@Just A CF-18 Here
Nice work.
@everybody concerned with discussion about the style etc.
Obviously, Gollevainen and Colosseum clarified the matter, especially when it comes to use of black color.
I've also read Hood's entry with great interest (in addition to our discussion in private messages), though I have slightly different view on some issues. As I mentioned before, to me, outlining in black control surfaces (with possible exception of leading edge slats, particularly on smaller aircraft - simply because it could too easily lead to clutter and lump of double black lines) and other "often moving" elements, of all "human entrances" (doors, canopy frames) and of all covers that are meant to be opened in flight for some things to pass through the opening said covers are covering (undercarriage doors, bomb bays etc.) are personal standard. As for the transparence of canopies (windows or whatever...) - I prefer to leave them opaque or semi-opaque (showing only "shade" of whatever is inside), as I consider it more in line with original spirit of SB/FD drawings. That doesn't mean that I consider transparent-ish cockpits an "error", merely it's something I just don't personally like and am not considering to do myself.
(btw. speaking of outlining non-pressurised canopies or entrances with black and pressurised/more-tightly-fitting ones with dark shade - to me the one-size-fits-all black outline is simply more straightforward solution - no pondering on wether given plane is or isn't pressurised, no guessing "what author meant..." - just simple "it's entrance, it's black"
)As for the shading in general - I use just 5 shades for SB and 6 for FD (as shown below). Last of these shades (5th SB, 6th FD) is meant to show, what in the Style Guide is described as "demarcate angular breaks in the superstructure less than 90 degrees in angle" (although it should be noted, that in the subjects depicted in FD scale, particularly for aircraft, measuring "90 degrees" is usually impractical, so for me the demarcation between "90* black"/"less than 90* very dark" isn't to be taken literally, unlike in the SB scale).
There is one significant issue to it: differences between shades (between basic and highlight on one end, and subsequent darker shades on the other) I'm setting at regular intervals (in Paint's "edit colors" in "Lum" section) - typical by factor of 20 units (so if "basic shade" has value of 100, the highlight would have 120, shade 80, darker shade 60 and so on - although for light colors it can be more, and for dark ones less, because there simply could be not enough scale downwards available), but that last shade, which I call "semi-black" or "semi-contour" is darker from the next shade by much larger factor (30 or even 40... units - assuming it's possible - in any case it's a relatively much bigger factor than for the rest of shades) in order to make it more pronounced (for some colors it might be not much different from actual black at a first glance). Yet, it doesn't mean that use of black is particularly reduced by it - and in fact there are places where I use black even though, arguably, "very dark/semi-black/semi-contour" would suffice, but I still prefer to use it to make visual distinction between particular parts of the vehicle more definite.
![[ img ]](https://www.dropbox.com/s/s21znttshzm815x/colors.png?raw=1)
![[ img ]](https://i.imgur.com/oo5GTwD.png)
![[ img ]](https://i.imgur.com/jygWspl.png)
![[ img ]](https://i.imgur.com/9Yv7cN5.png)
![[ img ]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/785893085602775060/1084161548030849256/Straz.png)
![[ img ]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/785893085602775060/1084160795304280084/Stormo_57.png)
![[ img ]](https://i.imgur.com/QUaPxCI.png)
![[ img ]](http://shipbucket.com/wiki/images/5/51/Convair_CF-106A_Delta_Dart_%28Canada%29.png)
![[ img ]](https://i.imgur.com/fLo5pYN.png)