Comments about Planebucket go here.

I believe top views need to be mandatory. :3

philbob seconds

nope, I could say same thing about ships and many guys would be in trouple ;)
If someone wants to do top wievs, he can do them, but if don't how we could oppose him?
The planes ends up in charts, not as individual uploads.

I also believe Aircraft Carriers should have top views as well, but that's for another discussion.

But unlike ships, a true image of a plane comes not from the side view, but the top view. Show me a side view, unless it's a commonly known aircraft, I'd need you to tell me what it is. Show me a top view, unless it's a rare & unknown aircraft, I'd be able to ID it in a second.

Same arguments could apply for ships, but the idea of planes in first place is to show them when used in the side-wiev ship drawings.
If some goes for topside wiev of carrier, then he needs the topwiev of the planes as well, but as practice shows, those are still rather rare occasions.

A "true image"? This is surely incontrovertible fact and not just your personal preference, right?

Yeah, the planes are very much secondary on Shipbucket :P


I'd appreciate it if all the civilian stuff makes it on the upload, but I wouldn't blame them if it isn't.

Much As I like the planebucket thread. I am in agreement that the promary focus should be on ships and the planes should be complementry to the ships.

The fact that all aircraft recognition books & files I've read shows the top view primarly with sometimes the side view gives support to my claim. You don't ID an aircraft by it's side view, you do it with the top view. B)

And yes, I'll agree with planebucket being secondary to shipbucket. But that's no excuse for incompleteness! It's not desired on Shipbucket, so it shouldn't be desired here.

If people don't want to draw top views, that's their business.

There's no way for us to enforce a rule that makes people draw plan views.

Drop it.

Just in case Colosseum's warning wasn't clear enough: DROP IT. NOW. Or you are looking at a vacation coming to your account real soon.

We do not take kindly to people who tell us to make unenforcable rules, who themselves are not contributers to the "real" (the IMPORTANT) part of the boards.

If you ever start good contributions instead of kitbashed alternate universe stuff we might start considering suggestions (!) you make.

Are AU planes also allowed to be posted into planebucket topic?

I would say, post the AU planes into the spesific AU thread you have with introduction and ships.
And completely AU eq own designed planes should perhaps go to their own thread

Ashley those Nakajima G8N of yours are very nice. I wonder if that's the never built 4-engined Japanese bomber?

It is.

Are you sure the ball turret is to scale? Sorry but it looks a tad bit awkward.

Yes, this is the upcoming 4engine bomber...of the IJN. The surviving prototype was flown to USA for test flights. And they liked it very much.

I revised the belly turret, now it's correct.

The 4 engined bomber of the Army Air Force was to be the Kawasaki Ki-91. I'll do it next.
The Ki-91 would have played in the B-29-class, the prototype didn't make it airborn, the facility was destroyed by B-29s.

Colosseum, I've got a few fictional planes like WesWorld and NationStates ones. Would you have anything against, If I post them at the Plane-bucket (2) topic?
IMO, It would not be a major problem If I post just a ''few'' and not overlord it and such. Ofcource I'll add a few ''Real-life'' in the future too! Thanks!

If you do, would you please mark the drawing as AU. That'll make browsing for planes far easier.

Ofcource, I got the same idea!

I think he should have top view aircraft ONLY FOR AIRCRAFT / HELICOPTERS ON BOARD OF SHIPS. Like her, if people are making top view of ships, they can copy them directly ... <_< It's much easier that way ... ;) :D :)

It's my opinion.

Greetings.

I would honestly post them in non-Shipbucket to avoid any chance of confusion. Plus, I like your larger-scale stuff anyway.

I don't understand a word you just said.

It's always been my perception that anything in (1) the Shipbucket scale and (2) using the Shipbucket drawing/coloring guidelines does not belong in the non-Shipbucket drawings forum.

Since when has the Planebucket topic been ONLY for real life? I never got that perception.

I dunno. It's understandable that, since the variety of aircraft is so much larger than the variety of ships, that people feel that it would be useful to differentiate on a drawing-by-drawing basis between what is real and what is AU (particularly since it is beginning to appear that the main Shipbucket site will never be up-to-date with a complete aircraft list).

Maintaining different drawing threads seems like a heavy-handed approach to that; if every aircraft is labeled, a quick Google search should clarify what is real and what is not.

I talking about how important to have a top view plan for AIRCRAFTS ONBOARD SHIPS. If people do make top ship view, they only have to copy the aircraft top view in parts sheets. It's more simple for everybody... ;)

Greetings.

new russian super fighter debut


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp0yd6no7B4...player_embedded

As soon as I can get some measurements, I'll draw PAK-FA for SB, already got the side & top view images ready! :D

Does it have a drawing of the lockeed L-1011 Tristar on Planebucket ?







;) :) :huh:

A shot of of the underside of PAK-FA :)

I recently picked up Tony Butler's "American Secret Projects Fighters and Interceptors 1945-1978" if anyone wants a few scans.

Your opinion is just that. People are free to draw whatever they want. If they want to draw only side-views of airplanes, tough. Anything else you get is gravy.

I've had words with someone else regarding this before, as has Colosseum.

This stops now.

If anyone else starts to whine about how aircraft should have top/front/bottom/aft views, they're in for a short vacation.
Am I making myself clear here?

Edit:
There is NO requirement as to WHAT you draw. Shipbucket concerns itself with the STYLE of your drawings. Those aircraft carriers that Paul wants top-view aircraft for? I'll let you all in on a little secret. There is no requirement that those aircraft carriers have a top-view either. Someone just did it, and it caught on. For all we care you give your ships a bottom view too. More power to you. Just don't think that from there on in it will be RAR! absolutely ESSENTIAL! that everyone else does it too.
And especially do not pester other artists over it. A polite request, perhaps by PM, is good. Loudly calling for introduction of "rules" for what "must" be drawn? See my remark regarding vacations.

Okay, I close the subject. ;) :)

Don't get it that you are not allowed to drawn them, Just do not think that everyone is obligated to drawn them

Nice planes paul, a nice addition to the air fleet :lol:

Darthpanda, my friend. You got a nice sheet for the F-18`s, but remember the "golden rule" about cannopies and windows. "All windows must have uniform coloring in blue and must be outlined in black". Otherwise, they should be posted in the non-shipbucket drawings section.
:) :)

Commentary : imho, this rule about making commentaries in another topic different from the topic where planes are drawn, is kind of messy, but I`ll comply. ;)

:)

@ dearth Panda do you think you could redo your super hornets with Gold windows just for the discusion thread?

Has anyone drawn the Hawker Horser or the variant Hawker Dantorp?

Deleting all the stupid comments from the Planebucket thread so that we could actually read it was "kind of messy".