Search results
Search results 1-20 of 48.
I have sent a quick fix (SS3.0b2a) to Ho0mAn. This which will load SS2 files saved on decimal comma computers without converting them. Once proved this will be uploaded ASAP with little other change: - Torpedo weight calc to add mount weight (+25% for rotating, +10% for fixed) - Torpedo scale to specify that when diameter is in inches length is in feet and metres for millimetres Ian www.springsharp.com
Change log from SS3.0b1 to SS3.0b2 -- Comma Decimal users take special note of the first point New " Support for reading files from Dot decimal countries on Comma decimal computers and vice-versa. Note only works with Version 3 files saved after 3.0b1. People using 3.0b1 files who use Comma decimal format should change the first line of all their 3.0b1 files before loading them with 3.0b2 from SpringSharp Version 3.0 to SpringSharp Version 3,0 " Allows selection of different armour deck layout o...
Re The rounds per gun of a Porter Class: the 100 rpg is taken direct from Friedman's US Destroyers. Re The new gun weight calculation is as follows: Step 1 Calculate the average shell weight for a gun of that calibre assuming a barrel length of 45 calibres shellWeight = Math.Pow(calibre, 3) / 1.9830943211886; Step 2: Adjust for the actual barrel length in calibres if (calibreLength < 45) shellWeight *= (45 - Math.Pow(45 - calLength, 0.5)) / 45; else if (calLength > 45) shellWeight *= (45 + Math....
I have just had a conversation with the Empire of Brazil on the differences between SS3.0 and SS2.1 that we thought would be good to raise here. The Margay class of Destroyers are a seemingly viable design in SS2.1 despite having 50% more main guns on 416 ton lighter and finer hull than the USS Gearings. When simmed in SS3.0 the Margays become a non viable design. So what gives? My first response was that the improvements in SS3.0 are so far resulting in more realistic designs. It is probably un...
Sorry, The panel comes from Devcomponents and I am not sure that I can make it scroll with the mouse wheel. There is always the old school way using the scroll bar Ian www.springsharp.com
Quoted i have found the pull-out report panel and I really like it! sadly it doesn't seem to be very reliable Please elaborate Ian www.springsharp.com
The engine error is a bug that has been fixed for release in SS3b2 Ian www.springsharp.com
Destroyers will work better by the time the resistance model is changed Ian www.springsharp.com
SpringSharp 3 is a major, major, major rewrite of Springsharp. Major structural changes, whilst invisible, have been made 80% of the code has been changed or replaced. Even this underestimates the effort put into this update. Research and experimentation has taken up a lot of the time since the last release. Given how long it has been since the last update and how much work has been done we thought it was necessary to release the first beta now and as widely as possible rather than use the clo...
SS3 work is continuing - Some of the issues involve a lot of research and some structural redesign. Also, the combined targets of increasing flexibility whilst keeping it is as simple and improving intuitivity and suggested default figures takes some work. Ian http://www.springsharp.com
Not a canon or possibility. It is already solved on the current release Ian www.springsharp.com
SS3 will: - Split the bulge armour from the torpedo bulkhead armour, - Allow you to specify the max beam between the bulkheads, and - Allow you to chose whether the TBH is just a strengthened normal structural bulkhead or additional armour bulkheads Ian [URL=http://www.springsharp,com]www.springsharp,com[/URL]
A preview of the forthcoming SpringSharp 3.0 is on the SpringSharp website. The update is not ready yet (even for beta testing) but will be ready in 2005. Ian www.springsharp.com
Quoted Even reconstructed it would be more or less impossible to change the hull form so much. Absolutely agree - This would require replacing 1/3rd or more of the hull Ian www.springsharp.com
Capitan Orella 1896 Disp 300 tonnes Length 213 ft Beam 21.5 ft Draught (trial) 5.875 ft Cb = 0.3903 Ian www.springsharp.com
Which Destroyers - can you send or direct me to the SpringS* stats? Are sure of the stats? -- perhaps the stats seriously understate the real displacement or overstate the draught at that displacement. They could be quoting light, trial or an over-optimisitic design tonnage and then quote max draught including appendages eg not mean hull draught at that displacement but the lowest point of the rudder or screws at maximum draught. Equally the source could be just wrong - eg Conways gets the Frenc...
The limitation of 0.3 Cb is based on the fact that it is virtually impossible to make a displacement hull with a Cb below this (Source Michael Parsons Article on Parametric design) and this is outside the useful range of many of the formulas used in SpringS*. I would suggest that going less than 0.4 Cb is fraught with danger and if you allow it, it should limited to small high speed planing or semi-planing hulls. Ian www.springsharp.com
The report file is in RTF, open the file in virtually any word processor including WordPad and the RTF tags will not be seen. Open it in a text editor like Notepad and the tags will be seen instead of formating the report. Alternatively you can just copy the report from the report page and paste it into whatever word processor or text editor and it should not have any RTF tags. Ian www.springsharp.com
Accepted - except part of the problem you asked for help on was caused by your 1920s "archipelago" design having a very definitely "blue water" stats eg 9,000 nm range. It comes down to if you want to make a small coastal 8" cruiser to take on "blue water" cruisers that struggled to fit their weapons, armour, seakeeping and speed into ships significantly bigger than your ship then you must make severe compromises just state a philosophy: - Speed - The Gotlands were only 28 knots, - Range - The G...
WesWorld »
Friday, April 19th 2024, 11:17am
Go to the top of the page
