Shipbucket

Yes, but this is also not an acceptable method for crediting as it does not follow the Fair Use Agreement.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

I know Colo, it's just that, that this particular site gives some form of credit (even if it's in the wrong way), as most sites don't even bother with that.
As for drawing from a picture, it is rather hard, as you need the picture from a very specific angle (a broadside view, a 90 degree angle) which usually distorts the ends of the ship being photographed.
The best way is indeed GA plans or other line drawings of your subject matter

_________________
Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"

I cant believe what I'm seeing in these two pictures.....

http://www.navsource.org/archives/06/im ... 100433.jpg

http://www.navsource.org/archives/06/im ... 100405.jpg

they used the talbot as a MK-92 GFCS and OTO 76 test platform. Very cool. I never knew this. Whats realy wierd is that they put the ship back to original layout after testing...why? why not just leave it with the new gun and FCS since you took the time to install it all.....

anyway, has anybody draw this ship with this layout? if not then I can draw something no one has drawn...that would be some kind of miracle around here haha

there is quite a lot not drawn..... every DD between gearing and spruance, for example, IIRC.

anyways, I suppose they reverted it because of maintenance problems, the fact that it had no longer use for it's helideck in it's setup and because the setup chosen was favorable for testing but not for operational use

_________________
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

Thank you Ace, I shall draw it as they SHOULD have set it up then.......is this a free pass to "kit Bash" or will it still be looked at as unforgivable sin?

Also, I will look at the ships you mentioned as not being draw and see if any light my fire

kitbashing is always allowed, kitbashing bad is wrong.
look at the RN AU: all of those are in effect modified variants of never build and real designs.
in the archive (you should check the forum and peoples worklist yourself) we miss the ships from DD-662 to DD-962. we also miss DDG-31 to DDG-47. I would suppose there would be some classes in between
if there would still be no light, I would like to point at the DE's and the DLG's, were some classes seem to be missing as well

now, never again say there are few undrawn ship classes, let alone the variations

EDIT: ow and, we are still recruiting people for work on the USN carriers, as the drawings we had were so wrong they were removed from the main site....... but the people who would do them (including myself) lack the time, knowledge, interest or some other factor that would make huge projects like carriers impossible to do alone.........

_________________
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

ok here's what I've got so far. I'm basing this off of the pictures I linked to above except I'm drawing the way I would have outfitted her out had I been in charge. I'm going to keep rolling with this with the assumption that the navy was going to use this ship as a test platform for other systems in the future.



Not finished yet, just posting for guidance and thoughts. One thing that's been bugging me are the bitts. They are to big. I know I'm new and I'm bound by my newness to say and ask stupid things but I've made the one between the pepperbox and the gun mount just a wee bit smaller and I think it still looks good. I don't want to rock the boat per say, but those take up a lot of room on a small ship like this one.

Anyway all comments, sarcastic or otherwise greatly appreciated

Joe

which bits do you mean? the mooring gear? if it is.....
yes, those can be too big. just draw what you see on the real thing, and base it on that. it is possible the ones on the part sheet are a bit too big for this ship, which would result in them being different on the real ship. as long as you do changes like that with a good reason, no one will blame you for that

also, the STIR would replace the aft director, not the forward one. the WM egg would replace the forward director. (in role at least)
in position it would depend on the cables already present and the radar line of sight.

if you would truly go for an perry test ship, you might as well fit the SPS-49. I highly doubt though if she would still carry the NDB ASROC.

_________________
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

I guess I don't see a reason to not draw it as the ship really was used as a test platform.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Thank you again Ace. Your thought pattern mirrors mine. I plan on replacing the pepper box with the MK-13.
What I didn't know what that the egg replaced the director, but now that I think about it the Pegasus class has only the egg. thank you for pointing that out to this former "FC" who should have known that