• New Horizons on Maelstrom
    Maelstrom New Horizons


    Visit our website www.piratehorizons.com to quickly find download links for the newest versions of our New Horizons mods Beyond New Horizons and Maelstrom New Horizons!

Released Frigate "Rossiya", 1728

Yep. I'll take a look. The hawse holes were usually one level lower, though, on the black head rail.
 
Of course, the positioning is a bit off because that was a quick and rough mock-up.
I'm assuming, though, that the hawse holes should be positioned as in this photo:

12b.jpg
 
Huh... That's unusual for the vessels I've seen, but the positioning would still work fine.
 
Never mind... I was thinking of something else entirely there...

The width of the hawse is accurate. Victory should actually have a 25 inch hawse, and is presently using a 24 inch.

The fact that the line was laid* would make it appear a bit narrower. I'm assuming you won't be modelling the texture of the line due to the poly-count load it would create, so you could safely make it about a quarter smaller.


*meaning "twisted":
!BjHCUBg!2k~$(KGrHqIH-DoEs823W9L+BLSNT9,EMg~~_35.JPG

After entering the gun deck, the hawse would be arranged similarly to the hawse on the starboard side of the following image. It would be more loose, and it would be laid on the deck. I'm assuming that there was an area cut out of the corner of the grating to accommodate the hawse. That's only based on one period model, so I'll continue looking into it.
IMG_1369.jpg
 
Right, how does this look?

Frigate1_hawse2.jpg


This time it's a trial run for the real thing, so I've given it approximately the right shape. It's 3/4 of the original thickness, and now has a pentagonal cross-section to save polygons.
Too thick, or about right? I reckon it's no longer overly huge, but I'm still not entirely sure it looks right.
I should also mention that the wooden reference model apparently has ropes with a "scaled diameter", so it's possible that my attempt is still too thick.
 
I like it. You even got the point where it attaches to the anchor right. It could be more detailed, and I can post a picture if you want,* but it looks good as it is without driving the poly count up.

*basically two half hitches, but tied in an unusual manner by today's standards.
 
Post Captain's reference materials are the same as it was done at least back to the mid 1600s. The hole goes roughly at the level of the gun ports, and all references I've seen put them facing straight forward, not diagonal. The rope looks good! I use a pentagonal cross section on all my heavy ropes, and triangles for thin ones.
 
Maybe make the rope hang down more to make it look more effected by gravity, and more flexible.
 
I kind of like the arc right now. 15 inch line isn't really all that flexible, and combined with the weight of the line in the hold holding it back and the length forward of the bitts, not that much line would have been let out.

I work with 3/4 inch manilla on a regular basis, and that stuff is already inflexible even at its relatively small size.

Before I run away from the original point here... The arc looks good considering all those factors.
 
Post Captain said:
I like it. You even got the point where it attaches to the anchor right. It could be more detailed, and I can post a picture if you want,* but it looks good as it is without driving the poly count up.

*basically two half hitches, but tied in an unusual manner by today's standards.
Click to expand...
OK, that's good to know. I doubt I could make the knot much more detailed, mind (it's made up of three rings to look like a knot).
I think the pentagonal shape actually helps too, because it seems to do a better job of emulating smaller ropes bound together.

Post Captain said:
Before I run away from the original point here... The arc looks good considering all those factors.
Click to expand...
That's what I was thinking. I tried to consider the line's thickness when forming the arc, and it seems to have worked out well.

I'll get the hawse holes and manger done next, along with laying out the rest of the hawse on the gun deck.
Anything else you think I'll need to do, while I'm at it?
 
Before I go any further, how's this?

Frigate1_hawse_holes.jpg
 
Looks good. Besides the stuff you mentioned, I can't think of anything else anchor-related that needs doing. The hawse holes on the other side should be open as well. If the openings look odd in game, I have period resources that explain the most common ways to plug them.
 
They are open, it's just more difficult to see in that picture. Hopefully it shouldn't look odd in-game, since it would be a shame to plug them. No other model has fully-open hawse holes, as far as I know.
 
OK, further progress:
I've adjusted the bowsprit base and various details, and have laid out the hawse along the deck.

Frigate1_new26.jpg


Frigate1_new27.jpg


Almost looks like a very large snake has found its way into the ship... :cool
 
Well, I am almost sure that some ship models used in the game were taken from the old Soviet magazine devoted to modeling. I have taken a brief view of index of articles at the http://hobbyport.ru and found some drafts - I hope, they may be useful somehow, although they are in Russian and of poor quality :( . Drafts in higher resolution could be found at blue link "Чертежи для печати"(which means "drafts for print") in the bottom of each page. That site lacks some of the models mentioned in the index so I gave links to them in available djvu-version of magazine pointing to corresponding numbers of pages(these numbers refer to ones in the djvu-viewer, not in magazine itself).
Шлюп "Восток"(sloop "Vostok").

Линейный корабль "Двенадцать апостолов"(ship of the line "Dvenadcat' apostolov").

Корабль "Орёл"(ship "Orjol").

Линейный корабль "Ингерманланд"(ship of the line "Ingermanland").

Columbus's caravels,
pp. 20-23(pp 20-21 - "Santa Maria",p. 22 - "Niña",p.23 - "Pinta"). Also there are some pics of these ships a few pages further.
Also "Santa Maria".

Бриг "Меркурий"(brig "Merkurij"), pp. 16-17.

"Bounty".

Barque "Endeavour", pp 34-35.

Фрегат "Святой Николай"(frigate "Svjatoj Nikolaj").

"Mercury"(Willem Barentsz's ship).

"Heemskerck"(Tasman's ship).

Пакетботы "Святой Пётр" и "Святой Павел"(packet-bots "Svjatoj Pjotr" and "Svjatoj Pavel").

Шлюп "Мирный"(sloop "Mirnyj").

Барк "Крузенштерн"(barque "Kruzenshtern").

Фрегат "Паллада"(frigate "Pallada").

Yacht "Spray".

Линейный корабль "Предестинация"(ship of the line "Predestinacija").

Баркентина "Вега"(barquentine "Vega").

Галера "Двина"(galley "Dvina").

Корвет "Оливуца"(corvette "Olivutza"), pp. 24-26.
 
That's an interesting find! Some of those plans are certainly detailed enough to use, especially the higher resolution versions.
The fact that the text is in Russian doesn't really matter; it's the drawings that are important, and they look pretty good.
 
Armada said:
Before I go any further, how's this?

View attachment 9169
Click to expand...

I looked through a couple of books in regards to anchor cables and here is what I found:

In the Anatomy of the Ship Bellona the cables on the Bellona are 22inches in circumference and converted to diameter are around 7inches diameter while the Hawse holes are around 15inches in diameter.

The Anatomy of the Ship Blandford 1720 has cables at 13.5inches circumference (4.30inches diameter)

The Monograph of the Bonhomme Richard 1779 states the largest anchor cables are 18inches in circumference (about 5.75inches Diameter).

In Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War there are a few examples: A Third Rate of 1686 had a cable of 18.5inches and a beam of just under 40ft, while a 74 gun ship of the late eighteenth century with a beam of 46.5ft had cables of 22inches.

Now to help you get your cable sizes I found the dimensions of the Rossiya 1728 here: http://koti.mbnet.fi/felipe/Russia/Russian_Frigates/russian_frigates.html

The beam is 9.6 metres or about 31.5ft, so based off the above examples I halved the beam (15.75) and subtracted 1.25 - 1.5.

The cables would be around 14.25 - 14.5 inches circumference (4.535 - 4.615inches diameter), the hawse holes will be around double the diameter plus an inch but see how this looks with the ones already modelled.

Also the ring on the anchor will have rope wrapped around it (Kris Woods Centurion I think is a good reference for this).

Regards,
 
SeaNorris. said:
The beam is 9.6 metres or about 31.5ft, so based off the above examples I halved the beam (15.75) and subtracted 1.25 - 1.5.

The cables would be around 14.25 - 14.5 inches circumference (4.535 - 4.615inches diameter), the hawse holes will be around double the diameter plus an inch but see how this looks with the ones already modelled.

Also the ring on the anchor will have rope wrapped around it (Kris Woods Centurion I think is a good reference for this).

Regards,
Click to expand...

I got the cable dimensions using Costé's method. They are essentially what you suggested. That chafe protection on the anchor ring, called puddening, was fairly universal, although not completely necessary. We don't use them on Pilgrim or Spirit of Dana Point, even though our chief rigger would like to.
 
SeaNorris. said:
The cables would be around 14.25 - 14.5 inches circumference (4.535 - 4.615inches diameter), the hawse holes will be around double the diameter plus an inch but see how this looks with the ones already modelled.
Click to expand...
Circumference?! I thought when Post Captain said "thickness", he was referring to diameter... that would explain why the hawse looks so fat.
Looks like I've got some resizing to do. Thanks for pointing that out. :doff At least the hawse holes are probably correct, by coincidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top