Modern Unit Graphics

[jim panse]

Mhm, Curt, would these infantry chaps make you actually make that scenario

[Harry Tuttle]

Holy Christ, those jets are awesome! The detail is amazing

[cousarmy0001]

i still have regular civ2 (with fantastic worlds, of course), but every time i see somebody write ToT, i think of "Time on Target", where you have a whole bunch of artillery pieces in different locations fire in a certain order, so that all of the rounds arrive on the target at the same time...

[jim panse]

@ cousarmy:

@ Curt: I´d have some more for you ... this one´s for MGE - though I guess you know I could come up with some ToT infantry fellers too ...

[typhoon]

Bravo Steph

Resized the Vampire, to put it into proportion with the others.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by typhoon


Sorry to disappoint mate, but I've never drawn a unit in my entire life, new or otherwise. As stated, the above Vamp was assembled together from various planes by Gareth (specifically the Gloster Meteor and P-38 Lightning.) General rule of thumb for me is the less I modify from the original, the better it looks.

A sterling example below is this P-80 below. The base unit was originally by Jimmy, slightly improved by Curt and then fitted with bits of fairline's aircraft. The drop tanks come from Harry's Panther. As can be seen I have very little to do with each unit aside from pilfering and putting together the pieces, and of course f***ing it up along the way.

Everyone works from someone else's previous work. People cut and paste parts of different units all the time, making adjustments and modifications, but producing a new peice of unit art. But they don't put someone else's initials on it - it's misleading and it's wrong.

[Sarsstock]

Well all this debate about unit sig's aside, Curt I hope you can someday start up a ToT version of Soviet Steel. Its still one of my favorite scenario's, and the expanded graphic possibilities in ToT would make it even better my friend .

Maybe I can employ ever last ounce of skill in my arsenal to make up a Mig-15 if it will help convince you to start the project up.... once your done with Tyrany of the Dalek's of course.

[typhoon]

Everyone works from someone else's previous work. People cut and paste parts of different units all the time, making adjustments and modifications, but producing a new peice of unit art. But they don't put someone else's initials on it - it's misleading and it's wrong.

I'm acknowledging my sources- not to do so is even more more misleading and wrong. It implies that the work is wholely original when it is clearly not.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Sarsstock
Well all this debate about unit sig's aside, Curt I hope you can someday start up a ToT version of Soviet Steel. Its still one of my favorite scenario's, and the expanded graphic possibilities in ToT would make it even better my friend .

Maybe I can employ ever last ounce of skill in my arsenal to make up a Mig-15 if it will help convince you to start the project up.... once your done with Tyrany of the Dalek's of course.

Cheers, dude!

I reckon a ToT Sov-Steel redux is a definite, this time with a giant Euro map!

So if you want to make any Soviet jets, or even what-if units - I would be honoured to use them!

[techumseh]

I'm sorry, but you have a misconception about what constitutes "acknowledgement of sources". You're not stealing anyone's work here. This is all public domain stuff. The use of sigs on unit art is a convention that we have developed to acknowledge the ORIGINAL work of someone else when we use it in our scenarios. That's all.

If you simply put a new paint job on someone else's plane, I can maybe see retaining his or her sig. But if you make modifications of any significance, it's your work and only your sig should appear on the unit.

[Sarsstock]

I'm not sure where I stand on this aspect of the unit signature debate. I've always advocated artists having they're signatures attatched to they're work, even if major alterations have been made to they're work by other artists the fact remains that it was the original artists work on which the new alterations were made to.

I suppose I'm leaning towards Typhoon on this one, but I'm curious what Gareth has to say on this issue since its more often than not his work upon which these alterations are made.

[Harry Tuttle]

Well, I don't want to muddy this thread, seeing as we already have a few that deal with this sort of topic:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=132574

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133422

Anyways, why not create a small icon that will sit next to the signature of the intial creator signifying that the unit is not orginal work, but modified?

That way we'd know the original author did not modify the unit before us, but that the modifier used some of the original work. This way personal preference as to the quality of the unit will be directed at the modifier and not the innocent creator.

[Eivind IV]

Yeah, why not? Any suggestions as to how this authentic icon would look?

[Harry Tuttle]

I suggest a simple star, 3 pixels high, 3 pixels wide, using the pink transparency.

[fairline]

Originally posted by techumseh
Everyone works from someone else's previous work.

ahem

I'm sorry, but you have a misconception about what constitutes "acknowledgement of sources". You're not stealing anyone's work here. This is all public domain stuff. The use of sigs on unit art is a convention that we have developed to acknowledge the ORIGINAL work of someone else when we use it in our scenarios. That's all.

Not sure if I agree with this entirely. 'Modification' can take a hell of a lot of different forms. The planes that Typhoon has posted recently owe very little to the donors he started from and you are probably right - there is no need to acknowledge the 'originator' since he has effectively created a significantly different graphic. On the other hand there are some who post here (no names mentioned ) who do nothing more than cut, paste and recolour, then slap their own sig on the 'new' graphic.

It's probably not worth getting too hung up on, but I think it's a courtesy to give a nod to the guy who spent hours drawing something which has subsequently been modified if the source graphic is still clearly recognisable in the new graphic. This is probably a little too subjective a judgement to make I guess.....