PDA

View Full Version : A new threat to the British Fleet.



Bligh
12-26-2016, 09:56
Today a new squadron of Spanish warships put to sea from Ferrol hoping to join up with the French Fleet.


26936

They were shadowed by HMS Bellerophon and several Frigates.

26937


After hugging the Spanish coast for some time they finally came about and headed West.

26938


Bligh.

Nightmoss
12-26-2016, 11:27
Looks very nice! Enjoy!

Bligh
12-26-2016, 14:12
Cheers Jim.
When I get time I will photograph my British and French Fleets up to date as well.
Rob.

Hjl
12-26-2016, 16:04
I can't wait to see those mighty Spanish firsts in action!

Bligh
12-26-2016, 16:12
They should be sailing in a couple of weeks when Sea legs pops around for his next game Hugh.
Rob.

Union Jack
12-27-2016, 17:07
A mighty armada there Rob. Hope the Royal Navy are up to it once they link up with the French.

Bligh
12-28-2016, 00:53
The Combined Fleet is now stronger than my Royal Navy by two first rates and three 74s.
What I could do with are those 90s. I will have to do a couple of conversions before too long.
Rob.

Diamondback
12-28-2016, 01:14
Trivial note: the two Purisima Concepcions (one of which, San Jose, was reflagged into the RN as HMS San Josef) were direct ancestors to the Meregildos, and they in turn evolved from the original threedecker version of Santissima Trinidad. So if you need an ST placeholder, just fill in the space between QD/FC on a Meregildos.

Source: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Sistema_de_clasificaci%C3%B3n_de_buques_de_la_Real_Armada_Espa%C3%B1ola#Serie_San_Pedro_de_Alc.C3.A1ntara_.281771-1805.29 via Google Translate

Bligh
12-28-2016, 01:20
Cheers DB.
I may well do just that.
Rob.

Diamondback
12-28-2016, 01:49
I might say to nerf the older ships a little, especially Trinidad--she wasn't exactly "all that" and one whole gundeck was those useless obusiers where they would've been better off to drop trou and fling poop at the other ship.

Diamondback
12-28-2016, 12:57
Addendum to prior: While there may be an engineering relationship, the bows and stern galleries show pronounced differences (Meregildos has a more raked stern and bulkier bow section), so it might be prudent to not rush in unless or until we can find some blueprints and drill into nuts-and-bolts details.

Bligh
12-28-2016, 16:12
Wilco that DB.
Rob.

Nightmoss
12-29-2016, 08:10
Addendum to prior: While there may be an engineering relationship, the bows and stern galleries show pronounced differences (Meregildos has a more raked stern and bulkier bow section), so it might be prudent to not rush in unless or until we can find some blueprints and drill into nuts-and-bolts details.

DB, this question might belong elsewhere, but how accurate are the scale sculpts of the Merigildos ships? I ask because the Santa Ana and other ships in that class are noticeably smaller than HMS Royal Sovereign, Victory, etc. Langton sculpts have the ships much closer in matching size with Santa Ana slightly larger?

Diamondback
12-29-2016, 10:03
Bearing in mind that I have nothing of Wave 3 in hand and no draughts to work from...

Per ThreeDecks design length on the Meregildos class is 58.51m, most built being a bit shorter (as short as 57.14). Victory, the alleged basis of SGN108 and SGN201 both is 56.08. So Ares goofed, the Meregildos model should be about 2.5mm longer... Between this, Wave 2's weak masts, the inaccuracies of 108 and 201 and the pseudo-Karl Bf109 I'm starting to have serious questions about these guys.

108 and 201 are a double concern personally because *I* *personally* got them copies of the relevant blueprints and they STILL managed to Balls-Up it! :( And given that their product reflects on MY work... forgive me if this seems self-centered, but every time *they* score an Own Goal they also invite questions into the quality of *my* work that contributed to it, and when you're a freelancer your career lives or dies by your reputation and your prior body of work. :(

I WAS going to fire off a note asking Rob if I could use them as a resume reference when the time comes for me to seek more conventional employment, but now I'm not so sure...

Nightmoss
12-29-2016, 11:45
Thanks DB for the reply. Your answer is good enough for me and confirms my eye ball view of the two ships side by side; in both the Langton and Ares scales. If I get some time I may take some measurements to compare.

DB, I for one would never question your work based on what Ares eventually produces. Examples of your research and attention to detail have been pretty obvious to those of us that have been on this site for a number of years. Clearly you take your work seriously. It's unfortunate that the final production issues might put you in a bad light.

Bligh
12-29-2016, 13:36
I am really sorry that Ares have put you in this position DB.
I know how it feels when we advise film Directors on Historical points and then they ignore the correct weapons, costume etc, but still add our names to the credits for Historical research, and I'm not trying to make a living at it.
I would like to see an answer to this latest with a reason given. It's the least they can do for you.
Rob.

Diamondback
12-29-2016, 14:59
On the other hand, Ville de Paris was 57.92m and Hibernia was 61.32m - all these lengths I've given are Main Gun Deck, so they do not include gallery raking and I'm not sure how much of the bows they include. If we knew OAL's for the fullsize ships, we could better compare--or, Jim, if Rob can get you Stats Committee access I've been working on waterlining and rescaling Greenwich draughts to 1/1000 scale, which you could compare the models to for yourself and decide closest fits about the mysterious and not-quite-right origins of SGN108 and SGN201, and their mysterious wrong-side size comparison to SGN112.

Curiously, there was a similar problem in my Axis & Allies War at Sea days... the Chinese factory underscaled one miniature in one set, and rather than let it derail the set Rich Baker just chopped that mini out of the entire set and told 'em "next set do it again and do it RIGHT, schmucks". Combine that with the Messerschpitt Debacle... ("Spitfire" mini in Ground Game, a Bf109 in RAF colors)

PLEASE, for the love of all that is holy, DON'T BECOME WOTC, ARES!

Rob, in your position I would have told the Hollyweirds "remove my name from your work or I sue for defamation." The reason I stick with Ares is I really think they're trying and genuinely want to Do Right, it's just that sometimes people get blueprints mixed up (Bf109K, I'll tell the story of another when Wave 4 is formally announced) and sometimes the folks on the factory floor don't quite understand what they and we are looking for.Kind of like an eager-to-please puppy that really wants to, but just can't seem to avoid peeing on the floor here and there every now and again...

Kentop
12-29-2016, 15:25
I am really sorry that Ares have put you in this position DB.
I know how it feels when we advise film Directors on Historical points and then they ignore the correct weapons, costume etc, but still add our names to the credits for Historical research, and I'm not trying to make a living at it.
I would like to see an answer to this latest with a reason given. It's the least they can do for you.
Rob.

It can actually work in your favor. Look at the guys who did the historical research for the Braveheart movie! That movie looks like a really bad sci-fi flick. Wallace wearing a mullet AND a Kilt AND painting his face blue? Really? The consultants for Braveheart are very well regarded for their work. They forced the production company to literally deny basic historical details for the sake of the box office. It's all a consultant can do; provide facts, dates and historical context. The movie makers can either ignore or embrace the historicity of events.

Hjl
12-29-2016, 15:25
I've never really considered the sog ships to be particularly accurate. I had just assumed that they had made a few molds and just used them over and over for ships regardless of their authenticity. Just the realities of mass production or some such.

Diamondback
12-29-2016, 18:58
Hugh, on mobile, will give detailed reply in a few hours. If I haven't in six hours, somebody post in this thread and remind me. :)

Hjl
12-30-2016, 00:00
I'd be fascinated to hear more about the process. How accurate are the models?

Diamondback
12-30-2016, 00:15
Hugh, with the exception of 108 and 201 each sculpt is nominally modeled after a specific design. Many lines go for "generic, representational" and I've tried to keep them focused on "cut a specific accurate model of something that really existed rather than a representational, composite jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none."

Wave 1 the specific models are Chevillard's 1777 Concorde frigate, Sane's 1782 Temeraire, Williams's(?) 1773 Amazon frigate, and Slade's 1760 Bellona (though almost all of his 74's and six of his 64's were iterations on the same basic French design ripped off from Pierre Morineau--a design that was also enlarged to create Victory). Most of the back-sides on SGN101 are Charmantes (very similar, but where Concorde's stem is vertical Charmante's curves back and in near the top; contemporary Magicienne is also similar but has an out-raked bow, though not as sharp as a later clipper-bow, and a sharper rake of the stern gallery). I would suspect most late-1770s French 74s will be similar to Temeraire. Amazon also had a very similar competitor design, and was evolved from Slade's 1750s Southampton and Niger designs.

Soon as I figure out which thread is best suited--or start a new for it--let's say sometime over the weekend I'll throw up drawings at game-scale for as many as I can come up with of the designs the models are sculpted after.

David Manley
12-30-2016, 02:50
DB, I wouldn't worry about your reputation being tarnished as a result.of some of Ares' interpretations of the material we put to them. 99% of those in the industry and hobby won't have a clue as to the detail anyway. And the other 1% will be aware of the role if "developers" in mangling researchers' work. It happens in the real world too. I used to cry rivers over how some of my R&D was "interpreted" and implemented before I understood how "the game" was played. The circumstances that surround the hobby are one of the reasons why my approach to some of Ares' requests are a bit more laissez-faire than yours. Keeps stress levels down, if nothing else :happy:

Nightmoss
12-30-2016, 09:54
Soon as I figure out which thread is best suited--or start a new for it--let's say sometime over the weekend I'll throw up drawings at game-scale for as many as I can come up with of the designs the models are sculpted after.

Would be really nice to see this if/when you get the time. Thanks.

Diamondback
12-31-2016, 19:27
OK, here we go! All of these have been rescaled to exact 1/1000 scale, so if you save them to your HDD then print them they should almost exactly match the miniatures.

SGN101 Concorde - two drawings found, but due to undeclared scale neither ZAZ2509 nor ZAZ2510 are rescalable.

SGN102 Temeraire (America; dwg ZAZ1028)
26990

SGN103 1773 Amazon (Cleopatra; dwg HIL0231)
26993

SGN104 Bellona (1760 Bellona herself; dwg ZAZ1357)
26991

SGN105 Hebe (clone Leda; dwg ZAZ4909)
26995

SGN106 Ocean - (HMS Commerce de Marseilles; dwg ZAZ0043)
27003

SGN107 Swan - will add drawing when I find one

SGN108 and SGN201 Generic First Rate (allegedly HMS Victory) - Oh brother! Original Victory draught is badly degraded, but between building and now (also reflected on her lighter-armed sisters Boyne and Union) it appears that the rear LD port was closed and a new forward LD opened in its place; my conjecture is that the existing model has both--I count 16 LD guns on the model, so one or the other end has to go. I will add more draughts of Victory as I find and process them, along with Boyne and the other "pass-offs" of SGN108. I'm grouping the Victory family first, then the others tossed into the blender of SGN108.
26992 1811 Union (dwg ZAZ0246, as-built)
27005 1762 Britannia (dwg ZAZ0086)
27004 1786 Royal Sovereign (dwg ZAZ0001)

SGN202 Humphreys Superfrigate (President, dwg ZAZ7774)
26994

SGN109-112 drawings will follow as located and processed. 112 is specifically based on Bahama, 111 best drawing will be captured Salvador del Mundo.
109 Artesien (dwg ZAZ1339 Prothee, as recommissioned)
27783

110 Portland (dwg ZAZ1718)
27818

111 Meregildos
27893

112 Bahama/Gautier 74's


For comparison on Purisima Concepcion as SGN112, here's uncropped Greenwich scans of San Jose (Purisima Concepcion class, top, ZAZ0101 HMS San Josef as recommissioned) and Salvador del Mundo (Meregildos class, bottom, HMS Salvador del Mundo as recommissioned).
http://collections.rmg.co.uk/mediaLib/571/media-571173/large.jpg
http://collections.rmg.co.uk/mediaLib/559/media-559228/large.jpg
So at this point, wile I have some reservations and there'd be some details to rework for accurate pieces, I would not be unfavorably disposed to PC/SJ and an HMS SJ/HMS SdM pack being added to the SGN112 reprint pool. SdM did not get a full recommission into the line but was rather used as an armed storeship, but captures with less RN combat history have seen inclusion in SGN so I would tolerate it with a caveat noted and the Stats Committee putting together an alternate stat-set and some possible special scenario rules for her historical role.

Bligh
01-01-2017, 01:52
Thanks for all your effort on this DB. It certainly gives everyone more to go on.
Rob.

Nightmoss
01-01-2017, 09:10
Excellent DB. I'll be anxious to compare the SGN111's against the SGN108's.

Union Jack
01-02-2017, 02:43
Excellent work putting all this together, REp gun loaded and a timely broadside, (a salute of course), heading your way.

Diamondback
01-02-2017, 18:41
Thanks, guys. :o Drawings of Ocean and two British threedeckers added.

Interesting to note that the PC lower deck has one more bow gun than the Meregildos, its UD comes one port-spacing farther forward (like Meregildos shoved the UD one slot aft between MD and QD) and Meregildos opens up one more QD port in the vacant slot at the end compred to PC.

Converting a Meregildos into a Concepcion: Remove aftmost QD and UD guns, add new forward LD gun, rework forward-UD/FC/catheads area to add one more UD port forward. SdM still has her open galleries, while SJ appears to have been converted to British-style enclosed, which I suspect explains the seeming different stern gallery rake.

Diamondback
01-27-2017, 16:20
Bumped with added drawings of Artesien and Portland.

Bligh
01-28-2017, 02:09
Again my thanks go to you for this diligent work that you are carrying out on our behalf DB.
Rob.

Nightmoss
01-28-2017, 10:58
Thanks for the additions and bump notice. :thumbsup:

Diamondback
01-29-2017, 19:37
So far, it's looking like we'll never get closer than 2-3 short. Greenwich's draught of Concorde has no scale noted and I can't process the drawing without it to start the "upscale-downscale" cycle; the Swan class I haven't found a draught for and Bonhomme Richard is based on a rare and expensive forensic reconstruction that I don't have access to a sufficient-quality scan of (and even if I did it's not public-domain :( ).

Bligh
01-30-2017, 01:40
A great pity DB.
But thank you for all that you have achieved in this respect for us.
It is all very worthwhile research which will help to make decisions about conversions more easy, even if nothing more comes out of it. At best we may get more accurate sculpts.
Rob.

Diamondback
01-30-2017, 01:44
The good news is I have processable drawings for Bahama and Meregildos in-hand and waiting for work to begin, and believe I either have or can get 3 out of 4 for Wave 4. It seems rather odd to me that for a class as prolific as the Swans to not have at least *one* drawing... maybe it's just a matter of not being scanned yet, or maybe I need to search under more of the class's ship names.

Nightmoss
01-30-2017, 09:22
For me the big question still remains in what scale they sculpted the Meregildos class? If it's closer to 1/1200 as I suspect I'm not excited about getting any reprints of HMS SJ/HMS SdM as you suggest above.

I've had the Spanish 3 decker's on the table with the 74's and it's very hard to tell them apart even at a moderately close distance. You do not have the same issue with the British or French First Rates.

Diamondback
01-30-2017, 14:58
Jim, while I work the drawing... if the mini measures about let's say 55-57mm on main deck (probably LD) it's probably closer to 1/1000, if around 47-48mm it's 1/1200.

EDIT: Here's the drawing for Salvador at actual-size for SGN... I'll edit it into the above too. (OOPS, forgot to rescale, gimme a minute.) RE-edit: fixed.
27893

Nightmoss
01-31-2017, 11:38
Just measured Santa Ana's main deck (without removing the sails). It's 48/49mm. For comparison I also measured Royal Sovereign. It's 57mm. ironically the Langton Santa Ana is about 53mm.

I guess that pretty much answers the question, eh? :hmmm::dazed: Effectively we have two scales in Sails of Glory now.

Bligh
01-31-2017, 12:37
Guess that the Jury is back in then Jim. Small scale ships with ridiculously heavy fire power!
We await a response from Ares.
Rob.

Diamondback
01-31-2017, 12:40
Wave 4 had something similar... I'll tell the story after the set is formally announced, but I bet David M.'s probably massaging his temples at being reminded of it just like I am.

So my eyeball impression was correct, the Spanish Firsts should be about the same OAL as their British counterparts but a bit taller and beefier-looking.

Looks like I need to fire off another note to RdM about this consistent pattern of simple things getting the "Wait-WHUT" treatment... we know they can do impressive things, but with one or two things consistently slipping through the cracks starting with the Tripe wing spacing, then the Beaufighter tail, at first here and there but now seemingly one a release...

David Manley
01-31-2017, 15:33
I bet David M.'s probably massaging his temples at being reminded of it just like I am..

These days I just get someone to do it for me :happy:

http://essentialoilsanctuary.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/spa-massage-temple-head.jpg

Capn Duff
01-31-2017, 15:42
Well the thats a waste of £42.

Bligh
02-01-2017, 02:08
I think I will just treat them as 90s.or try to ignore the size problem.
I just will not use them at public shows.
Rob.

Coog
02-01-2017, 02:55
I've often wondered how close to scale other ships are. Or how accurate the models are for that matter. When I was comparing dimensions of ships on paper so that I could substitute a model for another ship, particularly when I did the thread for the Americans around 1800, there did not seem that much difference when taking the small scale into account. We are talking about 1/8th of an inch or less in most cases. If the scale of the models are inconsistant and off that much to start with, it at least makes precise scales for substitutions and repaints irrelevant.

Capn Duff
02-01-2017, 03:03
Just done some measurements of the Pricipe de Asturias model

Length from Stern to figurehead 60mm
Length of gundeck 51mm
Width Stern. 10mm Main mast (peg). 13mm Foremast 12mm

Height of hull. stern 12mm. Mid(lifeboat) 8mm. Bow(bowsprit) 9mm

Mast height foremast 50mm. Mainmast 58mm. Mizzenmast 45mm.

All approx within a mm or 2
Taking this ship as an example I believe @1/1000 scale the gundeck should be 58 mm and width approx 16mm.
So if these are not true fisrt rates will they work, as Rob has suggested, as 80 or 90 gun options ?

Coog
02-01-2017, 03:07
Just done some measurements of the Pricipe de Asturias model

So if these are not true fisrt rates will they work, as Rob has suggested, as 80 or 90 gun options ?

What about overall appearance, particularly the number of gunports?

Capn Duff
02-01-2017, 03:20
What about overall appearance, particularly the number of gunports?

Three banks of 15 portson the hull with a further 6 on the aft of the model upper deck, but the model in comparison to a 74 same size and to a Brit French first rate, noticably smaller.

Hjl
02-01-2017, 06:18
This is all a bit of a shame really. I appreciate that accuracy suffers a little when using the same hull for various ships, but this seems a very odd mistake. I'm tempted to say that it was something that they were aware of and chose to ignore. I think I might skip the Spanish ships until they are put to the same scale.

Nightmoss
02-01-2017, 09:37
This is all a bit of a shame really. I appreciate that accuracy suffers a little when using the same hull for various ships, but this seems a very odd mistake. I'm tempted to say that it was something that they were aware of and chose to ignore. I think I might skip the Spanish ships until they are put to the same scale.

I seriously doubt Ares will ever go back and redo these sculpts. It just wouldn't be cost effective and certainly not profitable for them to do so.

I just hope they get the Santisima Trinidad scale correct? If they can manage that I imagine I can kit bash additional ship copies to the Santa Ana, etc. In the interim I'm going to look into using some of the damaged British First Rates I have on hand to kit bash a more appropriate scale Meregildos. Like Jonas has done I'll pick up some Langton Spanish stern pieces to substitute for the most obvious difference in the ships.

Nightmoss
02-01-2017, 12:27
Jim, while I work the drawing... if the mini measures about let's say 55-57mm on main deck (probably LD) it's probably closer to 1/1000, if around 47-48mm it's 1/1200.

EDIT: Here's the drawing for Salvador at actual-size for SGN... I'll edit it into the above too. (OOPS, forgot to rescale, gimme a minute.) RE-edit: fixed.
27893

Thanks DB. Now I'm curious about the Spanish 74's? You have a drawing of the Temerarie above, but what about the Nepomuceno class ships? I just compared my Hero/Argonauta (Temerarie) to the San Francisco de Asis/San Juan Nepomuceno (Nepomuceno). There's quite a bit of difference in size, but that may well be correct?

Dobbs
02-01-2017, 18:29
Didn't someone here say that the Santisima Trinidad was shorter than the Victory? Could that be the case here, and not a scale issue?

TexaS
02-02-2017, 01:21
I just hope they get the Santisima Trinidad scale correct? If they can manage that I imagine I can kit bash additional ship copies to the Santa Ana, etc. In the interim I'm going to look into using some of the damaged British First Rates I have on hand to kit bash a more appropriate scale Meregildos. Like Jonas has done I'll pick up some Langton Spanish stern pieces to substitute for the most obvious difference in the ships.

I have a Spanish stern already. Perhaps I should do some comparison pictures.

I would also do Santissima conversions.

Bligh
02-02-2017, 02:54
Jim, while I work the drawing... if the mini measures about let's say 55-57mm on main deck (probably LD) it's probably closer to 1/1000, if around 47-48mm it's 1/1200.

EDIT: Here's the drawing for Salvador at actual-size for SGN... I'll edit it into the above too. (OOPS, forgot to rescale, gimme a minute.) RE-edit: fixed.
27893

I think DB has the truth of this conundrum.
Rob.

Bligh
02-02-2017, 03:17
I have a Spanish stern already. Perhaps I should do some comparison pictures.

I would also do Santissima conversions.

Anything that you can do in this respect will not only be a greatly appreciated addition, but may also help to shed more light on what can be done to rectify the error for those of us with the skills to do so.
Rob.

Nightmoss
02-02-2017, 09:38
I have a Spanish stern already. Perhaps I should do some comparison pictures.

I would also do Santissima conversions.

This is the Santa Ana Langton stern piece I expect to place onto a British First Rate. I think it will look reasonably good, but we'll have to see.

27907

Nightmoss
02-02-2017, 09:46
Didn't someone here say that the Santisima Trinidad was shorter than the Victory? Could that be the case here, and not a scale issue?

I don't think there are exact plans of the ST anywhere in existence? However, there are plans for Spanish 112 gun First Rates which was the basis of her construction. That being said I don't think the ST was likely shorter than HMS Victory, but I'm not an authority on naval architecture? Maybe DB and/or David will chime in, but they may also be tired of my bringing the scale issues up in the first place?

Bligh
02-02-2017, 09:46
Re Santa Ana.
Quite some difference their Jim between the Langton interpretation and the Ares one.:hmmm:
Which way are you inclined to lean?:question:
Rob.

Nightmoss
02-02-2017, 09:55
Quite some difference their Jim between the Langton interpretation and the Ares one.:hmmm:
Which way are you inclined to lean?:question:
Rob.

Personally I think the Langton 1/1200 sculpts are 'closer' to what the Ares 1/1000 Santa Ana is supposed to be. Still smaller than it should be, but if I put the Langton stern piece on a British First Rate I'll be happy with that.

As I said above if we do get the Santisima Trinidad done in 1/1000 and it's accurate I can modify as needed the other Spanish First Rates. They should be somewhat comparable as the basis is a 112 gun platform. The ST just went beyond by creating the fourth continuous gun deck.

The largest ship at that time still goes to the Ocean class French First Rates, which was the basis for my ST kitbash you can see in my avatar. In real scale terms that kitbash is much larger that the ST would likely be at 1/1000? But she still looks good on the table. :happy:

Bligh
02-02-2017, 12:58
Thanks Jim. I am gradually working up the courage to emulate this and try to achieve something approaching your ST.
Rob.

Diamondback
02-02-2017, 13:31
ST was 61.29m on main gundeck, Victory only 56.08. So if there's an engineering relationship between ST and the other Spanish three-plus-deckers the later ships would be cut-down versions shortened by a few ports per deck.

Correcting the Meregildos sculpt would be too costly for Ares to do, so that's another where I'm going to suggest an Officially Licensed Correction Kit via Shapeways when comms resume.

Diamondback
02-03-2017, 02:31
Also, just MHO, but the Langton sculpt is closer to the "shape" indicated on the drawing for Salvador del Mundo's stern gallery. Maybe the "big versions" had a more circular backplane, but at least Salvador distinctly looks relatively more tall and narrow, more like a horseshoe than the end of a keg.

If Sails had stayed 1/1200 as first planned, my Ares Meregildoses would be staying in their boxes for "collection completeness" and I'd be hiring one of you guys to build and paint me a half-dozen Langtons to go onto the bases in their place. (This also WILL be happening with my Ares Bf109K's as soon as I find 1/200 -K-specific sculpts at a price I like.)

Nightmoss
02-03-2017, 12:54
I'm pretty sure I've posted this link elsewhere on our forums, but many of the people playing Naval Action are into the history of the Age of Sail. The "Shipyard" of the Game Labs forums has some very informative links, photos and information.

Here's the link to the Spanish thread.

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/2756-spanish-armadas-collection-with-plans/

While poking through those images I found that someone had acquired plans from the Spanish Navy website/archives?

27945

Be patient as it takes some time for it to load.

www.armada.mde.es

And there's a history section although I've not located the ship plans yet?

The Battle of Trafalgar is also covered.

http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/page/Portal/ArmadaEspannola/conocenos_historia/prefLang_en/02_batallas_celebres--01_trafalgar_by_aller

Hjl
02-03-2017, 13:30
Those look closer to ares than Langton. Good job those men! Shame about them being off on scale

Diamondback
02-03-2017, 14:40
Jim, that drawing, though I don't know what it's of, looks more like the Ares sculpt than the Langton. Also, the length I cited was for the shorter variation of the Meregildos design, the longer was IIRC a couple meters longer, maybe halfway between Victory and Trinidad.

Dobbs
02-03-2017, 20:17
My Principe de Asturias arrived today, and right off I saw that Ares used the masts and sails from the 1st wave 74's to rig it. That probably accounts for the size of the hull. A first rate hull would have been oversized for the rig. Ares probably didn't want to risk the complaints and packaging issues with the 1st rate masts, and thought we'd let the scale shift slide? It's a very attractive miniature, it just doesn't measure up size-wise to the other 1st Rates.

Did the Spanish have any notable 2nd Rates that might be represented by these ships? I don't know much about second rates in general.

Hjl
02-03-2017, 20:34
Can some one put a shot up next to a British and French first rate?

Diamondback
02-03-2017, 20:39
My Principe de Asturias arrived today, and right off I saw that Ares used the masts and sails from the 1st wave 74's to rig it. That probably accounts for the size of the hull. A first rate hull would have been oversized for the rig. Ares probably didn't want to risk the complaints and packaging issues with the 1st rate masts, and thought we'd let the scale shift slide? It's a very attractive miniature, it just doesn't measure up size-wise to the other 1st Rates.

Did the Spanish have any notable 2nd Rates that might be represented by these ships? I don't know much about second rates in general.

Thanks for pointing that out, Dobbs--I just tossed up a draft of my "W-T-F'ing-F?!" note to Ares for community review, and I'd appreciate it if you'd cross-post a reminder over there. :)

Second Rates were uniquely British, I'm afraid.

twsl
02-03-2017, 23:49
A quick look on Wiki and measurements of 3 the big ships...measurements in gun deck meters.

wiki stat/my measurement

Royal Sovereign 56/55
Impérial 65/60
Santa Ana 59/50

27946

If you look at the gap at the front you can see even more of a difference.

27947

The Ocean Class starts at the rear edge of the base while the other 2 start part way through the name plate.

Some ships on the wiki mention length of gundeck specifically and some don't specify.

Santa Ana from my eyeballs looks to be larger than a Nepomuceno 55/48 but a smidge smaller than a Temeraire 56/56.

It's a shame this happened this late in the range (same as the 64's rigging for tornado weather) and that they market it as 1/1000th scale when that is clearly not the case
which I believe under Australian Consumer Law requires a full refund if one so chooses as that is not what you have received.

The Trinidad is listed as 61 so will be interesting to see where it lies in relation.

Bligh
02-04-2017, 01:05
Thanks for the comparison Alan. It does not make me feel any better about things, but one picture is worth ........ etc.
Rob.

Diamondback
02-04-2017, 01:18
ThreeDecks is better than Wikipedia... it draws from more reliable sources, and for game purposes except when countermanded by BWAS or FWAS it's the "game bible." (IMO they OVER-rely on it and should lean more on scholarly sources like Winfield, but...)

BTW, Rob, if you think the draft note I posted in the Wardroom would be more appropriate somewhere else, please move accordingly. :)

Bligh
02-04-2017, 01:57
I think it is in exactly the right place to get the maximum exposure to the members DB.
Rob.

Capn Duff
02-04-2017, 02:13
Just read DB mail and I think it captures the aura of discontent and growing dissapointment, I am sure most are aware of my opinion of at least one on the list.
But what .i do seem to have missed is the sail issue, where has this been discussed ?

Bligh
02-04-2017, 02:34
Starts at post 47 here Chris.

http://sailsofglory.org/showthread.php?4340-Latest-wave-of-ships/page3&highlight=series

Rob.

Nightmoss
02-04-2017, 10:07
Jim, that drawing, though I don't know what it's of, looks more like the Ares sculpt than the Langton. Also, the length I cited was for the shorter variation of the Meregildos design, the longer was IIRC a couple meters longer, maybe halfway between Victory and Trinidad.

I just posted that as a representation of some of the drawings you could find on the Game Labs forum thread. At least some of those drawings seem to have come from 'official' sources in Spain?

IMHO I think the Ares stern sculpt is too much like a horseshoe (too verticle) and the Langton too much like a barrel hoop (too round)? I think the actual stern galleries might have been somewhere in between?

2nd Rate Real Fenix

27958

Model of Princiipe de Asturias

27959

Hjl
02-04-2017, 10:11
Cant see your pictures Jim.

Nightmoss
02-04-2017, 10:22
Cant see your pictures Jim.

Perhaps they're somehow being blocked? I see them fine?

Nightmoss
02-04-2017, 10:44
Seeing as Alan brought this up in post #68 I'm going to post four photos I took comparing the Argonauta (Temeraire) with the San Francisco de Asis (Nepomuceno). Were the historical ships really that much different in size? What figures I could find may not be accurate?

San Francisco de Asis (Nepomuceno)
W 51' 4"
L 196' 4"
H 25; 1"

Argonauta (Temeraire)

W 51' 2"
L 185'
H 21' 6"

Argonauta on Right
27960

Argonauta on Right
27961

27962

27963

Diamondback
02-04-2017, 11:08
Jim, the other thing is that various sources at Wikipedia aren't always consistent about which "foot" they're using between the Spanish Burgos foot, French pied du roi or English Imperial foot. This is why when we're doing research for Ares, we *always* rely on metric measurements... and ALWAYS go to the more reliable ThreeDecks first.

Also, do remember that the sculpt is specifically Bahama as-taken (which is really a 64-gun hull that's been up-gunned and slightly enlarged in rebuild), and Temeraire is a *very big* interpretation of the 74-gun layout, only exceeded in size by some of the American designs like Independence and Washington before revision into "spar-deckers". Temeraire is 55.87m for "reference design", Bahama is 53.34 while a purpose-built Gautier 74 (most of the SGN112 names) would be in the high-54- to low-55-meter range, San Juan Nepomuceno specifically and many of her sisters running 55.17, so for a "sculpt basis" the difference should be around 2.5mm on main gun deck.

Nightmoss
02-04-2017, 12:47
Jim, the other thing is that various sources at Wikipedia aren't always consistent about which "foot" they're using between the Spanish Burgos foot, French pied du roi or English Imperial foot. This is why when we're doing research for Ares, we *always* rely on metric measurements... and ALWAYS go to the more reliable ThreeDecks first.

Also, do remember that the sculpt is specifically Bahama as-taken (which is really a 64-gun hull that's been up-gunned and slightly enlarged in rebuild), and Temeraire is a *very big* interpretation of the 74-gun layout, only exceeded in size by some of the American designs like Independence and Washington before revision into "spar-deckers". Temeraire is 55.87m for "reference design", Bahama is 53.34 while a purpose-built Gautier 74 (most of the SGN112 names) would be in the high-54- to low-55-meter range, San Juan Nepomuceno specifically and many of her sisters running 55.17, so for a "sculpt basis" the difference should be around 2.5mm on main gun deck.

I was aware of the Burgos foot, which should be 278.6mm. I wasn't using Wikipedia, but Todo a babor instead. If my math is right and the measurements on Todo a babor are accurate the Argonauta should be 55.72 meters long? San Francisco de Asis would be 54.71 meters long?

I'd forgotten the Bahama design aspect of these sculpts, which likely changes things significantly. As for actual sculpt differences of around 2.5mm I just measured them both. Main deck of San Francisco from cathead to stern is 48mm. Argonauta from cathead to stern is 56mm.

In any case I'll refrain from muddying the waters anymore as I'm just a rank amateur when it comes to naval history and architecture. That's yours and David's turf. :salute:

Diamondback
02-04-2017, 12:55
55.72 is low but within the observed range for Temeraires. It would help to find out exactly which ship and drawing Ares based the sculpt on, as there are multiple draughts at Greenwich and that doesn't even get into what might be in the French naval archives.

And keep raising questions, they bring up matters worthy of discussion--along with possibly providing further data on Ares's underlying structural problems and the effort to diagnose and fix them. Right now, about all we really know is that SOMETHING is broken over there at the CAD-model-creation level.

Diamondback
02-04-2017, 12:58
Jim, main is not the Weather Deck, on SOL's it's the Lower Gun Deck. That may be part of the measurement problem...

twsl
02-04-2017, 13:44
I'm no expert either, but I would have thought that working in 1000th scale would have made it easier when working in meters.
ie: 50 meters = 50 millimeters

I did a lookup on threedecks on ships from the classes and did a quick measure with digital verniers on upperdecks (give or take due to sails) so I hope I'm fairly close.

Swan 29m 31mm
Amazon 38m 38mm
Concorde 44m 43mm
Hebe 46m 45mm
Bellona 51m 53mm
Nepomuceno* 54m 48mm
Temeraire 56m 56mm
Umpire 58m 56mm
Meregildos 59m 50mm
Ocean 64m 60mm
Victory 56m 58mm
Constitution 53m 59mm

* I took an average of 53 -55

There are some very interesting comparisons.

Now I'm not looking for perfection but something does seem to have gone wrong with the latest Spanish ships in relation to scale.

Comandante
02-04-2017, 15:12
Good evening, this is my first post, and I am no expert too.

I finally had the opportunity to hold in my hands a minigildos (PdA).

The first impression is positive. Nice sculpting, nice colors and a nice stern sculpt, but…
As you already noticed the scale is not 1:1000. They don’t fit with the other 1st rates.
Most likely also the other 1st rates are not perfect scale models, to me length and beam are not 1:1000 (they are smaller) but are a reasonable representation of the real McCoy and, most important, they are consistent.
For me too, according to the info I found, compared to the British 1st rates, they should be, for consistency, a little longer (2mm), while the beam should be more or less the same. They also sit too low on the water.
According to me and my “consistency” rule, to sail with glory, the meregildos' hull should have been:
• Lenght 57mm (at waterline, they are only 50) (If more than 57 they would have been too close to the French 120)
• Beam 15mm (at waterline, they are only 13)
They are also shorter than a 74 of which they share the masts.
I personally don’t like this choice; I would have also preferred furled curses. I also don’t like the absence of guns on the Quarterdeck and Forecastle as on the previous models. I am not looking for perfection too, just consistency.
What to say, they don’t offer an imposing view, they are simply disappointing. I am waiting to see “live” a Nepumeceno, maybe the minigildos will sit together well with the nepuminiceno in a Spanish fleet, as long as you see them from a distance and they don’t sail ICW the Argonauta.

Diamondback
02-04-2017, 15:19
Alan, part of that is you're measuring too high--the Main Deck, which is what is always used for length unless otherwise noted, is usually pretty close to the waterline. (On SOL's and two-deck cruisers like Portland it's the lower deck, on frigates and smaller it's the deck BELOW the gun deck. Maybe waterline measurements would be a better "baseline" to work from for measuring minis...

Franco, you just coined a new nickname! :) "Minigildos": An undersized, wrong-scale miniature.

Dobbs
02-04-2017, 16:24
I have an idea! How about that Minigildos can only be hit at long range since they look so far away...

Hjl
02-04-2017, 19:38
Haha, I like it

Diamondback
02-04-2017, 19:47
Measuring based on an SJN rather than Bahama, both SGN111 and 112 appear to be 1/1200, or 5/6 the size they should be. Somebody tell Rory he got some ships from Ares in his scale!

Measuring 112 as Bahama, the disparity is a little smaller but still there.

Bligh
02-05-2017, 00:04
I have an idea! How about that Minigildos can only be hit at long range since they look so far away...

I was thinking of only sailing them in the background Dobbs.
Rob.

Devsdoc
02-05-2017, 03:13
Measuring based on an SJN rather than Bahama, both SGN111 and 112 appear to be 1/1200, or 5/6 the size they should be. Somebody tell Rory he got some ships from Ares in his scale!

Measuring 112 as Bahama, the disparity is a little smaller but still there.

Only just seen this. I still look in time to time. Nice one D.B. I must say I'm sorry that you all have a problem with a long awaited for model. It is not fair that you are all let down with size of the model. It's no joke for you all.
Be safe
Rory

David Manley
02-05-2017, 05:43
I was thinking of only sailing them in the background Dobbs.
Rob.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFTgkibl7DU

Nightmoss
02-05-2017, 09:54
Jim, main is not the Weather Deck, on SOL's it's the Lower Gun Deck. That may be part of the measurement problem...

Understood, but I wanted to measure a surface that I'd get better readings on between the two ships (I only have a metal straight edge).

Nightmoss
02-05-2017, 10:00
Good evening, this is my first post, and I am no expert too.

I finally had the opportunity to hold in my hands a minigildos (PdA).

The first impression is positive. Nice sculpting, nice colors and a nice stern sculpt, but…
As you already noticed the scale is not 1:1000. They don’t fit with the other 1st rates.
Most likely also the other 1st rates are not perfect scale models, to me length and beam are not 1:1000 (they are smaller) but are a reasonable representation of the real McCoy and, most important, they are consistent.
For me too, according to the info I found, compared to the British 1st rates, they should be, for consistency, a little longer (2mm), while the beam should be more or less the same. They also sit too low on the water.
According to me and my “consistency” rule, to sail with glory, the meregildos' hull should have been:
• Lenght 57mm (at waterline, they are only 50) (If more than 57 they would have been too close to the French 120)
• Beam 15mm (at waterline, they are only 13)
They are also shorter than a 74 of which they share the masts.
I personally don’t like this choice; I would have also preferred furled curses. I also don’t like the absence of guns on the Quarterdeck and Forecastle as on the previous models. I am not looking for perfection too, just consistency.
What to say, they don’t offer an imposing view, they are simply disappointing. I am waiting to see “live” a Nepumeceno, maybe the minigildos will sit together well with the nepuminiceno in a Spanish fleet, as long as you see them from a distance and they don’t sail ICW the Argonauta.

Greetings Franco and welcome to the Anchorage. Thanks also for your input. :salute:

Nightmoss
02-05-2017, 10:03
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFTgkibl7DU

LOL. It's all about perspective!

Bligh
02-05-2017, 12:20
That's the way I see it too Jim.
Rob.:takecover:

Bligh
02-05-2017, 12:23
I would also like to Join Jim in welcoming you to the Anchorage Franco, and thank you for your input on this somewhat vexing mistake in the scales of our long awaited Spanish First Rates, which they most assuredly arn't.

Rob.

Hjl
02-05-2017, 14:02
Can some one put up a picture of the spa ish first rates next to the other nations first rates?

Diamondback
02-05-2017, 14:27
Hugh, see post 68 (http://sailsofglory.org/showthread.php?4349-A-new-threat-to-the-British-Fleet&p=68068&viewfull=1#post68068) in this thread.

Hjl
02-05-2017, 17:52
oh wow, its tiny! can some one put some pictures of them next to one of the british 3rds?

Dobbs
02-05-2017, 18:36
I can't see any of the pictures. Does this mean that all of Wave 3 is 1/1200 scale? I have been thinking that the hulls of the Portland and Artesien look smaller than they should next to my British 74's.

Dobbs
02-05-2017, 18:49
Comparing the Portland and Artesien to a Hebe frigate leaves me unsatisfied too. An Artesien weighed in at 1200 tons, a Portland at 1000, and a Hebe at 700, and yet the Hebe miniature looks more substantial than both of the new minis?

Hjl
02-06-2017, 07:07
Interesting now you note it. The gun ports on the Portland do look significantly smaller than the rest of my ships.

Dobbs
02-06-2017, 08:14
Interesting now you note it. The gun ports on the Portland do look significantly smaller than the rest of my ships.

Yes, Hugh, it was the gunports that made me first ponder it too. On the Artesien, the second gundeck ports are tiny! On neither model do the guns themselves stick out as far as on the 1st and 2nd Wave minis.

Capn Duff
02-06-2017, 08:38
The more we delve, the more dissapointing this is looking.
I just received the French 64 so going to do some comparing later tonight using my Rifkin books, cant believe these issues are cropping up.

Nightmoss
02-06-2017, 09:24
I can't see any of the pictures. Does this mean that all of Wave 3 is 1/1200 scale? I have been thinking that the hulls of the Portland and Artesien look smaller than they should next to my British 74's.

It could well be that Wave 3 is all 1/1200? Following up on DB's comment, if the production side still has their CAD drawings to compare to the molds it might be easy enough to answer that? But that would depend on the production sides integrity in giving an honest answer?

Dobbs
02-06-2017, 10:37
If Ares was to re-tool and release Wave 3 in 1/1000 scale, I would buy my ships again, and consider the ones I currently own as a well intentioned oops. Has anyone looked at the movement cards yet to see if they are correct? I haven't opened mine yet. I had mentioned in a different post about the spankers being reversed on the Portland and Artesien mizzen masts on the picture cards.

David Manley
02-06-2017, 11:21
It could well be that Wave 3 is all 1/1200?

Could it be Rory hacked the CAD files? :happy:

Diamondback
02-06-2017, 12:13
It could well be that Wave 3 is all 1/1200? Following up on DB's comment, if the production side still has their CAD drawings to compare to the molds it might be easy enough to answer that? But that would depend on the production sides integrity in giving an honest answer?

Doesn't matter what the Chinese have--Ares almost certainly still has the original CAD models and *they* could compare them... unless you're like a few people who've contacted me anonymously that no longer trust Ares.

Diamondback
02-06-2017, 12:15
Speaking for myself, after all the work *I* personally put into Wave 4, if they blow that one I'm done. "Finito, Benito" and all that...

Capn Duff
02-06-2017, 12:16
Have Ares had anything at all to say yet?
Surely they cant be oblivious to what we think has happened, I for one would like some sort of comment, even if its. Ooops we mucked up.

Bligh
02-06-2017, 12:22
That is certainly the least that they could do.
Poor customer relations and after sails service can sink a firm quicker than the Orient.
Rob.

Nightmoss
02-06-2017, 13:15
Could it be Rory hacked the CAD files? :happy:

Could be, but I think he would have gotten rid of that plastic peg on the bottom of the ships at the same time? :wink:

TexaS
02-06-2017, 13:15
It would be nice to have a word even if not official.

When wave 4 comes out I will wait to order until I've heard about all mistakes I now am expecting and see if they are easy enough to fix myself.

They have lost my trust. Speaking out and making sure they will not repeat it may restore some.

Nightmoss
02-06-2017, 13:19
Have Ares had anything at all to say yet?
Surely they cant be oblivious to what we think has happened, I for one would like some sort of comment, even if its. Ooops we mucked up.

They still haven't responded to the first question that came up about Wave 3; that being the seemingly overpowered Santa Ana broadside. I know David and perhaps DB both contacted them about it and not a word has been heard back.

Nightmoss
02-06-2017, 13:23
Doesn't matter what the Chinese have--Ares almost certainly still has the original CAD models and *they* could compare them... unless you're like a few people who've contacted me anonymously that no longer trust Ares.

I don't necessarily mistrust Ares at this point, but my confidence in their ability to 'get it right' has been rather compromised.

Dobbs
02-06-2017, 14:52
They still haven't responded to the first question that came up about Wave 3; that being the seemingly overpowered Santa Ana broadside. I know David and perhaps DB both contacted them about it and not a word has been heard back.

The broadside is the Napoleon complex. Little ship, big attitude!

Diamondback
02-06-2017, 16:07
They still haven't responded to the first question that came up about Wave 3; that being the seemingly overpowered Santa Ana broadside. I know David and perhaps DB both contacted them about it and not a word has been heard back.

I haven't personally, I've been mostly trying to focus on Sculpt/Colors & Markings QC issues. And with it now being February and Crickets since August... I even back-channeled to Andrea asking for his advice about how to bring up The Elephant in the Room and no reply there either.

Have any of you guys who post on their Facebook page seen any responses lately? Perhaps some questions are better directed there, as much as I prefer to handle "dirty laundry" internally and then make a statement afterward about "we have had some issues about XYZ, we apologize for them and we are already taking corrective action to prevent the from happening again."

Too bad the rest of the world doesn't have the same preferences as I do for clear, consistent communication and swift mitigating action... like a hotel where the manager's picking a fight because of the "unbearable odor" from my mother's Depends after two weeks bedridden with the flu (even after regular hosedowns with Lysol and heavy use of air-fresheners) and not one word of indicating any problem previous to this. If they no longer desire our business, we can and will gladly take our thousand-plus bucks a week and Platinum loyalty-program status somewhere more appreciative... and for the amount that we've normally stayed here, they can find some other revenue source to pay for a desk clerk or three maids' annual wages.

Hjl
02-06-2017, 16:20
I think I'll post the question on Facebook.

Bligh
02-07-2017, 01:30
I await the response, if any be given, with interest.
Rob.

Nightmoss
02-07-2017, 11:02
I've refrained from going 'loud' on the media pages, but not being a Facebook patron makes that easy. I've not posted anything on Board Game Geek either. Andrea checks in there pretty regularly although his last Sails of Glory post was January 20th?

I sure hope they're not adopting a bunker mentality? That wouldn't be good for anyone.

Bligh
02-07-2017, 12:59
I sure hope they're not adopting a bunker mentality? That wouldn't be good for anyone.

We must just hope that it is because they are very busy, or because they just have not picked up on the undercurrent of discontent yet Jim.
It may be that someone is even now trying desperately tho find out what went wrong and why.
Rob.

Comandante
02-11-2017, 07:24
I spent some time to measure my models (with a digital caliper), to compare their dimensions. Unfortunately most of my wave 3 models are still crossing the Atlantic.
First of all I had to develop a standard.
Length: I measure the length at waterline from the base of the cathead to the stern post (I think it should be more or less equal to the gun deck length in this scale for most ships, but not all);
Beam: easy one, the beam at waterline;
Height: measured amidships from the waterline to the weather deck (useless, just my curiosity, to compare decks’ height among the waves).
28043

I rounded up and put them down on a table with data from various sorces of the real ships (in meters = to millimeters in 1:1000 scale).
You can notice there is consistency between wave 1 and 2 models (including special packs).
Last think I did was to write down the “should be” length and beam of wave 3 and 4 ships.

I hope the attached file works,
Cheers.

Bligh
02-11-2017, 10:36
A very interesting comparison Franco.
Thanks for your time and effort on this.
Rob.

Capn Duff
02-11-2017, 14:45
Finished rigging my French battlefleet now, just the new arrival, and two 64 from the new wave to do
This gives my French 6 first rates and 16 x 74s of various types, is that threat enough :)

Diamondback
02-11-2017, 21:06
So, most of Waves 1/2 scale out around 1/1050-1/1075. The only bang-on 1/1000 is the Swan; the First Rates are around 1/1100. Meregildos actually clocks in at 1/1204.

Of course, there is also the distance ahead of the catheads excluded that brings the scale numbers closer to line... Franco et al., if you just measure straight down the centerline along the bottom and subtract the cutwater and rudder/sternpost that should be reasonably close to Lower Deck Length.

Comandante
02-12-2017, 07:48
Yes DB, you are right. The point is wave 1 and 2 ships compare well. It seems they have used the same ratio to reproduce them, a sort of logarithmic ratio; smaller ships are allowed for slightly bigger size, larger are slightly penalized but not too much (maybe to allow enough details on small ships and for ease of production, while staying on the base for larger ones). At the end you really need to measure them: if you just look at them on the table everything seem well balanced, Meregildos are out of tune. I haven't seen the other models in wave 3, I hope they fit better, and I definitely hope wave 4 will be comparable to wave 1 and 2.
Cheers,
Franco

Bligh
02-12-2017, 08:38
If it is any use, here are the visual comparative sizes of my Spanish Squadron for playing purposes


28061.

Rob.

TexaS
02-12-2017, 10:58
Well... Compared to the Spanish 74s the French 74 do look like an 80...

Hjl
02-12-2017, 13:01
The French 74 is almost bigger than the Spanish firsts. That Portland looks about the same size as the Spanish 74.

We're the Spanish ships noticeably smaller in reality? Has the fact that they are suppose to be smaller been compounded by the scale being wrong to the point where they look way too small?

TexaS
02-12-2017, 13:52
Edit: I read that wrong... I talk about the models, not the historical ships. There are dimensions given for those earlier in the thread therefore I thought it was the models in real life you mentioned.

The first rates really do look small on the table if other ships are close by.
The 74s... I don't know... They're not good, but it's the first rates that is the eyesore.
They're supposed to be impressive huge things that makes the small British 74 HMS Captain like David vs Goliath, but they're not.

Diamondback
02-12-2017, 14:21
Keith and I have been discussing an idea... the fix I'd been thinking of for SGN108/201 may also work for Meregildos and Bahama.

Diamondback
02-12-2017, 14:24
The French 74 is almost bigger than the Spanish firsts. That Portland looks about the same size as the Spanish 74.

We're the Spanish ships noticeably smaller in reality? Has the fact that they are suppose to be smaller been compounded by the scale being wrong to the point where they look way too small?

No, Hugh, actually the Spanish ships were BIGGER. Bahama is the smallest of the Gautier 74's (largely because she's a rebuilt and upgraded 64) and should have about parity with SGN104, the others closer to but still smaller than Temeraire. The short version of Meregildos should be a little longer than SGN108 and 201, the long should be close to but a bit shorter than Ocean.

Bligh
02-13-2017, 01:20
Keith and I have been discussing an idea... the fix I'd been thinking of for SGN108/201 may also work for Meregildos and Bahama.

That is interesting DB. I shall watch this space with interest.
Rob.

Diamondback
02-13-2017, 01:31
The BAD news is, even if it works and we can pull together the talent required you'll have to arrange your own masts, and use the bases and paperwork from your existing miniatures--this is a "Correction Kit" not a total-replacement product.

Also, re stepping on Shapeways SLP... I just happened to find something of about 6cm size that I'm intimately familiar with and the fullsize article it's a model of is almost the size of my whole body, that passes for smooth and detailed enough to pass my muster--consider that the skull of a Tyrannosaurus rex is so geometrically complex it makes a three-decker look like a wooden crate by comparison, and take a look at this.
https://www.shapeways.com/product/VWNGCGCNZ/museum-quality-t-rex-skull-with-moving-jaw?optionId=60336733
Some of his other skulls at first glance look just as good--I don't know them as well as I do the tyrannosaur skull whose cast a friend brought back from her dig. (She thought it was funny as heck watching me study it... "you know that's a little too big to do Hamlet with, right?")

Capn Duff
02-13-2017, 01:51
We can use the current bases etc, its getting the ships the correct length etc we need. As for masts maybe we need to contact the member who already makes ships on Shapeways for her assistance, cant remember her name off the top but Ill look , Broadsword something I think. Msybe she can asist.

Bligh
02-13-2017, 02:07
Certainly some of us would be up for it. Even an existing mast can be lengthened.
I also have a set of three decker masts left over from making sinking ships which may be suitable for one Spanish ship.
Rob.

Hjl
02-13-2017, 05:17
Do any of you have a 3D scanner?

I use 123D catch to do the 3D scanning I've done in the past. It's free and easy to use. Just take pictures of the model from the given angles and it processes it into a 3D image. It's good at geometric shapes and models etc, but not so good at faces and stuff like that.

Diamondback
02-13-2017, 06:15
Hugh, I've been looking more at a "back-to-the-blueprints" approach. I'd rather not say too much until I 1. know if it's even possible, and 2. have at least found someone who can convert drawings to digital model to start negotiating with.

Nightmoss
02-13-2017, 09:12
Keith and I have been discussing an idea... the fix I'd been thinking of for SGN108/201 may also work for Meregildos and Bahama.


The BAD news is, even if it works and we can pull together the talent required you'll have to arrange your own masts, and use the bases and paperwork from your existing miniatures--this is a "Correction Kit" not a total-replacement product.

Also, re stepping on Shapeways SLP... I just happened to find something of about 6cm size that I'm intimately familiar with and the fullsize article it's a model of is almost the size of my whole body, that passes for smooth and detailed enough to pass my muster--consider that the skull of a Tyrannosaurus rex is so geometrically complex it makes a three-decker look like a wooden crate by comparison, and take a look at this.
https://www.shapeways.com/product/VWNGCGCNZ/museum-quality-t-rex-skull-with-moving-jaw?optionId=60336733
Some of his other skulls at first glance look just as good--I don't know them as well as I do the tyrannosaur skull whose cast a friend brought back from her dig. (She thought it was funny as heck watching me study it... "you know that's a little too big to do Hamlet with, right?")

Good or bad I'm anxious for anything that will correct the size debacle of the Meregildos. Gina (Broadsword56) has done quite a bit with Shapeways 3D printing. Her Niagara and sails sets are still listed there.

Comandante
02-13-2017, 14:33
I worked a little bit on figures and developed a graphic.

The 1:1000 scale is the blue x=y line (meters to millimeters);
The red segment was obtained by joining the lengths of wave 1 and 2 models I measured, and is close to

the purple straight line: y=5/6 x + 29/6

Finally in green is how Meregildos deviate from the straight pattern.

According to the above (purple) equation wave 3 and 4 ships length should be (rounding up to the closer ½ mm):
Meregildos 54 mm;
Nepumeceno 49 mm;
Artesien 48 mm;
Portland 40.5 mm;

Tonnant 54 mm;
Ardent 45.5 mm;
Bonhome Richard 43 mm;
Mahonesa 41.5 mm.

(my previous figures on the excel file I posted were incorrect. I will update and post the file soon.)


28091

Cheers,:minis:

Broadsword56
02-13-2017, 14:44
(My ears were tingling so I stopped by and sure enough, my name has come up...)

First, so sorry to see what disappointment you're all having over the way the latest Ares ships have turned out. They should treat their most loyal customers better!
I read through this thread just now to get up to speed, but I didn't look into all the charts and drawings. So let me make sure I understand the problem:
You believe some of the latest Ares ships (just Spanish ones?) are not correctly 1:1000 scaled. Right?
Is it only the hulls that are the wrong scale, or the masts and sails too?

Based on my experience in designing and 3D printing 1:1000 scale ships, there are two basic ways to go about fixing it:

Option A: Do a 3D scan (as someone suggested above) of the existing models, re-scale them, and use Shapeways to print them. You might want to sacrifice a model and snip the masts off it so that you can scan the hull separately. Also, your 3D scan will likely have excessive detail and odd bits of "noise" that you will need to clean up. It's also usually a good idea to reduce the polygon count a bit to simplify the design to just its basic form and make it a digestible file size for 3D printing. One good piece of software for this is called 3D Coat, but it costs money for a license. There may be some decent freeware you can get to get the scan cleaned up and simplified, but I don't do this so I wouldn't know offhand. Once you have a nice, clean hull scan, you can export it to an .stl or .obj format and then import it into a program for rescaling. I use a free program called 123D Design. In that program you can use either the scale tool (to scale the entire hull) or you can use the smartscale tool, which lets you scale the x (length) y(breadth) or z (height) dimensions independently. Just set it to the mm you want and you're all set. Then export your correctly scaled hull back into an .stl file and upload it to Shapeways to get it printed to order. You can follow the same process for rescaling masts and sails if you like the Ares versions, but another alternative is to just buy my mast/sail assemblies. I can scale my 1:1000 frigate mast/sail pieces up to whatever you'd need for first rates if you tell me what dimensions you need.

Option B: You could re-do the ships from scratch. This is how I build all my War of 1812 models. I start with the historical ship drafts (and it looks like you already have all those) and I use a free program called Delftship, which is used to build real ships. The program lets you import the side, sheerplan and bodyplan views of the draft as backgrounds, and you create the points and lines over the drawing to make the 3D model. This takes a long time to do, especially if you're new to it. I export the Delftship hull into various other freeware programs to clean it up and repair it, check the scaling, and then I upload the .stl file to Shapeways. I also use 123D Design to test-assemble the entire ship kit and make sure all the parts look good fitted together. I'm have other time commitments, and my site is just for the my War of 1812 models, so I'm not interested getting involved in in this project myself. But I can help you if you want to buy any of my existing parts, or have me just re-scale some of them to your needs so you can buy them to refit your own models.

Diamondback
02-13-2017, 14:46
By my calculations, the LD lengths for Wave 4 within a mm or two should be 49mm (Ardent), 46mm (BHR), 44mm (Mahonesa) and 59mm (Tonnant). Your math suggests, if I'm applying it right, that I should tell Ares a waterline length below respective minimums of 46mm, 43mm, 42mm and 54mm should be "Reject Entire Batch"--sound about right?

Comandante
02-13-2017, 15:07
Yes DB, with a waterline length around that figures (46mm, 43mm, 42mm and 54mm, more or less) should work to have wave 4 to a ratio similar to wave 1 and 2.

Comandante
02-13-2017, 15:24
DB, what I suppose from the graphic is that ARES (consciously? It seems to perfect to be unintended.) applied a reduction ratio over the scale.
Probably they used a different equation but the logic seems to work. The Swan (I remember I read it somewhere) are the smallest ships they will ever do (correct me if I am wrong), and there was nothing larger than the Ocean at the time. the Swan is 1/1000 scale, the larger the ship the smaller the scale (but just a little bit and linearly). It doesn't seem they did the same for the Beam.

Diamondback
02-13-2017, 15:38
Swan is about what they consider the lowest length they CAN make, within a millimeter or so (I've suggested that if they really wanted to do smaller, they could by just molding the hull as part of the base-lid.). If they're distorting things keeping the beam but squashing the length to create "overweight" Fat Boy versions, that goes against everything we were promised in the Kickstarter, at least to my perception.

Broadsword56
02-13-2017, 16:54
For those interested, my Shapeways store with all my 3D printed 1:1000 scale ship kits is Swash and Buckle Naval Miniatures:

https://www.shapeways.com/shops/swashbuckle

I have 40 items for sale (14 hulls, 26 rigging parts) comprising every ship type that fought on Lake Ontario in the 1813 campaign.
Those of you who play SGN might be particularly interested not only in the British and US brigs and corvettes, but also the USS General Pike (a frigate very similar to the USS Essex). You could even make your own square-rigged or schooner merchant ships from, say, the hull of my largest converted merchant schooner and the larger rigging pieces.

Diamondback
02-13-2017, 18:54
Gina, how close was Pike to Essex? Are we talking just cosmetically very similar, or a known "same plans" relationship?

Why I ask is, if Ares does another bungle like the British First Rates, Baby Bahama and Mini-gildos when Essex enters the game, I may be looking for a replacement figure to go on Essex's base... assuming they don't strike my Screw This I'm Outta Here threshold first.

Broadsword56
02-13-2017, 19:20
Re: the USS General Pike -- Here's a terrific article all about the Pike:

http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/Warof1812/2015/Issue23/USFrigateGeneralPike.pdf

The article even has tables on Page 5 that compare the Pike and the Essex in great detail. Capt. Sinclair (her skipper and the man who oughtta know best) said the Pike was 3 feet longer and 1 foot wider than the Essex. But no one knows for certain because Eckford's plans have never been found. I used the Essex plans and modified them s bit to better resemble what the Pike was described to look like. For example, the Pike had " a forecastle deck above the gun deck running from the bow to the fore mast and a quarterdeck from the mizzen mast to the stern." That's where the Pike had its pivot-mounted long guns, and my model shows them.

https://images4.sw-cdn.net/product/picture/710x528_17630845_9978822_1486966555.jpg

Bligh
02-14-2017, 02:18
Re: the USS General Pike -- Here's a terrific article all about the Pike:

http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/Warof1812/2015/Issue23/USFrigateGeneralPike.pdf

The article even has tables on Page 5 that compare the Pike and the Essex in great detail. Capt. Sinclair (her skipper and the man who oughtta know best) said the Pike was 3 feet longer and 1 foot wider than the Essex. But no one knows for certain because Eckford's plans have never been found. I used the Essex plans and modified them s bit to better resemble what the Pike was described to look like. For example, the Pike had " a forecastle deck above the gun deck running from the bow to the fore mast and a quarterdeck from the mizzen mast to the stern." That's where the Pike had its pivot-mounted long guns, and my model shows them.

https://images4.sw-cdn.net/product/picture/710x528_17630845_9978822_1486966555.jpg


A well proportioned looking vessel Gina.
Thanks for posting it.
I'm sure that there will be some interest forthcoming from our membership.
Did I ever mention the Santisima Trinidad to anyone? :wink:
Rob.

Diamondback
02-14-2017, 06:19
Did I ever mention the Santisima Trinidad to anyone? :wink:
Rob.

*smacks Bligh with dirty sweat-sock*

:p

Nightmoss
02-14-2017, 09:42
Someone here was talking about doing a 3D printing of the Santisima Trinidad in 1/96 scale. No final photos so I expect they never did attempt it although the 'model' was digitally ready to go?

http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/1990-stern-gallery-of-santissima-trinidad/page-6

Other parts of that thread have some interesting information and photos as well.

Bligh
02-14-2017, 09:42
*smacks Bligh with dirty sweat-sock*:smack:

:p

By Jove I needed that!
Thanks DB.
Bligh.:wink:

Hjl
02-14-2017, 18:25
What software would you use to build the 3D model? I've often thought of doing this myself but it would take a long time in autocad.

Diamondback
02-14-2017, 18:29
Hugh, Gina suggested Delftship--what she uses, which will let you set the blueprint as a background and if I understand it right grab-drag-stretch the lines until they match.

I have DraftSight on my laptop (similar to AutoCAD but by Dassault, with full export-import) and I wouldn't attempt this with it. If you're over on the Aerodrome too, send me a PM over there and I'll let you in on what I'm thinking. :)

Hjl
02-14-2017, 18:33
I'm not on aerodrome. You can pm me here?

Broadsword56
02-14-2017, 19:02
What software would you use to build the 3D model? I've often thought of doing this myself but it would take a long time in autocad.

I use the free version of Delftship. It's very user-friendly and well documented. Plus, it's made specifically for hull design.
Once you get comfortable with Delftship, you can extrude the top edge inward to make a thickness for the bulwarks, and then extrude it down again for the inner side of the bulwarks, then extrude it inwards to make the deck to cover the top of the hollow hull shape.

Another tip: I usually export my initial hull model into netfabb basic (also free) to perform a default repair on it. This ensures it's watertight and removes the inevitable bad faces, etc. Then I bring it into Meshmixer (also free) and use the "Make Solid" function to make it a solid model instead of just a shell. This I find makes it sturdier and more printable, and the added material is negligible at this tiny scale.

My rigging started with a simple line drawing from a source book showing a front view of a square-rigged mast and sails. I turned it into a black silhouette and converted the drawing into an svg file in Blender (also free), then imported it into 123D Design, whch lets you extrude an svg drawing into a 3d shape. That left me with what looked like a flat cookie cutout of a mast and sails. To give it rounded dimension, I imported into Meshmixer and then just sculpted freehand to make the sails billowy, etc. Then in 123D I Boolean joined a set of cylinders scaled so as to make the three heights of mast section. I also joined some rectangular pieces into that assembly to make fighting tops and help reinforce the mast. Finally, I brought the sails piece back into 123D and Boolean joined it to the completed mast. The whole thing got exported back out of 123D as a single stl file, for more repair and scaling before being sent to Shapeways.

As you can see, the workflow is very involved and no single design software suffices for all of it. It's just easier to buy the prints from me! But if you want to learn it so you can do it yourself, it's very empowering because then you can make anything imaginable -- provided it can be printed.

Hjl
02-14-2017, 20:20
I designed the hull of a roro in autocad. Imported the table of offsets from an excel file and then rendered the hull around the stations. Then I Drew the weather deck and bridge at about 1/1000 and had it printed out as a demo piece for an initial design concept presentation.

I have just started using shipbuilder which is a plugin for autocad. It works very similar to the software you mentioned. I'm pretty sure it isn't free though.

I've made a couple of hulls actually, bizmark, titanic. All from the tables of offsets. Shame they don't exist for ships of the line. I make them so that I can print them out and get an idea oh how different hulls look to compare them for future designs.

twsl
02-14-2017, 23:50
When I get my printer back up and running I might give this a try and then see how small I can go.
Also going to try and break it into component pieces.

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1384301

Diamondback
02-15-2017, 00:46
Alan, printing that Constitution should be an interesting "control" to compare to the Ares model, just to help determine the limits of SLP in SGN.

Bligh
02-15-2017, 03:18
It will certainly be an interesting exercise.
I will keep my fingers crossed for a successful outcome.
Rob.

Nightmoss
02-15-2017, 09:17
I'm reading and watching all these discussions with much interest.

GIve me a shout when you get to the Santisima Trinidad? :wink: :happy:

P.S. Or the appropriately scale size for the Meregildos?!!!

Comandante
02-15-2017, 10:56
By my calculations, the LD lengths for Wave 4 within a mm or two should be 49mm (Ardent), 46mm (BHR), 44mm (Mahonesa) and 59mm (Tonnant). Your math suggests, if I'm applying it right, that I should tell Ares a waterline length below respective minimums of 46mm, 43mm, 42mm and 54mm should be "Reject Entire Batch"--sound about right?

DB, I have been busy and I am back to the blog just now. I thought about it and I would feel uncomfortable to suggest to "reject the entire batch" based only on my calculation. I did it just to compare Meregildos. My calculation are based on a waterline length measured "from the base of the cathead to the stern post" which is good to identify a "pattern". If we want to give ARES a better advice I should redo the entire check starting from proper data. For instance if the line drawing you posted are 1/1000 scale I can compare them with the models taking measures from both the drawing and the models. In this way the results would be more reliable. What do you think? Does it make sense?

Comandante
02-15-2017, 11:08
Swan is about what they consider the lowest length they CAN make, within a millimeter or so (I've suggested that if they really wanted to do smaller, they could by just molding the hull as part of the base-lid.). If they're distorting things keeping the beam but squashing the length to create "overweight" Fat Boy versions, that goes against everything we were promised in the Kickstarter, at least to my perception.

DB, about beam. I don't really think they did fat boy models. The two (scales) lines on the diagram are pretty close, the difference in beam might well be of fractions of a millimeter, with not so reliable data available and rounding up could be difficult to tell. As soon as I have enough time I can check the beam to the best of my ability and let you know.

David Manley
02-15-2017, 11:08
Ares my not be able to reject anyway depending on how they have developed the 3D models and transmitted them to the manufacturer. I get the impression the models are developed in Italy where they are "accepted" and then sent to the manufacturer, and as long as the model matches what is sent out then i guess there is no option to reject

Comandante
02-15-2017, 11:13
For those interested, my Shapeways store with all my 3D printed 1:1000 scale ship kits is Swash and Buckle Naval Miniatures:

https://www.shapeways.com/shops/swashbuckle

I have 40 items for sale (14 hulls, 26 rigging parts) comprising every ship type that fought on Lake Ontario in the 1813 campaign.
Those of you who play SGN might be particularly interested not only in the British and US brigs and corvettes, but also the USS General Pike (a frigate very similar to the USS Essex). You could even make your own square-rigged or schooner merchant ships from, say, the hull of my largest converted merchant schooner and the larger rigging pieces.

very nice models Gina; do you think it would be possible to print them in WSF polished?

Bligh
02-15-2017, 12:23
Having seen what Gina has to offer, I'm thinking more and more about that Santisima Trinidad.
How many of you shipmates would be up for one from Shapeways?

Rob.

Diamondback
02-15-2017, 14:26
Franco, if you save the drawings up-thread to your machine they should be bang-on 1/1000 (or within a trivial fraction at least).

Methodology, given that the original draughts are 1/48.
1. Underlying approach: rescale the entire sheet as if part of ship. Take artifact dimensions recorded on page, multiply by 48.
2. Divide figure from (1) by 1000, this gives us a "target size" for converting the drawing to SGN scale.
3. Open "large" drawing view on page, save zoomed drawing and rename--I like to use drawing number, class name, and specific ship so it's all indexed right in the file name.
4. Open drawing in graphics editor, lock aspect ratio, resize to width from (2).
NOTE: If you're going to do Waterline drawing as above rather than Full-Hull, I suggest chopping before resizing. Waterlines will be a little inexact, but we're going for "close enough"--I use the horizontal line in the skinny "post" part of the cutwater when I can clearly find it.

To my eye, the proportions on the models are pretty close, so Fat Boy was a theoretical discussion... though MINI-gildos is as big of a faux pas. By "reject batch," I had meant just that particular sculpt--on War at Sea Set 4, I think Rich Baker made the right choice when faced with an unacceptable mini about "cut it out of the set and do it again right next time."

Comandante
02-15-2017, 14:51
DB, got it, thanks, I will try to figure out how to work it out and I will start working as soon as I find the time.

Comandante
02-15-2017, 15:03
Having seen what Gina has to offer, I'm thinking more and more about that Santisima Trinidad.
How many of you shipmates would be up for one from Shapeways?

Rob.

I will, if she doesn't get too expensive.

Broadsword56
02-15-2017, 15:34
very nice models Gina; do you think it would be possible to print them in WSF polished?

Yes, all or most of my items could be printed in White Polished. It would add about 30% to the cost. If you specify an item or a list of items that interests you, I can switch on the option for WSF Polished and those prices for those items to make them available for you to order.

Diamondback
02-15-2017, 16:46
DB, got it, thanks, I will try to figure out how to work it out and I will start working as soon as I find the time.

Franco, intent with giving you and everyone else the process too was so that you could check my work as well--if we both come up with same or similar result independently, that means the process worked as designed. I actually built a spreadsheet that once I put in the original sheet size it'll automatically tell me the target image size, doing all the math for me in one easy move. (Original drawing size) * 48/1000 = (Target drawing size).

My screen has some funky scaling issues and this hotel doesn't have a business center, so I'm gonna have to ask somebody else to open or print the drawings and measure their waterlines.

I always welcome people checking my work and showing me how I can do it better. :)

Bligh
02-16-2017, 00:42
I am happy to do that for you DB if you mark the waterline with a red line so that I can see it clearly to measure. I can then use my optical calipers. My porinter will give me wysiwyg. as long as you know the original drawing was done at A4 size. I can set the printer to A4. Send me one and I will try it out.
Rob.

Diamondback
02-16-2017, 01:40
Rob, all you should need to do is right click any of the drawings above and hit Save As, then print it (Actual Size, not Fit To Page)--where tan or gray meets white will be the waterline.

I'll see if I can assemble you a PDF on A4 with all the drawings except 103 (no rescale possible without Greenwich declaring drawing scale), 108 (sculpt never existed) and 201 (see 108). These will be pure 1/1000, so no "sliding scale of size." It may take a bit, I'm trying to work on putting something special together for the girlfriend to give her a reason to come visit and every time I turn around the State Department is convinced that the sole purpose of their entire oxygen-wasting, in-dire-need-of-swift-kick-in-the-balls bureaucratic existence is to be a mind-boggling pain in my arse.

1984 was a cautionary tale, not a how-to manual, you bloody imbeciles! *flipoff*

Bligh
02-16-2017, 03:06
1984 was a cautionary tale, not a how-to manual, you bloody imbeciles! *flipoff*

FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON THAT REMARK STRIKES A CHORD DB. http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/images/smilies/th_happy_186.gifhttp://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/images/smilies/th_happy_186.gifhttp://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/images/smilies/th_happy_186.gif

Rob.

Bligh
02-16-2017, 03:13
OK,
SGN102 Temeraire (America; dwg ZAZ1028)
26990

SGN103 1773 Amazon (Cleopatra; dwg HIL0231)
26993

SGN104 Bellona (1760 Bellona herself; dwg ZAZ1357)
26991

SGN105 Hebe (clone Leda; dwg ZAZ4909)
26995

SGN106 Ocean - (HMS Commerce de Marseilles; dwg ZAZ0043)
27003

SGN107 Swan - will add drawing when I find one


26992 1811 Union (dwg ZAZ0246, as-built)
27005 1762 Britannia (dwg ZAZ0086)
27004 1786 Royal Sovereign (dwg ZAZ0001)

SGN202 Humphreys Superfrigate (President, dwg ZAZ7774)
26994

SGN109-112 drawings will follow as located and processed. 112 is specifically based on Bahama, 111 best drawing will be captured Salvador del Mundo.
109 Artesien (dwg ZAZ1339 Prothee, as recommissioned)
27783

110 Portland (dwg ZAZ1718)
27818

111 Meregildos
27893

112 Bahama/Gautier 74's



If you mean these DB.
My eyes are not good enough to differentiate even when I cut and paste them without a much darker line.
Sorry.
Rob.

Hjl
02-16-2017, 05:34
Oh! I got a reply to my facebook post.

I just posted up some of the comments from here with the technicalities of where there are differences.

Ill post any replies that i get.

me: Hi guys, im a bit curious about some of the new ships. I bought a Portland and Artesien from the wave 3 ships and the scales look wrong. They seem to be closer to 1/1200 than 1/1000. Is this deliberate, are you redoing your lines in a new scale?
Thanks

SOG: Hugh, no there was not a change of scale. We designed them 1:1000 based on the documents we could find. What makes you think the scale changed?

me: this is the Argonauta (53m) on the left vs a Temeraire (length 56m) on the right. There was a roughly 3m difference between the two ships in reality, as you can see here that is not the case. The Argonauta is far smaller than the Temeraire. This is consistent with the rest of the wave 3 release. Most of the ships are far smaller than they should be. (picture of ship waterlines from page 2)

If we assume a roughly 1/1000 scale then the dimensions of the ships against what they are in reality are listed below, the left is what they should be and the right is what they are

Swan 29m 31mm
Amazon 38m 38mm
Concorde 44m 43mm
Hebe 46m 45mm
Bellona 51m 53mm
Nepomuceno* 54m 48mm
Temeraire 56m 56mm
Umpire 58m 56mm
Meregildos 59m 50mm
Ocean 64m 60mm
Victory 56m 58mm
Constitution 53m 59mm

As you can see, the Nepo and Meregildos are very far off of their 1/1000 scale sizes, in some cases by almost 1cm. This is what caught the eye of some of the people on www.sailsofglory.com. Which is what lead me to wonder if you are re scaling some of the ships.


*******

It would appear that they arent aware of any problem at the moment. Interesting.

Bligh
02-16-2017, 06:08
Well Hugh, they are now.
Thanks for posting that.
Rob.

Diamondback
02-16-2017, 06:10
Denial: Not just a river in Africa...

Hjl
02-16-2017, 06:39
Reply

SOG: Thanks for the additional comments. We will double check with the modeller and the engineers involved in the process.

Bligh
02-16-2017, 08:21
It will be very interesting to heare what they have to say.
Rob.

Nightmoss
02-16-2017, 09:32
How could they not be aware of this issue? It's a pretty far stretch to imagine that someone in the home office doesn't have ships on hand to either play the game or take to shows, etc. My confidence in Ares is dropping a great deal!

Comandante
02-16-2017, 10:37
Denial: Not just a river in Africa...

Denial is step one. Anger follows. 4 more steps before Acceptance and maybe correction?

David Manley
02-16-2017, 12:02
Anger leads to the dark side......

David Manley
02-16-2017, 12:09
How could they not be aware of this issue? It's a pretty far stretch to imagine that someone in the home office doesn't have ships on hand to either play the game or take to shows, etc. My confidence in Ares is dropping a great deal!

I guess they aren't naval wargamers at heart, so probably not aware. Or maybe they just haven't taken then out of the box yet (like me - mine arrived a while back but real life issues mean I'venot had any of them out yet)

David Manley
02-16-2017, 12:10
Oh, and didn't they downsize one or two of the single seaters in WOW?

Diamondback
02-16-2017, 12:14
Anger leads to the dark side......

"Anger, fear, aggression, Yankees... the Dark Side are they."

Diamondback
02-16-2017, 12:17
I guess they aren't naval wargamers at heart, so probably not aware. Or maybe they just haven't taken then out of the box yet (like me - mine arrived a while back but real life issues mean I'venot had any of them out yet)

But one would think they'd have checked the Pre-Prod Samples... and hopefully they'll scrutinize the samples for future runs more closely. I expect Wave 3 to be like the Tripe and 109K: "oops, our bad, but it'd cost too much to retool and replace..."

David Manley
02-16-2017, 12:21
Yes, but check it against what? If the 3d model length was X and the physical model was X then it meets the requirements as far as they are concerned, The fact that the requirement may be wrong in the first place.....

Bligh
02-16-2017, 12:24
Very true Dave. Very true.
Rob.

Diamondback
02-16-2017, 12:26
Yes, but check it against what? If the 3d model length was X and the physical model was X then it meets the requirements as far as they are concerned, The fact that the requirement may be wrong in the first place.....

True... which means that though we shouldn't HAVE to do this, you and I as the research team need to give them Upper and Lower Limits to check against and say "anything outside this range is unacceptable"--I'm thinking either take the Designed Length from the drawings and +/-1mm, or take the longest and shortest classmembers, add 1mm to longest and subtract 1mm from shortest.

Dobbs
02-16-2017, 14:53
Hey Hugh, since you have found an ear at Ares, maybe now would be a good time to tell them about the mizzen masts being reversed on the ship cards for the 64's and 50's?

Nightmoss
02-16-2017, 16:48
I guess they aren't naval wargamers at heart, so probably not aware. Or maybe they just haven't taken then out of the box yet (like me - mine arrived a while back but real life issues mean I'venot had any of them out yet)

This may be the best answer for what happened that I've seen to date.

I first brought this up last year when I did take the ships out of the boxes and started comparing them; not so much as a wargamer, but definitely as a modeler and kit basher. Even with the naked eye I knew something was up. Other issues came from other folks here (Jonas caught the backward sails, etc.).

I want my ships to be in close scale to one another so I hope this doesn't happen in Wave 4 or if/when they actually do a special of the Santisima Trinidad?!

Hjl
02-16-2017, 17:13
Hey Hugh, since you have found an ear at Ares, maybe now would be a good time to tell them about the mizzen masts being reversed on the ship cards for the 64's and 50's?

I'm not sure I have their ear, I just asked them a direct question in a public forum that they can't simply ignore. I'll give them a while to reply and then push them publicly for a response.

Diamondback
02-16-2017, 18:52
Sometimes ya gotta back 'em into a corner... sucks, but there are times and people where it's the only thing that works. (Got real old having to serve that up on my mother every month when it was time to write the mortgage check, lemme tell ya...)

Diamondback
02-24-2017, 14:34
BTW, Rob, Dave, sent you guys a forward with the next draft on my "Iceberg" note--if you're willing and when you have time would appreciate your thoughts. Local independent reviewer already gave me one greenlight, so if one of you gives me a green and the other at worst a yellow (my personal rule before dropping the hammer on things like this is three outside opinions scoring at least Two Green No Red) then I'm ready to go forward.

Bligh
02-24-2017, 15:15
I had no quibble with any of it DB.
If anything I found it fairly mild.
Rob.

Diamondback
02-24-2017, 15:34
Thanks, Rob--thinking is "GET them talking again first, then dialogue rather than broadside... Boil The Frog Slowly."

Capn Duff
02-25-2017, 01:28
Hugh, have you heard back from Ares yet after them saying they were going to check with their designers?

Diamondback
02-25-2017, 01:40
I'm waiting for one more signoff on Draft 3 of my own note to Roberto before I file my own WTF-O-Gram... Right now I have "two green" toward my "Two Green No Red outside-review" rule, I just need a Yellow at worst from #3.

It's a philosophy that served me well on term papers in college, and position papers as a policy-wonk... and in formulating doctrines, policy and procedures in my former Executive Protection career, where others potentially lived or died based on the quality of my judgment. (As we say in the trade, "there's no such thing as 'paranoid,' only 'paranoid ENOUGH'...")

Hjl
02-25-2017, 07:03
Hugh, have you heard back from Ares yet after them saying they were going to check with their designers?

Nope, I asked again and nothing.

David Manley
02-25-2017, 09:21
I sense some annoyance at Ares.......

Capn Duff
02-25-2017, 09:32
? Oh yes ? in what way Dave

Nightmoss
02-25-2017, 10:33
If they're annoyed at anyone it should be directed internally or towards their Chinese production facility.

David Manley
02-25-2017, 11:59
Just a feeling, lack of response etc.

Diamondback
02-25-2017, 12:42
It's not like the community has any control over design, production, QC, etc. ... I can see maybe a little cheesed with me personally, but what do they have to be cheesed off at the rest of you for? (I mean, I specifically TOLD them facing painful questions like this can be a consequence of some decisions...)

We know Andrea has been focusing more on Wings of late given his activity there and not here, but we also know Sails is largely out of Andrea's hands now. David, between him and Rob which one do you think would be better to try to reach out to, or should I just assume we're all Burned until indicated otherwise? (Though A.A. DID ask my advice on a confidential matter recently... so at least he's still talking, or at least WAS.)

Hjl
02-25-2017, 14:57
I'm going to ask a few more times and then give up and assume that they just don't care enough to reply. Langton make good ships, is their customer service better?

Nightmoss
02-25-2017, 17:12
I'm going to ask a few more times and then give up and assume that they just don't care enough to reply. Langton make good ships, is their customer service better?

I've found very few folks that equal, let alone exceed, Rod Langton when it comes to customer service.

Hjl
02-25-2017, 18:04
I've found very few folks that equal, let alone exceed, Rod Langton when it comes to customer service.


Really? Excellent! I think I'll buy some merchants from him

Bligh
02-26-2017, 02:14
That's what I did Hugh.
Scale is no problem with A Merchant as they come in all shapes and sizes. I just bought a size up from the one I wished to portray, and it seems to fit in O.K.
Rob.

David Manley
02-26-2017, 06:51
DB, i usually chat on game design aspects with Andrea, production and marketing with Roberto.

Hjl
02-26-2017, 08:10
28299

Ill see if I can get hold of this Roberto chap.

Diamondback
02-27-2017, 13:18
Could somebody who has a Bahama, an SGN102 and an SGN104 side-by-side line them up stem-to-stern and take a broadside pic? Ditto the four three-deckers?

Diamondback
02-27-2017, 16:33
Or just run a tape measure down SGN112's centerline?

BTW, I did get a reply from Rob at Ares, but I'm treating it as Confidential until specifically authorized to release.

Hjl
02-27-2017, 18:55
I got a reply on Facebook too. Looks as though they are quite keen to deconstruct my arguement rather than explain it. I'll post it up in a bit.

Hjl
02-27-2017, 18:59
Sails of Glory Hi Hugh - I think what you have there in the photo is SGN110 (Portland class) not the Artesien. I measured the Artesien here in the office and the waterline is about 51/52 mm, and matches the scale plan by Fichant we have, where the waterline length is 51 metres.

Diamondback
02-27-2017, 19:22
Threedecks has Artesien gun-deck length at 50.02m and 1100t--which is within the "reasonably precise" range for a French 1100- to 1300-ton 64-gunner or EIM. The heaviest of these I've found, 1765 Vengeur, was 1250t and 52.6m; the shortest "heavy", 1200t 1754 Duc d'Aquitaine, 48.6m.

My recommendation is going to be group Duc d'Aquitaine and everything below 1000t with Bonhomme Richard in the Wave 4 sculpt even though we'll all have to do some quarterdeck-chopping and mizzenmast-splicing; everything from 1756 build-date on at 1000t+ with Artesien and everything kiloton-up before 1756 with Wave 4 Ardent.

Hugh, please note I'm not taking a side here, my job is to gather objective data and try to account for *any* possible error in the dataset regardless of origin. The pic *does* look more like the aspect-ratio of a Portland, which were a bit stouter proportionate to length than an SOL. Hence my request for a side-on photo... not as a dismissal, but as an "objective control"--God knows I occasionally get things mixed up with the ninety ships we already have, and I think your namedropping Argonauta (which as I said is a Temeraire; this is why I always try to refer to a sculpt SKU rather than a specific ship name unless it's an issue specific to that version of the product) may have thrown some confusion into the mix. If your smaller mini measures ~45x12mm it's probably a Portland; if it found its way into an SGN112 package that's a Factory Mistake.

Meregildos is clearly out-of-scale, that is beyond any reasonable dispute.

Hjl
02-27-2017, 21:01
I just posted info from here on Facebook, it's all from these threads without naming anyone.

Was that you on Facebook?

Diamondback
02-27-2017, 21:03
Clark is a false-flag I use from time to time.

Hjl
02-27-2017, 21:05
An interesting note, is the Portland that small? They look smaller on the waterline than some of the frigates

Diamondback
02-27-2017, 21:14
Hebe should be 46mm on Main Deck (which is actually the one *below* the gun deck); two-decker cruisers tended to be more "short and stout" because they were built for endurance rather than speed, primary roles being convoy escort (where they just needed to be fast and maneuverable enough to chase off raiders without temptation to stray away from their vulnerable charges in pursuit of prize money) and blockade duty. So Portland should be longer than SGN101 and 103 (which at 43-44mm are in the ballpark of "correct"), shorter than 105, *much* shorter than 202. A Portland should be about 80% of a Temeraire's length, an Artesien about 90%.

I think what they're trying to do is define the scope and magnitude of the problem; it sounded here like "entire wave" but is now looking like it may just be 111 and possibly 112 undersize. Of course, a model designer can only be as good as the drawings they work from.

David Manley
02-27-2017, 21:46
I just posted info from here on Facebook, it's all from these threads without naming anyone.

Was that you on Facebook?

Out of interest, which Facebook group?

twsl
02-28-2017, 06:41
I've taken some photos with a ruler for scale.
SGN102
http://www.sailsofglory.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=28337&d=1488288893
SGN104
http://www.sailsofglory.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=28338&d=1488288901
SGN112
http://www.sailsofglory.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=28342&d=1488288915

and the 3 deckers
SGN108
http://www.sailsofglory.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=28340&d=1488288906
SGN106
http://www.sailsofglory.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=28339&d=1488288904
SGN111
http://www.sailsofglory.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=28341&d=1488288913
and a comparison of SGN108 v SGN111
http://www.sailsofglory.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=28343&d=1488288918

Weird perspective on the photo makes it look like the ruler either starts or finishes in the wrong place so I tried on making the front line up.

Having issues with picture uploads tonight but I think they are in my album- will try again tomorrow.

Diamondback
02-28-2017, 06:51
Links broken, Alan. :(

twsl
02-28-2017, 07:00
Looks like I managed to fix them - hope it helps

My 50's and 64's should be arriving later this week or early next week so I don't have any comparisons of them yet.

Diamondback
02-28-2017, 07:29
Something I notice that may be confounding things: Meregildos's Lower Deck length includes the Stern Gallery--SGN108's does not, as the Gallery terminates at Middle Deck. If we offset Meregildos so its Gallery LD and the end of 108's LD in Alan's photo lined up, they look very close to my eye--on my screen, the forward end of Meregildos's LD starts 1/3 of my index-finger width at distal knuckle behind SGN108's, and extends all the way through to the gallery which is somewhere between 1/2 to 2/3 of that same distal-knuckle width behind the end of 108's LD. My guess here is that we're used to thinking more in "overall length" and forgot to take that massive overhanging gallery projecting well past the aft end of the LD in British/French design practices into account while Late Spanish seem to be a lot more "vertically stacked" without the overhang.

I'm predisposed to call False Alarm here on 111, particularly as just measuring these ships is such a complicated business. On 112, Rob quotes a source citing a 51m length on Bahama--I think what happened is that somebody had the measurements of sister San Pedro de Alcantara which was never rebuilt, and down-scaled the Bahama post-rebuild drawing to the pre-rebuild length,but that's just a guess.

Right now, I think we could all stand to step back, take a breath, let Rob and I follow the evidence and see where it leads us, and I'll keep you posted as I'm allowed to do so.

Diamondback
02-28-2017, 07:36
This also illustrates the importance of having your length measurement and measuring system consistent between ships: 108 and 111 are very close to a match at the LD, but from tip of beakhead to extreme rear of gallery SGN108 has longer OAL due to its combination of an overhanging MD (gallery projects out over water *behind* the rear of LD, while Meregildos LD goes all the way to the glass) and a sharper rake of the gallery once it starts.

Bligh
02-28-2017, 07:51
Having taken all that into consideration, I'm with you on this one DB. Let us assume all is well until Rob has a chance to look at all the evidence from his end and do the business.
I would quite like a chance to get back to doing my Band of Brothers item for now.
In fact you could say that over this conundrum I'm < wait for it > in denial.:takecover:
Rob.

Diamondback
02-28-2017, 10:16
One other closing thought I'd like to note is that part of why things stand out is Ares generally punches way above their weight class, which makes things stand out all the more--to be honest, I would rate most of their releases above some "serious scale models" I've tried to build over the years. (If you've ever fought with a hideously warped Monogram F-106 Delta Dart, or tried to correct the way-off-shape "gooseneck" of a Testors Blackbird, or fought with the Death Star Trenches where the fore and aft fuselages of an AMT B-52 meet, you know what I mean.)

Nightmoss
02-28-2017, 11:32
Sorry, I'm not going to buy into the wait and see stance, especially for the Meregildos. Even to my poor eyes the Santa Ana is not scaled correctly.

One thing I will say that in future I will not pre-order (or Kickstarter) anything from Ares until it's been vetted on the forums or I can look at the ship (or plane) in person.

Diamondback
02-28-2017, 11:48
Another thing to consider is there's a good 2+-meter range in sizes between the shortest and longest Meregildos--I've been using Salvador del Mundo as my basis, as it's in the low 57mm range (shortest of the class) and the one I could get drawings for. Combining the architectural differences with that...

Capn Duff
02-28-2017, 14:34
Interesting things here, for me the issues has been with the Meregildos SGN111 models, the measurements I have taken and the information I have had clearly show the model smaller than should be, so I dont understand DB your comment of false alarm, are you saying the Meregildos is correctly sized ?
The Second issue in the wave , again for me, is the Portland's SGN108 reading through my Winfield book I still see this as smaller, or am I reading wrong here?
The Nepochumeno/Bahama SGN112 not too sure of this, its smaller than some 74's I have but these I have not delved too deeply into.
The last sculpt the 64's I am happy with, the measurements look correct and by comparison look smaller than the 74's in scale as I would expect.
Now I am no expert and my knowlegde is no where near that of some of our esteemed members here but I clearly have issues with two of the models in this wave. So I wait the out come with great anticipation and really an explantion as to how the two sculpts I have the issues with are correct .

Diamondback
02-28-2017, 15:30
I'm saying that when you take architectural differences into account things get a bit closer, particularly if you consider that the draught I found for Meregildos was the *smallest* of the class. I'm not saying it's a nothingburger, I'm just saying "put the torches and pitchforks down for a minute."

Item: The draughts Ares was working from for Artesien and Portland match the models very closely. Cross those off the concern list, unless you propose to demand that they let you personally vet every drawing source, in which case a lot of ships will never be made because sometimes we do have to look at similar designs and take our best guess. If Portland is between Hebe and the Wave 1 frigates, say around 44-45mm (per Winfield 146' LOD, 44.5m), she's right where she belongs. Artesien, the LOD recorded for Prothee (only one taken) is 164'1", 50.01m. Bahama, the numbers they had were 51m (50.79 exactly), which I suspect is a pre-rebuild length. I *think* a wire got crossed using the draught of the 53m 74-gunner but scaled to the size of the 51m 64-gunner. 2mm... well, nobody complained about the British First Rates having more difference than that except me. And I think a lot of us were getting thrown off because of midget Bahama being the sculpt model but most of the names being 55m built-as-74s.

On Meregildos take a look at Alan's last photo in post 221 above. The mini does seem a skosh lower vertically, BUT the LD lengths are very close between the two models when you take architectural differences like significantly less stern-gallery overhang into account. Anything in the stern gallery past the rear of the LD does not count for Length On Deck, nor any rake of the bow ahead of where the fore-end meets the stempost--so by this logic, a ship with deeply-raked bow and long, deep-raked stern gallery at say 57m LOD, could in fact have greater OVERALL length than a ship at say 60m LOD with less gallery and shallower rakes, DESPITE having the shorter Main Deck. I should note that when researching Sails, we generally use Main Deck Length because that's the most consistently available measurement--waterline can vary wildly on the same ship under different conditions from Empty to Normal Displacement to Maximum, and while most American ships are measured Stem-to-Post in the official USN records that is yet a third, fourth or Xth length so we have to go back to the draughts, find the Main Deck plan and calculate LOD from that. (Unless we have a sister ship taken by the British... then they did it for us.) And then there's converting between French, Spanish and English feet... which is why we usually rely on the length figures at ThreeDecks as those are already converted to metric.

Another question... is it possible that Langton might have went high on his Meregildos's size if that's your point of comparison? I'm not saying he did, just trying to account for all possibilities. Assuming the longest recorded Meregildos (Santa Ana), the Langton should be 48mm from inner edge of beakhead (that's the vertical plank-like thing ahead of the main bow section) back to the back wall under the gallery with chase ports (which seems stupid to me putting holes in an area that close to the water and subject to violent pitching, but that's just me), while a 1/1000 model assuming based on SdM would be 57mm. (And yes, I'm cherrypicking the extremes deliberately trying to minimize the difference.)

Looking at the original draughts, we see that a Meregildos had less overhang behind that back-wall than an Umpire despite a similar Main Deck Length--and we're also being thrown by the Meregildos mini's mounting pin being proportionally farther forward than SGN108's. Taking these into account and measuring Alan's photo on my laptop screen, both miniatures in the on-screen photo measure at ~70mm LOD, plus-or-minus 1-2. I'd bet if Alan lined them up on Transoms instead of Pins in that photo the models would seem a lot closer--not Pitch Perfect mind you, but probably a whole lot more evenly matched. Though I do stipulate that the SGN111 model's rake looks a little shallower than the SdM draught...

See what kind of fun I get to have on a daily basis trying to crunch these numbers?

TexaS
02-28-2017, 22:48
I would say I've mostly been bothered with finding out what ship the British first rates are and don't know which one I should compare it to for size. Not that I thought that I would need to. I started talking of side profiles not matching back in the stats committee. I wasn't even talking about gun ports back then. Some things I can fix... some I can't.

Hjl
03-01-2017, 05:40
Ares just said that their ships are accurate when I asked why the Spanish first rates were so short. It seems that they are confident atleast in their numbers.

I'm not sure what to think now.

twsl
03-01-2017, 06:08
I'm going to try this again and came up with a different way to show this.
http://www.sailsofglory.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=28358&d=1488368806
I lasercut a baseplate that allowed me to sit the ship on top and slide it back until the rudder or the flat on the rear underside of the frigates hung over the rear edge to discount the stern gallery.
I then drew a line at the beginning of the forepeak at the bow of the ship. This was a consistent measure for every ship type I have.
This example is SGN106 Orient.
http://www.sailsofglory.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=28361&d=1488370605
I then went to threedecks and looked up the ship length in metres.
Ares is the one telling me that this is a model of this particular ship, this is how they advertise it, not that is representitive of a compilation of ships of a similar class but I'm perfectly fine to overlook certain distinctions - I don't care if 2 versions of a similar ship were historically a one or two metres longer or shorter for example. Even at this scale it doesn't really mean much to me.
Once again I looked up the main name of each ship type and noted the length of each one.
Rather than put up pictures of each one I made a quick graph to show the results.
http://www.sailsofglory.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=28359&d=1488368880

I believe this shows that the San Juan Nepomuceno is the same length from stern to bow as a Hebe Frigate and the Santa Ana is likewise to a Bellona
As I said I can forgive a couple of mm but 10 and 11 on the 2 new Spanish ships seems a bit on the goofed side.

I still have the Artesien and Portland to measure when they arrive and I am interested to see where they fit in the above chart.

If I've measured something wrong let me know but I figured this was the best way to show an exact comparison rather than a series of photos of ships that a slight slip of angle gave false impressions.
If I'm going to be quoted on something I want to make sure it's right. The research is fun though.

What I'm finding more frustrating at the moment is how on a lot of the later ships the inner and/or outer jib sails are pointing straight up in the air and not in line with where the rigging is supposed to go.

By the way I work at a large plastic injection moulding company and know too well the tools and machines that would make these components and what our engineers and quality people measure and check for before a single part goes into a finished product and how long it can take.

Hjl
03-01-2017, 15:07
Holy cow, that is some detailed investigation!

can anyone list what the SGN numbers refer to for those of us (me) who have no idea?

Diamondback
03-01-2017, 15:19
Hugh, the SGN numbers are the SKU's for each sculpt. Adding letters gives you the specific Ship Pack, I just use the base SKU as shorthand. The first four have Kickstarter companions, SGNKS##, where the numbers are the last two digits of the SKU, and the Starter versions are similarly designated SS## sharing the SKU's last digits.
101 = Concorde/similar French 12# 32-gun frigate
102 = Temeraire Middling/Large 74-gun SOL
103 = 1773 Amazon British 12# 32-gun frigate
104 = Bellona/related Common 74-gun SOL
105 = Hebe/related French and British 18# 38-44-gun frigates
106 = Ocean 120-gun three-decker
107 = Swan 14-18-gun ship-sloop
108 = "Generic British First Rate" 100-120-gun three-decker
109 = Artesien 64-gun SOL
110 = Portland 50-gun cruiser
111 = Spanish Meregildos 112-gun three-decker
112 = Spanish Bahama 64->small 74-gun SOL
201 = HMS Victory
202 = USS Constitution

Numbering system is a carry-over from Wings, adapted.
0xx = Starter/Rules Products
1xx = Standard Ship Packs
2xx = Special Ship Packs
3xx, 4xx = Unassigned
5xx = Accessory Products

Alan, what I'm telling YOU is that you're measuring against the wrong ship on 112--you need to be measuring against BAHAMA (51m as built to San Pedro Alcantara design before rebuild, 53 after), which has been repeatedly noted until we're all blue in the face to all who will listen, not SJN or her 55m near-sisters. I TRIED to find them a blueprint of HMS San Juan as taken in Greenwich's collection, but they didn't have one. So sue me. The model is specifically Bahama.

And "compilation" has been happening from Day One, with the Charmantes sharing a sculpt with the similar but different-forecastled Concordes, the Bellonas and their progeny's stats and names piled on to the SGN104 sculpt, the mishmash of First Rates on SGN108... I pointed things out on 108, and none of you wanted to listen, so it's a little LATE to be laying on the sanctimonious self-righteousness.

I too have a set on the way, and as someone a bit more familiar with the intricacies of naval architecture of the period, though not at David Manley's level, I will be taking my own measurements and post those--if memory serves, the tapering-in portiion of the bow is also included in the gun deck's length.

Bligh
03-01-2017, 15:19
Start by having a look here Hugh.

http://sailsofglory.org/downloads.php?do=file&id=77

Rob.

Hjl
03-01-2017, 15:22
So the spanish first rates are supposed to be smaller than the british and french thirds? and the spanish thirds are supposed to be smaller than a frigate?

Ares seemed pretty sure of themselves on facebook.

Bligh
03-01-2017, 15:22
What a close run thing DB.:happy:
Rob.

Diamondback
03-01-2017, 16:08
Ya know what, I'm done wasting my time in this discussion. When my set arrives, I will take measurements myself and illustrate precisely how and from where to where, and cite relevant points to note in the research process.

Until then, I'm out. BYE!

28362

twsl
03-01-2017, 19:14
Sorry if I had anything to with this I thought I was offering info to aid in your discussion with Ares not arguing with you.
Does this mean there is/will be another Spanish large 74 that may be in the pipeline?
If my Bahama measured 50-51 and not 44 that would be fine with me.
I believe the issue is they (not you) refer to them as nepomuceno/bahama class when they are really one and not the otherI look forward to hearing back when yours arrive and seeing your measurements to compare.

twsl
03-17-2017, 16:55
Update:
My Artesien and Portland ships arrived today and I did the same measurements as I have done with all the other ships I have and the results are:

Artesien - Gun Deck =50m Measured mm =50
Portland - Gun Deck =44m Measured mm =45

From what I can see looking at the models is that the SGN112 Bahama is the same length but beefier as the SGN110 Portland and carries a smaller ships boat.
I can say that the front sail reversal isn't really noticeable unless you know about it, it's more the angle I'm not fond of.

I still believe SGN's 111 and 112 are smaller than they should be but they are still nice looking ships.

Diamondback
04-07-2017, 06:01
Out of interest, which Facebook group?

David, apologies for late reply, that was the company Sails FB page IIRC.