Nate's PANDORA in 3D

[3DShipWright]

 

And yes, I know that is not Pandora  

 

Executive Summary

After deliberation, I am taking on the HMS Pandora as my next project. Pandora will be a digital build using multiple software packages, and will be optimized for printed artwork or film. The model will also be rigged for animation for use in film, though I myself do not plan on animating it.  

The model will be high-poly, and of high historical fidelity which is why it will be documented as comprehensively as possible here on the Model Ship World website. The targeted accuracy is a less than 1% deviation from any credible historical source across all conceivable metrics. This applies to all components modelled

 

About this Build Log

I think my biggest asset and greatest hope of completing Pandora is you – the MSW community and the overwhelming knowledge you guys (and gals) have of ship building. I received excellent feedback on all three of my previous builds, yet I am chronically at fault of two things, namely:

 

• a.      Not seeking out advice when I have a question or run into issues during the build.

      and…

• b.      Not sticking to the topic or theme of the build log.

 

The latter is especially bad. For example: with Confederacy, I began the build log as an actual step-by-step tutorial of 3D ship modelling in blender, then when that became unsustainable, I moved to posting screenshots of my progress accompanied by short update logs and upcoming tasks. Towards the end I didn’t even finish posts that were supposed to be a ‘part 1 of 2’ or something similar.

With my 3D longboat, I am proud to say that I have at least finished the project (gallery photos coming soon! No, really, I promise. Lol). However, I opened that topic thinking I would turn it into a showcase of how to correctly turn a single model into multiple boats in a 3D render and have them look convincing. But it turns out that doing just one was hard enough.

 

Fact is, I simply need more overall discipline in my work. And Pandora is going to be an absolute BEAST to model correctly. I don’t expect her to be perfect – that would be an impossible standard – but I do expect myself to be far more patient than in the past.

 

Framework

The theme and structure of this log will be simple: A 3D PANDORA build log. I will still talk at length about how I achieved certain results within the software and call out a few features by name, but I’m going to shy away from anything that is more step-by-step. Not guarding any trade secrets here, it’s just that as my skill has improved, so have the complexity of my workflows. At this point I fear my methods won’t be understood by anyone unless I make a video tutorial.

 

Most of this project will be done in Blender. The final product will be digital, and I find blender to be the best intermediary software between. However, as I’m intending this to be a comprehensive, historically accurate build, I will attempt to be ‘software agnostic’ especially in the early stages of the build. As far as my pre- and post-production needs are concerned, Adobe pretty much corners the market. And even within Blender, I’m making extensive use of 3^rd party CAD addons that will allow blender to do 90% of what DelftShip does on the hull front.

 

Margin of Error

The allowable margin of error for this project is 1% across all metrics. This is not intended to shield me from mistakes. I will make plenty of mistakes along the way. When I do, call them/me out. Full stop. This is important, not only from an educational perspective, but because unchecked mistakes compound and in extreme cases can even break the project. Rather, this buffer will serve the inevitable reconciliation between imported plans. Even after hours removing distortion in a highly capable software like Photoshop, then further hours spent positioning the images in Blender, there will inevitably be things that won’t line up properly.

 

 

 

 

Excited to get into it with y'all. Stay tuned!!!

 

 

[3DShipWright]

Current state of the project - I will bridge the gap in an upcoming post, but presently, I'm finishing the external planking.

 

[herask]

nice one! I also have Pandora on hold, I thought of continuing after I finish the sails on HMS Pegasus, but I think I'll reconsider because topic saturation 😁. 

 

good luck, will follow

[3DShipWright]

Outer planking nearly complete. I have one more rail on the forecastle to model, then its on to the channels, fenders, quarter deck cut-outs, and so-on.

[3DShipWright]

Here's the latest from pandora. The billboard needs to come in at a sharper angle so I'll have to fix that.

 

Thing is - the plans show two of the chain plates affixed to the hull behind the billboard, yet the plans also show the first three planks of said billboard affixed to the outer planking. That seems like a physical impossibility - am I missing something??? Are there vertical grooves cut into the inside of the first three strakes of the billboard to allow for the chain plates?

 

Thanks in advance

 

 

 

[Trumper07]

Fascinating work so far - thank you for sharing 3DShipWright! Super keen to follow your 3d model as it develops : )

[3DShipWright]

Hey Folks, Happy New Year!

I'm excited to be back at the table on Pandora and now have new resources at my disposal that I hope will make Pandora my best project yet.

 

The keen observer among you may have noticed that while I began this project in the traditional manner - that is, gathering/lofting plans, building the keel/stem/stern assemblies, and getting the moulded breadth 'shell' built in 3D - I then jumped straight into making the exterior planking and fittings. This probably leaves many to wonder what, if any, internal details I plan on modelling...

 

Well, I'm happy to say that even in its digital form, this Pandora will be a 100% built up model. Every individual frame, beam, plank, nail, bolt, and sheet of copper will be captured in excrusiating detail. It is for that reason that I needed more books in my library. Now, thanks to my family, friends, and loving wife, I have acquired 4 new (old) titles that should help me do justice to this famous piece of Naval history. Among these, the famous Ship Builder's Repository of 1788, shall be indispensable for construction, dimensions, and put plainly: how it all fits together.

 

With all that said, the reason I was working on the outside hull and fittings was precisely because I could work on these parts with relative confidence while awaiting the reference material to do better justice to the frames and interior of the ship. I've nearly finished the external planking and am pleased with the results for the most part.

 

 

The 3-2-1 Pattern and the Rule of 4

The external planking on Pandora conforms almost exactly to the plans. Including the garboard strake, there are 21 'standard' strakes that follow the 3-2-1 pattern I pointed out in my Confederacy project. I know this confused some folks, so I'll do my best to explain how I interpret this pattern:

 

There are a series of vertical cuts that separate each strake along the hull into individual planks (duh!)

 

On Pandora and many other ships I've seen, these cuts are made almost exactly where the station lines are.

 

Except where the planking is sheared off at the bow and stern, each plank is exactly 4 stations long

 

 

Now, the 3-2-1 pattern, as I call it, refers to how the planking is staggered between strakes. It should actually be called the 'Alternating 3-2-1 Repeat-as-you-go-down' pattern. Yuck! But not to worry, it's simple enough to understand:

 

Starting at the foremost cut in each section, move aft 3 station lines to get the location of the next cut in the strake below the one you started on.

 

Next, move forward 2 station lines to cut the strake below that.

 

Finally, move aft 1 station line and cut the plank below that.

 

That's it! Just repeat the process until the whole hull or hull section is complete, using the same station line you started with, only 4 strakes down. This works out well, as every plank is 4 stations long, and every vertical cut in the planking is made 4 strakes above the last one. Hence, the Rule of 4.

 

 

 

Hull Plank Sections:

 

Section #1: Garboard -> Tuck -> Bottom of the Lower Counter

The planking for the first 21 strakes on Pandora follow the method I described above, but even within this first section, the planks are not evenly spaced (i.e. equal siding width) across all station lines. The reason is the tuck

 

The tuck at the stern is at the top of the16th strake. The 16 strakes are evenly spaced from the keel to the tuck...

 

As are the 5 strakes that extend outward from the tuck to the diagonal scarfs that make up the next section of planking. Note that though equal in width to each other, these last 5 strakes are considerably narrower than the 16 that preceded them.

 

 

Upon reaching the deadflat at midship, all 21 strakes are evenly distributed and continue that way all the way forward. When viewed from behind, the cuts from the sternpost and lower counter to their respective place at midship appear more or less as straight lines.

 

FYI - right now the topology is only able to change at the stations, half-stations, and the FP/AP, so more subdivision between these lines will be required to get the strakes to delicately 'curve' as they approach the tuck and lower counter. I do plan on fixing this later - as I will also need this shape to be more accurate when I add the transoms.

 

 

Section #2: Diagonal Scarfs -> Elm Stringer or lower Thick Part

Next comes a series of 3, double-wide strakes (each being the width of 2 normal strakes, or 6 strakes in total). This part of the ship has the sharpest changes in inflection points along the station lines, so for structural reasons, each double-wide strake is cut into nibbed triangles (and inverted triangles), with each apex being 2/3rds the width of the total strake. The apex of each plank is also offset, so that one diagonal cut to the apex is 1 station long, whereas the other is 3 stations long. This way each plank is still 4 stations long. The direction of the offset also alternates between the three double-wide strakes.

 

Note that there is also a 'washout' at the bow and stern where the cuts once again simply split the strakes in half. For the sake of simplicity, I set the washout points to align with the foremost and aftmost cuts on the rest of the planking which is at stations 'R' and '23', respectively.

 

To be continued in next post...

Edited January 3 by 3DShipWright

[3DShipWright]

Pandora's framing, still very early stages. I have about 2/3 of the perpendiculars modelled, and now I'm working on the fore cant frames. Each futtock is extremely precise from the floor timers up through the top timbers, and each dither and bend mathematically in accordance with the scantling data in The Ship Builder's Repository

 

This applies to:

• The room and space calculations provided
• The siding and gap dimensions taken from the 15in deadflat at midship, the other waist/midship stations (stations '5' to 'N') and outer perpendicular sections (5 in total).
• The dithering with each futtock above the floor - 5/6ths and 2/3rds, respectively
• The pattern of offsets and frame staggering and perhaps more importantly the specific points on the ship where these general rules were broken.

Note: All chocks not currently modelled. They will be cut out from the existing frames and modelled later.

 

And a couple screen grabs...

 

 

Till the Next,

-N.

[3DShipWright]

Hey folks, haven't posted in a while, so here it is...

 

Frames are still progressing. Sadly, I don't have the same amount of time these days to dedicate to modelling as I used to, but I hope to complete the internal frames within the next two weeks, at which point I can move on to cutting out the internal planking.

 

Building the frames - or at least the incredibly accurate way in which I'm doing them - is very tedious and slow. The good news is that once I'm past this step the rest of the build should pick up in terms of pace.

 

 

 

And here's a screen shot showing how well my modelled frames align with the plans. Note - the height of the gun/sweep ports is correct. There is actually a very rare distortion in the AOTS book that caused the images to get squished vertically, whereas my modelling conforms perfectly to the RMG plans, as well as the scanting tables from The Shipbuilder's Repository.

 

 

Best,

-Nate

Edited March 7 by 3DShipWright

[3DShipWright]

Framing update: prepping for the aft cant frames. Working on the deadwood pieces. Getting the stepping cuts to precisely follow the bearding line has been a challenge. Another challenge is that the siding (room and space) calls for aft cant frames at 10 inches, but that is a measure of the outboard siding. Inboard of the stepped scarf - where the frames abutt the deadwood - is actually smaller, which is why the second frame in each pair on each step appears narrower than the forward partner. The width of the aft frame is not even consistent, rather, it is a mathematical function of the angle.

 

Translated into English... Yuck! Super slow-going, but I hope my attention to detail will be worth it in the end...

 

 

 

 

 

[3DShipWright]

Ahh Pandora's framework: it's been so much fun /s.

Kinda like when the progress bar shoots up to 90% and completely stalls

 

 

[herask]

Nate, I wholeheartedly agree. I'm also done with framing (tight race this one is 🤣), and the work/procrastinate ratio in my case was waaaay in favor of "I don't feel like working on frames right now" 😁. I remember when working on Pegasus, the most fun I had was while working on decks... still some work to do before those...

[3DShipWright]

Dusting off my Pandora project for some work on it during the holidays. Here's a few current state images to kick things off...

 

[Waldemar]

 

A pleasure to watch. And, once again, my favourite ‘mono’ colour scheme in muted tones .

 

[Loracs]

amazing... I so much would like to do that. With zero experience in Blender, I don't even know where and how to start. @3DShipWright, fantastic work. You need a series of video with step-by-step guide 😉  I know I'm being unreasonable. That would be a huge undertaking by itself.

 

In fact, would you have something very simple at hand, such as a launch or a cutter with frames, that you would be able to share a series of Blender files from the beginning. Almost like a step by step but with a simple layout. Current tutorial just does not deal with model ship, so the motivation to learn Blender is low for us focus exclusively on ship modeling. This could be an entry point for us to learn from. This is just food for thought and just a suggestion, this is still a large undertaking and maybe hand holding is just not what you want to do. hehe!

 

Even simpler, would you know of a ship modeling-centric tutorial channel (youtube) using blender?

Edited November 26 by Loracs

[3DShipWright]

On 11/26/2025 at 8:12 AM, Waldemar said:

 

A pleasure to watch. And, once again, my favourite ‘mono’ colour scheme in muted tones .

 

Oh good, nice to know I don't have to worry about texturing her then 😆

[3DShipWright]

@Loracs - I'm certainly not opposed to the idea of making a formal tutorial series on ship building in Blender. I've received a handful of requests to do so, be it written or video format. However, I hesitate for a few reasons:

 

My passion is making high-quality digital boats and ships. The key word here is digital. My work has yielded some amazing renders and animations, but they don't translate to physical assets (CNC parts/3D printing) nor even video games due to their high poly count. A majority of folks loose interest right there.

 

Secondly, you're correct, making a tutorial in any format is time consuming. I'd be happy to do it, the problem is each person would want something different, and that's assuming they know blender well enough to follow along.

For example, this is a gross simplification of my actual process, step by step:

• Import the sheer and body half-breadth and plans for the ship you want to build
• Scale and align them to the global origin of the ship - top-of-rabbet, station (+) - then rotate them to be visible from the orthographic X, Y, or Z axis
• Add a curve for each station line and use the curve tools to trace each line atop the molded-breadth plan
• Then position each curve font to back at its appropriate location using the sheer plan
• Mirror all curves either before or after midship so that all curves are on the same side of the ship.
• Convert all curves to meshes and then join them into a single object that contains all station lines
• Ensure each station line has the same number of vertices, and furthermore that the vertices on each station line are equal to one more than the number of strakes on the exterior hull (verts=n+1)
• Then ensure that the vertices are evenly distributed along the line (the Space function of the Loop Tools add-on in Blender can assist with this)
• Loft all station lines together (Loft function of Loop Tools add-on). You now have a flat sheet that represents one side of your hull.
• The result will likely look blocky, so either:
  • Loop cut interpreted station lines between the actual stations, or...
  • Subdivide the mesh using the Sub-serf modifier.
• Neither method is perfect. The Sub-serf modifier will automatically sooth everything out for you, but it will do so by distorting (shrinking) the original station lines as well as doubling the number of strakes. I prefer to manually loop cut between each station, then smooth out the new interpolated lines using the 'Curve' function of the Loop Tools add-on, but for some weir reason, you actually only select the original stations when doing this, but the function will operate upon the non-selected lines. No idea why it works this way, but it does.

 

Anyway, you get the idea... Thing is if you follow everything I wrote above, it only gets you to this:

 

 

 

Summing up - that's my hesitation in doing tutorials. However, I have been working with @CDR_Ret for a couple years now and I think he's got a pretty good grasp on the general flow I'm discussing here. And unlike myself, he has professional experience in technical writing and educational texts. He and I have kicked around the idea of transcribing some of this 'knowledge' if you can call it that, for other aspiring Blender artists.

 

@CDR_Ret - Not to put you on the spot Terry, but what do you think? Knowing what you now know about this process, is the fundamentals of 3D shiprighting in Blender something you think we could throw together for folks? Like I sad in my opening, happy to consider it, just wanna make sure the juice is worth the squeeze.

Best wishes to you both, and Happy Thanksgiving to my American compatriots!

Nate

 

Edited November 28 by 3DShipWright

[CDR_Ret]

Hey, Nate (@3DShipWright) and @Loracs. I got the alert that you had tagged me.

 

There are three things to address in such a tutorial:

1. The key steps required in constructing a ship hull and its details. Ship's hulls are not the simplest thing to build in Blender, requiring a lot of knowledge of what you are trying to model first, then translating that into building it in a digital 3D space, which leads to:
2. Knowing how to use the gazillions of features to actually form the model in Blender, and then adding the really cool textures and materials that turn it into a photorealistic product.
3. And (3), placing that model into a photorealistic environment.

Sadly, this isn't like a cookbook, where you can start with nothing and end up with something in a linear fashion. The Blender knowledge space is like a 3D network itself, with nodes of prerequisite information connecting to other information. That's about the only way I can explain it. Also, the way you create an object can affect how to enhance it down the road

 

I think it would worthwhile to attempt such a general tutorial for ship modelers, since it is pretty evident there is an interest for a segment of our community in creating such a guide. It would take a lot of effort on the parts of one or two people. If we could crowd source the project (with, perhaps a knowledgeable editor overseeing everything), that could make it more doable. (I did that in DELFTship a while back.) The downside to attempting such a tutorial is that Blender is updated frequently enough, it could make at least the details of using the program out of date fairly quickly.

 

That's my two cents (American). Oh, wait, we aren't making pennies anymore . . .

 

Terry

[druxey]

Very nice work, but that large framing gap under gun port 3 seems odd.

[Loracs]

@3DShipWright, @CDR_Ret, a thousand thanks for even considering such project....  and there are absolutely no hard feelings if you think it is just unrealistic.  This would indeed be quite a demanding project.  Let me see what I can find online to go from an utterly beginner level to an "I somehow understand level" of proficiency with blender.  ;_)

 

In addition, you further make a comment about the final purpose: artistic digital modeling and Ship modeling with the intent to develop an actual model via CNC and/or laser cutting.  In my naive view, I thought that achieving one get you automatically to the other.  You already see that I don't understand blender at all.

 

Lastly, with ship modeling in mind, with the objective of creating 3d frames from 2d plan down the road, would it be better using a parametric CAD software as starting point, rather them a mesh like blender.

Edited November 28 by Loracs

[3DShipWright]

16 hours ago, druxey said:

Very nice work, but that large framing gap under gun port 3 seems odd.

Good to hear from you Druxey! I hope you're doing well.

That particular futtock frame is odd indeed, and the result undoubtably creates a structural weakness beneath gunport #3. Question - when you say 'looks odd' are you simply making an observation, or do you suspect it may be historically incorrect?

 

I ask because I have it modelled the same way it was drawn in the AoTS book (Frame #31, figure B5/1, page 33)

 

 

But like I said, it seems odd to me as well, so if you've any evidence to refute this drawing, I'd love to have a look at it.

Best regards,

-N

[druxey]

The latter, alas. Many drawings in the AOTS series are unreliable. For a comparable ship's framing structure, look at this:

There are no dramatic shifted or cast timbers at all! And there are no large gaps between toptimbers either. Whenever possible, look at primary sources - they are far more reliable. The RMG web site has a wealth of visual information.

 

Sorry to pour cold water on things.

[Pirate adam]

Nate,  

 

This is a topic I spent a lot of time agonizing over for my Crocodile build. I was planning to use the framing pattern straight out of the Pandora book but quickly found some discrepancies with the shear plan I have of Crocodile from the National Maritime Museum.  Added to that the framing plan in the Pandora book just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense from an engineering perspective. Parts of the ship seem hopelessly compromised in terms of strength for no apparent reason. 
 

The NMM has partial framing plans for several of the other Porcupine class ships. Some show a number of cast frames and some use shifted frames. None look anything like the framing in the Pandora book. Interesting the NMM doesn’t seem to have any drawings of the actual Pandora.  I would recommend looking up some of those plans for guidance or as a pretty good approximation the framing diagram available for HMS Sphinx.  It is a very similar size and shape of ship. 
 

On the other hand your 3D model is already pretty awesome. It all comes down to whether you are striving for historical accuracy or creating a cool model of what is in the book. The fact is no one alive really knows what the framing looked like and it may have changed some in the major retrofit of the ship. 
 

Adam

[herask]

Nate, nice to see your progress. She's looking beautiful! 

[3DShipWright]

@druxey and @Pirate adam Thank you both for your feedback. I probably should've clarified that it was just the one frame that I wasn't sure about.

 

I'm actually quite confident that the real ship's frames bore a much closer resemblance to how they are depicted the AoTS book than they do any disposition plans on the NMM/RMG site. 

 

So one VERY important thing to note when it comes to frames. is that frame disposition plan IS NOT to be interpreted as a comprehensive framing plan. You cannot treat everything from RMG as gospel any more than you can treat diagrams in the AoTS as gospel. This is not to say that these plans are 'wrong' rather, to my eyes they are merely a simplification of the actual frame plan (at least the ones signed by Williams are)

 

In fact, referencing the HMS Sphinx diagram below, there are several obvious examples as to why this plan cannot be the actual frame layout for the ship:

1. The siding of each futtock above the floor timbers do not dither/diminish as they are supposed to in real life. The fact that futtocks get thinner as you go up is well established and their precise proportions documented in various scantling tables (I used shipbuilders repository of 1788 pg. 95-96 if you wish to double check my work.
   Scantlings of a 24-gun ship at midship (percentages rounded)
   1. First futtock of floor timbers 98%
   2. Second futtock of first futtock 87%
   3. Third futtock of second futtock 95%
   4. Fourth futtock of third futtock 97%
   5. Top timbers of fourth futtock 99%
      Crunching these numbers, the top timbers should be approx 77% the width of the floor timbers. This detail is clearly omitted on the Sphinx plan. @druxey this is why the top timbers appear more spread out on my model. 
2. There are no cut-outs, nor sills, depicted for either the sweep ports or the sheave ports. This is further proof the RMG frame plans for these smaller ships are not comprehensive
3. The perpendiculars are evenly spaced, which once again is contrary to the established 2-1-1 floor timber arrangement

 

These are just the most obvious reasons the RMH/NMM plans can't be 'as done in real life'.

 

Now, that still begs the question: Where on earth did Pandora's Framework come from? Well, I think Tim McKay did the same thing I have done, that is, derive a frame plan that actually conforms to all documented metrics and scantling data. Lots and lots of math and calculations. I've spent the better part of a year essentially re-designing Pandora from the ground up and I've reached a frame plan that is very close to, but not identical to, what is in the book.

 

Just my two cents.
Best,

-Nate

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 12:38 AM by 3DShipWright

[3DShipWright]

5 hours ago, Pirate adam said:

This is a topic I spent a lot of time agonizing over for my Crocodile build. I was planning to use the framing pattern straight out of the Pandora book but quickly found some discrepancies with the shear plan I have of Crocodile from the National Maritime Museum.

If I may ask, what discrepancies are you referring to?

[Kenchington]

1 hour ago, 3DShipWright said:

the top timbers should be approx 77% the width of the floor timbers. This detail is clearly omitted on the Sphinx plan.

I (almost) agree with your 77%. (The top-timber siding tabulated in the Repository rounds to 100% of the 4th futtock, not 99%.) But I can't agree that the framing diagram you have presented omits that detail. Setting dividers against the diagram on my monitor shows the siding of the head of a top-timber amidships is close to three-quarters that of the floor -- call it 77% or 78%.

 

More generally, while no one source can be trusted as absolute truth and we need to understand the intent behind each type of diagram, I would suggest that (in general) drawings made by the people who designed and built the ships (e.g. those now in the Greenwich collection) are more trustworthy than modern interpretations -- especially interpretations by enthusiasts whose skills lie in draughtsmanship, rather than ship design or nautical archaeology.

 

Trevor

Edited Tuesday at 01:43 AM by Kenchington

[3DShipWright]

1 hour ago, Kenchington said:

Setting dividers against the diagram on my monitor shows the siding of the head of a top-timber amidships is close to three-quarters that of the floor -- call it 77% or 78%.

I'm not seeing it. There should be a definite stair stepping effect.

 

Again, there are also no frame pairs depicted, no sweep or sheave port sills or cut-outs, there should be no stepping scarf for the fore cant frames that extends to the outer planking, and several of the aft bollards are depicted as wider than the timbers from which they were carved.

 

Nothing I'm saying should be controversial here: These disposition plans simply cannot possibly be accurate and/or complete.


 

1 hour ago, Kenchington said:

More generally, while no one source can be trusted as absolute truth and we need to understand the intent behind each type of diagram

Agreed 100% But you're actually making my point for me: what was the intent of an admiralty disposition plan? Nowhere is it written that those disposition plans were hard and fast blueprints for a ship's framing. The actual framing relies on all those established scantling tables, as well as the available seasoned(or partially seasoned in Pandora's case) timber.

And remember, Ron Coleman co-authored the AoTS Pandora book, and he was the curator of the actual Pandora exhibit in Queensland, meaning much of what shaped the designs in the book were pieces of actual wreckage.

 

At the end of the day, I guess it doesn't matter if folks think my framing is historically accurate, it just seems odd to me the way people will cling to the infallibility of NMM/RMG plans with religious conviction, even when they don't hold up to evidence/scrutiny/logic.

 

Best,

-Nate

Edited Tuesday at 03:32 AM by 3DShipWright

[Kenchington]

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, still less get drawn into an argument, but in a spirit of constructive debate:

 

7 hours ago, 3DShipWright said:

I'm not seeing it. There should be a definite stair stepping effect.

Maybe someone simplified the draughting and drew the timbers with straight tapers, rather than steps. The lesser siding of the top timbers is still represented in the draught.

 

7 hours ago, 3DShipWright said:

there are also no frame pairs depicted

Yes there are. It is only that the draught was (again) simplified by the chocks that both joined at set-apart the two halves of the pair being shown only for one pair (the ones that frame the forward side of the fifth gunport counting from the bow) and omitted for the others.

 

7 hours ago, 3DShipWright said:

no sweep or sheave port sills or cut-outs

There I do agree with you and I am left wondering why. My best guess (and no more than that) is that the gunports compromised the strength of the hull so much that the frame had to be adjusted to minimize the weakness, whereas lesser holes could be worked in as an where needed while the ship was being built.

 

7 hours ago, 3DShipWright said:

there should be no stepping scarf for the fore cant frames that extends to the outer planking

I don't understand what you meant by that.

 

7 hours ago, 3DShipWright said:

several of the aft bollards are depicted as wider than the timbers from which they were carved.

So the shipwrights were required to trim the scantlings of the available timber, trimming more in some parts than others? That's no criticism at all.

 

7 hours ago, 3DShipWright said:

These disposition plans simply cannot possibly be accurate and/or complete.

I see no reason to doubt their accuracy. Nor that they were "complete" for the purpose for which they were prepared, though most certainly incomplete as exact representations of the frame of the completed ship.

 

7 hours ago, 3DShipWright said:

The actual framing relies on all those established scantling tables

There I must disagree. The author of Shipbuilder's Repository (who did not even put his own name to his book, let alone produce some sort of official textbook) gave recommendations, not rigid rules -- which did not exist. For the details of a particular ship, we must turn to draughts of that ship, the nearest for which details are available or else seek the underlying principles from study of many draughts.

 

Trevor

 

 

[3DShipWright]

Thanks for the insights Trevor. And please know that feedback is always appreciated, and that I truly believe that constructive criticism is just that... constructive.

 

Best Regards,

-Nate