Shipbucket

Well
I agree with you that Shipbucket is primary a drawing forum, and thats very good. But I think the idea of adding the extra realism factor with the use of springsharp or at least try to make the ships more plausable

There is extra forumlas for making carriers and subs in SS. THe can be found in Warships1 and warshipsprojects forum.

I started out with SS and then turned to draw the ships, as a visualisation of my ideas and designs.
You learn alot about how ship works when working with SS.

A beautiful ship often handles well in the seas.

_________________
Dieu et mon droit
Solus dux nullus ductus

Worklist
All Royal Swedish Navy units from 1522 to present

I wouldn't be too quick to talk down AUs and Shipbucket. I'm only a newb but I wouldn't have anything to do with this concept without the AU. And to draw a good AU I first have to draw some real world ships and aircraft that haven't been drawn before. While a lot of people don't seem that happy with the kit bashing and Kirov stuff that has been very useful for me to learn a lot about drawing in Shipbucket style. So please indulge me (and other newbs) in the hope that from our AU kit bashing we will become proficient drawers of un drawn ships, aircraft and vehicles.

Idea overall to improve the standards in AU section is good. Despite we are drawing forum, it doesen't mean that just anything goes. This should apply to both ships (when own designed) and to drawing style/level/skill ect...
Good thing with SS is that once a "acceptable" report of the simulation has been made, the arguing of plausability of the desing can be held in really micro-detail level, where it IMO serves most purpose and honours all involved.

Then again, good AU is not just super ships and engineering masterworks, missfits and oddities should go along too. In the end, good general naval knowledge is the key. One need to know what he is drawing and designing.

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"

As someone who began on Shipbucket with AU, I'm in no way downplaying that part of the Forum, especially when it encourages members to try their skills on real life and never built, and also own designs. If folk find Springsharp a useful tool in producing better designs then I would encourage them if that is what they choose. My point was that the actual purpose of Shipbucket when it first began, and before any Forum was attached to it, was as an archive of drawings in the Shipbucket style: primarily real life, but with the other forms represented.

I don't think we will ever see a time when Springsharp is mandatory, and I know psilander is not advocating that here. I'm now not able to devote time myself to AU or own designs, but I enjoy the (better) designs submitted; and I try to take a reasonable view of new members first efforts. Fortunately, there are so many other folk ready to assist with advice before I get to see some of the new drawings that I don't have to contribute much.

Long Live Kirovmania

I think putting a decent sized stat-block with the ship would help, it makes you actually think instead of pasting from a parts sheet because "it looks cool".

_________________
Atheism. Because Religion Has No Proof.
Canada Rules
~Obligatory Sig Image Here~

I was actually wondering if I should post some basic dimension ratios, machinery unit sizes, typical hullform parameters, sensible design features etc that can be used to make ships approximately the correct size and shape? This would be a lot simpler than Springsharp and easy to use in Shipbucket drawings. There are some simple rules from our Undergraduate courses that could be used.

RP1

_________________
"Yes siree, the excitement never stops." Togusa, Ghost in the Shell

I would very much like to see those.

I think that is important that the designs in AU have some anchor in reality. I have been in the USN and look at the drawings based on what is practical. Some drawings are great art work, but their vivability as a warship may leave something to be desired.

There is more to a designing a ship than just the drawing. You need to consider other factors - such as space/volume required for machinery, ammunition, and crew's berthing to name a few. When the ships are more contemporary, you have to consider the space/weight impacts of the electronics and command & control facilities necessary.

Springsharp is extremely detailed and provides a great deal of information about a design - probably more than this site may require. But it would be nice to have some basic values (displacement, length, beam, draft, armament, etc) to get a more complete perspective of the ship.

I enjoy the various postings on this site. Anything we can do to enhance the credibility of each 'what if' design will be a positive step forward.

Springsharp is nice, I'm a longtime user of it, but given as how it only handles weight critical designs, not volume critical ones, with a cutoff date of 1950 I don't see it as being practical for here.

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."

Along with the basic graphics, it would be nice to have more information on the armament, propulsions systems, etc.