Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

RN 6-in Cruisers
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=3897		 Page 9 of 9
Author:  BCRenown [ June 18th, 2013, 11:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RN 6-in Cruisers
First off, let me say that I've known Portsmouth Bill perhaps longer than any of you and my sole reason for posting was to help him is his quest for an accurate drawing of a late war HMS Jamaica.

Secondly, Shipbucket is not my style of drawing warship images. I think it's great for making easy alterations but, accurate it is not.

I've made so many changes to the drawing that even I don't remember all of them;

1, shortened the hull by 2 feet to the correct length of 555.5 ft.
2, adjusted the armour belt - the narrow protion (3.25") was too wide and the wide portion (3.5") was a tad too short.
3, installed a smaller anchor.
4, installed the correct shields to the 4" gun mountings.
5, installed the correct 2pdr and 20mm mountings.
6, reworked the foremast and its equipment - the mast was too high, the starfish too large,incorrect radar
was used.
7, the mast carrying the YE 60 homing beacon was too thick.
8, the AA crew shelters (between the 4" HA) were too large.
9, the torpedo tubes were mounted too high.
10, etc,etc.

Previously I didn't come here pointing out errors that were made. After all I could appreciate that Portsmouth Bill and K.W. Vestergaard were doing the best they could. Instead, I elected to make corrections in a drawing of my own.

Anyway, I hope Bill, at least, can get something positive out of my version of HMS Jamaica. As stated previously, I make no claim that it's 100% correct.

A full size image can be viewed by clicking twice in the image.

And thanks for the 'warm' response. I guess the road to hell is paved with good intentions after all.
Author:  TimothyC [ June 19th, 2013, 4:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RN 6-in Cruisers
BCRenown wrote:
And thanks for the 'warm' response. I guess the road to hell is paved with good intentions after all.
First, let me apologize for the tone of my prior post. I was approaching the drawing you had presented as if you were submitting it for review prior to upload, and my critiques at the time were valid in that respect. Now that I know that such is not your intent, I fully appreciate that it is a very nice looking drawing.
Author:  BCRenown [ June 19th, 2013, 5:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RN 6-in Cruisers
Quote:
First, let me apologize for the tone of my prior post. I was approaching the drawing you had presented as if you were submitting it for review prior to upload, and my critiques at the time were valid in that respect. Now that I know that such is not your intent, I fully appreciate that it is a very nice looking drawing.
Apology accepted, Sir. Thank you for your very kind remarks.
Author:  Hood [ June 19th, 2013, 8:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RN 6-in Cruisers
I've been aware of BC Renown's excellent work for many years. I think its a good synthases of SB and BC style and anyone with good sound knowledge and artistic skill is welcome to fix errors and mistakes. I think its a good piece of work and could be made fully SB style very easily. I hope we'll see more such work in the future.
Author:  KimWerner [ June 19th, 2013, 6:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RN 6-in Cruisers
BCRenown wrote:
First off, let me say that I've known Portsmouth Bill perhaps longer than any of you and my sole reason for posting was to help him is his quest for an accurate drawing of a late war HMS Jamaica.

Secondly, Shipbucket is not my style of drawing warship images. I think it's great for making easy alterations but, accurate it is not.

I've made so many changes to the drawing that even I don't remember all of them;

1, shortened the hull by 2 feet to the correct length of 555.5 ft.
2, adjusted the armour belt - the narrow protion (3.25") was too wide and the wide portion (3.5") was a tad too short.
3, installed a smaller anchor.
4, installed the correct shields to the 4" gun mountings.
5, installed the correct 2pdr and 20mm mountings.
6, reworked the foremast and its equipment - the mast was too high, the starfish too large,incorrect radar
was used.
7, the mast carrying the YE 60 homing beacon was too thick.
8, the AA crew shelters (between the 4" HA) were too large.
9, the torpedo tubes were mounted too high.
10, etc,etc.

Previously I didn't come here pointing out errors that were made. After all I could appreciate that Portsmouth Bill and K.W. Vestergaard were doing the best they could. Instead, I elected to make corrections in a drawing of my own.

Anyway, I hope Bill, at least, can get something positive out of my version of HMS Jamaica. As stated previously, I make no claim that it's 100% correct.

A full size image can be viewed by clicking twice in the image.

And thanks for the 'warm' response. I guess the road to hell is paved with good intentions after all.
I had to think twice before this respond. Your entrance in this thread might be the course to the 'warm' response. You came with a drawing claming it's more accurate than the already drawn. Normally it is very polite to contact the original drawer - in this case me - and discuss the differences you've observed. As you said it your self; proper sources were very hard to find. Now we are in a situation, where you feel forced to justify yourself and point out 9 failures plus etc., etc.
For your information I can tell the length varies in different sources, but I chose tx 557,2 ft because that was showed in the most. That doesn't proof it's the right length, but when you draw in SB you have to make a choice. Some of the other points (anchor, torpedo tubes etc.) are according to the SB part sheets. The SB scale is foremost for presenting ships in a good way but sometimes small compromises had to be done for not getting a cramped drawing.
The way you presented your self seemed offending on me. You should take in account that a completed ship represent hours of research and then hours of drawing an corrections. When an old but unknown artist (for me) then 'pop up' and claim he had made a more correct drawing - and originally with out documentation - then it's hard to say welcome :cry: I'll guess you haven't checked SB that time the HMS Jamaica process was running?
But anyway, I'm sure it's only some sort of misunderstanding. I don't think you wanted to offend me delitterably ;)
Author:  Portsmouth Bill [ June 20th, 2013, 8:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RN 6-in Cruisers
I appreciate that Kim has been able to respond before I have, as he took on HMS Jamaica as a personal project; so, in his work Monty has been offering a version build on that. And yes, the result is attractive, but not (as Kim points out) shipbucket kosher. Like Kim, Monty is a true gent, already an old pixel seafarer when I was less than a cabin boy (more the ship's cat!). So I can appreciate where he's coming from, which was not intended to offend; he has his own style and recognises that.

Having looked at the latest version, what Monty has worked on what Kim has worked on from my 'basic' is an attractive drawing. In some areas in wouldn't meet our standards, for example the 'hazing' over the gun turrets. But in other areas it could stand alongside (at least my) earlier effort as a definite improvement. Ideally, Hood's suggestion would be the best, getting the non shipbucket aspects changed and having this as a joint project, with B C Renown on the legend after
K W Vestergaard. :)

(This may be a good place to let it be known that I'm taking my dibs off all projects; it may well be that my pixel bashing day's are over for now.)
Author:  BCRenown [ June 25th, 2013, 4:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RN 6-in Cruisers
Bill, I hope all is well and your break from "pixel bashing" is only temporary.

click for full size:
[ img ]


Take care,
Monty Mills
Author:  Colosseum [ June 25th, 2013, 4:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RN 6-in Cruisers
There are just too many shading aberrations for me. One of the hallmarks of Shipbucket is a consistent (among drawings) shading style - which this just does not conform to.

I don't know enough about the actual ships to comment on the accuracy of the drawing but I'm not too worried about that... it's just the color scheme and the odd shading that puts me off.
Quote:
I think it's great for making easy alterations but, accurate it is not.
:/ I don't really agree with this. Sure, you can't capture detail smaller than 6 inches realistically, but to do that on a ship that's 800 feet long, you'd end up with a drawing that wouldn't fit on three monitors. It's only inaccurate if you're lazy about drawing your parts. ;)
Author:  emperor_andreas [ June 25th, 2013, 4:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RN 6-in Cruisers
Nice work, BCRenown!
Page 9 of 9 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/