amazed at your continuing inability to understand our arguments and the resulting mischaracterisations you make of them.

My perception is that you prefer look at things in very black and white terms. I think that has a lot to do with your not being able to understand "our" point of view.

Quick glance at his responses and previous threads: don't feed the trolls :roll: It's not that he doesn't understand the arguments, he just doesn't seem to feel like it today in his "special" mood.
  • 0

#55 Pierrepoint

Pierrepoint
  • Posts: 293

Posted 21 October 2012 - 18:15

I'm amazed at all of you who are against the skin because you would shoot at it don't want to accept any responsibility for your actions.

It's the old blame the victim attitude. You shot at it, you made the decision, you are responsible, no one else. If you're not positive what you're shooting at, you don't shoot.

There isn't a court in he civilised world that would accept that excuse.
I'm amazed at your continuing inability to understand our arguments and the resulting mischaracterisations you make of them.

My perception is that you prefer look at things in very black and white terms. I think that has a lot to do with your not being able to understand "our" point of view.

Quick glance at his responses and previous threads: don't feed the trolls :roll: It's not that he doesn't understand the arguments, he just doesn't seem to feel like it today in his "special" mood.

I totally understand your point, you think it's acceptable to fire at anything that doesn't look right to you.

I'm sure Georges Madon (French ace, 41 kills) would have understood you killing him, because after all, he had the audacity to fly a SPAD with a red fuselage. Because apparently you will fire on anything that isn't British green or SPAD camouflage.

The person firing the gun is the person responsible for what happens, end of story.

If you shoot at something because you 'think' it was the enemy, where does the fault lie? With the person who did the thinking, not the other person, you. You made the decision to fire, and the responsiblity for that firing lies with you, no one else.

Check your civil and military law, show me anything that absolves you of blame because you committed fraticide because you 'thought' it was the enemy.

If you're going to respond, answer the questions, not more accusations and insults.

Not one of you who has responded has answered the question. "Who is responsible for firing the weapon?" & "Who is responsible for making sure you don't committ fraticide?"

All I hear is excuses for shooting at friendlies, and not one taking the responsiblity for your own actions.
  • 0

#56 AndyJWest

AndyJWest
  • Posts: 1284

Posted 21 October 2012 - 18:20

Grow up, or find another forum to troll on…
  • 0

#57 arjisme

arjisme
  • Posts: 2377

Posted 21 October 2012 - 18:49

I'm amazed at all of you who are against the skin because you would shoot at it don't want to accept any responsibility for your actions.

It's the old blame the victim attitude. You shot at it, you made the decision, you are responsible, no one else. If you're not positive what you're shooting at, you don't shoot.

There isn't a court in he civilised world that would accept that excuse.
I'm amazed at your continuing inability to understand our arguments and the resulting mischaracterisations you make of them.

My perception is that you prefer look at things in very black and white terms. I think that has a lot to do with your not being able to understand "our" point of view.

Quick glance at his responses and previous threads: don't feed the trolls :roll: It's not that he doesn't understand the arguments, he just doesn't seem to feel like it today in his "special" mood.

I totally understand your point, you think it's acceptable to fire at anything that doesn't look right to you.
Proof that you just don't get it. Done with you inanities. :roll:
  • 0

#58 Pierrepoint

Pierrepoint
  • Posts: 293

Posted 21 October 2012 - 18:56

And exactly as I thought you two have lots of insults but not one answer.
  • 0

#59 -bbob

-bbob
  • Posts: 1331

Posted 21 October 2012 - 19:22

Voted no.
  • 0

#60 J.j.

J.j.
  • Posts: 1959

Posted 21 October 2012 - 19:30

I'm against all sort of fictional skins. For me, this category should bot exist. But I must say that I am agree with Pierrepoint. If you can't identify correctly a plane at the close ranges we are engaging in ROF, you should not be allowed to fly a fighter! There are no excuses for shooting at a F2B , beleving it is a DFW because of the camo. Or shooting at a Sop Triplane, taking it for a Fokker.
In WW1, there were fighters which looked very similar (Nieuport 17 and Siemes Schuckert D.I), yet pilots were able to identify them, by looking at the NATIONAL MARKINGS. There were examples of planes captured, flied against their former team mates.
If you are not sure of the nationality of the plane you are shooting at, you must hold your fire and make positive ID based on the markings of the plane.
  • 0

#61 -Requiem-

-Requiem-
  • Posts: 1502

Posted 21 October 2012 - 20:03

An aircraft's camoflage and markings are its uniform. If you adorn your enemies uniform and fight while wearing it during wartime are such actions legal? Probably not I'd guess.

I'm sure you will argue that the roundels are there, but drawing a similarity to a soldier's uniform you can make this same argument that you should be allowed to wear an enemy soldier's uniform during wartime simply because you replaced the countries flag on the armband. For example, what if an US Army troop was killed by 'friendly fire' while wearing the Waffen SS uniform, during WWII, who would be to blame? I bet the wearer of a non-standard uniform would be to blame because of the identification confusion that the uniform contributed towards his death.

Off on a slight tangent here, but 'captured' skins are similar yet different because they do have historical basis, but their use in MP leads to confusion, so they should not be included mods-off due to such interferences in MP. Captured skins are what I consider to be 'outliers' in terms of skins for incorporation in mods-off.

A line must be drawn somewhere on skins which makes it mandatory for them to be at least semi-plausible to avoid these sorts of arguments. If it goes against the norm without at least some basis from history, or if the skin introduces deliberate identification confusion (markings/camoflage)it should not be approved.

The reason why armed forces have unique uniforms is to help distinguish themselves as friendly lawful combatants for either side, so mixing and matching them during wartime is just asking to get shot at by both sides instead of just one. So people can wear these 'uniforms' on their plane all they want if it gets voted in, but they better not whinge about friendlies shooting at them.
  • 0

#62 arjisme

arjisme
  • Posts: 2377

Posted 21 October 2012 - 20:06

If you can't identify correctly a plane at the close ranges we are engaging in ROF, you should not be allowed to fly a fighter!
We can and do identify planes at close range using national markings. :)

The proposed skin isn't plausible for me. Also, it could lead to incidences of mistaken identity.
  • 0

#63 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 21 October 2012 - 20:15

This argument is going nowhere and nobody will be convinced aout the others opinion. Agree to disagree: and the person who doesnt mind the skin votesmyes, the person who doesnt like the skin votes no, and yet others will withhold their vote.

Te argument will end with the result of thepoll…which is why its there in the first place. Take the result to heart, and live with it.

Any needless talk wont change that…

The shameful thing is that this discussion might just result in more people walking out of ROF and the community, and perhaps someone with the ambition to make skins is turned off from it because of a discussion that goes way over his head….hate to see that happen.
  • 0

#64 N28_Uberplane

N28_Uberplane
  • Posts: 1268

Posted 21 October 2012 - 21:13

Guys, Chill..

This skin, which doesn't have hex camo but squares instead. At 60 yards, TBH, I can't tell the difference between the two camo patterns.(Plus the roundels on that SE5 are harder to see).

SE5a, D3459, No. 37 RAF Home Defense

Image

So that skin gets into the skin packs with NO "no" votes.

You have a yes from me.
  • 0

=IRFC=


#65 -bbob

-bbob
  • Posts: 1331

Posted 21 October 2012 - 21:24

Why cant people just vote what they want? There is a reason why the polls exist.

Let them show their results and quit bickering for f**** sake.
  • 0

#66 Pigmachine

Pigmachine
  • Posts: 559

Posted 21 October 2012 - 21:55

I want to download it and check it out.. but DL link doesn't work (for me).. (Voted yes many pages ago)

Just had a little QM My N17 vs an Alb II .. could not see if it were an early or late or even is it were a Alb III .. since the N17 is a bit jiggly still (in my hands). But saw markings and color at around the same time, maybe markings before. I had Icons on just to report at what distance it were visible, but got too caught up it the fight.. so it were a bad test! :oops:

And made this an unnecessary post 8-)
  • 0

#67 Pierrepoint

Pierrepoint
  • Posts: 293

Posted 21 October 2012 - 22:16

An aircraft's camoflage and markings are its uniform. If you adorn your enemies uniform and fight while wearing it during wartime are such actions legal? Probably not I'd guess.

I'm sure you will argue that the roundels are there, but drawing a similarity to a soldier's uniform you can make this same argument that you should be allowed to wear an enemy soldier's uniform during wartime simply because you replaced the countries flag on the armband. For example, what if an US Army troop was killed by 'friendly fire' while wearing the Waffen SS uniform, during WWII, who would be to blame? I bet the wearer of a non-standard uniform would be to blame because of the identification confusion that the uniform contributed towards his death.

You can hardly relate the roundels of the British with a 2" X 4" flag on the shoulder.

If the soldier is wearing the enemies uniform then the soldier is to blame because they have not properly identified themselves.

The Russians & Americans use the multi-colour grey on their jets also. In some photos of the MiG-29 you have to look carefully at the other attirbutes to identify it from a F-15.

However, if the soldier ruined his trousers, and used a set of SS pants, while still wearing his US army jacket, helmets & boots, the soldier that shot him would be to blame.

In the skin in question, the camouflage is so subtle as to be not recognized except when you're right on top of the plane.

Before you would see the camouflage, you couldn't have missed the roundels, and the silhouette of the Bristol.

Off on a slight tangent here, but 'captured' skins are similar yet different because they do have historical basis, but their use in MP leads to confusion, so they should not be included mods-off due to such interferences in MP. Captured skins are what I consider to be 'outliers' in terms of skins for incorporation in mods-off.

A line must be drawn somewhere on skins which makes it mandatory for them to be at least semi-plausible to avoid these sorts of arguments. If it goes against the norm without at least some basis from history, or if the skin introduces deliberate identification confusion (markings/camoflage)it should not be approved.

Absolutely, but where is that line? Because the British used green as their colour, does that mean no German can paint his plane green?

The French & Germans used the multi-coloured ground pattern on their planes. How do you police that?


The reason why armed forces have unique uniforms is to help distinguish themselves as friendly lawful combatants for either side, so mixing and matching them during wartime is just asking to get shot at by both sides instead of just one. So people can wear these 'uniforms' on their plane all they want if it gets voted in, but they better not whinge about friendlies shooting at them.

The British & US desert camouflage is similar from a distance, except the British don't use as much square colours in theirs, as compared to the Americans.

The Russians and Germans used white overcoats during the winter as camouflage.

Since the others who oppose it won't answer, I'll ask you, who is responsible for a friendly fire incident, the person who shot, or the person who got shot?

This is assuming that the person being shot was properly identified by national markings.
  • 0

#68 Yellow_Baron

Yellow_Baron
  • Posts: 47

Posted 27 October 2012 - 04:22

To whom it may concern,

This is my concluding post. I am sorry I made a "Stupid" and "Unhistorical" paint job that started a huge argument. I see good points from both sides. The majority voted "No," and I understand that. Next time, I will try something more Entente-esque for the majority's sake. Next time, rather than argue, suggest ways I can adjust the skin to improve it to your satisfaction. I also apologize for the non working download link. By the way, have you seen how many mods-on servers there are? Sometimes none. That's why we try to put these paints in.

Sincerely,
Yellow Baron
  • 0

#69 J.j.

J.j.
  • Posts: 1959

Posted 27 October 2012 - 06:36

Next time, I will try something more Entente-esque for the majority's sake. Next time, rather than argue, suggest ways I can adjust the skin to improve it to your satisfaction.

Don't do that. In the first place, skining is something you make for yourself. Then it's up to you if you to share it with the community (and this does't mean you have to go through the submission loooooooong process, there is other way).
  • 0

#70 JimmyBlonde

JimmyBlonde
  • Posts: 2346

Posted 27 October 2012 - 07:51

Personally I abstained from voting. I think tbe skin is great but you'd only be asking for trouble in this one. Personally i think the whole voting and locked skins thing is a charade, it should be left to the server host.
  • 0

#71 arjisme

arjisme
  • Posts: 2377

Posted 27 October 2012 - 14:14

Yellow Baron, I don't think you need to apologize. You posted a skin and asked for opinions about it. Normally when someone votes No, which typically isn't very often, it is considered courteous to say why so the skin maker can get that feedback.

The arguing in this case was more about wining an argument than about the actual points being made, in my opinion. And that is something that can happen anywhere on Internet forums. Don't let it bother you - you didn't start it, you can't always predict it and no real harm was done I any event.

:S!:
  • 0

#72 Yellow_Baron

Yellow_Baron
  • Posts: 47

Posted 27 October 2012 - 15:09

I don't think there was anything I could have done anyway. Unless I painted "I am Entente, please shoot me." in large print on the side of the fuselage, my personal skin was doomed from the start.
  • 0

#73 Panthercules

Panthercules
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 16188

Posted 04 November 2012 - 03:53

Poll concluded; thread locked.

Hey there - I was trying to process this one for submission to 777, but the file looks like it's no longer available. If you intend to continue with this submission, please PM me with a working link.
  • 0

New "Useful Materials" page now available: http://riseofflight....ks/#entry628960
Useful Skinning-related Info:  http://riseofflight....g-related-info/  
Spammers banned while still online:



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users