HMAS Sydney II

[mabrown]

Hi everyone,

I 've decided to start a more focussed design (and soon I hope, test build) thread for my attempt at HMAS Sydney II. After *many* hours tweaking the shape, I now have a hull which will actually unfold using the Skoogle ruby unfold script.

In order to get the hull to unfold, much simplification was done. I also substantially changed the hull curves forward as to my mind they were wrong in the plans I have (and jolly hard to unfold the way they were).

I have also done some tests getting the unfolded parts into Inkscape to print them out. My rather convoluted method is to model in MoI 3d, export as a polygon model into Google Sketchup and unfold using the ruby "Unfold Tool"; export from Skoogle in obj format; import the obj back into MoI as wireframe; export the wireframe from MoI in Adobe Illustrator format; convert the AI format file to svg format (because the AI file format used by MoI is version 7 and that used by Inkscape is version 9 up!) and finally, load the svg into Inkscape. Ah, the joys of software interoperability!

[mabrown]

Have made some substantial progress on the frame design tonight. Spacing and arrangement of everything has been largely dictated by how the hull skin has been designed for unfolding.

I would be most grateful if designers and builders alike would comment on the current arrangement. Are there any "bulkheads" and "decks" which should be added or removed for a better/easier build?

[redhorse]

There are a lot of horizontal formers at the stern. Will there be that many around the whole hull? I've never seen that many on a kit, but I'm adding extras to my current build so it might be nice to have extras build into the design.

[Barry]

I would agree with Redhorse about the horizntal formers but I would take out every other former at bow and stern

[B-Manic]

There seem to be an awful lot of formers to me as well. Although they would undoubtedly make for a smoother hull, getting them all to fit together without cutting oversized slots might prove problematic. Without seeing how the hull skins unfold it is difficult to see the advantage or requirement of so many formers.

It would be buildable as is, just friddly (fiddly + frustrating) getting all the slots aligned without damaging the formers at 1:200 or 1:250 scale. Any thing smaller would be extremely difficult.

They do give a really nice shape to the hull don't they . . .

BTW - are you planning to do any renders of HMAS SYDNEY II similar to those you did for HMAS AUSTRALIA I?

~ cheers

[mabrown]

Thanks guys for the responses. The advice is greatly appreciated.

I've pretty much taken out every second bulkhead now. It is looking a little less daunting.

Jim, I hadn't intended to carry the horizontal formers around the whole hull although I am thinking that I'd like another horizontal one in that open midships section, perhaps carried right through to the bow. I over engineer everything. You should have seen the stud wall I built as part of some house renovations recently. I reckon it is where I'll go if we ever have an earthquake! Seems I'm carrying it through to paper ships now. I would really appreciate seeing where you have added the extra formers on your current build and how it compares to this.

As Barry has pointed out, it is the buildability I'm concerned about. I'd like others to be able to build this if it turns out OK. The reason for the large number of horizontal formers at the stern is that to get my hull to unfold there, I've had to fan-fold it. I think this is going to give a nice shape but I figured I would need the formers to glue the open edges to. I tried simplifying the shape but had much less success doing that at the stern than elsewhere. I've attached an image of the unfolded stern skin in Skoogle.
BTW - are you planning to do any renders of HMAS SYDNEY II similar to those you did for HMAS AUSTRALIA I?
I will do a render of the model eventually. Sydney V the Colleoni and Bande Nere would make a nice subject (cover art for a kit perhaps?)

[mabrown]

I said...

As Barry has pointed out, it is the buildability I'm concerned about....

What I meant to say was "As Douglas has pointed out...":o

Been spending too much time looking at lines and curves:rolleyes:

[redhorse]

Mark, here's a picture of the hull as it looked a couple nights ago, the bottom's finished now. It's also on a build thread here, and I should have more pictures up tonight or tomorrow. I still need to add more formers to the hull sides.

http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/ships-watercraft/2838-ijn-zuikaku-1-200-gpm-5.html


http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/attachments/ships-watercraft/13026d1240200532-ijn-zuikaku-1-200-gpm-04-19-09-001.jpg (http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/attachments/ships-watercraft/13026d1240200532-ijn-zuikaku-1-200-gpm-04-19-09-001.jpg)

[mabrown]

Hi Jim,

Looks fantastic. Don't know how I missed your thread before.

I'm now considering some horizontal division below the waterline. Oh no!

[Darwin]

For some reason, I'm getting a definite urge to retrieve one of my stick and tissue kits from the loft and butcher some balsa. That is one great framework.

[mabrown]

Hi everyone,

I've reduced the number of formers down to the images attached. I'm going to go with this scheme for the first test build.

I think my fanfold stern is a little like the stern of Digital Navy's new model of http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/design-threads/2949-carl-d-bradley.html. However, whereas I was going to use additional horizontal framing at the stern to glue the open edges to, DN's model appears to have another hull skin underneath to which the outer hull skin is laminated. I'm guessing that the inner skin is glued to the frame first and then the outer one is layed on top.

I'm really impressed with the "Carl D Bradley". When I first looked I thought the images were computer renders. I think it will be a very fine model.

[mabrown]

Has been a week or so since my last update. Not much design work done but I have been learning how to get the model into a printable form. Thanks to a forum post somewhere on the web I now know I can 'print' a pdf to file to a particular scale and import direct to Inkscape, so I've been able to ditch the long method above. I printed out a test turret on plain copy paper and put it together with sticky tape. I'm surprised how well the shape came out.

I'm very close to a test build now but I am stuck deciding on card thickness for the frame and how I should handle scaling of the sheets where the slots are concerned. I would like to make this user scalable but re-scaling by a builder will also re-scale the slots.

So, I have a few questions:
1. What scale should the model be released at and how thick should the card be for the frame parts (2mm?) at that scale? (I was thinking 1:200 for a release which I guess would scale to 1:400 with 1mm slots. Would that work OK? Seems though that most models are 1:250?)
2. I have considered releasing at a couple of set scales, say 1:250, 1:400 and perhaps 1:700. This will be additional work but it would allow me to select card thickness for the frame which is appropriate to the scale. Is this necessary?
3. If I release only at say 1:400, when you guys re-scale a model, how do you go about dealing with changed scale for slotted parts? Do you just cut the slots via careful cutting to match your card thickness?

Again, any advice from designers and builders alike is greatly appreciated.

[mabrown]

Some substantial progress (although it may not look like it). I've decided to provide my 3d wire frame with marked lines (red in the attached images) where slots are to be cut. This will allow me to use pre-sized slot cutters at various thicknesses (eg 1mm, 2mm etc) to match whatever thickness of card I am using and just "snap" the cutter onto the markers. I can then use the cutter to boolean subtract (or perhaps merge) the slot from the underlying surface.

I'm hoping that the advantage of this will be that I will be able to scale the parts independently of the thickness of material being used for slotted parts.

I bought some materials today in anticipation of a test build, a ream of 200gsm paper, some sheets of 450 & 600 gsm card, some hobby glue and a can of the 3M 77 spray adhesive (that stuff is expensive!). Seems the more design work I do though, the further away I am from actually building something :(

[APA-168]

Looks excellent, can't wait for more!

With regard to your question, 1mm seems to be common for 1:200-1:300 scale models, however I've only built and designed ships much smaller than Sydney. She's much larger and I'm not sure how thick the frames should be. However she seems to have a great many frames so 1mm might be ok? And as for scale, I would vote for 1:200 as you can always scale down.

Maybe someone with more experience in large ship construction can chime in here!

[Barry]

Tarawa and Richelieu have frames made of 140gsm + a cornflake packet = about 0.85 mm and as long as you keep the frames not greater than 2 inches apart it seems ok. Hullsides are between 140 and 200 gsm. Use superglue to stiffen the pointy bits. In the end it's down to what you feel comfortable with.

[mabrown]

Thanks Avery and Barry. I'm going to go with 1mm slots. I'm pleased that I seem to have purchased paper which is suitable. That is down to having viewed a lot of build and design threads on the forum here over the last many weeks. Something must be sinking in.

Fingers crossed, at the very least the next images I post should be of printable hull frame parts.

Avery, how are your projects coming along? Sydney is a minnow when compared to Battilus!

[B-Manic]

I look forward to seeing the first build pictures of this very interesting subject. I have been reading about her duty in the Med and unfortunate demise.

[Rick Thomson]

I look forward to seeing the first build pictures of this very interesting subject. I have been reading about her duty in the Med and unfortunate demise.

Unfortunate demise is perhaps understated, the RAN seems to have been a bit of a hard luck outfit at best. No disrespect to the valour of the RAN tars intended.

Rick

[CharlieC]

I look forward to seeing the first build pictures of this very interesting subject. I have been reading about her duty in the Med and unfortunate demise.

The demise of the Sydney is an on-going debate in Australia. With the discovery of the wrecks of the Sydney and the Kormorran off the WA coast there has been an inquiry running to look at the loss of the Sydney again. The weight of evidence seems to be that the Sydney's captain brought the ship too close to the Kormorran after challenging it.

Regards,

Charlie

[mabrown]

I look forward to seeing the first build pictures of this very interesting subject. I have been reading about her duty in the Med and unfortunate demise.

Sydney II is possibly our best known warship (although here in Australia that title might be held by HMAS Voyager, tragically cut in half by our own aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne). Because of the way she was lost, her fame probably exceeds that of the WW1 Sydney, well known for her destruction of the German raider Emden.

Following the recent discovery of Sydney II and the German raider Kormoran by David Mearns (of HMS Hood discovery fame), there is quite a lot of info on the web related to the ship. The following links might be of interest:

This site is for the documentary relating to Sydney's discovery. The 3d representation of the battle in the video gives some idea how unpleasant it must have been on Sydney when the Kormoran opened fire:
The Hunt for HMAS Sydney (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/hmassydney/)

HMAS Sydney II, Finding Sydney Foundation (http://www.findingsydney.com/)

An excellent summary of Sydney's career here:
HMAS Sydney (II) - Royal Australian Navy (http://www.navy.gov.au/HMAS_Sydney_%28II%29)

All three modified Leanders had a tough war. In addition to Sydney, HMAS Perth was sunk at the Battle of the Sunda Strait (as was USS Houston) and Hobart narrowly avoided the same fate following a torpedo strike.
Australian Navy Ships--HMAS Hobart (1938-1962) -- World War II Actions and Activities (http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/austral/aussh-hl/hobart-k.htm)

[mabrown]

Unfortunate demise is perhaps understated, the RAN seems to have been a bit of a hard luck outfit at best. No disrespect to the valour of the RAN tars intended.

Rick

Yes indeed. One can also add HMAS Canberra to the hard luck ledger and probably several others.

In this country, we tend to accord our losses much greater importance than our victories.

[CharlieC]

Yes indeed. One can also add HMAS Canberra to the hard luck ledger and probably several others.

In this country, we tend to accord our losses much greater importance than our victories.

You have to add Canberra's sister ship HMAS Australia, hit by kamikazes on 6 occasions in 1944-45.

Canberra was a joint sinking between the IJN and USN, a torpedo from USS Bagley hit the Canberra early in the Battle of Savo island. The County Class were tough ships - the Canberra took 2 torpedo hits and 24 8" shell hits but was still afloat although burning the next day - the wreck was finally sunk by US destroyers.

Regards,

Charlie

[mabrown]

The demise of the Sydney is an on-going debate in Australia. With the discovery of the wrecks of the Sydney and the Kormorran off the WA coast there has been an inquiry running to look at the loss of the Sydney again. The weight of evidence seems to be that the Sydney's captain brought the ship too close to the Kormorran after challenging it.

Regards,

Charlie

I feel very sorry for Burnett. As the conspiracy theories have fallen away with the discovery of Sydney's wreck, Burnett has become the main focus of her loss. Sadly, he isn't here to defend himself and it is impossible to know what was going on on Sydney's bridge at the time.

Sydney was clearly a very good ship at the ranges for which she was designed. She had proved it at Cape Spada against two cruisers which on paper were her equal (although I think that can be debated). I think it has been hard for Australians to accept that a modern cruiser could be lost in battle with a glorified freighter. At 1000m though, Kormoran was clearly a tough adversary and Detmers gave himself every chance to win. Sydney was simply much too close.

In relation to Canberra, there is an excellent web page by one of her crew here:
http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/index.html

[mabrown]

Wow, 2 weeks since my last update. Have had lots to do (my little boy turned one today) and haven't had much time for projects. Tonight I have finished (baring inevitable revisions I'm sure) all of the hull frame parts.

I'm nearly ready to try to build this frame. I'm steeling myself for a very public failure...

[B-Manic]

Looks good Mark, looking forward to seeing it in the real world. Reducing the number of frames reduced the number of possible problems. If there are problems don't think of them as a failure. Think of them as opportunities for improvement. That's what I always tell my new Sr. NCO's, unless they really pooch it of course. But they are not building paper models.

[APA-168]

Looking fantastic Mark, this one should be a winner!

When remembering Aussie naval history, do not forget one of the bravest acts of the war, the sloop HMAS Yarra's suicidal charge against Japanese heavy cruisers in an attempt to give her convoy time to escape. It is a real shame so few seem to have heard of Yarra and her story. I am planning on building a model of her (not paper) and have been doing research and it is appalling how little is out there.

[zot]

You know Avery, designing a paper model of her would be a fitting tribute.;) I think that is what you call a not-so-subtle hint:D

[zot]

Mark,
You are doing one heck of a Job. Happy B-day to the little one.

[redhorse]

We'll see how it goes, but I'm thinking your frames will be quite a success.

[mabrown]

Thanks guys for the vote of confidence. This is a great forum.

Avery, I'm fascinated that you are building Yarra. One of the things that impresses me about the members here is how broad the interests and knowledge are. I would love to try a model of Yarra some time down the track if I can make this current model work. Yarra's story is an incredibly heroic one. They named a Collins class sub after Rankin which is some sort of belated recognition. Is your model a resin one? I'm guessing that it would be off-topic to post images of it here but I would love to see it by PM some time if you wouldn't mind.

Thanks Scott for your birthday wishes for my boy. We all had a very nice day. I'm a first time dad at 41 and wouldn't swap the time I'm having now for anything.

All the best everyone.

[mabrown]

These look better in Inkscape than they do as jpegs. Hopefully they will print OK.

Still need to pdf the decks. A couple need unfolding too.

Nearly there for a test build of the frame.

[RogerP]

Hello Mark, from across the border in central Vic (Bendigo).

I'm very interested in this model of HMAS Sydney (II) and I'll mention too HMAS Australia (I), hoping this too might become a card model. Just as a matter of interest I'm vigorously searching for plans of HMAS Sydney (I) for a new-found card modelling friend in Traralgon who has a mate looking into producing a card kit.

I have become quite a fan of card models to the extent of producing my own range of ready-made coastal forces models (predominantly in 144th scale) utilising the excellent kits from 'Coastal Forces in Paper' among others and adding detail items in resin and brass.

Congratulations on being a father for the first time, with four children now I can tell you it's a wonderfull experience, especially watching them grow to become parents themselves. In Feb 2008 we were presented with a delightfull grandaughter Emily and in the next few weeks my daughter will present us with not one more grandchild but two, a boy and a girl.

I sent you a personal message a couple of days ago to re-establish our contact. My phone number is 03 54478693.

Cheers,
Roger Pearson.
Bendigo, Victoria.

"Roger's Little Ships"
Modelling 'Allied Light Coastal Forces 1914-45'.

[Don Boose]

Good to see this project continuing to progress, Mark.

Don

[mabrown]

Thanks Roger and Don for your continued interest in this. I am still making very slow progress. I have generated parts for the decks, a couple of which required some unfolding which proved more difficult than anticipated due to the fact that I had already created the slots.

Roger, I have replied to your PM via my profile regarding plans for first Sydney. Not a lot out there that I know of but there are some Russian plans which might do. Let me know if you need more detail.

I would love to do both first Sydney and first Australia, first Sydney because of its history and first Australia because it would have broad appeal for those looking to model an Indefatigable BC (of which there appear to be no kits available in any format). First though, I am stongly considering designing a sub in parallel with the design work on Sydney. I have jumped into the deep end with Sydney and feel I need to take a step back and design something with a more limited scope.

I would love to see build or finished photos of your models Roger. Have you posted any here?

Early congratulations also on the pending arrival of your two brand new grand children. My hat is off to any parent who is dealing with more than one child at a time. These things are seriously hard work. Fortunately for me, I get to be at other work 50 hours a week. It is my partner who has to work 24/7. There is certainly some truth to the "woman's work is never done" thing.

[RogerP]

Hi Mark,

Cannot find your response, but did find an e-mail from you from two years ago containing a phone number. Just tried ringing, no answer, guess you're at work? Left a message hoping it's still your number, I'm home now until 6.30pm, should be home around 9pm and home tomorrow.

Roger.

[mabrown]

Hi Roger,

Yes, I was still at work. I can be hard to get by phone at the best of times but I am always contactable by email. I think that two years ago our number was different. I will send you a PM with my current phone number and email address. I'm a bit wary of putting those things up in a public forum.

I've made some progress tonight and have some parts sheets made up. The attached pdf's are not final and don't include the very stern horizontal formers (those parts are ready but I have run out of puff for tonight!)

I probably won't get a chance to test build this this weeked but I would be most grateful if you (and anyone else who might be interested) would have a go at putting the frame together. Note that some decks are not yet numbered. The frame was designed with 1mm total sheet thickness in mind. Scale is 1:200.

Goodnight to all and thanks in advance to anyone who gives this test build a try.

[Barry]

Nice drawings ..make mine look well scruffy

[Golden Bear]

But your models don't look scruffy, Barry.

Nice to follow this thread. Nice to read a post by a pre-Z Papermodelers person. Nice work. Looking foward to more.

Would like to see Australia too but hoping to see Sydney come out. Subs are nice but not much for waterline models, heh.


Carl

[RogerP]

No problem Mark, I understand totally re private details on a very public forum. I've printed out the sheets, once I've worked out what joins to what I'll laminate them to a sheet of 300 gsm card and 'have a go'.

This is so exciting for me, the now quite real possibility of three great Aussie ships becoming available. I'll be rescaling mine to 350 scale to match models I already have, including the Revell "Emden".

I'll do an 'intro' on myself and post piccies of what I have done so far into "The Welcome Desk". In the meantime here is a link to a much earlier post on the 'Aussie Modeller' forum --

Gallery - Roger's little ships by Roger Pearson (http://www.aussiemodeller.com/pages/Gallery/Ships/Pearson_cardmodels.html)

Cheers,
Roger.

[mabrown]

Nice drawings ..make mine look well scruffy

Thanks so much Barry. Coming from you that means a lot. I go back to your threads new & old all the time to check on the things I'm doing. Now I just have to hope it goes together. Might be a challenge for Roger with no instructions!

Carl, I actually joined Zealot at pretty much the same time as Papermodelers but there seemed to be a larger core of ship designers and builders here. That combined with the atmosphere here meant that I gravitated to this place. I never actually posted anything at Zealot.

Regarding waterline models, I've tried to design this so it can be cut at the waterline and built that way or as full hull. I'll have to wait and see how that goes.

Roger, thanks so much for offering to have a go at this. I really appreciate it. Hope you can make sense of it all. I was really tempted to do this 1:400 myself but decided the complicated stern design would be too much for my non-existant build skills at that scale :o It's actually those stern decks which you won't have yet. I'll try to post those tonight (might be late). The re-scaling has got me really interested.

I just checked your gallery Roger. Those models are excellent! The frame test is in great hands, just hope it turns out to be worthy of your time and effort.

[APA-168]

Hiya Mark, I'm delighted to see this one progressing to the paper cutting stage, looks like a fantastic effort so far, you are doing a thorough job of this ship. I am watching very closely!

[mabrown]

In the end I got some time over the weekend to start building. I have now printed, laminated and cut out all the frame parts, minus those missing rear decks.

Having now seen everything in the real world, I'm having serious doubts about the stern design. I doubt it is buildable as intended at anything less than 1:200 (as you guys advised me at the time!) as the slots are simply too close together.

The way I see it there are only a couple of ways to go with the hull. I can simplify it to the point where the ship's hull becomes slab sided (the method many commercial models seem to take and I'm thinking here of JSC's HMS Sheffield (an otherwise nice model) which has detail drawn on where it was too hard to model) or to use some sort of strip method ala wooden ship model building, to accurately shape the hull. My design has half and halfed it by having a fan-folded stern skin. Having seen YuG's use of strip modeling I am strongly considering strip forming the hull skin.

My thoughts now are to do either the entire hull or the stern section only, as a hybrid skin. There would be a first layer that would take the usual underwater skin sections from their usual end at the waterline, all the way up to the deck. This could be puttied & sanded smooth if desired. On top of this I envisage laminating the strips of the outer skin to the inner skin in-situ, with similar positioning to that which exists on the real ship (or at least something that looks right).

For reference, I have attached a good photo of HMS New Zealand which shows the extent to which individual plates are visible. Do you guys think that plating the hull something like this, at least in horizontal strips, would be daft?

Open as always to any and all ideas and suggestions.

PS, the frame itself seems to slot together quite well.
PPS, Sorry for the rambling post!

[redhorse]

That's good news you've started on the frames. I'm really looking forward to some pictures of that. I think Yu's build is influencing a lot of people at the moment. I came close to trying that on Zuikaku, but I'm not sure I'm ready for it yet. It would be interesting seeing a ship designed that way. GPM's Lexington has the sides of the hull done that way although the bottom is done the regular way.

[mabrown]

That's good news you've started on the frames. I'm really looking forward to some pictures of that. I think Yu's build is influencing a lot of people at the moment. I came close to trying that on Zuikaku, but I'm not sure I'm ready for it yet. It would be interesting seeing a ship designed that way. GPM's Lexington has the sides of the hull done that way although the bottom is done the regular way.

Thanks for that info Jim. Very interesting to hear that about GPM's Lexington. Is there a build thread anywhere for that one?

I'm hoping to be able to show pics of the completed frame by the end of this weekend. Note to self: get batteries for camera!

[Yu Gyokubun]

It is good news to know that the designer is considering horizontal hull plating in earnest so that we builders can build it just following the instruction. After I had built Fuso and Hiei’s hull plating, both of which have horizontal strip of hull plates, I found it doesn’t always nice to have it taking appearance into consideration. Too many horizontal plates like the picture of HMS New Zealand might ruin the total impression of the ship when we build it at small scale of 1:200 or so.
It might give an impression of ‘pesty’ (I am not sure if this expression is appropriate)
In my opinion, like other modeling true to real one’s construction doesn’t necessarily results in good model. I think designer’s aesthetic sensitivity to deviate from the real one, if necessary, would be the key to success. One more thing that we have to take it into consideration is that real ship’s plate thickness would be about 10mm (I guess so) . At 1:200 scale it becomes 0.05mm that is far thinner than paper thickness we use for paper modeling. If we overlap the edges to express welded plating, it also will give an impression of too thick. I am still wondering what the best way in replicating hull plating is.
Sorry, if my writing is incomprehensible...

[Barry]

I have thought of 80 gsm overlay plates after building a "normal" but not very deeply I have enough problems with what would become the first layer. I think you could loose a couple lengthwise formers from the last 2 frames and still get a good curve. Look forward to watching.

[mabrown]

Hi Yu,

Thanks for your thoughts on this. I had not even considered the scale of real plate to paper thickness.

I guess there is a risk of creating something which will look a little like a jigsaw by doing it this way. I am still strongly considering giving this a go in some form though, perhaps with regular construction below the water and strip above as Jim suggested. On balance, do you think that for the right model, this is a method you will continue to use?

I found a build thread on another forum for GPM's Lexington (very nice it is too). It's great to be on a forum where the admins allow us to link to other places :) Papírmakett fórum :: Téma megtekintése - GPM 231 / USS Lexington (CV-2) / 1:200 (http://www.papirmakett.hu/forum/viewtopic.php?t=482&sid=32e1b4bc2d388082e66dcfd6b1adcbaa)

[Yu Gyokubun]

As I didn’t visit kartonbau for long time I missed Stephan’s thread on the Lexington. You can see his building report here
http://www.kartonbau.de/wbb2/thread.php?threadid=17593&threadview=0&hilight=&hilightuser=0&page=1 (http://www.kartonbau.de/wbb2/thread.php?threadid=17593&threadview=0&hilight=&hilightuser=0&page=1)

As another reference, following is one of Japanese ship modeler’s blog site. In the middle of the page you will find various pictures of bow section. By the way, the major medium he uses is paper.
http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/imperfect2storm/folder/997092.html?m=lc&p=5 (http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/imperfect2storm/folder/997092.html?m=lc&p=5)

In building my Hiei, I did want to make upper hull as shown in those pictures but I didn’t have courage to cut it into strips.
My preference is to have strips above water line at least and if it does not create look of jigsaw puzzle, of course strips on below water line as well. But, as you said, regular construction below water line would be safer to avoid creating unsightly look and when considering the kit is for the modeler at large.

[mabrown]

Great links YuG. The models on the Japanese bloggers page are terrific. That is exactly what I'm hoping to achieve with this. I am definitely going to give it a go.

I have made a lot of progress tonight. I have now test fitted frames 2 through 12 (about a third of the ship's length) and been able to lock it all together with one level of deck. I'm really pleased with how straight it is without glue. I think I will try to use minimal glue on it.

I have found however that frame 2 (as in the pdf above) is too small. Somehow it has come out under scale. I must have made an error when printing the part to pdf from sketchup.

Still no pictures. Still no batteries for the camera. Will try to get some on the way home from work tomorrow.

[mabrown]

Hi everyone.

Finally, some pictures of the test build of the frame for HMAS Sydney II. With the exception of a couple of tabs glued to the open end of a deck and a couple of strengthening strips, this is all just pushed together. The forward third is so tight I decided not to risk pulling it apart to add the missing vertical former at the bow. I've also lost the stern vertical former. No idea where that got to :rolleyes: Stern only has 1 deck on 1 side so it isn't lined up properly yet.

I used 200 gsm printed sheets laminated using spray glue to 600 gsm board, all of which was bought at the local Officeworks store. This yielded parts which were close enough to the designed 1mm thickness.

I have cut myself twice already and my hands hurt from cutting a bazillion 1mm slots. All good fun though :)

I'm no good with cameras and the flash doesn't help. Sorry in advance for the poor quality of the pictures.

[B-Manic]

Nice looking skeleton Mark. Straight and sturdy, just what you need.

[Don Boose]

I'm very pleased to see the hull of this beautiful and historic ship taking shape, Mark. It's outstanding work so far.

This has been a fascinating thread and I am glad to have the various Lexington builds available. Not only are Lex and Sara also beautiful and historic ships (and special favorites of mine), but the various techniques discussed for those models and for your Sydney are very much worth seeing and help to put your build into perspective.

Don

[Barry]

good looking hull

[mabrown]

Hi guys, thanks for your continued interest.

Don, I agree the models of Lexington are terrific. I really enjoy looking at the various builds to see how the designers tackle things. The way the builders take the basic models to a completely different level is what really impresses me though. I think some of the builders on this forum would turn out wonderful ship designs if they tried their hand at some cad work.

I should have some final pictures to show of my frame this weekend. I got the missing half deck in last night which has straightened the stern up nicely although I didn't cut this deck as well as the others and it is sitting a bit proud of the formers. I will need to do some trimming.

An issue I should have thought of is the placement of hawse pipes and anything else that intersects my formers. I know some of you guys punch out the holes in the hull skin for your portholes and use plastic for the porthole "glass". Do you run into the problem of visible hull formers through the portholes on commercial kits? How do you deal with it? A redesign would fix this but I feel I am too far along to do that now.

[B-Manic]

Hi guys, thanks for your continued interest.


An issue I should have thought of is the placement of hawse pipes and anything else that intersects my formers. I know some of you guys punch out the holes in the hull skin for your portholes and use plastic for the porthole "glass". Do you run into the problem of visible hull formers through the portholes on commercial kits? How do you deal with it? A redesign would fix this but I feel I am too far along to do that now.

A black sharpie to colour the formers that might be visible works fine

[Yu Gyokubun]

In my case I cut part of former triangle where porthole contacts with the former but B-Manic's way would be enough and easier

[redhorse]

On Zuikaku I've used the black sharpie, but nothing really went where I thought it would go. The cutout is better, I think.

Oh, and no, I haven't used plastic for my portholes. I just use glue that dries clear.

[dansls1]

If you really wanted to get fancy, you could follow the airplane instrument panel idea and have an 'inside' strip for the areas with the porthole windows - perhaps with little dimly-lit scenes of people and whatnot, room for a layer of plastic / acetate and then the actual hull.

[redhorse]

If you really wanted to get fancy, you could follow the airplane instrument panel idea and have an 'inside' strip for the areas with the porthole windows - perhaps with little dimly-lit scenes of people and whatnot, room for a layer of plastic / acetate and then the actual hull.

Hmm, that sounds like that Yamato build I think on Digital Navy with the wardroom with a big photo on the wall. That would be really cool in a kit :)

[Yu Gyokubun]

Bingo! That's ideal for passenger ship. I just come up with the idea to put cabins with lighting. In some cabin lovebirds are kissing! How romantic!

[mabrown]

Thanks for all the great suggestions guys.

If you really wanted to get fancy, you could follow the airplane instrument panel idea and have an 'inside' strip for the areas with the porthole windows - perhaps with little dimly-lit scenes of people and whatnot, room for a layer of plastic / acetate and then the actual hull.

Now that is clever. I only dip into the aviation threads from time to time. I wonder what other cool ideas I haven't noticed.

I actually have a set of builder's as fitted drawings for Sydney so a couple of accurately detailed rooms would be possible. Too late for this test frame but I'm definitely considering it for my first proper build. Even without the rooms I might still try the idea though with some interior light and perhaps some opaque plastic?

I've attached another sheet of parts which includes the missing fiddly rear decks, a replacement for frame 2 (hopefully correctly sized this time) and frame 34 which I lost, just in case anyone has attempted to build the frame and would like to finish it.

I'm off to laminate these last parts :) and then to plasterboard my boy's room :(

[RogerP]

Hi Mark, from across the border in Bendigo.

I have to apologise for being a tad tardy with my test build, my excuses are too cold and wet to venture out to the garage to laminate the other paper parts to card (I'm using 400gsm) and the spray glue I bought from Spotlight, even though more expensive than the original can I had has turned out to be garbage, doesn't stick too well. I've also been pushing along with the fairmile Bs (7) and a HDML I need to build for customers (Fairmile Vets), am I forgiven? Plus I'm becoming very toey about the impending arrival, inside the next two weeks now of my Daughter's twins!!!!!!

On a brighter note we seem to have had some success re tracking down plans of HMAS Sydney (I) at National Archives. The chap interested in building a model for a museum in Moe looks like visiting Canberra soon to have a look at what they have. From all this we should (down the track a fair bit I'd say) a card model of 'Sydney I' to add to our (your) collection.

Cheers,
Roger.

[mabrown]

Hi Roger. No worries about the test build. Whenever you are able to do it is fine. I certainly understand the need to attend to other priorities. I should also apologise for being tardy with my response to your private email. Your models are really excellent. I don't think you have posted any images here yet?

That is good news re the plans for Sydney I. I'm a bit surprised there isn't more interest in Sydney I as a modeling subject given the number of models of Emden that seem to be produced. Speaking of Emden, have you ever read The Last Gentleman of War? It is a wonderful book detailing the exploits of Emden's crew both before and after her loss. A terrific read.

I had a very successful day today. I finished a wall in my boy's room and I finished my test build of the hull. The stern section with all those fiddly decks was quite difficult but not impossible at 1:200. It will be totally unmanageable at 1:350 I'm afraid so anyone who wants to reduce the scale will need to do some modifications.

Overall I'm pleased with the build which has come out quite straight. I can certainly see Sydney's hull shape when I look at it so it looks the part I think. I will take some pictures in natural light tomorrow.

[mabrown]

Foredeck is not glued down yet as I want to do some hacking to allow for hawse pipes. I can now get on with hull plate tests.

[zot]

Mark,
It's looking really good. I can't wait to see more.

[B-Manic]

That first formers picture really shows off Sidney's beautiful hull lines. I look forward to seeing more.

[Yu Gyokubun]

Horizontal formers on stern look good idea;) I too look forward to next update

[Barry]

Certainly worth all the slot cutting

[redhorse]

It looks really good. I'm interested to see how the skinning goes now.

[APA-168]

Gorgeous! Can't wait to see more! I'm delighted to see this progressing!

[mabrown]

Thanks so much guys for your kind words. You are all so good at what you do that it means a lot that you think this is coming out OK. I'm closely studying the Lexington build on Kartonbau now. There may be a bit of an update delay while I consider how to "plate" this thing.

[Roman]

Hi Mark
Excellent design thread you got here. I've seen that you were looking at my Bradley - please ask whatever you want and maybe I can be of some help with the "plating".

[buffalowings]

this is looking very interesting, to bad ships bore me to death, meh

[mabrown]

Wow! Hi Roman. Thanks for your interest.

Bradley is shaping up to be a stunning model, as are all Digital Navy creations. I have spent a lot of time studying the images of Bradley, looking at what appears to be an inner skin with a layered outer skin of longitudinal "plates". To my eyes this has the effect of reducing ripple (egg cartoning?) in the hull at frames and also appears to allow a more accurate hull shape. The stern of Bradley is very nice.

I've also spent a lot of time examining the old and new images of your Arizona on the DN website as well as your Fletcher. These are all beautiful pieces of design & construction.

I hope to have some more specific questions to ask by the end of the week, if my boy (who went from crawling to walking two days ago) will let me :)

[mabrown]

Been ages since I've been able to do any work on Sydney. I'm at the CAD stage again and haven't been able to access a desktop PC. I've now resorted to booting XP from a USB stick on my wife's Linux based Acer netbook (a saga in itself!) so that I can start work again.

Nothing much to report but I thought I would show some shots of where my thoughts are heading with "plating" of the hull. Below the water I think there will be full strips as Yu has done. These will be roughly the same placement as the only plans I have. Above the waterline the plating will be irregularly shaped pieces. All of this I plan to laminate to an internal hull skin.

I'm guessing this is a little like the method used on Digital Navy models (which I'm resisting buying for now lest I just end up copying!). Is this something like how you build the Fletcher Roman?

[Don Boose]

It's good to see more posts on this project, Mark. I have nothing to offer on graphic techniques, but am watching with interest.

Don

[mabrown]

Hi Don, many thanks for your continued interest.

Here are a few more images of some of my CAD testing of the idea. In these shots a part has been cut from the hull along the plate lines. One thing I have found is that parts unfold best when simple triangulation has been achieved. This hasn't come out too bad. However, in the third shot you can see that the drop down section is a bit complex. This might unfold OK. If it doesn't, I will force the software to do what I want by subdividing that area on lines of my own choosing and then let the software have another go at triangulating it (the triangulation is a happy bi-product of the conversion to Sketchup).

One thing I need to decide is if I will try butt joining or overlapping of the "plates". I may use both methods. The belt armour I'm hoping to lay on as one piece to sit a little proud of the main hull.

[APA-168]

Excellent! Nice to see this project continuing! :)

[B-Manic]

Progress looks good Mark. Thanks for sharing your design process. What software are you using?

[mabrown]

Hi Douglas,

I'm using a program called "Moment of Inspiration". It is the creation of the man who did the original work on Rhino (my understanding is that Rhino was his baby). I tried MoI and was instantly hooked by how easy and intuitive it is. It is easily the simplest 3D software I've used and the only nurbs modeler I've been able to come to grips with. I have never tried Rhino as I simply couldn't justify the cost for a hobby.

The current price for MoI V1 is $199 with a $100 upgrade looming for V2. I feel V2 has some essential scene management features that I really need so I will be upgrading this time around. What MoI really lacks for paper model design is the ability to unroll surfaces. It does however have first rate polygon mesh generation and in the V2 beta, export to Sketchup. I therefore use the same free plugin for Sketchup that Avery does, to unfold my parts. From Sketchup I then export the part as pdf then import into Inkscape (free) for layout (and probably

[mabrown]

The Official Inquiry into the loss of HMAS Sydney II has found that her captain, Joseph Burnett, was responsible. This seems to make official what most sensible commentators have been saying for a long time. I would imagine that this is a sad time for Burnett's family and for those of the crew.

HMAS Sydney: A captain's folly (http://www.theage.com.au/national/hmas-sydney-a-captains-folly-20090812-eic1.html)

I had a quick read of some Inquiry transcripts. In particular, reading the evidence of a German sailor, you could sense the exasperation in his answers at having been asked the same questions countless times.

HMAS Sydney II Commission of Inquiry - Department of Defence (http://www.defence.gov.au/sydneyii/transcripts.htm)

[B-Manic]

Thanks Mark. I'll have to download the trial version and give it a try.

[Roman]

I’ve re-red the thread and I see that you have the same “problems” as every designer probably has – less or more formers, to un-wrap this or that way. Perfectly normal :)
As for the number of formers I don’t think there is some magic formula here – it is always a trade off between smoothness of the hull and simplicity of the structure. It looks like for me it is 20-25 vertical formers (bulkheads) for a cruiser or battleship in 1:250 scale. I would probably add a couple for a 1:200 scale model. Of course, there are complex hulls that would require more, but your Sydney I would classify as a simple hull. The only “special” thing about it is this characteristic undercut at the bow (don’t know the correct name) that requires additional horizontal former.
You asked about the Bradley “double skin”. This is actually something unusual for me to do but I’ve decided to allow an option of open cargo holds and this resulted in main (center) longitudinal bulkhead to be very shallow – the holds are open from side to side and I could not run the bulkhead full height along entire ship. So to reinforce the box of the ship I decided to add those flat cardboard panels along the hull sides. Those run only through the “flat” part of the hull sides and do not extend into round bottom, bow and stern. I would not design something like this on hull of a “normal” ship.
As for the stern of the Bradley it is very different from the stern of the Sydney. To me it looks more like stern of the Titanic. I did a hull that is more similar to the Sydney and you can find some pictures at www.digitalnavy.com/Algerie/ (http://www.digitalnavy.com/Algerie/)
Especially stern is very similar I think.
http://www.digitalnavy.com/Algerie/08-10_077webtmb.jpg

[mabrown]

Hi Roman,

Thanks so much for sharing your design information, it is greatly appreciated.

I've got 34 verticals on Sydney so perhaps a little over the top. I have tried for hull smoothness at the expense of added complexity. The shape of Algerie is indeed very similar to Sydney, particularly at the stern. When I look at your hulls they seem as though there must be some special technique being used. When I saw the inner skin on Bradley I thought "ahh, that's how he does it". I was completely wrong :o

I notice on Algerie that you have achieved a single piece for the hull at the stern at about the same position where large pieces became an unfolding issue for me. Did you need to do any hull simplification there in order to achieve that single piece?

And I have to ask, do you use CAD software for your designs? I seem to remember reading on your site that the 3D comes from the models rather than the other way round. I ask because I have wondered if some traditional design of the hull skin might have been better than being at the mercy of whether or not the software can unfold it.

I'm still going to try my little double skin experiment. I'm hoping to make an attempt at it this weekend if I can find the time.

[Roman]

Hi Mark
Yes, I always simplify the hull lines to some extent. Actually, based on the real ones, I drew my own. The trick is to do it the way that will not be noticeable on the model but at the same time will allow unfolding the surfaces. As you have noticed, the stern of Algerie is one piece of paper curving along the ship and flat in vertical cross sections. In order to do so, I've straighten the hull sides in cross sections - above the connection of the long side plate and rounded bottom plates the bulkheads are straight (flat). On the real ship, there is some curvature there, just like on Sydney. But you can not replicate simultaneously both curvatures (*there is exception ;)) - one along the ship sides and one at the cross sections - hence simplification. Once I've done this the long side of the hull stern can be nicely unfolded but at the same time the horizontal cross section where long piece and rounded plates join has to be revised accordingly.
There is always temptation to try to follow the lines of the real ship by adding more and more divisions - horizontal and vertical - but I think that at some point it become self defeating. Each new joint between pieces is a possibility of a mistake, both in design and in construction, and what suppose to enhance the look of the model will have the opposite result.
One more thing - for some time now I'm using but joint between hull sides and rounded bottom pieces. I think it looks better. However, trying to do this and to keep underwater sections as one piece (wrapping around entire hull from waterline on side to waterline on another side) will almost never work - mistakes will happen and I would end up with gaps. So now I divide the underwater parts at the keel and let mistakes to happen there if you know what I mean. This part of the ship is never visible so mistakes will be nicely hidden.
Finally, I'm using AutoCad to draw and Photoshop to "color" the parts. Works for me as I'm using this package professionally at work.
ps – I could use some advice how to insert pictures – my explanations are probably unnecessarily convoluted without pics:)

[mabrown]

Hi Roman,

Thanks for another information packed reply. This is like having my own paper model design tutor.

There is always temptation to try to follow the lines of the real ship by adding more and more divisions - horizontal and vertical - but I think that at some point it become self defeating

This is precisely what I have attempted to do. I hesitated for a long time trying to decide whether to simplify or subdivide. I will continue with this framework and the plating experiment because I have it already but I'm not confident of success. Even so , it is all a good learning experience and the joy of CAD is that redesign is easy, even if the rebuilding is hard!

But you can not replicate simultaneously both curvatures (*there is exception ;))

Is this one a trade secret? My attempt at following the ship's real curvature was to subdivide horizontally and fanfold (although I am probably going to redesign the skin in that area via the double skin experiment). I suspect that isn't what you would do though. I am intrigued.

One more thing - for some time now I'm using but joint between hull sides and rounded bottom pieces. I think it looks better. However, trying to do this and to keep underwater sections as one piece (wrapping around entire hull from waterline on side to waterline on another side) will almost never work - mistakes will happen and I would end up with gaps. So now I divide the underwater parts at the keel and let mistakes to happen there if you know what I mean. This part of the ship is never visible so mistakes will be nicely hidden.

I was fully intending. a single piece wrapped under the entire hull. I had not even considered that it would be a construction issue but now that you have mentioned it I can see the problem as my frame is not perfectly straight and my stations are not in perfect alignment. Thanks Roman, you have just saved me from making another error.

ps – I could use some advice how to insert pictures – my explanations are probably unnecessarily convoluted without pics:)

Your explanations are not convoluted at all. I'd love to see pictures though :) If you click the "Go Advanced" button you get more options for your post. It gives you an add attachments button (which I have been using) and also one to add images. I haven't tried that one but I'm guessing that allows you to inline images with your post.

Thanks again for the great response Roman :)

[maurice]

Hi Roman
If I have asked you this before it's lost in the smouldering ashes of another place, but how do you obtain your developed (unfolded) surfaces from Autocad?


Mark
I have never doubted the German accounts since no crew members would have returned to settle in Oz if there were any sense of guilt. So we now know the "what" of events in a consistent and plausble form but it seems we will still never know the "why" of the too close approach.
I'm following your thread with great interest.

[Roman]

Is this one a trade secret?
No, not a secret, just an observation. I've notices that you can beat the rule (no curvature in two directions) in some cases of "negative" curvatures. This may be only an illusion, but somehow it works for me.
Take a look at the picture below:
http://www.digitalnavy.com/lista/Curves.jpg
We are looking at the printed sides of the parts. In case A, when edges EX and EX' are gently "positively" curved and edges EY and EY' are "negatively" curved it is possible to form this part from one piece of paper. This type of curvature often happens at the above water segments of the bows of ships.
Normally, you would say that edges EX and EX' have to be straight to curve the part in 1-1 direction. But for some reason, as long as curvature in 2-2 direction is small, it will work for both curvatures present.
I could never do the same in case B. This type of curvature is often present at the stern of hulls.
When I say that this may be an illusion I mean the possibility that the curved piece of paper doesn't precisely follow the curvature in 1-1 direction. We don't see the bulkheads behind, and it may be the case that the piece somehow "finds" its way to form.
Anyway, that's my observation.
how do you obtain your developed (unfolded) surfaces from Autocad?
It's a simple triangulation scheme, just like all other "unfolding" applications do. I just wrote a LISP routine to do so in Autocad. It's not pretty application and requires a lot of manipulations, but it works for me. This is my little trade secret;).

[maurice]

Isn't there's a name for it ... a hyperbolic surface .. it works only where one pair of edge curves are concave and the others two are convex (hence on some bow sections but not on sterns). It would not normally be possible to make it conform to a predetermined underlying structure
I think they get to be called parabolic hyperboloids when architects play with them for roofs and things like cooling towers.

I did suspect your "trade secret" and that you were doing the "unfolding" that way.;)
But -
just like all other "unfolding" applications do
Pepakura seems to be a bit naughty there and doesn't use triangulation rigidly. It seems to project the (curved) mesh segment onto a convenient plane then lays the result onto the working plane next to the previous segment. This can give a small error that can accumulate - although usually not enough to be significant in paper modelling.

[Roman]

I know what you mean - those US battleships' cage masts come to mind.
But not in this case - hyperbolic surface is still undevelopable - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperboloid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperboloid).
What I shown is a surface that is in principle undevelopable but for some reason appears to be. I suspect it is just a case of paper having some plasticity and "stretching" a bit here and there, or just an illusion like I've mentioned.
It seems to project the (curved) mesh segment onto a convenient plane then lays the result onto the working plane next to the previous segment
As long as projection preserve dimensions and angles that's OK as this is the only way to do it numerically (ea not analytically) and I suspect everybody is doing it this way. The error gets smaller as you increase number of subdivisions and to me it's insignificant for card modeling purposes.
BTW it is interesting qustion if this can be done analytically in non trivial case. It is easy to analytically unfold a cylinder or a cone - what about some other surfaces (generalized cylinders in this case).

[maurice]

Err .. yes, right, well .. as you correctly point out, a hyperbolic surface may be generated by and built from straight lines but it's not developable.
This leaves the notion of paper sagging but I would suggest probably only when going round a pair of concave and a pair of convex edge curves. Interesting.

As long as projection preserve dimensions and angles that's OK .. In fact I'm accusing Pepa of not doing that but of altering (only very slightly) angles and lengths in and because of the initial projection process.
Giving sort of up to (but usually less than) a 1mm error in say a 400mm hull side.

BTW it is interesting qustion if this can be done analytically in non trivial case. It is easy to analytically unfold a cylinder or a cone - what about some other surfaces (generalized cylinders in this case).
If by the "non trivial case" you mean a developable surface generated by a straight line sweeping along 2 unequal and non similar "rail" cuves, then indeed it can.
Divide each unequal curve into an equal number of segments to produce quadrilaterals and triangulate those. Laborious in the extreme and although I've done it in CAD in simple instances I currently lack the knowledge to write any sort of script for the purpose.

[Roman]

Divide each unequal curve into an equal number of segments to produce quadrilaterals and triangulate those.
Well, by "analytically" I meant something else. What you described above I wrote my scrip for, and this I would call a numerical method as we are approximating curves with number of flat surfaces and than unfolding those.
Here is what I'm interested in: I can unfold a regular cylinder with my triangulation routine but why for? Why not just calculate the length of the unfolded surface (2*pi*r) and I'm done. No approximations required (well, assuming I can draw a line of length "pi"). So I wander if the same can be done for those "non trivial cases" you correctly described above.
I'm afraid I'm hijacking the thread from Mark – how is Sydney going?

[mabrown]

Hi Roman & Maurice,

Don't be concerned about hijacking of the thread. I don't consider this hijacking at all. This is interesting to me because I have been considering unfolding options since the very beginning of this project.

Some sort of unroll surface script (which I think you have alluded to with your regular cylinder example Roman) is the ideal I think. However, for those irregular cases, I'm thinking it would need to be able to determine the developability of the surface, perhaps determine at what point the unroll has exceeded a certain limit of developability and triangulate at that point, starting the unroll again. This might give a mathematically unrolled surface within developable segments. Just a half baked poorly thought out rambling.

MoI does very, very good triangulation of surfaces for polygon export. The level of triangulation is controllable in real time using sliders so that you can see how much your curves are being affected. I have found as a rule of thumb that a mesh which is generated with nice regular triangulation (as in my picture earlier) will unfold in Skoogle using the free ruby script. I believe something similar could be achieved within MoI using already existing functionality but there is no documented scripting or plugin api at present and the mesher only exports to disk; it does not retain a copy of the mesh for later use. None of these things are coming anytime soon.

So, I am left with modeling in MoI and unfolding in Skoogle. The potential problem I have left myself is that my frame is a pretty fair representation of Sydney's hull curves but my simplified, triangulated, unfolded skin isn't. How the two are going to glue together is in the lap of the paper Gods at the moment. I suspect that frame number one will be an unmitigated failure :(

[maurice]

So I wander if the same can be done for those "non trivial cases" you correctly described above.
I'm fairly sure the answer is no.:( Well not in the sense of there being a pi -like solution.
The Universe is just not constructed that way.:D
The potential problem I have left myself is that my frame is a pretty fair representation of Sydney's hull curves but my simplified, triangulated, unfolded skin isn't.
Not too much help I can offer here as there are different ways of doing things involved. MoI, and other modelling progs, intend from the start to produce an attractive 3D graphic and don't need to think about "unfoldability".
AutoCAD, and other early generation CAD progs, started out in life as 2D replacements for technical drawing with paper and pencil, only later moving into 3D and becoming able to do 3D graphics. With them it is still possible to either work solely in 2D or to move into 3D whilst continuing to work with them as technical drawing progs. This makes it possible to make the 3D product as if it were a paper model in which the 3D parts will be developable for sure. This is what I do and I suspect it is Roman's technique also.
Have you thought to split your hull into segments say between frames and use Pepakura to develop the shapes. Alternatively have you thought about Rollation as described in the Card Faq. This partcularly for the area between the stem and first frame.

[mabrown]

Have you thought to split your hull into segments say between frames and use Pepakura to develop the shapes. Alternatively have you thought about Rollation as described in the Card Faq. This partcularly for the area between the stem and first frame.

Hi Maurice,

Many thanks for the rollation suggestion. Interesting technique which I wouldn't have thought of myself.

When I said "first frame" I actually meant the entire frame of the ship, this being my first and so far only attempt at such a design (actually design period). I'm pretty OK with the design from the bow to about 3/4 of the way down the hull. Things go awry the closer it gets to the stern. At the bow I did quite a lot of simplification which I've pig-headedly failed to do at the stern.

I am working at this moment on a plan to save the currently completed test frame. It will involve a little hacking :eek: I will let you know how this goes one way or the other (even if the photos turn out to be frightening).