Shipbucket

I say go with the current view. It gives a much better impression on what's there and it just plain looks better.
What Erik says is technically correct, but that particular bit of the standards has by and large been abandoned.

_________________
“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.

also, rigging that has to support sails often can be rotated to get the wind an better angle of attack (weird way to put it in words,I know, my english knowledge leaves me atm) so while not as extreme as this, you can show the spars. that is the way I like most: with the spars in 45 degrees angle with the centerline..... but that also is about the hardest one to draw

_________________
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

Thanks for the advise, all of you. I'll be getting back to this once I finish a Doctor Who project my wife has set me upon.

I'm starting to think it may just have been easier to do a "sails only" version and leave it at that, but I wanted both sails and no sails. Eventually, I'd also like to do the Boston as she appeared during the Spanish-American war

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor

Shows you what I know - I thought we were aligning yards port-and-starboard on shipbucket drawings. Never mind me...

I draw them port-and-starboard, but the majority of my drawings are of later model ships where yardarms and rigging aren't really of that much importance.

I think for these older ships and for sailing ships it's not bad practice, but for modern ships it's best to show them port-and-starboard.

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

Updated the drawing, hopefully corrected the problems with the masts. Again, with the rigging, I just tried to follow photos from the period of the ship itself. In several cases, they had double lines, but I just did a single one represent the set, else it might turn into a big grey blob from all the multiple rigging lines. I also changed the color of the masts and spars from the yellow to black (dk. grey) as in the pics they appear quite a bit darker than the funnels.

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor

I've done both: angled and port-and-starboard; and while the first looks nice, the second is more accurate. Overall I'd agree with Colo, that for modern warships port-and-starboard seems more appropriate, but no rules now on this one

OK, but how does this version look?

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor

Like I said before, stick to three-colour shading rather than five and tone down the shading on the funnel. Right now it looks like they have an almost mirror like reflective surface, rather than the matte yellow they had in reality.
You're missing the black waterline.
You have overlapping black pixels in the masts and under the boats that can be eliminated easily and the yards doesn't doesn't "line up" with the stays and wires.

_________________
“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.

Not missing it. It didn't have that line.






Not sure what you mean, I've got the wires where they belong from what I can tell from the pictures.

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor