Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 4 of 8  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6 โ€ฆ 8 »
Author Message
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: US Fast Combat Support Ships (T-AOE)Posted: July 11th, 2011, 10:09 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
Based on other views I've seen, I think the most you could justify is a recolor. We're seeing an aft quarter of the radar with that shot, not the side view we use in shipbucket.

_________________
๐Œ๐€๐“๐‡๐๐„๐“- ๐‘ป๐’ ๐‘ช๐’๐’ˆ๐’Š๐’•๐’‚๐’•๐’† ๐’‚๐’๐’… ๐’•๐’ ๐‘บ๐’๐’๐’—๐’†


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
KimWerner
Post subject: Re: US Fast Combat Support Ships (T-AOE)Posted: July 11th, 2011, 10:19 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2195
Joined: December 22nd, 2010, 12:13 pm
Location: Denmark
TimothyC wrote:
Based on other views I've seen, I think the most you could justify is a recolor. We're seeing an aft quarter of the radar with that shot, not the side view we use in shipbucket.
Oh no, but it is that picture which show the most close ups. I've compared that with my others, but how many pics are you asking for?

_________________
Work in progress:
DD County Class PNS Babur (1982)(PAK)
FF Type 21 Class D182 PNS Babur (2000)(PAK)
All relevant Coat of Arms


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
MihoshiK
Post subject: Re: US Fast Combat Support Ships (T-AOE)Posted: July 12th, 2011, 8:12 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1035
Joined: October 16th, 2010, 11:06 pm
Location: In orbit, watching you draw.
Contact: Website
Hm, gotta back up TimothyC here, not just in his role as Parts Forum Mod, but simply because he seems to be right. I really don't think we need a rework of that radar, the format of the current one seems to be good.

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
KimWerner
Post subject: Re: US Fast Combat Support Ships (T-AOE)Posted: July 12th, 2011, 9:47 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2195
Joined: December 22nd, 2010, 12:13 pm
Location: Denmark
Hm... I have had big trouble here. I've discussed the issue with TimothyC in PMs and felt I were alone in the world. I've search as a mad man on the net, and there are really few pictures of MK95. Timothy wrote to me, that it was up to me to proof I'm right. The only solution I could find was to make a comparison to a picture. So here it is, and I've placed the parts sheets MK95 above so the comparison would be complete:
[ img ]

_________________
Work in progress:
DD County Class PNS Babur (1982)(PAK)
FF Type 21 Class D182 PNS Babur (2000)(PAK)
All relevant Coat of Arms


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: US Fast Combat Support Ships (T-AOE)Posted: July 12th, 2011, 9:53 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
quick google let me find this:
[ img ]
the old ones look more like that to me. recolour, ok. redetail, ok. but redraw? I don't think that is an good idea.

_________________
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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
KimWerner
Post subject: Re: US Fast Combat Support Ships (T-AOE)Posted: July 12th, 2011, 10:04 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2195
Joined: December 22nd, 2010, 12:13 pm
Location: Denmark
I can't get it? Even that it's obvious that USS Sacramento's MK95 doesn't looks exactly like them on Spruance and the size obvious is too small, you all urge me to use the old ones. The same people who told us if we use radars and guns from old parts sheets - which have been redrawn - to change to the new. Could it be a possibility, that the MK95 from the parts sheet isn't right?

_________________
Work in progress:
DD County Class PNS Babur (1982)(PAK)
FF Type 21 Class D182 PNS Babur (2000)(PAK)
All relevant Coat of Arms


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: US Fast Combat Support Ships (T-AOE)Posted: July 12th, 2011, 10:07 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
just my 2 cents.... if you have something that is better then the original, the mods might consider placing it on the parts sheet. yours doesn't look like the real thing as it should be, so it isn't correct to use. come up with something better, and it might be allowed, but what you now have won't do. at least that's how I work with the parts sheet I do work on.

it is a good thing to redraw old parts IMHO.... when those need an update. I don't really think that is the case.

_________________
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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
KimWerner
Post subject: Re: US Fast Combat Support Ships (T-AOE)Posted: July 12th, 2011, 10:13 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2195
Joined: December 22nd, 2010, 12:13 pm
Location: Denmark
acelanceloet wrote:
just my 2 cents.... if you have something that is better then the original, the mods might consider placing it on the parts sheet. yours doesn't look like the real thing as it should be, so it isn't correct to use. come up with something better, and it might be allowed, but what you now have won't do. at least that's how I work with the parts sheet I do work on.

it is a good thing to redraw old parts IMHO.... when those need an update. I don't really think that is the case.
Ace would you please tell me what's wrong with my drawing. What is it you can see that I can't?

_________________
Work in progress:
DD County Class PNS Babur (1982)(PAK)
FF Type 21 Class D182 PNS Babur (2000)(PAK)
All relevant Coat of Arms


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
nighthunter
Post subject: Re: US Fast Combat Support Ships (T-AOE)Posted: July 13th, 2011, 2:53 am
Offline
Posts: 1971
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 8:33 pm
Nipping this in the bud right now.

Tim is correct. What is drawn is still good.

This whole sh*t storm about the Mark 95s is unneccissary.

Kim you did not provide convincing enough evidence to require replacing the Mk 95. Therefor we will not be replacing it, period.

_________________
"It is better to type nothing and be assumed an ass, than to type something and remove all doubt." - Me


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Gollevainen
Post subject: Re: US Fast Combat Support Ships (T-AOE)Posted: July 13th, 2011, 8:00 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4714
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:10 am
Location: Finland
Contact: Website
Bardon my ignorance to USN systems, but are we sure the ship in question even features the Mk-95? Becouse of the pics KimWerner have provided shows (IMO) completely different system that (for example Acelancelot posted) is supposed to be the Mk-95? Where as the partsheets version tends to support the latter, what KimWerner has drawn looks quite obviously of the thing that seems to be placed on top of this ship in the pics he provided.

Of generally about the partsheets, Mind you guys that every time I drawn some Soviet ships, I tend to remake and remodel most of the parts to achieve exelence. Set your pride aside and rememeber that the bucket goes on. Before we have the new generation of parts sheets actually uploaded to the mainsite, we should try to maximese the perfection inside them and make every peace of ordanance look as accurate as possible with our style.

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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 4 of 8  [ 76 posts ]  Return to โ€œReal Designsโ€ | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6 โ€ฆ 8 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]