Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

Republic of Texas 2.0
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=6821		 Page 15 of 19
Author:  acelanceloet [ October 24th, 2016, 5:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Republic of Texas 2.0
As somebody who actually works on vessels that are actually build, and as somebody currently working on an calculation tool much like springsharp but for an a lot smaller series of vessels, I cannot help but comment on this.

Springsharp is a tool. and tools are only useful when used correctly, and when checked with data, experience and skill. Redhorse is likely one of the few people on shipbucket who actually use springsharp correctly.

IIRC, Redhorse, you posted a long time ago an description how you design your ships, with deck plans and everything. do you still do that? :P

Springsharp, in my opinion, should not be used to see if what you have drawn is possible. as said, the outcome is different from what reality proves. it should however be used as an early design tool, giving you parameters like displacement, strength, stability etc which would otherwise be quite hard to find out without actual shipbuilding experience. creating an actual ship design from that data, is something that takes skill, time and experience. this, and nothing else, is the difference between the case of Redhorse and the 'various discussions held on springsharp in the past'.
talking about putting reputation on the line :P

Now, onwards with this awesome thread full of awesome, in my opinion all workable and good looking ships!
Author:  reytuerto [ October 24th, 2016, 5:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Republic of Texas 2.0
The actual conversation is extremely intresting, I'm lerning a lot with your comments.

Hi, Redhorse:
One question about your fantastic Battleship Republic. I think that for your proyected desing speed, (and also because the ship is from Texas, well known oil productor) are you only relying in oil firing boilers? Cheers.
Author:  Redhorse [ October 24th, 2016, 9:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Republic of Texas 2.0
Quote:
I'm in no way well-versed enough in that era's ships to join the debate on the feasibility of your battlecruisers, but I have one fairly noobesque question about them: based on IRL designs, is it accepted practice to have torpedo tubes just above the waterline at the edge of the armor belt? Wouldn't it make loaded torpedoes vulnerable to adverse torpedoes or shells striking just outside the belt?

Also a small remark on drawing style: you could enhance relief by adding shading below the bridge, turret overhangs and inside the barbettes, and maybe improve the integration of the underwater elements grafted on your hull (strakes, shafts) by shifting the edges where they meet the hull background from black to the darker red you've used on the rudder root.
I've seen both, depending on who built the ship. I intend to remove them in later refits precisely for the vulnerabilities you describe.

The turret overhangs are minimal on this class, they are taken from US turrets in use at the time. If you haven't been directed to this site yet for research and good photos, this is one site I use:

http://www.navweaps.com/

And another excellent source for US ships:

http://www.navsource.org/

Hull shading is still something I struggle with to get right. Sometimes I revert to basic SB shading rules instead of doing something more realistic. Still learning every time I draw a ship.
Author:  Redhorse [ October 24th, 2016, 9:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Republic of Texas 2.0
Quote:
IIRC, Redhorse, you posted a long time ago an description how you design your ships, with deck plans and everything. do you still do that?
To some degree, depending on the ship and how much time I want to spend. Deck plans take a LONG time to finish. Here's a shot of Invincible with a transparent outboard profile laid over the basic inboard profile to give you an idea of how I put things together:

[ img ]

This might be helpful to anyone looking to draw a ship from the keel up.
Author:  Redhorse [ October 24th, 2016, 9:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Republic of Texas 2.0
Quote:
One question about your fantastic Battleship Republic. I think that for your proyected desing speed, (and also because the ship is from Texas, well known oil productor) are you only relying in oil firing boilers? Cheers.
Yes. I'm using oil-fired boilers almost exclusively now. Far more oil than coal in Texas.
Author:  Redhorse [ October 24th, 2016, 9:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Republic of Texas 2.0
Quote:
As somebody who actually works on vessels that are actually build, and as somebody currently working on an calculation tool much like springsharp but for an a lot smaller series of vessels, I cannot help but comment on this.
When you get ready to beta test that, I'd love to try it. I hate trying to get smaller vessels to work in Springsharp.

Incidentally, where do you work? I did spend 3 years studying Naval Architecture at the University of New Orleans when I was young and indestructible, but I could not pass integral calculus and had to pick something else for a major.
Author:  Novice [ October 24th, 2016, 9:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Republic of Texas 2.0
The Republic battleship looks great. A good compromise of restricted building facilities and having a big enough hull. I think though, that the rudder is on the small size for a ship of that size, but as I lack any ship design experience (be it real life or just here on any AU thread) it is more of an aesthetic view than a design issue.
Author:  eswube [ October 24th, 2016, 10:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Republic of Texas 2.0
Excellent series of additions. It's always a pleasure to look into this thread.
Author:  RegiaMarina1939 [ October 25th, 2016, 12:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Republic of Texas 2.0
YES THE AU IS SOMEWHAT BACK!
Author:  Hood [ October 25th, 2016, 7:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Republic of Texas 2.0
These have been very interesting additions, and I'm sure your using the mix of SS and real world examples correctly and with good effect.
For Texas, it would make sense for them to prioritise firepower over range and habitability. Being a regional power, perhaps more coastal orientated, it makes sense for them to make some compromise with seakeeping. Don't forget even respectable designers and navies made some bad ships during this era.

I'm surprised that there are not more anti-torpedo boat QF guns on these vessels, ships of this era often had large batteries of 12pdr and 6pdr and 2pdr (50-37mm) weapons and MGs etc. I would have thought there might have been a sizable torpedo boat threat in the Gulf of Mexico.
Page 15 of 19 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/