Jump to content

Ben752

Members
  • Content Count

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Steel files are the way to go, diamond impregnated ones seem to cut too fine for wood. After buying cheap ones and then later purchasing some Vallorbe needle files (I think Grobet USA is the same company), I can say it’s one of the best purchases I’ve made. https://contenti.com/jewelers-metal-files http://www.ottofrei.com/jewelry-tools-equipment/bench-tools/files If you want to hog lots of wood, woodcraft has some great needle rasps.
  2. Turns out they just launched CV splines (control vertices), https://www.autodesk.com/products/fusion-360/blog/july-26-2018-product-update-whats-new/
  3. One of the limitations of fusion is that the spline support is far from great compared to others out there. They should be launching proper CV curves within the next year or so. They have recently published a post showing some of the upcoming capability, which should put them more inline with that of solidworks.
  4. This is great info. I've was going back and forth of using two different radii on this. Seeing this confirms it's possible that might be the case.
  5. Thank you druxey. I revisited the the sternpost and found that the roughly matching the rate of concave curvature inward on the the half breadth plan suggests the head would be approximately where you said it should be. Reconciling the different plans and sources certainly adds a wrinkle to selecting the right path when they don't appear to agree!
  6. After a few transatlantic flights, I've managed to the roughly sketch body plan across the relevant planes set along station lines. I ended up going back to the patch workspace instead of t-splines as the ability to edit edit and adjust far out-weights the smoothing ability. I've ended up using projected points from the relevant half-breadth and sheer sketches combined with construction lines to establish bounds of the geometry. Unfortunately it looks a little noisy in the screen capture. I tried using splines but quickly became frustrated and went back to using arcs and tangent constraints. Originally I used 4-5 arc segments for some but once I discovered the zebra analysis and repeatedly adjusted the curves for fairness, it became apparent that as few arcs as possible will result in improved fairness. While still can be improved, if I keep continuing at this point i'll be spinning my wheels until I'm able to model other areas. Which brings me to how to bridge the stern post, station 20 up through the wing transom. I created construction planes using the sheer plan for the bottom of the wing transom, transom #1 - #4, and one in between the keel and the bottom of #4. I then created sketches on these planes. This adds some complexity as projections will be skewed when looking down towards the top of the keel. I added the various reference points and intersected the stern post at each sketch. However, a rough sketch of the filling transoms (?) profiles appear way off from the TFFM half breadth plans. I've struggled making the 15" square at head of the stern post fit the rest of the plans. TFFM states 1' 3" on pg. 41, pg. 64. However, the plans seem to agree with about 12". Additionally, the contract I have for the Hornet states: "The stern post to be of good wound? oak tim of the best kind free from defects. sq. at head 12 1/2 (which is t run up to bolt in the Lua? deck beam)" Which leads credence to the ~12" dimension. Does anyone have thoughts on regarding this? This screen shot is taken top down which means the profile lines for the filling transoms are project per the angle of they're drawn on.
  7. Thank you for pointing this out. I plan to go back and alter them but wanted to keep it simple as I work through the various components.
  8. When I initially started this project, I started down the path creating a 3d model in Fusion following the order of the book. It quickly became apparent that this strategy is not an optimal way of working. However, the work below on the keel is fairly simple and was able to be salvaged before I shited to following a construction order closer to what is described in Steel. The process used is as follows: 1. Under a new component create separate sketches for the fore, aft and a middle timber of the keel. 2. The top plane worked well to construct the aft and middle sketches as it lends itself well to a extrude along the Y axis. Because the mid keel components are repeated, I repeated the component using the rectangular pattern feature. This gives me a reference edge to project in the fore timber sketch with the added bonus of propagating tweaks forward. 3. On the fore timber, I constructed the sketch using the left side plane as it allows for projecting the arcs of the stem to model the the boxing. Whenever possible, I"ve used projections off of one of my "master" sketches to allow for propagation of changes to the bodies that model the timbers. 4. To create the simplified boxing joint I created the sketch for the lower stem on the left plane, extruded on one face left face to 1/2 the thickness and used the combine/cut option on the fore keel. Then did the same on the other side but make the fore keel the cutting tool.
  9. These have really thrown me off. I started tinkering with this Fusion model about 5 months ago and while I was able to make some progress in the drafting, I would hit a spot where dimensions would be way off and I"d start second guessing everything. My natural inclination is to stop and review my work, and years of technology work has taught me to exhaust all explanations of issues using my own work before second guessing the work of others. However, I have found that the body plan on the TFFM plans appears to be inconsistent in some areas. Last week the use of the diagonals clicked and made a strong case the plan does seem to be off (incidentally the station on the designed and built draughts are very close to where i've drawn the curve). I will say that the HMS Hornet contract I found in the RMG library (outside of the plans collection) has been very useful in providing a 3rd party dimension reference. It contradicts some of the dimensions in TFFM in ways that appear to be consistent with the draughts. For those that are interested, http://collections.rmg.co.uk/archive/objects/512680.html#uaX1DK6V18Qgr5bl.99 the hornet contract is in SPB/27 This is not a criticism of TFFM at all!
  10. Good day everyone, I've recently moved to Edinburgh for work. My personal effects are somewhere in the middle of the atlantic (above water hopefully). This has given me time to focus on planning my first scratch build, the H.M.S. Atalanta. I've selected this ship due to the wealth knowledge in the TFFM series, availability of contemporary plans from Admiralty models, historical plans and many build logs. The hope is that with all of this information, it will give me enough information to stumble through the creation of plans using CAD and construction of the ship to a high level of quality. I'm using Fusion 360 as my CAD program due to it's excellent price (free for hobbyist), professional quality and integrated t-spline, anlysis tools, parametric modeling features and CAM support. I have made several false starts on the plans as Fusion is stew relatively new to me. One of the trickiest things is getting a good scan of the draughts into fusion and scaled. When you can zoom in to miniscule details of the draughts it becomes apparent how warped and skewed they are. One technique that I've found useful in fusion, is that when using the "attach canvas" that if you first create a component, you can then duplicate the component and translate it. This is quite welcomed after you go through the laborious process of aligning and rescaling the draught. To start off, I've made a considerable effort to follow the practices outlined in Steele. The dimensions have been sourced through a contract I found for the HMS Hornet at the RMG and the TFFM books. When there is a discrepancy I've sided with the TFFM as the books are my guide. My effort is to not trace but rather draft using a combination of traditional methods and 3d approaches. Given this, the sheer plan is first up. In Fusion, I've created "primary" sketches for each major major plan with the exception of more detailed aspects (following the order of Steel lends itself well to this approach). For more detailed areas, I then create a separate sketch and project or intersect the references needed. Fusion prefers this approach as it runs faster and easier to apply constraints and such. For starters, here are my sheer sketches. Below is the sketch in edit mode so the dimensions are visible (when zoomed it the dimensions are more manageable). I've found using custom parameters exceptionally useful for cataloging scantlings and the source reference material I used.
  11. The zebra analysis tool also has been quite useful in getting a feel for the cursory fairness of the hull.
  12. The approach I've taken so far follows something like this: 1. Draft the sheer plan on a sketch following the approaches outlined in Steel. I've been using model parameters to define the scantlings to support changing values easily. The description has been very useful for providing traceability. 2. Create a half breadth & body plan sketch. 3. Start building up additional detail on subsequent sketches on the same plane as the sheer, e.g. deck curves, transom details, etc as it seems fusion works best with more sketches with fewer details. 4. Build up the profile of the hull using offset planes at station intervals with sketches representing the details of the body plan. While I originally used the patch workspace loft command, the t-spline (from the sculpt workspace) loft allows for more flexibility in fairing.
  13. Looks fantastic Greg! Will there be anyway to see measurements in the 3D model? I hope the Hornet contract was useful. Looking forward to getting this to help with my future Atalanta build.
  14. I was looking to get a 4 jaw sometime this year but given their prices rarely are discounted it looks like I'll be getting one this month. https://www.sherlinedirect.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&Product_ID=1507&CFID=140895239&CFTOKEN=82798041
  15. Ben752

    Niagara by A.Jorden

    Very nice. I really like the color selection of paint.

About us

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research

SSL Secured

Your security is important for us so this Website is SSL-Secured

NRG Mailing Address

Nautical Research Guild
237 South Lincoln Street
Westmont IL, 60559-1917

About the NRG

If you enjoy building ship models that are historically accurate as well as beautiful, then The Nautical Research Guild (NRG) is just right for you.

The Guild is a non-profit educational organization whose mission is to provide support to our members in their efforts to raise the quality of their model shipcraft.

The Nautical Research Guild puts on ship modeling seminars, yearly conferences, and juried competitions. We publish books on ship modeling techniques as well as our world-renowned quarterly magazine, The Nautical Research Journal, whose pages are full of articles by master ship modelers who show you how they build those exquisite details on their models, and by maritime historians who show you what details to build.

Our Emblem

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research
×