The Pitfalls of Design software

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.

Salaam86

Trainee

Posts: 139

Sunday, February 18th 2007, 6:55am

The Pitfalls of Design software

OKAY!

I love springsharp. it's awesome. and it allows us to be creative.

originally we had the problem that there wasn't anyway to do the same thing with aircraft and submarines. but thats changed by now.

Let me link everyone to the sims I'm aware of and that I think are good:

www.springsharp.com

springsharp is already recognized as a legit sim for use on wesworld.

Plenebuilder:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages…observatory.htm

and my favorite submarine simulator:
http://www.geocities.com/greglocock/dreadcadintro.htm

it's in the downloads section.

Submarine simulator is complicated, much more so than it looks.

=========

Okay. So do we recognize these programs?

and if we do, do we wanna talk about them before I start using them?

i especially put this here for the mods to read over and think about. better to hammer these details out now, rather than later.

:-)

Go to the top of the page

Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

Posts: 3,605

Sunday, February 18th 2007, 8:25am

Not a mod, just the first to demonstrate my ignorance....err knowledge, yeah the second one.

Springsharp is of course the ship sim we use, subject to the "Design Rules for Gentlemans" which is stickied in this area (Meeting place). Those are sometimes improved, we'll have to see what happens with SS3 now being near.

To a certain degree, historical designs that do not sim well are used. -MTBs for example.

We are using either historical aircraft (with minor tweaks) and/or planebuilder but have crept about 2-3 years "ahead" in engines and designs.

The pitfalls of using Springsharp for Subs is known, Red Admiral has suggested using an alternate program (might be the same as what you have, I do not know) but at the current time we've been sticking with Springsharp.

-Kirk

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

Sunday, February 18th 2007, 10:33am

Acctually in reguards to aircraft and tanks I suppose 5 years would seem to be the rule of thumb in though this would be on the outside of this unwriten rule.

Ie anything within 5 years of the current year would be plausable in reguards to developement.

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

Sunday, February 18th 2007, 10:40am

If you say 5 now it´ll be 7 soon... :/

So better stick to the 3 years ahead of OTL we originally had.

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

Sunday, February 18th 2007, 11:13am

No, 5 years was always the unwriten rule as far as I understood, 5 years being the extreme end of the rule.

Go to the top of the page

Hood

Ugly Aircraft, Inc

Posts: 8,155

Sunday, February 18th 2007, 11:40am

Yes the sub sim is the same as Red Admiral has been urging us to switch to for some time. For what its worth I agree with him, if we have access to a specailsed programme whcih works then should we not rather be using that than SS which is poor at simming subs?

I'd have no problems with anyone using it, its just a planebuilder for subs. Maybe more should use it or we should start a comparative trial versus SS?

I'm taking it we will wait until the final finished release of SS3 in out before we switch to using it for designs?

Go to the top of the page

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

Sunday, February 18th 2007, 11:45am

Planebuilder is complicated but once you have got to know how to use it, and know what is reasonable then it's not that bad. I feel that the transsonic region and supersonic regions aren't modelled very well myself, but we're not there yet.

The submarine spreadsheet is much better as it is actually designed for submarines. SS isn't.

Go to the top of the page

Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

Posts: 3,605

Sunday, February 18th 2007, 8:07pm

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
No, 5 years was always the unwriten rule as far as I understood, 5 years being the extreme end of the rule.

Well you and Hoo have been here far longer than I, but when I asked a similar question- I think back when the I-100 was rolled out, 2-3 is what I got and I've been building to that with planebuilder.

As for the sub sheet- we probably should have examined/voted back when RA brought it up. I have managed decent sims of OTL subs, up to the point I add misc. weight which impacts the hull volume badly.

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

Sunday, February 18th 2007, 8:46pm

I have been playing around in the past with SS and then use the armor to sim the ballast, torpedoes and additional weight of the diesels rather than the miscellaneous weight. After all, miscellaneous weight is located above the waterline while we sim the sub in awash conditions so except for the conning tower, there's nothing of the sub above the water. However I do not know enough about subs to be certain that that would actually be a good idea.

Go to the top of the page

Salaam86

Trainee

Posts: 139

Sunday, February 18th 2007, 10:49pm

well why use SS when u can just use sub sim?

what i've found is that SS is really inaccurate.

subsim allows u to set crush depth. which means it will alter structural weight accordingly.

so if u wanted a submarine that could dive to 500 m (unheard of even during ww2) you could design it and get fairly accurate results.

lets give it a trial run? ok?

I'd suggest that the only rule that matter is the REs bouyancy.

Keep it at 5% or higher. most historical subs had about 20 to 60% res bouyancy.