Shipbucket

Well it's very easy to implement that into SS
In fact, it already is
Every computer ought to have a web browser where you can access these databases and manually input their data where relevant.
If you're using this site, you have a web browser.
Happy drawing!

_________________
"What are they gonna do, fire me?" - Nate "Tic-Tac" McNally, 2016 (Fired 2019)


All my newer stuff is signed as czslworldtour.

SpringSharp is fully powered by estimations and empiric formulaes. That means that it wont be 100% precise.
However I remember back in the time I tried to calculate a Sevastopol class battleship and as a result her displacement for 1.0 overall strength was off by not more then 100 tons.

_________________
«A sea is not a barrier, a sea is a road, and those who try to use the sea as an instrument of isolation soon realize their foe has already put the sea into his own service.». - Alfred Thayer Mahan.

That is a good basic tutorial.

One thing to note is that Springsharp 3.0 is an unfinished Beta, which is why some of the neat features (like mines and ASW mortars) don't work. Its a shame it was never finished as the update promised some good features.
At Wesworld we decided to stick to the v2.0 because it was unfinished and mixing 2.0 and 3.0 sims caused some issues.

So my experience is mainly with the older version, though I have tinkered with 3.0.

I would agree that misc weight is very important. SS does estimate some weights (fittings etc.) which can be assumed to be a generic formula based on the hull dimensions and space and also I assume a basic superstructure. Likewise the complement estimate is based on hull size. Misc weight should be added for all additional features. For example, SS 2.0 (and perhaps 3.0 beta) does not account for the weight of torpedo tubes despite calculating their deckspace requirements or their torpedoes, SS does not adjust the weights of guns depending on type, e.g. a 5in DP will weigh the same as a 5in BL or an automatic mount. Radar etc. isn't covered at all.
At Wesworld we tend to add 5-10 tons for each radar (depending on type/size), about 25% weight for automatic mounts, plus weights for additional command and bridge spaces. I would say for an average battleship I would add at least 250-400 tons of misc weight, with some reserve for future additions. The beauty of SS 3.0 is that you can vary the amount above and below the waterline, whereas 2.0 assumes its all topweight.

Adjusting the forecastle and quarterdeck lengths seems an inefficient way to alter the belt length and it will monkey with the seakeeping.

When designing a ship I tend to stick to round hp numbers. E.g. if I wanted a 32kt cruiser and it came out at 42,758hp I would round that to a 45,000hp plant and use the BC to adjust the hull strength (requiring further adjustment of hp until you achieve the right balance). Its time consuming but worthwhile as you might have a little speed left over (think deep and dirty in the tropics, you'd want more power to achieve the rated speed in those conditions). If you can't get the strength you want by fiddling with BC in small increments then add a little draught to add some strength.

For stability you ideally want 1.20 or more if possible. For steadiness 70% is ideal for a battleship, 69-50% is fine for smaller ships (tip: 51% trim can often give you a bonus 0.1 seakeeping over 50% in the SS calculations).

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

Thanks for your input hood, much appreciated that you took the time to watch and comment!

However, I must disagree with what you said on adjusting the lengths of the fore and aft decks.
In pretty much every case I can think of, the protected area of a ship will rarely extend far past the fore and aft barbettes (For mags and machinery spaces); In which case it would be more sensible to have the fore and aft decks, thus the protected space, just be barely long enough to cover these areas.

I personally wouldn't agree with having belts, and thus the protected area, 150m long while the fore and aft decks are 200m long, for example. This is because in my opinion this just means the vessel is unnecessarily long, and can be reduced by 50m in length and save on tonnage, for this example.

Also for flush deck designs this method allows in general for a higher average freeboard, if the forecastle and quarter deck remain the same length that is, as reducing the fore and aft deck length creates a larger triangle for the forecastle or quarter deck, and thus more freeboard.

If your protected area extends past your main belts, and you cannot make it any longer due to it already being the length of your fore and aft decks, then you can use ends armour, forecastle and quarter deck deck armour to 'extend' your protected area.


Hope this helps!

_________________
Checkout my SpringSharp tutorial!
http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=8470

I tried to feed the software with correct armaments weight and SS didn't accept them.

Considering I've given SS the numbers for superheavies and it's taken them, this seems to be a chair-keyboard interface issue.

_________________
"What are they gonna do, fire me?" - Nate "Tic-Tac" McNally, 2016 (Fired 2019)


All my newer stuff is signed as czslworldtour.

Or, maybe, an incompatibility with Portuguese ABNT 2 keybord. I developed a lot of airfiles for CFS2 and I'm not a beginner...

Politely, cheers for you and don't underestimated other guys.

Pepe