Ben752

It seems to me that a measurement taken from the plans should trump one taken from elsewhere.  A contract measurement might trump the plan but only if the contract is for the specific vessel at hand (ie, not from a sister ship).  My observation indicates that the lines on the plans are about 1/4" wide or so, so a variance of 1/2" is understandable in this case.
 
I love the zebra analysis.  The curvature of the rabbet in the area of the fore foot seems to be off, but that is due to the program, not your work.
 
Wayne

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.  
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

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.  
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

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.  
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

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.  
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

So I took the Fusion 360 challenge.  Having used Turbocad for years, I found F360 to be fairly straight forward.  The hardest part is finding the tool you want and learning the peculiarities of the program.  I have done some work in Onshape and found it comparable.  It seems to me that anyone willing to put in a bit of time, willing to look at training videos and willing to persevere can learn both F360 and Onshape in a reasonably short time frame.  The work flow details differ, but not so much as to make difficult the adapting previous of methods to each program.
 
Both Onshape and F360 are free cloud based programs.  Onshape's free version is fully functional but limits the number of files one can store to 10.  Fusion 360 offers the fully functional version for free to hobbyists.  You do have to sign up and indicate that you are either a hobbyist or a start up business.  The guidelines for signing up are very clear.  
 
I choose to model a 29' Launch in TC and F360 just to compare the two.  I was learning F360 from scratch and have done a fair amount or work in TC.  The results are appended.  Do not get too excited about comparing the renderings since my skills in rendering are quite crude.  The point is that each program produces an interesting model.  Perhaps I will test out converting the models to 2D drawings at some future date.  I should mention that launches were still whole moulded, so there was very little employment of Beziers in these models.
 
This the the Launch from Fusion 360:
 


And the same plan in Turbocad v. 19:
 


 
Wayne

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Fusion 360 is excellent and they've made it free for hobbyists.

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.
 


 
 
 

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.
 


 
 
 

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.
 


 
 
 

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.
 


 
 
 

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.
 


 
 
 

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.
 


 
 
 

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.
 


 
 
 

I use Onshape exclusively for my ship design and woodshop projects. There are tons of tutorials to get you started. If you are already familiar with 3D modeling you'll pick up on things pretty quickly if not the tutorials are very good. There is no software to download. You can signup for a free account or paid subscription.  I've inserts a few screen shots. Hope this helps.