Ok, here are some thoughts...
Graded shading should be completely outlawed from the SB part of the forums entirely. Offending items should not be discussed, but removed. If there was a rule set in stone for this, then there would be no unnecessary arguments or discussions.
I think there is a difference between 'acceptable' and 'required'. For example, right now the shading (and other) rules for above the waterline are fairly
clear and if someone forgets to shade or shadow an area appropriately, people will let them know.
This is not currently the case for showing the curvature of the hull below the waterline. While it is optional to apply fancy shading here, it is not required and therefore can not really be regarded as a standard rule, more an optional extra. Is anyone proposing that this become a standard, or simply an optional extra? Sometimes it is difficult to find a side-view of a ship below the waterline, let alone angles and dimensions of the hull shape required to create the 30° or 45° shading mentioned above.
this rule 45 and 30 degrees make in fact a lot of sense. due that if we try to make every thing over the waterline as close to real life, then we should do it to the underwater hull as well.
the idea behind the 45 -30 degrees shading rule is to give the hull the correct form, to show other how the hull looks. specially when it come to hull with specially form. for without it we would have no idea how the hull looks. for just an plain red hull form, tells use only that the hull is either: a box, round or something else...
I personally think this argument is self-defeating. If the 45° or 30° shading is used for only some drawings, and the old shading standard retained for the majority, the previous standard may cause incorrect interpretation of hull shape. If I look at a 'plain red hull form', I can not tell if it is either:
a) An older Shipbucket drawing;
b) A newer drawing, for which no references for the hull curvature could be found, or;
c) A totally slab-sided or square vessel.
As a side note, this thread is the first time I have ever read about 'the 30° rule' or 'the 45° rule'. I assumed that most of the time we see extravagant shading on the hull it was just applied in a way that looked natural to the artist!
I think that while the standard red of the underwater hull is a bit garish, it has been applied to the majority of ships represented in the bucket and should therefore still be perfectly acceptable. Personally, at some point in the past I changed from the standard red to a slightly darker colour that looks more realistic and slightly less 'cartoony' - this can be seen below.
No-one ever took issue with this and I don't recall other shades of red being commented on either. As there has been so little issue with it (that I'm aware of at least) I think it should be up to the artist, within reason.
One thing I think should be changed is the use of brown to represent a curve or other detail on a red hull. I think this should be done away with as it doesn't make much sense.
I would watch out with the 'gentlemens' agreements. while it is for example customary to ask people before using their drawings, this should be somewhat limited. for example, it should only be required for real designs and never builds, as there are people who have WIP and plans for those ships sometimes, while it is only irritating if you see an AU version of your ship drawn at most. also, how should this be handled with members which are away from the board for some time, should just asking be enough and is there an time limit on when you may say there will be no answer coming? also, how is this checked.
in this case, I would say that it is polite and widely done to ask before using somebody's work but not required.
I'm not quite sure if I agree or disagree with what exactly you are saying here. I thought that people's RL and NB work can be kitbashed at will, but AU designs should be asked for permission before being butchered? This seems reasonable enough to me.
And I'd also be generally for having the rule that (except for AU/personal stuff) if a part exist on a parts sheet, it has to be used (in the "official" version), although because updated "official parts sheets" exist only for very few countries, then for a time being I'd limit application of such rule only to the parts on these "official sheets".
I kind of agree. I'm sick and tired of new drawings from new artists being responded to with only a list of 'outdated' parts and no comment the drawing whatsoever, it really annoys me. A solution to this (which besides from irritating me, essentially wastes the time of the artist and the commentor) would be a rule for finding and using appropriate parts. It was recently suggested that the old part sheets on the main site, from which originate much of these problems, be removed or renamed appropriately, but I think it was rejected.
We should, as soon as possible, introduce a zero-tolerance policy with regards to the use of this, even as a placeholder. I endorse an instant and permanent ban for anyone who dares to ignore this policy. These people need to be made an example of.