[PAINT] Tank camo
Brad Hann
on tanks?
Brad
--
Don't bother with the yahoo address - I never read it.
bjhann at hotkey dot net dot au
John Hwang
>Anyone got any tips they'd care to share
>regarding painting camouflage on tanks?
I would look into the historical scale modeling references for suggestions on
techniques. Fine Scale Modeler does compilations of articles for tanks.
Osprey publishing has excellent references as well.
--
--- John Hwang "JohnHw...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
twitch
>on tanks?
Well, there was this article in Black Gobbo a while back...
http://us.games-workshop.com/games/40k/imperialguard/painting/tanks/default.htm
--
*twitch*
(Formerly known as Saint wasisname)
"...money is like air or love -- unimportant if you've got enough of it, but
desperately important if you haven't."
--Terry Prachett
Just FAQ it: http://www.rgmw.org
Kill .Extreme to reply
Insane Ranter
"Brad Hann" <lunta...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b6a00188...@news.individual.net...
> Anyone got any tips they'd care to share regarding painting camouflage
> on tanks?
Use paint, a brush, and have some fun!
Just pick three colors and paint random shapes all over the thing....
Myrmidon
lunta...@yahoo.com.au Varfed out the following in Timo speak...
> Anyone got any tips they'd care to share regarding painting camouflage
> on tanks?
>
> Brad
>
>
Dough / childerens clay and spray paint to create a nifty camo pattern
without tons of time and effort.
Obviously you'll either need to mask off the areas (like the vehicle
treads or wheels) that you don't want to be the same color as the main
body, or go back and brush paint them the correct colors after you're
done doing the camo pattern...
1. Spray paint your vehicle the base color.
2. Cover areas of the vehicle where you want to preserve your base
color with a thin layer of your clay - obviously varying the size of
your shapes will help break up the outline of the vehicle.
3. Spray paint your vehicle with your next color choice.
4. Leave the first layer of clay on the vehicle and apply yet more clay
to areas of the vehicle where you want the new color to remain.
5. Repeat steps 3 & 4 as many times as desired (or until you've covered
the whole vehicle in clay. ;)
6. Carefully remove the old clay (it'll probably be to polluted with
old paint to reuse - which is why I'd use thin layers - so pitch it when
you're done.) What should remain is a nice 'organic' looking camo
pattern that still has crisp edges to the various shapes.
The same sort of thing can be done with painter's 'Masking Tape'. I've
used the 3 inch wide variety to mask off hard edged angular shapes for
camo patterns which works well too - just remember to make sure that the
tape edges are firmly sealed against the model all the way around, or
the paint may 'bleed' under the tape requiring touch up work which is a
pain. If you make a set of patterns you can use them to create the
'outlined' camo pattern look with minimal effort. If for example you
wanted a gray vehicle with white camo outlined in black you'd...
1. Draw and cut out your shape 'patterns' on paper or thin card.
Remember that you'll want the shapes to be a bit smaller than the size
you want the final 'camo' shapes to be with the black outline.
2. Spray / base coat your vehicle with white paint. (It's easiest to
work from your light color towards your darker color(s).) Let the paint
dry *completely* before doing step 3.
3. Place a suitable sized strip of masking tape on a cutting board and
trace your shape pattern on the back of the tape with a pen. Use a
sharp razor or knife to cut out your shape with clean edges. Carefully
place the tape 'shapes' on your vehicle where you want the white areas.
(Save the shape 'patterns' - you'll need them again.)
4. When you have your basic camo shapes on the vehicle - again, make
sure all the tape edges have good contact to avoid paint bleeding - and
then spray your vehicle with the black paint. Again - let the paint dry
*completely* before doing step 5.
5. Once the black paint is dry - get out the shape patterns you used in
step 3 - place more masking tape on your cutting board and trace your
patterns on the tape again. Then either free-hand or with a ruler -
draw a larger outline around your initial pattern. This larger outline
will form the width of your black boarder around your white camo shapes.
Cut out the larger pattern shapes, line them up carefully and place them
on top of the original (smaller) pattern shapes covering all the
original shapes.
6. Once everthing is taped up - spray your vehicle with your gray color
and let it dry. When it's dry - carefully remove the tape from the
model (masking tape should not pull off the underlying paint if you let
everything dry completely and are careful removing it.) You should be
left with a gray 'ground' with black outlined white camo shapes.
Later,
Myrmidon
--
#1582. I think they call it Warhammer "40K" because that is how
much you are going to have to make per year in order to play.
- Eric Noland
# 1082. Pound for pound I can buy cocaine cheaper than
raise a Warhammer army
- Roy Cox
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/gwprice/
****
RGMW FAQ: http://www.b3p0.com/~rgmw/
Or...
Brion K. Lienhart
news:MPG.1b699e0f7...@news-server.woh.rr.com...
> In article <MPG.1b6a00188...@news.individual.net>, Brad Hann,
> lunta...@yahoo.com.au Varfed out the following in Timo speak...
> > Anyone got any tips they'd care to share regarding painting camouflage
> > on tanks?
> >
> > Brad
> >
> >
> One of the coolest techniques I've seen recently was using Play-
> Dough / childerens clay and spray paint to create a nifty camo pattern
> without tons of time and effort.
> 6. Carefully remove the old clay (it'll probably be to polluted with
> old paint to reuse - which is why I'd use thin layers - so pitch it when
> you're done.) What should remain is a nice 'organic' looking camo
> pattern that still has crisp edges to the various shapes.
If you've ever seen a full-size camoflauged vehicle, you'll notice that the
shapes don't have "crisp" edges.
To get nice camo on vehicles you need an airbrush, and three shades/colors,
light to dark.
Paint the lightest color as the base.
You don't need to mask, just spray largish random blobs of the medium shade
around various places, covering between 1/3 to just under 1/2 of the surface
Take the darkest shade, and spray lines crossing both other colors.
Now go back with a brush and paint the wheels/treads and other details.
Here's an old picture of my metal dread. I've got some newer stuff but don't
have any pictures posted yet.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/1697/WH40K/9901Dreadnaught.html
Myrmidon
bri...@comcast.net Varfed out the following in Timo speak...
> "Myrmidon" <Im...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b699e0f7...@news-server.woh.rr.com...
> > In article <MPG.1b6a00188...@news.individual.net>, Brad Hann,
> > lunta...@yahoo.com.au Varfed out the following in Timo speak...
> > > Anyone got any tips they'd care to share regarding painting camouflage
> > > on tanks?
> > >
> > > Brad
> > >
> > >
> > One of the coolest techniques I've seen recently was using Play-
> > Dough / childerens clay and spray paint to create a nifty camo pattern
> > without tons of time and effort.
>
> > 6. Carefully remove the old clay (it'll probably be to polluted with
> > old paint to reuse - which is why I'd use thin layers - so pitch it when
> > you're done.) What should remain is a nice 'organic' looking camo
> > pattern that still has crisp edges to the various shapes.
>
> If you've ever seen a full-size camoflauged vehicle, you'll notice that the
> shapes don't have "crisp" edges.
While I'm well aware of this - please consider the following...
The goal with painting Camo on many of GW items is to 'suggest' camo -
not to *actually successfully* camoflage the item. That's why you'll
notice many of GW's camo patterns are stylized. They're ment to suggest
a camo pattern, but not *really* break up the vehicle's outlines or
otherwise obscure detail. Otherwise why bother to put in all the detail
in the first place if one is simply going to hide it again?
> To get nice camo on vehicles you need an airbrush, and three shades/colors,
> light to dark.
> Paint the lightest color as the base.
> You don't need to mask, just spray largish random blobs of the medium shade
> around various places, covering between 1/3 to just under 1/2 of the surface
> Take the darkest shade, and spray lines crossing both other colors.
> Now go back with a brush and paint the wheels/treads and other details.
Understood and I fully agree. That being said, the methods I
described are cheap, reasonably fast, and result in a decent
'simulated' camo without covering up all the detail. You'll note that
in the old RT books, some painters did successful camo jobs on their
minis and vehicles - rendering them hard to see on the table (great on
the real battlefield - but not so good on a table top game where the
playing pieces are meant to stand out.)
>
> Here's an old picture of my metal dread. I've got some newer stuff but don't
> have any pictures posted yet.
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/1697/WH40K/9901Dreadnaught.html
>
Nice camo job - case in point - unfortunately it does indeed cover
up 95% of the detailing on the central coffin and torso area. Not
exactly the idea behind making high detail 'stand out' miniatures for
table top gaming. Again, the idea is really to suggest camo without
obscuring all the details - it's a bit tricky and easy to over do.
Azazal
> lunta...@yahoo.com.au Varfed out the following in Timo speak...
> > Anyone got any tips they'd care to share regarding painting camouflage
> > on tanks?
> >
> > Brad
> >
> >
> One of the coolest techniques I've seen recently was using Play-
> Dough / childerens clay and spray paint to create a nifty camo pattern
> without tons of time and effort.
>
Myr ya are da'bomb, ahhh old slang, ahhhh. Ok better now. I was
looking at how to paint up a ton of EPIC ImpGrd tanks with an urban
camo, this technique is perfect, thanks.
Doctor Rock
> on tanks?
use a big brush
Insane Ranter
> lunta...@yahoo.com.au Varfed out the following in Timo speak...
> > Anyone got any tips they'd care to share regarding painting camouflage
> > on tanks?
> >
> > Brad
> >
> >
> One of the coolest techniques I've seen recently was using Play-
> Dough / childerens clay and spray paint to create a nifty camo pattern
> without tons of time and effort.
Holy expensive and time consuming batman!
Brion K. Lienhart
> > Here's an old picture of my metal dread. I've got some newer stuff but
don't
> > have any pictures posted yet.
> > http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/1697/WH40K/9901Dreadnaught.html
> >
> Nice camo job - case in point - unfortunately it does indeed cover
> up 95% of the detailing on the central coffin and torso area. Not
> exactly the idea behind making high detail 'stand out' miniatures for
> table top gaming. Again, the idea is really to suggest camo without
> obscuring all the details - it's a bit tricky and easy to over do.
Valid point. But I don't put a lot of time into painting all the little
details anyway.
Kaine
"Myrmidon" Wrote:
<snip helpful advice>
Hey Myr,
Maybe next time instead of glossing over everything, you could give a
detailed description?
Thanks,
:-)
Kaine
John Hwang
>"Myrmidon" <Im...@home.com> wrote ...
>> What should remain is a nice 'organic' looking camo
>> pattern that still has crisp edges to the various shapes.
>
>If you've ever seen a full-size camoflauged vehicle,
>you'll notice that the shapes don't have "crisp" edges.
At 1/48 - 1/60 scale, they do. Maybe a slight blurring, but definitely not a
"soft" edge. That's the differnce between scale modeling and real life.
>To get nice camo on vehicles you need an airbrush,
>and three shades/colors, light to dark.
>Paint the lightest color as the base. You don't need to
>mask, just spray largish random blobs of the medium
>shade around various places, covering between 1/3 to
>just under 1/2 of the surface
>Take the darkest shade, and spray lines crossing both other colors
This isn't a scale technique at all. This is GW-style "camo", whcih gives the
flavor of camo, but doesn't actually do it.
>Now go back with a brush and paint the wheels/treads and other details.
I note that you don't do any of the highlighitng or shading that one would
expect for a scale model.
>Here's an old picture of my metal dread. I've got some newer stuff but don't
>have any pictures posted yet.
>http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/1697/WH40K/9901Dreadnaught.html
With all due respect, that looks like crap. It looks exactly as I would have
expected, based on your description of the technique. There is now scale
shading or highlighting. It's flat, and largely featureless, aside from the
totally non-scale "camo" effect.
I would urge that those of you who are actually interested in doing camoflague
*correctly* to go to a *real* hobby shop and get a copy of Fine Scale Modeler,
or a FSM Armour technique compilation. True scale camoflague looks excellent
and doesn't waste the capabilities of the airbrush. All of the natural detail
will be present for close-up viewing, yet retain the correct camoflague effect
at a distance.
John Hwang
Brion K. Lienhart, speak...
>> If you've ever seen a full-size camoflauged
>> vehicle, you'll notice that the shapes don't have
>> "crisp" edges.
>
>While I'm well aware of this - please consider
>the following...
Ever see a camoflagued vehicle at a distance? Those "soft" edges become
"crisp".
>The goal with painting Camo on many of GW items
>is to 'suggest' camo - not to *actually successfully*
>camoflage the item.
That's true for GW camo, but not for true scale or semi-scale camo.
>That's why you'll notice many of GW's camo
>patterns are stylized. They're ment to suggest a
>camo pattern, but not *really* break up the vehicle's
>outlines or otherwise obscure detail.
I prefer semi-scale technique, which splits the difference, as true scale camo
on such small models is far too demanding for the time I can allocate to
painting. Semi-scale camo seeks to give the appearance and effect of true
scale camo, without the micro detail that true scale camo would require.
>Otherwise why bother to put in all the detail in
>the first place if one is simply going to hide it
>again?
It's a tricky balance of hiding the detail without hiding it, much like
pointilist impressionist painting. At a distance, the detail should be
completely invisible. But up close, the detail should be visible.
>> To get nice camo on vehicles ...
[SNIP lazy camo techinque]
>Understood and I fully agree. That being said,
>the methods I described are cheap, reasonably fast,
>and result in a decent 'simulated' camo without
>covering up all the detail.
The problem with your techinique is that plasticine leaves an oily residue. I
wouldn't want to try and spray paint over it at all.
>You'll note that in the old RT books, some painters
>did successful camo jobs on their minis and vehicles -
>rendering them hard to see on the table (great on
>the real battlefield - but not so good on a table top
>game where the playing pieces are meant to stand
>out.)
IMO, that's what bases are for, so you can easily find the minis, without
sacrificing camoflague effects.
>> Here's an old picture of my metal dread.
>> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/1697/WH40K/9901Dreadnaught.html
>
>Nice camo job - case in point - unfortunately it does
>indeed cover up 95% of the detailing on the central
>coffin and torso area.
IMNSHO, all of that detail should have been restored after the base camo paint
was laid down. There's no shadowing or highlighting that would be present on a
real camo paint job.
>Not exactly the idea behind making high detail 'stand
>out' miniatures for table top gaming. Again, the idea
>is really to suggest camo without obscuring all the
>details - it's a bit tricky and easy to over do.
I don't consider that Dread to be successful in any way. There's no detail,
and the camo is wrong.
John Hwang
[SNIP play-doh camo technique]
>Myr ya are da'bomb, ahhh old slang, ahhhh.
>Ok better now. I was looking at how to paint
>up a ton of EPIC ImpGrd tanks with an urban
>camo, this technique is perfect, thanks.
Epic IG tanks are micro-scale. You are better off freehanding with a brush.
Robert Singers
> Maybe next time instead of glossing over everything, you could give a
> detailed description?
Perhaps he could just send that to me and I'll publish it and he can
continue posting his summaries of these topics.
--
Rob Singers
RGMW FAQ Maintainer. See it @ http://www.rgmw.org
Send submissions to submissions at rgmw dot org changing the obvious.
"I present to RGMW....the real life model for StrongBad." (c) Inc 2003
Myrmidon
Hwang, johnhw...@cs.com.no.com Varfed out the following in Timo
speak...
> Myrmidon Im...@home.com wrote:
> Brion K. Lienhart, speak...
>
> >> If you've ever seen a full-size camoflauged
> >> vehicle, you'll notice that the shapes don't have
> >> "crisp" edges.
> >
> >While I'm well aware of this - please consider
> >the following...
>
> Ever see a camoflagued vehicle at a distance? Those "soft" edges become
> "crisp".
Dear John,
(Oh look - a 'Dear John' letter - doubtless just one of many past
and future in Mr. Hwang's case...) Once again you jump into a
conversation half cocked. Color me surprised. Yeah if by 'soft edges'
you're talking about military hardware that's been brush painted with a
3 inch brush, then yeah, it'll have a 'crisp' look to it at 30 - 100
feet. If you're talking about military hardware that's been painted
with an air gun - then no, the edges do not become 'crisp' at distance.
Quite the contrary. In fact, if you *actually look at distant objects*
even un camouflaged items - like big Red Barn and other civilian
structures - become indistinct due to limits of the human eye and
atmospheric effects. The whole damn purpose of camouflage - to make
things look like part of the natural scenery. Nature doesn't make a lot
of 'crisp' edges - so if you've got lots of them on your vehicle - odds
are it's not going to blend in real well. But hey, never let reality
stand in your way there Johnny, it hasn't so far...
>
> >The goal with painting Camo on many of GW items
> >is to 'suggest' camo - not to *actually successfully*
> >camoflage the item.
>
> That's true for GW camo, but not for true scale or semi-scale camo.
>
> >That's why you'll notice many of GW's camo
> >patterns are stylized. They're ment to suggest a
> >camo pattern, but not *really* break up the vehicle's
> >outlines or otherwise obscure detail.
>
> I prefer semi-scale technique, which splits the difference, as true scale camo
> on such small models is far too demanding for the time I can allocate to
> painting. Semi-scale camo seeks to give the appearance and effect of true
> scale camo, without the micro detail that true scale camo would require.
Point 1. At *NO POINT* did Mr. Hann ask what your personal preferred
technique was there John - do try and follow the subject for once.
Point 2. Let me be the first to congratulate you on your stunning
talent - that of being able 'to take the blisteringly obvious and render
it stunningly clear'. How ever would Use-net survive without that
talent?
Which part of the comment "meant to suggest a camo pattern, but not
*really* break up the vehicle's outlines or otherwise obscure detail"
isn't (needlessly) repeated by your reply above?
>
> >Otherwise why bother to put in all the detail in
> >the first place if one is simply going to hide it
> >again?
>
(Oxymoron Alert... Oxymoron Alert... Oxymoron Alert... )
> It's a tricky balance of hiding the detail without hiding it,
Gee John - would that be anything like... "to 'suggest' camo - but not
to *actually successfully* camouflage the item"???
> much like
> pointilist impressionist painting. At a distance, the detail should be
> completely invisible. But up close, the detail should be visible.
>
Sounds nice - but (unsurprisingly) it's wrong. You're confusing
technique (pointillism) with intention - creating an 'impression' of an
experience or visual scene - hence the term 'impressionistic painting'.
The purpose of pointillism is NOT to show a million dots of color up
close. If that's the depth of your grasp of art - you've failed
miserably. Most pointillist works are NOT designed to be viewed up
close (as in a detailed look) but from a distance greater than normal
for works of a similar size. Point in fact - by their very design,
pointillist paintings force the viewer to step back and get an overall
'impression' (oops there's that word again) of the subject rather than
allowing the viewer to get lost in the minute visual details. At the
point in time when pointillism gained popularity among impressionist
painters *THERE ALREADY WERE HIGHLY SKILLED REALIST PAINTERS* If an
artist wanted 'up close detain' then they damn well did NOT use
pointillism - particularly *NOT* the impressionists. 'Close up detail'
is pretty much contra to the entire impressionist movement.
It takes a special kind of stupid to utterly fail to grasp the purpose
behind 'Impressionism' painting. <Here's a hint kids - the purpose is
right in the name.>
> >> To get nice camo on vehicles ...
>
> [SNIP lazy camo techinque]
(Ahh, still failing that 'How To Win Friends and Influence People'
correspondence course - for the third year running - I see Mr Hwang.)
Point 3. Hann asked for 'how to' tips - of which you provided ZERO,
ZIP, NADA, NONE. (Oddly enough the number of 'how to' tips you
provided is rivaled only by the number clued in comments you make in
this thread...)
>
> >Understood and I fully agree. That being said,
> >the methods I described are cheap, reasonably fast,
> >and result in a decent 'simulated' camo without
> >covering up all the detail.
>
> The problem with your techinique is that plasticine leaves an oily residue. I
> wouldn't want to try and spray paint over it at all.
Point 4. For someone who describes this as "lazy camo technique" - and
yet elsewhere in this thread spouts...
> "I would urge that those of you who are actually interested in doing camouflage
> *correctly* to go to a *real* hobby shop and get a copy of Fine Scale Modeler,
> or a FSM Armour technique compilation. True scale camoflague looks excellent
> and doesn't waste the capabilities of the airbrush. All of the natural
> detailwill be present for close-up viewing, yet retain the correct camoflague
> effect at a distance."
A. The same type of 'clay' camo technique I described appeared in
an issue of 'Military Modeler' Magazine I ran across not to long ago.
In fact in that article the author used 'Silly Putty' to produce a
pleasing camo pattern on a WW II American Armored car. Obviously more
than a few people think it's a decent technique considering it made
publication in the very type of forum you're telling people to look to
for camo painting advice.
B. Please note I did NOT recommend using oil based clay. (Do you
get ANY mental exercise beyond jumping to conclusions? Apparently
reading isn't one of those forms of exercise.) I clearly suggested
using <GASP!> "Play-Dough / childrens clay" You'll also note that many
forms of childrens clay - and Play-Dough in particular - ARE *NOT* OIL
BASED CLAY. Hence the reason that it's marketed towards the very young
- it's not toxic and it won't stain clothes, carpet, etc when the little
rug-rats rub it into everything.
For the record there John - you'll also note (google is your friend)
that I've suggested on more than one occasion here that folks use Play-
Dough to support minis parts they're wanting to epoxy together as
<GASP!> Play-Dough doesn't leave an oily film or otherwise damage the
surface of a painted mini.
> >You'll note that in the old RT books, some painters
> >did successful camo jobs on their minis and vehicles -
> >rendering them hard to see on the table (great on
> >the real battlefield - but not so good on a table top
> >game where the playing pieces are meant to stand
> >out.)
>
> IMO, that's what bases are for, so you can easily find the minis, without
> sacrificing camoflague effects.
Hello Johnny! "Camouflage: a method of concealing people or things from
the enemy by making them *APPEAR TO BE PART OF THE NATURAL
SURROUNDINGS*" (Emphasis mine.) After reading your above comment - I
can plainly see Big Al had you clearly in mind when he wrote his "Lets
all be fucking retarded." sig line. According to you, you camouflage
your minis so that the minis / models (the visual focal point of WFB and
40K games) "appear to be part of the natural surrounds" while making the
BASES stand out??? So your minis blend in with the table top while the
bases stand out. I'm awed by your presence. Only a true mental midget
would write a comment like your above statement and NOT see the
stupidity of it before posting.
And for the record John - if your minis were well camouflaged, they AND
THEIR BASES would blend in with the table top. Perhaps if you didn't
talk out your ass all the time, people wouldn't take you for a complete
clueless ass-clown.
John, if you read this article...
http://www.thewarp.net/war/tigersofveda/roarspaint.html
does it make you feel all 'funny' in that 'bad touch' sort of way?
>
> >> Here's an old picture of my metal dread.
>
> >> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/1697/WH40K/9901Dreadnaught.html
> >
> >Nice camo job - case in point - unfortunately it does
> >indeed cover up 95% of the detailing on the central
> >coffin and torso area.
>
> IMNSHO, all of that detail should have been restored after the base camo paint
> was laid down.
Gee John contradicting yourself again (so soon...) Shouldn't he have
just put some Uber-detailing work on his base and called it a day? Does
"IMO, that's what bases are for, so you can easily find the minis,
without sacrificing camoflague effects." ring any bells?
> There's no shadowing or highlighting that would be present on a
> real camo paint job.
"On a real camo job"??? Wow! Show of hands from all you military
service types out there. After 'shadowing or highlighting' your MBT or
APC - how many of you went on to dry brush the edges of your Abrams of
Bradley to pick out the details before say shipping out to Bosnia or
Iraq? Did any of you vets go for a more advanced technique like the
current 'Non metallic metals' look - say on the 50 Cal.? Did any of you
go for the full 'Evy Metal' treatment on your combat vehicles (painted
on dirt and rust or even battle damage)? Or did all you military types
just slack off with the minimal '3 colors - done' GW tournament style of
camo?
Or by 'real camo paint job' are you spouting off implying that the
camo paint jobs in FSM mag are the 'be all end all' of camo painting in
the 40K game setting? I can so easily see this being more of your John
'He-man'{now with glued on chest hair!} Hwang "*REAL MEN* play Cleanse
scenarios in 40K." 'macho wannabe' bullshit.
>
> >Not exactly the idea behind making high detail 'stand
> >out' miniatures for table top gaming. Again, the idea
> >is really to suggest camo without obscuring all the
> >details - it's a bit tricky and easy to over do.
>
> I don't consider that Dread to be successful in any way. There's no detail,
> and the camo is wrong.
Ahh, at last we come to the frosting on Mr. Hwang's 'Cake of
Stupidity'. Let's see Brion - your camouflage hides the detail on your
model (which is EXACTLY what camouflage is supposed to do AND what Hwang
*claims to want* on his minis). But you've got it all wrong! (WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG!) Having already pointed out in our previous conversation
that in 40K most folks want to suggest camo - not achieve it - John
handily and lovingly rephrases that opinion (while managing to strip any
usefulness out of it.) But then, John has NEVER met a dead horse he
couldn't flog some more. In fact Brion, you're SOOO BAD at this whole
camouflage thing that you've managed to get your (fictional) camo scheme
for *your* (fictional) setting wrong. Isn't it obvious that JOHN knows
what's best for you? He has better taste than you. (He even owns all
150 shades of gray paint known to man!) And - he *obviously* knows your
imagination and gaming goals better than you do. Either that or he's a
nimrod who's reading and comprehension skills are inversely proportional
to his clueless ego driven opinion - you decide.
Myr ;)
--
Cheese & WW II...
I imagine they didn't call them cheesy becuase IT WASN'T A FUCKING GAME
YOU DUMBASS! If the allies were able to create equipment w/o actually
having to create it using matter or were flying spaceships and dropping
Hormaguants onto the the frontline we may have heard
"Ach mien goten, Provolone!!!"
- Rzrsedge
RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org
Or...
Myrmidon
Ranter, sp...@not.me Varfed out the following in Timo speak...
What? Is there a lucrative black market in Play-Dough on the
eastern sea-board? Or are they only charging you extra there Dave?
Frankly pressing clay onto a model is a LOT faster than trying to mask
off areas with tape or other materials that have to be cut out.
Myrmidon
--
[Paint] [Rant] Do NOT lick your paint brush...
I've been licking my paintbrushes for years, and it hasn't
jklse jhlka hnbjktr jskl jnkl;sg.
- Brad Hann
smithdoerr
<mega snip>
I was bored the other day so I decided to give my phone an urban camo
paintjob:
http://smithdoerr.home.comcast.net/Servitors/CamoPhone.jpg
Notice my super awesome painting techniques, which basically consisted of
taking the cover off the phone and spraying three different colors of primer
on it, which achieve that realistic camo look without obscuring the details
cus it would kind of suck if I couldn't find the buttons and stuff!
I know this isn't particularly useful to the conversation at hand but I just
thought I'd share anyways :)
--
-smithdoerr
Robert Singers
wisdom
> I was bored the other day so I decided to give my phone an urban camo
> paintjob:
You're awesome Smithdoerr.
Ancient Gamer
said...
> > There's no shadowing or highlighting that would be present on a
> > real camo paint job.
>
> "On a real camo job"??? Wow! Show of hands from all you military
> service types out there. After 'shadowing or highlighting' your MBT or
> APC - how many of you went on to dry brush the edges of your Abrams of
> Bradley to pick out the details before say shipping out to Bosnia or
> Iraq? Did any of you vets go for a more advanced technique like the
> current 'Non metallic metals' look - say on the 50 Cal.? Did any of you
> go for the full 'Evy Metal' treatment on your combat vehicles (painted
> on dirt and rust or even battle damage)? Or did all you military types
> just slack off with the minimal '3 colors - done' GW tournament style of
> camo?
>
>
>
SON OF A BITCH! You mean camouflage is supposed to make shadows and not hide
them! Those bastards at the U.S. Army Infantry School at Fort Benning had it
all wrong!
--
Jim M
posted on this day, the 3979th of September 1993
To reply by e-mail catch the ZZZZZZ's in my addy...
"Look alive. Here comes a buzzard." -- Walt Kelly (Pogo)
Ancient Gamer
said...
>
You used the wrong shade of black...
--
Jim M
posted on this day, the 3978th of September 1993
M Roberts
news:MPG.1b6d685ba...@news.west.earthlink.net...
>
> Those bastards at the U.S. Army Infantry School at Fort Benning had it
> all wrong!
Now, why does that not surprise me . . . . ;-))
Cheers, Martyn
--
TombWorld4 --> http://pages.eidosnet.co.uk/~mrobs/
smithdoerr
"Robert Singers" <rsin...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9531BC59DC024rsingers@IP-Hidden...
> smithdoerr startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words of
> wisdom
>
> > I was bored the other day so I decided to give my phone an urban camo
> > paintjob:
>
> You're awesome Smithdoerr.
Yeah, I know.
My phone kicks so much booty I use it as a proxy for a Land Raider. Here it
is with it's monochromatic driver battling an offensively bright fire
elemental:
http://smithdoerr.home.comcast.net/Servitors/PhoneVsFire.jpg
--
-smithdoerr
smithdoerr
"Ancient Gamer" <ancien...@juZZZZZZno.com> wrote in message
> smithdoerr entered the world pub known as rec.games.miniatures.warhammer
and
> said...
>
> >
> > <mega snip>
> >
> > I was bored the other day so I decided to give my phone an urban camo
> > paintjob:
> >
> > http://smithdoerr.home.comcast.net/Servitors/CamoPhone.jpg
> >
> > Notice my super awesome painting techniques, which basically consisted
of
> > taking the cover off the phone and spraying three different colors of
primer
> > on it, which achieve that realistic camo look without obscuring the
details
> > cus it would kind of suck if I couldn't find the buttons and stuff!
> >
> > I know this isn't particularly useful to the conversation at hand but I
just
> > thought I'd share anyways :)
> >
> >
> You used the wrong shade of black...
Wadayamean? I used Off-Black since Black-Black isn't natural.
--
-smithdoerr
Ancient Gamer
said...
>
> "Ancient Gamer" <ancien...@juZZZZZZno.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b6d69232...@news.west.earthlink.net...
> > smithdoerr entered the world pub known as rec.games.miniatures.warhammer
> and
> > said...
> >
> > >
> > > <mega snip>
> > >
> > > I was bored the other day so I decided to give my phone an urban camo
> > > paintjob:
> > >
> > > http://smithdoerr.home.comcast.net/Servitors/CamoPhone.jpg
> > >
> > > Notice my super awesome painting techniques, which basically consisted
> of
> > > taking the cover off the phone and spraying three different colors of
> primer
> > > on it, which achieve that realistic camo look without obscuring the
> details
> > > cus it would kind of suck if I couldn't find the buttons and stuff!
> > >
> > > I know this isn't particularly useful to the conversation at hand but I
> just
> > > thought I'd share anyways :)
> > >
> > >
> > You used the wrong shade of black...
>
> Wadayamean? I used Off-Black since Black-Black isn't natural.
>
>
That's my whole point, Charcoal black would have been much more
appropriate...
--
Jim M
posted on this day, the 3979th of September 1993
Robert Singers
> My phone kicks so much booty I use it as a proxy for a Land Raider.
> Here it is with it's monochromatic driver battling an offensively
> bright fire elemental:
> http://smithdoerr.home.comcast.net/Servitors/PhoneVsFire.jpg
Swe3t
--
Rob Singers RGMW FAQ Maintainer. See it @ http://www.rgmw.org
Send submissions to submissions at rgmw dot org changing the obvious.
"I present to RGMW....the real life model for StrongBad." (c) Inc 2003
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
Qrab
Robert Singers <rsin...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Out from under a rock popped smithdoerr and said
>
> > My phone kicks so much booty I use it as a proxy for a Land Raider.
> > Here it is with it's monochromatic driver battling an offensively
> > bright fire elemental:
> > http://smithdoerr.home.comcast.net/Servitors/PhoneVsFire.jpg
>
> Swe3t
Clearly smithdoerr is a disciple of the Hwang school of modelling when
it comes to converting 40K vehicles. I mean, that phone could be a proxy
Land *Speeder*, but as a Land Raider it's pure cheese.
--
Be seeing you-
Qrab
Robert Singers
> Clearly smithdoerr is a disciple of the Hwang school of modelling when
> it comes to converting 40K vehicles. I mean, that phone could be a proxy
> Land *Speeder*, but as a Land Raider it's pure cheese.
I disagree. Smithdoeer is the master who Hwang aims to emulate.
John Hwang
>John Hwang, johnhw...@cs.com.no.com >speak...
>> >> If you've ever seen a full-size camoflauged
>> >> vehicle, you'll notice that the shapes don't have
>> >> "crisp" edges.
>> >
>> >While I'm well aware of this - please consider
>> >the following...
>>
>> Ever see a camoflagued vehicle at a distance? Those
>> "soft" edges become "crisp".
>
>Dear John,
>
>(Oh look - a 'Dear John' letter - doubtless just one of
>many past and future in Mr. Hwang's case...) Once again
>you jump into a conversation half cocked. Color me
>surprised.
WTF? Piss off, then.
>Yeah if by 'soft edges' you're talking about military
>hardware that's been brush painted with a 3 inch brush,
Not necessarily. Factory vehicles will often have had their camo sprayed for
a "soft" edge IRL.
>then yeah, it'll have a 'crisp' look to it at 30 - 100
>feet.
>If you're talking about military hardware that's been
>painted with an air gun -
Yes.
>then no, the edges do not become 'crisp' at distance.
At 1/60 scale, that soft blend which occurs over, say 3 inches, is reduced to
under 1/16 inch. Bravo to you if you can do soft smooth blends over such a
narrow band. Thus, I say that the edging is more "crisp" than "soft".
>Quite the contrary. In fact, if you *actually look at distant
>objects* even un camouflaged items - like big Red Barn
>and other civilian structures - become indistinct due to
>limits of the human eye and atmospheric effects.
I am well aware of this. They also become desaturate (become grey).
>The whole damn purpose of camouflage - to make
>things look like part of the natural scenery. Nature
>doesn't make a lot of 'crisp' edges - so if you've got lots
>of them on your vehicle - odds are it's not going to blend
>in real well.
On the contrary. Consider spots of sunlight through leaves. You will get
crisp spots. This is the fundamental concept behind WW2 German "light and
shadow" camoflague.
>But hey, never let reality
>stand in your way there Johnny, it hasn't so far...
Funny, I was just about to comment the same about you...
>> >The goal with painting Camo on many of GW items
>> >is to 'suggest' camo - not to *actually successfully*
>> >camoflage the item.
>>
>> That's true for GW camo, but not for true scale or
>>semi-scale camo.
>>
>> >That's why you'll notice many of GW's camo
>> >patterns are stylized. They're ment to suggest a
>> >camo pattern, but not *really* break up the vehicle's
>> >outlines or otherwise obscure detail.
>>
>> I prefer semi-scale technique, which splits the
>> difference, as true scale camo on such small models is
>> far too demanding for the time I can allocate to
>> painting. Semi-scale camo seeks to give the appearance
>> and effect of true scale camo, without the micro detail that
>> true scale camo would require.
>
>Point 1. At *NO POINT* did Mr. Hann ask what your
>personal preferred technique was there John - do try
>and follow the subject for once.
So fucking what? He asked about techinques, and I'm sharing my opinion. If
you disagree, TOUGH SHIT. Please feel free to print this out on a sheet of
cardboard, crumple it up, and shove it up your ass.
>Point 2. Let me be the first to congratulate you on your
>stunning talent - that of being able 'to take the blisteringly
>obvious and render it stunningly clear'. How ever would
>Use-net survive without that talent?
Interestingly, your elementary commentary about distance effects in painting
brings about a similar reaction with me.
>Which part of the comment "meant to suggest a camo
>pattern, but not *really* break up the vehicle's outlines or
>otherwise obscure detail" isn't (needlessly) repeated by
>your reply above?
I'm saying that scale and semi-scale camo can be applied, will not obscure
outlines or detail, and doesn't have to look like shit.
>> >Otherwise why bother to put in all the detail in
>> >the first place if one is simply going to hide it
>> >again?
>>
>(Oxymoron Alert... Oxymoron Alert... Oxymoron Alert... )
>
>> It's a tricky balance of hiding the detail without hiding it,
>
>Gee John - would that be anything like... "to 'suggest'
>camo - but not to *actually successfully* camouflage the
>item"???
Except that the example given doesn't do either. It obscures detail with its
flatness, while providing no real camoflague effect. I think that a
scale-based technique, rather than a weak pseudo-technique will give better
results.
>> much like pointilist impressionist painting. At a
>> distance, the detail should be completely invisible.
>> But up close, the detail should be visible.
>
>Sounds nice - but (unsurprisingly) it's wrong. You're
>confusing technique (pointillism) with intention
On the contrary. I am using pointilism as an example of an painting effect
that is distance sensitive. Close in, it's sharp, crisp, detailed. Farther
out, it's softer and more indistinct.
>- creating an 'impression' of an experience or visual
>scene - hence the term 'impressionistic painting'. The
>purpose of pointillism is NOT to show a million dots of
>color up close.
No shit, Sherlock. The point is that each dot is atomic, painted sharp and
crisp, but at a distance, they blend together.
>If that's the depth of your grasp of art - you've failed
>miserably. Most pointillist works are NOT designed to
>be viewed up close (as in a detailed look) but from a
>distance
No shit. Just like camoflague.
>greater than normal for works of a similar size. Point in
>fact - by their very design, pointillist paintings force the
>viewer to step back and get an overall 'impression'
>(oops there's that word again) of the subject rather than
>allowing the viewer to get lost in the minute visual details.
No shit. How about you start telling me something that I don't already know.
>At the point in time when pointillism gained popularity
>among impressionist painters *THERE ALREADY
>WERE HIGHLY SKILLED REALIST PAINTERS*
Duh. Yes, that's why impressionist painting gained popularity.
>If an artist wanted 'up close detain' then they damn well
>did NOT use pointillism - particularly *NOT* the
>impressionists. 'Close up detail' is pretty much contra to
>the entire impressionist movement.
Duh.
>It takes a special kind of stupid to utterly fail to grasp the
>purpose behind 'Impressionism' painting. <Here's a hint
>kids - the purpose is right in the name.>
It takes a more special kind of retard to utterlly fail to grasp the analogy I
was making. It's a simple fucking concept: painting techiniques can be
distance sensitive. But Jesus Ever-Fucking Christ, did you cock it up.
>> >> To get nice camo on vehicles ...
>>
>> [SNIP lazy camo techinque]
>
>(Ahh, still failing that 'How To Win Friends and Influence
>People' correspondence course - for the third year
>running - I see Mr Hwang.)
Eh. At this point, I recommend etching on a glass sheet, shattering it, and
shoving the shards up.
>Point 3. Hann asked for 'how to' tips - of which you
>provided ZERO, ZIP, NADA, NONE.
Do I need to give a link to Google? I specifically directed him to the scale
armour modeling side of the world for details, rather than to reinvent the
wheel. Because those techniques are too demanding for me to type up here. .
>(Oddly enough
>the number of 'how to' tips you provided is rivaled only by the number clued
in comments you make in
>this thread...)
And yet, you had this pressing need to show yourself to be an even less clueful
'tard...
>> >Understood and I fully agree. That being said,
>> >the methods I described are cheap, reasonably fast,
>> >and result in a decent 'simulated' camo without
>> >covering up all the detail.
>>
>> The problem with your techinique is that plasticine
>>leaves an oily residue. I wouldn't want to try and spray
>>paint over it at all.
>
>Point 4. For someone who describes this as "lazy camo
>technique"
No. I was talking about the spray light, blob medium, stripe dark thing
exemplified by the Dread. That is a lazy technique.
[SNIP remainder of Myr missing the mark. ]
Dude, you're so far off in left field, you can't even see the fucking game any
more.
Bye.
Insane Ranter
"smithdoerr" <fa...@notreal.com> wrote in message
news:5DTMc.159864$%_6.123451@attbi_s01...
Old phone you got there eh?
K Markus Viljanen
> I was bored the other day so I decided to give my phone an urban
> camo paintjob:
> http://smithdoerr.home.comcast.net/Servitors/CamoPhone.jpg
Rather nice, I'm just wondering how you managed to get the permission
from Telephone Museum to paint this magnificent example of ancient
archeotech?
--
KMarkusV
Remove PANTS to reply
Berto
"Insane Ranter" <sp...@not.me> wrote in message
news:JEZMc.14541$QO....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
berto
Ancient Gamer
said...
>
And you wondered why we got kicked out of the Garden...
--
Jim M
posted on this day, the 3980th of September 1993
Torak
> I would urge that those of you who are actually interested in doing camoflague
> *correctly* to go to a *real* hobby shop and get a copy of Fine Scale Modeler,
> or a FSM Armour technique compilation. True scale camoflague looks excellent
> and doesn't waste the capabilities of the airbrush. All of the natural detail
> will be present for close-up viewing, yet retain the correct camoflague effect
> at a distance.
I painted one of my Hammerheads in Swedish M-90 camo, using the
appropriate military-issue manual. It looks pretty good, but I'm rubbish
at weathering...
Berto
"Ancient Gamer" <ancien...@juZZZZZZno.com> wrote in message
Now you can't blame me for knocking over the ale and the nachos. It was that
other dude.
berto
Ancient Gamer
What other dude? You mean fog?
--
Jim M
posted on this day, the 3981st of September 1993
Berto
"Ancient Gamer" <ancien...@juZZZZZZno.com> wrote in message
Janet. Yeah that was it!
berto