„Święty Jerzy” („Sankt Georg”) 1627 – reconstructing an opponent of „Vasa”

[Waldemar]

 

Many thanks Martes. Hmm, all ropes have their correct, individual thickness and there is not much you can do about that. The background... I'll try some more experimenting, as you suggest, but I guess that's for later, because the priority now is to draw all the missing elements, which fortunately aren't that many anymore. We'll come back to this issue later, because of course an objective, assertively expressed evaluation/opinion/review is always desirable for best results.

 

 

[Martes]

I think it's purely rendering issue. For some reason the program tries to blend the edges of the objects with background color. If it is very bright, some details can go missing, and ropes appear thinner. Probably may be fixed with antialiasing settings, but much easier to give some background like that paper style you posted earlier, or hard black against white. Don't dwell on it.

Edited March 26, 2023 by Martes

[Waldemar]

 

Bowlines and Martnets.

 

Mysterious martnets deserve more commentary because the configuration shown here, reconstructed by me on the basis of period iconography, was used here for the first time. With regard to this item, other modern historical reconstructions of ships' rigging (including the Vasa rigging reconstruction), were usually based on an unsatisfactory, not to say incorrect, interpretation of R.C. Anderson presented in his otherwise excellent as a whole work The Rigging of Ships in the Days of the Spritsail Topmast, 1600–1720.

 

My interpretation of the martnets configuration, shown below, is first and foremost consistent with the iconography, is functional, can be simplified or elaborated as required, and can be flexibly modified, e.g. by lengthening or shortening pendants or by using different blocks (e.g. two single blocks instead of one double block at the stay, or a direct connection/combination of a dead block/euphroe with a single sheaved block).

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 28, 2023 by Waldemar

[Fred Hocker]

An interesting alternative, which would certainly work in practice and is consistent with the images. The earlier published reconstruction of Vasa, from 1980, is not workable, as Waldemar suggests. The actual remains which we have from Vasa, which include the euphroes for the fore and main course martnets (the former in use, the latter in store with the sail), suggest a slightly simpler arrangement. The euphroes have six holes, so twelve legs for each euphroe, and there are four, rather than the eight three-hole deadeyes required in this arrangement. The arrangement above the euphroe is uncertain. On the sailing reconstruction Kalmar Nyckel in the US, the martnets are quite simple, with a single euphroe on each side of the sail. The two euphroes for one end of the yard are connected by a bridle running through the lower sheave of a fiddle block (similar to how the deadyes are connected on Waldemar's version), and a fall rove from a becket on a single block under the topmast top, down through the upper sheave in the fiddle block, back up to the single block and down to the deck. This gives a 2:1 advantage and fast action on a relatively small sail. The extra advantage of Waldemar's arrangement could be useful on bigger ships with bigger sails. The rigging inventory of the Ann Royal in the 1620s lists a pair of double blocks for the falls of the martnets, plus a pair of single blocks for each of the four legs, but does not mention deadeyes (as euphroes were known at this time).

 

Fred Hocker

Vasa Museum

[Waldemar]

 

Thank you very much Fred for your comment and information!

 

In the case of the Ann Royal, joining these pairs of single blocks together (as was sometimes done) would virtually give fiddle blocks, and a trivial euphroes from some arbitrary pieces of wood could have been successfully made even by a novice ship carpenter. This would have given exactly the set of blocks I came up with for the St George. Well, it may not be the simplest arrangement, but after all, one can also come across even more elaborate ones on the pictures.

 

I would also add that information from you, on this issue or any other, is always among the most valuable.

 

Thanks again,
Waldemar

 

 

Edited March 28, 2023 by Waldemar

[Montaigne]

Are you filleting edges, in general, Waldemar? Just curious, considering that filleting edges on NURBs in Rhino is sometimes akin to rocket science, often forcing the rebuilding of multiple surfaces, and I would imagine filleting edges on a project of this size to be a nightmare.

 

Very humbled to see Fred Hocker join in!

[Waldemar]

 

When it comes to chamfering and filleting, I try to use these only exceptionally. Basically for larger pieces and/or in situations where it can no longer be avoided, e.g. for knees. And in fact I always chamfer/fillet just one edge rather than all of them of one solid; fortunately the specifics of the project allow me to do this.

 

Primarily because filleting/chamfering, widely applied, would increase the file size, complexity and handling time (e.g. rendering) many times over. Also because subsequent modifications of chamfered/filleted elements (as opposed to unchamfered ones) require much more time and effort. And there probably isn't a single part that I haven't modified three, four, five times and sometimes many more times...

 

It is for this reason that I try to keep backups of the parts before applying filleting or chamfering, but this also complicates the task in itself.

 

 

[Waldemar]

 

The rigging can be considered finished unless someone points out an anachronism worth improving (one side shown). There is little time left for this, as only the decoration needs to be designed now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bowsprit rigging in all its 'glory' (i.e. both sides shown):

 

 

 

And this render found its way here quite by accident:

 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2023 by Waldemar

[Montaigne]

Thanks, Waldemar, that makes a lot of sense, filleting widely applied would be impractical in so many ways.

I've always thought filleting in Rhino is the main feature I wish they would improve, as it often becomes unmanageable. Some kind of non-destructive fillet modifier would have been great, so that the original object is always preserved. There are also scenarios where one would prefer different setups for filleting, such as for example "on" for renders and "off" for printing of small objects. I usually have layers with different versions of the same objects depending on the intended output, as well as backups before filleting.

[Ondras71]

I tip my hat! Beautiful work. Like alive!!

[Waldemar]

 

@Montaigne

 

Probably from version 5 onwards, Rhino has an Edge Softening feature that can at least partially replace filleting for renders, without doing the actual filleting. I used it some time ago with very good results.

 

@Ondras71
 

Thanks a lot. I like to think that I'll be able to prepare commercial plans soon, and that you and your modelling diligence will look at them with a favourable eye.

 

 

[Montaigne]

48 minutes ago, Waldemar said:

Probably from version 5 onwards, Rhino has an Edge Softening feature that can at least partially replace filleting for renders, without doing the actual filleting. I used it some time ago with very good results.

Oh, I’ve managed to miss that feature. Great tip, much appreciated! I haven’t done much rendering in Rhino. Most of the projects I worked on back in the day went straight to prototyping, and rendering for product display was usually done in Cinema 4D.

[Waldemar]

 

With Martes' active help some of the ship's decorations are being made, but only such a model of the stern lantern was available at the lantern booth in 1627 fair, and modellers today will be rather unhappy. Then again, neither are my computer's processors and fans.

 

 

 

 

 

[Bernard Huc]

Hello,
I discover this subject, important and beautiful work of modeling.
Congratulations.

Bernard

[scrubbyj427]

That looks just wonderful! Lovely work!

[Montaigne]

It's becoming a masterpiece, very impressive!

[Waldemar]

 

Due to dynastic issues, the royal coat of arms of this period was a quite complicated affair.

 

 

 

 

 

[Waldemar]

 

Only the last-minute arrival of the cavalry saved the lady from misfortune.

 

 

 

 

[Metaspace]

Fantastic! I've only limited experience with CAD, an not worked with Rhino yet - how does one model a decoration like that?

Edited April 5, 2023 by Metaspace

[Martes]

Purely graphically, shouldn't there be two ladies, one from each side?

[Waldemar]

 

@Metaspace

 

Roman, thank you very much. I will treat this question as rhetorical, otherwise I would have to tell the story of half my life. If you're going to start, my advice is not to put it off, as it's a long and bumpy road.

@Martes

 

This was supposed to be an asymmetrical composition, but you're absolutely right, it came out overly asymmetrical due to my initial reluctance to include the practically obligatory pile of bones seen in most period paintings. I have made the appropriate adjustment and now compositionally it does indeed look much better. I have also added a few other elements and the design of the stern decorations can be considered complete.

 

 

 

 

 

[scrubbyj427]

Looks very good Waldemar! Such an incredible subject  you have researched and developed! 

[Metaspace]

I actually meant "decoration", autocorrect on my mobile made something else out of it.
I was wondering how to construct the wood carvings/decoration in CAD - as the have very complex shapes and lines?

[Montaigne]

1 hour ago, Metaspace said:

I actually meant "decoration", autocorrect on my mobile made something else out of it.
I was wondering how to construct the wood carvings/decoration in CAD - as the have very complex shapes and lines?

 

I can jump in on that. There are essentially four approaches to creating detailed decorations and ornaments in 3D/CAD software:

 

One being regular polygon modeling, where you start with simple shapes, add and extrude edges and faces and move vertices around until you have accomplished the shapes, all of it done using a background image sketch or photo for tracing and reference. This method is classic polygon modeling. Its advantages are that you can easily create just about anything, and doing so is easy to learn. The disadvantages are that it can be very time consuming, and relies on later being modified with high resolution meshes for smoothing all the otherwise jagged corners and edges. These in turn have the disadvantage that precise measurements can be difficult to obtain.

A variation of this kind of modeling in some CAD programs is called SubD modeling, which is very easy to work with (and in these cases can be converted to NURBS surfaces, however with similar problems regarding precise measurements).

 

Another method is to create ornaments with NURBS surface modeling, where you create surfaces by precisely drawing their basic outlines and shapes, and/or combining basic shapes such as squares, spheres etc with these. Among its many advantages are a very lightweight geometry that is extremely precise “as is”. It’s highly suitable for 3D printing and industrial design where the demands for tolerances are the highest. 

The downside with using NURBS surface modeling for creating detailed ornaments is that you will often end up scratching your head regarding how to create and combine certain complex shapes. While creating certain surfaces can be a breeze - many that would take a very long time with conventional polygonal modeling - other surfaces may take a long time to figure out how to achieve.

Waldemar’s Sankt Georg model in this topic is a NURBS surface model (although I don’t know if there are some minor polygonal details added), and is such nothing short of a masterpiece in NURBS surface modeling, especially considering certain challenging geometry. 

 

Another method is 3D sculpting. With this approach you start out with a high resolution simple mesh that you sculpt with a digital pen tablet as if you were working with virtual clay. This is a very hands on organic approach, that can produce amazingly intricate detail. It’s downside when it comes to ornaments is that it can be a challenge to create shapes that are perfectly streamlined, and also: precise measurements can be a challenge to achieve. 

 

A fourth approach is to draw patterns in 2D in software like Photoshop with height and depth indicated by light and dark areas, which you then in 3D software overlay with a high resolution mesh, essentially draping it to create a mesh with ornaments. It then interprets the dark/light areas as 3D shapes. 

This method is useful for certain shapes that are clearly defined and don’t have cavities underneath shapes, since it will literally be draped as with a table cloth. It’s limited in many ways, but can be useful for creating shapes and ornaments with less height variation and for the method suitable geometry. It’s also often used as a stamp, where you can easily imprint ornaments, complex geometry and patterns on surfaces. If for example I wanted to imprint an ornated text or insignia on a surface, I might choose this method rather than modeling all the shapes to create the stamp. One advantage with this method is also that it captures the dirt and grit of an image, so it’s useful for capturing worn and weathed effects. 

 

All of these methods can also be combined in most 3D/CAD software, so one is not limited to one or the other; in fact 3D design is often a matter of initially finding the right tool for the job at hand, rather than trying to build everything with just a hammer.

Edited April 6, 2023 by Montaigne

[Metaspace]

@Montaigne, many thanks for this insight!
I'm even more awed by this work now 😄

[Waldemar]

 

Thank you very much Montaigne. It would have been difficult to explain it more clearly, and I read it with interest myself 🙂.

 

* * *

 

While the royal coat of arms on the stern has all the heraldic elements (i.e. the emblems of the two kingdoms, Poland-Lithuania and Sweden, and the emblem of the ruling house; all of these on three different levels), then the figurehead beast just holds in its paws only the symbol of the reigning Vasa dynasty. By coincidence, or rather by the course of history, this symbolism is identical to that of the Vasa 1628 ship.   

 

 

 

 

[Montaigne]

It’s really coming to life now with all the details. Fascinating too that the figurehead shares likeness and symbolism with Vasa. 

[Martes]

 

4 hours ago, Montaigne said:

Fascinating too that the figurehead shares likeness and symbolism with Vasa. 

It was one hell of a family feud.

[Waldemar]

 

...very true.

 

And the last warrior, meaning the last sculpture in the 'official' version of the ship's plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Metaspace]

Wow, simply awesome!! What will be the next steps?