Shipbucket
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/

FD Aircraft 16
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=9085		 Page 12 of 52
Author:  orionfield [ February 9th, 2019, 9:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FD Aircraft 16
I think I see what you mean, the wing struts and the landing gear struts should probably be thicker?
Author:  eswube [ February 10th, 2019, 11:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: FD Aircraft 16
orionfield wrote: *February 9th, 2019, 9:50 pm
I think I see what you mean, the wing struts and the landing gear struts should probably be thicker?
@Orionfield

Well, the struts too...

Sorry mate, but at current stage this drawing doesn't even really qualify as WIP.

1) There are numerous artifacts all around - especially around the struts and undercarriage, but also all over the fuselage;
2) It has no shading except the bottom side of the wings;
3) It has lots of "heavy corners" and even blotches of duble black lines which are the no-no in the style: http://shipbucket.com/styleguide#21
(the Style Guide refers to the SB-scale, but although there are style differences between SB and FD, the FD is derived from SB and that point remains valid in both scales);
4) The main wheel(s)... First of all: they are not circular (in the sense permitted by properties of pixelart) - in other words, if this wheel were to be cut into four parts, none of these parts would match any of the other three. Also, it's all black - and only the contours (outward contour of whole wheel and inside contour dividing the tyre and central metal part) are to be black, while the "color" of the tyre itself ought to be dark grey;
5) Even a passing look on a photograph would tell You that fairing behind the cockpit doesn't create a flat surface with the fuselage, but it's a bulge "standing out" of it;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ton_DC.jpg
6) Propeller - since it's a two-bladed example, then both blades should have the same shape and thickness;
7) Engine... perhaps I'm wrong, but I believe that the original one wasn't a shapeless lump of "something" - it should have a regular contour all around, including the cyllinders. On the bottom of the picture I've added some examples of properly made radial engines of that era;
8) Last but not least... generally the line separating the vertical stabilizer (and fuselage) from the rudder is marked in black (because there's a clear break in the continuity of the surface) - and that line goes all the way, including that pixel on top You've left out.

[ img ]
Author:  orionfield [ February 11th, 2019, 3:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FD Aircraft 16
Thank you! This is the type of the constructive critique that I was lacking! I will make some changes and revert back after. Especially the engine, its supposed to be a Wright R-790, but doesn't look like much... I think my drawing technique has a lot to do with it, Being a mac user, the only app similar to paint is Gimp, which frustrates me to no end, since I'm a professional user experience designer, and that software is severely lacking in that department. What I usually do is draw the plane/ship as a vector drawing, then export it as a .png with no anti-aliasing, then go through and try and fix double black lines, but I can see that I am far from perfect at removing all of them.
Author:  llamaman2 [ February 17th, 2019, 11:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: FD Aircraft 16
Still kind of a work in progress at present (not happy with the main undercar or lack of panel lines at the front, but that's how it was on the source picture) so any help appreciated. Percival Provost:

[ img ]
Author:  Hood [ February 18th, 2019, 4:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FD Aircraft 16
Looks ok so far, but PM inbound.
Author:  eswube [ February 18th, 2019, 9:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FD Aircraft 16
Well, I see a problem here, as the Provost was 8,73m long, which means 193 pixels in FD, and Your drawing is 198 pixels long. :(
I also have reservations about shape of the canopy, which seemed to be rather less bulbous and rather "made of straight lines".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percival_ ... ited-3.jpg
Author:  rifleman2 [ February 19th, 2019, 4:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FD Aircraft 16
the shape doesn't look right I always thought the Percival provost was a bit more Chunky.

Hopefully it'll appear in Irish and Rhodesian markings.

I know the Jet Provost was done a while ago has anyone turned it into the strikemaster?
Author:  reytuerto [ February 19th, 2019, 9:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FD Aircraft 16
Good afternoon:

Well, after almost a month, I finally fix the drawings of the Embraer Xingu:
[ img ]

Credits: Eswube´s help was invaluable! His patience (lots of patience :lol: ) when I was unable to understand his directions and his generous advices, were the main frame to make the corrections. Thanks a lot. Cheers.
Author:  Sheepster [ February 20th, 2019, 3:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FD Aircraft 16
Did someone say Jet Provost?

[ img ]

Initially Hunting Percival produced 12 Jet Provost T.1 aircraft, supplying 10 to the RAF and retaining 1 as a test airframe and 1 as a demonstrator.
The Jet Provost T.1's proved the concept of ab initio jet trainers, and were used to develop jet training before the adoption of the definitive T.3 version. T.1'a were also used in 1958 and 1959 in the Central Flying School aerobatic team.
Today only the original HP company demonstrator remains flying, with the retained instructional airframe as a museum exhibit.

* Corrected jet pipe colouring
Author:  rifleman2 [ February 20th, 2019, 4:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FD Aircraft 16
nice the T5 was the basis for the Strikemaster. But shows how flexible the design was
Page 12 of 52 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/