Heavies

[Vacajun]

Very nice!!!

[JMSmith]

Ggrrrr,

and a replacement bombay doors

[pkassak]

I am glad that you like it John I tried my best for you in terms of naked lads
I hope more to come...

[gamary]

I tried my best for you in terms of naked lads

Are you trying to say something here, Peter? LMAO.

Sorry, couldn't resist this one.

[pkassak]

no, not at allllll

[JMSmith]

but is it!!!!!!!!!!!

[Vacajun]

O.K. Peter-Now touch it up--get rid of that prop shadow and reverse the direction of the nose probe shadow!

[Vacajun]

Peter, please excuse me for pursuing the discussion of shadows on this one. I have absolutely none of the artistic talent you and others have on the site. Rather, I am attracted to whether the shadows cast in otherwise perfect art are realistic.

I am confused as to your comment that your sun angle is "11 o'clock high." Here is my interpretation of the location of the sun based on your B-24. In plan view, it's between 9-10 o'clock and in front view (looking forward) it's between 9-10 o'clock.

Are we in agreement on this?

The reason for asking is that I suggest that the shadow cast by the trailing edge of the wing on the fuselage should sweep slightly rearward and not forward.

[inkworm]

Don't forget the tail as well, it looks like each of the parts that is casting a shadow has a different light source and just a little confusing

[pkassak]

Vacajun, You are right, maybe I should move the trailing edge a bit rearward, but not too much as the with is not straight. With the source of light 9-10 oclock high the vertical tail I assume would not give a significant shadown on the fuselage, just the horizontal part. Maybe the pitot tube shadow may be a slightly moved back, but the shape and possition of this tube is also strage on the B-24.From side looks like giong too up, but it is quite long, so when looking from front, it is a other reflection of light.

Inkworm, I do not think that each part has a digfferent light source. But I may be wrong missing sun from PC work and rainy dayz