Hubac's Historian

Thank you for the comment, EJ. You raise a good question. This antler carving is one that I was hoping to keep without altering it or re-creating it. It's one of the details that the Heller kit really does well. Although it differs from the Berain drawing of this detail, in some ways I think it is a more elegant execution. In truth, my hand-drawing does not completely accurately mimic the lines of the antler details. As moulded, they take up even less space between the ports than my drawing shows. Try as I might, I just could not get the lay of the line right on those, but because I wasn't planning to re-create it - good enough really seemed adequate for the purpose of assessing the total layout. What I may have to do is slightly alter the leafy scrolls of the port enhancements, here and there, wherever they encroach too much on the antler things. For the most part, though, I don't think these two details will interfere with each other.

Sometimes I worry that the forum moderators will close my build-log, if they don't see any signs of activity. With that in mind - this post is something of a place marker, but it does illustrate progress on the drawing and highlights a few of the areas where designing to fit within the kit architecture presents specific challenges and/or limitations. This is my work area in Gimp. For this picture, I've hidden the white background tracing layer, which is my digitized hand-drawing. With the main wales located, and the first three batteries in place, and properly located, she is beginning to look like a ship of war. With the water line raised and the sheer line reduced, slightly, I think she sits pretty in the water: The next three pics have the tracing layer visible, and I've scaled the zoom to accurately reflect the size of the actual kit. This first shot of the bow shows the difficulty of designing the filligree between the knees of the head; rather than a parallel space between the knees, the space widens as you move outboard from the stem. This means that the elements that make up the filligree can't simply be drawn once and copied, but must be drawn individually to fit. The "X" shaped bits are supposed to frame shell carvings (which I may not model at this scale because the detail would be so tiny), are placed to correspond with the vertical ballusters that unify the three rows of headrails: The arched, main deck ports also presented unique challenges that were not readily apparent until they were duplicated and placed along the upper bulwark. First, my hand drawing did not accurately reflect the height and width of the actual ports; I drew them about a 1/16" too tall and almost a 1/16" too wide. However, the space they can fit into, along the upper bulwark, is tallest aft and tapers to a more narrow space in the forecastle. When you factor in that I also, initially, exaggerated the domed arch, and you add on the scrolled port enhancement, then the whole thing becomes really crowded, among the antler escutcheon carvings (not sure what else to call them): I had to re-draw the port several times, duplicate it and place the row of ports until I was satisfied that the composition did not look too cluttered. I have yet to correct the bow angel's extended hand, which no longer rests upon the smaller port, but I will do so soon. Now, while the whole thing is very busy looking, when I consider the Compardel drawing upon which these port enhancements are based - then I think that my layout is actually better balanced and less cluttered looking. This has to do with the fact that the Berain (black and white) and Compardel drawings of the stern quarters reflect a more exaggerated sheer of the wales, as it intersects with a less pronounced sheer of the actual gundecks; the wales, the ornamentation and everything else outside the ship appear to rise rather sharply, while the gun ports, themselves, cut more steeply into the wales than is shown on the Heller kit. I have tried unsuccessfully, just now, to post a sketch of The Monarch of 1668, which illustrates quite nicely this more pronounced sheer of the wales, on a ship of the First Marine. You can see that the aft-most ports cut completely through the wale. I will post this pic later, from my home computer, where it is easier to do so. The reason for this variance has to do with the fact that the Heller kit, and the Tanneron model upon which it is based, reflect latter 17th C. Architecture of the Second marine - namely, the Foudroyant of 1693. This fundamental difference between what I am trying to represent with the first Soleil Royal and the inherent inability to accurately represent the correct sheer of the wales on the plastic kit drives purists nuts; that, among other architectural inaccuracies. I don't mean for that to be the case, but it is a compromise that I am willing to make because, in the end, I think it results in a less chaotic assemblage of details. I am thinking about adding the leafy port enhancement that is shown beneath the port sills. This would simply be affixed to the wale strake beneath the upper bulwarks, and omitted wherever the re-located main and fore channels make it impossible to include them. As a related aside, a Belgian modeler named Cedric - whom I mentioned much earlier in this build log - is, in fact, closing off the Heller ports and re-locating them, and the wale locations so that he can more closely model La Reyne. So, to be more clear - it is not impossible. Cedric has already begun by cutting his hull along the same raised waterline I am proposing, sanding away the wales and using the kit port lids to seal off the openings. This promises to be a very visually rewarding project, on his part, and one that I think will be very complementary to what is happening here. I commend Cedric for his effort and attention to detail because what he is doing goes to a level that I am not willing to take my project. Here is a link to his build-log for La Reyne, where he recently posted an update with pictures: http://www.laroyale-modelisme.net/t19428p25-la-reine-vaisseau-de-premier-rang-au-1-90-eme?highlight=La+Reine+++Heller+Customise One can immediately see, in Cedric's pictures, how cutting away the lower hull drastically improves the impression of the hull as a viable sailing ship. You can begin to see a few of the details that will be added in: scribed scarf joints into the wales at appropriate intervals, and the through-bolting for the carriage tackles. There are a number of other small details, like this, that can be sketched in now, with the gunports in place. regarding the thin wale strakes that frame the railings of the sheer line - they will be mostly scraped away to make room for the upper bulwark frieze. For now, I'm showing a short, moulded nub beneath the scalloped detail at each step in the sheer. I'm not sure how I will ultimately resolve that, but for now, I like this. You can see the 1/4" re-location, forward, of the aft most port on the lower deck, that makes a little extra room for the lower finishing of the quarter gallery. I have the tracing layer for the quarter gallery on a separate layer that I am not showing right now. Of course, aspects of the QG are not lining up so neatly with where I would like those transitions to land, so that will require digital manipulation, when I get to that part of the tracing. High-lighted in red are two parallel lines that (in-board) indicate where the stock kit architecture ends and (out-board) shows the 3/8" extension piece that is necessary to close-in the lower stern walk. The blue line beyond that indicates the round-up of the upper stern, which is probably exaggerated. I will have a better sense for the depth of that when I begin making card templates to offer up to the stern, for patterning of the framing elements. Finally, while I am cutting away the topmost step of the Heller sheer, I am adding back a lower-profile, continuous rail that extends forward to the rail cap. The reason for doing this, primarily, is that it buys me back a little extra real estate (in-board) for the upper most "poop royal" deck that will have to be lowered, somewhat, and the camber increased, slightly, towards the middle of the deck, in order to work within the reduced sheer. The depth of the deck, fore and aft, will also need to be shortened, somewhat. I haven't drawn any of that, but I know it can be re-worked in a pleasing way.

I think it is quite remarkable that men went to sea in seas like this - and much worse - aboard wooden ships! Fantastic picture, Ken.

Goodwin seems to suggest that the exterior planking was cut flush with the framing and that the port housing for a Capital ship like RW, changed a little, over the course of the 18th C.

Good question. I'm not sure what the answer is, but a good starting point might be H.M.S. Victory: http://www.prdobson.com/album/hms-victory/photo/120/ A little later, I'll reference Goodwin's Englishman of War

Wow - that's frustrating how un-reliable the kit plans are. Good catch!

Whichever way you go Ken, it is going to come out well because your work has been so clean, so far. Do whatever you are comfortable with and have fun with it.

I was wondering the same thing, Ken. Your first planking is really nice and clean, but the finished model is immensely improved by following traditional practice. One of the Forum moderators - Chuck - has an excellent series of two videos that describe the layout and spiling of continuous planking using simple math, tools and techniques. Though I'm still a plastics guy, I will be coming back to this when I transition to wood. The learning curve under his tuteledge is a speed-bump instead of a mountain. I will post the thread link.

I think the staircase looks amazing, Ken. Nice and clean and not overly fussy. Great job!

Just re-visiting this build, and I am completely awed by your progress, and the resourcefulness of your build! Really great work!

Hi Ken, I'm loving your build-log, so far. You're off to a great start, and I look forward to following along. I've always loved the RW, as one of the last great, albeit transitional, ships of the spritsail topmast era. She's an elegant vessel, and I have every confidence that you'll be able to pull this off, nicely, considering the lovely pictures of your easier build. All the best, Marc

Sharpening chisels is a subject with much variation according to personal preference. The nice thing about "micro" tools is that it is a micro job to tune them up and keep them sharp. This is what I do with all of my edge tools. I bought a two-sided oil stone at Home Depot a number of years ago. I use the coarse side to shape my bevel, and the fine side to refine my edge. Then I move to a ceramic "stone" that I bought from Woodworkers Supply that never dishes out from wear, to further refine the edge. Then I move on to a 5000 grit wet stone. At each stage, I'm lapping the back of the tool to help work the "wire" that forms along the edge, so that at the next and final stage, the wire releases and I have a truly razor sharp edge. The final stage is to strop along a piece of leather that I've loaded with a superfine abrasive compound make by Tormek. The key to all of this - whether or not you manage to keep the bevels of your straight chisels perfectly flat or slightly rounded - is to always pull the tool across the stone or strop so that the edge is trailing. Often, you will see someone working a single edge tool back and forth across a stone, but I have found this to be counter-productive, as you inevitably end up grinding micro-bevels into the tool edge that prevent you from refining a consistent hone along the length of the edge. a final micro-bevel is considered, by some, to be a desireable feature, but that, in itself, is a whole other subject of conversation that doesn't even apply to micro carving tools. In the absence of stones, one can achieve the same degree of bevel shaping and edge-refinement with non-loading sandpaper, in a number of grits, upon a thick piece of glass (1/4" or thicker). When it comes to gouges or any other type of curved, edge tool, it does take some practice to learn how to roll the tool along the stone so that the whole edge gets honed with each pass, but this is not so difficult to master. Usually, micro chisels are not made of such hard steel that it is laborious to re-shape and sharpen an edge, if you mess it up. If you follow some sequence of sharpening like I laid out, you'll he able to keep a razor edge for quite a while, simply by stropping, before the compound deforms the edge enough to necessitate re-sharpening. Even then, I find that the ceramic stone is as far back as I need to go to quickly re-shape and hone an edge.

Of course, I'm offering this advice without having done much small-scale carving myself. All of my relief carvin has been for furniture projects with a few full-figure reliefs, in my mix of experience. I can well appreciate how much more difficult it must be to follow the grain, at small scales. The upside, it seems to me, is that very little material has to be removed, in order to achieve a nice effect. The trick is removing the right material. I will say, though, that the few times I have tried to use EXACTO type blades for smallwork - i have found it difficult to control depth of cut. The longer blade bevel, of even miniature carving gouges and chissels affords you more control over the cutting action.

Hi Meddo, I'm not sure if you are doing this already, but one thing that I have always found helpful, with this sort of relief carving, is to trace in a center line throughout the length and all details of the carving. This gives you a reference line to carve to and makes it easier to smooth out and shape the surfaces. It should be said that this line isn't always an exact centerline; on a leafy scroll, for example, you may skew the line closer to the top of the scroll, in order to carve a more accentuated cove, on the other side of the line. Or, sometimes, the opposite would be more appropriate. Whichever you do, though, it's going to always be a constant back and forth with the blade edge to adjust to the ever changing grain direction, as you work your way through the carving's shapes.

She's really taking shape, EJ. It's amazing how big these models are.

I love the light EJ - the cabin looks great! I'm glad that you have decided to re-create the six window configuration of Berain's stern. Doing so, however, will mean that you will need to re-scale and re-create all of the window framing and ornament from scratch. I was curious to know how you were going about mapping out a new layout and also what your plans were for reconciling the ornamentation.

Vossie - you are speaking my language! Ha ha! I see what you mean, now, about workflow as it relates to building up a design. That three-D stuff you're doing is incredible. And I have thought about the potential for using 3-D modeling, not just to develop a valid hull-form for Soleil Royal (whenever I get around to a full scratch build, but of course, I'll have to build a few smaller models from scratch to learn that kind of modeling), but to do a virtual tank test to see what sort of handling characteristics my mock hull might have. I mean, why not? The technology is there to work as a virtual naval architect. All it takes is time, which in middle-age, is in remarkably short supply.

I must be making progress, Vossie, because I mostly understand what you just said! Again - many thanks for taking the time to explain this stuff. It really is a foreign language to me.

Tonight, I did manage to work out those path-closing/adding issues, and they speed up the process immensely. Thank you, Vossie, for so succinctly explaining boolean operations. I can see the tools that enable me to do those things. I just need to fiddle around with them a little.

Yes, Vossie, GIMP does allow layer grouping, and luckily I realized early on that I would need to name my image layers and my path layers in a way that I will understand because I am starting to realize that there will be hundreds of path layers, and probably 15 - 20 image layers. As for adding one path to another, for example, every Youtube tutorial makes it seem so easy to create a geometric and/or bezier curve closed-path. For some reason, though, when I try and close my path back onto the first node, it won't connect and I end up faking it (for now). Or, if I'm drawing something with a lot of convolutions and I break my path, when I resume noding the shape, I can't seem to just pick up where I left off, and resume a continuous path. I'm going to experiment with these basic operations, tonight, and hopefully I'll figure them out. I'm not sure what you mean, though, about "leave only the intersection between two paths." Do you mean, bringing one path to the foreground and another to the background, where they intersect?

Well, digitization is underway, and going well. Ultimately, I chose to go with Gimp's latest version of their free, open software. It has some ideosyncracies that make it a little tricky to learn, but I've familiarized myself with working in layers and organizing the drawing, accordingly; The first layer is an outline/sheer plan from the waterline to the caprail, there will be a layer for the main wales, as well as individual layers for the chanels, assorted other structural details, lower deck guns, upper deck guns (etc), quarter gallery, figure ornaments, frieze, headrails, figurehead, stern, etc. One of the biggest discoveries was figuring out how to copy a path and paste it into a new path layer so that I can repeat an element over and over. Now that I know how to do this, much of the drawing should move along fairly quickly (I'm measuring in weeks and months, here - that's quick, according to my available time), but the ornament will take time. Right now, I'm tracing over the end-rail cap ornaments and having great success, but it is time consuming to adjust the many nodes that make up this one small ornamental detail. One thing that I haven't figured out, yet, is how to group multiple paths that make up something like the end-rail cap, into one path so that I can copy and paste the whole assembly into a new path layer. Any shortcuts, or just process notes here are welcome. The other thing I think I am learning is that it doesn't make sense to stroke your paths until you have the whole drawing set, really. I can't seem to erase one stroke line without erasing them all. I'm sure there's a way with selection tools, I just haven't learned how to do it yet. I'm also enjoying Chuck's tutorials on small parts casting, which I will need to do later, as well as the carving tutorials that various members are engaged in, using Chuck's ornament for the ceremonial barge. All great stuff!

I have no experience with boxwood, but I carved a cane handle out of American pear, once. The wood was amazingly dense and difficult to carve, but I hadn't much experience in relief carving, at that point, so my lack of knowledge was a factor. As for planking material, as long as it bends well, I think the tight grain and color would make for a very nice finished surface. I know the model is expensive, but a little extra for premium wood will be well worth it, IMO. You won't regret the added expense, but there is a strong likelihood that you would regret using sub-standard wood, in the hope that sanding and finish will bring it up to par. What was nice about that cane handle was how it oxidized over time. Will you be filling in between bulkheads, with balsa, for a smoother first run of planks?

Jorgen, thanks for the link. I will reach out to him. So, I had some time to look into this D'Agostini kit, this weekend, and am just now coming to the realization of just how different this kit is from Billings or anything else. The finished model, what little I can find of it, is REALLY impressive; it looks to be truly museum quality. Although, I was also reading through Pucko's log and it seems as though quality was great until the first planking underlayment. This made me wonder what, if anything, you intend on replacing and/or making from scratch. the installment nature of the build makes it a little more difficult to make a fair assessment of what you would be better served by replacing. Wondering what your thoughts are at this stage of the build. Regards, Marc

I just visited that link to the digital museum of the 1:10 Vasa model, and it's interesting; it appears that the carvings are all carved from some form of plastic or polymerized clay. When I saw this model, in person, back in 1998 (circa), the carvings had not yet been painted. I had always assumed that they had been carved from wood. I would love to know what the museum modelers used for their carving substrate, as I am debating carving ornament for my current build out of styrene, or polymerized clay, or both - depending upon the application.