DD 886 u.s.s. Orleck design process

[FRD]

My brother served on a fast frigate, the FFG8 of similar size, long and narrow, he said that rough seas could be a, "bouncy ride".

[Bill Jones]

Originally Posted by FRD

The two things that I'm struggling with are interrelated, the scale and complexity.

My objective is to keep it as simple as possible without sacrificing details, that's not as easy as it sounds.

Even at 1/200 the Gun muzzles taper down to a very small diameter, these are essential details but may not be easy to assemble.

The theory being that the larger the scale, the greater the ease of assembly and the greater number of 3-D details that can be modeled.

But, the larger the number of components, the greater the complexity, so you see, it's a very fine line when you want to "keep it simple" yet, "not sacrifice details".

I'm seriously thinking that 1/200 may be the answer, this would make the finished model at 23.43 inches (59.51 cm) long but that is larger than what I initially envisioned.

Originally I was contemplating 1/250 which would produce a model 18.74 inches (47.6 cm) long, this would make it a smaller, simpler model but at a loss of easy to assemble, 3-D detail.

I'll "cross this bridge when I get to it" but I'll be putting a lot of thought into it in the interim, it's a, "very fine balance" that I'm sure all designers consider to one extent or another.

I viewed the scale-complexity problem as a continuum. That is larger scale means more details, so a smaller scale means less details. In the end, I picked a scale that would give me a model I can put somewhere in my house. I figure the details will take care of themselves on way or another.



One of the things I've noticed about steel ship is how bumpy they are. The wind, waves, and docks push the plates in between the frames leaving vague square patterns on the sides. I've spent a lot of time looking a Great Lakes freighters, and even the new ones look worn in and worn out.



I haven't yet seen anyone model those defects, but I'm new at this. How do you decide that a detail is too small for your scale and should be skipped over?

[aansorge]

Originally Posted by FRD

My brother served on a fast frigate, the FFG8 of similar size, long and narrow, he said that rough seas could be a, "bouncy ride".

A story about the FFG class was that it was so top heavy you needed a chit from the loading officer (or whoever serves as loading officer) to move a filing cabinet.

[FRD]

Okay, so I now have the wireframe complete, this denotes all of the outside dimensions.


I can start with the solid modeling and surfaces that will be hung on the frame.

[BigGiraffe]

Good Morning!

It will be fun to watch this come along! I agree with you that the puzzle of scale vs complexity of assembly takes lots of pondering... The larger models (such as 1/200) lead to larger parts that are easier to assemble, yet then also add many more small parts. I enjoy making a large model but often have to skip many of the smaller parts since my old eyes aren't what they used to be.

Best regards,
Kurt

[FRD]

Right Kurt, it's something I'll have to put a lot of thought into, the sentiment is that a smaller scale takes up less room on the work surface, hopefully I can find a, "happy compromise".

[FRD]

Okay. so now you can watch the model being assembled, (virtually) this form is referred to commonly as, "egg carton" construction (of the substructure) due to it's resemblance to an egg carton! So far it's pretty simple but will soon get far more complex as I assemble the actual model in virtual reality, if I can assemble the model in the computer I can then, "break it down" into it's 2D components and re-assemble it in reality, I do all of this manually so it takes some time.

[BigGiraffe]

Wow, that is amazing! (I enjoy that part of the assembly quite a bit when I'm doing it, actually)
Kurt

[FRD]

So this is as much as I got done today, basically the first deck and the superstructure that supports the pilot house, just blanking things out now, once done with that there is a tremendous amount of detail to add.




I was advised to, "keep it simple", that, "a child might assemble it within a single evening" so that's what I'm aiming for, to keep it as simple as possible without sacrificing detail.

[airdave]

I put buildability over exact scale.
In other words, I keep the details I want...
and I slightly adjust the scale for that detail, to make it easier to build.

For example: the Gun Barrels
A skilled modeler will throw out your parts and make barrels from dowel or plastic or metal - to accurate scale.
He may even buy ready made scale barrels (probably in aluminium or 3D printed).

So your effort to get those tiny barrels to the proper scale, is wasted.

But the average builder, or beginner, will not be as concerned with such accurate scale.
They will appreciate a part they can actually assemble, and not worry about the exact scale of everything.

So in that case, enlarge the scale (the necessary amount) to make the barrels easier to make.

*The machine guns on my P47 aircraft models are larger in diameter than they should be at 1/33 scale.
In fact, I have no idea what their scale is...I just made the tubes easier to roll, without making them too big for the location.
They look like the proper gun barrels sticking out of the wing...even if they aren't to exact scale!
You also can't control how well the builder rolls the tubes.
And, as i said, a more skilled builder will probably use dowel for the guns...I have a few times.