3D Brig 'Rose' in Blender 3.3x

[Martes]

I'd hate to spoil the fun, but you got everything wrong.

 

First of all, the chains to the rudder have to go somehow (over the side or through a scuttles) inside the hull. Those chains are a backup rudder control system and would be useless as shown. A contemporary model shows that the chains penetrate the hull lower, at the tuck stern level, and the place where you placed the rings is supposed to be the plumbing scuttle:

 

 

The taffrail is waaay to high for a brig, even if you are going to fit the poop, it would not have wooden carved supports, but likely be done of light temporary metal rods with rope. But it still would be about a half lower.

 

What are those rings evenly spaced on the gunwale?

 

 

Edited January 21, 2023 by Martes

[3DShipWright]

A few bowspirt updates as well:

 

• I removed the secondary boom segment (Not sure what this called... Flying Jib Boom, maybe?) Thanks @Martes for the tough love lol - it sucks to remove a piece I worked hard on, but I gotta admit it does look much more in proportion without it. The spirt was modelled from the HMS Pandora, so it's always going to be a bit big for this Brig, but its definitely within the realm of possibility now.
• The mesh safety netting has been added as well. This was a first attempt, so not ready for feedback just yet - It was mostly an experiment to see if I could get away with a 2D plane that uses a mesh texture with alpha (transparency) instead of modelling every tiny rope that makes up the netting. I'm happy with the results, I just have to make the sides connect beneath the boom and model the gasket rails along the sides of the main bowspirt - still a much easier approach though.
• Finally, I've introduced a bump map onto the sail cloth that I'm hoping will simulate the tiny wrinkles that real sails form around the seams. Right now you can see this effect on the jibs, but it's only randomly placed using a noise texture. I will eventually 'paint' the effect onto where these wrinkles actually occur, which should produce stunning results.

 

Sadly, this screenshot also points out all the work that remains to be done on this part of the ship, including:

• Add the downhaul lines to the jibs
• Cut out the sheeves and add the underlying support blocks for the bowspirt bees
• Add the double Jeer blocks, metal hooks, and rigging that connect the anchor stock loops to the catheads
• Improve the collar cleats on the bowspirt
• Model the gammoning cleats on the bowspirt
• Add the saddle for the jib boom onto the bowspirt
• Wrap the bowspirt woolding with rope
• Add 2 additional rope loops and thimbles to the tip of the jib boom
• Decide between knight's heads or a flying forecastle to lock the bowspirt in place

 

[Martes]

Note that the bowsprit should be locked from the back into a structure, it wouldn't hold in place otherwise:

 

[3DShipWright]

Hey @Martes - No offense taken, I always appreciate constructive feedback, and hopefully you noticed that I already incorporated some of your previous suggestions. To unpack your comments a bit:

 

Metal Rings - I believe those rings are sockets for supports when the ship is in drydock. Google real images and you'll notice that they can be seen on the HMS Victory in Portsmouth, the HMS Surprise (Rose reconstruction, renamed for the Master and Commander movie) in San Diego, the USS Constitution in Boston, and so on. The Anatomy of the Ship illustrations also show them on the Pandora and Essex, so I'm guessing they're not a new invention.

 

 

Wheel vs. Tiller - The picture you just shared shows a brig with a helm's wheel, yet you told me previously there was no room - J'Accuse!

 

Taff Rail -  You're kind of right, kind of wrong here - Brigs don't typically have taff rails that are really distinguishable from the cap rail. If they do have a bridge deck or a poop deck, yes, they will usually use metal rods with rope instead of a wooden rail. However, no where is it written that a perminant wooden fixture couldn't be used instead. You can believe me or not, but I used to live in Galveston Tx and have personally set foot on a couple of operational brigs that did have raised wooden taff railings along the back.

 

Best Regards,

-Nate

[druxey]

Don't wish to pour cold water on your excellent renderings, but a ship this size would likely not have a figurehead at all (that will save you some work!). Turned spindles at the stern - no. Decorative work on the transom - also unlikely. No extra expense was made on these small ships, particularly at the end of the century in war-time. Of course, if this is a fantasy ship, ignore everything I've written!

[3DShipWright]

@Martes And the taff rail I did is pretty low, I think the angle of the image may have been deceptive. Here's a character in the scene for reference. She's 5-1 if that helps.

 

Best,

-N.

 

[Martes]

12 minutes ago, 3DShipWright said:

Wheel vs. Tiller - The picture you just shared shows a brig with a helm's wheel, yet you told me previously there was no room - J'Accuse!

That's exactly what I am trying to tell you, there is no, and cannot be a conflict between the wheel and the tiller. The wheel turns the tiller. The tiller is either on the same deck just after the wheel, or down below, but it is there, you can't do without it.

 

 

The chains are used as a backup in case the wheel and the tiller are shot out. And the photos I posted are from the same model, two different views.

 

Got that about the rings, I thought they might have represented shut scuttles or something. Anyway, no such rings would appear on ships then. It's something consistent with our times, and I never seen one on any 18-th or 19-th century model or plan. If ever they were used, they would be fitted just prior to docking and removed afterwards, I'd guess.

 

12 minutes ago, 3DShipWright said:

You can believe me or not, but I used to live in Galveston Tx and have personally set foot on a couple of operational brigs that did have raised wooden taff railings along the back.

Concerning taffrail, I think it should be somehow decided if this ship represents a period ship or a modern replica of one. At the time no one would fit such rails to military ship, since it's a source of splinters and windage, and generally unnecessary detail. Because it obstructs the spanker boom and requires to restrict the spanker's area, first of all, and you don't need people walking there anyway. It's like you would add propellers and say "but they are fitted on the Surprise".

 

Of course I believe you, but the safety requirements and regulations back in 1800 were very different from those now

Edited January 21, 2023 by Martes

[3DShipWright]

@Martes - Ahh, gotcha! So I can incorporate a wheel if I cosmetically like the look of it (which was kind of the whole reason I did one), you're saying I just need to model the tiller on the top of the rudder as well.. Perfect, consider it done! The model you're showing is really good - Would you mind sharing a few more images of the back-end detail for reference? Any actual diagrams or dimentions of the tiller? As a general rule, if I eyeball something it comes out wrong, so i'd like to start as accurate as possible.

 

Regarding the rudder chain, no problem - I'm using curves and the array modifier so its easy to reposition. Something felt wrong about the way I'd done it anyway, I just couldn't put my finger on it.

 

@druxey - Yeah, as both you and @Martes have alluded to - I think I need to make a decision on whether I'm going for real or creative, historical or retro-fitted.

 

Tell ya what - I'll first complete the model realistically and historically, then when I'm done, I'll duplicate the project and go creatively nuts! Does that work for everyone? Lol

 

Thanks guys, much appreciated, as always.

-N.

[3DShipWright]

@Martes - Belay the images request - I just noticed you included he link. Thx!

[Martes]

8 minutes ago, 3DShipWright said:

Ahh, gotcha! So I can incorporate a wheel if I cosmetically like the look of it (which was kind of the whole reason I did one), you're saying I just need to model the tiller on the top of the rudder as well.. Perfect, consider it done! The model you're showing is really good - Would you mind sharing a few more images of the back-end detail for reference? Any actual diagrams or dimentions of the tiller? As a general rule, if I eyeball something it comes out wrong, so i'd like to start as accurate as possible.

 

Of course you can!

Check my post again

https://modelshipworld.com/topic/33504-3d-brig-rose-in-blender-33x/?do=findComment&comment=958183

 

I said "The tiller should be visible behind the wheel, as there is no place to fit it below the deck:"

not "get rid of the wheel" or something. It's just that you can steer using the tiller without a wheel, but not vice versa.

 

"It" in "to fit it" meant the tiller, obviously, since if it's not on the deck, it is invisible, i.e. below the deck, and there is no place there.

 

And the same post has the plans with the tiller quite visibly drawn. And the stern lockers.

 

Note that there were tons of variations in positioning of both, like here, where the initial position of the wheel is before the port, with longer and inclined tiller, and corrected places it aft with shorter and lower tiller. So it's your choice:

 

 

 

Edited January 21, 2023 by Martes

[Martes]

As to the stern, I am afraid you'll have to remove even the lantern (or at least put them to the sides and lower). Did you notice the holder in the center of the sternboard on the model?

 

It's for the spanker boom. Nothing should stick it's head above it.

 

Edited January 21, 2023 by Martes

[Martes]

And here is another model, but be careful, it's a modern interpretation, and may be just a little too fancy and slightly more 1840's in style:

 

[Martes]

Also, I think you should remove the name from the stern.

They appeared on the ships briefly after the american war, but with the start of the french revolutionary war there was an order to remove them to prevent exact identification of the ships, IIRC, and it stayed that way long afterwards. So it would be easier to represent different ships with one model

Edited January 21, 2023 by Martes

[Martes]

You might want to browse this place:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=brig+rmg&title=Special:MediaSearch&go=Go&type=image

 

but beware, it's a rabbit hole out there.

[3DShipWright]

Okay, I've stripped down the stern, only keeping the corner ornaments and the basic trim board. The rudder chain will be re-positioned once I get a general idea of how the steering rigging will go.

 

Tiller has been modelled, but I still need to rework the back section on a large scale

 

[druxey]

There really is no reason for that micro-deck aft and the access ladders. I hate to see the careful rendering go, but...

[Martes]

Yes, it definitely should be larger (to fit the closets) or removed at all.

[Martes]

I do have to correct myself about the chains.

 

Technically, they could have been fixed to the hull (the model in fact shows exactly this, it's just barely visible). There are no holes in the tuck.

 

 

Because, when needed, cables would be fixed to them, and then go into the hull where it would be convenient under the situation:

 

 

But try to verify the positions of the stern ports, you should be able to fire through them - either carronades or chase guns, if there are any fitted.

Edited January 22, 2023 by Martes

[3DShipWright]

Yep, on it. I gotta take it plank by plank so it takes a while. I think I'm going to bring it a bit further forward still, but I'm pausing here till I build the paneled closet dividers.

[3DShipWright]

@Martes - the stern ports are exactly per the official plans:

 

[druxey]

Um, that partial sheer and profile plan shows no sign of a mini poop deck or access ladders. If there were a deck, then red ink lines would have defined it. Less is more!

[Martes]

Then double-check the position of the deck. The stern ports are there to fire through them.

 

Ouch.

 

I... Again hate to break it, but the there is a severe problem with the hull.

 

It should not follow the hull lines on the plan, but to envelop them.

The lines show the outer shape of the frames, which are then covered with plank.

 

See the midship section

https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-83745

The difference is not constant. It's larger at the wale, and will generally differ around the bow, as the the hull curves inwards towards the keel, and there you can use the top projection on the main plan to see if the envelope goes right.

 

I saw you did part of the frames, so you have to adjust them, and envelope them with the planking.

Edited January 22, 2023 by Martes

[Martes]

Just now, druxey said:

Um, that partial sheer and profile plan shows no sign of a mini poop deck or access ladders. If there were a deck, then red ink lines would have defined it. Less is more!

@druxey, the cabins, the poop and the flying forecastle are generally shown on inboard profile plans, and there are lots of them for the class.

 

https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-84378

Edited January 22, 2023 by Martes

[mtaylor]

16 minutes ago, Martes said:

Then double-check the position of the deck. The stern ports are there to fire through them.

 

I may be wrong but doubt there was mini-deck at the stern.. Seems to be unnecessary, a waste of wood and added weight.   Too small to be practical. Now if it had a quarter deck, then that would work as it would have room for rigging handling, a wheel, etc.  And the ladder for going down would be just after the mizzen mast.   I guess I'm trying to think like a ship designer of that era.  They were practical people.

 

As for stern ports..... they may or may not have been used as gun ports.   Many ships had stern ports that not used for guns.  They were used for ventilation and also loading stores.  They weren't always the same size a gun port.

[mtaylor]

By the way,  I'm loving what your doing.   Way back in the dark ages of PC's (183, 283) when HDD's were sized in about 1-2 MB, I tried some 2D and crude 3D  stuff like Blender and the Doom developer kit .  Enjoyed it but really couldn't wrap my head around it so stayed with engineering software.   

[3DShipWright]

13 minutes ago, mtaylor said:

I may be wrong but doubt there was mini-deck at the stern.. Seems to be unnecessary, a waste of wood and added weight.   Too small to be practical. Now if it had a quarter deck, then that would work as it would have room for rigging handling, a wheel, etc.  And the ladder for going down would be just after the mizzen mast.   I guess I'm trying to think like a ship designer of that era.  They were practical people.

 

As for stern ports..... they may or may not have been used as gun ports.   Many ships had stern ports that not used for guns.  They were used for ventilation and also loading stores.  They weren't always the same size a gun port.

 

So not having comprehensive documentation on a single ship or class of brig when I began (my fault, and it won't happen again lol), this project has been - since its inception - a frankenstein. Only now do I realize the monster I created asking a community of nautical historians/enthusiasts their feedback, as each person approaches this with a pre-conceived notion of a brig from a specific time period and a specific configuration. 

 

I will also say that nothing I did was pulled out of thin air. @mtaylor and @druxey - I agree that a poop deck that small may seem pointless/arbitrary, but it's not if you stop and think about it: It's elevated enough to allow the captain a vantage point without having to go aloft, and that's all it was intended to do. It's actually called a bridge deck, and sources I've read assert that it was the origin of the term 'bridge' for the command point on a ship. The USS Niagara has one and it was part of the original 1813 build.

 

That said, I'm extending it and I will be adding deck house underneath it soon. Give me some time to incorporate your suggestions and I'm happy to take additional thoughts/comments.

 

Best Regards,

-N.

 

[3DShipWright]

1 hour ago, Martes said:

I... Again hate to break it, but the there is a severe problem with the hull.

 

It should not follow the hull lines on the plan, but to envelop them.

The lines show the outer shape of the frames, which are then covered with plank.

 

Argh - That's truly frustrating because I did it the way you described on a previous model and someone told me that the plan lines were inclusive of the planking. Now you're telling me that there's misinformation on the internet?!? Say What???

 

Lol - still with a maximum breadth of 30 feet 6 inches and external planking thickness of 2 inches (x2 sides) we're talking about a disparity of 4in/366in, or 1.09% - I'd hardly call that a 'severe' problem. As Jack Sparrow said, 'You need to find yourself a girl, mate!' Sincerely though, thanks for all the support.

[Martes]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:COLUMBINE_1806_RMG_J5090.png

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diligence_(1795);_Seagull_(1795);_Curlew_(1795);_Harpy_(1796);_Hound_(1796);_Chamelion_(1795)_(alternative_spelling-_Cameleon);_Racoon_(1795);_Kangaroo_(1795)_RMG_J4420.png

 

Check these hi-res plans, and, if you want, try to read all what is written on them to delve into the murky waters of Admiralty bureaucracy.

 

Problem with the brigs is that they were very numerous and had an impossible number of in-service alterations.

It's very difficult to track them all.

 

But if you search long enough you will notice that most of the brigs that even don't have some details drawn on the profile, get them on deck/inboard plans, meaning they were added very soon after approval and sometimes even before completion. There was a long discussion of habitability of those ships and they gradually received more and more details.

 

And no, the poop it's not only vantage point. It's also a some cover, and a roof over the cabins.

 

Check the deck. The plans I see have it slightly rise towards the stern.

 

[Martes]

31 minutes ago, 3DShipWright said:

Argh - That's truly frustrating because I did it the way you described on a previous model and someone told me that the plan lines were inclusive of the planking. Now you're telling me that there's misinformation on the internet?!? Say What???

Thats the main pitfall with wooden ships. Lines always show the frames, not planking.

 

It's little, but it is visible. Especially, as I said, around the bow, where the hull curves, and horizontal offset becomes much more pronounced. Without it the ship will appear unnaturally slim. Plus you have a completely distorted area around the keel. And the wale is around twice the plank (midship section plan), so it's 2% already. And because of the irregularity of the plank cover thickness, the external form of the ship is slightly, but visibly different from that of the frame plan - the otherwise totally straight walls would have a light tumblehome, for example.

 

And yes, that's what you get for going to historical modelling forum. I guess 3d artists wouldn't be that whimsical

Edited January 22, 2023 by Martes

[3DShipWright]

Okay - I see the problem on the stern port height - and yes, it is the deck itself. I wrapped the deck in a black stringer where the deck planks meet the inner hull. While this is accurate for the sides and the bow, the stern has a series of two-three planks that quite literally curve up to where it meets the back wall. Let me see what I can do.