Shipbucket

top downs are strictly speaking not shipbucket work and thus are never included in parts sheets. my belowdeck parts include them for clarity every now and then, but even then nothing but the size can be considered 100% accurate on some of them. this is the reason they are not easily to be found.
if top down parts are drawn, they are often done by a small set of members like, for example, Erik_T. members who normally don't do parts sometimes make those too, but I myself always check those for accuracy first (we have for example at least 3 versions of the Mk 45 gun lying around, of which only one is considered accurate at best.)

Thanks for clarifying that.

I'd personally like to gather as much of top downs even if they weren't 100% accurate as they can literally give another perspective on ship.

Though I often think that minimalistic and austere stuff is most beautiful I like how this (Battle)Cruiser is made.

Edit: Ace's comment made me go back and refine top downs a little.

Speak for yourselves... the plan views of parts I've done have been as accurate as the elevation views. I think plan views are a very useful part of a ship drawing - even though I've only done one or two. It's something I eventually want to do for the Alaska (as well as a front view!)

Colo: Looking forward to it

Colosseum wrote:Speak for yourselves... the plan views of parts I've done have been as accurate as the elevation views. I think plan views are a very useful part of a ship drawing - even though I've only done one or two. It's something I eventually want to do for the Alaska (as well as a front view!)

I am speaking purely for old parts (including some of the ones I did in the past) and the belowdeck parts, for which accurate references were not always available.

boxofroundrocks, feel free to PM me if you want to know if parts are accurate, if I do not know for certain I will guide you to the correct person who knows, or do research for it. it is not an bad idea to gather top down parts, but IMO any sheet should be proven accurate before everyone starts to use it's stuff

I find I have to add a pixel to plan view parts occasionally because you can really tell if something is just one pixel off center on hulls that don't have an odd number pixel beam. That of I have to enlarge the beam by that pixel.

That being said nothing calls out an unrealistic superstructure layout more than a top down! I't also recommend doing a rough top down of the main deck and engineering deck, I have noticed a lot of hulls that have questionably beam around their machinery.

A handsome ship, sabotage181. If only the United States Navy could afford to build 19 of them to replace the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser as originally planned for CG(X). Much nicer than the BMD ship based on the San Antonio-class LPD. I presume that this design will be dubbed Virginia Class?

Triton wrote:A handsome ship, sabotage181. If only the United States Navy could afford to build 19 of them to replace the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser as originally planned for CG(X). Much nicer than the BMD ship based on the San Antonio-class LPD. I presume that this design will be dubbed Virginia Class?

WOW, this ship has been at rest for a while. I was just getting caught up on the beginner fourm and noticed your comment Thank you for the complement. I was toying with the Idea of naming it the Virginia class haha, but being that there is a submarine class (active) with that name I didn't want to open that can of worms. I think we discussed that somewhere in this thread. This was my first ship on the fourm and I've though about revisiting it. I've since designed another cruiser and its in the personal design section. Again, thank you for the complement