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, 2024 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, 2024 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 December 16, 2024 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 December 16, 2024 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 December 16, 2024 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 December 17, 2024 by Robska

[Robska]

I am currently working on doing some retopology on the hull of this yacht. Inspired by the planking shown by Waldemar and the method used by @3DShipWright I started work on that. But it seems to be quite the challenge, I watched some youtube videos but it's all very labor intensive and I have not found the right method to give me the result I want.

Can anyone explain me how to redo this hull topology in Blender from this:

 

To this:

On 12/16/2024 at 6:44 PM, Waldemar said:

 

I want to use this method. That is why the topology needs to follow the lines as shown in the above image.

I am specifically looking to learn how to do this myself in Blender. It might be a bit unnecessary to do it this way but I see this as a learning experiment. Hopefully someone can help me out 🧐

Edited December 26, 2024 by Robska

[Martes]

37 minutes ago, Robska said:

To this:

 

@Waldemar works in Rhino, not Blender. It uses totally different geometrical principles (NURBS curves as opposed to vertices, edges and faces) and I am not sure the "planked" can be correctly exported to some form of blender-readable OBJ without requiring serious manual work to sort it out later.

 

Your best hope, I think, is using solidify on the hull, separating it to two halves (fore/aft) and then making diagonal and vertical chiseled cuts with the model facing forward/aft and manually correcting the result.

[Robska]

1 hour ago, Martes said:

and I am not sure the "planked" can be correctly exported to some form of blender-readable OBJ without requiring serious manual work to sort it out later.

Indeed, but I do not want to ask Waldemar to do that. I want to know how to do this in Blender myself. Because I intend to make more ships, so an optimal workflow is needed.

[Martes]

There is no optimal workflow, unfortunately.

 

There are multiple styles of plank covering, and some are easier to reproduce, while others aren't.

 

The Dutch style in question is relatively easy (you can get away with through-cuts), but making some British ship with complex planking will be a torture.

 

There are two options - either reproduce the planks by cutting the surface, or to paint them as a texture, and this depends on what the final destination of the model is.

 

And then remember that most ships were covered by heavy amounts of paint that would, technically obscure the run of the planks, or had their bottom coppered, which makes a totally different picture.

[Robska]

1 hour ago, Martes said:

There is no optimal workflow, unfortunately.

Sadly, I could try to gut the surfaces using the knife tool in Blender. Then I have lots of extra vertices, need to find a way to delete extra vertices while keeping the shape consistent. Otherwise I will just go with texture. This is kinda a test for a sailing game I want to make. So the model needs to look nice, detailed and believable but I am not going for 100% realism.

 

1 hour ago, Martes said:

The Dutch style in question is relatively easy (you can get away with through-cuts), but making some British ship with complex planking will be a torture.

Oh you got me interested. Can you tell me more about the differences in planking between European navies of the 17th century? Are there good sources available online where I can learn more about this?

[Martes]

6 minutes ago, Robska said:

This is kinda a test for a sailing game I want to make.

Then textures + normal maps are your answer definitely.

 

7 minutes ago, Robska said:

Oh you got me interested. Can you tell me more about the differences in planking between European navies of the 17th century? Are there good sources available online where I can learn more about this?

look at collections.rmg.co.uk by "planking"

[Robska]

Last week I finished the general setup of the stern/transom. The transom timber is connected to the whale, but how exactly is unknown for me. Is this accurate enough? Should it line up more precise?

 

I also added the three decks; foredeck, cabin deck and the lower deck. The foredeck has slight upwards curve towards the bow. I also added a bit of camber to the decks. This feels like a very realistic amount of camber, what do you think?

 

One last image, as a bonus

 

What should I take on next? The general layout of the cockpit? The aft cabin doors? The forward cabin setup? The mast or leeboard? Or something else?

I am going to take a small break over the new year. In case I dont see ya: Good afternoon, Good evening, and Good night!

[amateur]

Coming along nicely!

 

With respect to wale/transompiece: the connection is not a ‘structural’ one. It should, however, be without gaps, to keep the water out. 
 

Deck camber is OK, often the camber of the cabin (top deck) is slightly more than of the main deck.

One remark on the deck: The aft deck is lying too low, there is no  railing or any planking higher than the deck (see also the statenjacht or the models referred to earlier in this thread)

 

And another point: it looks as if your ship is lying a bit too low in the water. 
 

With respect to ‘what next’: I don’t know whether it does anything to your workflow, but the cabins and the decklayout would be nice. Adding leeboards however do the most to the general views
 

Jan

Edited December 29, 2024 by amateur

[Robska]

Alright, I am back at it. The holiday season is well and truly behind us. I took the suggestion of @amateur and looked at the deck layout. I fixed the placement of the cabin deck, and cleaned up the topology a bit.

 

Now lets tackle the cockpit location and layout for good. I did some more research and found a few images (I believe someone provided me with the link to the model earlier) and also a drawing with a person (which gives me a sense of scale).

 

 

If I set the cockpit floor at about the same height as the model, then the cabin doors are about 1.2m height. Is that possible? I dont expect the doors to be 1.8m or more I just want to make sure that is somewhat realistic.

I intend to place bences on the side of the cockpit as seen in the model.

Would there be any camber in the cockpit floor? How does water leave the cockpit area if it gets wet?

 

This is the intended layout of the cockpit deck, the forward and aft cabin. Both cabins have 3 steps down to the floor. I believe the forward cabin ends just before the mast. Any comments on this layout?

 

I also changed the waterline. Somehow the waterline was moved. Waldemar had set the right position for the waterline, so I returned it to that position.

 

This week I will be restarting the modelling of this beautiful 'jacht'.

[amateur]

 post #45 by Waldemar shows an other solutionto prevent impratical doors: the stairs outside the cabins. (Combined wirh inwatd swinging doors, I presume)

 

Jan

[Robska]

On 1/19/2025 at 7:03 PM, amateur said:

 post #45 by Waldemar shows an other solutionto prevent impratical doors: the stairs outside the cabins. (Combined wirh inwatd swinging doors, I presume)

 

Jan

Good call! That means that the floor of the cockpit between the stairs is about 80cm. Would that be enough to move and steer?

[amateur]

It is a pity that drawing has no ‘topview’, I would be interested in the width of those stairs, and their position  towards the centerline…

Iguess that 80 centimeters is enough for tiller handling.

 

Jan