Waldemar

Yes, this is true. At first I was even going to not draw the rigging in 3D at all to save time, and instead make 2D sketches. But now, after gaining some practice and discovering some particularly useful tricks in Rhino, it goes very efficiently indeed. Even positioning the blocks in space at the correct angles is no longer a problem, but a pleasure. I love Rhino 🙂. The rigging configuration has been a variable over time and I do my best to guard against anachronisms. I have already mentioned some of the more important sources for this project in post #169, but in reality there are still more to be used. On the other hand, the rigging for one period was not uniform/standard either, so I have some leeway in choosing specifics.

All braces completed. Only one side shown.

Again, it all comes down to the fact that everyone has their own individual needs and possibilities, including financially, without forgetting about time, which can be even more valuable than money. In this sense, it can be considered that there is no single right. This is how I will conclude.

Lieste, that's okay, yet, in my opinion you are looking for a hole in the whole, because no one here will even try to read these dimensions given in feet, inches, lines and points (although they are perfectly legible in the tables), they will most likely just do a quick, hassle-free redraw of the graphic. And also in this sense Boudriot's monograph may be even regarded as an overkill for the needs of this project. Also, try to explain to others (I don't need to), that they should be content with the gun barrels only without carriages and implements, and whether the 1786 artillery system can be used for the time of, say, the War of the League of Augsburg, the War of the Spanish Succession, the Seven Years' War or the War of American Independence.

"Always" the same - economic input, economic output. I give up.

Boudriot's monograph on French artillery of very limited use!? It holistically describes all the artillery systems of the period in question, not just one of them. And not only the gun barrels themselves, but also the carriages, tackles, gun utensils, etc. And it does so with a precision, clarity and reliability that presumably even exceeds the needs of this very project for which it is to be used. And all this in one book. But I admit, I didn't know beforehand that it was more about free, more or less random downloads from the web.

All the lifts including the combined lifts-sheets done. Only one side shown.

Well, I don't get much opportunity to look at other threads, but here I can see that I'm missing out on a lot by doing so. What strikes me about your model is the attention to detail, precision and exceptional neatness of execution, but without that undesirable effect of excessive, artificial sterility. I wish "my" modellers here would also build my reconstructed ship to your standard, but I know they too have a deadline...

This web page in Spanish is a misunderstanding. It is entitled "Spanish Naval Ordnance", and contains charts showing field guns (and only bronze).

For the Spanish ordnance (most useful) – Enrique García-Torralba Pérez, La Artillería Naval Española en el Siglo XVIII. Su evolución técnica y su recíproca influencia con la arquitectura del buque, Ministerio de Defensa, Madrid 2010, ISBN 978-84-9781-591-8 (includes printed and digital (CD-ROM) reproductions of source documents and plans), – Juan José Navarro, Álbum del Marqués de la Victoria (1719-1756), Lunwerg Editores, Museo Naval Madrid 1995, ISBN 84-7782-352-9, ... and very, very rich (graphic) resources of the highest quality put online by Spanish national archives. For the French ordnance (really no more is needed) – Jean Boudriot, Hubert Berti, Artillerie de mer. France 1650-1850, Ancre, Paris 1992, ISBN 2-903179-12-3 (includes large reproductions of contemporary plans and drawings).

Halyards, ties, parrels, slings...

Right. There are times when I'd happily swap with a blacksmith or carpenter, just to avoid 3D modelling some nasty element, which is at the same time so easy to shape in a traditional, physical way. I can say that this is also my daily experience. It's common to try first different, including unnecessarily over-complicated ideas to do a task, but after many attempts and hours of trying, it is usually possible to find the simplest ones that give just those great, desirable results.

@Montaigne Went the easy way and simply PM sent you a Rhino 7 file with this block. The hook itself (its larger end with an elliptical cross-section) was connected to the iron strop of the block (with a rectangular cross-section) with the "Blend Surface" command (very useful in such situations). Basically a trivial thing in a technical sense, but there was a bit of trying on getting the right shape. Anyway, as you surely know, you can play with the shapes as you wish, provided, of course, it is about regular geometry, as opposed to broken, bent, heavily corroded or otherwise geometrically damaged items. And also a photograph of one of the original specimens (you will never guess from which ship 🙂). From the excellent and so much useful work by Nathaniel Howe, The Rigging and Gun Tackle Blocks of the Swedish Royal Warship Vasa, 2011.

Montaigne, your conclusion in the last sentence is particularly pertinent and I like it very much. Regarding the specific ways used in Rhino to design a particular details, you can of course ask and so far I always managed to answer. Apart from a few organic decorative objects, all elements of the model are created with NURBS graphics. This is not only because I haven't yet had time to learn how to use SubD effectively, but mainly because this way I have tight control over dimensions and tolerances, right down to the last digit after the decimal point (in my case the document tolerance is 0.001 feet). This ensures that all the pieces fit together within this tolerance, that is so desperately needed, for example, in Boolean operations, one could say – one of the main pillars of this project. Admittedly, I've been short of time lately because the deadline is looming, but if needed I will certainly try to clarify at least any issues that can be explained relatively quickly. Taking this opportunity, below are some more renders for this stage of the project (30-Year's War figurine showing the scale by Captain_Ahab_62, Thingiverse).

Thank you, Roman. Well, the Vasa 1628 model in the Vasa Museum, for the obvious reason, has one particular feature that can never be matched – authenticity. Apart from most of the rigging, only relatively few details had to be reconstructed there. This is of significantly different proportions to other more or less historical recreations and nothing will change that. Besides, the execution style of the Vasa model made there in Stockholm particularly appeals to my taste, so I try to urge modellers here to build the Sankt Georg 1627 in this both captivating and realistic styling. I think even with some success.

@Montaigne Thank you, Montaigne, especially as these words come from Sweden, where so much valuable source material comes from (especially Vasa 1628, but also much, much more). I must admit that the mental experience of this project is both wonderful (the effect achieved) and terrible (the effort required). I'm probably doing it more for my own satisfaction, as this model/reconstruction goes far beyond the contract and needs of the investor (museum), intending and already building just POB model according to this project. Huge 1:15 scale beast, in large extent inspired by the outstanding Vasa 1:10 scale model in Stockholm.

Standing and semi-standing rigging. In its entirety.

Perhaps the number of likes was the deciding factor? For example, from the giants.

@T. Pevny Thank you, Mr. Pevny. There is no rush, as I too have a lot of work at the moment. In the meantime, I show a graphic strictly based on the content of the publication criticised above. The graphic shows a comparison of the original scanned lines with the lines obtained by the authors, exactly to the scale at which they were printed (scaling makes it even worse), and aligned with the hull axis. In particular, the compared frame lines cross each other, the breadth of the hull is too small, the radii of the curves are quite random and have little relation to the original lines, which is particularly noticeable for the hollowing curves. Sorry, but this cannot be considered a correct reconstruction of the lines (or at least my reconstruction standards are incomparably higher). This way one can draw anything similar and then claim anything. Also evoking, why not, a group of some 'giants'.

As a kind of host of this thread, I thank you Effie for your input, and as a contributor to the debate – I stand by everything I have written so far on this issue. Thank you again.

I should add that this probably only for the most accomplished shipwrights at the forefront of design. Most others were possibly content with rather simpler methods, such as from Bushnell's 1664 manual, republished many times well into the 18th century, which is the best evidence of its popularity among adepts of the profession.

@T. Pevny In the context of the variable floor sweeps of the London 1656, it is still worth recalling my reconstruction of the lines of a yacht from the Stuart Restoration period (ca. 1680), based on 3D scans of a period model, and which I have already presented in the thread William Sutherland's concept of ship hull design, 1711 on this forum. There is no exaggeration to say that the resulting conformity of the original lines and those resulting from the found method is perfect. The lines of the lower conoid in the reconstruction drawings attached below (in red), are nothing more than the equivalent of the floor sweeps in the classic hauling down method. As can be seen, except for the hollowing curves, and only for the fore part of the hull (unimportant anyway in the conceptual sense), there is not a single fixed radius sweep in this design. So the London 1656 with its variable floor sweeps is no longer so lonely for the 17th century, all this indicating that a quite sophisticated level of design in England was achieved much earlier than previously thought. Just for the sake of argument, I still have to mention here an alternative reconstruction of the method used to design this yacht, which I nevertheless find totally implausible: firstly, it is incomprehensible and it is doubtful whether it could be practically applied, secondly, it is not clear why the lines conceived as curves of the least resistance should have been applied transversely to the hull and thirdly, the correspondence of the reconstructed lines presented in the publication with the original lines is only illusory, as I have personally verified (for more on this, see Effie Moneypenny, David Antscherl, A Restoration Yacht's Design Secrets Unveiled: An examination of a ship model with reference to the works of William Sutherland, The Mariner's Mirror 2021, Volume 107, Issue 2).

Blocks. Meaning ship blocks. Not to a uniform scale.

@T. Pevny Mr Pevny. I would also like to say that when designing hulls using the ancient methods, the issue of tilting/sliding the futtock template in Mediterranean methods is not just a theoretical issue for me, but a fundamental and very practical dilemma to be resolved. Therefore, the clear description and diagrams in your 2017 study regarding this issue already cleared my doubts and gave me confidence, and the evidence found even later only confirmed the validity of this direction. This was a really important event for my needs. Thanks again.

One can conclude from this that it is precisely without the use of correcting lines (waterlines and diagonals) that these variable radii floor sweeps are particularly needed.