Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Toddshi Prescreening Advice

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Toddshi View Post
    Ok. And for this airframe, can I use its actual registration rather than the temporary one? It is already uncovered.
    You should upload it with registration currently in use.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

      You should upload it with registration currently in use.
      Yes, but the problem is, today it was just being pushed out of the hanger. It did not turn on its ads-b so I can't see who it is modified to be.
      It is probably approaching its delivery, but they haven't ripped off the temporary reg just yet. It was under C-GVQY two days ago when performing a test flight. I don't know what is their policy, but my understanding is there shouldn't be two regs while doing an acutal flight, which means on Monday there is still no VP reg on the fuselage. On the other hand, they should not show its actual reg unless it is on its way to being delivered.
      Not so sure what is it today on May 26, but it will eventually be VP-CYP.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Toddshi View Post

        Yes, but the problem is, today it was just being pushed out of the hanger. It did not turn on its ads-b so I can't see who it is modified to be.
        It is probably approaching its delivery, but they haven't ripped off the temporary reg just yet. It was under C-GVQY two days ago when performing a test flight. I don't know what is their policy, but my understanding is there shouldn't be two regs while doing an acutal flight, which means on Monday there is still no VP reg on the fuselage. On the other hand, they should not show its actual reg unless it is on its way to being delivered.
        Not so sure what is it today on May 26, but it will eventually be VP-CYP.
        Temporary reg. (C-GVQY) should be used in that case.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

          Temporary reg. (C-GVQY) should be used in that case.
          Thanks. Seems there is some evidence found for this case. Is it because the VP reg hasn't appeared on the reg. database of Cayman Island (https://www.caacayman.com/wp-content...20Register.pdf), or there are other sources pointing out? Would I know which source is that so that I can find out myself in the future?
          The database renews every end of the month. The delivery in May is not upgraded yet.

          Comment


          • Hi, I have a question about this rejection.
            https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10213147
            After the first rejection, I tried to figure out that I added too much contrast (I hope I was right) so I took away a bit and uploaded it again. Then the comment says "as explained on the last rejection", which means: it is still in high contrast, or I was wrong from the beginning?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Toddshi View Post
              Hi, I have a question about this rejection.
              https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10213147
              After the first rejection, I tried to figure out that I added too much contrast (I hope I was right) so I took away a bit and uploaded it again. Then the comment says "as explained on the last rejection", which means: it is still in high contrast, or I was wrong from the beginning?
              Comments from the screener on the first rejection:

              "half of the plane is dark due to the shadow of the hangar, better keep it for your personal collection"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

                Comments from the screener on the first rejection:

                "half of the plane is dark due to the shadow of the hangar, better keep it for your personal collection"
                Oh, cause I didn't see the first comment. Thanks!
                Attached Files

                Comment



                • Please see this photo, thanks!
                  I am especially worried about this one. Come back from the wrong setting of the exposure.
                  Attached Files

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Toddshi View Post
                    Please see this photo, thanks!
                    I am especially worried about this one. Come back from the wrong setting of the exposure.
                    Maybe a bit dark, but a bigger issue would be the softness.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

                      Maybe a bit dark, but a bigger issue would be the softness.
                      Ok thanks!

                      Comment


                      • Hi. My question for this rejection is, that I am close enough to the aircraft and there is absolutely no clew of the heat even in the original photo. For the horizontal problem, I looked at the factory far behind instead of the FBO sign near behind. The sign has a possibility to be slant.
                        https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10273152

                        Comment


                        • Hello, the horizon indeed appears to be unleveled and it is not caused by the pole being defectived, it is also slightly visible on the garage doors, the problem is, that you should primarilly rely on using the longest possible referece as the leves issue might not be such obvious on references that are as far away as the factory.
                          Click image for larger version  Name:	image_48265.png Views:	3 Size:	88.0 KB ID:	1139792Click image for larger version  Name:	image_48266.png Views:	3 Size:	64.3 KB ID:	1139793
                          I have tried to rotate is by 1,20 and see, that the pole is much straighter and the garage doors so seem to be as well.
                          The rotation may still not be perfect, or some slight remaining inconsistencies may actually be caused by lens distortion, but I hope it can at least serve as a reference point.
                          Regarding heat distortion, I don't see it either.
                          Click image for larger version  Name:	Screenshot_3570.png Views:	0 Size:	60.4 KB ID:	1139794Click image for larger version  Name:	Screenshot_3571.png Views:	0 Size:	96.1 KB ID:	1139795
                          Click image for larger version  Name:	50574_1656734774-5.jpg Views:	0 Size:	652.3 KB ID:	1139796

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JuklicekCZ View Post
                            Hello, the horizon indeed appears to be unleveled and it is not caused by the pole being defectived, it is also slightly visible on the garage doors, the problem is, that you should primarilly rely on using the longest possible referece as the leves issue might not be such obvious on references that are as far away as the factory.
                            Click image for larger version Name:	image_48265.png Views:	3 Size:	88.0 KB ID:	1139792Click image for larger version Name:	image_48266.png Views:	3 Size:	64.3 KB ID:	1139793
                            I have tried to rotate is by 1,20 and see, that the pole is much straighter and the garage doors so seem to be as well.
                            The rotation may still not be perfect, or some slight remaining inconsistencies may actually be caused by lens distortion, but I hope it can at least serve as a reference point.
                            Regarding heat distortion, I don't see it either.
                            Click image for larger version Name:	Screenshot_3570.png Views:	0 Size:	60.4 KB ID:	1139794Click image for larger version Name:	Screenshot_3571.png Views:	0 Size:	96.1 KB ID:	1139795
                            Click image for larger version Name:	50574_1656734774-5.jpg Views:	0 Size:	652.3 KB ID:	1139796
                            I didn't dig so deep into this problem. Thanks!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Toddshi View Post
                              Hi. My question for this rejection is, that I am close enough to the aircraft and there is absolutely no clew of the heat even in the original photo. For the horizontal problem, I looked at the factory far behind instead of the FBO sign near behind. The sign has a possibility to be slant.
                              https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10273152
                              Needs CW rotation. Heat haze visible on cheat lines.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

                                Needs CW rotation. Heat haze visible on cheat lines.
                                Ok. And could you please see the appeal result for this one? https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10277069
                                I receive no reply on that if the result has already came out.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X