Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

USS Houston
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=245		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  BrockPaine [ September 23rd, 2010, 1:15 pm ]
Post subject:  USS Houston
[ img ]

I *think* I've finally fixed all the shading so it meets Shipbucket standards. Can anyone point out anything I missed?

I just noted two things that I need to change - the text is wrong, and there's a one-pixel speck in the upper right. I'll fix that later today.
Author:  Gollevainen [ September 23rd, 2010, 1:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USS Houston
howcome the crediting seems to be so difficould to you guys?
Just the names.
First the one's who has done most of the work and then the rest.
Author:  Thiel [ September 23rd, 2010, 1:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USS Houston
Thye shading around the prop guard, catapult, foremast and the staiis amidship is wrong, the gangway and boat boom needs shading, the waterline shouldn't be drawn in black, but rather a dark grey, the motor launch needs a black line that divides the underwater hull from the rest of the hull. Lastly the portholes looks shoddy placed, especially around the bow and stern. Since the internal decks almost always follows the maindeck, I always place the porhole with the same distance from the main deck. And unless the porholes under the b(?) gun are oval, those needs to be redone. And I believe the grey thing next to them is a davit. If that's the case it needs a black outline. The boom on the aft mast could do with some work and I believe the superstructure just aft of the stack could use some aditional shading.
Other than that, very good work.
Author:  BrockPaine [ September 23rd, 2010, 1:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USS Houston
Gollevainen wrote:
howcome the crediting seems to be so difficould to you guys?
Just the names.
First the one's who has done most of the work and then the rest.
That's what I just said in the first post - don't worry, I'm going to fix it.
Thiel wrote:
Thye shading around the prop guard, catapult, foremast and the staiis amidship is wrong, the gangway and boat boom needs shading, the waterline shouldn't be drawn in black, but rather a dark grey, the motor launch needs a black line that divides the underwater hull from the rest of the hull. Lastly the portholes looks shoddy placed, especially around the bow and stern. Since the internal decks almost always follows the maindeck, I always place the porhole with the same distance from the main deck. And unless the porholes under the b(?) gun are oval, those needs to be redone. And I believe the grey thing next to them is a davit. If that's the case it needs a black outline. The boom on the aft mast could do with some work and I believe the superstructure just aft of the stack could use some aditional shading.
Other than that, very good work.
The portholes are correct, exactly like they are on the original ship. They're placed exactly as they are in my sources (Friedmans) so I'm not going to alter it without pretty decisive evidence. As to the shading on the infrastructure aft of the second funnel - are you referring to the white area? That area's open to the elements; there's no bulkheads there.

I'll look into fixing the other areas you pointed out later today. I think I see where on the mainmast you're talking about. Thanks, that's a help.
Author:  bezobrazov [ September 23rd, 2010, 5:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USS Houston
When I suggested my detailed-up version of the Houston, I did also very meticulously consult Friedman and comparing with the photos of the ship and her sisters I either changed some portholes or let them be. So Brockpaine should not correct anything with regards to the portholes; those are accurate. As regards to the crediting font-issue, I think I am to blame (again! :-P) for screwing that up. Afterall, I was the one adding the additional text, not Brockpaine, so don't shoot the messenger! - And- lest anyone wonders what kind of structural element is represented just above the outermost shafts and running a curvaceous run down to the midships bottom hull-section, that's the one unique feature of many US cruiser classes before and during WW2: a sharp 'vee'-form aft hydroplane hull, which not only gave the ships extra speed but also allow more precise steering with the one rudder. It was both a most elegant and economical solution to gain that extra speed advantage that the Treaty-cruisers so coveted! The last class to feature this design solution, albeit in a less exaggerated form was the Oregon City of 1944.

But Brockpaine! Good job! Kudos to you!
Author:  BrockPaine [ September 23rd, 2010, 7:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USS Houston
And to you, as well. It would still look pretty plebian if you hadn't pitched in the details that you did.
Author:  Portsmouth Bill [ September 24th, 2010, 10:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: USS Houston
This is certainly a worthy addition; and Its nice to see more of the older class cruisers getting represented. I can't comment on the details, apart from the hull. I would pass the darker shading on the Vee-form (but that is my view), but there does seem some fussy outline shading on the main hull, where a one pixel darker shade is the rule. Also, if that is the armour belt shown, you could lift it slightly with a one pixel darker shade outline, above and below the waterline :)
Author:  darthpanda [ September 24th, 2010, 7:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USS Houston
Good work!!!
Author:  Redhorse [ October 13th, 2010, 3:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: USS Houston
I've got an earlier version of the Curtiss SOCs you might want to check out. The set includes a version with the wings folded for storage. I'll upload in the Planebucket parts sheet as soon as I can.
Author:  BrockPaine [ October 16th, 2010, 4:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: USS Houston
[ img ]

Can anybody see anything else I missed?
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/