Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 47 of 51  [ 503 posts ]  Go to page « 145 46 47 48 4951 »
Author Message
LIVEWIRE
Post subject: Re: FD AU 4Posted: January 4th, 2023, 7:27 pm
Offline
Posts: 54
Joined: August 7th, 2018, 9:35 am
Location: UK
acelanceloet wrote: *
Keep in mind that the shading rules do exist to keep the style uniform. If you no longer can use components of the parts library or sections of existing drawings for reference, artists have to draw everything from scratch...... something very possible, there are artists who do just that, but we do not upload those artworks to our archive that is meant to be comparable in style and standards.

The shipbucket and FD style have evolved over time, allowing more individual freedom, but the core of the style (the black outlines for anything that sticks out, the no gradients rule, the crediting rules, the exact scales we use) are the very core of what shipbucket is about, and it is important to keep that intact. This has nothing to do with autocracy or ego boosts.
But you can still use components of the parts library or sections of existing drawings, you just edit them to match your style accordingly (and not that many in FD really use part sheets any more). How do you think I've drawn these F-5s? I've taken the original Darth Panda drawing and edited/improved it to match my intended style and quality level.

Clearly not enough individual freedom. I've followed all of the rules you've referenced, what I'm arguing here is about the over reliance on those original and outdated style guides. For example, overly strict rules on black lines (other than outlines) when darker tones do just as well without detracting from the quality of the wider drawing.

_________________
Currently working on:
- AU Royal Navy
- Various FD scale aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
LIVEWIRE
Post subject: Re: FD AU 4Posted: January 4th, 2023, 7:33 pm
Offline
Posts: 54
Joined: August 7th, 2018, 9:35 am
Location: UK
acelanceloet wrote: *
wb21 wrote: *
Breaking my radio silence to chime in on what Eswube had been calling out recently...

I think this conversation (was planning to bring this up on the Falklands attack jet challenge) might just be the best time to reflect upon the current direction of Shipbucket's content creation. As much as SB needs to grow, improve, and evolve (with the most notable "improvements" being the more drab paint palettes and—eventually—more drab window colors), we all have to face the following realization, head on: have we, for the most part, really gone that far and astray from the firmly canonical standards of SB, with all that "outside the box/comfort zone" mindset, in the name of aesthetics and change? Did such idealism built a slippery slope for SB to become largely a shadow of its former self? And what kind of example are we truly setting to the newer, up-and-coming users who naturally look up to design trends set by more established ones?

At risk of being called out for usurping forum authority, I think that the more-or-less concrete solution to this situation... is some serious shake-up on how the community as a whole perceives and handles this new generation of content; that any instance of experimentation would have to go through the funneling filter of due process and consensus before being put into official, mainstream acceptance; and that what has been already accepted would have to be reassessed. That way, there would be at least some modicum of clarity and organization in the sea of differing styles and trends.

cheers—wb21
Why should shipbucket to grow and improve? We are a community of people who are having fun drawing stuff, gathering knowledge, teaching each other, using each others work to create new stuff..... We still get our fair share of new people (sometimes more then we can properly handle on the discord, resulting in some senior shipbucket artists not wanting to be active "in that mess") even while we are not focussed on "growing and improving" shipbucket.

If you look at the shipbucket components sheets, you can definitely see shipbucket is not at an standstill. Without changing the style rules the shipbucket style has evolved over time, allowing for more potential freedom in stuff like shading, detailing, etc. The standard window colour that we used to use no longer fitted the more accurate colour schemes that were possible due to the internet providing more references then were ever available back when shipbucket started. HOWEVER! If a component was drawn 10 years ago, and I would past it on an existing drawing, colour correcting it and possibly adding some minor shading, it would not look wrong or mismatch with the "new, modern" drawing style. And that simple fact is very important, otherwise with every "evolution" the example drawings and part sheets would all have to be redrawn/modified. We have thousands of components available and thousands of drawings have been made, so let's not do that.
Why? Because the original drawings are bland, basic, and uninspired. Compare the original (c2000s) drawings of a ship or aircraft to the modern and updated (c2020s) version. You cannot deny that drawing quality and realism has increased massively, yet these outdated stylistic rules place such worship on the original drawings and it stifles any stylistic advancement and artistic quality improvements.

_________________
Currently working on:
- AU Royal Navy
- Various FD scale aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
LIVEWIRE
Post subject: Re: FD AU 4Posted: January 4th, 2023, 7:39 pm
Offline
Posts: 54
Joined: August 7th, 2018, 9:35 am
Location: UK
acelanceloet wrote: *
Regarding the F-5's and the black lines.

On the F-5, 2 shapes flow into each other. The engines, air intakes and the channel between them are a wide "box" while the main hull with the nosecone, cockpit, spine and flowing into the tailfin is a tall "box".

Looking at the cross sections of the aircraft in the below image: the wide box is sticking out on both sides of the tall box, with a clear defining line between them (on most cross sections this is even a hard near 90 degree chine, except for cross section G)

To represent this, similar to the skegs of ships, you need a black outline. There is a "top" of the wide box that is a clear separate part of the spine area. (See the purple lines I drew on the cross sections)
[ img ]

So in my opinion there should be a black outline between the air intake all the way to the engine nozzles. There might be some variation between other F-5 variants then the N-156-F pictured here, and I could be accepting of a grey line in the area of the more gradual shape of cross section G (although I would personally still use black there as there is a "top" which is horizontal) but the tiny amount forwards and the weird "only the part that is a different metal" is just not representing the real aircraft properly
And I rest my case when it comes to autocratic experienced forum members being so damn anal when it comes to the worship of 15 year old stylistic rules that are now hopelessly outdated and serve only to alienate newer artists into conforming to lower quality standards rather than stimulating improvements in drawing quality. Black lines are harsh and ugly and serve only to destroy the quality of a drawing, putting a focus on horrible black lines instead of advanced and nuanced use of darker shades. Black outlines I fully understand, black outlines on things with "air around or behind them" I don't understand but accept, this however. This is just nit-picking and rule worshiping for the sake of it.

Next time I guess I won't even bother uploading anything.

_________________
Currently working on:
- AU Royal Navy
- Various FD scale aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: FD AU 4Posted: January 4th, 2023, 7:46 pm
Offline
Posts: 10635
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
@Acelanceloet
I'd like to thank You for opinions here, to which I entirely subscribe. :)

I've just messaged Colosseum and Gollevainen, asking them to express their opinion - after all, it's their show (as in, they literally paid money to have all of it running).
Until that, I'll abstain with responding to particular issued raised (especially by OstranderSTG, who in nearly 6 years of his presence on this forum has made only 3 forum posts and 0 drawings I am aware of).

P.S. OK - just one remark to Livewire: "problem" is, that whole this style has been built specifically around solid-black contours.


Last edited by eswube on January 4th, 2023, 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: FD AU 4Posted: January 4th, 2023, 7:47 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7496
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
LIVEWIRE wrote: *
Why? Because the original drawings are bland, basic, and uninspired. Compare the original (c2000s) drawings of a ship or aircraft to the modern and updated (c2020s) version. You cannot deny that drawing quality and realism has increased massively, yet these outdated stylistic rules place such worship on the original drawings and it stifles any stylistic advancement and artistic quality improvements.
You do realise that that entire increase in style and realism has happened without any major rule changed right? This point actually proves that rule changes are not required for improvement of the drawings.

_________________
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.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Last edited by acelanceloet on January 4th, 2023, 8:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
LIVEWIRE
Post subject: Re: FD AU 4Posted: January 4th, 2023, 8:03 pm
Offline
Posts: 54
Joined: August 7th, 2018, 9:35 am
Location: UK
eswube wrote: *
@Acelanceloet
I'd like to thank You for opinions here, to which I entirely subscribe. :)

I've just messaged Colosseum and Gollevainen, asking them to express their opinion - after all, it's their show (as in, they literally paid money to have all of it running).
Until that, I'll abstain with responding to particular issued raised (especially by OstranderSTG, who in nearly 6 years of his presence on this forum has made only 3 forum posts and 0 drawings I am aware of).

P.S. OK - just one remark to Livewire: "problem" is, that whole this style has been built specifically around solid-black contours.
That would certainly be interesting. In fairness this isn't the place for arguments, so I'll hold back until then.

That may be so, but (aside from black outlines) is there not space for using darker tones instead of harsh black lines (which kill off the nuanced shading and quality of a drawing) for some contours?

_________________
Currently working on:
- AU Royal Navy
- Various FD scale aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
LIVEWIRE
Post subject: Re: FD AU 4Posted: January 4th, 2023, 8:05 pm
Offline
Posts: 54
Joined: August 7th, 2018, 9:35 am
Location: UK
acelanceloet wrote: *
LIVEWIRE wrote: *
acelanceloet wrote: *


Why should shipbucket to grow and improve? We are a community of people who are having fun drawing stuff, gathering knowledge, teaching each other, using each others work to create new stuff..... We still get our fair share of new people (sometimes more then we can properly handle on the discord, resulting in some senior shipbucket artists not wanting to be active "in that mess") even while we are not focussed on "growing and improving" shipbucket.

If you look at the shipbucket components sheets, you can definitely see shipbucket is not at an standstill. Without changing the style rules the shipbucket style has evolved over time, allowing for more potential freedom in stuff like shading, detailing, etc. The standard window colour that we used to use no longer fitted the more accurate colour schemes that were possible due to the internet providing more references then were ever available back when shipbucket started. HOWEVER! If a component was drawn 10 years ago, and I would past it on an existing drawing, colour correcting it and possibly adding some minor shading, it would not look wrong or mismatch with the "new, modern" drawing style. And that simple fact is very important, otherwise with every "evolution" the example drawings and part sheets would all have to be redrawn/modified. We have thousands of components available and thousands of drawings have been made, so let's not do that.
Why? Because the original drawings are bland, basic, and uninspired. Compare the original (c2000s) drawings of a ship or aircraft to the modern and updated (c2020s) version. You cannot deny that drawing quality and realism has increased massively, yet these outdated stylistic rules place such worship on the original drawings and it stifles any stylistic advancement and artistic quality improvements.
You do realise that that entire increase in style and realism has happened without any major rule changed right? This point actually proves that rule changes are not required for improvement of the drawings.
Yourself and other long time users so vehemently arguing in favour of outdated use of solid black lines in line with "the rules" would clearly suggest otherwise.

_________________
Currently working on:
- AU Royal Navy
- Various FD scale aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: FD AU 4Posted: January 4th, 2023, 8:09 pm
Offline
Posts: 10635
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
There is a space for using darker tones - where the break in surface is less sharp than in places where black lines are needed. ;)
And when it comes to "nuanced shading" - Your shading is so nuanced, that I barely see any contrast at all, and it looks completely flat to me.
Ok, no more comments until Admins speak from the Throne. 8-)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: FD AU 4Posted: January 4th, 2023, 8:11 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7496
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
LIVEWIRE wrote: *
This is just nit-picking and rule worshiping for the sake of it.

Next time I guess I won't even bother uploading anything.
I think you know that isn't true.

What is the issue here, is that for shipbucket, apart from artistry, accuracy and consistency are also important. So in this situation:

- The F-5 has wings, those stick out from the hull. You outlined those in black.
- The F-5 has air intakes and an engine body, sticking out from the central hull. You outlined that mostly in grey.

So where is the consistency? is it outlined in grey because it is sticking out less?

As long as you can have a discussion about how you defined what, there are lots of possibilities. but "I used double dark grey because black is ugly" is not really a strong argument against a style that is defined by the black outlines

_________________
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.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
LIVEWIRE
Post subject: Re: FD AU 4Posted: January 4th, 2023, 8:12 pm
Offline
Posts: 54
Joined: August 7th, 2018, 9:35 am
Location: UK
eswube wrote: *
There is a space for using darker tones - where the break in surface is less sharp than in places where black lines are needed. ;)
And when it comes to "nuanced shading" - Your shading is so nuanced, that I barely see any contrast at all, and it looks completely flat to me.
Ok, no more comments until Admins speak from the Throne. 8-)
But how about using even darker tones for sharper breaks instead of black? ;)

But yes, ceasefire. Now we wait for our overlords to pass judgement on this little discussion of ours :lol:

_________________
Currently working on:
- AU Royal Navy
- Various FD scale aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 47 of 51  [ 503 posts ]  Return to “FD Scale Drawings” | Go to page « 145 46 47 48 4951 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 89 guests


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


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