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 Hood
Has anyone ever tried the hull depth locking option? Does it work?
Quoted
A twin 16"/45 w/o armor in Turret & Barbette weighs 670t while a twin 16"/50 w/o armor in Turret & Barbette weights 781t.
Quoted
A twin 5"/50cal in Mount & Hoist weighs 32t as a BL/QF/AA, but weighs 34t as a DP and 42t as a RF
Quoted
Well, aside from the things RA pointed out, there is also the ability to select your gun caliber, which does effect the weight of the mount.
Quoted
is there a way to sim realistic destroyers using SS3?
Quoted
Originally posted by Sachmle
Ah yes, the infamous Negative Misc weight. The only way known to man to rectify SS's (all SS programs) inherent need to make DD machinery weight way to much.
Quoted
Increase in capability to add different amounts of ammunition to gun types. E.g. so your 40mm Bofors can now be specified to have 2,000rounds instead of the 150 default in v2.1
Quoted
Ah yes, the infamous Negative Misc weight. The only way known to man to rectify SS's (all SS programs) inherent need to make DD machinery weight way to much.
Quoted
Originally posted by Red Admiral
So, would anyone like to vote on whether to use SS3b2 for designing ships?
Quoted
Originally posted by Red Admiral
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.
Quoted
In general, the answer is no. The resistance formulas for SS aren't really applicable to destroyer like vessels. They're a bit too long l:b and some get into semi-planing behaviour at high speeds. You find that things like propeller design make large impacts as well. There's also the secondary issue of SS using capital ship type mass estimates for ship structure and equipment which isn't suitable for things like destroyers.
I seem to remember that I actually got the Capitani Romani to sim quite well in SS as they weren't too far off with regards to the resistance/power estimates for that hull form. However, in order to get the design to come out as working in SS I think I had to add in around minus 1000t of misc weight. There are massive issues which can't really be worked around.
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.
Quoted
Originally posted by Red Admiral
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.
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.
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH