• 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!

HMS Indefatigable (1784) frigate

Grey Roger said:
The new figurehead placing will work with the statue type figureheads but not with the shield type
Click to expand...
Can that not be rectified by either moving the locator with the TOOL or editing the figurehead GM file with TOOL?
@Jack Rackham might be more familiar with doing stuff like that.
 
Grey Roger said:
s. I didn't find the texture to change for ths ship's underside,
Click to expand...

I used standard RN_hull (or RN_hull_01), so you can safely replace the reference to FR or SP_hull to get the appropriate bottom paint.

As to figureheads, I will have to reexport all of them, since their placement will be very carefully adjusted.

Gunports will go to separate gm, also.
 
Houston, we got a problem.

:modding

I have been looking at pictures of HMS Intrepid (being the ship of almost the same design), and noticed that the tumblehome of the hull is somewhat different than I remembered on the model.
So I went to re-check the drawings.

And ran into a dead end.

All data for the Indy state her beam as 44 ft 5 in. Which is 13.5 meters.
According to that I did scale her hull lines (they were in a separate image, so I did not check them against the scale of the profile - it was a grave error on my part).


indy_scale_question.png


I should note that the hull lines on the drawing fit the aft gallery perfectly, which makes me think they are right (which, in turn, means I will have to redo the whole bloody hull), but where those 44 feet and 5 inch came from?

:modding
 
Were feet and inches the same size back then as they are now?
How accurate did they make drawings to scale at the time?
 
The longitudinal dimensions seem to conform - for example, I did not have to change the size of a large amount of details when imported them from other models, they fit the profile and the scale - it's just the beam is not.

As far as I know, the drawings of the time are believed to be very reliable, but somebody may have been mistaken marking the sizes. The deck views are also supporting that, since I had to expand several things there to meet the 13.5m maximal width.

The difference of ~4 feet cannot be attributed to moulded/extreme beam also, since (looking very carefully at the drawing) we can see they write 44 extreme, 43 moulded, and there could not be 4 feet of additional planking over the frames.

I would hope for advice from @Captain Armstrong, actually, but at the moment I am strongly inclined to start remaking the hull. It will make the ship considerably slimmer :)
 
Ouch. I never questioned the extra-wide hull, as I assumed it was just the widest part of the original two-decker. :facepalm
 
If you're comparing Indefatigable to Intrepid, the latter's beam is also listed as 44' 5". Like @Armada, I'd imagine that's the widest part of the hull, which would be somewhere amidships at waterline level. But there's a simple reality check - if the revised hull looks slimmer than Constitution (beam 43' 6") then it's probably wrong. ;)
 
Armada said:
I assumed it was just the widest part of the original two-decker.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, so did I :(

Grey Roger said:
if the revised hull looks slimmer than Constitution (beam 43' 6") then it's probably wrong.
Click to expand...

i_conny_scale_comp.png​

Constitution is wider than the drawing, and narrower than the model at it's current state.

That is the question, we don't really know, what exactly is wrong. Either it's the 44' figure, or the drawing.
I suspect the the figure to be wrong, since the drawing is very proportionate, while the current model is not.
 
Yikes! I was hoping it was just the wales when I started reading your post, but it's clearly not. I'm afraid a remake of the hull is your best option, though everything else should be straightforward to adjust, the transom somehow seems to be the right size for the proper width too. I had to do something similar for a ship I made, in my case or was just hull thickness. It was tedious, but in the process I made a number of improvements, and I was much more satisfied with the ship in the end :)

I reckon it happened because there is no bodyplan for the razee plan, so you would've had to scale them separately: sheer & profile - National Maritime Museum

though matching it up to the as built plan should be straightforward enough for the redo
Indefatigable (1784) - National Maritime Museum
 
The only thing that stops me here is that the width will be no more than 40 ft _with_ the wales, while all other dimensions are definitely fitting each other.

Also, I checked the model of Centurion, and it should be 40 ft in width, while in reality it is around 10.5 m (34.4').

Does that mean there is something wrong with width listings (the written number, not the hull lines?) in NMM archive drawings in general ?

Also, there are deck plans for Indy razeed, and they are also ~2m narrower than I made (I did think that as a schematic error and paid no mind then).

@Captain Armstrong, did I read the longitudinal dimensions right (see image in the post with the sizes)?
It states
  • 160 ft 1 1⁄4 in (48.8 m) (gundeck);
  • 131 ft 10 3⁄4 in (40.2 m) (keel)
What exactly does the gundeck (upper deck) length parameter include? From which point to which point this is measured? Something could have gone wrong in that regard.
 
Last edited:
Well In your image you have scaled everything to the correct width but length could be a bit off. As armada quoted, Length on gun deck is the length between stem and stern, so don't count the figurehead and headrails in that measurement. Bava goes into more detail on this in his tutorial, so I'll second Armada's suggestion that you read it :read

He also has a second one which is a follow up mostly on distortions in plans that is worthwhile reading as well, yet to be reposted here: Small Tutorial: Preparing a ship plan for 3D modelling
 
Armada said:
have you seen @Bava's recent post on reading ship plans?
Click to expand...

Oh, yes, that is what kicked my paranoia. That, and position of gunports on the tumblehome, to be exact.

Anyway, assuming I was wrong about including the headrails in gundeck scale, the rescale should look something like this (I already corrected it a little, but wouldn't want to make another screenshot):

i_dimensions_q.png
​
And then the depth becomes depth of hold and everything looks right... But that means the model will have to be completely remade.
Oh, well, I just could make her better. But it is a thorough embarrassment o_O

Would anybody object that I use more detailed head rails I made for Endymion, and various details like deadeyes, etc., than I used before? It may boost the polygon count to up to 200k (160k more likely), but since I have to redo everything anyway...

Interesting thing is that when I checked the Endymion I found that I scaled her correctly, which left me completely confused, as I did not have a slightest memory of why and how did I do that.

P.S.

All that means somebody would have to look at the scale for the Centurion, as she seems to be too small for her dimensions.
 
Last edited:
Martes said:
Oh, well, I just could make her better. But it is a thorough embarrassment o_O
Click to expand...
It's an easy mistake to make. I found out a while ago that my Bellona model was too small, as I originally started modelling it to the same scale as @pgargon's current model in PotC, assuming that model was correct.
Fortunately, the solution turned out to be a uniform up-scale of about 6%, so it wasn't too bad. I'm pretty sure the Rossiya is also scaled incorrectly, though that hull needs a rebuild anyway, so I've left the current model as-is.
 
Armada said:
the solution turned out to be a uniform up-scale of about 6%
Click to expand...

Since I got at least one of the dimensions right, that's not going to help in my case. :)

Interesting, though, if the current model can be put to some use despite it's deformities. Not as historical ship, definitely, but as something slow and sturdy?..
Had the game support for that, she would make a good mortar ship, in fact.
 
Martes said:
Had the game support for that, she would make a good mortar ship, in fact.
Click to expand...
We do have crazy strong cannons that you can only buy at Vanderdecken.
Install that on a Gunboat and that's your mortar ship right there! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top