keanseeley

After multiple requests for a tutorial, here's how to take a 2D livery and put it on an image of a real plane.

I'll be using Adobe Photoshop CS6, a livery created on one of Med's templates, and this (Dropbox link) image.

To demonstrate, I'll be putting this conceptual livery on the photo of the real 737.

For starters, open both the 2D livery and the real plane in Photoshop. Our first task will be placing "AirBlue" on the real 737. To do this, click and drag the text layer from the 2D livery to the real image. 

Since we want to make an exact copy of the 2D design, the first task is resizing the type. Under the "Edit" section in the toolbar, find "Transform" and then "Scale". 

(Edit->Transform->Scale)

In the 2D version, "Airblue" is about 9 windows big. Since the 2D template is true to life, we can use details like the windows to get a sense of scale. Using this method, we can also see that "AirBlue" starts right between the second and third window. Position the titles so that they begin in the same place and are the same scale as in the 2D template. 

However, since the real image is taken an an angle, the 2D titles need to be adjusted. This is where the majority of the work occurs in the conversion process. First, we need to rotate the titles so that they match the perceived tilt of the fuselage. To do this, go to Edit->Transform->Rotate. This is the first of 3 steps in this process.

(Align the imaginary red line with the green line)

Our titles look better now, but they still look unrealistic. Our second step will be the use of the perspective tool. Go to Edit->Transform->Perspective. If you haven't rasterized your type already (converted your type layer into a regular layer), now is the time to do it. Right-click the type layer, find "Rasterize", and select it.

This image only needs a minimal amount of Perspective. I used 0.4, but your preferences and experiences may vary.

(The perspective tool brings one end of the selection closer to create a vanishing point effect.)

The final step of this process is using the warp tool. Since airplane fuselages are cylindrical, the warp tool allows us to wrap the text to that shape. This step is the hardest, and may require quite a bit of trial-and-error. Just in case something goes wrong "Step Backward" is located at the top of the "Edit" menu. 

After we go to Edit->Transform->Warp and select "Warp", the text will be placed inside a grid. 

We want to "wrap" this grid around the fuselage. Click the intersections of the lines in the grid to move the text around. You'll probably need to warp the text again and again to get it right. This part is a pain, but it's necessary for the final product.

(My third attempt at warping the text, it's not quick)

After this process, the final step is blending the layer so that it's shading is accurate. To do this, go to the box that should say "Normal" above the layer list. Click the menu and try out some of the options. Different colors will look best in different filters. For this livery, I used the "Darker Color" option.

(Admittedly the titles still look a little wonky. You'll have trials, errors, and more trials.)

To keep each post under the size limit, I'll divide up the tutorial. Part 2 will be placing the rest of the livery on the plane.

With so many designers in the gallery section, having a weekly challenge would be a fun idea. Every week a theme could be selected, and at the end of the week the best entry would be chosen. Example themes could be "Represent Australia Without Using a Kangaroo" and "Best Use of Hibiscus Clip Art"   

This is less about AE and more the AE forums, but I believe that this is the right place to create this thread.

Moving beyond the 20 identical SkyTeam alliances, how could I set myself up for future entry into dedicated alliances like those found under the 'alliance' tab?

So far I know I need to create more realistic seat configs, decrease aircraft utilization to a realistic 10-15 hours, and create a reasonable IFE. 

I also realize that I need more than a single month of experience to create an strong application, but there's not much I can do except wait 

Besides these improvements, what else can I do?

Around the mid-1970s, there were a multitude of small commuter airlines in the US. Flying aircraft like the Short 330 and Beech 99, they served small airports which didn't have the demand for larger aircraft. These airlines linked these small communities to larger airports, such as New York, Atlanta, or Denver. However, due to the price of gates at major airports in AE, this model is impossible to emulate. A single gate costs the same for a flight using a Saab 340 as a flight using an Airbus A380. Since commuter flights only make ~$5000 a day, it would take 3-4 months of flights to pay off a single gate at Atlanta. This impacts the realism in the game, as it makes smaller airlines at larger completely unfeasible, unlike real life.

To fix this problem, I propose the creation of "commuter gates". This would mirror airports like Washington-Dulles, which has gates A1 through A6 located in a dedicated concourse for regional airlines. These commuter gates would be available for far less than typical "regular" gates. They would also have less slots than "regular gates".

Potential problems from the start would include what kinds of aircraft would be allowed to use these gates, what airports would receive commuter terminals, and how to prevent the dreaded "spamlines" from buying 500 Saab 340s along with 300 regional gates instead of using normal-sized aircraft out of normal gates on normal frequencies. However, there are solutions to these problems.

What Kind of Planes Would We be Able to Use?

The best way to determine which airplanes would be able to use these gates is to look at how commuter airlines were defined by the Civil Aeronautics Board in the 1960s-70s. In 1969, the CAB defined a commuter aircraft as a plane with less than a 12,500 pound max. gross weight. However, since AE does not include a measurement for MGW, this metric is useless. This is not a problem though, since in 1972 the CAB defined a commuter aircraft as one with up to 30 seats. This would mean planes like the Nord 262 (29 pax) and the Fairchild Metro (19 pax) would be able to use these commuter gates. In 1978, the laws were changed again. Aircraft that carried up to 60 passengers were defined as commuter airliners.

I believe that the 1978 standard of aircraft seating up to 60 passengers should be used as the metric for commuter gates. This would include the earliest wave of 19-seat commuter planes, and would also include the recent trend of 50-seat commuter jets. Anything larger would have to fly out of regular gates. This mirrors the previously mentioned commuter concourse at Washington-Dulles, which serves aircraft with no more than around 50-70 seats. 

Something like this restriction is already in the game. Flights to Dallas Love Field are restricted by the Wright Amendment, which states that flights to states which do not border Texas may only be on planes with less than 56 seats. This mechanic can be mirrored with commuter gates.

What Airports Would Have Commuter Gates?

This is the most complex decision to make. While all airports could be provided commuter gates, this is not realistic. As I see it, there are two ways to determine which airports would have commuter gates. 

One way to determine which airports would have commuter gates is based on price. Airports with gates that cost more than X amount of dollars would have commuter gates available.

The second way would be determined by passenger numbers. Airports that have more than X passengers a month/year would have commuter gates.

Both these methods have their pros and cons, and require specific numbers to be determined.

Alright, But What About the Spamlines?

The best way to combat spamlines would be to limit the amount of commuter gates one airline could own. Besides the lower available slots compared to regular gates, an airline would only get to own X regional gates at one airport. Any more than X regional gates at an airport, the airline would be bumped up to regular gates.

For example:

Spam Airlines buys a regional gate with 25 slots in Atlanta. They begin to serve Washington D.C. 25x daily using CRJ200s. Spam Airlines then purchases another regional gate, and gains another 25 slots. They fill it up with 25 more flights using CRJ 200s. Since there is so much more demand, Spam Airlines now tries to buy another regional gate. However, since they already own the maximum number of 2, they can only buy regular gates from now on.

The number of available slots and gates can be shifted around, but this is an example of how it may work if implemented.

So yeah, that's about it. Please post any questions, suggestions, or criticisms!