In this loading screen from the dev server this F4 has an incredibly good looking afterburner and it made me realize how dated some of the afterburner textures are. I know that some people have made userskins with more detailed afterburners but I would like to see better textures in the base game
10 Likes
I don’t even think it would be that hard, since IIRC all the jets (besides the really early ones) use the same afterburner texture.
1 Like
That screenshot is actually unrealistic.
The current AB methodology is most accurate.
And one of the Phantom:
They’re different for each different engine.
Well aren’t both of those at evening/night? That would make the afterburner appear more bright on the camera no?
In comparison, in a brighter setting (which the loading screen depicts) it seems quite realistic to me.
Edit: it could be a difference in afterburner amount
Which imo should be modelled.
3 Likes
Camera digital sensors aren’t our eyes.
Our eyes are far more sensitive to light than camera sensors.
What we can see is not necessarily what a camera can see, and what a camera can see could easily miss information that we see ourselves.
They try their best, and when it comes to incandescent light [AB light], our eyes are superior at picking that up than cameras are.
You can see the flaw of cameras during the day in this still on the video you posted. Of course there’s the framerate it’s shooting at as well as other factors, one of which could be a different throttle position.
So unless a developer goes to see a show in-person, low-light camera shots of confirmed full AB takeoffs are going to give the most accurate representation of what afterburner incandescence looks like due to the limitations of [mostly digital] cameras.
And yeah, in the 2nd one could’ve been shot on a film camera, definitely more detail showing.
Cameras can mute colors, miss things [especially fast moving incandescent light], and other nasty things.
1 Like
meanwhile the Su-7 should have a plume almost as long as the plane
That´s an epic loading screen picture. Might as well make it my desktop wallpaper.
And yes, we should have had already a nice, proper looking afterburners a loong time ago. These 2 current orange flickering sprites ain´t doing it for me.
what about camera film? would that produce a more accurate picture?
Hi!
I work a lot with film photography for work. I really enjoy it- although unfortunately it isn’t very good for shooting moving aircraft, as even this weekend when I tried it didn’t go over very well (I also had to buy a replacement batter for my Ricoh AND Nikon so that was frustrating)
Here is a perfect comparison to show film vs. digital
You’ll see the top (film) and bottom (digital) are different. Because of the way film captures light, and the chemicals that are used (in color film in particular- BnW film mainly uses a silver based material for the image on 35mm film) generally the appearance is much more pastel like, and does not provide any better sensitivity than a digital camera would to something like, let’s say, an afterburner. That’s partially thanks to the sensors on a digital camera being more tuned to Human colors, and partially thanks to the way chemical compounds react to light on color film.
3 Likes
i see thanks, it’s just i understand eyes work on chemical reactions rather than some electrical impulse so i was under the idea that both are chemical so they must be more similar
Entirely different chemical processes, although I understand the sentiment.
I have a lot of knowledge particularly in BnW film so.
When the film is exposed, light hits the film. The light affects electrons in the film, which then bounce around and hit silver halide crystals, which when they move end up creating pockets of silver. Then when you develop the film, the process removes the silver halide crystals, leaving behind the silver and revealing the image
Our eyes just take the info and using braincell thingies to floppy flip the image. Not a bio guy so I don’t know how it works but I’m pretty sure I don’t wash out my eyes with Photo Chemicals that could burn a hole in my skin
Well both of these you posted are during the night
Of course the camera will use different ISO and exposure with result being that afterburner is very bright.
Having seen in person Rafale and MiG-21 takeoff on full afterburner during day, that loading screen seems fairly accurate actually.
EDIT: Also, yes. All “modern” jets use same afterburner texture in WT
I’ve experienced B1 bombers doing full afterburner takeoffs, and god damn is it crazy loud. That video doesn’t do justice to just how load those things are.
no go away