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.

I painted these two Blood Angels Xiphon Interceptors for a good friend of mine. Hope you (and he!) like them!

These look awesome! Great job.

Love the engines

Beautiful work!

Not bad, but the poorly executed "OSL" on the pilots is really letting down the rest of the model. The interior shouldn't be lit up that much, so it just looks like you didn't bother to paint that part of the model. Fix this by painting the pilots and interior without lighting effects and you'd have a pretty good model.

Thanks for the comments!

 Peregrine wrote:
Not bad, but the poorly executed "OSL" on the pilots is really letting down the rest of the model. The interior shouldn't be lit up that much, so it just looks like you didn't bother to paint that part of the model. Fix this by painting the pilots and interior without lighting effects and you'd have a pretty good model.

I'm quite happy with it to be honest, and many other people have said it's their favourite feature! I would say that it's quite exaggerated in the photos, now I compare them to the actual model after reading your feedback. The model ended up quite close to the lamp due to the height of the stand and the white of the pilot is unfortunately over-exposed.

 LutherMax wrote:
I'm quite happy with it to be honest, and many other people have said it's their favourite feature! I would say that it's quite exaggerated in the photos, now I compare them to the actual model after reading your feedback. The model ended up quite close to the lamp due to the height of the stand and the white of the pilot is unfortunately over-exposed.

You still shouldn't have OSL there at all. It's not how light works, and it looks obviously fake and out of place. Obviously it's your model and your choice of how to paint it, but IMO it looks horrible and ruins a model that is otherwise pretty good.

 Peregrine wrote:

 LutherMax wrote:
I'm quite happy with it to be honest, and many other people have said it's their favourite feature! I would say that it's quite exaggerated in the photos, now I compare them to the actual model after reading your feedback. The model ended up quite close to the lamp due to the height of the stand and the white of the pilot is unfortunately over-exposed.

You still shouldn't have OSL there at all. It's not how light works, and it looks obviously fake and out of place. Obviously it's your model and your choice of how to paint it, but IMO it looks horrible and ruins a model that is otherwise pretty good.

A bit of an aggressive overreaction on your part mate. It's one thing to give constructive criticism and another to lament this as "obviously fake" and "horrible".

I'm not a big fan of OSL in the first place but I think this is executed quite successfully if one imagines there is a canopy overhead light. Looks great to me.

The idea is that the dashboard controls and screens are giving off light, so the pilot is lit from in front. As I said before it is exaggerated by the lightbox lamp – I took the below pic on my phone cam and this is probably a more accurate representation.

You may still hate it Peregrine, but if so I say unto you: "to each his own"! I think it looks cool

@ Hive City Dweller, thanks mate!

 LutherMax wrote:
The idea is that the dashboard controls and screens are giving off light, so the pilot is lit from in front. As I said before it is exaggerated by the lightbox lamp – I took the below pic on my phone cam and this is probably a more accurate representation.

It's still way too excessive and fake looking. Think about how light works in reality, to have that level of washed out white light you'd have to have to have a blindingly bright spotlight shining directly at the pilot. Screens are just not that bright, in absolute darkness you might have a very faint glow at most. And you probably wouldn't even have that, as when it's dark out you'd want to turn the interior lights down as far as possible so you wouldn't hinder visibility through the cockpit glass. And the model is clearly not in a dark environment because the rest of it is nice and bright.

This is the problem with OSL: 95% of the time it's done in situations where nothing should be visible, and almost always done to horrible excess. As a general rule if you ever think about doing OSL stop before you ruin your models.

Thank you for your critique, I'll bear it in mind

I do feel I have a grasp of subtlety when it comes to OSL. I'd be interested to hear what you think of some of the other examples I've painted:

I actually like the OSL, draws the eye to the canopy and to the pilot. The only "issue" I have with it is that the pilot looks white. Perhaps is an effect of the OSL, but, well, with the red and black done so nicely, the white-ish feel of the pilot is a bit distracting.

Still, very good!

 LutherMax wrote:
I'd be interested to hear what you think of some of the other examples I've painted:

Jump packs: pretty good. TBH this is a rare example of lighting effects done right, they're applied only to an object that could plausibly be a very bright light source and the glow doesn't spill over excessively or behave in unrealistic ways.

Vehicle headlights: bad. The problem is, again, it's way too white and washed out. It looks like the kind of high-contrast lit area you'd see if the tank was in a very dark environment with only the headlights as a light source, but then the rest of the model is painted as if it's under bright daylight. You've done better than average at tracing out where the light rays could actually hit instead of just blobbing the whole area with white (like a lot of commission painters), but the area around the light itself still has too much spill-over. For example, the wire grid on top of the lens shouldn't be glowing bright white, it should appear as a dark pattern against a bright background. If the light was so bright and high in contrast that it washed out the grid enough that you couldn't see it then you wouldn't be able to see the shape at all, and you'd need to replace the headlights with a smooth surface. Also, the edges are too hard. You have a shade of white representing blinding light, but then it immediately falls off to zero a short distance away. The lit area should be much larger,or (more likely) the intensity of the white should be toned down to maybe 10% of what it is now, to a very subtle hint of a brighter region.

Finally, just a process nitpick, but the darker blue shades you used to build up to white are showing up as dark shadows. It's very obvious on the yellow circle of the II logo on the Predator, your white region appears to be casting a darker shadow on the yellow background. With lighting effects you have to be very careful to change the color as the lit material changes.

Plasma: something is off in a way I can't quite pinpoint. I think it's that the dark blue shades you used for the glow spilling over onto the metal combined with the dark color of the gun itself make it look like it's a scene at night, while the rest of the the model is clearly under bright light. For the color of the gun to be tinted that much by the low-intensity glow it would have to be in a very dark environment, such that even a faint glow is enough to be the primary (and therefore color-determining) light source. And in a lesser nitpick look at how some of the glow follows the upward curve of the gun, especially on the front bits. How is any light shining onto the top surface of the gun? No emitter has line of sight to that area, and yet the vents are casting a fairly bright glow on it.

The jump pack glow is glorious.

For the interceptors, similarly gorgeous effect on the exhausts. I'm torn on the cockpit... while I agree with Peregrine that it's over-the-top and not realistic, it looks damn cool.

They look great, and I absolutely LOVE what you've done with the cockpit.

Sure, it might not be totally "realistic", but exaggeration is a natural part of miniatures. Bottom line is it's EVOCATIVE.


Honest constructive criticism is very valuable, so it's great that people are willing to offer it and also that you're able to genuinely consider other people's feedback even if it isn't positive (that's something that I'm not terribly good at myself!).

But miniature painting is an art: it doesn't have to follow set rules and will mean different things to different people. Some people may hate something for being abstract, exaggerated, or unrealistic, while others will love it for exactly the same attributes. It's good to learn the rules, that way you can know when to break them, right? Personally I don't know the rules that well, but in this case even if you broke them, I love how you did it.

These look fantastic mate. Very effective paint style. Personally, I think it tells the story really well. Which is an art in and of itself

Also great choice of colours, execution etc. kudos

That’s the thing - this is a sci-fi setting and 40k is an over-the-top universe and aesthetic. I’m not trying to achieve a military historical diorama level of accuracy but rather a balance between realism and rule of cool.

That said I think there is room for improvement and I will strive for that, so thanks for the feedback - it’s all much appreciated.

Good perspective man.

Just wanted to add that, it’s important that art evokes a feeling, an impression. And your work does for me.

(Also, for some reason the cockpit colour reminds me of LEGO I had as a kid. So extra points )

I really like the blue OSL for the pilot. I think the splash of blue looks great. I really love your work, thanks for sharing.

Beautiful work as always - and those are some of the only Space Marine flyers which don't look like hot garbage from a design standpoint. Nicely done!

 LutherMax wrote:
That’s the thing - this is a sci-fi setting and 40k is an over-the-top universe and aesthetic.

It is, but there's a difference between "over the top" and "badly executed technique". A chainsword is a fundamentally stupid weapon that fits 110% with the over the top aesthetic of 40k, but you can still paint it in a realistic manner, as if it was a real thing. And that kind of "accurate representation of an absurd thing" point of view is the standard work should be judged by. If you try to do NMM on that chainsword you should expect people to point out your mistakes if you have random blobs of green in it, and calling it "over the top" doesn't change the fact that reflective metal surfaces don't look like that.

Same thing with OSL. Even over-the-top subjects still have the same shadows and reflections, and a random blob of white paint still doesn't look like light.

 Peregrine wrote:

 LutherMax wrote:
I'd be interested to hear what you think of some of the other examples I've painted:

Jump packs: pretty good. TBH this is a rare example of lighting effects done right, they're applied only to an object that could plausibly be a very bright light source and the glow doesn't spill over excessively or behave in unrealistic ways.

Vehicle headlights: bad. The problem is, again, it's way too white and washed out. It looks like the kind of high-contrast lit area you'd see if the tank was in a very dark environment with only the headlights as a light source, but then the rest of the model is painted as if it's under bright daylight. You've done better than average at tracing out where the light rays could actually hit instead of just blobbing the whole area with white (like a lot of commission painters), but the area around the light itself still has too much spill-over. For example, the wire grid on top of the lens shouldn't be glowing bright white, it should appear as a dark pattern against a bright background. If the light was so bright and high in contrast that it washed out the grid enough that you couldn't see it then you wouldn't be able to see the shape at all, and you'd need to replace the headlights with a smooth surface. Also, the edges are too hard. You have a shade of white representing blinding light, but then it immediately falls off to zero a short distance away. The lit area should be much larger,or (more likely) the intensity of the white should be toned down to maybe 10% of what it is now, to a very subtle hint of a brighter region.

Finally, just a process nitpick, but the darker blue shades you used to build up to white are showing up as dark shadows. It's very obvious on the yellow circle of the II logo on the Predator, your white region appears to be casting a darker shadow on the yellow background. With lighting effects you have to be very careful to change the color as the lit material changes.

Plasma: something is off in a way I can't quite pinpoint. I think it's that the dark blue shades you used for the glow spilling over onto the metal combined with the dark color of the gun itself make it look like it's a scene at night, while the rest of the the model is clearly under bright light. For the color of the gun to be tinted that much by the low-intensity glow it would have to be in a very dark environment, such that even a faint glow is enough to be the primary (and therefore color-determining) light source. And in a lesser nitpick look at how some of the glow follows the upward curve of the gun, especially on the front bits. How is any light shining onto the top surface of the gun? No emitter has line of sight to that area, and yet the vents are casting a fairly bright glow on it.

It pains me, but I agree with Peregrine 100% here. I love your Raptors stuff and your mix of airbrush and really nice weathering is phenomenal, but the headlight effect totally spoils them. It's not how lights work at all and doesn't fit. The glow effect on the Xiphon is super overdone and distracting and takes away from the otherwise technically brilliant finish. The unpainted canopy framing also really detracts, as it makes the glow effect more overwhelming and seems unfinished. if the framing was painted black or red that would at least break up the glow a little and make it look like part of the same model, rather than tacked on like it does now. They're so good otherwise, totally stunning, which makes the miss on the cockpits feel eve more out of place.

 Prometheum5 wrote:
It pains me, but I agree with Peregrine 100% here. I love your Raptors stuff and your mix of airbrush and really nice weathering is phenomenal, but the headlight effect totally spoils them. It's not how lights work at all and doesn't fit. The glow effect on the Xiphon is super overdone and distracting and takes away from the otherwise technically brilliant finish. The unpainted canopy framing also really detracts, as it makes the glow effect more overwhelming and seems unfinished. if the framing was painted black or red that would at least break up the glow a little and make it look like part of the same model, rather than tacked on like it does now. They're so good otherwise, totally stunning, which makes the miss on the cockpits feel eve more out of place.

It's clearly very divisive, but the majority of people seem to like it so I'm not too worried

I deliberately didn't paint the framework of the cockpit because I wanted it to look like a completely glass (or glass-like material) piece – much like the old school Lego spaceships San76 mentioned.

I may experiment with other ways to achieve the effect I'm going for if the opportunity arises.

Feedback appreciated anyway.

LutherMax wrote:I deliberately didn't paint the framework of the cockpit because I wanted it to look like a completely glass (or glass-like material) piece – much like the old school Lego spaceships San76 mentioned.

The problem is that the clear part has frame lines molded into it, so if they aren't painted it looks obviously unfinished.

 Peregrine wrote:

LutherMax wrote:I deliberately didn't paint the framework of the cockpit because I wanted it to look like a completely glass (or glass-like material) piece – much like the old school Lego spaceships San76 mentioned.

The problem is that the clear part has frame lines molded into it, so if they aren't painted it looks obviously unfinished.

I can however choose to imagine they are something other than metal framework, and represent them as such.

 LutherMax wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

LutherMax wrote:I deliberately didn't paint the framework of the cockpit because I wanted it to look like a completely glass (or glass-like material) piece – much like the old school Lego spaceships San76 mentioned.

The problem is that the clear part has frame lines molded into it, so if they aren't painted it looks obviously unfinished.

I can however choose to imagine they are something other than metal framework, and represent them as such.

You can try, but people are still going to see the metal frame that exists on every other Xiphon and assume that you didn't bother painting it. Remember, we only see the model, not your thoughts behind it. And you've done nothing to communicate "this is not a metal frame" to us.

Peregrine wrote:You've done nothing to communicate "this is not a metal frame" to us.

I’ve communicated that it’s not a metal frame by not painting it as one. I don’t mind if not everyone sees the intention behind that - it’s open to interpretation. Like where you’ve left the Aquila unpainted on one of your models. I might assume you just didn’t bother painting it, but you may have intended to represent it as part of the hull.

Great job, really impressed. The OSL looks fine, the hatch look fine, and these would look really impressive on the tabletop.

Glad I saw this actually, I am always struggling with engine exhausts. Inspiring work!

Thanks techsoldaten! They will see action on the tabletop very soon

 LutherMax wrote:

Peregrine wrote:You've done nothing to communicate "this is not a metal frame" to us.

I’ve communicated that it’s not a metal frame by not painting it as one. I don’t mind if not everyone sees the intention behind that - it’s open to interpretation.

But that isn't communicating anything! You still see the shape of the metal frame, it's just bare plastic. 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.

Like where you’ve left the Aquila unpainted on one of your models. I might assume you just didn’t bother painting it, but you may have intended to represent it as part of the hull.

Not the same at all. Aside from the fact that I'm not painting anywhere near your level, a hull colored aquila says "this was painted over at some point". Camo paint gets sprayed over markings all the time. Metal frames don't become transparent.