Shipbucket

- Generally, the style rules should discriminate between minimum requirements and a limit on how far one may go, and everything between these extremes is cool.

Yes, this would be our main intention, give the frames for artists to work inside with.

And, there is one question that bothers me: So far, a ship that has been drawn 'belongs' to the original author and any scratch redraw is considered a hostile act (sort of) even if the drawing is old, outdated or even faulty. I am not sure whether this rule applies to sister ships or renderings of the same ship in an earlier or later stage of its career? Can they be drawn from scratch without permission from the original artist?

Well these are the exact questions why Im starting to think SB should be devolped into direction where duplicate drawings could co-exist, so to reduce people getting pissed off by pure and honest intentions. We take pride over our previous work in variable decree, and different personalities seems to react differntly over these issues. In past we have had some drama over this, and thus the sensitivity has occured. But also, since we are getting older and older by each year, some of these orginal artists have dissapeared from the community, and it gets pretty dragging to trying to apply similar gentleman principles for their work, as we are now holding.
Usually the practice in these cases has been that the adm. gives the permission to redo such ships.
But definetly this is important issue that should be added to the rules, what ever we decide the ultimate protocol to be. It is paramount that we have some protocol atleast.

The thought of considering me as an "administrator of anything" for the next several months makes me cringe. At the same time the suggestion is extremely gratifying. Many thanks for the complement Colosseum!

Underwater shading (in my opinion) really needs a Tutorial and section in The Rules. If nothing else it should be a collaborative document that includes multiple member's techniques for different situations. Since there are so many different hull forms it might also be best to keep it as Recommended Practices rather than unbending Rules.

Another thing the Rules could use is a diagram and good explanation of the light source. I've not yet found a good SB explanation on that one.

There are dozens of other Rules that get passed on via word of mouth here that really should get codified. It'll help newbies a LOT. (I'd dig some examples out of threads I've participated in, but no time this week).

Quote:
And, there is one question that bothers me: So far, a ship that has been drawn 'belongs' to the original author and any scratch redraw is considered a hostile act (sort of) even if the drawing is old, outdated or even faulty. I am not sure whether this rule applies to sister ships or renderings of the same ship in an earlier or later stage of its career? Can they be drawn from scratch without permission from the original artist?
Other thoughts on reworking other's drawings, and scratch efforts on ships already drawn:

Being a gentleman and contacting before modifying somebody's work should be a given. It is the "right" thing to do and something that society is starting to forget.

A primary reason I stay away from modern ships is that I've accidentally drawn ships already done by others only to find out deep into the draw or upon publishing (once, a zeppelin). While I've honored the culture of "that ship belongs to" here, I like the suggestion of multiple versions/owners. I don't know about the rest of the world but in the U.S. Copyright laws allow for original works. It should here as well so nobody should feel barred from the joy of drawing a vehicle of interest.

EDIT: Would it be possible to sticky the current old standard and Tutorials on the current Forum (so we don't need to go in the archive)?

CraigH

jabba wrote: And finally, this monstrosity:

We should, as soon as possible, introduce a zero-tolerance policy with regards to the use of this, even as a placeholder. I endorse an instant and permanent ban for anyone who dares to ignore this policy. These people need to be made an example of.

(standing ovation)

erik_t wrote:

jabba wrote: And finally, this monstrosity:

We should, as soon as possible, introduce a zero-tolerance policy with regards to the use of this, even as a placeholder. I endorse an instant and permanent ban for anyone who dares to ignore this policy. These people need to be made an example of.

(standing ovation)

Thank you!

And look what just happened

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=5271

Here are my two cents: (sorry for my late reply, I had issues with my keyboard which basically stopped working for almost a day for no apparent reason )

-If Superstructure shading for forward and aft facing surfaces is implemented, light should always come from the bow. A possible variant of this is implemented in Colosseum's drawings, and shows the shades on the back of curved surfaces only.
-Superstructure breaks or bends drawn in black for 90-degree breaks, dark grey for angular breaks, no darker bends on curved objects.
-Curved/Cylindrical objects are shaded with a small stripe of lighter shade, wider stripe of basic shade and another narrow stripe of darker shade. Both lighter and darker shades are relative to the object shape, but usually the basic shade section should be bigger than the other two (A method I've always used on my ships). Another technique is that used by Gollevainen and Heuhen, with the lighter curved surface represented by using two single-pixel stripes of lighter shade to give the "illusion" of reflected light.
-All platforms supposed to be walkable should be three-pixel thick (with maybe a few borderline exceptions in order to avoid the two-black-lines issues and pixel blobs).
-Keep using standard railings as it has been always done.
-Underwater hull in red, unless it is known to be in some other color.
-Proper hull shading used if the gereal shape is known, even better (and somewhat required) if the artist has body plans to work with.

All arguments have pretty much been mentioned already by some other users, but I wanted to share my thoughts on the matter.

jabba wrote: And look what just happened

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=5271

*Takes a bow*

OK - I like where this thread has been going. Who will volunteer to write up some draft style rules?

I'll stick my hand up to help with Sail and pre 1900 stuff (as anything more complicated than a kettle amazes me to stupefaction)

I'm happy to help out with drafting some rules if needed.

I to can help out with pre-1900 and sail.
CraigH