Shipbucket

TimothyC wrote: ↑January 7th, 2019, 1:28 pm

BB1987 wrote: ↑January 7th, 2019, 10:38 am Unfortunately, I received some extra insight that made me realize the Atlas diameter is off in every drawing. All earlier models should be 21 pixels wide while they are 23.

20 pixels if you want to be exact as the tanks are exactly 10 feet in diameter (just like the Titans).

That would create some issues when moving on the Atlas V since I'd have to add 5 pixels wich are an odd number and the Centaur upper stage has to remain the same diameter, so 21 to 25 instead of 20 to 25 would have been a reasonable compromise. However, that's merely semantics since reworking them all would be virtually impossible. I'm still bashing my head for my own stupidiy, never in six years I had made such a stupid oversight.

BB1987 wrote: ↑January 7th, 2019, 4:43 pm

TimothyC wrote: ↑January 7th, 2019, 1:28 pm

BB1987 wrote: ↑January 7th, 2019, 10:38 am Unfortunately, I received some extra insight that made me realize the Atlas diameter is off in every drawing. All earlier models should be 21 pixels wide while they are 23.

20 pixels if you want to be exact as the tanks are exactly 10 feet in diameter (just like the Titans).

That would create some issues when moving on the Atlas V since I'd have to add 5 pixels wich are an odd number and the Centaur upper stage has to remain the same diameter, so 21 to 25 instead of 20 to 25 would have been a reasonable compromise. However, that's merely semantics since reworking them all would be virtually impossible. I'm still bashing my head for my own stupidiy, never in six years I had made such a stupid oversight.

Hm. I think then that accepting 21 wide for the sake of the art style would be acceptable. I may see what I can do on all of these if you don't mind?

sebu wrote: ↑January 7th, 2019, 2:14 pmI truly hope, you didn't start these with the V N22

No, I started with the Atlas-Centaur. The N22 was the second to last to be done, only before the Heavy.

TimothyC wrote: ↑January 7th, 2019, 4:49 pmI may see what I can do on all of these if you don't mind?

If you are willing to try, then by all means yes.

Either way, the work is magnificent -- we've all screwed up the scale every once in a while (this made me think of my ridiculous project to redraw the Portland class cruisers that were off by 20px) It happens to all of us

Give it a few days and see where you end up -- for what it's worth, the hard work of deciding how to show each part is already done. Going back and redoing them probably won't take as long as you think.

Re: 21px vs. 20px, since these require a defined midpoint there's frankly no issue adding the additional pixel... I wouldn't even worry about that myself.

TimothyC wrote: ↑January 7th, 2019, 1:28 pm

BB1987 wrote: ↑January 7th, 2019, 10:38 am Unfortunately, I received some extra insight that made me realize the Atlas diameter is off in every drawing. All earlier models should be 21 pixels wide while they are 23.

20 pixels if you want to be exact as the tanks are exactly 10 feet in diameter (just like the Titans).

Something about this post is absolutely maddening to me -- here's an actual contributor noticing an honest mistake, affecting 50+ drawings, and all you've got is a nitpick-y correction?

Well, a quick mod might seem like this:



The nosecone seems different, so I don't know if it's right? That's what I meant for compromises... More complex payloads may differ even more

I think 21px is absolutely correct for an application like this. Slight error in diameter in order to show the shape more clearly.

Colosseum wrote: ↑January 7th, 2019, 5:59 pm Either way, the work is magnificent -- we've all screwed up the scale every once in a while (this made me think of my ridiculous project to redraw the Portland class cruisers that were off by 20px) It happens to all of us

Give it a few days and see where you end up -- for what it's worth, the hard work of deciding how to show each part is already done. Going back and redoing them probably won't take as long as you think.

Re: 21px vs. 20px, since these require a defined midpoint there's frankly no issue adding the additional pixel... I wouldn't even worry about that myself.

sebu wrote: ↑January 7th, 2019, 7:42 pm Well, a quick mod might seem like this:



The nosecone seems different, so I don't know if it's right? That's what I meant for compromises... More complex payloads may differ even more

erik_t wrote: ↑January 7th, 2019, 8:11 pm I think 21px is absolutely correct for an application like this. Slight error in diameter in order to show the shape more clearly.

Well' as soon as I've boiled down a bit I might look back at them again and see what I can do (and how it will turn out).

I would go for 21 pixels, its hard to create a good pointed nose in FD scale with even numbers (e.g. the pitot shown on the SM-65A would no longer be on the centreline axis).

Ok' I went full "enough wining" mode and threw myself in back at the Atlas sheet:
https://i.imgur.com/4T6WAvc.png
I admit thus far it has been easier than I initially anticipated. in 5 to 6 hours of work I've manged to slim down all rockets, effectively completing everything beyond the Atlas I (all marked with the green background) bar possibly some more smaller tweaks here and there.
In the next days, as soon as I have some more time to dedicate on them, I'll start working on the upper half of the earlier models. I suspect it will be trickier, but I'm much, much, more confident about them than I was yesterday.

Since you have fewer scaling options, it necessary gets easier to shrink the smaller features. A slightly-out-of-scale 23 pixels might turn into 22 or 24, or even 21, but what's a three-pixel-wide object going to do? Probably not go to four or two.

Best of luck!