Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

HMS Antelope
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=1057
Page 1 of 3

Author:  jabba [ April 19th, 2011, 4:24 am ]
Post subject:  HMS Antelope

'A Class' Destroyer, comm. 1930

Hopefully an improvement from my earlier work...

-Attachment removed, see below -

Author:  ALVAMA [ April 19th, 2011, 5:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: HMS Antelope

Yea. A small note is that we always use ''port hols'' with 4x blue pixel, not one, since this is a large ship!

Author:  bezobrazov [ April 19th, 2011, 10:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: HMS Antelope

... though in this case the ship isn't that large, as not to benefit form Jabba's solution. Comparing photos and Jabba's drawing I can clearly see why he choose this solution. I am, however, a tad confounded by the size of the name at the stern. Should the letters be of such a significant size? Otherwise a very delightful product, which in my opinion clearly qualifies to be moved to Real Designs!

Author:  ALVAMA [ April 19th, 2011, 11:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: HMS Antelope

It are rules..

Author:  Gollevainen [ April 19th, 2011, 11:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: HMS Antelope

Quote:
... though in this case the ship isn't that large, as not to benefit form Jabba's solution. Comparing photos and Jabba's drawing I can clearly see why he choose this solution. I am, however, a tad confounded by the size of the name at the stern. Should the letters be of such a significant size? Otherwise a very delightful product, which in my opinion clearly qualifies to be moved to Real Designs!
Unless you are drawing motorboats of less than 30 meters, the portholes should always be uniform as Alavama descriped. This has nothing to do with most aqurate presentation of their relative size, but it comes down to very basics of Shipbucket style as pixel-art. There needs to be some level of exageration over detail sizes.

As what comes to the drawing there is still LOT to do. if we start from the Basics:
The mast....overlapsing black pixels are no-no in basicly every case.
Ordanance... An USN K-gun? Mk IX 4.7' mounts? American TTs? A strange AA gun that penetrates into the TTs? (is there a removed middle tube that allows the gun mount in :roll: )

Author:  jabba [ April 19th, 2011, 12:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: HMS Antelope

Got the wrong Mk IX when looking at the part sheets.

Thought that was an AA gun beside the TT looking at the drawing, but on more detailed research, found that it is a quadruple TT and no gun belongs there! :roll: It appears to be something else...

The TTs', however, are to be found on a GB part sheet viewtopic.php?f=16&t=65 Is this incorrect? Should I draw my own TTs?

Oops with the K-gun...

Thanks for spotting all of that :oops:!

Yeah, the hull lettering was massive, so I've changed.
All portholes now standard size.

- Newer attachment below -

Author:  Gollevainen [ April 19th, 2011, 1:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: HMS Antelope

The mast should be three pixels width, not two (nothing is two pixel width except 3-4 inch gun barrels).

ok, now I think next phase would be the funnel coolin pipes, you should look for example how they are drawn in other ships from this era from the archive.

Author:  ALVAMA [ April 19th, 2011, 1:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: HMS Antelope

http://shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Re ... na1940.png The same class?

Author:  jabba [ April 19th, 2011, 1:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: HMS Antelope

- Attachment deleted, see next page -

Author:  jabba [ April 19th, 2011, 1:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: HMS Antelope

ALVAMA wrote:
The Canadian 'River' class destroyers were a collection of British destroyers. They had two A class made for them (HMCS Skeena being one of them)

So yes, basically (I think)

Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/