Revisiting the style rules

[acelanceloet]

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!

it was that way. and I am fighting just that these rules, and the name of them, are as I apply them. if I see somebody putting hull shading on the hull, which looks like it doesn't represent the ships shape, I ask what this ships hull looks like and what shading rule is used. my personal view is, if you have not used any rule but if you just slab it on, you are putting something wrong on the vessel.
completely slab sided ships do not exist. when the bilge is really too small to see, over the entire length of the ship....... well, then we have such an uncommon ship, we can surely state that that can be seen from the ships design. as such, there is always an difference between non-shaded and shaded underwater hulls, and I see no need for an difference between 'old drawings' and 'drawings where no shading is needed or no reference'. note that IMO not all ships require hull shading. destroyers etc have an hull that is fairly good represented by the sonar, stern and bilge keel shapes. my perry drawing for example has no shading, while the dockwise vanguard and the rotterdam have.

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.

good point. had not thought about that, but I agree. I meant more 'if you make an AU ship from an real drawing, no problem. if you make an real drawing from an real drawing (variants and such) I think permission should be asked.


on that propeller, I think it might be an representation of submarine propellers? not an good one, but an acceptable one for 10 bladed propellers or so. an ban is a bit harsh for that, don't you think, it could be an working propeller in some occasions.......

[jabba]

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.

good point. had not thought about that, but I agree. I meant more 'if you make an AU ship from an real drawing, no problem. if you make an real drawing from an real drawing (variants and such) I think permission should be asked.

Ah, I see what you mean now. Yes I totally agree, permission should be asked in this case. It will prevent duplication of work and is basically good manner.

on that propeller, I think it might be an representation of submarine propellers? not an good one, but an acceptable one for 10 bladed propellers or so. an ban is a bit harsh for that, don't you think, it could be an working propeller in some occasions.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue-in-cheek

[Redhorse]

I feel the basic rules are sound, but I would like to offer the following for consideration:

1. Railings. The current distance between verticals is 6 pixels (3 scale feet); while it conforms to real life distances it can obscure much of the detail behind the railing and overpower the drawing. I propose allowing as much as 12 pixels between verticals. Variations in distance should be acceptable to provide contrast for slanted or round surfaces to contrast for shape, but nothing less than 6 pixels between verticals.

2. Structure shading. The rules for overhangs is fine, a single line for small overhangs and a double line for large overhangs. Lighter color shades should be permissible for flat surfaces slanted away from the viewer and a darker shade for flat surfaces slanted towards the viewer. Round or curved vertical surfaces may use the same lighter or darker shading with solid lines. Gradient shading should be permissible for round vertical surfaces only, but not required (some artists do not use it, others use it well. I had to use it to replicate the paint scheme on Richelieu's 1943 configuration.)

3. Hull shading. I use the basic rules because I can't make gradient shading look right. I know exceptions have been made for artists who do it well (Psilander). Exceptions should be granted by the moderators.

4. Overall shading. Consider standardizing the variations between lighter surfaces and darker surfaces per color. You have to do it anyway for camouflaged vessels; you would be codifying what's already in practice. For example, if your basic structure shade is RGB 150/150/150, the lighter shade for slanted surfaces would be +20 (RGB 170/170/170) and the darker, "shadow" shade would be -20 (RGB 130/130/130).

5. Permissions. Asking permission to use a drawing is polite and expected of members, proper crediting enforces recognition of your source, whether in a template or not, and whether credited earlier in a thread or not (happened in the RTX thread last month). I think proper crediting makes up for the lack of response from temporarily absent members or those that have left the site completely. Everyone here has agreed to the acceptable use policy, and I think it should apply to all ships, RL, NB, AU, and PD. Some artists work very hard on their AU and PD works to obey naval architecture practices for a feasible vessel, and I believe the effort should receive equal protection when it comes to permissions.

[Colosseum]

Time to add my thoughts...

I have always been a "traditionalist" when it comes to Shipbucket. Very rarely do I get away from the original style guidelines laid down in 2008 when the site was first created. I have always believed that the Shipbucket style is best executed when it's simple, easy to reproduce, and most of all easy for new members to pick up.

Re: railings, I prefer the uniform style that comes about by using railings with a stanchion placed every 5 pixels. Now obviously there's room for interpretation, but my rule of thumb has been to use the "standard" railings whenever possible. I realize it's not exactly the most accurate, but at this scale - it's not that big of a deal. What I really hate seeing (and what I think really breaks from the style irreparably) are stanchions colored in a dark grey and railing in a lighter grey. To me this is absolutely unacceptable (despite the fact that it's probably a more realistic method of drawing the railings).

Re: structure shading, the current system is odd (why a single line to show shading?), but it does work and is "the way it's always been done". I don't condone shading the structure under an overhang with an entirely shaded color - I think the way we do things now is fine.

Re: hull shading, there are no real "rules" defined for it - just that we had some standardized colors for a system that admittedly did not really make sense. Now that I have started using more accurate colors and shading my hulls based on how they actually appeared (using Faired Lines plans for this), I enjoy the effect much more.

Re: overall shading and standardizing the colors: the current baseline grey is standardized, but I have to admit my camouflage colors were picked "on a whim" using a less-than-mathematical approach in Photoshop. It would be useful to get all our colors (for every navy, time period, etc) standardized using at least five colors. These colors would be, in order from lightest to darkest, "highlight", "standard", "shade", "railing", "darkest shade" (names obviously negotiable). Artists can of course add more colors as they see fit, but to me five colors is more than enough and I would actually prefer that people stick to four whenever possible (I only use four myself). Maomatic for example has seemingly used eight or nine colors on his Bismarck drawings and that makes modification quite difficult.

Re: permissions. This is a sticky subject as technically, permission is never required - the Shipbucket Fair Use Agreement states explicitly that anyone can modify our drawings so long as they properly credit and place the drawing within the template with the Shipbucket watermark present. There is nothing mentioned about "asking permission" - this is an artifact of a forum full of big egoes who don't like seeing their precious baby being tampered with. I totally get that, but part of the tradeoff of using our parts sheets, style, scale, and forum is that your work can (and likely will) be modified by others - that's how you in effect "pay" for having pre-drawn parts available to you.

But by all means, ask permission for everything. Personally I won't and don't expect people to ask permission before modifying my drawings (no one does anyway), but if it tickles your pickle (so to speak), then knock yourselves out.

Re: the "45 and 30 degree rules" that seem to have been invented on the spot by acelanceloet... well I won't go into detail on this but I think defining this is unnecessary as not everyone knows specifically how a ship's hull looks. After all this is a site where technical accuracy at times has to make room for style. I would not make an official rule out of this. I think it's important to remember that we are amateurs (despite what most of you might think), and there is, contrary to popular belief, room for errors.

[TimothyC]

My main thought is that whatever the new rules end up being, I'd like to see the existing rules grandfathered in - I think that while the hyper-detailed and shaded drawings can be nice (especially when there are sources to back it up, such as Ace's Perrys), I just can't find the focus to pull that level of work off.

[Gollevainen]

Colo sums pretty much what I was about to say, but here is some additional ideas:

1.Stuff like railings are basicly the backbone of the style, what makes it uniformal and segerates it from other pixel art. There is no need to change it, but also In same vain, some special spots, it naturally does come obstructive, and alternatives can be used.

3. The three-pixel rule for platforms and masts will become part of the new rules set. It will however not mean that everything needs to be drawn in that way, just that there is two options: one pixel - or three, but NEVER EVER OVERLAPSING TWO BLACK PIXELs. This is important rule, since its basicly the mistake everyone makes at the start.

2.The shading is another issue that has basicly born after the first set of rules were written, and has nowadays taken quite good and sensible form. I think the biggest addition to the rules will become in this part. Gradient shading shall be no-no newer the less, since using one shade is efficient to show shapes and retain the "blocky" Shipbucket looks that are another part of our style.
Also, the underwater shading in different angles seems pendatic and I addjoin colloseum in my doupts, but I wouldn't forbid undewatershading if the artist seems to know what he is doing. Most of the new progress in SB comes in this way.

3. Permissions. We have the fair-use clause. It should be enough. Shipbucket has always included kitbashing and its never required permissions from others before, so It should not be required in future either. Only thing where permissions has been in place and part of the gentle-ments agreement has been in case of replacing someone's drawings from the archive. In that regard, we should have some clear written stuff.

Then again, one of the biggest changes I would like to introduce to the bucket would be allowing duplicate drawings of same ship exist in the archive. It will come paramount issue in future when everything has allready been drawn, so getting the community familiar with the idea wouldn't be bad in early on. This is naturally just my idea on suggestion level, and I would love to hear some imput from others.

4. Partsheets. Someone expressed stricter rules in using partsheets, but I disagree. As long as stuff is drawn according to SB rules and style, people should be allowed to use and draw what ever they want. Partsheets has always been there to help the lazy, not to structure uniformality, since it pretty much works only for single artist only. We have different level of methods and approaches to our Style, and we can never hammer all artist to produce drawings that aren't distinguishable from others. I don't know who invented the monster called "offical partsheet", but my approach has always been that the sheets are there to help you, not tie you down.

[Lazer_one]

I would suggest to write down also practical rules that are normally followed by the community (for newbies).
I have now in mind a couple of items like the position of the rockets (vertical/horizontal) and the helicopter (flying or not).

[acelanceloet]

the 45 degrees rule was not invented on the spot, but as said earlier the name was invented by me. the above image shows the difference between 'slapping colours on' and 'knowing what you are doing with the use of an certain rule' with cross sections.

and the permissions, what was meant with the gentlemens standards set in stone then? I thought that was meant, but now you both seem to say that that bit is fine as it is.

I agree with TJ, all that was should still be the same, without people saying 'hey, that's outdated, add that'

[CraigH]

First off let it be known that I'm a proponent of the style rules, especially as they do indeed form a foundation for the drawing style at SB. At the same time, I'll freely admit I stretch and beat them up.

I'd really be interested in discussing additions or exceptions as they pertain to pre-1900 ships. As many know I've become somewhat specialized in sailing ships. The work I've done attempts to follow the rules however, things like railings, hull colors, etc. were developed for more modern steel ships. A problem I've had is that these older vessels can be damned small...they were simply built on a smaller scale so to speak.

I'm frequently attempting to draw items that scale out to 1/4-1/2 pixel...things like mast heads and yard ends.

I'd like to hear thoughts on what might be considered acceptable alternatives to the double black line standard AND black outline alternatives. Turning these tapered shapes into blocks (3 pixels wide: outline/fill/outline) looks chunky and bad.

Shading...I'm a big fan of hull shading to define form, technically it's critical when studying sailing ships. A series I'm working on includes the cross section drawings located where folks stick badges/shields/coat of arms. I've also found that 3-5 colors work well for defining hull form. Using MS Paint as a standard: I use steps of 2-3 shade steps for each level of shadow change. Moderately subtle grade changes from light to dark that doesn't kick the viewer in the eye.

Masts and Sails should be treated as a complete structure, not as individual components. There are areas where black outlines help and areas where they screw everything. Having the ability to use a fill color as outline really helps on thin spar structures.

Sails: We have at least 3 general styles for doing sails. This is an area that rather than having 1 Rule, they could be considered recommended practices. How much detail depends on patience, ability, etc. My way is hard and a time burner if one doesn't have more advance drawing software.

Anyway, more fuel for the fire. I'd like to see what other people think.

For examples try the Project Sail Thread, 6 Frigates, CSS Alabama, USS Wampanoag. All in Real Designs.

CraigH

[Gollevainen]

Exceptions are always difficould to border to cover only something, since it usually tends to be that the bordeline comes hazy and the entire system starts to facture.
More so, I would like to point out that the overally the shipbucket is about its scale and the way we use pixels. When they start to feel restrictive, one has to ponder, wheter the stuffone is planning to draw is really something that SB can cover. Not everything (and it includes ships) works in SB style and scale, so perhaps the rigth decission in those cases would be creating one's very own style and rules and let Shipbucket to be what shipbucket is.
It was created for cold war /early post-coldwar german frigates after all