These days I just get someone to do it for me :happy:
http://essentialoilsanctuary.com/wp-...emple-head.jpg
Printable View
These days I just get someone to do it for me :happy:
http://essentialoilsanctuary.com/wp-...emple-head.jpg
Well the thats a waste of £42.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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?
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?
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.
Attachment 27907
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?
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.
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:
Thanks Jim. I am gradually working up the courage to emulate this and try to achieve something approaching your ST.
Rob.
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.
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.)
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...on-with-plans/
While poking through those images I found that someone had acquired plans from the Spanish Navy website/archives?
Attachment 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/ArmadaPorta...algar_by_aller
Those look closer to ares than Langton. Good job those men! Shame about them being off on scale
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.
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.
Can some one put a shot up next to a British and French first rate?
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
Attachment 27946
If you look at the gap at the front you can see even more of a difference.
Attachment 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.
Thanks for the comparison Alan. It does not make me feel any better about things, but one picture is worth ........ etc.
Rob.
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. :)
I think it is in exactly the right place to get the maximum exposure to the members DB.
Rob.
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 ?
Starts at post 47 here Chris.
http://sailsofglory.org/showthread.p...ghlight=series
Rob.
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
Attachment 27958
Model of Princiipe de Asturias
Attachment 27959
Cant see your pictures Jim.
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
Attachment 27960
Argonauta on Right
Attachment 27961
Attachment 27962
Attachment 27963
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:
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.