WesWorld

Some of you know I have been working on my own version of a ship simulation program ala Springsharp.

If you want to test or mess around with the current file, download version 0.2a here.

I've completed work on making a cmd-line C++ executable. Once you fill out the variables prompted, it'll print a nicely formatted report to the console.

It'll also write the report to "Report.txt" in the same folder directory formatted to [xxx] standard. For Wesworld boards, replace all '[' and ']' symbols with '<' and '>' symbols respectively. For a small table size, use the instead of

Current Advantages Over Springsharp
- Models light fast combatants much more closely
- Allows for Tapering and Sloped Belts
- Adjustable depth and height Main Belt
- Simulate multi-decked vessels
- Accounts for Superstructure
- Ship Parallel/Smooth Midbody Choice
- SHP required in Trial and Actual Service by Region
- Weight and Fuel Consumption Variation by Direct/Geared/Turbo-Electric transmissions and Diesel/Reciprocating/Steam engines.
- Calculates LCB, LCG, and GM with accepted formulas by Naval Architects (not a hack like Springsharp).

Current Limitations
- Does not allow for Guns input
- Does not allow Gun penetration prediction
- Does not account for seakeeping
- Does not account for Torpedo Bulkheads.
- Does not allow misc. weight placement
- Cannot simulate submarines or carriers.
- Does not account for hull strength

The former 3 points are on paper, but I have yet to transfer it into C++ code. It will follow soon.
The gun penetration prediction has already been coded, but needs the gun section done to attach. Since it works with SS as well, perhaps I should share it?
For seakeeping, I'm going about it a different way than Springsharp. Rather, it will either be based on sea states and some CCS / Tasaki Model or CFD. Either ways, this item is currently on the backburner and not something I'm considering adding before the other points.
For the last 2 points, it is intended for the program to be able to sim submarines and carriers. Currently I'm still calculating the yield stress of some representative hull girders I drew, so it might have to wait a month or two.

Quoted

[SIZE=1]Changelog
0.2a <- 0.1a

- README created
- Reduced clutter in input I/O by redirecting explanations of nomenclature to README
- Simplified Output
- Added Belt Armor Input and Output
- Added Deck Armor Input and Output
- Corrected Lcm for different hull forms[/SIZE]

Since my program is meant to be able to properly simulate destroyers and other light fast combatants:

Here is the output for the Chosen Frigate, Geoje-class

Quoted

<table style="font-size: 0.8em;">
<tr><td>Length: </td><td>68.70 m</td></tr>
<tr><td>Beam: </td><td>9.10 m</td></tr>
<tr><td>Draft: </td><td>3.40 m</td></tr>
<tr><td>Freeboard: </td><td>4.80 m</td></tr>
<tr><td>Depth: </td><td>8.20 m</td></tr>

<tr><td>Block Coefficient: </td><td>0.420</td></tr>
<tr><td>Midship Coefficient: </td><td>0.883</td></tr>
<tr><td>Prismatic Coefficient: </td><td>0.476</td></tr>
<tr><td>Waterplane Coefficient: </td><td>0.609</td></tr>

<tr><td>Displacement: </td><td>893 t</td></tr>
<tr><td>Wetted Surface Area: </td><td>670 sq. m</td></tr>
<tr><td>Waterplane Area: </td><td>381 sq. m</td></tr>

<tr><td>Max Speed: </td><td>30.8 kn</td></tr>
<tr><td>Cruise Speed: </td><td>12.0 kn / 4500.0 nm</td></tr>

<tr><td>Power Delivered: </td><td>15704 hp</td></tr>
<tr><td>Power Effective: </td><td>12628 hp</td></tr>
<tr><td>Froude Number: </td><td>0.610</td></tr>
<tr><td>Bunker Size: </td><td>77 t</td></tr>
<tr><td>Service Allowance: </td><td>0%</td></tr>

<tr><td>Hull Weight: </td><td>156 t</td></tr>
<tr><td>Wood & Outfit Weight: </td><td>31 t</td></tr>
<tr><td>Machinery Weight: </td><td>381 t</td></tr>
<tr><td>Equipment Weight: </td><td>149 t</td></tr>
<tr><td>Superstructure Weight: </td><td>38 t</td></tr>
<tr><td>Admiralty Coefficient: </td><td>4.88</td></tr>
<tr><td>Engine: </td><td>Geared Steam Turbine</td></tr>
<tr><td>Length of Superstructure: </td><td>19.85 m</td></tr>
<tr><td>Aftbody Shape: </td><td>V</td></tr>
<tr><td>Longitudinal Center of Buoyancy: </td><td>-14.95%</td></tr>
<tr><td>Longitudinal Center of Gravity: </td><td>-2.88%</td></tr>
<tr><td>Vertical Center of Gravity: </td><td>5.11 m</td></tr>
<tr><td>Metacentric Height: </td><td>0.28 m</td></tr>
<tr><td>Roll Period: </td><td>7.33 s</td></tr>
<tr><td>Tonnes per centimetre immersion: </td><td>3.90</td></tr>
<tr><td>Moment to change trim one centimetre: </td><td>12.24</td></tr>

<tr><td>Bow Entrance Angle: </td><td>7.31 deg</td></tr>
<tr><td>Total Efficiency: </td><td>0.80%</td></tr>
<tr><td>Length of Engine Room: </td><td>11.39 m</td></tr>
</table>

I've cleaned up the output text and cleaned up the clutter in the input prompts by placing the nomenclature in a README. I've also figured out how to make tables not appear so darn large in this forum.


Here is the cleaned up sample output. I haven't updated the link since it's a minor change and I'm adding the armor calculations soon.

<table style="font-size: 0.8em;"><tr><td>Length: </td><td>160.00 m</td></tr>
<tr><td>Beam: </td><td>16.00 m</td></tr>
<tr><td>Draft: </td><td>7.50 m</td></tr>
<tr><td>Freeboard: </td><td>6.00 m</td></tr>
<tr><td>Block Coefficient: </td><td>0.527</td></tr>
<tr><td>Displacement: </td><td>10118 t</td></tr>
<tr><td>Lightship: </td><td>8645 t</td></tr>

<tr><td>Max Speed: </td><td>34.0 kn</td></tr>
<tr><td>Cruise Speed: </td><td>18.0 kn / 10000.0 nm</td></tr>
<tr><td>Engine: </td><td>Geared Steam Turbine</td></tr>
<tr><td>Power Delivered: </td><td>88589 hp</td></tr>
<tr><td>Total Efficiency: </td><td>96.75%</td></tr>
<tr><td>Froude Number: </td><td>0.442</td></tr>
<tr><td>Bunker Size: </td><td>2384 t</td></tr>
<tr><td>Service Allowance: </td><td>0%</td></tr>
<tr><td>Length of Superstructure: </td><td>35.00 m</td></tr>
<tr><td>Aftbody Shape: </td><td>V</td></tr>
<tr><td>Longitudinal Center of Buoyancy: </td><td>-8.38%</td></tr>
<tr><td>Longitudinal Center of Gravity: </td><td>-2.62%</td></tr>
<tr><td>Vertical Center of Gravity: </td><td>7.23 m</td></tr>
<tr><td>Metacentric Height: </td><td>0.83 m</td></tr>
<tr><td>Roll Period: </td><td>7.53 s</td></tr>

<tr><td>Bow Entrance Angle: </td><td>5.25 deg</td></tr>
<tr><td>Length of Engine Room: </td><td>56.37 m</td></tr></table>

Here's the sample output for the newest version. I've added armor input.
The link in the OP has been updated.

I am wondering that nobody of the naval-enthusiast replied on this.
Unfortunatley I am a layman concerning ships, therefore I can't say much useful.
I think it looks much tidier than the Springsharp reports.
Is it possbile to simulate modern ships too?

I believe Logi is more concerned about accurately reproducing the currently accepted Springsharp reports using his code and programming before moving on to adding new features (ie, new propulsion and weapons)

Currently in the code there is not hard limit on how modern you can go.

Since the formulates for engine weight / power are from modern formulas, there is no reason you can not simulate modern ships with them. Although I imagine you would want a Gas Turbine option.

ShinRa is right that I'm not currently focused on that aspect of the program though.

I welcome your requests for future features and feedback though.

Some features or additions that have cropped up (or will) over the years;

Additional power plant types;
Gas Turbine
Nuclear

Weapons; Missiles, Rockets, Torpedoes (properly), and Canada will require Railguns, Lasers, and other such things.

Hullform options; Bulbous bows, catamaran and trimaran hulls, wave piercing, Well Decks, Bow clamshell doors.

Aircraft carrier and Submarine modes

High speed craft (Springsharp drops the ball on anything, large or small, over 32 knots or so)

The engines issue will be looked into when the program is ready for public use, so to speak.

The rest is in the works after the Gun issue is resolved.

When I am more free in a month or two, I will look into the aircraft carrier and submarine modeling. Currently I am contemplating converting a section of the code which uses a modified Coffin model to a calculated modulus Z for some "average" cross-sections.

I am tinkering with high speed craft modeling. I did have code that handled most cases, but I do wish to allow the historical Shimakaze to be simulated via my program. This is still lacking.

A late sort of status update:
I am still working on the program, although I have had less time recent weeks to work on the program.

I've been working on encapsulating the code so it is more organized and moving the output to a semi-structured data format. The latter should make a great deal many things more easy in the future.

Hello. I tried your program and apart from the frustration of having to enter everything in metric (Ironic because I live in Canada and am normally complaining about having to use the English system in school) everything worked fine. I was wondering how many iterations you plan on releasing before adopting a GUI. The current practice of entering 1 and 2 all the time is a bit cumbersome.

I was also wondering how in depth the simulation will be. I noticed you asked for a number of values including deck thicknesses and armor belt arrangements, so I assume it will be reasonably accurate.

Hello, thanks for using my program.

Regarding iterations, my current plan is maybe 2 more before I attempt some semblance of a GUI. Of course this is not very informative, given my iterations could have a gap of a day to a month in between, depending on my availability.
The two iterations being planned before a GUI appears are to (1) allow various weapon configurations and (2) have some semblance of a structural and sea-keeping model.

I understand the current practice of number entering to edit is very awkward, it'll be one of the first things I try to alleviate once I start working on a GUI.

Now as to the depth of the simulation, the answer would be very. In more concrete terms, I plan on the accuracy to be between Springsharp and commercial ship design software. Ideally I would want program to be on the latter side of the scales but I do not personally know an naval architects and I am entirely self-taught with regard to this field. In short, I have no way to reliably vouch for a program's industrial viability. I have no intention of making the program more difficult to use than Springsharp, however.