Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Peregrine wrote:You haven't provided any visual cues that suggest an alternative explanation for what this metal frame shaped object is, or why it would be transparent despite being shaped like the metal frame we expect to see. So what we interpret "bare plastic on an area that is normally painted" as is "didn't bother painting the whole model because cockpit frames are hard". If it's genuinely meant to be that way and not an excuse to avoid dealing with the hassle of masking then you need to add those cues.

It is genuinely meant to be that way. I wouldn't spend the amount of hours I did on the models and then leave something undone out of laziness. It's not as if the canopy isn't painted at all and was left as just bare plastic – the blue tinting actually took a long time due to the extremely low viscosity of the ink needing many thin coats and thorough drying time between each. Painting the frame would actually have been the quicker and easier part of the process had I wanted to do it, but that wasn't the look I was going for.

And there's nothing about the way the part is moulded that dictates that the raised detail must be a metal frame. Glass can have raised detail for aesthetic or functional purposes and this blue tinted futuristic glass-like material can too.

You don't like it, I get that and it's fine. But just because you see things a certain way and prefer them to be that way doesn't mean they must be that way – or that your way is the 'right' way or the only way.

It's just Peregrine being Peregrine.

I hate OSL no matter how well it's painted, sorry.
The rest of the model, superb.

 Rolsheen wrote:
It's just Peregrine being Peregrine.

I hate OSL no matter how well it's painted, sorry.
The rest of the model, superb.

Thank you

And that’s cool about the OSL - it’s like Marmite, not for everyone.

I know Peregrine likes the hyper realistic look, he’ll just have to get over the fact that that’s not the look I was going for with these cockpits, but rather the blue glowy Lego spaceship look. Those that get that can enjoy even that part of the model.

Just fantastic work.

Loving the thread too, like watching Ronnie O'Sullivan nail a 147 in 6 minutes and someone saying 'yeah, but the 12th black wobbled a bit'.

Which is not to deny anyones right to critique, I think however in a 40K world of tanks which couldn't move, walkers which couldn't walk and aircraft that couldn't fly, then a cockpit too bright to actually see out of makes perfect sense. Very, very cool.

 LutherMax wrote:
And there's nothing about the way the part is moulded that dictates that the raised detail must be a metal frame. Glass can have raised detail for aesthetic or functional purposes and this blue tinted futuristic glass-like material can too.

That's not how it works. There are visual cues, both with real life objects and 40k models, that define objects. For example, any 40k player can look at your model and instantly recognize its lascannons, because lascannons are a standard 40k object. Anyone can look at the air intakes and recognize what they are meant to be, because a fan-patterned circle with a cone bit sticking out of the middle is the standard representation of the front of a jet engine (even when, as in this case, the jet engine is not structured anything like a real one would be). Same thing with the cockpit frame. We know that aircraft cockpits are glass with an opaque metal frame, and your model has the glass and frame sculpted on it. We expect it to be the standard glass and metal frame, and you've given no alternative cues to tell us that it is something else. So, regardless of your intent, it looks like you just didn't bother to paint that part. If you want it to read as "all-glass cockpit" instead of "bare unfinished plastic" then you'd have to find a way to remove the molded frame sections, probably by making an alternate cockpit piece.

Now, you can protest all you like about how this isn't fair, but that's how interpretation works. People are going to see it as "wow, so much work on the rest of it for them to not bother painting the cockpit properly".

 LutherMax wrote:
I know Peregrine likes the hyper realistic look, she’ll just have to get over the fact that that’s not the look I was going for with these cockpits, but rather the blue glowy Lego spaceship look. Those that get that can enjoy even that part of the model.

No, that is not it at all. In fact, I already commented that the rest of the model (which is not a realistic/historical look) is good work. The issue is that you have badly-done elements that ruin the good work you put in elsewhere. It doesn't read as "lego spaceship", it reads as "this person doesn't know how to do OSL" and "did they realize you're supposed to paint those frame bits?" which is a bad thing regardless of style.

 Darkjim wrote:
Just fantastic work.

Loving the thread too, like watching Ronnie O'Sullivan nail a 147 in 6 minutes and someone saying 'yeah, but the 12th black wobbled a bit'.

Which is not to deny anyones right to critique, I think however in a 40K world of tanks which couldn't move, walkers which couldn't walk and aircraft that couldn't fly, then a cockpit too bright to actually see out of makes perfect sense. Very, very cool.

 Peregrine wrote:
We know that aircraft cockpits are glass with an opaque metal frame, and your model has the glass and frame sculpted on it. We expect it to be the standard glass and metal frame, and you've given no alternative cues to tell us that it is something else. So, regardless of your intent, it looks like you just didn't bother to paint that part. If you want it to read as "all-glass cockpit" instead of "bare unfinished plastic" then you'd have to find a way to remove the molded frame sections, probably by making an alternate cockpit piece.

This is really the part that throws me off as well. In the case of the Lego canopies, they were smooth geometry, no sculpted ribbing or framing at all, so your brain is more keen to accept them as smooth joined pieces of glass. The Xiphon's canopy has frames molded on, so the unpainted frame detail being visible is too much for a lot of people's brains to overcome. Obviously you do you, and I'm sure the recipient will be thrilled, but I think that's why it elicits such a strong reaction from some people.

Superb paintjob! Maybe a little too dirty looking for marines?

For my two cents - I love the whole lot (or maybe that is just jealousy)

I love the lighting and the canopy actually looks like a great mix between fantasy and reality - I personally took the canopy to be siliconed together instead of a metal frame or lego fused glass.

Prometheum5 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
We know that aircraft cockpits are glass with an opaque metal frame, and your model has the glass and frame sculpted on it. We expect it to be the standard glass and metal frame, and you've given no alternative cues to tell us that it is something else. So, regardless of your intent, it looks like you just didn't bother to paint that part. If you want it to read as "all-glass cockpit" instead of "bare unfinished plastic" then you'd have to find a way to remove the molded frame sections, probably by making an alternate cockpit piece.

This is really the part that throws me off as well. In the case of the Lego canopies, they were smooth geometry, no sculpted ribbing or framing at all, so your brain is more keen to accept them as smooth joined pieces of glass. The Xiphon's canopy has frames molded on, so the unpainted frame detail being visible is too much for a lot of people's brains to overcome. Obviously you do you, and I'm sure the recipient will be thrilled, but I think that's why it elicits such a strong reaction from some people.

"Some people" – indeed, and thankfully the minority of people in this case it seems. I get why you guys don't like that aspect and that's totally fine with me. I like it and the recipient of the models likes it and that's all that really matters. The fact that so many others have expressed that they like it too is a bonus.

Peregrine wrote:Now, you can protest all you like about how this isn't fair

I'm not sure where you got the idea I was doing anything of the sort. Fairness doesn't come into it. You didn't mention the frame until Prometheum5 pointed it out, so I can only assume you didn't even notice it at first, given how vocal you were about the OSL in your original critique.

But once again I thank you for your feedback and will take it on board.

D6Damager wrote:Superb paintjob! Maybe a little too dirty looking for marines?

Thanks!

These planes are actually for a 40k setting in which they would be ancient relics so will have seen a lot of action – battle damage, atmospheric entry burn, weathering etc.

Plus I like a bit of dirt and grime on my marines – I think it comes from how much I loved the vehicles in the original Star Wars films, battered and worn looking as they were...

kentra wrote:
For my two cents - I love the whole lot (or maybe that is just jealousy)

I love the lighting and the canopy actually looks like a great mix between fantasy and reality - I personally took the canopy to be siliconed together instead of a metal frame or lego fused glass.

Thank you!

 LutherMax wrote:
I'm not sure where you got the idea I was doing anything of the sort. Fairness doesn't come into it.

That sure seems to be your attitude, that it isn't fair to complain about your poor technique because you have a reason for it.

You didn't mention the frame until Prometheum5 pointed it out, so I can only assume you didn't even notice it at first, given how vocal you were about the OSL in your original critique.

You're right, I didn't notice it. I was originally looking at tiny pictures on my phone, and the shadows in the original set made it look like the frame was painted (just with a dark blue color instead of the base red). After looking at full-size pictures on my PC and at the second update picture you posted it's very obviously unfinished and significantly takes away from the quality of the model. I will admit though that it's less of a problem than the terrible OSL. The unpainted frame is a flaw, but at least it probably doesn't stand out at tabletop distance if you aren't paying attention. The OSL ruins the model at first glance.

 LutherMax wrote:
You don't like it, I get that and it's fine. But just because you see things a certain way and prefer them to be that way doesn't mean they must be that way – or that your way is the 'right' way or the only way.

This is the most important thing to take away from this. There's a line between giving constructive and honest feedback about a model, and being obnoxious and insulting the effort that someone has put in painting a model by calling a particular effect "terrible" or saying that it "takes away from the quality of the model".

For the record, I don't particularly like overblown OSL or "blended" flat panels of armour or whatever that simulates light reflection, as I think it washes out a model. However, despite that, the Xiphon looks great, and I can appreciate the effort that went into the effects, even if I do not like them personally.


I'll also make the point here that, if you really feel passionate about a "poor" paintjob, and want to help the person who painted it, a PM detailing why you don't like their model would be far more effective and useful than making a mockery of their work on a public part of the forum.

Hello LutherMax, It is terrific that You were kind to Your Friend by painting a squadron of Blood Angels Xiphon Interceptors.

The paint scheme looks really great. I am a fan of over the top object source lighting because I enjoy the glowing effect produced by it. All Your tanks and jump packers look really nice. I am not handy enough with an air brush to do what You did on the tanks front headlights and they are ace.

The Blood Angels Xiphon Interceptors canopy cockpits look great and I would not change a thing. All the work You have shown is top tier painting. It is great to see perfectly painted models with all the water slide transfers and details on them.

Great Work! Keep on sharing your art work because it is a great treat and eye candy for Me to see.

LutherMax, You have a very lucky Friend!

 General Annoyance wrote:
There's a line between giving constructive and honest feedback about a model, and being obnoxious and insulting the effort that someone has put in painting a model by calling a particular effect "terrible" or saying that it "takes away from the quality of the model".

Nope. Honesty means actual honesty, and calling the OSL anything other than "terrible and ruining an otherwise good paint job" is not being honest. Is the OP a bad person for doing it? Do I hate them because of their OSL? Of course not. But it's still very poorly executed.

I'll also make the point here that, if you really feel passionate about a "poor" paintjob, and want to help the person who painted it, a PM detailing why you don't like their model would be far more effective and useful than making a mockery of their work on a public part of the forum.

Nope. Constructive criticism is useful to both the original painter and anyone reading the thread, where a PM is not. The public form is for discussion, both positive and negative, not just praise.

 Peregrine wrote:
Nope. Honesty means actual honesty, and calling the OSL anything other than "terrible and ruining an otherwise good paint job" is not being honest. Is the OP a bad person for doing it? Do I hate them because of their OSL? Of course not. But it's still very poorly executed.

A matter of opinion, even if common opinion would be "that OSL isn't well executed". There's having an opinion, and then there's driving someone into the ground with your opinion over and over, when your points have already been made, and taken on board (or at least accepted). That's the unhelpful part.

Nope. Constructive criticism is useful to both the original painter and anyone reading the thread, where a PM is not. The public form is for discussion, both positive and negative, not just praise.

I really hope you don't truly think that you're doing people a good service here; perhaps that would have been the case if you had left this thread on the first couple of posts of yours, but at this point, your criticism of the model, no matter how valid it actually is, is more likely going to be dismissed as "Peregrine being Peregrine" rather than absorbed and acted upon by the OP or anyone else who reads this thread looking to possibly do some OSL work. It's a counter intuitive way to get people to listen and respect your opinion on a model and techniques used when you proceed to be obnoxious over the course of a page, and likely lose any respect people would have had for your opinion upon your initial posts.

The honesty argument doesn't stop you from putting your point across reasonably either, like you did (to an extent) in your first post; you can give honest and critical feedback of a model without looking or acting like a tit.

The Painting and Modeling forums are well-known on Dakka as being generally free of negativity while being encouraging. I wanted to start out with this as a basis.

Peregrine, I understand that there are parts of this paint job that you don't like. The OP understands it. We all get it.

There is a line between offering constructive criticism and antagonism. You've crossed this line. Ideally, you should make your comments and move on, regardless of whether or not the painter replies to you. You seem dead-set on arguing the point until everyone in this thread agrees with you, and possibly even have the OP repaint the parts you don't like. If further clarification is requested, that's fine, but your commentary seems designed to badger the OP into agreeing with you.

If you'd like to start another thread about OSL in the Painting and Modeling forum to discuss the topic, please do so.

In all this, please remember to be polite. There are ways to express yourself without being antagonistic.

Thank you.

 Peregrine wrote:

 LutherMax wrote:
I'm not sure where you got the idea I was doing anything of the sort. Fairness doesn't come into it.

That sure seems to be your attitude, that it isn't fair to complain about your poor technique because you have a reason for it.

I just want to clarify one point here because you have misunderstood me I'm afraid.

When you refer to "poor technique" I assume you're talking about the OSL specifically and, as I have said, I think you have a valid point. I agree that this could be improved and I thank you for your feedback.

Regarding the cockpit canopy frame, this has nothing to do with technique. Your complaint is that the frame is not painted but I'm telling you that is deliberate. I even produced a visual of this model in Photoshop before painting it, which was emailed to the owner of the models and posted on social media over a month ago:



As you can see the finished result is very close to the original mockup, blue glowy cockpit with unpainted frame and all.

What I'm trying to get you to understand is the difference between an Indisputable Fact and Your Opinion.

It's Your Opinion that the cockpit frame should be painted, not an Indisputable Fact.

I have chosen not to paint it and I stand by that decision. I would be concerned if the recipient of the models didn't like it, but he does, and so do I and so do many others here and elsewhere where I've shared the pictures. I won't lose any sleep over the fact that you and Prometheum5 don't like it – you are very much in the minority – but of course, entitled to your opinion.

---

@ Smooth Operator, General Annoyance, Lorek – thank you very much!

Amazing Work!!!

Oh yeah, I forgot to give my own feedback!

Like I said a little before, this style of painting with the transitions on flat panels isn't my thing, but that doesn't make it any less impressive. I particularly like the chipping across the hull, and the use of non-metallics to keep the whole piece together. I am certain that your friend will appreciate it greatly

Loving the paint job everywhere but the cockpit, OSL just aint really my thing.

Great job over all though.

Great paint job, honestly the OSL really drew me to the model. That and the black background you used really invoked the feeling of flying a night mission. In a pitch black environment the pilot would be that well lit from the instrumentation panel, especially in the 40K universe with its weird "Super Advanced Technology" that still seems to be from the 1940's at the same time.

I guess the true testament to how much I liked it is that I very rarely post in the Painting and Modeling showcase forum but this impressed me enough to do so.

What the hell is going on in here?? I find it completely unbelievable that some of this discussion is even taking place.

You can like or not like whatever you want. You can express that opinion, and you can even engage in a debate, respectfully. What you don't get to do is speak definitively like you alone have the opinion that matters. You don't get to be rude and call it constructive. You don't get to pretend that you speak for everyone. You don't speak for me. I don't agree.

All I can say is that it is very fortunate for some I am not still a MOD, that is not acceptable behaviour in P&M, that's not how we talk to each other in here.

I said it before, will say it again, I love the OSL effect, it is evocative and has a great mood to it to me. Is it physics accurate lighting? No. Does it have to be? No. Is there a definitive rule against doing it that way? No. This guy is a great painter and I can see what he was going for entirely, and I like it. That doesn't mean you have to though, see that's the important thing to understand.

I will be alerting the crap out of any further ridiculously rude posts in this thread, and advocating strongly that action be taken should it persist. Lorek had it spot on, best to heed his guidance.

P&M is normally an extremely polite, supportive and politely critical place Luther, one I worked hard for many years to ensure stayed that way. I am deeply embarrassed by the above and I hope it does not dissuade you from using Dakka.

 MajorTom11 wrote:
P&M is normally an extremely polite, supportive and politely critical place Luther, one I worked hard for many years to ensure stayed that way. I am deeply embarrassed by the above and I hope it does not dissuade you from using Dakka.

Thank you MajorTom, but worry not. My ego is not so fragile that it would be dented by any kind of negative feedback, no matter how it's delivered

In fact I welcome constructive criticism and negative feedback. It has often led me to push myself further, and in some cases even go back and improve or redo things.

I just ask for it to be acknowledged that opinions are opinions, not facts, and therefore differ from person to person. There is no one right answer.


@ vonjankmon, VictorVonTzeentch, General Annoyance and perezba7 – thanks for your comments also.

Great work mate! Stunning job! Very clean and technically well done work. Starting with such a clean base always makes weathering pop that much more!

Thanks Red Corsair!

After all that I decided to go back and just add some subtle highlights to the cockpit canopy – just to represent light hitting the hard corners and hopefully make clearer the intention of not painting the frame.

Crappy phone cam pic:

Looks brilliant!

Perfect!

I think it looks brilliant, and in this light the black looks black as you said... love it brother!

As a harsh critic earlier I have to give credit where credit is due. The new version of the cockpit frame is a massive step up. With the highlights on there it now reads as "it's meant to be this way" rather than "I forgot to paint this".

Those Xiphons look very good. Your friend is going to love them. I've always been a fan of those models; you've really done a great job on them.