Help for the Noobies

[Bob Cleek]

On 10/18/2020 at 3:17 PM, MEDDO said:

One more thing for the newer members I have said before.  This is a world wide forum with people of all skill levels.  We literally have some of the best modelers in the world post regularly here.  People who literally wrote the books on our subjects.  Sort of a basketball forum with Lebron posting daily or a swimming forum where Phelps is all over the place.  Sometimes this is pretty intimidating.  Us mere mortals must always remember everyone starts somewhere and we all want to improve.  Some of those "pros" are the nicest and most helpful people here.  The tone and encouragement from everyone here on the forum makes this the best place to be

Excellent point! It addresses a shortcoming of internet forums: Everybody has a soapbox, but some have a lot more to say than others do.  Forums are like good restaurants: Once they are discovered, they often tend to begin to decline in quality. The reason there are so many highly accomplished and experienced modelers on this forum, aside from its association with the Nautical Research Guild, is because they seek out each other and the rest of us are lucky to be able to look over their shoulders. They are here and make MSW what it is because this is where they can continue to learn from those who are playing the game at their level.  When a forum becomes inundated with "newbies," the "level of play" naturally drops and the "high achievers" find it increasingly less worth their while and drift off.

 

Learning is an exercise best done with the eyes open and the mouth closed, (although in my case clearly more so of the former than the latter.) The most useful learning tool of all it the search engine. Notwithstanding that most of the forum platform software packaged search engines are disappointing in the performance when compared with stand-alone search engines such as Google and Bing, they still remain the best way to look up something specific within a given forum. Given the size and age of MSW forum, there is a very high likelihood that most any question one might encounter in the course of building a ship model, excepting really esoteric historical minutia, will have been addressed, often at length, before. It's poor internet forum manners to ask others to answer a question before having exhausted your own efforts to find the answer on your own. Don't expect others to become your "information codependents." Everybody soon tires of a forum that requires hours of wasted time "separating the fly poop from the pepper" (like that other ship modeling forum we all know.) The very basic questions "newbies" ask over and over again have all been asked before. While I encourage and welcome beginners, I must confess that I rarely am moved to devote my time to answering a question they could have found themselves using the search engine.

 

To the original poster who bemoaned the lack of responses to his build log, and to the management of the forum which encourages "build logging" and "newbies" to the hobby (and we all should,) I express my sympathy. On the one hand, build logs are a valuable feature of the forum, if not its heart and soul, but on the other hand, the "build logger" has to understand that he is competing with all the other build logs for attention and it's a jungle out there. If you are new to the hobby and are posting the seventeenth active build log of a popular kit model, your build log isn't going to generate the same amount of interest as the scratch-built masterpiece of one of the published "Superstars of Ship Modeling." I'm not knocking kits by a long shot, but they are ship modeling's "gateway drug." There is an inevitable progression, at rates varying as to the individual, from building kits to "The Dark Side" of scratch-building. No two ways about it, there is far more to learn from following the scratch-build of a never-before- modeled prototype. Don't feel discouraged starting out. Learning to crawl is just as much an accomplishment as learning to walk. 

[Mike Y]

Just a few cents  

 

The best way to think about it is "put yourself into others shoes".

 

First problem is simple and technical: it's impossible to find your build log link. Even in this topic, where some may be encouraged to have a look - there is no link in your signature. I honestly thought "oh, sure, let's have a look and maybe I can help a bit" - but no, it would take too much clicks just to find it.

See https://modelshipworld.com/topic/23663-how-do-you-add-links-to-your-build-logs-under-your-signature/

 

Second - make sure your question is asked clearly, and preferably with photos. Keeping correct terminology is pretty hard, especially for a beginner, so just using words is not the best idea. For example - I found your topic on deck cutouts, but it's pretty hard to really understand without any pictures. What are these "cutouts"? How are they located in relation to masts and so on? 

A lot of people would either guess what you mean or just move over to another question, because it takes too much efforts to decode. 

 

Third consideration is a bit harsh, and I am not sure how to put it in a very neat terms - but first big heap of initial modelling knowledge is acquired mostly by reading other logs. Majority of newbie questions were already asked bajillion times, there are FAQs, manuals, tutorials and so on spread over MSW.

Even with best intentions, it slowly gets old to explain the very same thing for a dozen times, so people loose motivation to help.

I cringe when I read some of my first questions, I want to travel back in time and slap myself "just read the manual one more time before asking!". Using this moment to thank everybody who was helping!  

Ignore the particular vessel, just pick the build log where the build process is shown, not just the end result. Some logs are very educating, you will learn a lot from reading them. Basic techniques are the same. Do not hesitate to go to scratch build logs - there are fewer of those, but often they are very detailed and educating. 

 

The balance is delicate. Please do not be shy to post your updates and your logs! Everybody is welcome.

But think about it like a giant dance event. You come through the doors and you are in a crowd with thousands of people. They are open and a lot are keen to teach you and dance with you. But first you need to watch a few tutorials on basics, and then just start a small talk to get familiar with some of them. Make yourself friendly and available (see - build log signature). They are under no obligation to help you, but also there is physically no time to dance with everybody. You need to stand out of the crowd just a little bit, to make sure you will be noticed.

 

Good luck, and hope you will find your way and join one of the friendliest and constructive communities in the internet! 

 

 

 

Edited January 1, 2021 by Mike Y

[Rik Thistle]

On the subject of using the Search function on this excellent website, is there a way to search for exact phrases eg 'drfiter steam capstan' and only that complete phrase.

 

If I search for that phrase it seems to be treated as three separate words eg drifter, steam and capstan ...with the resulting long list of results usually containing one or two of those words only but not the exact phrase.

 

I've maybe missed the way of doing phrase search selection in the instructions so apologise in advance.

 

Richard

 

 

[VTHokiEE]

@Rik Thistle

I’m certain there is a way to do it without the first search but here’s a quick two step process I did on mobile:

After the first search click that phrase selection to get:

Hope that helps

[GuntherMT]

2 hours ago, Rik Thistle said:

On the subject of using the Search function on this excellent website, is there a way to search for exact phrases eg 'drfiter steam capstan' and only that complete phrase.

 

If I search for that phrase it seems to be treated as three separate words eg drifter, steam and capstan ...with the resulting long list of results usually containing one or two of those words only but not the exact phrase.

 

I've maybe missed the way of doing phrase search selection in the instructions so apologise in advance.

 

Richard

 

 

 

Yep, you just do exactly what you did in your post, enclose your search in quotation marks.

 

Example "Steam Capstan" will only return results with the phrase.  Just searching for Steam Capstan defaults to returning results with either Steam, or Capstan or both.

[Bob Cleek]

Let's call a spade a spade. The search engine feature of the MSW forum platform is inadequate to address the complexity of the forum's content as well as one would expect based on experience with much more sophisticated search engines like Google, etc. (The development of these "AI-heavy" search engines is driven by their great profitability as "data mining" platforms.) This is true of most every forum search engine I've ever used.

 

There is a "hack" for this problem, however. The trick is to search the MSW forum using a more powerful search engine than the MSW one.

 

The problem:

 

For example, "drifter steam capstan," using the quotations marks to indicate the full phrase, entered in the MSW search engine yields "There were no results for your search."  Entering drifter steam capstan as separate words in the MSW search engine gets you the same "no results" response. Entering "steam capstan" will get you a fair number of results for the use of the term in the forum. Entering steam capstan as separate words rather than a phrase yields three pages of results for steam, steamer, steamboat, and capstan.

 

The hack:

 

Go to a search engine like Google and enter a search for your terms occurring in the MSW forum in the following manner:

 

"drifter steam capstan" + Modelshipworld

 

Google will tell you that there's no result found for the phrase drifter steam capstan in MSW, but it will alternately provide you with "results for drifter steam capstan + Modelshiipworld" (no quotation marks.) You can review those results and, by reading their website sources, see a much more focused set of results than the MSW forum search engine provides. 

 

The first result is:

The next is:

From all indications, these two results are as close as one can get and quickly accessible without wading through useless results

 

 

Edited January 1, 2021 by Bob Cleek

[Rik Thistle]

VTHokiEE, Gunther, Bob,

 

I have tried full quotation marks around MSW phrases in the past...as I sometimes do on other search engines....but hadn't had any luck. I also have tried inverted commas at the ends of the phrase but again no luck. Maybe "drifter steam capstan" was a bad example to use since no one on the forum had actually ever used that particular phrase, until now.

 

Maybe I have to carefully consider what phrases are more likely to have been used on MSW before searching for them?

 

But I've just tried the  victory rigging seizing phrase with no results....and victory seizing...no results.  It might just be that these 2 or 3 word phrases, in that order, have never been used.

 

Bob, yes, sometimes when on Amazon.uk, I'm searching for a product using the Amazon search box and nothing shows up. So I come back out in to Google and type "product X amazon" (...no quotes) and Google shows a link result to the product on Amazon.uk, so I click on the link and it takes me straight to the product on the Amazon.uk website.  Strange - you'd think Amazon of all companies would have a 100% effective search engine...but they don't.

 

The MSW website, by the way, is the best forum I've been on so the above is more of an observation than a criticism. But there is so much useful info on the website that I wonder if there is a way to weedle out even the most obscure search enquiry?

 

Richard

 

Edit: I've just noticed I spelt 'drifter' as 'drfiter' in my original post...well, that wouldn't help 😉

 

New Year Resolution - spell check what I write .... hmm, now there's another thought...

 

 

Edited January 1, 2021 by Rik Thistle

[Bob Cleek]

2 hours ago, Rik Thistle said:

Maybe I have to carefully consider what phrases are more likely to have been used on MSW before searching for them?

Yes, that is a good observation. However, there are many MSW forumites who are greatly lacking in nautical nomenclature fluency. The world of ships and the sea has its own language and it's different for every commonly spoken language in the world. Even when the spoken language is the same, the nautical nomenclature may differ in different areas, just as the words "bonnet" and "hood" refer to the same part of an automobile in Britain and the US respectively, while a "bonnet" and a "hood" don't both refer to the same item of headgear in both Britain and the US.  And this confusion is compounded when one tries to translate "nauticalese" from  an entirely foreign language, often making the understanding of instructions for the building of model kits imported from places where a different language is spoken quite a challenge, even for the fluent "nautical" speaker in his own language, let alone one who is not.

 

As one who had the benefit of growing up with maritime nomenclature "as a first language," being involved as both an amateur and a professional with ships and the sea all my life, having a father who worked in the industry as well, it is often apparent to me when forum posters "do not speak the language." Unfortunately, there's no "google translate" for nautical nomenclature, nor language school that teaches it, as far as I know. It can only be learned by "immersion," an apt metaphor for "sink or swim." I can't imagine the difficulty a new ship model builder from Kansas or Oklahoma who's never seen the ocean must have trying to build a sailing ship model! (Parenthetically, I've seen some highly skilled modelers who are distinguished by their careful research nevertheless make glaring errors in a model, particularly in things like rigging, because they obviously have no experience sailing vessels similar to the one they are modeling.*) To do so with that handicap is quite an accomplishment! I will say that any ship modeler who is contemplating investing in books related to the hobby would do well to make one of their initial library acquisitions a very good maritime dictionary and keep it at hand at all times. (My top recommendation in that regard would be The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea.) The use of such a dictionary will go a long way in making their forum posts more understandable and, thus, encourage more helpful responses.

 

 

 

*Example:

 

This Model Shipways 18th Century Longboat kit is built in complete conformance with the kit's instructions and, I have it on good authority, is an exact "model of a contemporary model" in the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich, England.

 

Who can spot what's wrong with it first? 

 

(Hint: It's something that should be immediately obvious to any sailor.)

 

 

 

 

Edited January 1, 2021 by Bob Cleek

[Rik Thistle]

http://modelexpo-online.com/assets/images/model_shipways/longboat5.jpg

 

As some one with very limited nautical knowledge I'll have a go at the 2021 quiz...

- the oar looks a bit short

- is the mast fully supported at it's base

- it's more likely something to do with the rigging, I guess, but there I'm out of my depth

 

Richard

Edited January 1, 2021 by Rik Thistle

[Blue Ensign]

That's not an oar Richard it is the bar for turning the windlass, the oars  are around two thirds the length of the boat. 😉

 

As a hint to the quiz - look to the rudder area , but this is not as straightforward as it may seem.🤔

 

B.E.

[Rik Thistle]

drjeckl,

 

Ref your #1 post,

 

Learning for me, as a fellow noobie, is a huge part of this hobby. I've bought a few books (hardcopy and Kindle) on various 'ship' topics and am slowly working through them in a haphazard fashion. I've also watched numerous YT videos and been the grateful recipient of loads of advice from the members on here.

 

I think I've now reached the stage where my brain is spinning with all the info received and therefore need to take a step back to try to see the big picture, and then how to arrange my learning steps in a more methodical fashion. Problem is, there are so many interesting ships to construct that my 'next project' selection is likely quite random which means I jump from one unknown to another unknown.

 

I think we not only need to learn/enjoy how to assemble the kits (wood shaping, gluing, painting etc), we also would like to understand (I assume) how ships 'work'. If you've got nautical experience then that second point probably comes naturally through previous training. But a lot of us don't have that basic training.

 

I build a Dallas Cutter in the summer...it had plenty of rigging (at least for me it did) and I just followed the kit's instructions on how to rope it. It was only a few weeks after it was built that I stood and stared at it and started to follow each rope from it's start to where it ended up and what it's likely purpose was. I found that very enlightening ...I'm an ex-mechanical design engineer so enjoy trying to see 'how things work'.

 

Today I'm watching ... Handling a Gaff Rig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9_L-VGSbwct as part of my new self-designed basic training 🙂 And I am also searching for similar videos. Books are fine but a (moving) picture tells a thousand words. 

 

Question to all - does there exist a reasonably simple, learning ship kit with rigging, sail(s) etc that are actually fully functional ? For example, if I want to drop one of the sails I undo a rope(s) and lower the sail then tie the rope up with the correct knot etc. I could even take the learning ship out in to the garden and watch the effect the wind has on the sails as I adjust them, and the corresponding forces on the hull.

 

Richard

 

 

 

 

Edited January 1, 2021 by Rik Thistle

[GuntherMT]

6 hours ago, Blue Ensign said:

That's not an oar Richard it is the bar for turning the windlass, the oars  are around two thirds the length of the boat. 😉

 

As a hint to the quiz - look to the rudder area , but this is not as straightforward as it may seem.🤔

 

B.E.

 

The traveler is blocked by the tiller.  Jibing would be pretty exciting if removing and replacing the tiller became part of the process.    The tiller should probably be under the traveler.

Edited January 1, 2021 by GuntherMT

[Blue Ensign]

I've seen some highly skilled modelers who are distinguished by their careful research nevertheless make glaring errors in a model, particularly in things like rigging, because they obviously have no experience sailing vessels similar to the one they are modeling.*)

 

 

 

The glaring error referred to by Bob, is something that has been discussed a lot on MSW., primarily if I recall correctly on Chuck’s Medway Longboat build.

 

 

To the modern eye certainly having the iron horse below the tiller looks distinctly odd, but we can’t get away from the fact that contemporary models and plans show it this way.

 

Notably the Longboat on the Medway model in the NMM.(1742)

 

There is also an 18^thc draught of the masting and rigging of a 32’ Longboat showing the same arrangement.

 

So, the modern model-maker has a decision to make, to ignore historical evidence on the basis that it must be wrong, or go with the best evidence we have.

 

When I built the Model shipways Longboat, after much thought I also placed the horse below the tiller, but not in ignorance as suggested by Bob, but rather on the basis that people of the time had shown it that way.

 

Of course naysayers will say it’s probably a modern restoration error, but in the case of the Longboat, there is also the contemporary  draught.

 

B.E.

Edited January 2, 2021 by Blue Ensign

[Bob Cleek]

6 hours ago, Blue Ensign said:

Of course naysayers will say it’s probably a modern restoration error, but in the case of the Longboat, there is also the contemporary  draught.

 

I'll admit in hindsight that this was perhaps not the best example because I do know it was not due to any shortcoming of the model designer, but because the kit was based exactly upon a contemporary model. I was unaware of the existence of a contemporary draught showing the same and would love to study a copy of that.  However, the draught doesn't lend any strength to an argument that the arrangement is correct. There's really no way a boat could be sailed the way it's rigged.

 

In fact, there are ways to rig a double-ended mainsheet with blocks at the quarters that serve the same purpose of leaving the tiller clear to helm without resort to a sheet horse at all, but the only purpose of a sheet horse is to allow the lower sheet block to clear the tiller without fouling it and the prototype can have no other purpose for that sheet horse.

 

All I can say is that there is no way the boat can be sailed the way that tiller is set up. The boom will cross amidships taking the lower sheet block with it sliding along the sheet horse every time the boat is tacked or jibed and every time that happens, the helmsman will be unable to control the tiller to complete the evolution because the sheet will foul the tiller. I know of no boat anywhere, save these two NMM models which have been cited, that has ever had such an arrangement. Chuck and I have discussed this and I don't dispute his position that the Model Shipways kit is a "model of a contemporary model." That's indeed one way to look at it. I don't know that he has any other explanation for it except that that's the way it is on the contemporary models. He certainly didn't make a mistake when designing the kit on that basis.

 

I'm not a "naysayer." I'm a "give me one good reason why" sayer!

 

I'd be interested in knowing what the curators at the NMM would have to say about it, or perhaps Ab Hoving, who knows as much about such things in that period as anybody.

Edited January 2, 2021 by Bob Cleek

[Blue Ensign]

My basic issue is your assertion  that modellers got things wrong because they had no experience of sailing vessels similar to the ones they were modelling, which  is a somewhat sweeping statement. In the case of the Longboat there were valid reasons why  they modelled it that way, other than ignorance.

 

On the wider subject of rigging it is true that certainly some mass produced kits have glaring errors that those new to rigging  may not spot, but there is no magic shortcut to the knowledge so fervently desired by those new to ship modelling.

 

 I have a huge collection of books on the subject, built up over many years, no one book covers all subjects or vessel types, but most derive from the works of David Steel who remains my  go to source for 18th/early 19th century methods.  His works are online and noobies could do worse than have a read of them. Realistically the best approach is to target your reference sources to the vessel type you are modelling, but this does incur extra costs.

 

There is one free source of valuable information - right here on MSW. Read thro' the logs of experienced builders doing the vessel type you are interested in, and learn the abc of the technical terms.

 

B.E.

[Bob Cleek]

On 1/2/2021 at 5:23 AM, Blue Ensign said:

In the case of the Longboat there were valid reasons why  they modelled it that way, other than ignorance.

 

That should be the initial assumption, but working forward from there, the question arises, "Okay, what possible reason or reasons might they have had?"

[Rik Thistle]

I've just received The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea, hardcover version from amazon.uk for £6.65. It is the 2005, 2nd edition and looks brand new and unopened.  I will leave it lying in the shed for a few days before handling it.

 

Thanks,

 

Richard

[Bob Cleek]

14 hours ago, Rik Thistle said:

I've just received The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea, hardcover version from amazon.uk for £6.65. It is the 2005, 2nd edition and looks brand new and unopened.  I will leave it lying in the shed for a few days before handling it.

 

Thanks,

 

Richard

 

When you do get around to handling it, expect it to get a lot of use. It's one of those "there and nowhere else" sort of reference works.

 

[Rach10199]

On 1/1/2021 at 3:53 AM, Bob Cleek said:

Yes, that is a good observation. However, there are many MSW forumites who are greatly lacking in nautical nomenclature fluency. The world of ships and the sea has its own language and it's different for every commonly spoken language in the world. Even when the spoken language is the same, the nautical nomenclature may differ in different areas, just as the words "bonnet" and "hood" refer to the same part of an automobile in Britain and the US respectively, while a "bonnet" and a "hood" don't both refer to the same item of headgear in both Britain and the US.  And this confusion is compounded when one tries to translate "nauticalese" from  an entirely foreign language, often making the understanding of instructions for the building of model kits imported from places where a different language is spoken quite a challenge, even for the fluent "nautical" speaker in his own language, let alone one who is not.

 

As one who had the benefit of growing up with maritime nomenclature "as a first language," being involved as both an amateur and a professional with ships and the sea all my life, having a father who worked in the industry as well, it is often apparent to me when forum posters "do not speak the language." Unfortunately, there's no "google translate" for nautical nomenclature, nor language school that teaches it, as far as I know. It can only be learned by "immersion," an apt metaphor for "sink or swim." I can't imagine the difficulty a new ship model builder from Kansas or Oklahoma who's never seen the ocean must have trying to build a sailing ship model! (Parenthetically, I've seen some highly skilled modelers who are distinguished by their careful research nevertheless make glaring errors in a model, particularly in things like rigging, because they obviously have no experience sailing vessels similar to the one they are modeling.*) To do so with that handicap is quite an accomplishment! I will say that any ship modeler who is contemplating investing in books related to the hobby would do well to make one of their initial library acquisitions a very good maritime dictionary and keep it at hand at all times. (My top recommendation in that regard would be The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea.) The use of such a dictionary will go a long way in making their forum posts more understandable and, thus, encourage more helpful responses.

 

 

 

*Example:

 

This Model Shipways 18th Century Longboat kit is built in complete conformance with the kit's instructions and, I have it on good authority, is an exact "model of a contemporary model" in the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich, England.

 

Who can spot what's wrong with it first? 

 

(Hint: It's something that should be immediately obvious to any sailor.)

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the suggested reading of the Oxford Companion..I found a used copy for $5 👍📖

[CMC]

Just joined today and read this thread first.  Was fascinated with the responses and will be using many of the tips and guidance therein going forward.  Thank you drjeckl for posing this question/discussion point!

Am building a Muscongus Bay Lobster Smack that I started 20 years ago and shelved until the COVID Era.

[mtaylor]

38 minutes ago, AlbaDave said:

Easy solution to the problem.

Add a "Help Needed" section on the Forum.

This is the "help needed" area.  

[James H]

15 hours ago, mtaylor said:

This is the "help needed" area.  

Correct, but only as far as forum usage goes. 

This area isn't for model-related questions. 

[Saburo]

On 10/18/2020 at 9:33 AM, glbarlow said:

Once again I agree.  I always try to thank everyone who comments on my log because I appreciate the time they took to do it..  That’s best done by the quote selection option Chuck and I just used because that creates a notification back to the poster that he has a reply.  It’s all about being active and having conversations, not a request line.

I'm learning alot here, and I can relate to this "newbie" topic. Besides being a Neanderthal in computer literacy, I don't have a clue how these forum sites work let alone the terms and nomenclature being passed around.  I just want to say thank you to you Glenn, and to others like Chuck and John H. who after my clumsy efforts to communicate haven't got me cancelled yet.  Again, I'm learning and I love this community.

Bill 

[Knocklouder]

After being a member  for  about 15 months now,  I still have no clue how to use the right page or who to ask. When I join I see on the home page a banner that says " don't  post stand alone questions  they will be deleted,so didn't ask any for fear of being booted lol .  

      As for intimidating,  after looking at the fantastic  build logs, wanted to hide my model  under a rock lol, but it for me to enjoy lol , Neanderthals  like me just have  learn as I go. . Thanks for putting up with me.

[mtaylor]

We all have had questions, Bob.  What that banner meant is "don't just ask a question but supply information to help get an answer".  It's the details that are important for good answers.

[Knocklouder]

6 hours ago, mtaylor said:

We all have had questions, Bob.  What that banner meant is "don't just ask a question but supply information to help get an answer".  It's the details that are important for good answers.

Yes starting to get the hang of it, 

[Knocklouder]

Just now, Bob M said:

Yes starting to get the hang of it, 

See I quoted  instead of posting lol

[Knocklouder]

So now I  got another question lol. How to start another log for my next one lol if MSW will let me stay lol 😆 

[Knocklouder]

Lol never mined 

[Knocklouder]

Hi , need help with my pages, Frist when I log on it opens on someone else page, silly but you know plus is this where I am supposed to ask this kind of ???  And do you ask to follow some one once I do  I have no Ideal what to do where to go sorry scared to ask you been ask so many times the same thing. not

sure where to post how to ask that  sort of thing I read but the switch don't come on LOL

Edited July 7, 2022 by Bob M
typos of course