belowdeck parts

[heuhen]

the only thing with Gollevainen ak-230 is that the diameter of the turret is to small.

the turret shall have an diameter of 11.8px, mine are at 11 but I have added on the foot and everything else.

the barrel on the AK-230 is 14 px long, something mine are, Gollevainen is smaller than that.

so here is the question: looks or accuracy... so until Gollevainen can prove his turret is the correct size... while mine turret was done after drawings and a tons of pictures.

[Gollevainen]

The difference is in one pixel.
The BIG difference is the length-heigth ration, that determins the looks of the gun. The mount appears from distance as somewhat tall box sitting top of cone...or half of it. Despite its top is curved, the curving takes place in so top of the turret, that the 15 cm scale doesen't allow it to be presented without over-exaggeration, which in place would ruin its looks, making it look like a half-ball, which it is not, only from 1/3 part of the the very end.
Now, if we drawn the turret in 11 pixels, we need to realise that the entire heigth of the system in SB is also 11 Pixels, thus we get to square shape, and that flattens the looks dramatically. Naturally, if we follow the overexaggeration, we could risen the system as well, but then we have considerably larger object in terms of its real size, and onboard the drawings, it starts to look.
So thus the art of exaggeration can also work as art of underexaggeration which is to minimizise the shape, in order it to fit more into the clumsy pixel-vs-pixel presentation, that is hell for everything round.

This, as results of tons of references, drawings from both Soviet/Russian and as well from Finnish construction plans and 6 years of Shipbucket drawing evolution.

And besides, like I said, I have no objection of others using what ever version they want in their own drawings. I just know what version I'm going to use in mine.

[heuhen]

The difference is in one pixel.
The BIG difference is the length-heigth ration, that determins the looks of the gun. The mount appears from distance as somewhat tall box sitting top of cone...or half of it. Despite its top is curved, the curving takes place in so top of the turret, that the 15 cm scale doesen't allow it to be presented without over-exaggeration, which in place would ruin its looks, making it look like a half-ball, which it is not, only from 1/3 part of the the very end.
Now, if we drawn the turret in 11 pixels, we need to realise that the entire heigth of the system in SB is also 11 Pixels, thus we get to square shape, and that flattens the looks dramatically. Naturally, if we follow the overexaggeration, we could risen the system as well, but then we have considerably larger object in terms of its real size, and onboard the drawings, it starts to look.
So thus the art of exaggeration can also work as art of underexaggeration which is to minimizise the shape, in order it to fit more into the clumsy pixel-vs-pixel presentation, that is hell for everything round.

true. When trying to get the last little bend in something.... it can fast go horrible wrong. so where are the balance. I feel you'r look to square, and main are perhaps to round. But at least I have managed to get that little detail on the gun that you didn't.. so either way I am happy

[Gollevainen]

true. When trying to get the last little bend in something.... it can fast go horrible wrong. so where are the balance. I feel you'r look to square, and main are perhaps to round. But at least I have managed to get that little detail on the gun that you didn't.. so either way I am happy

with this scale and pixels, we can never get a fundamental version out of anything, specially this small.

[acelanceloet]

so, guys, what do we do? which one is the best?

[Gollevainen]

well, my version is most likely going to end up in majority of the drawings, so unless Heuhen has some secretly ambitious plan to produce all the remaining undrew vessels with the said mount + tons of own designs to carry it, I think it would serve best that your sheets has the one that would be most used.

[RP1]

Hi, Land Phalanx with Stinger is here: http://rp-one.net/hosted/shipbucket/lan ... 201987.png

Heuhen; there is a user with your name recently registered and active so you should be able to use SP.

RP1

[heuhen]

Heuhen; there is a user with your name recently registered and active so you should be able to use SP.

RP1

That's me! I had to just wait a month before the admin decided it would be smart to check there inbox.

[MihoshiK]

So... I took a look at OTO Melara's website, and they actually have PDF featuring a rather detailed drawing of their 127/64 Lightweight mount.

Click link for PDF

Looking at that mount on the Bergamini, it looked to be pretty friggin huge, larger than the mount we now have in the parts sheets.



After finding a nice sideview of Bergamini, I decided to scale the drawing in the PDF to the mount on the actual ship. This is what I ended up with:



A rather large difference with the existing mount, which has been scaled off earlier literature and the prototype mount that the Italian Navy tested.

Enjoy your new mount guys!

[acelanceloet]

could you compare the reference works with this one too, miho?
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNIT_5- ... sketch.jpg
it mght be the difference between the 54 and the 64, or indeed the difference between prototype and production mount.

the belowdecks look to be of the same size, so it might be good to check if both systems can be joined together as one belowdeck installation with the prototype and the production mounting.
would you be so kind to check that, miho? or shall I try to do so if I find some time for it?