Waldemar

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.

I didn't want to repeat myself (see my post #72 in the thread about London), but we also have a pretty concrete motivating factor. However, it can only be realised by those who also use graphical analytical methods, because it is a subtlety that cannot be picked up in the manuals of the period. And it so happens that I have already designed some hulls myself using the classic hauling down method (without correction). The thing about this method is that in the fading area of the floor sweep, going towards the bow, bumps notoriously form, and floor sweeps with variable radii help a lot to smooth out this area even without using correcting waterlines or diagonals. Below are graphics made by @Martes, my friendly partner in the London 1656 case so to speak, who kindly did an evaluation of the ship's hull shape, as it emerges from the original drawing, and also noticed this problem. In the first graphic you can see the dark spot in this area, and in the second the problem areas marked by Martes with rectangles. Admittedly, this drawing of London has variable radii, but still with insufficient variation to be fully effective.

@scrubbyj427 Scrubby, yes, there are, I even made a few during my last visit to the modelling studio, but I didn't get permission to publish them for publicity and advertising reasons. I am unwilling and unable to disobey this explicit request. Perhaps in a private post just for you... @Metaspace Many thanks, Roman, The size of the aft gun ports on the stern and the broadside gun ports on the lower (artillery) deck are the same, as the calibre of the guns is identical (6 lbs). Please don't take into account the last smaller port on the side as it is a cargo port (of the mail type etc). But the gun barrels themselves are not and cannot be the same. The broadside guns have to be short and the aft guns long for structural reasons, otherwise the gun barrel muzzles would be inside the ship. Please take a look at the attached renders to see that shown by graphical means. Instead of the iron 6-pounder guns, theoretically the bronze 3-pounder guns (also mentioned in the gun 1628 inventory for this ship) could be inserted into the constable's room (gunroom), but this would not be in accordance with the quite detailed description of the battle. Also for the same structural reasons the bow guns had to have very long barrels. You will also see this in the renders attached below, and these bow guns just cannot be moved forward any further. By the way, it must be stressed that during this period of dominant boarding tactics, the offensive bow guns were the most important artillery asset in the ship and these usually were of the largest calibre. This is not only evident from Dutch or English sources, but is also confirmed by the very description of the battle itself in which the Sankt Georg took part (in this particular case two 9-pounder guns mentioned in the gun inventory).

This is true. I find Richard's work particularly valuable, and I myself have been struck by the climate of exchange that has developed quite quickly. As for the variable radius arcs, now is perhaps a better opportunity to add to the statements made so far. For one thing, I myself was greatly surprised by their use at such an early date, and I really tried hard to rule out this possibility by applying fixed radius arcs in various ways, but to no avail. In the end I had to decide that a discussion with the source itself was pointless. Now I have not the slightest doubt that this is how they were drawn intentionally. In the next step I reconstructed a possible way of drawing them, obtaining a complete geometrical construction with a perfect matching of the contours for all the frames. This happens to be a method known, for example, from Williams' 18th-century designs, but even so, there seems to be no other way to draw these arcs with variable radii. The use of a single arc of variable radius for the underwater part of the hull is apparently questionable, but somehow no one has pointed out the toptimber curves, which consist of as many as three arcs of variable radii! After all, this is a more sophisticated geometrical construction, from which one can conclude that the use of one such curve for the underwater part was entirely within the capabilities of the draughtsman of this plan. * * * A separate issue is the use of correction lines (waterlines and diagonals) in the design process of the ship, which is of course directly related to the use of complete plans on paper. At the moment I have this working hypothesis that these lines were adopted in England from Continental methods, based for some time now on the harmonious division of the diagonals. This came to me after looking at plans of captured French ships from the turn of 17th/18th centuries, in which the traditional hauling down method attempted, necessarily rather ineptly, to reproduce the shapes obtained by the more advanced and more flexible Continental methods.

Oh yes, we even had an argument here recently in a somewhat jarring style with Richard Endsor about the use of complete plans and variable radius floor sweeps in 17th century England. Apparently we each stayed with our opinions....

@T. Pevny Nihil novi sub sole! I must repeat this paremia to myself even more often. Mr. Pevny, first of all my sincere thanks for your interest and your post in this thread. A few sparse hours were obviously not enough to thoroughly study the very work of yours that I was not familiar with until today, i.e. Capturing the Curve: The Development of English Ship Design in the 16th to early 17th century. However, the wonderful diagrams along with their commentaries already speak for themselves. I already thought that my findings came first, but it is now clear that the palm of precedence belongs to you, of course. Still, I am happy and elated because my analysis was independent and the conclusions turned out to go in the right direction, finding their confirmation in your particularly professionally conducted analysis. There may naturally be some minor differences of interpretation, but the substance of our findings really challenges the current orthodox order. I have this liberty because I am not part of a small community of people attending symposia and have not had to be careful not to offend anyone, but even here the reception has not been very enthusiastic and has even met with some active resistance. Be that as it may, your approach, as well as my experience, shows vividly how important research methodology is, and how different results can be obtained with limited methods compared to more complete methods. In this particular case, one simply cannot limit oneself to reading the text and looking at the pictures, because eminently graphic subjects must necessarily be analysed by graphic methods as well. And the result of using these flawed methods is that we now have a whole body of modern works containing a multitude of anachronisms and their authors unhappy with this turn of events. For the time being, let me add that your previous work, Capturing the Curve: Underlying Concepts in the Design of the Hull, 2017, impressed me greatly and also contributed significantly to my activity in this difficult and usually little understood matter. The best, Waldemar Gurgul

Thanks a lot, Scrubby. Are you more interested in building POB or POF models? The modellers here are already at an quite advanced stage of hull construction. They claim that the frame station shapes are ideal in the sense that it is very comfortable to lay the planks and get nicely profiled body straight away. In just one layer. But they also had the frames (bulkheads) cut with a precision CNC milling machine. As an aside, the hull shape was developed by the historically correct hauling down/pulling up futtock method, without spoiling it with later design waterlines or diagonals. I 'only' still have the rigging and decoration to work out.

Blocks are a great feature of CAD software as they allow multiple detailed assemblies to be inserted into the main file without size penalty, which in this case has already grown to almost half a gigabyte. This is shown here using the artillery example.

Thank you Chapman. Yes, it should, as I am making every effort to base this reconstruction solely on extant period sources. For now the priority is to complete the plans for the museum model in wood and at the moment I cannot promise a cardboard kit soon. However, thank you for the idea. I would only add that for a commercial kit alone it would probably not be possible to devote even 1/50th of the time consumed so far on this reconstruction.

Fighting tops. Five fighting tops.

Anything else? Don't be shy. Just why do you even read my posts?