Have I missed a discussion about the new ships on the Ares website (wave 4)?
There is a picture of a British 64, an East Indiaman, a French 80 and a Spanish frigate.
Printable View
Have I missed a discussion about the new ships on the Ares website (wave 4)?
There is a picture of a British 64, an East Indiaman, a French 80 and a Spanish frigate.
This may be it, so I'd say no.
From the look of it it seems they have once again made the ship the center of a cyclone. The fore stay sails seems to catch another wind vs the spanker. It's a little hard to tell from the pictures.
On the other hand the hulls look good.
The last wave had very much better stern galleries, so let's hope those are as good on these.
And here they are for ease of reference:
Attachment 30618
Attachment 30619
Attachment 30620
Attachment 30621
There was a brief discussion in another thread.
Most disappointed with the lateen rig on the rear of the French 80.
If this is correct along with how short it looks on the base,
I think I will be switching to Langton for Trafalgar.
Why, oh why would they put a lateen on a Tonnant?
I hope that they will correct the mistake.
I raised the lateen-mizzen issue, and didn't get a reply. (If you guys think YOU'RE pissed, imagine MY view as the researcher who took point on setting up this release!)
Right now, it sounds like the present thinking is Waves 1/2 were OVERsized--they've had a new engineer starting from Wave 3 design on, and you know how engineers LOVE to change things.
I can well understand your feelings yet again DB.
The only consolation is you must think what a complete hash they would have made without your input!:shock:
Rob.
Latin sails ????? Napoleonic era???? :smack:
Would that be Lateen vela, or vela secundis Lateen Julián? :wink::takecover:
Rob.
I'll let you in on some insider info from my days long ago as an Engineering student...
First Rule of Engineering: "If it ain't broke, EFF WITH IT 'TIL IT IS!"
Very similar to one of mine DB.
:fixit:If you can't fix it use a bigger hammer. If you still can't fix it use a cold chisel with it.:happy:
Rob.
As a software engineer we have a saying: It's not a bug. It's a feature!
I'm not inclined to call that lateen sail that.
It sounds like we will have to cut off the piece of the lateen sail which projects in front of the mizzen mast or remove the lateen sail, cut off the bottom corner and re-glue it.
My own plan was to find a gaff of the right size, and see if I could hire one of you guys to swap Tonnant lateens for EIM gaffs (I'll only have five EIMs so they'll need to use one of the gaffs as a master to cast a sixth), and do similar on SGN109/110. :)
And someone should tell that new engineer that the jib and fore staysails take the same wind as the spanker before he makes another ship!
Jonas, I *did.* "Production limitation," I was told--I don't understand why it only became an issue with a new engineer.
I intend to do some experimentation with the sails I removed from my hulked ships.
I will keep you informed.
Rob.
While it's not going as well on the backup laptop with the main crippled and headed to the shop for repairs, I've been working on knocking a scale-chart together for ships I can get scanned draughts of.
Rob, you should have a surprise in your email. :)
A very pleasant surprise thanks DB.
I have answered you in private.
Rob.
So , if I understood correctly, everything we kickstarted and then waited a couple of years for the special ships.... were wrong. Excellent news, I am suitably impressed, I am a radio and systems engineer but I think you will understand where and to what I would like to attach the o/p of a 10kw amp to :bleh:
"We must all trust the Good Lord to save us from out Italian friends."
[Reinhard Heydrich, _Conspiracy_]
Chris, I'm working up a Line Chart with how the ships *should* scale out in-game, rescaling Greenwich draughts to 1/1000. (A start on it is what I sent Rob.)
Surprising (at least to some) things I found from it:
1. Constitution SHOULD be around Victory's size--President is negligibly smaller than Old Vicky, and she was the smallest of the five.
2. Meregildos should be around the same size as Victory--again, Salvador del Mundo is the smallest of her kind and she scales slightly smaller.
3. Bahama is *noticeably* smaller than Bellona.
:thumbsup: kk cheers for the info DB
Also, old business: SGN110 also works as a hull for the old 1762 Romney 50's, and might work for the contemporary competitor 1769 Salisbury. Seriously, Portland was drawn right ON Romney's plan with the only changes I see being the underwater lines...
I agree with Chris, DB.
All this information will help us with not only reconstructions, and adaptations, but also to reconcile some of the ships we already have. I am convinced now that you have looked into this that there is so much of a mix up it is better to just use a ship for what the stats give it, rather than try to assign any specific name to it and expect it to be correct.
Rob.
As I work up a roster for potential reprints... I've already got almost 500 (including the existing releases) with just Wave 1 and the Hebe family, not including some of the more recent "approved stretches" like Canada, Royal Sovereign etc.
Cheers DB.
That should keep we repainters busy for a while then.
Rob.
See why I say the Devil will be chipping ice off his balls in Hell before Ares runs out of reprints? LOL
:clap: Very picturesquely put DB. :happy:
Rob.
I have got to admit I not to fusy about details for sails as long it does not affect the game
I am between two stools myself here Alistair. Whilst I don't mind minor errors such as the set of the sails, wrongly placed or missing gunports for example. I do mind size effects where a ship is obviously meant to be larger than its companions. An example of which would be if the projected Santisima Trinidad, ended up smaller in scale than HMS. Victory.
Rob.
Yes Rob I agree with you on the size of the mins. That does make a big difference.
I have just discovered the "SGN reprint chart" file in the downloads section - awesome! More ships. Thanks to those who worked on it.
Two questions:
1) Is anyone working on updating it for Wave 3 and 4 ships?
2) Is there any reference to modify the Data for these variant ships - adjusting for number and size of guns fitted, or crew carried that would change the stats used by SoG?
Looking for a simple way to vary games a bit.
Thanks in advance.
Carl, I'm working up a more straightforward version as I type. That was a "public release" version, a lot of data that was proprietary to us on the Research Team and Ares like Wave 3 and my research notes for Wave 4 wasn't included.
The new version is a line for each distinct ship that can be represented by existing miniatures, and is presently approaching 650 distinct ships (counting a re-flag as a second ship)--and I haven't fed in the SGN108/201, 111 and 116 sculpts yet! (I still have to add quite a few SGN104's to the pool too...)
Problem is, it takes a pretty big dent to "move the needle" on game stats--for example, Thorn carried four to six more guns than most other Swans and only gets a point or two of buff. Bahama is massively over-gunned (statted for a battery of 36-pounders, only carried 24's)--trust me, Wave 3 is a can of worms you *really* don't want to reopen around here, the butthurt was frickin' Old Testament BIBLICAL--and with some cause.
Thanks Diamondback - that sound really useful, sorry you have had such a hard time pulling all the information together. Look forward to seeing the result.
Carl, that's why I'm on the team with Ares :) --I'm not a naval architect or nautical historian (my particular niche as a historian is actually WWII in the Southwest Pacific, "MacArthur's War"), but where I do have strength is in data-mining, archive-trawling and then assembling that data and acting as an archivist/DBA/record-keeper. And every year brings new information that sometimes re-shuffles the deck... for example, at first the 1765 Artesien sculpt (Wave 3 French 64) looked like a "dead end" for expansion potential, but it turns out with the release of French Warships in the Age of Sail that Artesien is one of the best choices they could have made as it's almost the stereotype for a French 64 of its time.
Another surprise finding: Part of the reason we're seeing scales seem so far off is that Wave 3 was a freak-show: Bahama and Meregildos were freakishly small for their types, Artesien no less freakishly huge. I just plugged the drawing for Ardent into my Line Chart and next to Artesien, the British ship is dwarfed by her French counterpart. (Of course, Artesien is a two-decades-newer design... Ardent is basically a 20-years-late clone of a 1740s French design.)
Just plugged in Tonnant and more weirdness--Tonnant scales smaller than Temeraire, even than Bellona. This is creeping me out here...