Search results
Search results 1-20 of 1,000. There are even more results, please redefine your search.
So the argument to not use SS3b2 is simply because it's new? Wow, that's really persuasive. If you read the orginal post in this thread, SS3b2 does some things better than SS2 but is using the same underlying physics meaning there will be no massive changes between ships in the different versions. Far more flexibility in modelling ships for the sake of a couple of different inputs to the programme; it's pretty obvious that SS3b2 is a good thing for very little additional effort.
There doesn't seem to be an opposition to SS3b2 per se, but rather changing all the ship designs up to now over from earlier SS versions into SS3b2 - which wasn't suggested or demanded.
If you'll read through again, the votes "against" were for enforced use of SS3b2 as the standard tool. There seems to be little opposition to using SS3b2 as another tool alongside SS2.
Quoted And thats the problem, the drivers in my opinion point either to Essex as an improved Yorktown/Hornet or to some sort of psuedo Midway clone, with the armour of Illustrious and the airgroup of Essex. The latter would be if the US wishes to expand its influence in the Far East, and forsees a potential conflict of interest with a power that has large amounts of land-based air and the carrier in question is required to operate far from its own base. I would remain to be convinced on that is...
Second comment is on the USN approach and the choice of not building any further battleships; this actually seems to make quite good sense. Deploying the Montana Class to the West coast nicely firms up that fleet and gives ten powerful battleships. The ships left on the East coast are rapidly approaching obsolescence, or past it, but what's the threat in that direction? Rapprochement with Iberia, Alliances with Canada, Britain and Atlantis - it's difficult to see the arguement for expensive spen...
Quoted Originally posted by TheCanadian Its all in how you see it, Brock. I get told " you can't build this, you can't build that you must build this." I don't think anyone has laid it down in those stark terms. My comments tend to fall into a few areas; pointing out potential problems in designs, comparing with historical ships when SS is giving duff results, and trying to understand the rationale for designs. It's probably the last that is one of the most important. If this is just a game the...
Thanks for the comments. It's a bit smaller than a Dido-Class. I think the main differences would be that it's not a true cruiser and isn't set up for extended indiviual operations like a cruiser, though still rather better than a normal destroyer. I imagine the duple 127/64 mountings are a good 60 tons or so which is pretty close to what SS actually gives as the output. It tends to way underestimate light AA which is why there is additional misc. weight accounted for (SS says 7t for a quad moun...
Quoted Originally posted by snip I am against allowing SS3 as an alternative to SS2 due to the difference that can be created in light displacement due to the ability to change ammunition capacity for each gun. This would allow for the creation of higher quality ships for a reduced tonnage cost from those who would sim an identical ship in SS2. Actually this effect is the opposite as in SS3 the increased ammunition capacity results in greater mass and so greater volume and hull structure to acc...
Quoted Originally posted by BruceDuncan So you would say; however, I do not believe that SS2.1 requires the addition of any "minus miscellaneous weight" to get a design to conform to the Gents' rules. If SS3b2 requires such to even approach an acceptable sim for a smaller ship, it is far more flawed that SS2.1 might be. Ah, you didn't understood my critique. That part was with regards to simming the Capitani Romani in SS and having the output match the historical stats. My point was that whilst...
Quoted Originally posted by BruceDuncan In that case, why adopt a program that is flawed? I have no desire to learn an entirely new manner to sim ships in the future - my interests in the game extend far beyond mere naval design. All models are flawed, but SS3b2 is less flawed for designing ships than SS2. Learning a new manner to sim ships? It's an almost identical user interface!
Interesting how it's turned out. Those are some massive vertical stabilisers. On a related note I recently found a similar air-launch system is currently being built by Scaled Composites. This is a subsonic high altitude design which is rather bigger - around 13.5t to orbit being the goal. http://stratolaunch.com/index.html
No problems with grandfathering in existing ships as has happened previously. Report output is pretty much the same so no problem when comparing SS2.1 output with SS3b2.
So, would anyone like to vote on whether to use SS3b2 for designing ships?
No one opposed my arguments in favour of SS3b2 hence I see little reason not to adopt it.
Additional sensors and kit being added to historical destroyers resulted in the same issues. Personally I'd think that landing one or two mountings from the Alm Lynch Class would likely be necessary given the large AA and torpedo armament as well. It's a Fletcher-sized destroyer with a lot more stuff shoehorned into it; just because SS says it's technically possible on weight grounds doesn't mean it's a realistic option. I would think that removal of an aft 130mm mounting and a set of torpedo tu...
Quoted Originally posted by Brockpaine Think we can safely call this one a light cruiser rather than a destroyer... How does it look in SS2? As far as I recall, we've still not voted to accept SS3 as a legitimate way to sim warships... I think I have these ships listed as "heavy destroyers" but I quite like the Italian term of Esploratori or Scout. They're sort of in between. It shouldn't look too different in SS2, and as my critique pointed out, SS3b2 is a better tool to use.
Macchi-Savoia-Marchetti Ermes I Strategic Reconnaissance aircraft
Serie III Town Class Destroyer The more outward-looking Italian Navy of the 1930s had started the design of a new ship that was a blend of light cruiser and destroyer that eventually emerged as the so-called Town class vessels. The first four vessels were built in 1938 and followed by another four in 1939. These ships were large, powerful and seaworthy vessel, well suited to extended operations. These initial vessels were followed by another quartet, the Serie II which were similar in capabilit...
Italian Anti-Aircraft Weapons of the 1930s and 40s One of the main drivers of warship design during the 1930s was the increasing need to provide effective air defence. The ever increasing performance of aircraft was complemented by examples of their effectiveness; the SAE's attack on Rio de Janeiro becoming a oft-studied example from the period. Whilst the performance of aircraft increased, the need to defend against them increased also, which presented a wide range of problems for the warship c...
Operating a ship that used to be a training carrier is probably a good first step to establishing experience, and could be used in service if required beforehand.
WesWorld »
Tuesday, April 16th 2024, 9:51pm
Go to the top of the page
