#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Recent builds: RMS Queen Mary 2, Paris Opera House In the shipyard: USS Missouri, DKM Graf Zeppelin, RV Calypso. Future builds: IJN Akagi, SS United States, HMVS Cerberus, and lots more! |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
I'ts a matter of what you are intending to show, how you intend to display the model, you own personal taste, and how much room you 've got to do whatever it is you want.
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Here is link to a boutique ( had to use an expensive word ) store that sells very costly ship models.
Some are full hull, some are waterline. Ships models are no longer built to carry the pharaoh to the next life or demonstrate to the king what the next addition to his fleet will look like, or show the upper crusty traveler where his stateroom will be located. A ship model is now something that will look nice on a display shelf, and that could be full hull, waterline or half hull, what ever floats your boat. Ship Models by American Marine Model Gallery |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
" waterline models were not as accurate as full hull models and kinda said that all ship models really should be full hull models. "
Whoever said that should make sure that their brian is in gear before operating their mouth. A diorama of a ship under full sail is not going to be any more "accurate" if I can see the full hull sitting on top of the water than a waterline model is mounted on a board with pedestals. Accuracy is not a function of wether the full hull is present or not. |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
I was also slightly bothered by the comment regarding the accuracy of waterline models. I prefer that my ship's actually "live" and hence that they have crews aboard, and details designed to show the ship in use. You almost never see the underwater hull of a completed ship. In fact, other than in a disaster, it would only be visible in normal service when the ship is drydocked - and boy is that ugly (and it smells!) I can testify from personal experience with that.
True, there is one minor detail that affects many of us that choose to build full-hull models as waterline models. I accept it, but it is a trivial point of accuracy. That is that military ships will always appear to be floating high in the water, as if they have no fuel nor stores aboard. This is caused by the "boot-topping." This (normally black) line is just above the red bottom section of the hull and is where the paper model designer generally splits the design between the above water and below water sections. I don't blame them - it's a very logical place... but it is not accurate. In practice, the ship's normal waterline is about half-way up the "boot-topping." The clinical definition for "boot-topping" is "the painted area between the water lines of a ship when fully loaded and when fully unloaded." However, that only applies in peacetime. In wartime the boot-topping serves to keep the brightly colored underwater body paint, underwater. Hence it can be up from three to six feet wide on some warships (especially US WW2 ones). Someday if I ever develop the skills to model ocean water, those models I've done will sink down a few feet to reflect their actual loads. I think that ship models built with a full hull can be fantastic works of art. My admiration for those who can build such models well is boundless. But as for me, I'm not building art - I'm building models that interest me - and I prefer that they live. Hence the underwater hull is unimportant to me.
__________________
Building - JSC - 1/250 SMS Emden |
Google Adsense |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
I appreciate all the comments and the balance they reflect. Anyone who states their opinion as if it is the only one worth consideration is someone I have little patience for. I believe the modeler should build what he likes to build and who is anyone to set the bar for what is or is not accurate. I build both. if the kit comes with a full hull option I build it if not of course I don't. But I never gave it a moments thought as to whether I am being "accurate". I have a model of the Dan Ferry. If it were full hull then I wouldn't be able to properly display her with the trains would I. So I am being accurate in the waterline design.
__________________
Tim Hinds "Oh wisdom thou are fled to brutish beasts and men have lost their reason" (Bill Shakespear) |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Well, I started designing my ironclad models for in waterline for three reasons. First, because that is how others did, like Paper Ship Wright. Also why they are in 1/250 scale mostly. Second, is because I did not have the skills to do hulls. And finally, because most ACW Ironclads look awesome in waterline, like prowling alligators.
As to accuracy, the level of accuracy on my waterline models and the few full hull models I have designed are the same. I never claimed that they are perfect. On many I leave off any signs of rivets, as at 1/250 scale they would be hard to see. It could be, and has been, argued that a few of my designs over all are just plain wrong. So be it. That's the great thing about this, no one is making you build it. And if you do build it but don't like some aspects o the design, change it as you go! And all of my ironclads can have simple scale full hulls added by scratch should one want too! Accuacy, much like beauty, is in the eye of the model builder!
__________________
My models are available here http://ecardmodels.com/index.php?manufacturers_id=62 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
#19
|
||||
|
||||
i always do waterline but for two practical reasons;
1;im crap at acheiving hull finishes 2;the ships sit flat on my bookcases without stands. i have been known to make full hull if thats the way the formers are built then skim the whole model at the waterline |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
to me a waterline model on a water base is more 'realistic'. that's how I see ships and boats. in real life or as images. I am a detail freak but what's out of sight 'doesn't exist', on my models
|
Google Adsense |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|