Shipbucket

'Something else'...Pensacolas? New Orleans? Wichita?

bezobrazov wrote: ↑July 14th, 2017, 1:23 am You did not step on any toes. I merely voiced a longing - a dream or ambition, whatever one may call it.

I'd solve a few issues differently (as I've done in my prewar drawings) but to bring those up, I think would be a rather petty thing to do. Overall, your drawing is impressive, as always, and you have my compliments for it!

By all means, i would love to hear your comments! If anything it would be a useful discussion of the SB style and how we render certain areas. I can handle criticism - fire away!

For what little my two cents are worth, both Colo's and bezo's Northamptons are fabulous renditions... that are totally out of compliance with Shipbucket standards as they existed when we all started here.

Only by respectful, thoughtful, and explicit discussion does the standard format evolve, and it's certainly evolved!

erik_t wrote: ↑July 14th, 2017, 1:21 pm For what little my two cents are worth, both Colo's and bezo's Northamptons are fabulous renditions... that are totally out of compliance with Shipbucket standards as they existed when we all started here.

Only by respectful, thoughtful, and explicit discussion does the standard format evolve, and it's certainly evolved!

Hehe, well, for what it's worth, my drawing style is still pretty "standard" except for a few things:

1) I no longer adhere to the weird old hull shading style, which used single pixel borders to show the curvature of the hull. I suspect this was just due to no one really understanding how best to show it. This applies to the colors used on screws as well.

2) I don't use the giant 4x4 portholes anymore.

3) I shade the after parts of rounded gun tubs, director foundations, and tripod poles (and others). In some cases this fits with the letter of the original style guidelines, as the shade color was intended to be used on areas that sloped outward / downward - but you won't find this kind of shading on the original drawings.

The most important thing that I have not changed from the original guidelines is that I still use only four colors; the base grey, a shade color, a railing/rigging/dark shade color, and an "angle break" dark grey that I also use for extremely thick railing, whip aerials, and other areas thicker than 3" but smaller than 6". Platforms that can support a man are still drawn with the 3-pixel rule.

I think the preservation of the "four shade" standard is important for remixers as it makes editing my drawings very straightforward. Whenever I've tried to edit these 10-shade monstrosities others have made I just end up getting annoyed and usually quit!

First of all: thank you erik_t for your compliment.

Secondly: Ian, I don't feel like criticizing,but more rendering a critique, since our preferred styles are visually different. Rather I'd point out a few deviations/differences, besides the stylistic ones (such as applying smaller portholes and apparent shading preferences.)
1) The final bridge structure that I modeled, featuring two large navigation bridge windows slanted forward with a grey rubber seal between the two removable window panes in each window frame, is verified through pictorial evidence. You simplified it to four smaller window slots (basically). Question: why change that, when there's historically verified evidence as to its appearance; and as it was not changed at all till the ship was lost. Also, on the flag bridge, you correctly shortened by elimination the row of windows, but, again, you rather chose to show these as individual window frames, when, in reality, they were simply removable panes, fastened by rubber strips, providing weathering sealing.
Again, can be a choice of stylistic approach, and it does not overly detract from the overall result, which clearly is astounding, it merely confounds me some.
Also 2) the triangular moulded or welded section apparent on the base was not fitted on the last three - fleet flagship versions (Chicago, Houston and Augusta), but were present on the earlier versions (Northampton, Chester and Louisville). Why this was so, I do not know, but, again, pictorial evidence has led me to completely omit that feature on the CAs 29-31, and, thus, I believe, so should you.
3) The USS Houston at the time of her demise was already 12 years old. a fairly old lady thus. As such she had undergone numerous modifications and refits already, evident in her hull configuration. Thus I've tried to show that in my three renditions of the fleet flagship versions, with welded in sections, such as the discarded torpedo tube midships section. The various darker grey lines in my drawings thus represent platings that's been added. Your hull side, however, is clean, and thus untouched. The platings can be seen on various pictures of any ships in the class, and as my series attempts to show, the ships did vary due to refits undertaken at various times and various yards. The last refit that I know of, that Houston undertook was in early Jan. 1942, just prior to joining the ill-fated ABDA-fleet under the Dutch Schoutbynacht Karel Doorman.

Anyway, hopefully these remarks are not regarded as gripes, since I do not want that to be the case, obscuring the truly magnificent piece of artistry you've created, Ian!

Excellent - I'll reply in detail when I get back to a computer. I'm unclear on point #2 though: what area are you discussing in particular?

No problem, Ian, see below drawing for illustration as to what #2 refers to:

bezobrazov wrote: ↑July 15th, 2017, 2:24 am Secondly: Ian, I don't feel like criticizing,but more rendering a critique, since our preferred styles are visually different. Rather I'd point out a few deviations/differences, besides the stylistic ones (such as applying smaller portholes and apparent shading preferences.)

Sure. My own format is more "standard" but differences in personal styles between artists are to be expected - no issue there.

1) The final bridge structure that I modeled, featuring two large navigation bridge windows slanted forward with a grey rubber seal between the two removable window panes in each window frame, is verified through pictorial evidence. You simplified it to four smaller window slots (basically). Question: why change that, when there's historically verified evidence as to its appearance; and as it was not changed at all till the ship was lost. Also, on the flag bridge, you correctly shortened by elimination the row of windows, but, again, you rather chose to show these as individual window frames, when, in reality, they were simply removable panes, fastened by rubber strips, providing weathering sealing.
Again, can be a choice of stylistic approach, and it does not overly detract from the overall result, which clearly is astounding, it merely confounds me some.

I know how the bridge windows are configured in real life, but the way I draw them is mostly a compromise forced on us by the style - and I prefer the way it looks. Whenever I draw glazed windows I always separate the window panes with a single pixel strip of grey, and in our style this is correctly bordered on either side by black lines. I do not like the way the dark grey line contrasts with the window blue color if it's just right next to it without black pixels providing a demarcation. This is a personal style thing and I don't plan on changing the way the bridge windows are drawn.

Re: the lower set of glazed windows on the flag bridge, I originally drew these only as black lines (with no blue window color) to show that they were removable but scrapped that idea when I realized that the black lines just didn't "read" well.

Also 2) the triangular moulded or welded section apparent on the base was not fitted on the last three - fleet flagship versions (Chicago, Houston and Augusta), but were present on the earlier versions (Northampton, Chester and Louisville). Why this was so, I do not know, but, again, pictorial evidence has led me to completely omit that feature on the CAs 29-31, and, thus, I believe, so should you.

Are you referring to the side of the catapult foundation tower, where the shell plating is faired into the hull itself? Or do you mean the small triangular box you've drawn on the forward side of the catapult tower? I can't find any evidence of that small triangular shape existing. See the Mare Island photos of CHICAGO (CA-29) in 1931 here: http://imgur.com/a/bKeH2

If you're referring to the shell plating on the side of the catapult foundation sitting flush with the hull (and thus creating knuckles on either side and a flat section in the middle), this feature is clearly present on the flagship NORTHAMPTONs (see the above linked photos as well). There are no photos of CA-30 similar to the above, but as she and CHICAGO were so similar in configuration, I don't think adding this feature to HOUSTON is too much of an extrapolation.

The small detail I've drawn on the forward side of the catapult tower of CA-30 is the small piping and vent trunk visible in the CA-29 photos.

Also - your rendition does not include the overhead cover visible in these photos, or the foot railing around the catapult tower itself.

3) The USS Houston at the time of her demise was already 12 years old. a fairly old lady thus. As such she had undergone numerous modifications and refits already, evident in her hull configuration. Thus I've tried to show that in my three renditions of the fleet flagship versions, with welded in sections, such as the discarded torpedo tube midships section. The various darker grey lines in my drawings thus represent platings that's been added. Your hull side, however, is clean, and thus untouched. The platings can be seen on various pictures of any ships in the class, and as my series attempts to show, the ships did vary due to refits undertaken at various times and various yards. The last refit that I know of, that Houston undertook was in early Jan. 1942, just prior to joining the ill-fated ABDA-fleet under the Dutch Schoutbynacht Karel Doorman.

This is a good point (and something I had earmarked but overlooked). The Tjilitjap photo shows the weld lines where the aft-most deck cut out was plated in. I'll add this in a bit.

Good remarks. With regards to the triangular shape on the side of the cat. towers, you're right, and I misinterpreted the various photos. However, the way you've depicted is, is in my view not satisfactory. I'm working on updating all six of my renditions, but when done, I hope to present a more convincing idea how to illustrate that design feature.
As for the other things, we can agree to disagree - let's leave it to the audience to opine about those features.
So, given my present other responsibilities, allow me some time to do this and upload a refreshed batch of drawings!
Oh, when you say "flagship NORTHAMPTONs", I'm not sure whether you're aware that all were flagships: the first three (CAs 26-28) with their shortened fo'c'sle were intended as divisional flagships, whereas the last three (CAs 29-31) were designed as fleet flagships. All of them, at some point in their careers were used as flagships.

Good remarks. With regards to the triangular shape on the side of the cat. towers, you're right, and I misinterpreted the various photos. However, the way you've depicted is, is in my view not satisfactory. I'm working on updating all six of my renditions, but when done, I hope to present a more convincing idea how to illustrate that design feature.

I don't agree with you on this. If you take a look at the Mare Island photos of CA-29 (the only worthwhile closeups of this class I've been able to find), you'll see the outboard side of the cat tower is faired into the hull below it. This feature was also present on the PORTLAND class. I've cropped the best one and adjusted the brightness so the shape is more visible:



The edges of the fairing are correctly represented with the dark grey "angle break" color, and since the side of the fairing is flush with the lower hull (and not shaped in any way), it receives the "base" shade color. The aft side of the cat tower is colored with the shadow/overhang color to show its rounded shape.

This is all assuming the light source is forward (as I've started doing). The old Shipbucket style would not shade the cat tower in any appreciable way other than to show the fairing with the "angle break" color.

The fairing does not project outboard of the hull, so I am not sure why you have highlighted the front half of it and shaded the rear. You've also left out the watertight door off the aft side of the tower.

Oh, when you say "flagship NORTHAMPTONs", I'm not sure whether you're aware that all were flagships: the first three (CAs 26-28) with their shortened fo'c'sle were intended as divisional flagships, whereas the last three (CAs 29-31) were designed as fleet flagships. All of them, at some point in their careers were used as flagships.

I've seen the term "flagship Northamptons" used in several books to describe the sub-class with the extended forecastle. The difference in terminology is pretty straightforward and you understood what I meant regardless of the type of flagship.