CDR_Ret

Please give this post a 'like' to indicate you have read it!
___________________________________________________________
 
Hey, folks!
 
Your friendly moderating staff at MSW have been editing a lot of build log titles in the past several weeks -- including three just today alone! The usual reason for editing a build log title is that it does not follow our site guidelines for naming build logs. Why do we have such guidelines? To keep our site looking spiffy and to enhance its functionality.
 
There are two ways you can check to see if you have titled your log correctly:
Consult the pinned topic on naming build logs -- it's pinned at the top of every build logs sub-forum. Take a look at some of the other build logs. The moderators make every effort to catch and fix all of the incorrectly titled logs, so 99% of the logs you look at should be correctly titled. Two more things: 1. Please don't freestyle or get cute with your titles. Titles are considered formal writing, not creative writing (you can get as creative as you like in the log itself). 2. If a moderator has edited your build log title, please don't edit it again yourself. This can make your moderators cranky, and we don't want them to quit on us! Remember, the moderator has fixed your title to conform to site guidelines.
 
Thanks in advance for helping us make this not only a great site but also a great-looking site!
 
Your MSW Staff

Working on the galleries. I remember one particular ship in the RMG archive of the Porcupine class was illustrated with arched windows on the quarter gallery and I really liked the style.
 

 
Still working on the drops - getting the shapes correct has been a bit of a crap shoot 🤣🤣

 
Bad puns aside, I'm getting excited now that some of the more fine details are starting to come out.

 
The internal planking has been completed through the lower deck. The decks themselves are merely placeholders at this point.

 
That's it for now. Happy Holidays All!

Rick,
The U-47 looks amazing!
 
Be careful with card models!
 
They are like potato chips, you can’t just have one!
 
Here’s the link to Fenten’s Paper Models out of Germany:
 
https://www.papermodel.com

They are shipping to the USA again and have a very extensive selection!

Heh, you can never trust submarine movies for dialog or technical accuracy. My family groans anytime we watched a submarine movie because I was always muttering, "That's not the way they do that," "that can't happen," or "that's an attack boat, not a boomer," etc.
@CCClarke
 
Terry

Heh, you can never trust submarine movies for dialog or technical accuracy. My family groans anytime we watched a submarine movie because I was always muttering, "That's not the way they do that," "that can't happen," or "that's an attack boat, not a boomer," etc.
@CCClarke
 
Terry

Very many thanks to all for your very kind messages.  The medical team was great, I was up and about that evening (after a four hour procedure), eating normally and getting about the next day, and released from hospital the next.  It never ceases to amaze me what these health 'magicians' can do these days.
 
The intention is to now prove my rigging plan by trying it on the model.  This should help to resolve some of the remaining issues I have and establish whether some of the leads etc I have used were/are practical.  This is not to say the plan is  the 'actual' configuration used in the ship itself, but this  process should lead to a reasonable 'representative' rigging and belaying plan.
 
Once I start, I encourage you all, especially the more experienced modellers and mariners, to challenge my assumptions.
 
In the interim I am preparing myself for the onslaught of Christmas, especially with my three gorgeous granddaughters (or should I call them 'organised chaos' '
 
cheers
 
Pat

Good news, Pat. I was wondering whether something had come up. Very glad that you received a clean bill of health.
 
Don't push your recovery. The model will be there.
 
Terry

Good news, Pat. I was wondering whether something had come up. Very glad that you received a clean bill of health.
 
Don't push your recovery. The model will be there.
 
Terry

@palmerit I get error 404 when I try clicking on the links, but if you go to the  NRG online shopping  it's there, still for sale.
 Bob  M.

Keep at it Giorgio!  There's lot of good advice in this thread.
 
As a beginning modeler, (even when you understand all of the basic tools) one of the hardest things to learn is where to begin.  For me, that was the hardest part, and it was very intimidating.
 
Like karate, you can learn to punch and kick, but combining variations of those moves is what gives you the confidence and ability to prevail in a real fight.  Modeling is very similar.  Too many tutorials focus on tools without showing how to combine them to create and modify more complex shapes.  Combining tools to make what you want is called workflow, and it comes to you over time and many, many dead ends.  The other quality needed to become proficient is the correct mindset.
 
Modeling isn't easy or everybody would be doing it.  The AI generative 3D modeling programs being shown online are a poor substitute for real-world modeling skills.  Once you learn to model, you have a skill that can never be taken away from you.
 
Nobody learns anything without making mistakes. Perseverance is a big part of learning the craft.  I've had times where I couldn't make a particular tool perform the way I thought it was supposed to.  Every tool has rules that must be learned and some of those rules aren't well-documented - if at all.  I spent three eight-hour days once, using the same tool over and over to learn what made it unable to continue, while the program gave me error messages that made no sense.  Every time I got it to work, I wrote down what made it fail.  I was surprised how many conditions could cause this and submitted a post online explaining how I made it work.  The many replies of thanks were astounding!  Many modelers had given up on that tool, limiting their ability to progress.  I had to break through that wall by chipping away at it, little by little and documenting everything.  The things I learned went into my workflow, and contributed to my ability to inspect the mesh for irregularities when using other tools, that I still use today.  I don't even think about it anymore, I just use those skills automatically the second something doesn't work and quickly solve the problem.
 
The learning never ends, which is another facet of modeling I enjoy - problem-solving, which really sums up what 3D modeling is, and I've been doing it almost daily for twenty years.
 
A lot of what you're starting out with in your examples is basic spline modeling to create hull curvatures.  A spline is nothing more than a curved line defined by how many points are in it.  Those points can be patched, (automatically or manually) to create polygons which becomes a "skin" as more polygons are added to the mesh.  Every model is composed of points, edges, and polygons.  Each modeling program manipulates them in similar ways using different tool names.
 
Personally, I would recommend modeling simple things around your house.  A salt-shaker can be made with a couple of basic modeling tools.  Those same tools can make a cannon or pedestal. 
 
Be realistic about your expectations to keep your progress moving forward - even if in tiny increments.
 
A ship's hull is more complex and can lead to great frustration or worse, giving up.  Start simple, (like making a table or the afore-mentioned salt shaker) to get the basics of creating and moving and aligning shapes before progressing to more complex shapes.  You will be surprised how quickly you begin to create a workflow that gives fast results. 
 
One of the first (physical tools) I invested in to help my modeling of simple objects was a set of inexpensive digital calipers.  It helped me to create the everyday things around me more accurately and proportionately.  Success builds enthusiasm, and enthusiasm is contagious!
 
Time how long it takes to make a simple object if you're following a tutorial.  Repeat the tutorial the next day.  The day after that, build the same object without the tutorial, until you have the workflow memorized.  Notice how fast you build it compared to the first time.  My modeling speed doubled every three months once I had the basics figured out.  Some of the tutorials took me hours to complete at first. 
 
Using the method I described allowed me to do in minutes what had taken hours in a very short period of time.  Timed modeling is an excellent way to measure your progress and keep you motivated.  When you have the basic tools memorized, (and more importantly, how to use them in combinations) move into spline modeling, which is a different style of modeling.  Like math, there are many ways to get the correct answer when modeling.  The best way is the one that works for you in the least amount of time achieving the shape you need.
 
Maintaining the correct mindset is the one tool not included with your software that ultimately determines your success. Everybody who invests the time to create beautiful models can relate to this philosophy.  All of them started knowing nothing.
 
I look forward to seeing your progress, even if it isn't ship-related.
 
CC
 
 

I suspect that, rather than a "vacuum" causing the injury, it was the peak differential pressure of the shock wave caused by the ball's passage on soft tissues. The turbulent, low-pressure region associated with a high-speed projectile is directly behind the ball, so the "vacuum" itself would have little to do with causing the non-contact injury IMO.

A 32pdr ball from the Blomefield pattern gun at the (late) middle gauge and with the turn of the century Waltham Abbey cylinder milled powder should still be sonic at about 500m. Smaller bore guns tended to be longer, relatively and could have significantly higher muzzle velocity, but lose velocity slightly more rapidly. 24pdr 9.5ft also around 500m, and the 18pdr 9ft a bit less ~475m, while the 12pdr 9ft is sonic at about 425m. The later 58cwt gun is slightly 'more' by virtue of its lower windage, but not by enough to render the very popular 55cwt guns obsolescent. Carronades are high subsonic (and with a few of the lighter rebore patterns of guns being roughly sonic at the muzzle).

Muzzle velocity is expected to be above 500m/s for all of these guns rising as the calibre falls to about 540m/s for the 12pdr. (Sonic ~340m/s) (explicit muzzle velocity measured by Navez on an electro-chronograph for the 24pdr is 1720 ft/s, using the later shot and the standard military powder made up from high quality new powder mixed with small proportions of recovered powder to moderate the velocity to provide a maximised consistency of power)

French powders are weaker, especially early on, though they recover most of the deficit in power between 1827 (where they are testing with Pont de Buis hammer milled powder) and 1843 (where they have a cylinder milled powder from Ripault in their testing programmes). There is still a small deficit recorded between French powder of 1860 (noted by the French as being the same as Ripault/1843) and 70 year old Waltham Abbey powder, when tested by Lt Mordecai of the USN. French guns have a narrow spread between their high and low gauges and use a higher line of metal to get a slightly longer but-en-blanc along the metal and marginally more consistency. Even with the much weaker powders indicated from their 1808 and 1811 gunnery manual their artillery is supersonic at the muzzle and for a few hundred metres downrange. The velocity deficit by the 1840s is on the order of a few percent, and not a critical difference - pointing is also detached from the line of metal with the universal provision of tangent sights.

I suspect that, rather than a "vacuum" causing the injury, it was the peak differential pressure of the shock wave caused by the ball's passage on soft tissues. The turbulent, low-pressure region associated with a high-speed projectile is directly behind the ball, so the "vacuum" itself would have little to do with causing the non-contact injury IMO.

Without daring to comment on the potential for "near miss" injuries, I'll suggest that, in naval combat, it was the "splinters" (which could be multiple feet in length) sent flying by the impact of roundshot on the ship's structure that  did most of the damage to human bodies.
 
Trevor

I suspect that, rather than a "vacuum" causing the injury, it was the peak differential pressure of the shock wave caused by the ball's passage on soft tissues. The turbulent, low-pressure region associated with a high-speed projectile is directly behind the ball, so the "vacuum" itself would have little to do with causing the non-contact injury IMO.

I've noted before,  to be suspicious of any Butterworth painting.  Especially ones that have something which does not fit the narrative.  Or adds new information. Forgers like to fill in missing gaps in the scholarship to prove province.  
 
Ken Perenyi forged dozens of them.  Designed to fool 'experts'  In the book Caveat Emptor he gives specific descriptions of how such is done, using stencils and replicating ships and flags from one to another.  Also how old materials and chemistry is used to fool the experts.  There is also implications that auction houses are in on some of this as they need material to sell.
 
 
-julie  (who should be working on the Forester model.)
 

Hey, Nate (@3DShipWright) and @Loracs. I got the alert that you had tagged me.
 
There are three things to address in such a tutorial:
The key steps required in constructing a ship hull and its details. Ship's hulls are not the simplest thing to build in Blender, requiring a lot of knowledge of what you are trying to model first, then translating that into building it in a digital 3D space, which leads to: Knowing how to use the gazillions of features to actually form the model in Blender, and then adding the really cool textures and materials that turn it into a photorealistic product. And (3), placing that model into a photorealistic environment. Sadly, this isn't like a cookbook, where you can start with nothing and end up with something in a linear fashion. The Blender knowledge space is like a 3D network itself, with nodes of prerequisite information connecting to other information. That's about the only way I can explain it. Also, the way you create an object can affect how to enhance it down the road
 
I think it would worthwhile to attempt such a general tutorial for ship modelers, since it is pretty evident there is an interest for a segment of our community in creating such a guide. It would take a lot of effort on the parts of one or two people. If we could crowd source the project (with, perhaps a knowledgeable editor overseeing everything), that could make it more doable. (I did that in DELFTship a while back.) The downside to attempting such a tutorial is that Blender is updated frequently enough, it could make at least the details of using the program out of date fairly quickly.
 
That's my two cents (American). Oh, wait, we aren't making pennies anymore . . .
 
Terry

Hey, Nate (@3DShipWright) and @Loracs. I got the alert that you had tagged me.
 
There are three things to address in such a tutorial:
The key steps required in constructing a ship hull and its details. Ship's hulls are not the simplest thing to build in Blender, requiring a lot of knowledge of what you are trying to model first, then translating that into building it in a digital 3D space, which leads to: Knowing how to use the gazillions of features to actually form the model in Blender, and then adding the really cool textures and materials that turn it into a photorealistic product. And (3), placing that model into a photorealistic environment. Sadly, this isn't like a cookbook, where you can start with nothing and end up with something in a linear fashion. The Blender knowledge space is like a 3D network itself, with nodes of prerequisite information connecting to other information. That's about the only way I can explain it. Also, the way you create an object can affect how to enhance it down the road
 
I think it would worthwhile to attempt such a general tutorial for ship modelers, since it is pretty evident there is an interest for a segment of our community in creating such a guide. It would take a lot of effort on the parts of one or two people. If we could crowd source the project (with, perhaps a knowledgeable editor overseeing everything), that could make it more doable. (I did that in DELFTship a while back.) The downside to attempting such a tutorial is that Blender is updated frequently enough, it could make at least the details of using the program out of date fairly quickly.
 
That's my two cents (American). Oh, wait, we aren't making pennies anymore . . .
 
Terry

Dusting off my Pandora project for some work on it during the holidays. Here's a few current state images to kick things off...
 

I just found out this morning that NRG member David Okamura has passed away. You may not know of him, but if you have ever enjoyed any of the card model builds I have shared here at MSW, then you owe a small debt of gratitude to David -- he's the man who got me started in card modeling.
 
I first met David at a meeting of the Ship Modelers Association (they met in Placentia, California) about twenty-five years ago. He was already a very skilled card modeler at the time, and when I saw his models at the club's show-and-tells, I said, "Wow, I can't believe that's made out of paper!" Sound familiar? David almost always had a new model or two to show at the meetings. He often did beta builds for designers, and if you had ever had the chance to admire his work, you would understand why those designers sought David's assistance. I decided I had to try a card model, too, and that was all it took to get me hooked. So, if any of my models have tempted you, or perhaps even persuaded you, to try a card model, it's partly thanks to David's having persuaded me to try one.
 
Rest well, friend.
 

David showing one of his models at a 2009 SMA meeting

Hi Julie,
 
I've never heard the term header board. I know these as trailboards. As far as I know, they are just wood, and usually have a slight upward curve to them, so I don't think they were interchangeable.
 
I'm guessing that in some shipyards, there's one person who regularly carves these things. So, among the lumber schooners, many of them may very well look the same, or at least very similar. 

If you want to know about wood and its properties and toxicity this is the place
 
https://www.wood-database.com

I just finished 3D printing a half-dozen 1/144 scale models of the original and modified versions of the USS Seawolf (SSN-575) to take as gifts to our crew's reunion a few weeks ago.  All were a hit.
 
Attached are a couple of 3D renders and photos of the completed hulls.

Regarding mast tapers (and this applies to spars as well), applying the tables found in Underhill's book for the latter 1800s, you can see in this image that the individual masts are not "conical" tapers. They tend to gradually taper starting at the base then more quickly toward the heads. This is because the torque applied to any section of the mast is greater toward the base and least at the head. That torque on a mast also includes the forces applied by the mast(s) above it. So it makes sense that the mast diameter doesn't simply change proportionately with height.

An extreme foreshortened view of the 1891 brigantine Galilee's combined fore topgallant-royal mast, showing the mast taper profiles for each section.
 
Terry

ChatGPT powiedział:
I’ve been trying to design in Rhino for 15 years. I figured everything out on my own, but I still don’t know everything. Below is my 3D model, entirely drawn from scratch.