Kenley Revisted - BoB install

***Pat Pattle*** · March 17th, 2011, 23:58

Just wondered what you chaps thought of this. Because of the photographic construction of the scenery in BoB2 the ETO version of Kenley looked a bit at odds. This is no critisicm to Frosty who did the ground textures for it as it's easily the best one by far.

So being that the real airfield is pretty much complete I've plonked the Google Earth image straight into the install, albeit with a bit of tweaking to remove later war additions. It doesn't look so good from lower down but at this altitude shows up pretty well IMO.

Just need to move the blast pens and add the other buildings back in.

Attachment 33391

**alain95** · March 18th, 2011, 03:26

Very nice Clive,

But don't we learn with the Frosty version that the landing stripes were green ?

Regards
Attachment 33401

**Dave(Dangerous)Boynton** · March 18th, 2011, 04:36

Looks very nice Clive but theres alot of RAF bases that wont be able to use this way of airfields, especially the ones that no longer exisist at all like RAF Snaith which was a polish halifax bomber base along with RAF Breighton , i'm guessing for these using the original way of creating the bases will have to be used? Although having said that you could use the google image as you have and then add a layer for the runways, taxiways, hard standing etc. The only one what would cause a problem would be RAF Snaith ...... it has the M62 running almost through the middle of the old base.

Similar to RAF Elvington which now only has its main runway so i would guess doing it old school would be the same as above, the only way to go as i would think it would be very hard making and matching the rest of the runways to match the google earth image.

Would this way you have used speed up the building of bases then Clive? or is it the same time frame?

Keep it coming though as it does look great.

Dave

**Led Zeppelin** · March 18th, 2011, 09:35

impressive

***Frosty*** · March 18th, 2011, 09:57

Aw, I feel totally violated !!

Good looking job, Pat!!

Alain95, the info we used for the first creation of Kenley did mention camouflaged runways. I think that's exactly the point Dave's trying to make. These satellite images of airfields are postwar and can in most cases not represent their war-time counterpart for the full 100% because of the changes during and after the war.

But Pat also has a point in that a painted airfield does look odd in an otherwise photoreal global scenery layer. So his work is an excellent version too. Designers are always facing trade-offs and his is as good as ours (yes, Pat is as much the co-author of the 'first Kenley' as I am

).

Frosty

**popsaka** · March 18th, 2011, 11:57

...I think you may really be on to something... and what with you knack for this aspect of CFS3 I look forward to any further brainstorms of the Clive variety!!!

**alain95** · March 18th, 2011, 15:47

Hello Frosty,

Since the Kenley and Gravesend add-ons I really enjoy all what's done around the CFS3 airfields.
It's a bit amazing now with google earth to find old RAF and USAAF facilities, sometimes it appears partially in the fields colours. And for the others the transformations from a WWII airfield to a cold war facility appears clearly with enlarged tracks, in spite unused ones are mainly covered by grass.
I'm glad that there are memory keepers as you and Pat, that can allow us to fly again in the 40's scenery. I often learn details that are not in the books.

Let's go on :salute:

***Pat Pattle*** · March 19th, 2011, 00:16

Yes the runways should be camouflaged. Most of the airfields had hedge lines etc. painted onto them in various shades of bitumen and paint. I've never been able to make this look right so don't bother, which I know is a cop-out.

Having said that I've read that on some airfields it was applied in 1939 as war approached and had faded away by the following year. Either way the LW still found them!

Glad you're not offended Frosty, it wasn't an easy decision to overwrite your beautiful artwork.:salute:

but theres alot of RAF bases that wont be able to use this way of airfields, especially the ones that no longer exisist at all like RAF Snaith which was a polish halifax bomber base along with RAF Breighton , i'm guessing for these using the original way of creating the bases will have to be used? Although having said that you could use the google image as you have and then add a layer for the runways, taxiways, hard standing etc. The only one what would cause a problem would be RAF Snaith ...... it has the M62 running almost through the middle of the old base.

Similar to RAF Elvington which now only has its main runway so i would guess doing it old school would be the same as above, the only way to go as i would think it would be very hard making and matching the rest of the runways to match the google earth image.

Would this way you have used speed up the building of bases then Clive? or is it the same time frame?

Yep there's very few that could use this method, Kenley is different because, apart from runway extensions, it didn't alter very much throughout the war and come the end was closed to flying because of the balloon barrage for the V1's.

The bomber bases could be fudged, they were built to a pretty much set pattern so the ones that still do exist like Dunkeswell and Upottery could be used in their place. I hadn't thought about going beyond 1940 with this but you've now got me thinking Dave!

This is Dunkeswell that I started a while back for the ETO, it's not much of a time saving doing it this way, there's a lot of cutting and stitching to do.

***Pat Pattle*** · March 19th, 2011, 00:35

a few more experiments..

Google earth 1945 (I love Google earth!)

Croydon

CFS3 BoB - in 1940 there were no peri tracks

Banff

RAF Banff

and somewhere in Holland...

**Daiwilletti** · March 19th, 2011, 17:14

I like what you've done with Kenley, Clive. I'm a sucker for photo realism. I find it hard enough to find airfields without having hedgerows painted on 'em!

**greycap.raf** · March 21st, 2011, 07:26

If an "outsider" opinion is allowed - sorry to say but I express my opinion as it is without bowing to anyone - the photo realistic fields are good at some places and horrible at others. Out of those seen here Kenley is good, Dunkeswell sticks out like a sore thumb, Banff is so low res it's painful to look at and Croydon again is good. The mysterious Dutch field is in the middle of nowhere and looks good done like that.

If I was the one making them (which I'm not but I'll say it anyway) I'd try to match each field to what's surrounding it. Kenley and Croydon here are in the middle of photo created scenery anyway so photo realism is certainly the way to go, considering the available resolution of course, but in the middle of fields or swamp or forest or... well, the "empty" scenery, a traditionally created base usually works better. I don't remember who made the stock base overhaul for ETO but that look fits the scenery perfectly as long as colour matching and base edge anti-aliasing is done properly. Which leads me to another subject, namely just those two mentioned. They make a difference so huge that it's hard to believe.

I believe Clive made the original Biggin Hill for ETO, thus I used his name in this example. If it's wrong it is - that's not the point. The point is to show the difference gained by spending some more time on the colour shades (too dark pavements and still far from perfect, I know but this was a quick'n dirty test) and blurring the edges. The original field also has trees removed for a different test but again it's not the point.

ETO Biggin Hill, Clive's way
ETO Biggin Hill, my way

**popsaka** · March 21st, 2011, 07:46

...so how do we blur the edges(?),'cause it really takes a great airfield and makes it perfect(!)...
(and more immersive):greenbo:

***Pat Pattle*** · March 21st, 2011, 11:12

If an "outsider" opinion is allowed - sorry to say but I express my opinion as it is without bowing to anyone - the photo realistic fields are good at some places and horrible at others. Out of those seen here Kenley is good, Dunkeswell sticks out like a sore thumb, Banff is so low res it's painful to look at and Croydon again is good. The mysterious Dutch field is in the middle of nowhere and looks good done like that.

All opinions are good and noted, that's why I started the thread.

Dunkeswell is/was an experiment, it still needs blending into the scenery as per the Dutch airfield. I may or may not continue with it as there's a lot of modern development to cut out.

Banff, well it is what it is, a quick 'n' dirty way of creating an airfield that could be placed via the MB and not as part of the GL. Like all these things it needs a big dose of imagination.

Biggin Hill like a lot of the others was made a long time ago when I was still figuring out how to do this (and still am!) Some of them have blended edges, some don't. The process is 'feathering' Pops. I like what you''ve done with it Rene, there's a lot more to do if you fancy a job!

If I was the one making them (which I'm not but I'll say it anyway) I'd try to match each field to what's surrounding it. Kenley and Croydon here are in the middle of photo created scenery anyway so photo realism is certainly the way to go, considering the available resolution of course, but in the middle of fields or swamp or forest or... well, the "empty" scenery, a traditionally created base usually works better. I don't remember who made the stock base overhaul for ETO but that look fits the scenery perfectly as long as colour matching and base edge anti-aliasing is done properly. Which leads me to another subject, namely just those two mentioned. They make a difference so huge that it's hard to believe.

Bearing in mind I have a day job, wife, 2 kids, mortgage etc. and have had to make many of the building models, I think I've done pretty well. All the faults you point out are known about, most of the original bases being made for stock cfs3 textures and not ETO. So I fully take on board what you say Rene just give me more time to fix them! Lol.