Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 3 of 8  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 58 »
Author Message
BB1987
Post subject: Re: The Northampton-Class Heavy Cruisers Reworked.Posted: July 14th, 2014, 2:01 pm
Online
User avatar
Posts: 2757
Joined: May 23rd, 2012, 1:01 pm
Location: Rome - Italy
heuhen wrote:
I would recommend a screen no smaller than 23". It give you a bit more space on screen, but you also see more of the drawing.
Well a 22'' (mine) fits the USS Montana inside the screen with room to spare, so unless someone wants to only draw Tankers or Supercarriers I'd say it is more than enough.
Anyway, let's lend back to Bezo his Northamptons thread :lol:

_________________
My Worklist
Sources and documentations are the most welcome.

-Koko Kyouwakoku (Republic of Koko)
-Koko's carrier-based aircrafts of WWII
-Koko Kaiun Yuso Kaisha - KoKaYu Line (Koko AU spinoff)
-Koko - Civil Aviation


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
bezobrazov
Post subject: Re: The Northampton-Class Heavy Cruisers Reworked.Posted: July 14th, 2014, 2:12 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3406
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:20 pm
...except, it's useless for me, since it's essentially wrong...that's why Karle's cannot be used.

And guys, have you missed the news that we're expecting twins? That's where the money goes...

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: The Northampton-Class Heavy Cruisers Reworked.Posted: July 14th, 2014, 2:19 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7320
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
you cannot copy paste karle's, but you certainly can look at it how he represented a hull still quite similar to yours, right? seems far from useless, and cheaper then buying a new monitor and doing the development yourself :P

that said, bigger monitors can in the long term save you money because they are easier and more comfortable to work on.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
bezobrazov
Post subject: Re: The Northampton-Class Heavy Cruisers Reworked.Posted: July 14th, 2014, 2:36 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3406
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:20 pm
Yes, ace, you're right, about the monitor thing, but, like i've said, that's not highly prioritized right at the moment, with our impending family expansion.
The reason I've completely rejected Karle's version, is due to the fact that since he's not gotten those crucial flute features aft correct, but rather appears to have winged it, then how could I trust him to be correct with other stuff. Hence why i did the "development" on my own.

Look, I sincerely believe I've researched this class far more thoroughly that he has (no offense). He posts drawings almost every week, often several on one day. How can you do a thorough research and apply it if you're that fast? And I have spent several decades of my life doing this research, so I believe my knowledge of this class is pretty solid.

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colosseum
Post subject: Re: The Northampton-Class Heavy Cruisers Reworked.Posted: July 14th, 2014, 4:41 pm
Offline
Posts: 5155
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact: Website
You can't. He seemingly ignores our comments to that effect and it really makes no sense...

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: The Northampton-Class Heavy Cruisers Reworked.Posted: July 14th, 2014, 5:28 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7320
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
bezobrazov wrote:
Yes, ace, you're right, about the monitor thing, but, like i've said, that's not highly prioritized right at the moment, with our impending family expansion.
The reason I've completely rejected Karle's version, is due to the fact that since he's not gotten those crucial flute features aft correct, but rather appears to have winged it, then how could I trust him to be correct with other stuff. Hence why i did the "development" on my own.

Look, I sincerely believe I've researched this class far more thoroughly that he has (no offense). He posts drawings almost every week, often several on one day. How can you do a thorough research and apply it if you're that fast? And I have spent several decades of my life doing this research, so I believe my knowledge of this class is pretty solid.
just saying, I am only pointing at his shading style and colour choice, I cannot check any of the hull shape without good references, but I have to say that even if it has mistakes aft, midships it looks much better shaped then yours. this is because I can see he followed the general 45 degrees rule for hull shading, and while it might not be perfectly accurate with lesser refernces then yours, I still have no idea what kind of shading rule you have followed, as you seem to have mixed a few. that is all that my comment comparing with karle's work meant ;)

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Karle94
Post subject: Re: The Northampton-Class Heavy Cruisers Reworked.Posted: July 14th, 2014, 7:33 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1844
Joined: November 8th, 2010, 3:07 pm
Location: Norseland
My Northampton is an AU design using the hull of the Portland class. As for details, I put on what i wished to put on. Also, I can find nothing that shows the flute. No pictures, drawings, paintings or models.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
bezobrazov
Post subject: Re: The Northampton-Class Heavy Cruisers Reworked.Posted: July 14th, 2014, 8:18 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3406
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:20 pm
ace, I perfectly well understand what you were saying, though, I'd be infinitely grateful if you could actually point the areas out that you contest are wrong. Maybe you could send me an IM with it, and having it referenced so that I may properly look at it? I am somewhat short on time, unfortunately, so any assistance therewith will be appreciated.

Karle94: It's called research! I've found plenty of references to that particular design element of early US cruisers, plenty...

I think you can too...

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colosseum
Post subject: Re: The Northampton-Class Heavy Cruisers Reworked.Posted: July 14th, 2014, 8:24 pm
Offline
Posts: 5155
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact: Website
http://www.floatingdrydock.com/TFW2.htm

Floating Drydock carries plans for the USS Portland and USS Chicago. The "TFW" series drawings contain "all views" (including a faired lines section), and in my experience, they will always show "knuckles" (the term for the flutes bezo mentions). I have a feeling these will be the only plans you can get that will properly show the hull. Booklets of General Plans are useful, but they were designed primarily for the crew of the ship, so often they don't contain any details other than the location of the shafts, props, and rudders on underwater views. To ferret that information out, you usually need to go to the "Bu" series of Navy builder's plans - for which TFD carries outboard profiles for both the Chicago and Portland.

To do this right, you generally need to refer to the original/official documentation (despite whatever Colombamike might say) - start with the official plans to get your proportions and dimensions correct, and then correct any errors using photographs. Where photographic evidence doesn't exist, refer to the official documentation. ;)

Or you can start ordering microfilm from the National Archives to see if the plans are really there hidden away!

To get it right, you have to pay money for the right references. Google can only give you so much! I've spent hundreds of dollars on plans from TFD, new reference books, etc. I hope my investment is reflected in the quality of my drawings...

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: The Northampton-Class Heavy Cruisers Reworked.Posted: July 14th, 2014, 9:12 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7320
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
[ img ]
picked out the most obvious ones.

overall comments/tips:
- do not mix overhang shading and 'shape' shading
- choose one general rule for what your shape shading shows (for example, 45 degrees angle)
- use max 4 shades for the underwater hull: base colour, highlight (only usable on bulb/torpedo belts etc when they go over your 'rule' (see above)), shaded, and a tiny bit of overhang/detail shading if you really must to represent shapes (for example, that 'flute' might need it)
- stick with the rule above the waterline (overhanging sterns and stems)

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 3 of 8  [ 76 posts ]  Return to “Real Designs” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 58 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]