USA Destroyers pre-war classes

[kokubokan25]

And here are the USA pre-war classes, sent to rogue for posting:

[ramc62]

Thank you Fremen!!![&o][&o][&o] Cant wait to put these into the game[:D]

[Big B]

Nice fremen! Very Nice!!

Keep it up!!!![8D]

[Black Mamba 1942]

Out friggin standing!!![:D]

Just keep an eye out on the scale.[;)]

[Halsey]

Been in limbo for awhile.

These are spectacular![8D]

[kokubokan25]

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942


Just keep an eye out on the scale.[;)]

You right BM. I was thinking about this problem for a long time and (in my opinion) there were only two possibilities:
1-RESPECT the scale; in this case huge ships look good but small ships (like destroyers and minors) appear like tiny stain and the work on camos is useless...
2-RESPECT NOT the scale; the re-work on ships sides has a real value, however, in surface combats, with many ships of different sizes together, the battle vision is....a little strange.

Finally decide take the 2 option.

F

[Black Mamba 1942]

They'll probably look more to scale after you've finished redrawing every ship in the Art Folder.[:D]

Any chance that you might be able to tackle some of the CHS ships?
I'd like to see the Aquitania look like the Aquitania.[:D]
There's nothing sexier than an ocean liner in battleship gray.[;)]

[33Vyper]

Excellent work !!!!!!!

Love the new ship art

Aquatania??? is that a sister of the Lusitania?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: fremen
1-RESPECT the scale; in this case huge ships look good but small ships (like destroyers and minors) appear like tiny stain and the work on camos is useless...
2-RESPECT NOT the scale; the re-work on ships sides has a real value, however, in surface combats, with many ships of different sizes together, the battle vision is....a little strange.

Finally decide take the 2 option.

My personal preference is option 1. I was thinking about adding some of these to CHS, but scale is an issue for me. I may still use some of the larger ships if that is OK?

Andrew

[treespider]

You right BM. I was thinking about this problem for a long time and (in my opinion) there were only two possibilities:
1-RESPECT the scale; in this case huge ships look good but small ships (like destroyers and minors) appear like tiny stain and the work on camos is useless...
2-RESPECT NOT the scale; the re-work on ships sides has a real value, however, in surface combats, with many ships of different sizes together, the battle vision is....a little strange.

I'm with Andrew and pick #1

[Cathartes]

Thanks for all your work re-vamping the ships. All have been outstanding--and I'm getting them as they come.

I think WITP's screen resolution and graphic constraints warp scale in almost every way--it seems futile to pursue it, so I like your approach to RESPECT NOT.

[kokubokan25]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


My personal preference is option 1. I was thinking about adding some of these to CHS, but scale is an issue for me. I may still use some of the larger ships if that is OK?

Andrew

Sorry read this Andrew but take a look on the follow jpeg. The dates are from CONWAY's ALL FIGHTING SHIPS.
And YES, the battleships, carriers, and cruisers i respect (if possible) the scale. The oversize on destroyers and minors (when available) is anyway, a little.

[Black Mamba 1942]

That's the resolution we need for WITPII![:D]

Anyone approach you about using your graphics?[;)]

[Black Mamba 1942]

ORIGINAL: 33Vyper

Excellent work !!!!!!!

Love the new ship art

Aquitania??? is that a sister of the Lusitania?

The Mauretania was Lusitania's sister ship.
She was scrapped in the mid-thirties.

Aquitania was a seperate class.
She was scrapped in 1950.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: fremen

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


My personal preference is option 1. I was thinking about adding some of these to CHS, but scale is an issue for me. I may still use some of the larger ships if that is OK?

Andrew

Sorry read this Andrew but take a look on the follow jpeg. The dates are from CONWAY's ALL FIGHTING SHIPS.
And YES, the battleships, carriers, and cruisers i respect (if possible) the scale. The oversize on destroyers and minors (when available) is anyway, a little.

I think what Andrew and myself were referring to was to "RESPECT" the scale which your JPEG does do IMO and not necessarily follow it strictly..

The various images should convey an impression on the viewer such that DD's are substantial smaller than BB's. The images do not all have to be strictly to scale but ships with in the same class (DD, CL, CA, BB, CV etc.) should be illustrated in the same scale.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: treespider
I think what Andrew and myself were referring to was to "RESPECT" the scale which your JPEG does do IMO and not necessarily follow it strictly..

The various images should convey an impression on the viewer such that DD's are substantial smaller than BB's. The images do not all have to be strictly to scale but ships with in the same class (DD, CL, CA, BB, CV etc.) should be illustrated in the same scale.

That is indeed what I meant, and I think the original game graphics scale is OK.

[Black Mamba 1942]

That's what I was trying to imply also.

They don't have to be perfectly scaled.
Just as long as a CA/CL looks smaller than a BB.
And DD's looks smaller than CA/CL's.

The Japanese CV's look very good in this respect, and so do the Allied BB/CV's .[;)]

As a note, even if they aren't, I'll still keep using them.
They are extremely good looking.[8D]

[kokubokan25]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: treespider
I think what Andrew and myself were referring to was to "RESPECT" the scale which your JPEG does do IMO and not necessarily follow it strictly..

The various images should convey an impression on the viewer such that DD's are substantial smaller than BB's. The images do not all have to be strictly to scale but ships with in the same class (DD, CL, CA, BB, CV etc.) should be illustrated in the same scale.

That is indeed what I meant, and I think the original game graphics scale is OK.

All right, i understand. The answer is YES. The scale between ships of the same class (DD, CL, etc) is correct in my reworks.

[Black Mamba 1942]

YOU ARE THE MAN!!![&o][&o][&o]

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: fremen
All right, i understand. The answer is YES. The scale between ships of the same class (DD, CL, etc) is correct in my reworks.

Actually I just re-read Treespider's comment and I made an error - I don't just mean that the scale between ships of the same class should be correct, but that DDs should be appreciably smaller than CAs which should be appreciably smaller than BBs. Not to the same scale - as then they might be too small - but appreciably smaller. The place where this would be most noticeable would be on the surface combat screen, where the different ships appear together.

Correct me if I am wrong, but to me your DDs, for example, are larger than the equivalent DDs in the original art. My preference would be for the DDs to be the same size as the original ones. I realise that if that was done detail would be lost, but that is my personal preference. If I am in the minority, which is most likely, then too bad for me.

Andrew