Shipbucket
http://shipbucket.com/forums/

The Cleveland-Class Missile Conversions 1957-1979
http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=7593		 Page 2 of 4
Author:  emperor_andreas [ March 22nd, 2017, 11:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cleveland-Class Missile Conversions 1957-1979
Beautiful work!
Author:  bezobrazov [ March 22nd, 2017, 11:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cleveland-Class Missile Conversions 1957-1979
Thank you Ian. Saves me time there! :D In all honesty, I was looking through the site to check for further updates. I missed this one...

Erik: Yes, they did. Both the Providence and, to somewhat lesser degree, the Springfield, were kept to the highest possible standard, when it concerned their electronic communication suit, but money simply was not forthcoming to replace or digitize the Terrier directors, or, for that matter, upgrade the Terrier system itself. Although the system had one channel per arm, as latter systems before Aegis, the system faced block obsolescence by the end of the 1960s. Hence why the USS Topeka, in every other respect a fine and fairly well-kept unit was withdrawn after only about nine years of service!
Author:  Hood [ March 23rd, 2017, 8:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cleveland-Class Missile Conversions 1957-1979
Excellent updates, these look beautiful.
The underwater shading looks complex, but if the real world ships were that complex then I think you've done a good job.
Author:  bezobrazov [ March 24th, 2017, 2:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cleveland-Class Missile Conversions 1957-1979
Small updates, including the exchange of old 5"/38 with the correct new version, and lowering of the prop. guard (which I totally missed editing, oh the horror! :o :shock: 8-) )
Author:  acelanceloet [ March 26th, 2017, 8:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cleveland-Class Missile Conversions 1957-1979
I have at the moment very little time, so I wanted to share my WIP.

I needed only a single shade on the base colour to represent the hull with the 45 degrees rule. hell, with the lack of references (a 3D model, even one as accurate as the ref used here, gives very little information about the actual angles in the hull) you could easily get away with just the 'old' shipbucket shading.

I have not found the large complexity of this hull. while the hull is not entirely 'normal' in it's shape, most of that is defined by the hard chine in the stern. the bulb and bilge are represented, as is the chine and the skeg.

[ img ]

note how I removed the hard corner atop the skeg, as the bend there is not that hard. I removed a lot of other lines and details (mostly the armoured belt) for the sake of editing, I was planning on adding those back in but I lack the time. I think, for the armoured belt, you could also represent this with only the base colour, one shade and possibly one highlight.

feel free to remind me of things I have missed or questions/comments.
Author:  bezobrazov [ March 27th, 2017, 12:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cleveland-Class Missile Conversions 1957-1979
I will give our fellow shipbucketeers a chance to comment before I do it. Mine are, of course, on the first page, and all I will say for now, is that I spent almost an inordinate time trying to properly represent the underwater hull. (not claiming, though, that I'm right!).

I thank Jan for taking his time to visually commenting on this with his own version.
Author:  Colosseum [ March 27th, 2017, 1:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cleveland-Class Missile Conversions 1957-1979
I think Acelanceloet's version is probably more accurate and also looks better to my eye (though I am a traditionalist). Less is more sometimes.

Also, why are the screws still the awful old yellow color??
Author:  bezobrazov [ March 27th, 2017, 4:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cleveland-Class Missile Conversions 1957-1979
Ian, as for the props, that's an easy fix. Never, honestly paid attention to those, so, no biggie.

Well, since we have only one opinion so far, here's mine. While I, in principal, agree that less sometimes can be more, here's not the case. While undoubtedly well executed, as everything Jan is doing, I believe he has missed the major shapes of the hull; the distinct bending inwards from approx where the outer shaft line is emerging. Also, by omitting the shading along the lower edge of the side armor plating, which extends towards the bow, in an unusual knuckle along the side plating, I think Jan missed something. While I do understand that some fellow artists may feel a little put off by my shading suggestions, as for now, I will retain it, since I feel that it's the best representation so far. This is my humble opinion, which I believe is firmly supported by pictorial and technical evidence on how the rather unique hull lines of the Clevelands were drawn. I still welcome further input though.
Author:  acelanceloet [ March 27th, 2017, 5:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cleveland-Class Missile Conversions 1957-1979
Bezo, may I ask you this one more time then.
what do your shading lines represent? can you draw a graph or infographic of that for me?

I have no doubt you have a lot more information in your drawing then I have in mine. you show much finer details then I did in my drawing. however, I have no idea what those details mean. you could have taken all shading of the 3D model and still not represent any shape in shipbucket style.

My style of shading gives information about the beam of the ship, the angle of the knuckle, the shape under the armoured belt (it shows the ship is very wide compared to it's draft) Do we really need that much more information in a shipbucket drawing?

I could see your point if you proposed the middle way, using 3 shades or something like that. But I refuse, having used the same references you used, that you can provide anything close to reality with the accuracy of 7! shades (which suggests, you have one shade about every 13 degrees, an accuracy I would find near undoable even if using a lineplan of said ship.)
Author:  bezobrazov [ March 27th, 2017, 5:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Cleveland-Class Missile Conversions 1957-1979
Well, Jan, you may ask, of course, but then, my good friend, I may request the same from you, right? Anyway (And I'm not an expert in computer art drawing, to be fair!), I cannot see, how your version will accurately represent the lines properly either. Mine may not, I can agree to that, mind you I have not claimed otherwise, but between the two, I think mine's still a better representation. While I may have exaggerated the usage of colors (and I'm OK with people thinking that!), you appear to have done the exact opposite. Now, I do value this discussion, since it may eventually lead to some sort of consensus, and, after all, you only need to alter one hull to have a template for the rest, so that's no biggie in that respect. BTW, Jan, I appreciate your compliment, and am looking forward for further exchanges. Thank you!
Page 2 of 4 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/