Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 1 of 1  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
Charybdis
Post subject: Iwo Jima Class LPHPosted: January 26th, 2023, 11:37 am
Offline
Posts: 1003
Joined: November 8th, 2011, 4:29 am
Location: Colombo, Sri Lanka
Contact: Website
Here's an update of Darth Panda's Iwo Jima class.

The Iwo Jima class were the first helicopter carriers built from the keel up and saw service in Vietnam and the first Gulf War (Desert Storm). Originally designed to carry helicopters, The Iwo Jima class began operating the AV-8A Harrier in the early '70s. Improved on by the more capable Tarawa class LHA's, most of the ships were decommissioned in the late '90s.

[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
emperor_andreas
Post subject: Re: Iwo Jima Class LPHPosted: January 26th, 2023, 1:20 pm
Offline
Posts: 3910
Joined: November 17th, 2010, 8:03 am
Location: Corinth, MS USA
Contact: YouTube
Nice!

_________________
[ img ]
MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colosseum
Post subject: Re: Iwo Jima Class LPHPosted: January 26th, 2023, 2:19 pm
Offline
Posts: 5218
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact: Website
Love it. Nice to see these ships with a plan view!

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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: Iwo Jima Class LPHPosted: January 26th, 2023, 5:46 pm
Offline
Posts: 10696
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Fantastic work! Keep it up! Great to see plan views being made more and more often.

Just a formal issue: You wrote "update of Darth Panda's Iwo Jima class" - is your drawing a wholly new work, or is it a face-lift of DP's one? I'm asking in regards to credits.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Iwo Jima Class LPHPosted: January 26th, 2023, 9:39 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
Pretty nice! great to see an update on intersting ships like these!

I do have some very minor quirks though:
- Generally speaking, the drawing has some mismatches in detailing. If the deck is hyperdetailed in the top view, some areas in the sideview look bland by comparision. I'd rather not see the connection points on the deck and the deck plating and have the sideview and superstructure deck the same level of detail as the deck then what is happening now, where parts of the ship that are well drawn look bad because some other areas have so much more work put into it.
- On a similar note, the parts and systems. Some of the radars have gotten an redraw in recent years, others have not. With the sponsons shaded quite aggressively, the large white dome of the landing control radar aft of the superstructure looks bad in comparision. Some of the other parts are sitting somewhere in between and might need some attention, but the dome made it obious.
- Sorry to say, but I really don't like the way you did overhang shading under the superstructure platforms. If you go for that (more photoreal) style instead of the standard shipbucket overhang shading, it should also be applied under platforms with an diagonal overhang, the hull shading should follow the same rules, under the liferafts, the mast platforms etc. I would really go back to the "one dark line, and some slightly larger lines underneath it for 2-3 pixels or so to show shape" given in the style guide.
- I am curious about the Mk 25 launcher. While everyone is of course free to redraw and use parts as they see fit, I am not sure this one looks entirely correct. May I suggest the one the wiki? http://www.shipbucket.com/wiki/index.php/Mk_25_GMLS
- There seems to be a mismatch between the dimensions of the phalanx in the sideview and the top view, on quick glance. Did you redraw this one yourself?

_________________
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]
Charybdis
Post subject: Re: Iwo Jima Class LPHPosted: January 27th, 2023, 1:49 pm
Offline
Posts: 1003
Joined: November 8th, 2011, 4:29 am
Location: Colombo, Sri Lanka
Contact: Website
Thanks for the feedback.
acelanceloet wrote: *
- Generally speaking, the drawing has some mismatches in detailing. If the deck is hyperdetailed in the top view, some areas in the sideview look bland by comparision. I'd rather not see the connection points on the deck and the deck plating and have the sideview and superstructure deck the same level of detail as the deck then what is happening now, where parts of the ship that are well drawn look bad because some other areas have so much more work put into it.
Not really sure what you're getting at here. What exactly do you find to be "bland"?
acelanceloet wrote: *
- On a similar note, the parts and systems. Some of the radars have gotten an redraw in recent years, others have not. With the sponsons shaded quite aggressively, the large white dome of the landing control radar aft of the superstructure looks bad in comparision. Some of the other parts are sitting somewhere in between and might need some attention, but the dome made it obious.
I will shade the dome.
acelanceloet wrote: *
- Sorry to say, but I really don't like the way you did overhang shading under the superstructure platforms. If you go for that (more photoreal) style instead of the standard shipbucket overhang shading, it should also be applied under platforms with an diagonal overhang, the hull shading should follow the same rules, under the liferafts, the mast platforms etc. I would really go back to the "one dark line, and some slightly larger lines underneath it for 2-3 pixels or so to show shape" given in the style guide.
Agreed, the shading needs revising.
acelanceloet wrote: *
- I am curious about the Mk 25 launcher. While everyone is of course free to redraw and use parts as they see fit, I am not sure this one looks entirely correct. May I suggest the one the wiki? http://www.shipbucket.com/wiki/index.php/Mk_25_GMLS
The Mk 25 from the parts sheet is too big for the aft sponson but I will try to improve it.
acelanceloet wrote: *
- There seems to be a mismatch between the dimensions of the phalanx in the sideview and the top view, on quick glance. Did you redraw this one yourself?
I changed the phalanx many times so I missed the mismatch. ;)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
BB1987
Post subject: Re: Iwo Jima Class LPHPosted: January 27th, 2023, 3:35 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2818
Joined: May 23rd, 2012, 1:01 pm
Location: Rome - Italy
I can offer an updated SPN-43 as well.
http://www.shipbucket.com/wiki/images/4 ... SPN-43.PNG

The Mk.25 launcher is listed as being 205 inches long which translates into 34 pixels in SB scale. So the version from the parts sheet should be correctly scaled.

_________________
My Worklist
Sources and documentations are the most welcome.

-Koko Kyouwakoku (Republic of Koko)
-Koko's carrier-based aircrafts of WWII
-Koko Kaiun Yuso Kaisha - KoKaYu Line (Koko AU spinoff)
-Koko - Civil Aviation


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Iwo Jima Class LPHPosted: January 27th, 2023, 8:36 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
IIRC the Mk 25 repurposed the boxes from the Mk 112 ASROC launcher on a new mounting (based on a 3in gun platform) so those are way oversized for what you would expect for a sea sparrow launcher. I really suspect BB1987's version is correct, as it looks to have that correct and there seems to be information available about it's dimensions.

The bland in my view means underdetailed. Sections look as if they should have more detail but they don't have it. The flight deck has about every detail it can have and look amazing, but the superstructure in the same top view looks like it is just the outlines and some colour filled in. In the same way, the sideview has no panel lining anywhere, while the flight deck has. Not saying you should panel line the sideview, but just saying you might want to consider NOT panel lining the flight deck.

Re reshading the dome, take a look at all components. recent years have done an huge update on some components, and the ones that have not been updated look bad in comparision. The dome was the worst offender, but when you fix the dome, others might pop up as the worst offender instead.

_________________
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]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 1 of 1  [ 8 posts ]  Return to “Real Designs”

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


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


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