Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 5 of 6  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Author Message
Hood
Post subject: Re: Modern Battleship ChallengePosted: January 18th, 2022, 11:58 am
Offline
Posts: 7233
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
I'll post some feedback, a lot of the artists are newer artists and still on a learning curve.

De Ruyter Class - Mitchell van Os
I couldn't find fault and when the Dutch guys get let loose on Dutch ships you know the result are going to be good. 100% period spot on and very nicely drawn. Makes you sad to think this wasn't real (if only for wet dreams of Vanguard, De Ruyter and Jean Bart all together at a NATO meet up in the late 1950s).

Tre Kronor - KHT
A nice design, but as Rodondo says, the artist hasn't been active as much recently and so this feels about 5 years behind the curve of the latest style trends.
But as a basic design its pretty good (based on real Swedish never-weres anyway) although a newer secondary and AA battery feels like its undercooking the modernisation, I'd love to have seen an Rb08 shoehorned in somewhere).

Montana Class - Corp
Its novel and has some neat touches. Artistically it suffers from being so big, there is nothing wrong with the quality but most of it is a red and grey rectangle with a few bits poking above the deck - just a reflection of the base design being a tanker.
For me it feels just too big, yet feels hampered at the same time - the helideck area feels constrained in layout, too many RAS gantries? It's interesting but dropped marks for me.

Vermont Class - StealthJester
A fairly bog-standard layout, but the Terriers seem squeezed in and I think a top view might have helped to workout the superstructure given the simple tiered arrangement but is there enough room for two ASROCs beside the aft mack without a deck overhang? There wasn't enough clutter and general detail to break up the bareness - the Falcon missile launcher looks to be the most detailed bit of the whole ship...(the Falcon missile is neat concept though). I would have drawn the cable conduits in grey on the macks, the macks themselves look pretty good though.

Revenge-class - TNGShM
I don't want to be too critical on a first draw, there are good points and bad points but we all have to start out somewhere.
Like StealthJester's design, from the side view its hard to judge whether everything would fit in the deck space allowed.
The Type 67 SAM launchers look fairly close to the superstructure and you need to think about blast here. Same with the SSM launchers, right in front of the boats without any blast mitigation is asking for trouble. The underwater hull shape seems a little odd aft and what's in the forward superstructure tower above the bridge?
Too many black lines for internal angled faces, dark grey would have better but the shading is basic but good to see.
I think with more experience and practice you'll soon be turning out much better work and the basic layout seems fine its just the detailed planning and execution that needs improving.

Inadvisable - redfox76
Again, a newer artist and again a mix of good and bad points. Generally the concept looks good, layout seems ok and everything works on the top view.
The bow flare seems overdone to me, perhaps the hull is a tad too high, certainly the superstructure has some uneven deck heights and the funnel needs work to improve it in size and shape. The masts might not work as depicted here. You might want to space your portholes out a bit, you hardly ever get rows of portholes like this on warships. Some deck equipment and vents etc. so it doesn't feel bare but beyond the Talos area of the ship things feel less detailed.

Kanystal Class - Themax
Some nice touches and shading, very angular and not sure how much is real stealth and how much is style.
The hull feels too small for all this load, would those forward VLS actually fit within the beam of the ship? The midships landing deck looks too small and more of a hazard than anything given the superstructure blocks and masts around it. I think I would have left off the helicopters and put the VLS silo farm here.

Lambda class - Heuhen
A cheeky entry. I think the Lambda is super cool looking if not entirely practical given the huge size (probably more steel than you need) but given the size the two 13in guns easily fit in.

Vanguard - Karl 94
Does what it says on the tin. I remember offering pointers on this pre-challenge, certainly feels much like Bombhead's 1960s Vanguard from a decade ago in terms of updated kit. It looks very plausible, although I feel the RN would have ditched off all the Bofors.

Montana - acelanceloet
Not sure what I'm seeing here to be honest! It's madcap, SPY-1s on the hull sponsons? More thrusters than a Stardestroyer, odd SPG-51 placement too.
It's well drawn if not a bit boring (stealth ships are boring anyway but this is like a grey pyramid). For me its just too madcap to take seriously.

Kanjii Class - Wolftheriot
Another newbie entry, there have been a fair few constructive criticisms on Discord already and most of them remain, deck heights are odd if not too high in most case, strange layout with 'X' turret crammed in with poor arcs (what's the helideck control room doing here?), random radar domes and planar arrays stuck on.
But there is some good shading here and I think with more care and attention and more experience with real ships it would have been much better.

USS Tennessee - Kiwi Imperialist
Very well drawn and an interesting design. The Sea Mauler systems look great! (*yoink*)
I wonder if the Typhon MR launcher isn't a bit hemmed in, especially against targets in the forward arcs.
I like the low quarterdeck, was a neat solution to reduce the topweight and the effect is quite a low ship overall.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
StealthJester
Post subject: Re: Modern Battleship ChallengePosted: January 18th, 2022, 6:20 pm
Offline
Posts: 210
Joined: December 22nd, 2014, 12:25 am
Location: Spokane Valley, Washington, US
Greetings!

I just wanted to say that regardless of the outcome of the poll, I have enjoyed participating in this challenge, and appreciate all the comments and suggestions. As I have stated, I have very little experience with drawing anything newer than 1950 and I am not comfortable with the aircraft, radar, and missile dominated postwar world, preferring the dreadnought era of naval history.
However, having said that, I will be stepping outside my comfort zone again and taking all the feedback which I received to take another stab at creating a “modern” battleship – not only for my own education and growth as an illustrator on Shipbucket, but also as a personal challenge. Look for the revised Vermont class on the Alternate Universe forum. Comments are as always welcome and appreciated.

Cheers!
Steatlhjester


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Corp
Post subject: Re: Modern Battleship ChallengePosted: January 19th, 2022, 11:45 pm
Offline
Posts: 110
Joined: November 14th, 2014, 4:13 am
De Ruyter Class - Mitchell van Os
Looks good. I recall having questions about the director placement but you already answered them back when you first posted it so I don't think I need to bring it up again. My only major complaint now is the presentation would look a tiny bit better if you had some white space around the front and bottom of the word "Statistics" and the blue line on your template.

Tre Kronor - KHT
Layout is fine and overall I think it looks nice albiet little dated in terms of artistic style. I think most of that is the yellow prop though.

Vermont Class - StealthJester
As mentioned before I dig the AShM launcher. Not entirely sold on two ASROCs ( I would rather expect one slightly forward of the current location on the center line) but beyond that I like it. Especially good to see someone leaving their comfort zone. That's one of the main things I like about the challenge is drawing stuff I don't usually draw and seeing others do the same.


Revenge-class - TNGShM
I'm not really sure how the AShM launchers are supposed to work and I feel having them alongside the SAMs would require the ship being a tad wide. Not fully sold on 10 helicopters but without a top view it's hard to say. Beyond that I think it's a solid entry.

Inadvisable - redfox76
Hard to pin my finger on it exactly but to me it feels inconsistent. I think it's due to the deck heights
Aft of the boatsit looks like you have a hard edge but from the top view it seems like it's straight. It looks like it might be an overhang but it doesn't seem shaded as such. Not sold on the foremast either. Beyond that I think it's good, just could have used a little more polish although I know you ran tight on time at the end.

Kanystal Class - Themax
Well done for a late start. I feel like it would have benefited from more time. No complaints that others haven't already mentioned.

Lambda class - Heuhen
Feels a tiny bit overloaded with weapons but not by much. Other than that looks great. I admire your argument that big guns are pointless and wish I had had the courage to make it. Would have let me stay true to my original intent for my entry. I'm curious if you have more info on the "Swedish baby aircraft carrier" concept that inspired your turret.

Vanguard - Karl 94
Probably my favorite entry and I'd argue one of the more if not the most sensible/grounded.

Montana - acelanceloet
Not sold on the SPY-1 placement even if it is extremely high up. Also feels like it has a bit too many waterjets. Overall it feels very NS if the people on NS who do this sort of thing knew what they were doing which sounds bad but I mean it in a good way.

Kanjii Class - Wolftheriot
Not sure I really have any feedback you didn't already get here and on the wips on discord. Having seen your various wips it did seem like you made an honest effort to incorporate some of the feedback. Presentation wise I think it could have benefited from having stats or something in the space between the roles and flags.

USS Tennessee - Kiwi Imperialist
It feels a little low for me. Echoing Erik_t in that I think it would have worked better with a flush deck. I think amidships would work better with the MR Sam moved aft of the rear super structure along with half the reactors, shifting the super structure forwards (So it would be bridge reactor superstructure reactor launcher). Would give a better arc for the launcher and split the reactors farther apart for better survivability although what you have now works fine. Beyond that every detail is well done. I especially love the shadows on the top view being at the same angle as the side view. (although it seems like you missed the shadow on the sea maulers.)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: Modern Battleship ChallengePosted: January 20th, 2022, 3:34 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9102
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
Corp wrote: *
"Swedish baby aircraft carrier" concept that inspired your turret.
I was considering to do it once, but if there is anyone out there that want to do it...
https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2015/08/27 ... y-cruiser/


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Modern Battleship ChallengePosted: January 20th, 2022, 9:54 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
Well, first of all, I love that we are again back to giving actual feedback! If I may, I'll add my piece :D

De Ruyter Class - Mitchell van Os
Well, this first design is first of all an excellent drawing of an quintessentially Dutch design. I enjoy the nods to the (worse drawn but similar in concept) modernised 1047 battlecruiser I drew years ago, be them intentional or not. There are however a few details I dislike, such as the depth charge mortars without blast shields, the propeller guards in a location where there is no propeller, the somewhat cramped VI and director on the aft superstructure (in height) and the location of the Lichtraketwerper that doesn't seem to leave much space for it's reloading systems belowdeck. In other words, nothing at all is wrong until you start looking really closely at it, which is bloody impressive for a drawing that was turned in first!
(All that said, didn't I draw that COA years ago? Not that I am that proud on it but maybe it should be credited, but it wasn't on the De Ruyter drawing I made it for, weren't COA's credited back then?)

Tre Kronor - KHT
KHT's entry isn't a bad drawing, but as said before it suffers a bit from being a tad oldfashioned in style. THe biggest issue I actually have with it is that the 57mm gun which are drawn in more updated style seem to mismatch a bit with the rest of the ship. The design looks very sensible and possible. It seems unlikely to happen, but if it would happen, this would be close to what it would be.

California - Corp
My favorite entry in this challenge. The challenge criteria which required me to go completely overboard because I couldn't find a way to do something fun but sensible, Corp found a way in which a big gun ship might just be doable in real life. I have multiple issues with the detail design, such as the helicopter layout and the choice to not put some kind of hangar on the deck, the choice of the combat systems and the locations and design of the UNREP masts, but in the end this is just a very good drawing of a conceptual idea that would never work..... but is far closer to it then any other of the entries

Vermont Class - StealthJester
I can't help but like this design. The hull is clearly inspired by USN cruiser designs, the big macks give the ship character while also keeping that battleship flavor in the superstructure. There are some things about the design which I really don't like though, such as the SPG-55s foot being buried in the decks, the shape of the main gun turrets, the choice of the modified SPG-55's for the long range cruise missile guidance and the use of outdated parts for many components (radars, launchers, helicopters). I suspect the Mk 10 launchers will have issues, how deep they are buried in the superstructure (reload hatches and stuff like that) but overall, I would really like to see more work along these lines from StealthJester.

Revenge-class - TNGShM
A new user who decided to set the bar high this challenge by almost completely drawing custom parts for their ship. I do have some worries about balance in the design, with the heavy gun turrets forwards and the large empty spaces that missile magazines and hangars are aft. On a glance, something seems off about the deck level heights, but I cannot seem to put my finger on if there actually is an issue without measuring which means it is probably good enough. The ship doesn't feel overloaded though, which isn't easy to do when starting from scratch on a design like this! Pilothouse windows and other details show that this is a new user, but in some other respects they seem to have a better grasp of ship design then many more experienced members of shipbucket.

Inadvisable - rdfox76
I really don't like this design. I suspect it has major trim issues (the missile magazines aft being mostly used volume, the forward spaces with the big turrets and their magazines using all of the available weight), the bulges somehow blending in to the outher skegs, the very weirdly spaced deck levels and the large amount of system interference (radars all at the same height, blocking arcs, cranes interfering with launcher and gun arcs, etc.) means this ship is inadvisable from far more points of view then just the conceptual one. The mismatch in detailing level between parts from the parts sheet and stuff that is new drawn makes it feel like a kitbash, even if it isn't. I also wonder what is going on with the hull shading, that seems to be there on the bow and stern but apparently the midship is one big block without any rounding whatsoever.
The detail work on some areas shows that it could have been much better. The top view is reasonably detailed and shows that real effort has been put in. I wonder what it could have been with a bit more time spend in the planning phase of the design before it was fleshed out into a detailed drawing.

Kanystal Class - Themax
I hate the hull shading and the cramped helideck and VLS locations on this...... but I really like the rest! Is it realistic? no. Is it unique and well drawn? very! I see some western stealth frigate influence and some of that russian conceptual exhibit model design language in this ship. The only real drawback is that it tries to be too much: it would be very good design if it was a tad longer, higher and had somewhat less VLS and an helideck aft (no hangar) and it would feel way less cramped. As a drawing, however, I am looking forward to more works like this!

Lambda class - Heuhen
I have a few small issues with this, and one big one. But first of all: as we expect of H. heuser, it is well drawn and nicely detailed. I cannot find many flaws in that, as an artpiece it is very good. As a ship design however, it has many flaws. The huge ventilation hatches on the hull make no sense to me. The even larger amount on the superstructure doesn't either. Is that entire structure hollow? Is it an air cooled nuclear reactor for some reason? all these are risks in strength and watertightness, and they are in the midships hull section and the superstructure under the big heavy radars! Then there is an double pilothouse, but in the middle of the upper one there is the deck penetration of an SPG-51 radar. Similarly, the big radar faces have interference from the deck penetration of the SPG-51 radars as well. In general, there are so many systems on the hull that I wonder if the crew lives below the waterline on this ship.
I have only one major issue with this design however: I cannot find any way to match this to the challenge requirements of a battleship. The gun pit feels very 19th century, making me think of Q ships and monitors. The guns really feel like an afterthought to a ship that doesn't want or need them. Overall, I think they detract from the realism of the drawing.

Vanguard - Karle 94
I cannot say much about the ships design, as it is essentially a real ship. A nice drawing as we are used to from Karle, but as a challenge entry it feels a tad uncreative and simple. Looking at the modernisation efforts on the Iowa's and the difficulties and choices made there, I wonder if the path chosen here was in any way close to what would be done for a Vanguard modernisation IRL.

Montana - acelanceloet
Well, what can I say, thank you all for the comments! The amount of waterjets and many of the choices were made were based on the requirements I set myself to use real equipment as much as possible. This was the biggest AWJ-21..... so I needed 6 of them (+ 2 auxiliary) to get the required amount of power in the water. Looking at the comments I got, I realised what I wanted to enter into this challenge: the sanest take I could do on a mad battleship.

Kanjii Class - Wolftheriot
The entire ship feels like a kids design, with no idea of scale and sizes. All the elements are there, but they are grotesquely dimensioned. It is however not badly drawn, and I wonder waht this artist can do when making a serious design or even when drawing a real ship.

USS Tennessee - Kiwi Imperialist
I love this design, nonsensical as it is. I really think an additional deck on the entire hull, or an flush deck design, would make this design look more sensible. I would really separate the reactors more, and possibly the missiles (and their guidance systems) too. Drawing wise, I cannot call it anything but excellent though. Part of me want to do some kitbashes based on it to see what would be possible on the hull.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: Modern Battleship ChallengePosted: January 20th, 2022, 11:52 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9102
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
I'm not an expert at all, but this is my few short points:

Mitchell van Os, De Ruyter Class
It's an interesting idea, and plausible idea for a navy that want to get a ship out there in the post war era (if I forget budget). I have nothing to complain as an artist, but sometimes I do find the shading to be a bit "light". I'm not that big fan of visual hull plating, so long it isn't very visual in the real world. For a ship in 1955+ I would except to see an experimental missile or rocket system, but it sin't impotant.

KHT, Tre Kronor class
With the time there was in the challenge, a lot more could have been done, now it's just some ship, looks naked and almost no shading. and it looks more like a copy but simplified version of the original The Kronor class (I understand it's a proposed version)

Corp, Montana class
Corp have always come up with some interesting ideas. And the execution is quite good. I do feel that a ship like this that would have been build up for this, or re-fited (would take time), they would at least managed to build a simple hangar at minimum. But I do wonder if there is more value for the money, if this concept was build on a smaller cargo ship, that more easy can "disappear"

StealthJester, Vermont class

it's funny, coming from me... but would two Mk16 box launchers for ASROC be a bit much on this hull, I feel there is something wrong with the two of the SPG-55 and how many SPG-55 are normal for Mk 10's? (there are other systems as well). As drawing, it's just empty, looks just like deck on deck on deck, is it a pyramid?

TNGShM
I'm not going to point out anything, other people have already said enough for now. Welcome to the forum, and I recommend to look into how ships look in the real world. How much deck height do crew need; Can that missile fire from there; does this system have space there, without radiating the crew; etc.

rdfox76. Battleship 1952 proposed
the ships lack details as many other drawings in here from newer members, but with time that will be better and more fun. I see you get your inspiration of main gun placement forward from Nelson class battleship, but those 3 quad turrets will weight around 5800 tons combined and that before you talk about the internal equipment for these guns. Nelsons turret weighted approx 5400 tons combined, Nelson class guns was also mounted from amidship of the ship and forward, spreading the weight more out. you have all forward. Then you have a high mounted missile system, thus I start to wonder if this ship is top heavy.

Themax, Kanystal class
from me, it looks overloaded and some of the system wouldn't have enough space. There is also some weird shading going on. and the radar structure (Russian inspiration) dosent make sense for me. and the ship capability is limited due to some of the design choices. The Hull above water should at least be 18-25 pix taler forward.

heuhen, Lambda
My normal drawing style with details. Overloaded in Caledonia style!
1. I would remove 4 of the aft 6 carousel-VLS and make the entire deck flush, due to the weight of the artillery gun. moved the small tactical nuclear revolvere VLS aft, and reduce to only 2 or 4. reduce to only 2 revolver-VLS on the forward deck.
2. Move the two forward areas of Vents in the hull, keep the aft. Reduce the number of superstructure vents, how many do we need for internal air + cooling of systems?!
3. move the "admiral" bridge more forward. so all electronics for the SPG-51, can be placed closer.

Karl94, HMS Vanguard
I see it as a possible modification to the last battleship build, by a country with a very tight post war economy. Not to much, just enough to make the ship a little better. I would perhaps see some newer boats next to the old ones and new and easier to operate crane (although it's fine as it is) and I would perhaps see some structure that are not in use anymore being dismantled and the material from that structure used other places, to expand on living area (education area/ class room).

acelanceloet, BBN-72 Montana
traditional acelanceloet style, an over the top and crazy design, but at the same time it's not. A crazy design, but not the most crazy thing I have seen. I'm not going to as about the propulsion system, if he thinks it's space for those "thrusters and they will all have a clean flow over them, the I am not going to argue about that. I am not going to ask about the placement of the Spy-1 faces, if they work, then they work. but the two aft SPG-62 wouldn't they have problem to see trough the exhaust? (if we was going to use the, since they are doing it like that, it's must be how it must be! shouldn't SPG-62 be placed behind the funnel, then in front of it) (People have talked a lot about that we can't put a system there, due to the exhaust from the funnel would disrupt it)

I limit my comment to that

Wolftheriot, Kenji-class BB
I am not going to comment on this, except that the VLS will not have space there, the ship is tall and lack details and the main radar is blocket by the superstructure and would probably BBQ the bridge crew. and the propeller setup is weird.

Kiwi Imperialist, USS Tennessee
for me is the most believable drawings in the challenge, when you take into account for all the problems and limited resources they have in that world he is describing, thus it limit what can be done. It's not a perfect world, where as other people have commented (flush deck)





well I'll clarify a few things that have been mentioned and talked about.

1. The design wasn't really ment for this challenge, it was originally designed for My AU, some will always be on the edge and sometimes above. But I modified it to just fit the requirement of this challenge, to put forward an idea. Yes if I drawn up a new one, I would have done it different. with a conventional powerplant and guns forward and missile as a more secondary aft.

2. guns, if a rather new build ships of that "era" was build with big guns 11" + Then I don't think they would be used in any naval action (direct fire), but only to give an artillery support (indirect fire). So I recommend to not look at the guns as a turret guns, but look at it more as a artillery gun (howitzer).

3. I had no idea that SPG-51 have deck penetration. All information I have on it, show it doesn't have, but it have the electronic to the system placed as close as possible (probably to shorten signal between on deck equipment and internal equipment, but that signal do also have to travel all the way down to C&C, so still some delay). On this ship it's not necessary to have them close, since they are more an backup system, due the main radar will do the main work of controlling all missiles. The only main operation for SPG-51, would be supporting the guns, although all guns have local.


4. Main reason to post it, was to get a reaction from you boys, that apparently doesn't talk anymore on the forum.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Kiwi Imperialist
Post subject: Re: Modern Battleship ChallengePosted: January 21st, 2022, 12:02 pm
Offline
Posts: 321
Joined: December 10th, 2014, 9:38 am
The Modern Battleship Challenge community poll is now closed. 35 responses were received before the deadline. Thank you all for taking time to respond. This was a two month challenge and our twelve artists put a lot of effort into their work. It was great to see a range of designs from refitted battleships of yore to novel futuristic designs which push the envelope. As this challenge was longer than most, I had hoped for more participation. However, I cannot complain about what was achieved by those who did participate. I also wish to congratulate our first time participants. Drawing a vessel the size of a battleship is no mean feet and it takes courage to challenge Shipbucket's top artists. I hope to see you all again in future challenges.

[ img ]

In first place, with the highest score in the design realism category, is Mitchell van Os and their entry HNLS De Ruyter. I cannot say I am surprised. They are exceptionally talented, especially when it comes to hull detail. De Ruyter's place alongside their other winning entries, Independence from the Post-Cold War Large Surface Combatant Challenge and Kopenhuuwen submitted for the Modern Auxiliary Challenge, is well deserved. Outstanding work! Following Mitchell van Os in second place is me, Kiwi Imperialist, with USS Tennessee which achieved the highest drawing quality score. There is little I can say except thank you for all the positive comments and valuable criticism I have received since sharing my entry. Third place goes to Karle94 and their rendition of a modernised HMS Vanguard. It was one of our most conservative and straightforward entries, but the scores reveal that is no hinderance to a determined artist. Great job!

[ img ]

For those interested, submissions are now being accepted for the Attack Helicopter Challenge. It was the most popular option in the next challenge poll.

[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: Modern Battleship ChallengePosted: January 21st, 2022, 4:11 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9102
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
congratulation to Mitchell van Os, Kiwi Imperialist and Karle94


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colosseum
Post subject: Re: Modern Battleship ChallengePosted: January 21st, 2022, 5:05 pm
Offline
Posts: 5218
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact: Website
Congrats to all who participated for yet another very successful challenge and thanks especially to Kiwi Imperialist for doing such a great job consistently running the challenges!

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
StealthJester
Post subject: Re: Modern Battleship ChallengePosted: January 21st, 2022, 6:25 pm
Offline
Posts: 210
Joined: December 22nd, 2014, 12:25 am
Location: Spokane Valley, Washington, US
Greetings!

Congratulations to Mitchell van Os, Kiwi Imperialist, and Karle94 on your superb effort - I also wanted to give an honorable mention to Corp for an interesting and thought-provoking entry.

Appreciation extended to everyone who participated - this was fun and challenging!

Cheers!
Stealthjester


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 5 of 6  [ 51 posts ]  Return to “Drawing Challenges” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]