Shipbucket

@ Blackbuck, so far only HMS Duncan has them..... 4 are planned to be fitted but as of january 2015 only Duncan had been fitted.....

Well. I've yet to actually see Duncan with them (that or I'm just blind). All I've seen so far is the mounting framework for them...

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

very well. a meaningful post.

- the CAMM missile itself is missing from the drawing
- there is a lot of pixel haze (even visible for the nacket eye) on the bilge keel and stabiliser
- there is a lot of pixel haze around the various details on the drawing (think corners of hatches, under overhangs
- the T23 in updated form has the uptake caps angled and shaped different then on this drawing
- in the mast there are quite a few objects not purely black which are meant to be black
- on the underwater hull, the same problem as above. for example, the entire prop shaft is drawn in very dark grey
- there is one zinc shown on the propeller shaft. however, I know for certain there are at least 5 in the stern section, why are these not shown? right now it seems to say there is only one
- there is no black line showing the waterline, as per shipbucket standard, IIRC?
- the railings are not shipbucket standard
- the ARTISAN radar which is on the RN parts sheet was drawn by RP1. I think she knows what she is doing, why was this redrawn?
- hatches are outlined in grey, breaking shipbucket standard
- the line towards the RHIB, can you show me reference for that being 2 lines? I have never seen more then one used on any ship.also, the line is not going towards the RHIB's, but in both cases stopping somewhere underneath
- there are only 2 liferafts under the bridge wing, not 3 (2,5?)


in addition, for the daring:
- the SMART-L (S-1850M) used as standard part on the dutch and RN parts sheet has had considerable checks to get its shape and size correct. this one seems different, may I ask for the source?
- the supports for the satcoms on the mast should have no black outlines or shading under them, as they do not edge out of them
- flaglines are missing
- the daring was not fitted with the harpoons, right? this should thus be an never build design. as long as the type 23 CAMM refit is not completed or not even shown anywhere what exactly it will be like, I doubt the T23 to be in real designs, even.

and then, the last thing. the thing I have commented, asked, suggested etc on gunships drawings at least 10 times now, ending with the 'oh great, it looks like an container ship' above.


this is the T23 hull, as drawn by gunship. I sketched it out in 3D quickly, so it has some rough edges and weird looking parts. it also misses the sonar dome
what is important is that it does not look anything like a type 23. it looks like...... yes, an container ship.

before somebody says 'that depends on shading style'. I suggest to people to use a set of rules where to shade. in this drawing, having followed the downwards facing parts (<45 degrees shading) would result in an even blockier midship. an higher number for the shading would result in an even shorter bow and weirder stern in 3D.

all in all, there are some wrongs in the drawing, in the usage of shipbucket style (thus this needs to be in the non-shipbucket section), in the accuracy of the drawing and in the fact that earlier comments (in all threads, in this case mostly blackbucks) which as far as I can see are all valid points, were never replied to let alone amended. I think I did not double say anything from blackbucks post bwt (but I did not check). that was the reason I called these drawings plain incorrect, hoping it would work better then posting another load of comments that aren't even read.

_________________
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

TY Golly