IonAguirre

Vaya, parece que no soy el unico que dejó de jugar. ¡¡ Hola Pepepotamo !! Mi problema con este juego es la cantidad de tiempo que requiere.

¡¡ Vaya Sigfried !! Veo que sigues por aqui. Hace mucho que no entro .... Pero me lo estoy replanteando. Sobre ciclos diurno/nocturno .... En la zona tropical donde se desarrolla el juego, la noche y el dia deberian tener practicamente la misma duracion, con crepusculos muy cortos.

Sorry but the plans above, supposed to be for the Spanish Diana are incorrect. The originals from Julian de Retamosa are at everybody's disposal at the Spanish Naval Museum located at Madrid. A copy of that original is included into this forum. Cant remember the exact location. Regards

I disagree Point 1: Spain, if compared with England or France is a lot more wooded, being the Oak, the most common tree. Being Spain the most Mountanious country in Europe and second regarding mean height over sea level, lot of kinds of Firs and pines are also common. Please dont believe that the whole territory of Spain is like Ibiza or Costa del Sol. Point 2: American wood, was mostly used at American ships yards. Spain built ships at both sides of the Ocean. European territory built ships were mostly made from Oak. Point 3: Mahogany WAS a giant tree, but no really big one survided the Naval construction era. Furnituring and decorative use is a relatively modern activity that gave no place for young trees to grow. In Spanish we have two words for naming Mahogany, Caoba= Old really big Mahogany trees. Caobilla= What reamins today. Little young trees. No ship, at no place in Europe was built from a single kind of wood. It makes no sense. Nothern Europe trees are not good for ship building. Fir, and relatives are only valid for masts. Best woods in Europe all those belonging to the Quercus genus. About Mahogany versus Oak: Mahogany is neither attacket nor corrupted by sea animals, hence drydock operations can be delayed a lot when compared with oak wood and ships performance.is less affected by time. Oak wood is sligtly stronger, but heavier. Hence by compensating the strength difference by slightly thicker parts, still returns a stronger and lighters ship. Regards

You're wellcome :-) I've checked the launch date again. Its 1794

Some more .... Le Petit Chateau located at Sto. Domingo El Plata. At Pto Plata Tropicana. At La Habana El Mondongo. At Veracruz (Mexico) And ... the best thing, they are still there.

Dear Wind: In the Spanish list, you've written "Montañes 1812". She was launched on 1792. As a piece of History, she was the last 74 class built in Europe. Regards

freddykrueger66 What a nice ship ¡¡ Just a question. What is required for a 3D model for being used by this game ? I mean: What parts are required to be built ? I guess, many parts, that can be shared by many models, must be already modeled and kept into a kind of library. What are the model size limits ? Kind regards

DIANA: Spanish frigate. More information ... and CAD plans available http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/306-ship-plans-and-resources/?p=110596

Glory and honour for all of them: Some on the Spanish side: Principe de Asturias: D, Federico Gravina, Antonio de Escaño Santa Ana: D. Ignacio Maria de Alava Santisima Trinidad: Francisco Javier Uriarte. D. Baltasar Hidalgo de Cisneros San Juan Nepomuceno: D. Cosme Damian Churruca Bahama: Dionisio Alcalá Galiano Neptuno: Cayetano Valdés Montañes: Francisco Alcedo IN MEMORIAM

Spanish MONTAÑES S.O.L 74 canons I have the whole information about this ship, plans above are not from a model, but from the original drawings from D. Julian Martin de Retamosa the naval architect who built her.

Quite a good idea IronKraken ¡ I fully agree with you. Count on me for signing anywere asking for those improvements.

I agree with knowing which ships are in port. Knowing who is the Captain, does not mind for me and, by the way, would not fit with reality.

Hi SteelSandwich: I can't get what do you mean with a "flat surface". No plannar surfaces can be found in any ship of those ages. May we have a deeper explanation ? Another thing is that MAX is not a good tool for accurate ships hull modeling, it is based on meshes, while hulls are built from NURBS. I know MAX has NURBS tools(I've widely used MAX for other purposes), but are very poor when compared with comercial softwares like Rhino and even with free ones as FreeShip. Regards

Malachi, don't forget the Spanish frigate Diana and her sister ships.

Dear friends. cannot be right if decks are cutting the windows in halves. That kind of stern belongs to the XVI century. If as somebody said above, it was designed by Jorge Juan, I can promise the stern was not that way. In fact, high and narrow sterns were abandoned at Spain before Gaztañeta times. Freddy. Thanks for your kind answer. My intention is only helping ...... Dont hersitate asking anything you could need. Regards

OlavDeng2. Thanks for your answer. Only a comment. Changing wind in a sailing ships game, is an elemental thing from my point of view. More when in the OW, it's better to keep the ship "head to wind" waiting for it to shift than tacking. That's so unreal ¡ Regards

Nothing to comment about the modeling procedure, but a few things about the stern shape of the ship. The whole stern section is raised one deck. I mean the galleries vertical location must be at the decks and not half way between them. Lower windows line of the transom. Located at the second battery level. Upper, Located at the third battery level. The same at both sides of the ship. That way, the too high general shape of the stern, and the transom shape (must look a lot more rounded), will be corrected. Please dont take my comments as a "destructive" criticism, your work is quite nice, but as a search for historical accuracy. Kind regards

Hi iMack: All surfacing methods have the same problems you've found. The way to go, is using diferent methods for each part. The hull central section can be built from a single "Surface from curves network" instruction, but take care not to use the Autosort option. For the hull "heads" some partial surfaces can be worked the same way, while others are better modeled by "Surface from edges". Another way I use a lot, is ... Once the main part is surfaced, a number of new partial lines are drawn at the required parts. Those lines (frames and stringers), must be in touch with the old ones (new stringers with old frames and vice versa) granting for fair new surfaces. Once that new and denser curves network is done, the instruction "Surface from curves network" can be used again. Anyway, there will always be a set of little remaining "holes" that can be mostly solved by surfacing from edges. The continuity and fairing of all surfaces is achived by means of selecting, where possible, surfaces edges instead of lines and by selecting the "tangency" option at the suitable edges. The most complex part is usually the stern, and specially the part where the sharpened shapes of the hull beside the stern post, must meet the plannar transom. This part must be thought like a fan shaped structure, that starting from the uppermost place of the sternpost runs up and sideways for meeting the lower edge of the transom. Another thing to point is that building a real and accurate hull, is not a matter of a few minutes, but quite a long one, take it easy. My congratulations, your model looks quite nice and accurate.

Arvenski, true, very true. 74th was the most built class ship as they resulted in an almost perfect balance between price, velocity, maneurability and fire power. I'd like to see the Spanish HCMS Montañes in the game. She was the fastest 74 gunner of her time and a very nice ship. From a historical point of view, the presence of russian, swedish ... etc ships at the Caribean sea during the XVIII century was negligible, while the Spanish one was massive. I think the best choice for a future 74 gunner in the game, must be a Spanish one. Its unreal to have only the Santisima Trinidad that was not a representative of the Spanish fleets, mainly composed of 74gunners and frigates used for granting the Trans Atlantic and Pacific trading routes a lot more than in naval battles.

Battle repair: Between being able to full repair the ship, and being completly unable to do that, of course the first choice is the more realistic. But none of them is historically correct. From my point of view, a balance between both options would be the best solution. Of course it was impossible to build a new mast during a battle, but some partial hull repairs, and sail replacement, could be included and would result more realistic. Weather changes: Wind shifts always backing, at a fixed rate and with a constant force. Would be nice having a less previsible wind, which direction and force change in a more realistic way. Of course, sea state, storms, etc ... would be wellcome. But the wind issue is more important from my point of view. Land in battle fields: Including the nearby coasts (when in range, of course) in the battle instances would improve the strategy side of battles.

Admind sounds like a "stop bothering me". Sorry if we made you feel that way. But .... in fact, Henry d'Esterre Darby got it. Drift is not a matter of rudder, but of course compensation. Including the feature or not is your choice, but please lets keep basic navigation concepts clear for all readers. Best regards

Fom a mathematical point of view (Regarding the computational load and software design) drift, tides and currents are simple things. About the simulation side .... Im with Richard .... what's the matter with it ? Regards

Hi Richard: The Caribean sea and the Gulf of Mexico are actually the only areas included in the Open World. Anyway, I agree with you, tides and currents would be a nice improvement to the game. By the way, I'd also include wind drift.

Mariners of that time, used the North star for compas deviation calculation. In fact the same procedure is still used. Albeit its compusory for all ships (SOLAS convention) to be fitted with Gyroscopic compass, the traditional one is also a requirement. At each navigation watch, the duty officer must calculate the total deviation of the magnetic compass and include his results in the Navigation logbook. At night, the most accurate procedure is by using the North star, during dawn and sunset, the azimuth of the Sun, when its height=0, is another tipical, accurate and very common procedure, as all equations become a lot simpler. Prater, my use of the word accuracy, related to the game compass, was related to the sence explained by Sigfried. Sphericity is not a geometric requirement. Once again, the shape does not mind, but the correct choice of the mathematical model. All required variables and results are invariants, as they are defined for each geometric structure. Once again, thats only a matter of building the correct tensor. As I see this discussion is going nowere, this is my last post into this thread.