Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.
Quoted
Originally posted by Red Admiral
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 the hydrodynamic calculations aren't too bad, the calculation of engine mass for non-battleship combatants is way off. It's not surprising given what SS was designed to simulate. Having more appropriate values of shp/ton for the Capitani Romani actually leads to a hull strength of about 1.0 rather than the 0.5/0.75 for lighter combatants enshrined in the gentleman's rules. That sim of Capitani Romani was made using SS2 not SS3b2.
My general point is that it's an improvement on SS2 so why not adopt it for the future?
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "TheCanadian" (Dec 19th 2011, 5:58am)
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.
Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
I see no reason to change our standard if the newly accepted program effectively adresses most if not all of our concerns with 2.1 - for small and big vessels.
Quoted
Originally posted by Brockpaine
Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
I see no reason to change our standard if the newly accepted program effectively adresses most if not all of our concerns with 2.1 - for small and big vessels.
I'm slightly confused by your statement. What newly accepted program are you referring to? The first part of the sentence implies that you don't wish to see SS3b2 accepted, but then the last half confuses me.
Quoted
Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
Quoted
Originally posted by Brockpaine
Quoted
Originally posted by HoOmAn
I see no reason to change our standard if the newly accepted program effectively adresses most if not all of our concerns with 2.1 - for small and big vessels.
I'm slightly confused by your statement. What newly accepted program are you referring to? The first part of the sentence implies that you don't wish to see SS3b2 accepted, but then the last half confuses me.
I think it's an issue of convoluted linguistics.
Hoo's saying he does not see a reason to change, unless a proposed/theoretical 'new program' does more than SS2 (or SS3b2) does to address the more relevant needs of the sim (Machinery weights on non-capital ships, integrated post-1950 options).
I concur, as that's what I've said a couple times already.
Quoted
Originally posted by Red Admiral
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
Originally posted by HoOmAn
I see no reason to change our standard... I want to stick to SS2.
Quoted
Originally posted by Hood
I'm in the camp that its probably best to stick to SS.2 simply for the eqaulity.
Quoted
Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
...we should be fine with SS2.
Quoted
Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
At this stage of the game, I honestly don't see an advantage in changing the yardstick program.
Quoted
Originally posted by TheCanadian
I don't want to resim all my ships into SS3, so if thats the case then I vote no.
Quoted
Originally posted by snip
In short, no to SS3's use in the current run of WesWorld.
Quoted
Originally posted by BruceDuncan
I still believe in a single standard, which we have, SS 2.1.
Quoted
Originally posted by Brockpaine
I do not want to replace SS2 with SS3b2.
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH