Focal Point

[ratfugel]

Very articulate stuff about shadows. Real or imagined according to your lights (ho, ho,). However, here are three views I just did of a simple 3D model first render. Firstly under direct overhead sun,then the same sun taken forward and and then backward. At first glance the shadows seem straight, but if you look carefully they bend slightly around the curvature of the fuse. An artist might decide to modify this effect still further and include gentle shading to amplify even more. I don't know whether anyone will find this helpful or not, but at least it is another bit of info on the same subject.

rat.

[BLOWHARD]

Hmmm, not 100% I think, as you point out, but probably close. The lighting engine used with this 3D model may not be nearly so infinitely complex as real sunlight, or even room light. At least I have yet to see any lighting engine that looks like it really simulates everything you'd get in real conditions.
I'm sure it's close, but real observations or photos of the real thing are the only real proof.
It's a good visual tool and I would use it if I had a model of what I was working on, but I wouldn't consider it an absolute

[Jesters-Ink]

I er, found these at Airliners and use them to get an idea on how the lighting works. Ignore the mix and match sub types, its only to get a feel for the lighting.

http://premium1.uploadit.org/JeSTeRs//1-mig.jpg
http://premium1.uploadit.org/JeSTeRs//2-mig.jpg
http://premium1.uploadit.org/JeSTeRs//3-mig.jpg

So ya both right really.

[Vacajun]

Rat, your renderings look good to me. Remember, the effects we're talking about are amplified by wing leading-and trailing-edge sweep.

It's really quite difficult to find photos with the sun above and forward near the centerline, but here are two clearly showing the effect.

[ratfugel]

This thing about shadows is quite subjective really. The model I chose has no wing sweep worth talking about, whereas all the other pics show severe sweeping. Even so, illusory or not, one feels as though curvature is visible (or should be). Moot. The answer is simple. Do your own thing and let others do the worrying.

rat.

[gamary]

I agree that the best proof would come from pictures, but John claims it's no good because they only have one focal point. (I, for one, think we should trust only factory drawings, 'cuz the sunlight might have been modified after cloud-damage).

[JMSmith]

GM,

you now owe me one new keyboard and one new monitor, i was drinking coffee when i read that, you plonka

anyway, i first stated on Clints thread that no curves were technically correct, i also stated that some of you include a little curve for effect, i don't say i prefere either with or without, some look ok, some don't, it's personal choice

anyway i know i am right, because i am the dragon joking apart, there are some good points being argued here so lets keep it going and see where we end up, not being funny i think it was BH that gave the best answer so far

[Vacajun]

John,

Amen and done!

[ratfugel]

So, you guys, if you want to keep this going, how about when an aircraft is NOT in a cloudless sky? No hard shadows, but whenever light is present the source is always ABOVE the aircraft, thus the downward effect of this softer light is to give dark shaded areas, not necessarily hard edged in various places. For instance if one looks at a car in the street on a dull day, there is always a darker area beneath, smudgy maybe, but it’s a shadow nevertheless. Profilers seem to avoid this situation, preferring to stick to the harder variety. Still on the subject of shadowing, professional photographers, incidentally, much prefer overall illumination rather than direct hard edged light. Whilst I am about it, I might as well make mention of another factor missed by most lay people. I am now speaking about the type of cameras in most use, particularly in aircraft photography. All relatively small hand-held camera lenses suffer from ‘barrelling’ to some extent when relatively close to the subject. The better lenses (and here I am talking about my own ‘L’ type Canon lenses) work better somewhat further away from say, an aircraft in flight. Simply because the resolving power of the lens is so much higher,the image actually becomes flatter and so any shadows present are more accurately rendered. This is why the walk-arounds one sees are usually quite poor from a photographic point of view, being useful only because they show up details, usually in an ‘overflash’ situation. (Flash from small cameras falls off in intensity very rapidly indeed). My own feelings about profile shadows is that they should at least LOOK real, shading off just as much as necessary and no more.
rat.

[gamary]

Still on the subject of shadowing, professional photographers, incidentally, much prefer overall illumination rather than direct hard edged light.

But then these people aren't trying to recreate reality, just capture it. Hard light is an advantage for us as it helps define the shapes by defining their shadow.