Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

Revisiting the style rules
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5204		 Page 1 of 8
Author:  Colosseum [ May 8th, 2014, 7:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Revisiting the style rules
All -

Gollevainen and I would like to get a thread started and revisit the style rules. The current set available on the site is rather dated, and while it forms the backbone of the Shipbucket style, it's badly in need of an update. Recently we have seen things like an increase in shading and highlighting, new hull colors, and (in the case of the sailing ships) a movement away from the traditional "three line" approach to drawing small platforms and the like.

There are quite a few "Gentlemen's Agreements" and unwritten rules in place that I'd like to get set in stone before we proceed. The commentary in this thread is open to everyone: please feel free to chip in with whatever you think is important to rewriting the current set of standards.

Thanks all.
Author:  apdsmith [ May 8th, 2014, 7:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Revisiting the style rules
Well, I think the first thing to mention is the hull colour, as that's been the subject of recent debate - as I understand it, the current unofficial rule is "Red (0xFF0000) unless you know better." - is that the formal rule that we'd like to adopt?

Ad
Author:  acelanceloet [ May 8th, 2014, 8:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Revisiting the style rules
what I would like to see included:
- hull shading, 45 and 30 degrees rules and an rule not to do it unless you have references for the shape OR at the very least an very unique shape that should be represented by it
- a solid rule on detailing (if you are not sure how it looks and what it is, better leave it undetailed then make stuff up)
- fore and aft shading, maybe an rule that light should come from forward for the sake of getting it in an uniform standard
- the 'cilindrical' rule that is sometimes used quite recently.
- the bit of the rules that is not on the main site but is on the forum, the expansion with the 2-level shading and the roundess shading.

I would watch out with the 'gentlemens' agreements. while it is for example customary to ask people before using their drawings, this should be somewhat limited. for example, it should only be required for real designs and never builds, as there are people who have WIP and plans for those ships sometimes, while it is only irritating if you see an AU version of your ship drawn at most. also, how should this be handled with members which are away from the board for some time, should just asking be enough and is there an time limit on when you may say there will be no answer coming? also, how is this checked.
in this case, I would say that it is polite and widely done to ask before using somebody's work but not required.

I would also like to suggest to set an small set of 'example ships' which are drawn with different styles, for example the perry with how far you can go with detailing, one of colo's recent drawings for WW2 madness and some ship with hull shading (quite a few options are available for all, these are just the examples that come to mind)
Author:  eswube [ May 8th, 2014, 10:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Revisiting the style rules
Some of things I'm observing as "rules - written or not - which I understand to be more-or-less binding":
(in no particular order)
-"three-pixel thick" rule for all platforms/decks that are supposed to keep a man on it - vertical supporting elements of such platforms to be also at least three-pixel thick;
-railings - 2 horizontal lines with 2 pixels of space between from each other and deck, vertical lines with 5 pixels of space between each other - unless very specifically not fitting for particular ship (relevant IMHO mostly for very small vessels);
-underwater hull in "standard red" unless specifically known to be in some other color (plus two darker shades at the edges);
-lighting coming from bow - surfaces directed towards the bow in "lighter-than-basic" shade, surfaces directed towards the stern in "darker-than-basic" shade;
-outer edges/contours and 90-degree edges are made in black, lesser edges are made in dark shade (generally darker than railings and similar stuff to avoid confusion);
-rounded objects are shaded with (from the source of light/bow) narrow stripe of lighter shade - wide shade of basic shade - narrow stripe of darker shade ("narrow" being relative to the size of the object in question - generally being visibly much less than the middle shade);
-by extension of above 3 points - if there is no "edge" line then it's implied that object is rounded;
-no panel lines etc. unless being very visible in the real life (so as they would be visible if the ship was seen real-life at a distance in which it was at the same size for the viewer as on the drawing);
-hull being painted in slightly darker shade(s) than superstructure;

I support Acelanceloet's idea to have an uniform rule for underwater shading (for the hull shape - personally I'm not doing much in that regard and like it that way - I believe this: http://www.majhost.com/gallery/eswube/S ... olcano.png is the most elaborate shading of underwater hull I ever did :lol: ).

And I'd also be generally for having the rule that (except for AU/personal stuff) if a part exist on a parts sheet, it has to be used (in the "official" version), although because updated "official parts sheets" exist only for very few countries, then for a time being I'd limit application of such rule only to the parts on these "official sheets".

Maybe something else will come to my mind later.

@Acelanceloet
I'm not sure if I understand what You mean by "45 and 30 degrees rules"?
Author:  ALVAMA [ May 8th, 2014, 11:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Revisiting the style rules
I don't like the praise - I would watch out with the 'gentlemens' agreements. - The fact -> ''Gentlemens' > '' <
- Means basically you want an answer of someone who have less knowledge and skills.

Hull shading, 45 and 30 degrees rules and an rule not to do it unless you have references for the shape OR at the very least an very unique shape that should be represented by it
- This is slightly over the top and a bit irrelevant; makes no sence afterall.
Author:  heuhen [ May 9th, 2014, 4:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Revisiting the style rules
ALVAMA wrote:
Hull shading, 45 and 30 degrees rules and an rule not to do it unless you have references for the shape OR at the very least an very unique shape that should be represented by it
- This is slightly over the top and a bit irrelevant; makes no sence afterall.
this rule 45 and 30 degrees make in fact a lot of sense. due that if we try to make every thing over the waterline as close to real life, then we should do it to the underwater hull as well.

the idea behind the 45 -30 degrees shading rule is to give the hull the correct form, to show other how the hull looks. specially when it come to hull with specially form. for without it we would have no idea how the hull looks. for just an plain red hull form, tells use only that the hull is either: a box, round or something else...
Author:  acelanceloet [ May 9th, 2014, 10:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Revisiting the style rules
eswube wrote:
@Acelanceloet
I'm not sure if I understand what You mean by "45 and 30 degrees rules"?
the # degrees rules are quite simple. they are showing what method the hull shading uses.
I use the 45 degrees rule, which has everything more horizontal then vertical in 'regular' hull colour and everything below it in 'shaded' hull colour.
the 30 degrees rule is prefered by some others, it has everything that is angled more then 30 degrees with the waterline in 'regular' and everything less in 'shaded' colour.
some artists online use something like an 90 degrees rule, as in everything which is facing downward is shaded. this however is unusable for shipbucket IMO.

these # degrees rules are all quite the same, but what they actually do is force anyone using hull shading to think about how the hull is shaped, rather then just 'letting it look good', as there is an clear rule used where the shading ends.
Author:  Rodondo [ May 9th, 2014, 10:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Revisiting the style rules
I'd like to throw sailing ships into the matter

Some cases the representation of the 3 pixel rule doesn't work, ie spars, yards, small masts etc doesn't work and hampers both the art of it and the standard measure as a 8" diameter mast becomes 3ft thick
Author:  jabba [ May 9th, 2014, 12:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Revisiting the style rules
Ok, here are some thoughts...

:arrow: Graded shading should be completely outlawed from the SB part of the forums entirely. Offending items should not be discussed, but removed. If there was a rule set in stone for this, then there would be no unnecessary arguments or discussions.

:arrow: I think there is a difference between 'acceptable' and 'required'. For example, right now the shading (and other) rules for above the waterline are fairly clear and if someone forgets to shade or shadow an area appropriately, people will let them know.

This is not currently the case for showing the curvature of the hull below the waterline. While it is optional to apply fancy shading here, it is not required and therefore can not really be regarded as a standard rule, more an optional extra. Is anyone proposing that this become a standard, or simply an optional extra? Sometimes it is difficult to find a side-view of a ship below the waterline, let alone angles and dimensions of the hull shape required to create the 30° or 45° shading mentioned above.
heuhen wrote:
this rule 45 and 30 degrees make in fact a lot of sense. due that if we try to make every thing over the waterline as close to real life, then we should do it to the underwater hull as well.

the idea behind the 45 -30 degrees shading rule is to give the hull the correct form, to show other how the hull looks. specially when it come to hull with specially form. for without it we would have no idea how the hull looks. for just an plain red hull form, tells use only that the hull is either: a box, round or something else...
I personally think this argument is self-defeating. If the 45° or 30° shading is used for only some drawings, and the old shading standard retained for the majority, the previous standard may cause incorrect interpretation of hull shape. If I look at a 'plain red hull form', I can not tell if it is either:
a) An older Shipbucket drawing;
b) A newer drawing, for which no references for the hull curvature could be found, or;
c) A totally slab-sided or square vessel.

As a side note, this thread is the first time I have ever read about 'the 30° rule' or 'the 45° rule'. I assumed that most of the time we see extravagant shading on the hull it was just applied in a way that looked natural to the artist!

:arrow: I think that while the standard red of the underwater hull is a bit garish, it has been applied to the majority of ships represented in the bucket and should therefore still be perfectly acceptable. Personally, at some point in the past I changed from the standard red to a slightly darker colour that looks more realistic and slightly less 'cartoony' - this can be seen below.
[ img ]
No-one ever took issue with this and I don't recall other shades of red being commented on either. As there has been so little issue with it (that I'm aware of at least) I think it should be up to the artist, within reason.

:arrow: One thing I think should be changed is the use of brown to represent a curve or other detail on a red hull. I think this should be done away with as it doesn't make much sense.

:arrow:
acelanceloet wrote:
I would watch out with the 'gentlemens' agreements. while it is for example customary to ask people before using their drawings, this should be somewhat limited. for example, it should only be required for real designs and never builds, as there are people who have WIP and plans for those ships sometimes, while it is only irritating if you see an AU version of your ship drawn at most. also, how should this be handled with members which are away from the board for some time, should just asking be enough and is there an time limit on when you may say there will be no answer coming? also, how is this checked.
in this case, I would say that it is polite and widely done to ask before using somebody's work but not required.
I'm not quite sure if I agree or disagree with what exactly you are saying here. I thought that people's RL and NB work can be kitbashed at will, but AU designs should be asked for permission before being butchered? This seems reasonable enough to me.

:arrow:
eswube wrote:
And I'd also be generally for having the rule that (except for AU/personal stuff) if a part exist on a parts sheet, it has to be used (in the "official" version), although because updated "official parts sheets" exist only for very few countries, then for a time being I'd limit application of such rule only to the parts on these "official sheets".
I kind of agree. I'm sick and tired of new drawings from new artists being responded to with only a list of 'outdated' parts and no comment the drawing whatsoever, it really annoys me. A solution to this (which besides from irritating me, essentially wastes the time of the artist and the commentor) would be a rule for finding and using appropriate parts. It was recently suggested that the old part sheets on the main site, from which originate much of these problems, be removed or renamed appropriately, but I think it was rejected.

:arrow: And finally, this monstrosity:
[ img ]
We should, as soon as possible, introduce a zero-tolerance policy with regards to the use of this, even as a placeholder. I endorse an instant and permanent ban for anyone who dares to ignore this policy. These people need to be made an example of.
Author:  Rodondo [ May 9th, 2014, 1:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Revisiting the style rules
While there's worse props out there, yeah, its had its day
Page 1 of 8 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/