[Post Reply] [*]  Page 8 of 12  [ 117 posts ]  Go to page « 16 7 8 9 1012 »
Author Message
eswube
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: October 20th, 2018, 4:57 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8706
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Contact: Website
Re: Eendracht - no problem with moving it to Sailing Ships. I saw it named both as tall ship and as "large yacht", and both looked plausible to me.

Re: Marlin - the White Marlin is already as separate class, while Blue and Black Marlins are described as single class in Wiki, which isn't perhaps the best source under the sun, but for lack of some reputable source that would definitively state otherwise, in this particular case it looks "good enough" to me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Blue_Marlin

Re: Alkmaar - uploaded just minutes ago. :lol:
Ok. It had no date at all, and since it was clearly different from "as built", I had to settle on "something".

Re: Dokkum/Wildervank
Good point, but since there seem to be no drawings of any of Wildervanks yet, and as You mentioned, they were externally the same, I guess that for the time being we can use that "combined" name for the whole class, and perhaps return to the issue when the need arise (some publications seem to mention Wildervank just as sub-group of Dokkum btw. - I'm not going to claim I know what's "more correct", just mentioning that it seems to be confusion about it anyway).

_________________
My very neglected Deviantart page


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: October 20th, 2018, 5:05 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7165
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
Haha I noticed, I guess helping out while uploading works best :P
marlins, agreed, good enough.

If the Wildervanks had an separate drawing, it would look exactly the same as the Dokkums as build. Hence why that one drawing has both classes named, the rest only Dokkum. The Dokkums and Wildervanks differed in machinery installation, some small details and how they were paid..... one class from Dutch, one from American funds IIRC. The Wildervanks IIRC were a bit older. So, the need for a different setup for them will not arise (unless I would post 2 exactly the same drawings with different naming line, one dokkum one wildervank, easiest solution but also the stupidiest haha)

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: October 20th, 2018, 5:13 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8706
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Contact: Website
There are already several drawings in the archive that differ just with the name on the hull (and in the caption). ;)
Btw. what about changes made to vessels during their lifetime - were they visually always the same on Dokkums and Wildervanks? If not, then I'd say that creating such series representing one of Wildervanks, even if the "as built" one were to differ just in the name, would be quite good option.

_________________
My very neglected Deviantart page


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: October 20th, 2018, 5:15 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7165
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
The wildervanks were never modified (being worn out much faster), the dokkums were modified with new pilothouses, and were modified to other roles. (as shown in the images)

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: October 20th, 2018, 5:21 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8706
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Contact: Website
Ah, I see. Well, in this case, I guess we could just leave things as they are for now.

Update (21 October) - Netherlands uploaded.

_________________
My very neglected Deviantart page


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: October 21st, 2018, 6:27 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7165
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
I'm working trough the Netherlands folder now, correcting as earlier, making my notes of my questions and edits here:

Real designs section:

The Mahu is not an true museum ship, being actually sailed by a crew of volunteers, so I am not entirely certain that should be on the page name :P I am not entirely certain what should be there though.....

Never build section:

I'm deleting grote friesland as this is extremely likely an personal design, at the very least not one ever considered (and technically even impossible :P)

I edited 'GW-Fregat 66 (Tromp)' to 'GW-Fregat (Tromp), 1966 concept' as Fregat 66 is not an design number that was used, unlike Fregat 64 and Fregat 75

Why do the concept leading to the Karel Doorman class frigate need to be in an 'early design' class and not just in the Karel Doorman class?

I am not entirely certain about placing the NH-1816 proposals in the Damen SAR 1906 class, as 2 of the 3 concepts are at that stage not 19 meters long and 6 meters wide, and none of the concepts were at that point owned by Damen. Open for discussion on this point :P

I removed 'early design' on the SIGMA 9113 as it was not any earlier then the 'brothers' of different size, this was just one that was actually build and sold.

Were you done with the never build section? I am missing the Dockwise Type Zero concept and the paintjob the Rotterdam had but was not completed at, at the very least, have not checked really if there is more missing but just asking before I start checking, duplicating or fixing stuff without good reason.

Btw, where did you find that Friesland class helicopter conversion, I have been looking for references for that for ages and now I see an sb drawing on it?


Other then these comments, questions, great job, I think we got it pretty complete and accurate, I am going to check my archives if we miss anything important still.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: October 21st, 2018, 8:38 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8706
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Contact: Website
In principle, yes, I considered Netherlands, both RL and NW sections, to be done (albeit as "uploaded what I know about, but certainly not everything that was ever drawn for these sections but for various reasons was not necessarily preserved")

Re: Mahu - well, it's not an active-duty warship either, and I have no idea how it could be alternatively described. Maybe just think of it like of "living museum"?

Re: Grote Friesland - ok, for some reason I had it in my archive, so I got it uploaded.

Re: Karel Doorman - it's not 'early design' class, just 'early design' ship - please, let's try to be clear with using terms to avoid confusion.
Well, I decided to create separate "ship" for them (and I believe also for several similar never-weres in different sections), so it could be included together regardless of what name/pennant number the Artists arbitrarily/randomly decided to apply on the drawing.
(You see, for example the 1982 proposal has F828 number, which in real-life was Van Speijk, but who knows if it would be really that number in that name if it was actually built to that particular design?)

Re: HN-1816 proposals - that's a problem, but I understand that eventually the real NH-1816 and Damen 1906 become the same? Anyway, it raises a question - what is more practical - to have archive more "accurate" or more "searchable" - as since these NW entries are in fact related to other RL entries, it's IMHO worthwile to make that relation obvious. But I'm open to discussion.

Re: Dockwise Type Zero concept - I have it, but to me it looked bit like WiP (because of the looks of underwater hull). Since it's Your work, then of course upload it please.

Re: Rotterdam paintjob - not sure what You're talking about.

Re: Friesland helicopter conversion - I found it in the old forum, never-were section. There are still some working pictures there. ;)
(actually including some more Frieslands, but I wasn't sure what/when they are supposed to represent)
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shipbucket/index.php
(in fact, it seems that since it moved to new address etc. some - but just some - drawings that previously seemed no longer working, are working again and I had recently found few "new" pictures from it for upload)

Thanks for cooperation and constructive criticism.

_________________
My very neglected Deviantart page


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: October 21st, 2018, 9:15 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7165
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
Mahu - just keep it as museum then, I'll edit if I come up with something better :P
Early design KD: ah I looked wrong there, it was the ships name, not the class, that makes a lot more sense. If you used the same method elsewhere in the archive, that's fine then ;)

NH-1816: Well basically there was the NH-1816 program, which lead to the prototype vessel (The NH-1816) the design of which was then exported by one of the development partners, Damen, as the SAR 1906. What makes this an issue is not really that it is designated a damen number, as Damen shipyards was construction partner and would have been whatever design was chosen, but that Damen uses an designation system that includes size, leading to confusion :P The most correct method would be to call them the NH-1816 class, with the export type being called Damen SAR 1906.

Dockwise type zero: The dockwise type zero was not WIP but looks so bare because very little was known about the ship when that was drawn, just a few sketches and vids like these https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEtJOKDvUfY . I'll look it up and upload it ;)

The Rotterdam: I would have to look up the image, but there is one that says 'Rotterdam, as painted prior to commissioning' I can't remember if it belonged in never build or real design, but it should be in one of the 2 :P

I just looked up these frieslands on the old forum, ALVAMA seems to have reconstructed them from textual sources only (he states he has seen no plans), most likely the same as mine..... oh well.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: October 21st, 2018, 9:29 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8706
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Contact: Website
Re: Early design KD - Yeah, in general "early concepts/designs/etc." for longer classes I prefer to create separate SHIP entry (for example, there's similar situation with Holland 1947A early designs). Though if the ship in RL was one-off (or there were, say, just two in the class) the designs/concepts could be associated with actual RL ships (largely to be decided on case-by-case basis).

Re: NH-1816 - ok, so maybe create the NH-1816 class for the "actual" ones, and Damen SAR 1906 (NH-1816) separately (with that bracket, to show the relation)?

Re: Rotterdam - I don't have any drawing of that ship with such caption. Only found an older drawing by MihoskiK & MConrads, which could equally well be simply a more crude, based on incomplete sources, representation of the "as built" ship that was simply replaced by Your version.

_________________
My very neglected Deviantart page


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wipedPosted: October 22nd, 2018, 8:34 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7165
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3e002cnjkpezv ... 1.png?dl=1
The Rotterdam drawing I meant.

NH 1816, yeah that works

In case of the 1947A jager I am going to modify it to 1947A Onderzeebootjager, if that is ok? that's the proper name :P

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 8 of 12  [ 117 posts ]  Return to “General Discussion” | Go to page « 16 7 8 9 1012 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]