Thunderbirds are go!!!!!!!!

[Jesters-Ink]

Thanks guys very kind of you.
Another week and I hope to stick a fork in it.

[Jesters-Ink]

The reason for the lack of updates on the Jag is due to me reaching the “bogged down” stage. Lots of things have changed but most of it so small that you can’t see it on the thumbnail.

To give those that are interested a run down, here is a short list you might be able to spot . . .

Nose lighting altered to give a more accurate shape.
Cockpit lighting tweaked to give a more balanced look (less bleached out now).
Wing shape changed yet again, I think I’ve got it right now. Also added and moved highlights and leading edge shade.
The tail surfaces have been reshaped and in the case of the horizontal stabilizer, been repositioned. End cut off lighting added, how the hell did I miss that?
Engine nozzle moved and reshaped again, I’m getting sick of doing it!
Engine bulge shape altered “again”.
Wingtip navs added.

Shadows altered for a more contrasting and sharper look, its how I like um so sorry if it looks over done. It helps us blinding old folk see them

Wing pylons now should be in the right place and have the correct details on them.
All visible rivets screws and lines should be in the correct place.

And last but by no means least . . . . the damn colour has been altered again.
I printed it off and it looked way to dark and dingy, so I have exaggerated its yellowish haze a bit and will do another test print tomorrow.

Now give it a good look over and pick the hell out of it so that I can get all of the errors fixed . . . . . many many thanks for your time.

[BLOWHARD]

NICE! After seeing several recent post about under done shading, this plane, which is pretty boxy, shows the correct way to get the most bang out of a shape! WTG Jester
The only thing I can pick at are the bomb mission markings. They look dark enough to be vents or holes in the skin. Maybe lighten them some? Although they might still look like 3D features rather than paint even if they are light. You'd need to try it and see.
I'd like to see it larger though, I think I'd like a little more panel lines, but they might just be diminished because of the posted size. Overall, I'd say this is pretty damn good stuff


Oh, I've spoken too soon. I just noticed one thing that leads to another and...
The empty outboard pylon could be pulled away from the tank and inboard pylon. I think I'd try lighting the lower edge and maybe beefing up the side shadow. Then I'm thinking the wings could pull out from the body more. Just like the pylon, it will need "magic" shading. My first instinct would be to go lighter as the get closer to the viewer but that runs contrary to standard shading rules, witch would be to go darker...
It's a tough one but worth experimentation

Really though, this is SUCH a good profile that my points are small nit-picks and nothing more

[BLOWHARD]

Oh hell...this is a tough one. Lightening isn't the way to go here, I was wrong. I'm not sure if darkening is right either. Here's my try, it's too exteme...

This is a tough problem for an area that's almost near already :P
Maybe it's better to leave it as is? I think it's a little over my head

[gamary]

I'll do a little nit-picking too Jesters, if you don't mind. As BH says, it's a very good profile so it's worth nit-picking at.

The shadow cast on the underwing tank seems unnatural to me. I've never really decided whether to curve shadows that are cast on round shapes or not. My impression is that it almost doesn't exist in real life (perspective may may it look a bit rounded, but we don't bother with that in profiles).

I do realise it's a practical way to reinforce shape definition, but here, the cast shadow is actually bending until it goes back forward. I think you'd want to tone it done a bit.

Of course, I could have simply said "Wow, your Jaguar is way better than mine!". But I do have my pride, so I am taking a quick snap at yours...

Anyway, youv'e done a great work at shape-definition and shading. Keep it up.

[Jesters-Ink]

I think if I reverse the lighting on the pylons, that might work . . . . thanks for the idea BH. Inside one will be darker and the outer one will be lighter, wont take a minute.
You know Gamary, I hadn’t even noticed how bad the shadow on the drop tank is.
That’s getting worked on today, it looks really odd now that you have pointed it out.

And this isn’t a place where “my work is better than your work, or the other way round”. This is a place where a group of guys meet up for a virtual pint, a bit o socialising and scram on about doing a bit of artwork every now and again.
I’ve seen your Jag and I liked it very much, but I like to go my own way on things, gives people a bit of variation on the same thing.

BTW Hurricane JXB is all printed up and will be in the post to you on Monday.
I get let out of the house on Mondays and Tuesdays

I’ve still got to do something about the AIM rails and the markings, as of yet none picked up on the lack of wing roundels, tut tut, but that’s the idea of good lighting, you don’t miss what’s not there.

Thanks again guys, work to do . . . . wil try and post my answers today.

[SunDog]

Hi Jester,

It's looking good, The problem as I see it with the shading is it's not strong enough. If you look at the photos below you can see that on the drop tank the shadow is 1/3 of the way up the tank and has the same opacity as the top shadow going slightly darker just above the tanks fin, as this area has less back light.
2nd the shadow below the engine I think needs to be a little bit stronger also. Has it looks like their is quite a pronounced curve going under it.







Hope this is of help, They say photos never lie, or did before photoshop.

[gamary]

Looking at that second photo, I'd also say the ventral fin needs a bit of shading cast by the fuselage. As for the tank, I wouldn't reinforce the shading: I like the way it is right now. But that's just a matter of taste.

I'm looking very much forward to the JX-B.

[Jesters-Ink]

Funny you should spot that SD, I found that when I went back to my drop-tank folder, there was a layer turned off, once again the wood from the trees kinda thing.
I also did some experiments with a postal tube one 4 year olds reading book and a rule.
If the shape casting the shadow is 90 degrees to the light source (and straight), then there is no curve in the cast shadow, but the greater the angle from 90 degrees from the light source, the greater the curve on the tube. Simple but effective way to test.