Shipbucket
https://418747.wb34atkl.asia/forums/

Iwo Jima Class LPH
https://418747.wb34atkl.asia/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=10725
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Charybdis [ January 26th, 2023, 11:37 am ]
Post subject:  Iwo Jima Class LPH

Here's an update of Darth Panda's Iwo Jima class.

The Iwo Jima class were the first helicopter carriers built from the keel up and saw service in Vietnam and the first Gulf War (Desert Storm). Originally designed to carry helicopters, The Iwo Jima class began operating the AV-8A Harrier in the early '70s. Improved on by the more capable Tarawa class LHA's, most of the ships were decommissioned in the late '90s.

[ img ]

Author:  emperor_andreas [ January 26th, 2023, 1:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Iwo Jima Class LPH

Nice!

Author:  Colosseum [ January 26th, 2023, 2:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Iwo Jima Class LPH

Love it. Nice to see these ships with a plan view!

Author:  eswube [ January 26th, 2023, 5:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Iwo Jima Class LPH

Fantastic work! Keep it up! Great to see plan views being made more and more often.

Just a formal issue: You wrote "update of Darth Panda's Iwo Jima class" - is your drawing a wholly new work, or is it a face-lift of DP's one? I'm asking in regards to credits.

Author:  acelanceloet [ January 26th, 2023, 9:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Iwo Jima Class LPH

Pretty nice! great to see an update on intersting ships like these!

I do have some very minor quirks though:
- Generally speaking, the drawing has some mismatches in detailing. If the deck is hyperdetailed in the top view, some areas in the sideview look bland by comparision. I'd rather not see the connection points on the deck and the deck plating and have the sideview and superstructure deck the same level of detail as the deck then what is happening now, where parts of the ship that are well drawn look bad because some other areas have so much more work put into it.
- On a similar note, the parts and systems. Some of the radars have gotten an redraw in recent years, others have not. With the sponsons shaded quite aggressively, the large white dome of the landing control radar aft of the superstructure looks bad in comparision. Some of the other parts are sitting somewhere in between and might need some attention, but the dome made it obious.
- Sorry to say, but I really don't like the way you did overhang shading under the superstructure platforms. If you go for that (more photoreal) style instead of the standard shipbucket overhang shading, it should also be applied under platforms with an diagonal overhang, the hull shading should follow the same rules, under the liferafts, the mast platforms etc. I would really go back to the "one dark line, and some slightly larger lines underneath it for 2-3 pixels or so to show shape" given in the style guide.
- I am curious about the Mk 25 launcher. While everyone is of course free to redraw and use parts as they see fit, I am not sure this one looks entirely correct. May I suggest the one the wiki? http://www.shipbucket.com/wiki/index.php/Mk_25_GMLS
- There seems to be a mismatch between the dimensions of the phalanx in the sideview and the top view, on quick glance. Did you redraw this one yourself?

Author:  Charybdis [ January 27th, 2023, 1:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Iwo Jima Class LPH

Thanks for the feedback.
acelanceloet wrote: *
- Generally speaking, the drawing has some mismatches in detailing. If the deck is hyperdetailed in the top view, some areas in the sideview look bland by comparision. I'd rather not see the connection points on the deck and the deck plating and have the sideview and superstructure deck the same level of detail as the deck then what is happening now, where parts of the ship that are well drawn look bad because some other areas have so much more work put into it.
Not really sure what you're getting at here. What exactly do you find to be "bland"?
acelanceloet wrote: *
- On a similar note, the parts and systems. Some of the radars have gotten an redraw in recent years, others have not. With the sponsons shaded quite aggressively, the large white dome of the landing control radar aft of the superstructure looks bad in comparision. Some of the other parts are sitting somewhere in between and might need some attention, but the dome made it obious.
I will shade the dome.
acelanceloet wrote: *
- Sorry to say, but I really don't like the way you did overhang shading under the superstructure platforms. If you go for that (more photoreal) style instead of the standard shipbucket overhang shading, it should also be applied under platforms with an diagonal overhang, the hull shading should follow the same rules, under the liferafts, the mast platforms etc. I would really go back to the "one dark line, and some slightly larger lines underneath it for 2-3 pixels or so to show shape" given in the style guide.
Agreed, the shading needs revising.
acelanceloet wrote: *
- I am curious about the Mk 25 launcher. While everyone is of course free to redraw and use parts as they see fit, I am not sure this one looks entirely correct. May I suggest the one the wiki? http://www.shipbucket.com/wiki/index.php/Mk_25_GMLS
The Mk 25 from the parts sheet is too big for the aft sponson but I will try to improve it.
acelanceloet wrote: *
- There seems to be a mismatch between the dimensions of the phalanx in the sideview and the top view, on quick glance. Did you redraw this one yourself?
I changed the phalanx many times so I missed the mismatch. ;)

Author:  BB1987 [ January 27th, 2023, 3:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Iwo Jima Class LPH

I can offer an updated SPN-43 as well.
http://www.shipbucket.com/wiki/images/4 ... SPN-43.PNG

The Mk.25 launcher is listed as being 205 inches long which translates into 34 pixels in SB scale. So the version from the parts sheet should be correctly scaled.

Author:  acelanceloet [ January 27th, 2023, 8:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Iwo Jima Class LPH

IIRC the Mk 25 repurposed the boxes from the Mk 112 ASROC launcher on a new mounting (based on a 3in gun platform) so those are way oversized for what you would expect for a sea sparrow launcher. I really suspect BB1987's version is correct, as it looks to have that correct and there seems to be information available about it's dimensions.

The bland in my view means underdetailed. Sections look as if they should have more detail but they don't have it. The flight deck has about every detail it can have and look amazing, but the superstructure in the same top view looks like it is just the outlines and some colour filled in. In the same way, the sideview has no panel lining anywhere, while the flight deck has. Not saying you should panel line the sideview, but just saying you might want to consider NOT panel lining the flight deck.

Re reshading the dome, take a look at all components. recent years have done an huge update on some components, and the ones that have not been updated look bad in comparision. The dome was the worst offender, but when you fix the dome, others might pop up as the worst offender instead.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/