Paviljoensjacht 1733 | Blender

[amateur]

J think the name is Jan Veltman. Not because I know anything of him, or seen a full signature, but Veltman (without d) is still a pretty common name, Veldmand certainly is not.

 

Jan

[Waldemar]

 

4 hours ago, amateur said:

J think the name is Jan Veltman. Not because I know anything of him, or seen a full signature, but Veltman (without d) is still a pretty common name, Veldmand certainly is not.

 

Correct — Veltman, not Veltmand. The alleged letter ‘d’ is just a fragment of a leaf. But it's best to see it for yourself.

 

link:

| Nationaal Archief

 

 

 

... and in its entirety:

 

[Robska]

Thanks to @Waldemar who worked out the plan in detail and even provided me with a base hull form in 3D! Due to us using different software I needed some time to clean up the topology. Below is the result of some days of work.

First I started with laying out the keel. This is a good base on which the hull rests.

 

 

After that I traced the main whale using the dimensions provided by Waldemar.

 

I am unsure about the position of the “whale” on the stern. Are those two pieces connected? Do they continue as that same part or is it a different part? The side profile of the plan shows a specific profile of the wood.

 

Let me know if you spot any issues or if you have questions.

 

Next is cleaning up the topology of the hull. Currently the mesh density is a bit too high and there are some smaller errors in the topology.

[amateur]

Looking good so far. 
That profiled piece of timber at the stern is one heavy piece. It is one of the structural timbers of the lower stern.

It is notched into the stern.

Although drawn as a completely flat stern, in many drawings (also the older detailed one some posts before) the tmber is also slightly curved when seen from above, implying a slightly curved stern.

 

Jan

Edited December 15 by amateur

[Waldemar]

 

2 hours ago, Robska said:

I am unsure about the position of the “whale” on the stern. Are those two pieces connected? Do they continue as that same part or is it a different part? The side profile of the plan shows a specific profile of the wood.

 

 

The transom timbers at the stern and the wales at the side are essentially pieces of wood independent of each other, but are usually put at the same height so that they can be firmly connected to each other using a knees inside the hull. This is quite important for the structural integrity of the whole vessel.

 

 

 

Later it occurred to me that maybe others might also want to play with this 3D model of the yacht in some way. Without any restrictions. The model is in the form of a mesh and is saved in OBJ format, so that it can be imported into 3D programs that support just meshes (as opposed to NURBS type elements).

 

Paviljoensjacht 1733.obj

 

 

[Waldemar]

 

7 hours ago, Robska said:

there are some smaller errors in the topology.

 

I was a little concerned about your comment regarding possible typological errors in the 3D model mesh I provided to you, which was obtained by preceding automatic conversion from NURBS-type geometry. Therefore, in order to avoid possible faults of this kind in the future, I asked an expert in mesh geometry modelling to find and point out to me any errors in this mesh. Here is his assessment:

 

It definitely is an automatically generated mesh, but it appears as perfect as such mesh can be, I see nothing wrong with this model, nor any trace of manual corrections.

 

Edited December 15 by Waldemar

[Robska]

@WaldemarI am very sorry, I worded that incorrectly. Now it sounds like you gave me a bad 3D model which is certainly not the case.

 

What I meant to say is that due to you using NURBS elements some parts of the model had a weird shading in Blender. I am not knowledgeable enough to figure out what the problem was so I retraced those parts to fix that.

I think the main issue here was that those parts were mostly triangles while quads are better in Blender. The main hull is only quads and did not have this issue.

 

Sorry again, I was careless in my wording.

[Martes]

NURBS to OBJ sometimes produces strange artifacts, especially during triangulation.

 

Note that the quads you see in Blender are actually pairs of invisible triangles, that may (or may not) change when you rotate the model. This can cause visual artifacts when the quads are relatively large, because Blender has an annoying habit to triangulate the quads the wrong way each time.

 

 

[Waldemar]

 

5 hours ago, Robska said:

@WaldemarI am very sorry, I worded that incorrectly. Now it sounds like you gave me a bad 3D model which is certainly not the case.

 

 

That's fine. It gives me some relief, particularly in view of future such conversions, that the matter has been cleared up.

 

Then there is the issue that I did not write about in the private message. I have defined the hull surface inside planking, and for your convenience the width of the keel assembly follows the inner rabbet lines, which effectively have always a diminishing width, especially towards the stern end. In this way, in the provided 3D model, the keel and hull surface edges coincide. This is quite a suitable configuration for a variant where you will not be adding thickness of the planking — you can simply leave it as it is now, and you have ready-made 3D models of both elements.

However, if you decide to add thickness of the planking, remember that you should then make a new keel assembly. I have contrived it in the way to make the job as easy as possible for you — it is enough to make new, replacement keel assembly of uniform width over its entire length. This width should be the same as the greatest width of the current keel. For the thickness of the planking, I have provided one and a half inches.

 

The uncertainty of your decision in this matter is also the reason why I wrote that you will have to optionally redefine some extra elements in the 3D model provided.

 

Good luck!

 

 

 

Edited Monday at 01:59 PM by Waldemar

[Robska]

3 hours ago, Waldemar said:

Then there is the issue that I did not write about in the private message. Although I have defined the hull surface without planking, yet for your convenience the width of the keel assembly follows the inner rabbet lines, which effectively has always a diminishing width, especially towards the stern end. In this way, in the provided 3D model, the keel and planking edges coincide and you don't have to add the thickness of the planking nor define a new keel assembly. You can simply leave it as it is now, and you have ready-made 3D models of both elements.

If I understand the concept of the rabbet line correctly the inner rabbet line is the part of the planking closest to the frames and furthest inside the keel. wouldn't that mean that I should add the one and a half inches on top of the current hull form?

 

I do intend to add the thickness of the planking.

 

English is not my first language and I am also more of a visual learner so please be kind 😀

[Waldemar]

 

Admittedly, I'm not quite sure what the term ‘on top of the current hull form’ means , however, the issue of applying the hull planking thickness is so trivial that it doesn't even need an explanatory diagram. Simply increase the thickness of the existing surface (now zero thickness) to one and a half inches, towards the outside of the hull. This will result in two surfaces parallel to each other, one and a half inches apart, enclosing the volume of the planking.

 

Notwithstanding, it may still be worth showing the suggested run of planking at the bow. In fact, due to its rather peculiar shape, it would not have been possible (or extremely hard) to plank this yacht in any particularly different fashion anyway. Or, at the least, in the shown manner of planking the hull surface, edge bending of the planking boards (in the real, full size construction) would be reduced to a minimum.

 

 

 

Oh, and also perhaps that the transom flat (at the stern) is on the outside of the planking, opposite to the rest.

 

 

 

Edited Monday at 06:24 PM by Waldemar

[amateur]

I was wondering whether a ‘boeier’-like planking would be possible, but I guess not, as the bottom is almost completely flat up to the stern.

 

 

Boeier-jachts are planked using relatively narrow planks, that areheavily spiled and edge-bended. 

 

Statenjacht Utrecht is planked in the way Waldemar showed, albeit slightly different, as the planks from the side are slightly spiled, and edge-bended.

 

 

Jan

Edited Monday at 08:54 PM by amateur

[Martes]

12 hours ago, Waldemar said:

Simply increase the thickness of the existing surface (now zero thickness) to one and a half inches, towards the outside of the hull. This will result in two surfaces parallel to each other, one and a half inches apart, enclosing the volume of the planking.

@Robska, that's Solidify Modifier in Blender:

 

https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/modeling/modifiers/generate/solidify.html

 

https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/modeling/meshes/editing/face/solidify_faces.html

[Robska]

15 hours ago, amateur said:

I was wondering whether a ‘boeier’-like planking would be possible, but I guess not, as the bottom is almost completely flat up to the stern.

Thanks for that first picture, that is actually very helpful. In terms of the tabernacle and even the forward cabin. I think I am going to use this one as inspiration for those parts.

 

For the planking I might go for the suggested planking by Waldemar, de Staten Jacht Utrecht is also useful in this regard.

Edited Tuesday at 12:29 PM by Robska