Planebucket Discussion Thread

Post Shipbucket parts sheets here.

Moderator: Community Manager

Message
Author
User avatar
Thiel
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark

Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread

#171 Post by Thiel »

Rather than using light grey for the rotors which looks hideous, I'd go with single width black instead.
“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.
User avatar
KimWerner
Posts: 2195
Joined: December 22nd, 2010, 12:13 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread

#172 Post by KimWerner »

Little Bird wrote:KimWerner, see here please:

http://z11.invisionfree.com/shipbucket/ ... =442&st=30
:mrgreen: Ooh! I've could save some hours of working if I'd knew this site. It gives me great pleasure to look at all these variants of AW-101/EH-101 and I'm also satisfied, that my own drawing is very simular to the UK's! But!!! When I compare (both with pictures and drawings) I'll think my drawing is slightly more correct, especially with the main rotor, but also in details with the landing wheels canopy and search radar etc. Thiel had suggested the side rotor shown with a single black circle (which diameter is exact 4 m). I can see that is the standard, so I'll correct that :D
Last edited by KimWerner on February 3rd, 2011, 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Work in progress:
DD County Class PNS Babur (1982)(PAK)
FF Type 21 Class D182 PNS Babur (2000)(PAK)
All relevant Coat of Arms
acelanceloet
Posts: 7512
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands

Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread

#173 Post by acelanceloet »

I doubt it. in the one on the old forums went days of work from 2 experienced members. yours looks kinda weird, and kinda bad compared to that one.
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
User avatar
KimWerner
Posts: 2195
Joined: December 22nd, 2010, 12:13 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread

#174 Post by KimWerner »

acelanceloet wrote:I doubt it. in the one on the old forums went days of work from 2 experienced members. yours looks kinda weird, and kinda bad compared to that one.
That's all right, but if 10 m are 65 pix then 22,8 m are 148-149 pix. I've really measured the Merlin out, because I know you are a very skilled judge :) That's the reason why I have the "pixel-box" in red on my drawing. It makes it easier to count :D
Work in progress:
DD County Class PNS Babur (1982)(PAK)
FF Type 21 Class D182 PNS Babur (2000)(PAK)
All relevant Coat of Arms
TimothyC
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact:

Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread

#175 Post by TimothyC »

KimWerner wrote:
acelanceloet wrote:I doubt it. in the one on the old forums went days of work from 2 experienced members. yours looks kinda weird, and kinda bad compared to that one.
That's all right, but if 10 m are 65 pix then 22,8 m are 148-149 pix. I've really measured the Merlin out, because I know you are a very skilled judge :) That's the reason why I have the "pixel-box" in red on my drawing. It makes it easier to count :D

My question is this: what is the dimension you are working off of, and are you sure that you have it correct?

We had a recent 'incident' with the H-60 length which was solved by going to Jane's and checking the various lengths that were delineated there.
Last edited by TimothyC on February 3rd, 2011, 11:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆
User avatar
klagldsf
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm

Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread

#176 Post by klagldsf »

TimothyC wrote:We had a recent 'incident' with the H-60 length which was solved by going to Jane's and checking the various lengths that were delineated there.
We should sticky that as a reminder. And this is also why you only scale a ship off of other objects only when it's the only option.
User avatar
KimWerner
Posts: 2195
Joined: December 22nd, 2010, 12:13 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread

#177 Post by KimWerner »

TimothyC wrote:
KimWerner wrote:
acelanceloet wrote:I doubt it. in the one on the old forums went days of work from 2 experienced members. yours looks kinda weird, and kinda bad compared to that one.
That's all right, but if 10 m are 65 pix then 22,8 m are 148-149 pix. I've really measured the Merlin out, because I know you are a very skilled judge :) That's the reason why I have the "pixel-box" in red on my drawing. It makes it easier to count :D

My question is this: what is the dimension you are working off of, and are you sure that you have it correct?

We had a recent 'incident' with the H-60 length which was solved by going to Jane's and checking the various lengths that were delineated there.
I'm using the dimensions from AW: Overall length 22,8 m (= 148-149 pix), tailrotor diameter 4 m (= 26 pix) total hight o wheel 7 m (= 45-46 pix) etc. :geek:
Work in progress:
DD County Class PNS Babur (1982)(PAK)
FF Type 21 Class D182 PNS Babur (2000)(PAK)
All relevant Coat of Arms
Little Bird
Posts: 262
Joined: August 25th, 2010, 1:01 pm
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread

#178 Post by Little Bird »

I have upgrade the old AW101 because effectively too much large:

Image
User avatar
paul_541
Posts: 396
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 2:58 pm
Location: Quebec, Canada

Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread

#179 Post by paul_541 »

Good work Little Bird ! :shock: ;)

Greetings. ;)
My motto:Per ardua ad astra (RCAF)
Current Drawings:
USS Midway CVB-41 and later alterations
HMCS Bonaventure CVL-22 and later alterations
Paul 2024
Novice
Posts: 4126
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:25 am
Location: Vrijstaat

Re: Planebucket

#180 Post by Novice »

WhyMe wrote:Kawanishi E7K spotter floatplane
Image
Can you re-post it with white background, and not transparent, for those of us who use MS-Paint?
Image Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"
Post Reply