74 Gun | Ship of the Line - 3rd Rate | Blender

[Martes]

Edited December 31, 2022 by Martes

[Kurtis]

4 minutes ago, Martes said:

Obviously, plus the tackles.

it's not so obvious, I've never seen it represented in a print so I was trying to guess what they do.

[Kurtis]

4 minutes ago, Martes said:

Now that I'm looking at these pictures, it actually makes perfect sense what that rear tackle would be used for! For some reason, I never quite worked that one out! 😅 I mean I can imagine it being used to haul the cannon back if the recoil didn't do it, but I never considered it being used for parking.

[Martes]

I guess this is the closest to what you were looking for

Edited December 31, 2022 by Martes

[Kurtis]

3 hours ago, Martes said:

I guess this is the closest to what you were looking for

Yeah, these pictures are a great help! Thank you! The third one diown on the left is the closest to the one I was looking at in the anatomy book and you say that was done in very rough weather?

 

I'll do some experimenting and see how it works out on this model.

[Martes]

There was another, even more extreme option - when the gun was stored parallel to the hull, lashed sideways. It allowed more space (and thus was used on indiamen), or in very heavy weather, but it effectively disabled the gun for the foreseeable future, since you would need very favourable conditions to bring it back to firing position.

[Lieste]

Also a safer option similar to the 'braced against the upper cill'.

It uses a wooden brace against the frame and oak spirketing below the lower cill and the front of the carriage cheeks, as well as the outhaul and inhaul tackle arranged to give a few inches gap between the suspended muzzle and the upper cill.

It is faster to return to action as there is less tying of the various tackles and breeching together.

[Kurtis]

So what would be the normal way whilst a ship was underway? I want to represent a ship that's sailing on "calm seas and a fair wind," so nothing extreme.

 

I'm aiming to keep the ports mostly closed, so I'm imagining it where the rear tackle has been hauled all the way in, and the side tackles taught as well, with the cannon resting closely to the port. Having some kind of chocks to stop the wheels from moving as well. Would that be an acceptable way of doing it?

[Martes]

19 minutes ago, Kurtis said:

"calm seas and a fair wind,"

Would probably mean all gun ports open for ventilation and guns run out. At least most of the paintings I've seen represent the ships in this state in such weather.

 

Should it be somewhat rougher, the lower deck ports will be closed with guns fixed within in some way or other (depends on alert state), but upper deck and fc/qd guns would most probably be still run out.

[Kurtis]

1 hour ago, Martes said:

Would probably mean all gun ports open for ventilation and guns run out. At least most of the paintings I've seen represent the ships in this state in such weather.

 

Should it be somewhat rougher, the lower deck ports will be closed with guns fixed within in some way or other (depends on alert state), but upper deck and fc/qd guns would most probably be still run out.

Yeah, I've wondered about that in paintings. People like to see the guns so I've always thought about whether that was actually standard practice for the time or whether it was simply artistic representation.  but I've also seen as many paintings with the ports shut as I have open.  In movies like Hornblower, I've noticed they're typically closed unless they're about to be used.

 

There does seem to be more diagrams and documented examples of the port being open and the cannon run out, so I'll probably do a similar thing with my own.

Edited January 1, 2023 by Kurtis

[Martes]

The game I am tweaking has a basic rule of a thumb considering lower deck ports closed at sea state that is equal to gunport height in feet.
I.e. a ship with lower deck 6 feet above water would be able to keep them open in sea states 1 to 5. Roughly it corresponds to how it was done.

 

But there is a principal difference between the habitability requirements of the lower deck of a two-decker (which was doubling as berthing deck for the crew) and the gun deck of a frigate, that was for at least half of it's length occupied only with guns, and the crew housed on the lower deck, and officer's cabins being separated by wooden bulkheads.

 

Note that many of the upper deck (or main deck on frigates) ports did not have lids at all, it was considered that the open ports enable to drain the water entering from above at the waist. Lids began only where officer's cabins were located.

[Lieste]

Boudriot, and some of the period sources (from memory, perhaps "Installations des vaisseau" https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k8596353/f1.item.r=Installation des vaisseaux, par Édouard Burgues, but I have read around a dozen recently so could be mistaken - a text worth snaffling in any case from Gallica BNF), indicate that it was common to open a pair of ports somewhere forward and aft on the windward side to produce a draft flow.

While it is possible to have all guns run out, the lower deck is fairly low to the water, and would strongly limit the maximum press of sail which could be carried - those in the bow and stern are somewhat higher, and the bow wave is followed by a trough, the position of which would be drier than at other points along the hull.
Only have a few ports opens also limits the amount of water shipped, if they are immersed, and the lower part of the port can be closed by a 'half-port' slid into a channel increasing the freeboard by some 18+" while still keeping some ventilation.

(Middle (where present) and enclosed upper deck and quartedeck ports can be open and the guns run out, these can also be half-ports sometimes with the gun passing through a hole in the port, for those which are high enough to not be a flooding risk, even in heavy seas... those on the weatherdeck and exposed usually either have no port covers at all).

When facing storm weather which you are not expecting action, the safest is to run the guns alongside the hull side/fore-aft, where the gun is enclosed, or it can be left run out with tompions in on those on a weatherdeck or through a pierced portlid. In fair weather or where an action might be imminent, those guns which can be worked should be secured at their ports, with either the piece run out (especially through a half port), or braced against the upper cill or spirketing. Leeside lower deck guns may have insufficient freeboard in a sea, and even a weather side gun may be difficult to use (with recoil 'downhill' and with waves being steepened and heightened on the weather side of the ship.
Lighter gun calibres, with a frequently proportionately heavier gun mass have a lighter recoil which presents less stress to the hull and are mounted higher where the ship should be less wet... this may not be as convenient for larger calibre light guns which have recoil fairly consistent with the full-gun (32pdr carronade ~ 24pdr gun have similar recoil, and medium guns tend to follow that trend too, being close to either their own full gun or one a calibre lighter at most.)

In prospect of *very* severe weather the guns, or at least a proportion of them can be struck down into the hold, and if room their carriages as well, as well as striking to the deck such of the top-hamper not required for storm canvas.

Edited January 3, 2023 by Lieste

[Kurtis]

 

All the gun ports have now been rigged and operable. I'll likely create a user friendly interface for them soon, but for the moment they can at least be manipulated. I've installed the carronades and the 12lbs cannon on the top-side decks. My computer is definitely getting very sluggish now so I'll likely have to turn down the detail on everything for future demo renders like this one.

 

@Lieste Thank you for your detailed answer! I think I understand most of it that you've said, but I do have one last question about the cannon and how they were stored; were the way they were fixed up the same across all navies, or did they vary in technique from one to the next?

[Lieste]

The major differences are between slides and truck carriages (slides seem to be much more suited to traversing along the bulwark when not in use if fitted to a fighting bolt on the inside principle, truck carriages require much more man-handling in general, and especially to park across the ports fore/aft). The French breech their truck carriages through the carriage cheeks, rather than to the button (though a preventer can be used to the gun as well, the main breeching line restrains the carriage), everyone(?) else seems to have the breeching and preventer secure the gun around the button or through the breeching loop.

Links to several images of guns onboard Victory - which may or may not be historically 'perfect', but show some of the options.


Note the suspended muzzle and the board at the waterway/cheek.
 

Gun alongside (to create more room) in upper cabin, near glazed port cover. I am unsure if the rigging is complete for this gun - I would expect some more thin lines securing the tackle and breeching in place, if not also additional lines, but I don't immediately have a source which clearly shows the arrangement for British guns to hand. The retreat tackle might also be employed on the lower deck gun, but left off the museum display to avoid a trip-hazard.

Guns could be shifted around: note for example that most commonly chase ports are provided for, but not with guns, the gun being shifted from the first (or last) broadside port when a chase or retreat is anticipated, so preparing for action by shifting guns from 'alongside' is not especially more onerous. Between beating to stations and action, from first seeing a potentially hostile sail on the horizon ~10 nm out is going to be *at least* half an hour available to the crew if she is 'haring' toward a ship on an opposing course 'on a beam wind'. This can be extended if needed by coming up to the wind and heaving to to a minimum of an hour if the ship is very unready... It would be unwise to go to a hailing distance with all your battery against the side fore and aft... or even with the muzzle slung and decks not cleared for action. Ports can be left down and the guns run out and ports triced up within moments, so the seakeeping of low riding first rates can be maintained for most of the time, even when the gun is in action - there being a rope rammer and spunge for use on an enclosed deck, as well as the wooden implements which are more convenient to use when fighting 'open'.
 

[Kurtis]

A very quick and raw update. I've installed the three sets of masts and yardarms. I'm not entirely sure what's going on with the mizzen-mast cos the anatomy of the ships book didn't have a top-gallant yardarm that I could see, so I sort of had to borrow one from somewhere else. I'm quite happy with the overall progress otherwise.

 

One render with as much detail as I can master, and one with random colours (with shadows and cavities enabled.)

 

I also realised at some point I had to have sheathes in the forecastle fencelines, so I've placed them in.  There's other tweaks here and there but it's mostly topside stuff.

 

I'm likely to start tackling the shrouds first, then work through the rest of the rigging.

[3DShipWright]

Looking great Kurtis!

 

 

Not sure how you plan on doing the rigging, but as a comparative performance estimate: My brig is around 1.35Mil vertices with no rigging and 5.98mil vertices with. That said I did a few 'uber high poly' lines where I thought I may want to do closeup renders later, but even without those, I'd estimate that the total count with rigging to be about 4.25mil (currently I'm about 80% done with rigging), or about 75% of the actual mesh when all is said and done. I'm using 10-sided cylinders as in the base rope segment. If you can back that down to octagons, you'll shave 20% off the top + an exponential factor (my math is good, but not that good) when you merge duplicates caused by the segment arrays.

 

Whatever you decide, keep up the good work!

-Nate

 

 

[Kurtis]

4.25 mil vertices? My computer would look like this:

 

 

I'd like to use geometry with decent textures, but chances are I'll mostly just be sticking to curves with a bevel. I'm not planning on any close-up shots of any lines, so I feel I should get away with keeping them very simple. It's what most other ship-builders seem to do and it sells the illusion okay.

If I ever get a new PC, I'll experiment with more detailed lines and knots then.

 

[Martes]

Looks very nice, but there are some little corrections that can be pointed out.
 

 

 

1) The entry seems too bluff underwater and looks unnatural. I understand you started without specific lines, but since you reference the Bellona, her lines at this place were definitely sharper.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:'Dragon'_(1760);_'Superb'_(1760);_'Bellona'_(1760)_RMG_J3099.png

 

 

2) The roundhouses forward look a little too small. They were enclosed seats of ease, and they should fit a standing and sitting person:

 

(detail from

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:'Shrewsbury'_(1758)_RMG_J3158.png

)

 

 

3) Referencing the plans above you may consider moving the hawseholes closer to the keel. Their positions are always somewhat floating (and in different places on same plan sets or models of the same ship), but generally at least first of them should be with less offset.

 

https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-66465

https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-66464

https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-66299

Edited January 23, 2023 by Martes

[Kurtis]

 

Quote

 

1) The entry seems too bluff underwater and looks unnatural. I understand you started without specific lines, but since you reference the Bellona, her lines at this place were definitely sharper.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:'Dragon'_(1760);_'Superb'_(1760);_'Bellona'_(1760)_RMG_J3099.png

 

 

You're right! I was looking at that bit when I first started out and I could never quite get it to feel right. I've done some shape tweaking with that section of the bow with the the help of the guidelines you've given, so I hope it looks better to your eyes.  I've also readjusted the roundhouses and the hawse-holes. Are these renders any better?

Edited January 23, 2023 by Kurtis

[Martes]

Better

 

But the hull still bulges down there, and it shouldn't (compare to the shape of the model: )

 

And there is probably some problem with spacing of timbers on the beakhead, since the roundhouse should be wider and actually partially overhang over the edge of the deck. To ensure disposal.

Edited January 24, 2023 by Martes

[Kurtis]

How is this?

 

Quote

And there is probably some problem with spacing of timbers on the beakhead, since the roundhouse should be wider and actually partially overhang over the edge of the deck. To ensure disposal.

Quite. When I first started the bow section, I couldn't figure out whether the roundhouses were purely decorative pillars like you'd find on a quarter gallery, or if it served a functional purpose. I erroneoushly figured it must've been decorative so I built the bow as close as I could with that idea in mind. I originally had them as rectangular! 😅 It was later on when I realised I was wrong. I'm not too sure how to remedy it so I was planning on leaving it for now and giving it a closer look at the next build as I have other ships I want to tackle.

Edited January 23, 2023 by Kurtis

[Martes]

Just now, Kurtis said:

How is this?

Almost!

 

Make them more tangent to the keel at region 1 and smooth out the curve in 2, and it will be all right.

 

As to the roundhouse, I'd simply scale it up somewhat.

[Kurtis]

I wasn't quite sure what you meant by "make them more tangent to the keel" so I just carried on smoothing out a bit more. My main worry doing this was pinching it too much. I've also gone ahead and scaled up the roundhouses on the X axis as well.

[Martes]

6 hours ago, Kurtis said:

My main worry doing this was pinching it too much.

It more or less should be pinched at the entry.

 

I am not even sure if it's enough (1), the surface should not be convex here, either straight or pinched slightly.

 

Check against the model.

https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-66465

(and the hull lines on the plan)

 

If you could show me the wireframe, I probably could pinpoint how to fix this (2):

 

 

 

Shadow should not fork this way, it indicates some problem with the run of the hull.

 

The roundhouses are ok.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2023 by Martes

[Kurtis]

I've gone back to the original prints I was working on to see if I can adjust the shape of the hull. Doing this has thrown a spanner in the works for several other elements of the ship, particularly the gun-ports, so I'm gonna have to remove them, rebuild/tweak them, and then reinstall them. 🥶💀😫

 

I've attached a copy with some wireframes as requested.

[Martes]

First of all, there is a bulge in region 1.

 

Then, try to get rid of the enormous amount of redundant vertices in 2, 3, 5 and 6 - such regions usually cause terrible headache for smoothing algorithms.

 

Finally, try to make the segments in 4 (and up to the hawseholes) straight on approach to the keel.

 

 

If done correctly, the shading should appear more or less similar to the model

 

 

Of course, it's all reverse-engineering, and at certain stage it could be simpler to actually redraw the hull mesh from the plan. But I will not go as far as to recommend it

Edited January 25, 2023 by Martes

[3DShipWright]

First off, the hull is not bad as is, but yes, there are a few anomalies that can probably be fixed. To my eyes, you actually have dents more than bulges, but the fix I propose is the same either way. A couple more slightly more feasible alternatives than redoing the hull:

 

1. Use a 'Smooth corrective' modifier with 'Pin Boundaries' and 'Only Smooth' selected, placed higher up in the stack (above any sub-surf unless you're willing/able to apply the SS first).

 

OR

 

2. Light sculpting, specifically the fill tool (low strength, broad radius, top-to-bottom strokes), followed by the smooth tool. General philosophy here would be expand areas first, then subtract.

 

Again - the model still looks good in current form, so it'll be up to you to decide if the juice is worth the squeeze.

 

-Nate

Edited January 25, 2023 by 3DShipWright
Missing info

[3DShipWright]

54 minutes ago, Martes said:

Then, try to get rid of the enormous amount of redundant vertices in 2, 3, 5 and 6 - such regions usually cause terrible headache for smoothing algorithms.

 

Martes makes a good point here - To clarify my post, this is precisely why you'll need the 'only smooth' option checked. Even then it's a gamble. Question: is the geometry connected? Full quad topology on the lower planking?

 

If not, it may force your hand on sculpting.

[Martes]

1 hour ago, Martes said:

Finally, try to make the segments in 4 (and up to the hawseholes) straight on approach to the keel.

 

A small clarification of what I meant. If the blue line goes towards the keel at a certain angle, the red should not curve outwards. It should be either straightly tangent to the last segment of the blue, or even slightly concave, if in the lower part of the hull, and it's rather the blue segment should be slightly curved to ensure the red hits the intersection with the keel.

 

 

Edited January 25, 2023 by Martes

[Kurtis]

There's quite a lot of information in these replies, so I'll repsond to them once at a time.

I think it's worth remembering that the keel is going to be rendered underwater so I think we're spending a bit too much time looking at it and trying to remedy it. I've had another go trying to correct it with that said but I am feeling a bit frustrated with this elusive "bulge." I've added an image to show you a bit more accurately what it is that I'm seeing.

 

@3DShipWright Using the smooth modifier shrinks the entire thing down. Tools like that would've been better utilised much earlier on in the process.

Yes, the entire ship is quads only. I make it a habit to ensure this. There are also no redundant vertices, if they're there, they're there for a reason.

 

@Martes If you look at where you've circled number 6, it's actually a design of the hull. As the planking begins to curve upwards, they seem to split them in three places and add a second plank to fill the gap.  The resulting shapes tend to be triangular.  The rest of the vertices will be supporting loops.

As for the bit with the hawse-holes. They're thankfully much easier to remedy!

 

Quote

Of course, it's all reverse-engineering, and at certain stage it could be simpler to actually redraw the hull mesh from the plan. But I will not go as far as to recommend it

This! Of course, I appreciate every bit of help you guys have given me, you've all been amazing! I have a lot more materials to work with if I decide to try this again which I didn't have when I first started out. I'm thinking of having a go at a fourth rate next with everything I've learned with this, and then possibly a first rater, but I also want to get this done as well, even if it is imperfect.

 

Edited January 25, 2023 by Kurtis