User talk:Anyeverybody/Archives/2008/May

Arrow Air Flight 1285
I have another image request for you if you get a chance to visit your talk page. I am interested in an image for the article on Arrow Air Flight 1285. You can handle this request after you fulfill the other requests you received before mine. Like the Turkish 981 image, I would like the size to be 1600 X 1200 or equivalent.

You can find an image for this plane at the following links: And003 (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ASN: Photo of Arrow Air Flight 1285
 * Airliners.Net: Photo of N950JW, the plane that would become Flight 1285


 * I'm actually in the process of re-doing most of my previous images to take advantage of new hardware and software I recently obtained. It shouldn't be a problem of course, but may take a bit while longer than you were expecting. There is good news though, I'm starting with my DC-10/737/747 models first so I'm going to be doing a new Turkish 981 image. Check out the difference between the DC-10 model I used for the old image, and the new one. I can really add detail to my images, including interior details. When I start on my DC-9/MD-80/90s I'll try to work this one in as I don't have a DC-8 model yet and the fuselage looks very similar to the DC-9. (Kinda like the 707/727, though they had different wing/engine configurations, the fuselage was almost the same.)


 * (I've also been increasing the resolution, so if you want I can make a 1600x1200 version and e-mail it. The new ones are around 3200x2400.) Anynobody 04:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case, this URL may be of some use to you:
 * http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=41515
 * Also, if you're going to make it 3200X2400, I can just download it and downsize it myself. Thanks for the offer, though.
 * And003 (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, but I'm gonna build my own DC-8 :) (It's actually easier to make the 3D model than it is to create the textures, aka "painting" it.) I've actually ahead of schedule on my redone images so I've started on it. I figure it'll be done by the end of this week. Anynobody 23:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To be on the safe side, since the letters and such are in shadows, the livery looked like this right? (Blue A and stripe with red Arrow Air) Anynobody 02:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, like that. And003 (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Delay
I'm sorry this is taking so long, on the plus side it's gonna look great :) Anynobody 00:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC) In regard to the preview, this is actually just to show And003 I really am close to being done. The cockpit lights in the final will indeed be much dimmer,(or I could just say the F/O took a flash picture ;) I just needed these to get the mapping correct + I need to change the passengers in the windows since this flight was carrying 101st airborne soldiers not tourists and in "final" resolution it might look like there were some cross dressers aboard. Anynobody 04:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty slick! Might not be flying with the cockpit lighting so bright, though.  If this is a 3D model, can you spin the perspective to animate the image too? Could even generate a fly-by this way...LeadSongDog (talk) 03:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer your last question first; Yes and no, I can render the model in any position and choose between orthographic or isometric projections in png format. I can animate the models as well but the only format supported here is the gif. While png files allow full 24 bit color, gifs are limited to 256 colors meaning that the visual quality is noticeably "worse". (Someday soon I'd like to see support for mng files included here, which are animated pngs).
 * Just saw your final image! It's great! Thanks! And003 (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I got a look at your second Arrow Air image, and it's just as impressive as the first. Do you think it will be enough to satisfy everyone concerned? And003 (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Thanks, but I had plans to improve the wing ice which would've made the first picture awesome :) I don't see why it wouldn't satisfy rational objections. (I could understand the argument about WP:NPOV if the caption didn't mention it being based on the majority report and the article ignored the dissenting view.) I can't think of a non-whimsical way to illustrate the dissenting opinions so unless someone has a free photo of the plane my illustration is our best option. (Better than an experimental NASA version incorrectly labeled as being "similar" when we have better plain DC-8 pics available.) Anynobody 02:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Usual service resumed
I don't intend to comment further, but I'm sure that you'll see what I'm getting at; read this discussion first, followed by this one. --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is one thing about Wikipedia, it illustrates everything people want to stop doing - but don't. Like allowing double standards such as the one seemingly applied to DL and Giano. (I couldn't help noticing how much the idea of comparing their blocks met with, shall we say, unintended results. Also the second link was an excellent illustration of irony, considering who it came from. I doubt she'll respond, as I can't remember ever seeing a reply to my replies regarding similar "warnings") Anynobody 04:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, at least there are warnings being given now! I think that it illustrates your 'teacher's pet' observation very well; an editor acknowledged to do good work has an Admin shadowing him ready to intervene on his behalf and, effectively, a license to ignore the community norms that the rest of us abide by. I read the first thread, incidentally, as a warning-off from the associated AN/I discussion. --Major Bonkers (talk) 06:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually with the use of E-mail and other forms of communication, an admin need not shadow their favorites who can instead "sound the alarm" thus bringing in covert reinforcements when needed.


 * (I'm surprised nobody has ever called such attempts what they really are, cover ups. Putting myself in their, the warners, place...if I was sure my actions were most likely accurate but if not clearly in good faith... I wouldn't give a rat's ass who posted what on ANI regarding a situation I was involved in. The only reason I can think of trying to dissuade further pursuit of a neutral admin, is to avoid exposure of a mistake. (Which only serves to make one look even worse in the end, which is why I -- and I suspect you-- own up to them.) Anynobody 07:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

JAL123
This guy says that there may be an error with the JAL123 image:

"The render of JAL flight 123 shows the aft pressure bulkhead and tailcone intact but the tail almost completely gone from the bottom up. This is probably based on a photo floating around the net that's been over-enhanced. You can see the real photo and a perfect analysis of it here: http://vision.ameba.jp/watch.do?movie=195915

The render should probably be adjusted or removed, because it visually implies that the plane crashed because it lost its tail. In fact, yaw wasn't the main problem - inability to move the ailerons due to loss of hydraulics was the direct cause of the accident. --Badasscat (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)"

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Great timing, I was just getting set to revisit that image :) While I do intend to now incorporate the info in the video provided, this it visually implies that the plane crashed because it lost its tail. In fact, yaw wasn't the main problem - inability to move the ailerons due to loss of hydraulics was the direct cause of the accident. is missing the broader picture. Since all 4 hydraulic systems connect to the rudder (albeit in different places) when it was lost so was the hydraulic system. (Essentially it's like saying JFK died of brain damage without mentioning the bullets.) (PS He/she also seems to not understand what the rear pressure bulkhead is since you can't see it from below, the part missing appears to be the rear tail cone surrounding the APU.)


 * This info makes me wish I'd of gone with my gut and made more extensive damage. Anynobody 04:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines Flight 006 info
Hey WhisperToMe, do you still have the link for the report showing the debris field/take off diagram you wanted? Now that I've figured out how to animate with Blender I think I'll try to make it move. However I seem to have lost the .pdf while moving between computers. Anynobody 07:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The flash diagram showing the debris field is here: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/cna/sq006/popup.htm
 * The official accident report is here: http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/ASCAAR-02-01.pdf
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks :), check this out: Image:Anygallerya.gif. I won't be doing the textured 747 since gifs are limited to 256 colors (which is why the plane in this animation is, well, plain) and the more colors the larger the file (which is also why this animation is only 420 x 200, I traded resolution for color.) On this one I'll have to sacrifice color for resolution. Anynobody 07:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the color scheme here works fine - I like the rough draft :) WhisperToMe (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to work in simple windows and flightdeck too. Anynobody 04:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's fine :) WhisperToMe (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture Question
How do you create animated pictures? Is there a specific program you use or do you not need a program. Juthani1   tcs 03:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There are two programs I use, Animation Shop which came with Paint Shop Pro and Blender (which I downloaded for free). You could possibly do it without an animation program, but the difficulty could be extreme and would only work in specific programs (like theoretically one could create a really fast Power Point presentation using images.) Anynobody 03:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)