Those are significant "in progress" times. Do you have figures for "in stagnation" times?
Sure. Take the "in progress" and subtract a week (at most). That's when they get left or forgotten and not touched again until conditions allow me to revisit them or I just plain remember that they're there.
To be fair, I really should explain some more. How long does a profile of mine take to do? Well, it depends, but I'll say that doing the lighting, shading, etc. (all the prep work) takes many, many, many hours. Ask Talos. The XB-51, He 100, and V-507 took dozens of man hours of work, no exaggeration. And that's without a drop of "paint" on them. I shudder to think how many the P-61F took. It may well have been hundreds. The profiles themselves only take a few hours of actual Photoshop work, though many days of research may have gone into them.
That's why I sometimes get irritated when I ask if anyone has a request for a new scheme (which may take 6+ hours of work) and I instead get a request for a new aircraft type (which may take 6+
months of work). I had to explain all this to my father this weekend when he flippantly suggested I do a Dornier Do 24 profile. Besides the fact that many fantastic Do 24 profiles already exist (so my profiles would add nothing to the aircraft art world), the time required to do this would take up MONTHS of my life. No thank you. That's why Talos and I are so choosy with our projects.
That's also why I have only done 10 different aircraft types in the 5 years I've been profiling. And of those, I did 4 in the first year. At the level of detail that Talos and I put into our joint projects, we're averaging 1.5 new aircraft types a year. Even airframe modifications are an absolute bear to do.
That should explain why I'm rather open to suggestions of "slap a new coat of paint on it", I'm rather dismissive towards suggestions of "put a different engine on it", and I'm outright hostile towards suggestions of "you should do a different aircraft altogether!"
Cheers,
Logan
Poll
