Jump to content

Matrim

Moderators
  • Content Count

    1,303
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Matrim

  • Rank
    Moderator
  • Birthday 05/14/1971

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Leicestershire, England

Recent Profile Visitors

1,611 profile views
  1. Blender is an open source 3d model engine. If a 3d model engine then the POV can move through the project hence 'walk-thru'
  2. I've spent the last portion of the week musing on scale. My last attempt was at 1:60 i(if I remember correctly) but I would prefer to work at a larger scale as it makes things less fiddly. That naturally introduces space considerations though these are lessened just because it is a 32 Gun ship so is slightly smaller than other same period frigates. The ships body lengths could be taken off the plans but unless built as hull only are not the main factor and it was only after several MSW members helped me to try and translate a sail plan (leading to Mark P linking a contemporary mast dimension plan for a 32) that I could get slightly more accurate figures. The key two needed were the bowsprit and jiboom and driver. The sail plan listed the point the spirit sail 'started' and that allowed me to approximately place the jiboom and the plan provided the correct angle. Give or take a cm or two this should give me a relatively accurate length. Width was dependant on the main yard width with some additional allowance for the stunsail booms and then reduced by 10% (I am having the yards angled to reduce space and already tested this on my Bounty allowing me to measure the space 'saved') . Height was less important so though I had the correct mast sizes calculating the correct height was left and I instead extrapolated the main mast height from my Diana model (38) above the deck and then reduced it by 94% which appears the average size reduction from a 38 to a 32. Height will also be impacted by how it will be displayed and as that has not been decided yet it becomes still less important. I then through up a horrifically badly drawn sketch to mark these down at the correct scale The measurements against the ship are in millimetres It is certainly going to be 'big'. It is always useful to find something to compare the model end size to and I think I succeeded in that the dresser this computer is sitting on is almost the same size. The model will be 8-9 cm longer and the same wider so the width and length are very close (admittedly most of the length and width will be rigging and yards). Height wise it will end up being around half the height again. Pluses are that it will fit through doors with slight care - a 38 at 1:48 would fit through my doors with around a cm spare so with 'extreme' care. It will also therefore sit on a wider dresser than the one shown (or a table). I suspect my wife wont let it in the house so it will potentially decorate my work room when done but as I stated earlier ship modelling is more the journey than the result. If I put it in a glass case then that will also be huge. Next I have to think more on materials. At least for the frame at this point.
  3. Oh Mark you absolute hero. I was considering making a 38 masts proportional for my 32 as Lees has nothing at the correct age range but that is absolutely perfect..
  4. Does it make sense if those measurements are to do with where the spiritsail yard is in relation to the bowsprit length? So we have 5.3 foot out of sight, 24 ft over the deck then the head and relevant extensions all eventually used to flag that location? Or is the 24ft distance for the deck just too large. On a 38 the bowsprit is 55 ft long approx (and as a 32 this would be possibly 16% or so smaller? - so around 46 foot) - allowing it has not been deliberately overmasted etc which I doubt as they were deliberately designed to be slightly smaller.
  5. ooo. All good interpretations. Though I am curious as to why that information relates to a sail plan. Unless it was to help size the sails for the available mast 'space'. It is a nice rare working scribble though I am surprised it survived. Probably chucked in a draw somewhere with something more important.
  6. K, In my attempts to get a rough idea of sizes at scale and I am looking at masts. Lees gives 1815 values for a 38 but nothing close to the 1798-1818 period for a 32. Therefore I am looking at seeing what other info I can gather and I do have some random scribbles on a ripped out muster sheet. Most of it lists the sails (which is fine) but the bottom bit lists some other information that might relate to a mast/yard/bowsprit or something else. I cant make head not tail of it so am putting it out here in case anyone is fluent in 'bad handwriting related to something on ship' Looks like we have an extension of something and a 'spirit' length to me but if that is the sprit? (bowsprit) or spiritsail /yard/etc Any guesses welcome..
  7. That's lucky though it may be more amusing to bet on how long the log lasts before I throw all my toys out of the pram and start again erm again..
  8. After using my vast mod powers to merge together both the plan generation topics and the first build attempt topic (and in the process making the last eight pages utterly unreadable. I shall now wave my magic wand and transfer this to the scratch build section as I am just about ready to make attempt 356 at this build. With due sense of dread and fear. For the next month or so I just plan on deciding on scale, materials and structure (and tidying the workshop) before starting cutting into wood around spring. I will therefore be indecisive about all those decisions to the probable fury of anyone trying to follow along.
  9. I am probably going to go for 1:48 because it will simplify construction - though I will have to set the yards to reduce space, not have the royals up etc etc. If I was just going for something to fit then the smaller the better but I eventually decided that it is the journey of making the model that is fun so even if I cannot display it then 'so what' - at worse it could stay in the workshop... This decision may change once I have measured it out fully as I am almost ready to start on building.
  10. This is true. Saying that some historians today still try to claim otherwise. No other nation with stronger ships had the same run of victories in single ship actions and that in itself is impressive. I don't subscribe to nationalistic reasons for victories in any war. Man for man all men are equal and it is training, leadership, equipment and logistics that tends to make the difference not 'a ship with 10 brits will easily beat one with 200 french' etc etc versions of history (replace with whatever war you fancy). It doesn't stop such assertions being made mainly to increase confidence and sometimes nationalistic fervour/pride. Therefore the system shock when it sometimes proves to be incorrect can be extreme. It is one reason why incorrect history can and has killed people and will probably continue to do so.
  11. Questo è un sito inglese e i post dovrebbero essere in inglese e non si traducono automaticamente. I traduttori online sono ragionevoli ora, quindi puoi usarne uno. and in english Original post and reply This is an english site and posts are expected to be in English and it does not automatically translate. Online translators are reasonable now so you could use one of those.
  12. This is wonderful to see happen and the parties involved (Chuck/CAF/Kerry and Ancre) all deserve credit for working together to resolve this. It's nice as well as CAF is one of the best quality producers in China so getting new kits will help the hobby.
  13. lol, nice to see other people had the same reaction. Interesting that it appears to be his 'thing' to write in this way..
  14. On the first question there is no tie in between the characters used to tell the story. On the second it is not supposed to be historical fiction. It's trying to provide historical information with a fictional interpreter providing 'color'. It is certainly different to any of the standard approaches ever seen. I doubt you could quote it directly as it is never quite obvious which is which though he does give extensive foot notes so these could be used to track down the original if anyone ever wanted to re-use. As a note of extra caution it uses secondary authors in the main text more than you would expect and direct quotes from secondary authors as opposed to referencing their arguments. In some cases (lists from James) it makes some sense (though I would prefer the list to appear and James to be footnoted) whereas in others the quote is direct. That is only because I prefer history to be the historians view and not regurgitated opinions from others (no matter how 'decent' the other is). Footnotes are Historians friends.. As an aside when I was finding that quote from Rodgers concerning the war of 1812 I also checked Latimer as I remembered one or both of them making an argument of that nature. I found it in both but was surprised that the words used were almost identical. Since Rodgers wrote three years earlier and Latimer references the relevant work in his bibliography I just used Rodgers but did wonder if Latimer realised he was essentially re-using Rodgers comment (without reference). Perhaps he agreed so deeply it was a co-incidence but it looks like the same re-written with slightly different words. Just a curiosity. Perhaps I missed the acknowledgement..

About us

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research

SSL Secured

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

NRG Mailing Address

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

About the NRG

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

The Guild is a non-profit educational organization whose mission is to “Advance Ship Modeling Through Research”. We provide support to our members in their efforts to raise the quality of their model ships.

The Nautical Research Guild has published our world-renowned quarterly magazine, The Nautical Research Journal, since 1955. The pages of the Journal are full of articles by accomplished ship modelers who show you how they create those exquisite details on their models, and by maritime historians who show you the correct details to build. The Journal is available in both print and digital editions. Go to the NRG web site (www.thenrg.org) to download a complimentary digital copy of the Journal. The NRG also publishes plan sets, books and compilations of back issues of the Journal and the former Ships in Scale and Model Ship Builder magazines.

Our Emblem

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research
×
×
  • Create New...