RKurczewski

Thank you for your input. To me (and you know I am only tiny bit more then lay man so it is just a discussion at coffee table, not a real dispute) difference between model, which was- as we know from Mulan himself, a project for Stantissima and reconstruction proposed by mr. Crespo is simply too big. What he proposes is almost direct re- drawing of english plans, with no trace of any spanish or french influence. IF that would be the case I would expect much more of that to be visible in initial project (and, of course, in model), not in much later (post St.Vincente) re- design, which is a subject of above drawing.

Columns of gallery on side added. Much more regular then before, with better angles and alignment. Truth is- they will be about 3 mm high so not much will be visible but- still... Now- another dilemma. The upper balcony should have a wrought steel (or some other type of "lacework") railing filling. Now- it can be easily modeled, BUT it will not print in 3d (under 0,2 mm thick). I got two options: to make it an embossed surface and then drill some openings in it OR to leave it open and fill later on with photoetched details. At the moment I am leaning towards second option. Oh- one more thing. I have found a new reconstruction, by spanish historian, Joaquin Rodriguez Crespo.To me it is rather questionable from point of view of iconography (decorations of stern) and overly "english-iz-ed" but... it's certainly worth mentioning. On bit different subject: I have also tracked POSSIBLE explanation for an archangel figurehead. As can be easily seen on US and russian draft, a main element of sculpture is a shield, covering Michael' chest. Now- traditional image placed on shield of archangel Michael is so called "shield of Trinity" , a symbol, sometimes dubbed "a God' coat of arms" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_of_the_Trinity ) and also a very usefull diagram explaining concept of Trinity in catholicism. That's one and only link between st. Michael and Trinity I was able to find so far.

By no means denying it (and I am glad you understand why I am a bit reluctant towards them). Thank you very much for sharing knowledge- that's something that's priceless. When it comes to model: around 1766 (add or remove 15 years) there was no ship named Real Carlos. There was a San Carlos from 1765 (94 cannons), in 1801 rebuilt to be a 112 cannon, but it certainly is not this one. To my best knowledge it is a model built il La Carraca, between 1766-67, following plan PB-197 (description on plans: Signatura Topográfica: mnm_pb_0197 • Título: Plano de un navío de 114 cañones. Mateo Mullan. 1759. Sistema inglés. (Santísima Trinidad 1769). • Tipo: Buques de guerra: trazado • Tipo General: Buques de guerra Model was built following project of 114 cannon ship by I. Mullan and was mentioned in his letter to Julian de Arriaga from 27.04.1767. It was- to our best knowledge- project for Santissima (Informations from mr. Krzysztof Gerlach). Now- OF COURSE we do not know how exactly it resembles real ship - it was certainly "beautified" to be impressive (after all it was a "marketing piece") but how, to which degree- we do not really know. I wish I had access to PB_0197, sadly- my resources are too limited for that.

Yeah, I got them but with all honesty- I have to admit I do have some reservations. Santissima with angel as a figurehead ? No decoration in- between windows (actually- almost no decoration AT ALL) ? Inverted decoration of balconies (compared to model) ? That hardly sounds probable (I am not saying IT IS IMPOSSIBLE you know-- just... very strange). Now- am I right to have those doubts ? No idea, some sources say one thing, others- another. That's why the subject is- as you said- not very easy. I am pretty sure that when they will finally film the wreck (they found it in 2009 I believe) everything I will do will go down the sink...

Thank you, you are very kind. I think I will go with following window "setup". Time to close railings. Later on I will probably have to make them separate objects (otherwise entire thing will be very hard to paint) but that kind of technological questions can wait till model is done.

Guess I will be going back to three- column windows in uppermost row, otherwise spaces between windows will be just too large, even with columns in- between.

So- that's how it looks like by the end of the day. Railings to be re- done, some pilasters added and- in long last- time to start sculpting.

Ok- got two lower rows all lined up and HOPEFULLY correct. Uppermost one is a different matter. And now I got a dilemma again. Please, be so kind to advise. Angles are now ok BUT looking at size of windows- I am begining to think that upper and middle row of windows should have two columns (not three). Problem is- spaces between them would be considerably larger, which in turn will cause small pilaster- like decorations to be wider. Any hints ? Ideas ? EDIT: Additionally: "Tiles" in lowest row are "proper" size. IF each higher row gets a bit smaller, uppermost ones will be ridiculously tiny.

Okay... I have spotted an error so day of work goes down the flush. Take a look: The lowest condignation angle is incorrect. Outlines (or how do you want to call it, my english might be failing me) obviously should be either parallel OR "meet" in one central point- orange lines in this case). Here we go again... EDIT: After correcting it all windows lined up "by themselves" beautifully, structure became much more regular and "clean". I know I am spending hell of the time on those pesky details, but I do not want this thing to be just a sketchy "meh, good enough" thing.

Not really. I come from ...how to say it... more "artistic"/ gaming circles and SolidWorks is more of a technical piece of software. Max, Maya, Blender- those are pieces of software I am using.

IF you are still looking for such a person- please, let me know. I am at the moment lead artist at company called TurboSquid. Sample of my work is here: I also did a reconstruction of inner structure of HMS Hero (plus few other ships)

It is all down to material/ technology you will use. In case of Shapeways- ultra detail acrylic is what is (imo) the only usable option and that's what I am using for my projects. Metal- no, not yet.

I know I am not the fastest around BUT I do not sink. Managed to calculate proper proportions for side gallery windows.

I would really love to see printers improved bit more (they are still not perfect). Sorry for delay with the project- some... storms in my private life. By no means abandoning it.

Oh- by all means. It is a very interesting subject and with all honesty I rarely have a pleasure to talk about it.

Oh- that ship is certainly not my area of expertise either- I started with a presentation model as a base simply because what's in the kit is simply atrocious and I was not able to stand it. Now- English influences are certainly not to be contested here and I believe structure built so far by me reflects that, but I am very curious about decoration. On picture presented by you it is very sober, EVEN by British standards (and those were not really high)- compared to other ships built in Havana, it does not really "fit" very well but then again- if draft mentioned by you is an original one- that's what it is. Would you be so kind as to send it to me ? rkgalery(at)yahoo.com . I'd love to compare it with other materials. Now- when it comes to influences- Brits have created a system, and that was certainly their greatest achievement (not talking about tactic now)- but when it comes to innovation and quality of ships, English opinion about Spanish ones was actually quite favorable (to mention San Josef, built in Ferrol and serving in Royal Navy, "because of her superior design and spaciousness (...)much sought after by admirals for flagship"). France, Spain, England- all three countries influenced each other and I would not dare to try pointing out who was most influential before last quarter of XVIII century.

No, I havent seen it. Is it from so called "Cuban" plan, from library of Samuel Humpheys, that was later used by US naval designers ? One with figurehead in form of an angel ?

With all honesty- I am going to make all things that will not meet my requirements in set. No fixed plan, as I am doing it as part of my own scratchbuilt, not some "bussiness project". Probably a lot, judging by OCCRE instructions.

Well- Shapeways looks like a good option- you would have to print it anyway and I am doing my own prints there so at least quality is tested. Theoretically I could make 3d model downloadable but (please, do not take it as a stab on you) I am pretty sure there would be someone taking advantage of it and starting selling (or use it in other commercial way). I do not mind not earning a penny (after all I got a lot from modeling community so it sounds like a fair payback to share results of my work) but I do not like idea of somebody making money on it. The only problem with Shapeways I see is that their cheaper materials are not THAT exact (certainly not 0.2 mm) so I would not recommend printing minor details (like balconies) in them. It MIGHT work (theoretically- it should), it is just that I have not tested that for those models (I did it on captain miniature and on lion figurehead- worked like a dream), but if it does not- one would loose money. I do not want to force anybody to anything, so material choice can be made there. For myself- I will go with that... frosty...detailed thing as it is highest resolution material. Regarding windows- I see no reason to NOT do it, although initially I was thinking about making them deeper then necessary (like 4 mm deep), so that inside can be underpainted and then filled with some semi- transparent material imitating glass (plexi or something similar). With no interior it might be better option. Technical detail of their "Frosted Detail" Material Min Wall Supported: 0.5mm (Frosted Detail) · 0.3mm (Frosted Ultra Detail) Min Wall Free: 0.6mm Min Wire Supported: 0.6mm Min Wire Free: 0.8mm (if not bearing weight) | 1.0mm (if bearing weight, like a sprue) Min Embossed Detail: 0.2mm (Frosted Detail) · 0.1mm (Frosted Ultra Detail) Min Engraved Detail: 0.2mm (Frosted Detail) · 0.1mm (Frosted Ultra Detail) Min Bounding Box: x+y+z≥12mm Max Bounding Box: 298x185x203mm (Frosted Detail) · 127x178x152mm (Frosted Ultra Detail) Min Escape Hole: See design tip below Interlocking or Enclosed Part?: Yes Multiple Part per STL: Yes Clearance: 0.1mm (Frosted Detail) · 0.05mm (Frosted Ultra Detail) Accuracy: ± 0.025-0.05mm for every 25.4mm So- looking at max bounding box entire stern section can be printed in one go, without any loose parts. I would still probably remove balconies (painting issues) but other then that...

It depends on material really, but generally material is applied in layers (a bit like paint). AFAIK Shapeways (which I am using) allows 10 x 10 x 10 cm volume, so most likely I will have to divide by symmetry line. I am also considering making balustrades separate (to allow painting windows details). You can easily take a look here: http://www.shapeways.com/materials?li=nav Comparison of prices of that process- it is really material cost. High res costs significantly more, but then- it is not always needed. For balustrade- yeah, but other parts can be printed in much cheaper, white resin, reducing cost by more then 2/3 http://www.shapeways.com/shops/erka

You are very kind, thank you. Boring stuff (windows) almost done. Can't wait to start sculpting but- first things first.

Thank you for input, mate. Sadly, when it comes to window width, structure looks like that: As you can see what I got so far is a base for sculpture, BUT decoration gets... how to say it... to be built upon it or to be added to it, so yes, it will probably make windows appear a bit narrower, but I am afraid if they will be narrow enough (of course there is camera shortening, perspective distortion and all other things to be considered). Sadly- overall space I got is limited by theoretical lines of hull and can not really be changed too much.

Now there is one more possible variation, namely increasing number of windows. For purpose of comparison- please, take a look (BTW- that's approach taken by most reconstructions)

And that's how they look like in the end. Will have to cut holes through to allow for plexi, but for now- moving up.

I need a second pair of eyes. Don't those "windows" (placeholders atm) look too wide/ large to you ?