Originally posted by Toddshi
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Toddshi Prescreening Advice
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
You should upload it with registration currently in use.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
Temporary reg. (C-GVQY) should be used in that case.
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.
JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
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 PostHi, I have a question about this rejection.
JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
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?
"half of the plane is dark due to the shadow of the hangar, better keep it for your personal collection"
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.
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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JuklicekCZ View PostHello, 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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Toddshi View PostHi. 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
-
Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
Needs CW rotation. Heat haze visible on cheat lines.
I receive no reply on that if the result has already came out.
Comment
Comment