Shipbucket

You need to just go through every single parts sheet and redraw every single part to your liking so we can stop with this nonsense. I can appreciate wanting parts to look nice but it seems like literally nothing is safe from you.

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

if parts look or are wrong when I start working with them, while I want something to be accurate or good looking, I visit them. for example, I won't touch russian or french parts because I won't need them, I fix GMLS's when they are wrong and I find that out when doing belowdeck parts, and what you are describing is exactly what I do for the dutch parts sheet. well, if you look at it that way, isn't what I do exactly what you do when parts for your ship drawings look off?

_________________
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

Colo... I am getting tired of your ranting.



Now as an artist I like everything look perfect, that's why a never follow the SB-rule to some point. SB-rule was a good starting point, but when you want the ship look more correct you want everything to look perfect.

To hate that thing getting updated when new information is out there on the web, etc. is like saying:

- why using penicillin when you can use soap.
- Why internet, when I can walk to other said of the earth to have a nice talk with my friends and show them my latest black & white painting.
- why do we need electricity!
- why do we need fire, when the food taste good as raw (meat).
- A glass of mud water is better than a glass of clean water!

Colo... if you want me starting to rant against you, then well I can get a bit heavy North-Norwegian of me (they are know as the worst Norwegians out there!).


So Colosseum, that you have been here longer than use doesn't mean that you can go around like an ... (stopped my self there puh.) I someone want a High quality drawing with a lot of details, so it look like what you see in the real world, they can. There are nothing you can do about that. But if one want to use an old cartonish drawing they can do that to...

Be calm and watch the world improve and stop be angry.

Se you on the flip side! I hope i diden't crash the party, I just writed down what i think. the work Ace... is doing is fantastic, he is an artist and should never be talked to like that. That is why many person have problem being on this forum people that can't control them self.

there you go I have said what I want and will now, be quiet!

Greetings from me the Norwegian bastard with German blood, Henrik

I'm sorry, it just seems like the emphasis here has turned from drawing new ships from scratch to updating a different part every week. Then we are left with a big archive of ships that all have different revisions of each part. I've avoided redrawing quite a few systems in the past because they were so widely used, and I didn't want to have to be the guy who goes through and updates all the ships. Take Tim's effort to replace one launcher system. Sure, it's very nice that we have a newly drawn system which is more accurate, but for pete's sake I get tired of seeing tiny revisions to parts sheets every day.

There's something to be said for showing some restraint and just using an outdated part if it's so widely used. I find it very entertaining that ace is so willing to totally redraw so many parts, but not willing to go and update all the ships affected by the change. Artists like ace think only about themselves... not about the good of the overall archive. Like I said, the way to solve this would be to do a mass update all at once instead of the occasional token update. Then someone with way too much time on their hands can update all the old drawings.

As for your comments about the style changing, that is a separate issue which I will not discuss here as it is irrelevant.

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

The key idea should be Don't fix what is not broken. Usually only reason for updated part would be the previous one beeing somehow wrong. To simply do it in sake of few pixels more of detail for something that is used on hundreds of drawings is really not worth of it and like colo said, pretty much against the idea of what we try to do with the common parts.
So the person who chooses to remodel parts should really consider wheter such work is nesserical weigthed against the popularity of that said part in the archive.

For incase of Russian and Soviet Equipment, I've now (still unpublished most of them) redrawn basicly every piece of equipment, but as 80% or so of the ships using those parts are my own drawings (which I have habbit to inregularily redrawn/upgrade) I can safely choose this sort of approach, but when it comes parts that are used by 60 or so different artists in hundreds of pics, things gets complicated, unneserically complicated as for to say.
I've heard complains of how some people tends to just recreate parts so that they get some sort of "rigth" to upgrade others drawings against the orginal artists will with sort of misunderstood pseudo-authority that otherwise such stuff wouldn't be on the archive.

In anycase such aint the case and I will not remove drawings wiht "obsolete" parts. Thus the artists working on with parts should always take account how these things couses grudges and rifts, really unneserical ones, between the drawers and how to avoid them. If this issue keeps cousing proplems, I migth do something about it.
Play nice, and let other kids share your toys.

thats all for now.

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"

Perhaps it's not the right place to put it forward, especially since I'm neither particularly notable nor prolific member of SB-community, but as this discussion has appeared here and now, I'd like to share two ideas that perhaps could be useful in relation to the issue above. (Or maybe not, perhaps they aren't good ideas, but I guess that it's You guys who should judge it).

1) To make Parts Sheets updated periodically (and ONLY periodically), say, every six months. During these months only these parts would be valid (and totally new-made, of course), even if more modern version would be made. After these 6 (for example) months Sheets would be either made valid for next period (if no changes are proposed) or re-evaluated and updated.
Down side of this idea is that all major Parts Sheets would have to be "made complete" (more or less) and organized to a level similar to these in this thread, to avoid situations like "part X is on Parts Sheet, part Y is on separate drawing somewhere and part Z is on my drawing of ship XXX, but I just didn't bothered to upload it to any Sheet".
2) To add to the Templates similar periodic validation. In this case, of course, general parameters of the templates would be the same, just that it would have a small date added to it (like: "template valid 01-06.2013" for example).
Of course it would apply only to newly-made or remade drawings. No mass action of removing old drawings to new templates.
Down side of this idea is that somebody would have to change the templates periodically.

Besides that I would have a suggestion that if You don't have the time to update Parts Sheets and Templates on Main Site, then at least remove them. Countless newbies start with these outdated parts and countless times they have to be told "no, You have outdated template and parts, new are there...".

P.S. Gollevainen - any chance of finally seeing the new Russian Parts Sheet? True 80% of Russian-equipped ships are Yours, but others would like to have some fun too.

im working on it they all done, but don't exist on any neat orderly fashion, so I need to put them together and connect them all with associate equipment to make the sheets usefull.

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"

Again, the best option would be the database-driven approach I had suggested a few months ago but never had the time to implement. Now that I work full time I find I have a lot less time for "projects" -- not sure I like that! D:

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

A couple of weapons I drew/modified for teh CM-5 USS Terror.
The Mk 1 Twin Bofors is a replacement for the current drawing since that's badly out of scale.
The Mk 2 Quad is in addition to the current drawing that shows it with a shield

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Those are quite nice.

Re: Oerlikon, Bofors and 5"/38 redraws, I would really like to see some specific supporting documentation as to why they have been redone. Don't get me wrong -- I like the way it looks and it's probably more accurate -- but I think the best way to reconcile new parts is to include some nice blown-up, detailed illustrations that show why the current drawing is wrong and the new one is correct. IMO, this would solve a lot of the anger over redrawing parts.

So, in short, don't just come slap the new part in my face, write me a detailed description of why the current one is incorrect and why your new one is better.

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