Jump to content

KrisWood

Members
  • Posts

    244
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Oh! I have an idea! I could start by doing a cross section model. That would give me all the requisite skills and would allow me to focus on one part of the ship instead of the whole thing!
  2. I've been pondering how to save my project so that I can actually build it in wood. I'm coming up rather stumped. I have three options... 1. Save up and buy a CNC mill to cut out the parts, then learn how to use it 2. Find someone who lives near me so has such a machine and ask them to cut the parts out for me 3. Learn how to use hand tools correctly, and do it the old fashioned way... Well, one of those is certainly the least expensive, especially considering I've already bought tons of hand tools for this project. It all comes down to the keel, really. If I can learn to carve the keel correctly, I can learn to do the rest. So my question for all of you is, how would you carve this keel in one piece? What tools would you use? How would you keep all the angles and curves accurate? Most important is that the rabbet must be the exact angle as in the plans, and must flow smoothly into the T shape of the middle of the keel at the correct angle or the garboard strake will be out of alignment which will throw the whole hull out of whack.
  3. Cool! What will you build first? I'd love to follow your build log if you have one.
  4. Hi Christian, This is very possible. I think it's more that the original drawing was done in Rhino, then rendered to PDF as a raster image, then the pixels have been brought back into Rhino. Thus it's very difficult to tell exactly which pixel goes at exactly which point. You can get a 90 day trial of Rhino for free from their website.
  5. I hate to say it, but I think I must admit defeat on the Rhino front. I simply cannot get all three views to align with each other no matter what I do. If I draw a line in one view, it doesn't match the others. To test this out I went back and re-drew just the garboard strake by extending the contact surface of the keel / rabbets. to the first line in each view. No two views lined up with each other. Furthermore, after reading more of Ms Bischoff's report, I realize that there are only three dimensions that matter in the entire ship now that I have scaled plans for the planks. Those dimensions are the width of the keel, the width of the contact surface with the garboard strake, and the thickness of the planks. All other dimensions can be derived from these because the hull is built keel, then strakes, then frames. Unfortunately I lack the woodworking skills to fashion the keel, so even through I have drawn it accurately in Rhino, I cannot make it in wood until I can save up for a CNC mill. One day...
  6. I've got a problem. My hand drawn lines for the ship are out of alignment. I'm not sure when it happened or how, but for some reason the plans themselves don't seem to agree with each other even within two views of the same plan... So frustrating... In short, I successfully plotted my projection surfaces by the numbers and projected my frames onto them at the correct angles! Then I realized, the surfaces were too small. I did some troubleshooting and found that my hand drawn top view is too narrow by a few centimeters, despite the fact that all my reference image views are the same scale! I have no idea where I went wrong here. In the attached image the yellow line is plotted with math calculating the angle at which the inclined frame intersects the top inner edge of each plank of the hull. The blue line is hand drawn and represents where the front view says those points should be. Can anyone PLEASE give me some tips on correctly setting up references images in Rhino so that they're all the correct scale? These are all based on raster reference images that include multiple points with scales written. Thanks, Kris Edit: Well, I figured out my problem. I've been drawing all my curves as projections from two curves, mostly top view and side view. The ship exists in three dimensional space so Rhino projects the two views as if they were distributed evenly across the entire length of the space. In reality there is a third front/rear view which would inform where on the other two curves each point should fall, but I don't see a way to create curves from three views...
  7. Gradually adding more and more things from the new report to the model, by number rather than by eyeball.
  8. While reading the work more thoroughly, I found the reason for the few discrepancies in Bind II. In "Rekonstruktion af Osebergskibet Bind I" Chapter 6.2 page 98, Bischoff explains that some of the plans were hand drawn but processed digitally in Photoshop, and others were entirely digital and drawn in Rhinoceros. Because Photoshop uses a raster interface rather than a vector one, it cannot do exact measurements. It can only do measurements to the nearest pixel at the working scale. This thread is getting ridiculously long and I'm not even building with wood again yet, so I'll combine my next post with my last one. I don't know if any of you remember how many months I spent agonizing over the keel alone. Even after I bought the Saga Oseberg book by Thomas Finderup I couldn't figure out exactly how it was shaped. Now I've got exact numbers for every single curve of it. Here is one mathematically perfect keel.
  9. Quick note to anyone trying to build from the plans in Rekonstruktion af Osebergskibet Bind I & II. The drawings do not always line up with the numbers. Always err on the side of the numbers, except when the numbers disagree with each other (they conflict sometimes but it's usually pretty obvious which is the correct one). In the event that a drawing in Bind II is significantly different from the numbers and / or other drawings, Ms Bischoff has done a VERY thorough job of explaining the correct measurements and their reasons in Bind I. Quick note to self, always check the documentation!!! Now to redraw some things that I made faulty assumptions on...
  10. After wrestling with the old plans trying to get them lined up with my frames from the new plans I gave up and decided to plot only the points for which the new plans give numeric values. It got me within one pixel from the reference images for the old plans, so I'm going to call it "good enough" The black line is the new intersection of the deck beams with the hull, the selected (yellow with dots) line is the mirror of the black line and represents the starboard version of the same thing. The red curves are my old lines.
  11. I found a better way to draw the frames themselves based on the measurements in the reconstruction report. The lines in the plans don't always agree with the provided measurements. Rather than trying to trace every line exactly as drawn and hoping I have pixel in the reference image at the right scale, draw circles at each point with a radius equal to the measurement, then draw more circles along the tangents of the measurement circles. The result is one beautiful and mathematically correct frame. Now is it just me or do these circles have more than a passing similarity with something carved into a different Viking ship....
  12. Just a minor status update: All the front views for the forward frames are drawn, at least for the starboard side. I've done both the port and starboard sides of the two frames at the midship. Next step will be aft frames and mirroring everything over to port.
  13. Hi Steven, That does make sense, and I suspect is the way the plans were designed to be used in the first place, given that the port and starboard placements are drawn separately, and that all front views only show the starboard half of each frame. Thanks! Kris
  14. Hello Christian, That should work, thank you! All plans for Saga Oseberg are drawn to the inside of the plank, which makes things a little easier, though it's also further complicated by the fact that the frames do not actually reach the faces of the planks, but sit on clamps which are hewn from the same wood as the planks themselves and are not shown in the plans. Fortunately the published documentation of building the reconstruction describes the clamps thoroughly so I can figure that part out when I get to that point.
  15. Thank you, Steven! I understand the concept you illustrated, and I've used it in other projects for cant frames, but the frames on Viking ships are a little different. They are angled on two axes rather than one. I'd rather not link images directly from the paper linked above because I don't own the images, so I'll reference the specific pages instead. Here's the link again: https://www.academia.edu/49550641/Rekonstruktion_af_Osebergskibet_Bind_II Plans 12 through 27 depict the frames from the front view. Plans 28a (profile view, starboard on top, port on bottom) and 28b (top view) depict the frames in-situ within the hull. You can see that the frames are not projected straight onto these axes, either. The frame timbers themselves are more angled. The knees are more vertical. In many places the frames are perpendicular to the curves of the strakes rather than to the longitudinal axis. Does that make more sense? In any event my question was more, "how does one accomplish this in Rhino" than "how does one accomplish this on paper".
×
×
  • Create New...