FD AU 4

[BB1987]

Wicked!
The A380 got resized unfortunately.

[CaptainPaulov]

Wicked!
The A380 got resized unfortunately.

Thanks for both the compliment and pointing out the image had resized! Fixed the resizing too.

[The_Sprinklez]

Kingdom of Slovetinia, Lockheed Martin F-16C Block 52+ Fighting Falcon Special Schemes

Historical 1950s-1970s Scheme


"15 Years of Falcons" Commemorative Scheme





USA (AU), Cessna/H25 Aerospace 210AT (Cessna 210A Turbine Conversion)

[LIVEWIRE]

F-5 Freedom Fighter/F-5E Tiger AU operators - a little Christmas project showing F-5 operators in my AU. All aircraft are shown in their last livery (excluding any special retirement schemes/tails) with the year of retirement in brackets (2023 of course means the type is still in service).

I've taken some licence with variants and markings in some areas both for AU reasons and for ease of drawing/lack of reference photos. Similar drawings showing F-16, F-18, A-4, and F-4 AU operators are in the works. I may also do another F-5 operators sheet, showing F-5s in frontline USAF/ANG colours during the 1980s and 1990s

(edited with black lines. Still don't like them, but can't really be bothered to keep arguing with the bureaucrats)

[eswube]

Very impressive, but I have some "technical" remarks - You need to outline the engine intakes in black (because there is physical separation between the outermost part of them, the innermost, and with fuselage itself), and I also suggest that You outline in black the rudder (as it's a moving part) - and personally I'd outline the moving part of canopy too (though there exist some difference of opinion in this area - still, the most common practice is to outline).
Also, there's one serious error, namely location of nosewheel on the twin-seaters, which ought to be roughly under the forward edge of windscreen (it's there in this location - relative to windscreen - in all models)

[LIVEWIRE]

Very impressive, but I have some "technical" remarks - You need to outline the engine intakes in black (because there is physical separation between the outermost part of them, the innermost, and with fuselage itself), and I also suggest that You outline in black the rudder (as it's a moving part) - and personally I'd outline the moving part of canopy too (though there exist some difference of opinion in this area - still, the most common practice is to outline).
Also, there's one serious error, namely location of nosewheel on the twin-seaters, which ought to be roughly under the forward edge of windscreen (it's there in this location - relative to windscreen - in all models)

Thank you for your comment (always nice to have interaction from some forum celebrities, so to speak ) and for the feedback. That being said, I really dislike using hard black outlines (for example - on the control surfaces or cockpit canopy) since it makes drawings look one dimensional and basic, eliminating any depth of quality. I do see your point with the intakes though. Unsure as to how these could be incorporated without black outlining the entire engine cowling (which then clashes with the choice of darker tones for other significant areas such as between the tail and main fuselage, rudder, or canopy). Perhaps makes sense for more basic drawings but severely handicaps any attempts to make drawings look anything more than a simple MS Paint colouring exercise.

The landing gear placement is a silly (and lazy) mistake from me, too much slice and copy between drawings. I shall change it.

[eswube]

As I mentioned, there is some difference of opinion when it comes the canopies and (but here very little) when it comes to rudders, elevators etc. (because there is definite break of surface there) but for the last nearly 15 years of FD scale it was typically outlined so.
My personal approach is that - if it's opening to pass people through (canopies, doors), moves in various directions in flight (steering surfaces) or it opens for some things through the hole it covers (undercarriage covers, bomb bays etc.) then it ought to be outlined in black.
Btw. to me using too little black is what makes drawings "one dimensional and basic", because it forces the viewer to rely excessively on shading, and that's very dependent on contrast.

As for the intakes - well, at least the contour of the intake is physically separated from the fuselage behind it has to be outlined in black.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... engine.JPG

[LIVEWIRE]

As I mentioned, there is some difference of opinion when it comes the canopies and (but here very little) when it comes to rudders, elevators etc. (because there is definite break of surface there) but for the last nearly 15 years of FD scale it was typically outlined so.
My personal approach is that - if it's opening to pass people through (canopies, doors), moves in various directions in flight (steering surfaces) or it opens for some things through the hole it covers (undercarriage covers, bomb bays etc.) then it ought to be outlined in black.
Btw. to me using too little black is what makes drawings "one dimensional and basic", because it forces the viewer to rely excessively on shading, and that's very dependent on contrast.

As for the intakes - well, at least the contour of the intake is physically separated from the fuselage behind it has to be outlined in black.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... engine.JPG

Changed the intakes and splitter to black per request. Personally I still think it looks strange and detracts from the drawings, but I'm not going to argue on that point, especially not with yourself (as an influential forum member who's expertise and knowledge I respect ).

In regards to the difference of opinion regarding surface breaks, I'm firmly on the side of the argument in favour of moving away from this oversimplistic, outdated SB rule/policy regarding use of black. I only ever use black for the overall outline and for wings/horizontal stabilisers). Since said stylistic rules/policies were written the quality and variety of drawing styles on this forum has increased massively - should everyone be handicapped by the same outdated stylistic rules? I get that it makes sense for consistency, accessibility, and formality but black lines are harsh and ugly - should it not be up to the artist how they employ use of black lines vs just darker tones?

[eswube]

In regards to intakes, I'd mark in black also this, because it's spatially separated from the fuselage behind.
And, actually, that part of refuelling probe that's not making one surface with fuselage behind it, also MUST be outlined in black.


In regards to the difference of opinion and being firmly on the side... You're pushing the red button...
I don't want it to sound too harsh, but if You think that established rules/standards/practices are outdated, then... it's not North Korea, You're not forcibly held here...
This is the official Shipbucket Style Guide & Standards Manual:
http://shipbucket.com/styleguide
There are some subtle differences between SB as written there, and FD as practiced, but the general idea is the same.
You ask: "should everyone be handicapped by the same outdated stylistic rules?"
My answer is "yes" - because that's what makes the SB style.

[Hood]

Some interesting colour schemes there, nice work.

In general any outline should be black (excepting glass canopies), anything that stands proud. eswube's diagram above explains it pretty well. Basically if there is air around it (or behind it) then it should be black.