Jump to content

druxey

NRG Member
  • Posts

    13,093
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by druxey

  1. Good advances there, Mark! I made a considerable quantity of projection drawings for the stern galleries. (This was 30 years ago before the various computer graphic programs we now have were available!) I found the sane way was to expand in a single plane at a time. For instance, first correcting the tilt of the stern tier of lights, then flattening the round aft. Of course, you can do this in seconds and a few clicks now! Cheers, D
  2. Coming along nicely. Keep your pencil mark-out lines as thin as possible; a thick line can lead to poor fitting joints. A harder lead (3H or higher) will keep a much sharper point. A clutch lead holder and sharpener such as below is ideal for this kind of work.
  3. Welcome back! An interesting approach, that. I've only seen single roller file guides. I can see the value of a double.
  4. I think so, Chris. The tails come to a little above the knee. Check contemporary full-length paintings.
  5. Late to this discussion, but it triggers memories of many years ago when I was building Polyphemus, 64 guns of 1782. I also had a time puzzling out this geometry - particularly the jog aft at quarter deck level. This is not immediately apparent in the sheer plan. It looks like "By George, he's got it!"
  6. John's advice is right on the mark. One of the great things about model building is that one is always learning and figuring out new or better ways to do things.
  7. I'm thoroughly enjoying watching your progress on this model, Baker.
  8. Yes, please stay sane. I can work to ½" a scale inch at 1:48 scale. That's 1/96" or just over 1/100". Not .005", for sure but that's the difference between the two states of mind.
  9. That's a great question. The best plans are drawn with hair's width lines.This minimises the issue that you mention. Of course, in CAD you can magnify to a size that will drive you crazy! If you want to go the CAD route, might I suggest that the base drawing be redrawn from the 'fat line' plan first, then imported? There will always be some compromises, or you will lose your mind.
  10. A good ol' fashioned scale rule works for me most of the time!
  11. Just imagine where any rub or wear points might be. Edges of the gunwale would be an obvious area, for instance.
  12. I apologise for the tardy response ( to post #409), Steven, but I've been under the weather for most of the past month and am only just now catching up with you. You figured out what I used, I see; acrylic matt medium. If you need to dampen the sail to shape it, the bolt rope won't come undone like it woudld if you had used PVA. Great progress since I last looked in, and it was nice to see a civilised discussion and gentlemanly disagreement, unlike some other threads I've seen elsewhere! As for anchor design; would there have been much if any change between the 12th and 14th centuries? My instinct is to use the slightly later design as your starting point.
  13. A very methodical approach, Keith! The hull shape is a very 'easy' one, so should require very little if any plank wrangling.
  14. Well, that's an interesting change of pace! Thanks for the update.
  15. The color you show does look too intense. Even if this was what was used, it should be tinted (lightened) at scale size to look right.
  16. Exemplary miniature work as usual, Daniel! Looks like it was a great exhibition and meeting as well.
  17. Ah! Flanders and Swann, those were witty entertainers, worth revisiting. But we digress.... Penultimate is a good word, Patrick.
  18. Lovely curves that you've cut. I also enjoy your sense of humor. Building one of these models requires that, I think!
×
×
  • Create New...