Ship Simulator
English forum => Small talk => Topic started by: RMS Gigantic on January 18, 2009, 05:01:37
-
I'm back with Titanic's sea trial data, but this time around, I'm using another source: "1912 Facts About Titanic: Revised Edition"
This time, the data is more precise, in feet, rather than yards.
Now then, first things first: her "crash stop" distance. For those who do not know what a crash stop is, that's where the engines are slammed into full reverse when the ship is traveling ahead; it's an emergency stop that normally would never be tried again for the potential of seriously damaging the engines.
Doing this from 20 knots, according to the book, it took 2,550 feet, or 850 yards (same figure from before, wouldn't you know!) to come to a complete stop. They also gave this figure as "just short of three times the length of the ship itself."
With the figure of how many ship lengths given (2.8887000849617672047578589634664 times according to the math), I went into the mission editor to see if the game matches the figures. I managed to get a big bouy right where she is traveling at 19.__ knots, about to reach 20. I then lined up 3 Titanics after that point. I hit full reverse as soon as the bow of the ship was at the close end of the bouy. As you can see by the picture, despite traveling at less than 20 knots when the engines were put into reverse, she traveled nearly 4 of her own lengths before coming to rest. in the first run, I failed to get pictures because she started going backwards a bit before any could be taken, so I did it a second time to show the results. Both runs yielded the same result in terms of stopping distance.
In the first picture, that black pixel next to the back most Titanic is the buoy I reversed at, the bow of the front most Titanic in line is the point before which she was SUPPOSED to stop, and the bow of the Titanic not in line is where she DID stop. the second picture shows just how far past the 3rd Titanic she was before stopping completely. The Titanic in the forground is the player Titanic being tested.
In closing, I have this to say:
You were close, Vstep, REAL close, just one ship length off....
PS: before anyone accuses me of this, it's not that I don't want any other vessels corrected. I would love to see all the vessels as accurate as possible. The reason that I don't talk about them is I don't KNOW about those vessels, so I don't know what their problems are!
-
why does stopping distance have to be so precise? Is it just not good enough if it takes a little longer to stop?
-
why does stopping distance have to be so precise? Is it just not good enough if it takes a little longer to stop?
The closer it is to the real thing, the more accurate, true? I could have sworn this board was made to help Vstep get the game as realistic as possible. I thought they said they wanted sea trial info?
-
If you say so ;D
-
I'm just lucky I didn't go with my first idea for testing it:
Going with Sea Trial data and lining up 3 Titanics, then putting a big ship after it that Titanic would hit if it turned out the game was off.
That would have been bad....
So it COULD prove useful, as one ship length could be the difference between a near miss and a really bad collision that she should have been able to avoid!
-
Could be usefull.. but can the book be proven correct? That would be important.
Because..AFAIK the 'real' data is allready used, from what I have understood in the past.
But if that source is wrong, and it can be scientifically proven, it would be valuable.
Regards,
Fred
-
I was thinking the same thing. When I discussed the data with you before, you said titanic-titanic.com could very well be wrong.
All I know is this is the second source to give 2,550 feet as the distance.
Perhaps missing a few RPM on her perpellers, as mentioned before, could be part of this difference in crash stopping distance?
You could try to contact the book's author, Lee W. Merideth, to ask about his source(s), perhaps?
-
The missing RPM could be the culprit, you may have found the answers too all our questions... Lol. :)
-
Indeed, she traveled 2 or so knots faster in real life than in the game, so who's to say her reverse speed wasn't under estimated, too?
-
You could try to contact the book's author, Lee W. Merideth, to ask about his source(s), perhaps?
Aren't those usually listen in the book itself? Is there such an index in it perhaps?
-
The bibliography is provided, but he does not specifically state what came from where.
-
Righto. Logical too.. It would take yet another book to describe which of all the specific bits of this book come from what bits of which other books, I reckon. :P
-
So I take it contacting the author is the best thing we can do?
By the way, I am currently about to test Titanic's turning diameter. The books gives it as "about 3,850 feet, which is 1,283 yards or about 4½ lengths of the ship." (Different from titanic-titanic.com this time!) It says it did this after traveling at 20 knots in a straight line.
-
Got the results!
I also found the reason why we can never quite recreate the 1912 collision!
If my sources are accurate...
TITANIC'S TURNING DIAMETER WAS CONSIDERABLY UNDERESTIMATED
I moved the buoy further from Titanic in order to give her a bit more time to reach a higher speed.
I then turned the wheel to port as far as possible (540 degrees on the wheel, 45 on the rudder) once she passed the big buoy (in front of the front most Titanic in the pictures); the results were disasterous. They were pictured, and can be seen attached to this post. It turns out what SHOULD be Titanic's turning RADIUS is her turning DIAMETER in game, as what should be 4½ ships comes out to be 2½ in game.
-
why does stopping distance have to be so precise? Is it just not good enough if it takes a little longer to stop?
Agree. In Dutch we call this "mierenneuken". No offense :-\
-
Agree. In Dutch we call this "mierenneuken". No offense :-\
2 reasons:
1) It may be a single ship length, but we ARE talking about the 4th largest ship in the game here!
2) Titanic SHOULD have been able to stop in time to avoid the collision in the attached pictures, and while that was set up, consider this scenario:
You are piloting Titanic in MP through a channel in Marseille, when suddenly someone cuts you off in who knows what! You throw the engines in full reverse, yet still can not stop in time, and you hit them at just over a single knot, which damages you enough to sink you. Would you not be even SLIGHTLY annoyed by the fact that you SHOULD have been able to stop in time?
-
Any tests on Titanic in the simulator need to be carefully conducted and interpreted.
Do the screws on the model take as long to go from ahead to full reverse as it takes the massive reciprocating engines?
Does the rudder on the model take a full 30 seconds to go from amidships to hard over?
It is possible to read stopping distances directly from the HUD rather than use the very crude unit of “ship lengthâ€.
RMSG has demonstrated an inability to properly evaluate and interpret a document that he has used to support an argument, while that document did just the opposite. I would take with a cup of salt any material he cites as an authority unless its information can be traced directly back to the Harland & Wolff archives, which are publicly available.
I find it amusing that he should be such a stickler for accuracy in the simulator, yet cling so desperately to thoroughly discredited myths.
-
If I'm so incompitent, then YOU do it!
-
I'm back with Titanic's sea trial data, but this time around, I'm using another source: "1912 Facts About Titanic: Revised Edition"
This time, the data is more precise, in feet, rather than yards.
How can the data in feet be more precise if the original measurements were taken in yards?
-
How about RMS Gigantic, that VSTEP invite you to do ALL the work on Titanic. You can go through all the code for it and make "improvments".
Then release and we wil all come and have a lovely long moan about how you made the mast colour the wrong type of brown and how she turns to fast. :)
-
The problem is that this is all based on partial data. As Marty has said, you need to factor in other data. The vessel could not simply go from full ahead to full astern in an instant. Even if it did, the cavitation effects would mean that the reverse thrust would be negligible until the forward velocity reduced to a certain level.
After that....
And so it goes on. You do need ALL of that data before you can claim that something would or should have happened.
The problem is that so many sources of data merely come from other sources. If the source was not reliable, all subsequent usage is unreliable. Most of the "facts" around Titanic, even the manufacturer's data, do not seem reliable.
The fact that it is in a book, or that the book quotes a reference does not make the data any more reliable.
By the way, I was in Borders (Bookshop) yesterday. They had a book which contains the transcripts of the Board of Investigation proceedings. That will no doubt contain the statements of survivors, the ship designers and builders and so on. Many of them will have been trying to prove that the disaster was not their fault. So the data there will not be reliable, I suspect.
No, I didn't buy the book. I almost dozed off when I saw the title.
-
If I'm so incompitent, then YOU do it!
“Incompetent†is your self evaluation.
I have no interest in doing what can best be left to the dynamics team.
-
Well, where do you people suppose I get my information, then? I turn 16 in two days and live in the US, so I can't just march right up to the Board of Trade or Harland & Wolff and ask for what Francis Carruthers documented on April 2, 1912!
-
I don't think anyone is suggesting that you get any information, only that you shouldn't believe that all things stated in books are correct.
The problem is that when you say "X is wrong, because I've read/been told Y", unless you have indisputable sources of information, someone will be able to successfuly dispute it (by definition).
100 years on, there are very few indisputable sources of Titanic information except it was a ship that hit an iceberg and sank, drowning a lot of people in the process.
-
......Another Titanic topic....I think we are all getting very bored now RMS....dosen't look like any lessons were learnt after the last topic you made on Titanic ???
We all have our favourites, my favourite's are Furie and Sherpa, I could say that the Sherpa's wheelhouse isn't correct, this that or the other, but I'm happy the way she is, and I think you should appreciate the good job V-STEP have done on Titanic. Also, where are all these sources coming from? We will never know exactly, like Terry said, Titanic sank, and thats it really. Be happy with what you have.....
Jack.
-
I think that there are more than enough Titanic topics in the forum already. Personally, I'd be against any new ones being started from now onwards.
-
I agree with you Terry.
-
100% Agreed.
Jack.
-
The problem is that when you say "X is wrong, because I've read/been told Y", unless you have indisputable sources of information, someone will be able to successfuly dispute it (by definition).
If you read my earlier posts in this topic, I say "If Y is correct, X is wrong"
The only reason "if" started getting dropped was that Mad_Fred was starting to sound less like he was doubting the sources. Really, after talking with Mad Fred about a bit of sea trial info off titanic-titanic.com, I became skeptical. It was merely seeing the same figures out of a second source that made me a bit more confident.
Also, about the "taken in yards" issue, if you read where I quote the book, the yards figures are also expressed. It was the same case with when the figures were first found and posted off of titanic-titanic.com.
As for the topic thing, I should probably appologize. I was eager to report a new source and the results of testing, and it slipped my mind.
-
There is of course one other very salient point to note about the real Titanic's crash stop details that you haven't factored in to your Ship sim test - wind and currents - both of which are not present in the game. If the real Titanic's crash stop test was done against a current or head wind she would stop quicker. However this is another piece of data that would be hard to prove one way or the other.
-
True. I did this little test under ideal conditions.
Actually, however when doing these tests in the sea trials, they do it more than once, in different directions, in order to prevent weather and the like from interfering too much.
-
If you read my earlier posts in this topic, I say "If Y is correct, X is wrong"
And the diference is... ? ;D
The only reason "if" started getting dropped was that Mad_Fred was starting to sound less like he was doubting the sources. Really, after talking with Mad Fred about a bit of sea trial info off titanic-titanic.com, I became skeptical. It was merely seeing the same figures out of a second source that made me a bit more confident.
The trouble is, that if you trace both of them, you may come back to one source, which may or may not be reliable.
My point is not that I believe or disbelieve. Or care one way or the other, to be honest. But if someone quotes something as "true", then all of my background demands to know how it is proven to be true. It's my Doctoral and post-Doctoral research life that kicks in.
As for the topic thing, I should probably appologize. I was eager to report a new source and the results of testing, and it slipped my mind.
No need to appologise. I was just giving a heads-up in case anyone wanted to start any others.
-
Agree. In Dutch we call this "mierenneuken". No offense :-\
Even if that is in Dutch do you think that is really appropriate?
drowning a lot of people in the process.
Oh and Terry, most people didn't drown, they died of hypothermia.
-
Oh and Terry, most people didn't drown, they died of hypothermia.
Don't forget crushed! The collapsing funnels and splitting ship claimed some lives, too!
-
Actually firestar, your half right half wrong.
Terry is right, lots of people did drown in the process, but your not taking into consideration the fact that many third class passengers were trapped below decks, Firestar.
You are half right as well, since most people did die of hypthermia that fell into the water, or were left there after she went down.
Also, Terry most likely said that as a figure of speach, thats how I took it anyway....
Jack
-
Actually, Jack, the movie over-dramatizes the 3rd class issue. A fair amount of 3rd class passangers survived because they were smart enough to find a way around something if it's blocked. A number of them were even able to use the Grand Staircase and the like to get up to the boat deck.
-
Actually, Jack, the movie over-dramatizes the 3rd class issue. A fair amount of 3rd class passangers survived because they were smart enough to find a way around something if it's blocked. A number of them were even able to use the Grand Staircase and the like to get up to the boat deck.
We should all get together and make a realistic movie. :p
-
It would be about time, too!
If they made an accurate movie, it would be the first time Titanic's near miss with the SS New York in Southamton was EVER portrayed in ANY movie!
-
Wow.. just think how cool that would be. ;D
-
Oh and Terry, most people didn't drown, they died of hypothermia.
You have the data from what source?
Think about it. If someone is treading water (lack of lifeboats, remember?), and they get hypothermic, they drown though inability to swim long before they die of cold. So based on reasonable probability, most people drowned.
All irrellevant, though. Point is, they died.
-
Actually, Jack, the movie over-dramatizes the 3rd class issue. A fair amount of 3rd class passangers survived because they were smart enough to find a way around something if it's blocked. A number of them were even able to use the Grand Staircase and the like to get up to the boat deck.
And what they show with the bench knocking down the gate-that actually happened. A couple of Irishmen did.
-
And what they show with the bench knocking down the gate-that actually happened. A couple of Irishmen did.
Even so, there would have been no sheetrock ::)
-
Even so, there would have been no sheetrock ::)
Hehe... ;D
-
No, seriously, the historical commentary of the film says that having that sheetrock is prochronistic!
-
VSTEP! PLEASE, IF YOU HEAR THIS, DO NOT INCLUDE TITANIC IN 2010.
>:( That is how angry I am. On every page of this forum, there seems to be a titanic moan or whining because a tiny bit of the ship is missing/wrong! And they mostly are from you, RMSG.
Let be get somthing strait into your mind - Titanic is AT THE LIMIT! One more polygon and the ship will not be able to support the darn thing - I han't read the first poast of this topic yet, because the First thing I notice is that you are moaning about a tiny little mistake! Do you think the modeler gets everything right?
I am sorry, Moderators, and forum members, this is a bit harsh, I know. It is meant to be. Can Vstep please look into excluding Titanic from SS2010, it is causing massive annoyance to me and I think a lot of other members.
PS: Titanic sailed in 1912 - thats nearly a century before. Do you really think that everything you say, RMSG, is correct and other peoples evidence is wrong? People don't know exactly what the colour of Titanics funnels were.
-
This has absolutely nothing to do with Vessel Dynamics, so I will move it to Small Talk, where it belongs.
-
It should belong in "Annoying Titanic Threads" :(
Anyway, enough of my dissaproval. I hope you have learend a lesson, mate
PS: You said Vstep was REAL CLOSE. Being REAL CLOSE is enough for most people. Its not like Vstep is a cult of angles which get everything right.
-
I agree - Isn't 1 ship length over accurate enough? Should a VSTEP developer really go into the dynamics and mess around with the dyn just to make it stop 280m shorter :-\
-
RMSG:
Does Titanic go forward? Yes.
Does Titanic go backward? Yes.
Can you walk around the Titanic? Yes.
Does the ship turn? Yes.
Does the ship act when you toggle the wheel or telegraph in the wheelhouse? Yes.
Does smoke come out of its funnels? Yes.
Honestly - that should be more then enough for you.
The ship also comes with two masts, four funnels, a wheelhouse and a hull.
-
RMSG:
Does Titanic go forward? Yes.
Does Titanic go backward? Yes.
Can you walk around the Titanic? Yes.
Does the ship turn? Yes.
Does the ship act when you toggle the wheel or telegraph in the wheelhouse? Yes.
Does smoke come out of its funnels? Yes.
Honestly - that should be more then enough for you.
The ship also comes with two masts, four funnels, a wheelhouse and a hull.
By that logic, Virtual Sailor's model is decent!
Going ahead and astern does not make a ship realistic. How would you like a PoR with a top speed of 2 knots?
As for "close," I am talking about ship length of the Titanic.
If you put it in material units, we are talking about nearly 900 feet, or over 250 meters. Suddelny, it isn't "almost" anymore.
-
I have just made an appointment with a psychiatrist because I find myself agreeing with three consecutive posts by Gloat!
I am not against Titanic per se, and I know there are some who would like to use her as is, without complaint. However, that ship seems to be taking over the forum.
It would be unfortunate if VSTEP were to divert resources from more important improvements to things that are of real concern to only a half-dozen vocal people.
-
It's not that I do not want any other improvements, it's that I don't KNOW of much else that can be improved, really. That's why I have nothing to say in threads on other ships: I don't know HOW they need to be improved.
-
You don't know of much else that can be improved ON TITANIC.
There are many things on other ships that could be improved.
-
If I read the first sentence, right, that is false.
The second sentence is my point exactly: WHAT are those things that need improvement?
-
You keep missing the point. It is not entirely about improvements to specific existing ships; it is about improvements to the simulation environment—specifically to the sea model. These will most likely make demands upon the systems that may preclude any additions to Titanic that place further demands on the system. She is already marginal for many of the user’s systems. That is one reason she is seldom used in mission of any consequence. Tech support still fields complaints that she disappears or loses her funnels, etc. She simply may not be viable in the new sea, even in her present state.
-
But... such tiny mistakes can be lived with... Unless you are RMSG of cource. Who cares if the ship stoppes a bit earlier/later then the origional? How are you going to know that the Origional Titanic was different? It happened almost 100 years ago!
Titanic does indeed seem to be taking over the forum... mostly with silly topics like this complaining about the slightest difference. Instead of thanking Vstep for their great programming, people like you, RMSG are simply moaning about a couple of minature errors which can be fixed while Vstep are working on something FAR better - SS2010!
Speaking of SS2010, in order to keep the forum clean, can Vstep please look into REMOVING Titanic from 2010 or introduce her in a later add-on?
Does it matter that the Titanic stopps differently to what it says in a BOOK? Does it matter if propellers turn the wrong way (That one really made me laugh at you) and others.
RMSG: In conclusion, please avoid starting topics which are about any small error you find on any ship, especially Titanic. It only lifts the nervs of other members of the forum.
-
In my opinion the titanic is just fine, maybe if it was missing a smokestack, no pilothouse, or it didn't turn left, these would be important issues.
Not is the hull is not a specific color black, or hallway doors are inches off, or what its stopping distance is too long.
Everyone that uses the titanic seems to be very happy of its function
It seems that this is the only ship that the design causes trouble with.
I've yet to see anyone complain about whether the Fairmount Sherpa has the correct window dimensions, or if the taxi boat has the right number of seats.
I think Vstep should take the titanic out of the new 2010 game.
because in every forum i see there is something about the titanic
and i really don't care about it anymore.
It is a cool ship, but if it can move and turn and Honk its horn, then is fine, i
t needs no more fine tuning it is O.K. the way it is.
-
It seems that this is the only ship that the design causes trouble with.
I've yet to see anyone complain about whether the Fairmount Sherpa has the correct window dimensions, or if the taxi boat has the right number of seats.
Wrong, actually. People DO find faults in other ships, it's just that not as many people study the other ships.
-
Please be grateful of the amount of work and effort that goes into the ships. Considering it sank just under 90 years ago, the stopping dynamics are very accurate for the information still around.
-
Lets leave this thread to rot like it desrves.
RMSG, I/we beg you to cease starting topics about Titanic unless it is a major bug you are talking about. I don't want to be mean, but no-one really cares if the propellers turn the wrong way, or the ship stopes unlike the real version. With a major bug, I mean one which is no minor then "the horn doesnt work"
I think Vstep made a mistake in even accepting Titanic into the game. They should of forseen what it will do - simply rampage the forum with tiny, tiny little errors.
Like Nathan, be thankful.
And PS: People may find faults in other ships, but they dont really give a (searches for suitable word, but cant think of any) Damn. Vstep did a really good job on this game, and instead of compliments, we get complaints that the Titanics propellers turn the wrong way (OMG!) And this game is for having fun steering ships - Not "studying" other ships to find errors - that is not the point. People, if they have found an error, should just ignore it to make the game realistic.
I hope, you are done with informing us with every single error about Titanic. And I hope you have seen that they dont really do anything - ever seen a patch which includes a fix to an error you pointed out?
-
Titanic Stopping Dynamics:
- Full speed ahead
- Head-butt an iceberg
- Dead stop
- Sink
-
Titanic Stopping Dynamics:
- Full speed ahead
- Head-butt an iceberg
- Dead stop
- Sink
;D ;D ;D
-
Titanic Stopping Dynamics:
- Full speed ahead
- Head-butt an iceberg
- Dead stop
- Sink
OR:
- Sink
- Dead Stop
- Head-butt an iceberg
- full speed ahead
-
OR:
- Sink
- Dead Stop
- Head-butt an iceberg
- full speed ahead
ah, gloat, always working in reverse............. :D surprised your not called taolg
-
.toalg dellac ma I
-
.toalg dellac ma I
.suoivbo eht gnitats rof uoy knaht.
.cipot ot kcab teg dluohs ew kniht I
-
eno cinatit diputs a cipot siht eergassid I
-
!cipot-ffo yaw ngitteg er'uoY
Time to stop... ;)
-
Ok, back on topic...
I dont want to retype my on-topic opinions again, so lets go to the spam-way of things.
Lets leave this thread to rot like it desrves.
RMSG, I/we beg you to cease starting topics about Titanic unless it is a major bug you are talking about. I don't want to be mean, but no-one really cares if the propellers turn the wrong way, or the ship stopes unlike the real version. With a major bug, I mean one which is no minor then "the horn doesnt work"
I think Vstep made a mistake in even accepting Titanic into the game. They should of forseen what it will do - simply rampage the forum with tiny, tiny little errors.
Like Nathan, be thankful.
And PS: People may find faults in other ships, but they dont really give a (searches for suitable word, but cant think of any) Damn. Vstep did a really good job on this game, and instead of compliments, we get complaints that the Titanics propellers turn the wrong way (OMG!) And this game is for having fun steering ships - Not "studying" other ships to find errors - that is not the point. People, if they have found an error, should just ignore it to make the game realistic.
I hope, you are done with informing us with every single error about Titanic. And I hope you have seen that they dont really do anything - ever seen a patch which includes a fix to an error you pointed out?
-
Enough of the backwards chat!
Was about to post that before a moderator (Sorry, Admin..) got in...
Again, 250m is not worth making a fuss about and is probably not getting fixed anytime soon. I bet for many of us, it's close enough. And why does anyone really "care" about stopping distances....
-
agreed, rotting time.
-
Please be grateful of the amount of work and effort that goes into the ships.
You're one to talk, Mr. "Remove the vessel in the game that had taken the longest to develop"
I have praised Jason time and time again for his work, and have tried to make it clear that I deeply enjoy Titanic, yet people still overlook it.
And Gloat, I already said that starting a new topic was a mistake.
-
I have praised Jason time and time again for his work, and have tried to make it clear that I deeply enjoy Titanic, yet people still overlook it.
Somehow, I don't see how that is possible.. hehehe.. :P
Seriously, this topic is not turning out great... I'd like to see a bit more happy remarks and a lot less bickering, or maybe it's best that it gets locked. Chill out everyone, it's just a model of a ship in a video game..
Fred.
-
You're one to talk, Mr. "Remove the vessel in the game that had taken the longest to develop"
No, I created a poll asking who wanted the vessel to be removed. I never said I personally wanted it to be removed...but I do :P
-
Nathan, I am sure you have heard the expression "dense in the head"
RMSG: One moment you are moaning and complaining about a ship which has taken the longest to develop, and instead of being thankful you are bickering about some tiny little mistakes, and giving us more reason to hate it, and now you want to keep the vessel in 2010.
If you had even read the posts submitted to this thread, you would have used that brain of yours to work out that the only way of keeping this vessel in the game is to stop moaning about tiny mistakes about it!
By posting these useless moans, you are accusing Vstep of their work, and no, you are no-were near praising Jason about his work, because as you post more bickerings on the forum, Vstep are going to remove it because everyone is fed up with complaints. So: If you want to praise Jason about his work, I think it would be a good idea that Vstep didn't remove it so Jason got more praise.
I want to make this as CLEAR as POSSIBLE:
1: You post Titanic complaints onto this forum
2: Members go grumpy
3: Vstep see that members are grumpy because Titanic seems to be taking over the forum.
4: In 2010, Vstep remove it in order to keep forum clean
5: Jason gets upset because his wonderful model has been excluded.
6: You are the one to blame - because you keep posting Titanic complaints.
I hope that makes sence. You are NOT praising Jason for his work at all.
Hi Fred: Didn't see your post there! Sorry, I don't see any thing positive to post in this thread. I'm not trying to be harsh, I am just trying to let RMSG know that he is in no way praising Jason - If he did, he would rather try and get his model to STAY in the game.
-
If Jason wants his model in SS2010 and is so interested in the game...why have I never seen him on the forum here?
-
Hi people.
As Fred said earlier, this thread seems to be full of sniping.
Now can I suggest (very strongly) that now is the time to start saying nice things here. There is much that is good about Titanic. If is an incredibly detailed model, that must have consumed an immense amount of time. Jason should be truly proud of his work.
When one of you produces a vessel with the same level of detail and realism, and posts that in the non-2008 projects, then maybe you can speak to Jason as an equal.
Until then, please stop the sniping, whether in support of Jason or against another forum member. Like Fred, I really don't think this topic has much, if any, useful life in it. (Big hint, there!).
Thanks.
Now, deep breaths and think happy thoughts, please. ;D
-
Just out of interest, is Jason currently working on the model now? adding more detail etc? I'd like to see it :)
OK, please sit down before you read further otherwise you may scream.....BUT
I was always fasinated by Titanic when I was younger, had a book about her etc. and I read it so much that the pages started to fall out (That isn't a joke) :o
But when dad got a boat (he had one before I was around), That sort of developed into more general shipping interest etc. and now I usually go out on our boat, and most of the time, bring her in and out, sorry to be off topic, just chattering away *closes mouth* :D
So anyway, yes, I do like Titanic, but I'm not a fanatic, just the general marine scene now ;D :D
-
I bet Jason is making a model. I dont think its for Vstep.
I wont post on this topic anymore untill someone has a topical breakthrough and somhow comes and sees some happiness in a thread like this.
-
I bet Jason is making a model. I dont think its for Vstep.
I wont post on this topic anymore untill someone has a topical breakthrough and somhow comes and sees some happiness in a thread like this.
His plan was to have it added to the game I believe. Why else would he make it?
-
For his own entertainment?
I always go and make models if I am bored.
-
I had this thought today:
If Titanic was removed, would we not continue to see just as many threads on the ship?
Not about details, but complaints and questions about her removal.
I'd imagine one would feel pretty dumb telling someone new that Titanic was taken out to reduce the number of threads on her, when this is the nth thread complaining about where she went.
Imagine this:
Someone likes Titanic, and looks for a 3D model of her, finding results from SS06 or 08 (like me; I found out about Ship Sim using that method and discovered SS06)
They go to shipsim.com to find the most recent version (SS10) and order it, figuring that the best version of the model is the latest, and figuring she isn't on the boxart because she took a back seat, not knowing it was removed.
They wait some time for the email/package, and excitedly start the game up.
They look for Titanic to play.
They don't see it, so they double check.
What is their most likely action?
Get an account on the forum and express their dissatisfaction, not knowing about "search" because they are new and mad.
Eventually, this will become the norm to take a new, unsatisfied customer's post every week or few weeks.
So, if Titanic was removed, which do you think Vstep would prefer of the following?
1) an angry, unsatisfied customer
2) several potential customers never hearing of the game because nothing relating to Ship Sim turned up when searching for a 3D Titanic model?
-
titanic won't be removed, but why continue adding the smallest details, does it really matter?
-
Why does anyone think that Mr Gloat's desires will have any influence over whether Titanic remains or not?
:police:
;D
-
Why does anyone think that Mr Gloat's desires will have any influence over whether Titanic remains or not?
:police:
;D
He gloats on it. We should all gloat to.
Gloat - gaze at or think about something with great self-satisfaction, gratification, or joy
-
The things that are going into SS2010 are quite stunning. I suspect that Titanic will not be thought of as the most impressive aspect of the simulator!
-
I had this thought today:
If Titanic was removed, would we not continue to see just as many threads on the ship?
Not about details, but complaints and questions about her removal.
I'd imagine one would feel pretty dumb telling someone new that Titanic was taken out to reduce the number of threads on her, when this is the nth thread complaining about where she went.
Imagine this:
Someone likes Titanic, and looks for a 3D model of her, finding results from SS06 or 08 (like me; I found out about Ship Sim using that method and discovered SS06)
They go to shipsim.com to find the most recent version (SS10) and order it, figuring that the best version of the model is the latest, and figuring she isn't on the boxart because she took a back seat, not knowing it was removed.
They wait some time for the email/package, and excitedly start the game up.
They look for Titanic to play.
They don't see it, so they double check.
What is their most likely action?
Get an account on the forum and express their dissatisfaction, not knowing about "search" because they are new and mad.
Eventually, this will become the norm to take a new, unsatisfied customer's post every week or few weeks.
So, if Titanic was removed, which do you think Vstep would prefer of the following?
1) an angry, unsatisfied customer
2) several potential customers never hearing of the game because nothing relating to Ship Sim turned up when searching for a 3D Titanic model?
That is basically already happening with other ships, such as the inland cargo ships.. lots of players, me included, would love to see those ships back... frankly I don't care much about seaships, and even less about the Titanic (it is on the bottom of the ocean for crying out loud, how unrealistic can you be if you sail with it (besides, they want to achieve a certain realism as I keep reading...)). Some are nice tho, such as the Agile, but that is mostly because these can be handled in a similar way as inland ships..
Yes, you might indeed get unsatisfied customers, but they already have those in the form of those who miss some of the ships of SS06. And in many topics you see this returning also... for myself, if I will or will not buy SS10 depends mostly on them having inland cargo ships or not.
-
The things that are going into SS2010 are quite stunning. I suspect that Titanic will not be thought of as the most impressive aspect of the simulator!
I hope you are right, but from that teaser video you must be telling the truth!
-
The things that are going into SS2010 are quite stunning. I suspect that Titanic will not be thought of as the most impressive aspect of the simulator!
Yup! Titanic took a back seat in SS08, and most likely will not be as prominent as in SS06 again in the forseeable future, especially if QM2 were to be added. Just about the only ships that could be added that would boost her position any would be one of the following:
Vulcan
Hector
Ajax
Neptune
Hercules
(Hey! I memorized the names of all 5 of Titanic's Southampton tugs!)
Nomadic
(most likely out of any on this list)
Traffic
(I also memorized her Cherbourg tenders, it seems!)
America
Ireland
(I'm on a roll! Queenstown tenders!)
Olympic
Britannic
(neither of her sisters are likely, since it would take years, probably, just to model them)
-
It seems that I had made a bad assumption when making this thread:
I assumed Titanic had a load when undergoing sea trials.
I remember some time ago, however, on the TRMA, that pictures were shown with her much higher in the water (30 foot draft instead of 34 feet, 7 inches). I bet that the added weight that accounts for this 4 foot, 7 inch difference is why it takes so much longer for Titanic to stop, because she has more momentum!
Would that affect her turning radius, though?
-
If this whole thread is due to an error on your part, it's probably best to lock it, with your appology, I guess. ;)
I'll leave that to your conscience.
-
Well, this isn't the first thread of mine that was started from an assumption that I later came to regret :D
That thread simply died....
But how WOULD weight affect turning ability? or is rudder rotating speed at fault there?
-
Well, this isn't the first thread of mine that was started from an assumption that I later came to regret :D
That thread simply died....
But how WOULD weight affect turning ability? or is rudder rotating speed at fault there?
Simple bit of physics includes the expression "1/2mv2". That should tell you that the mass will affect the turning circle radius, all other factors being equal. In real life, an increase in mass will cause the ship to side-slip somewhat more than for a lighter vessel.
The heeling moment will also be different. Depending how and where the additional mass is situated will have a further effect.
-
I just found something relevant to the game from Titanic: The Ship Magnificent Volume 1.
It says that Titanic's rudder could turn 40 degrees in each direction.
The game's GUI says 45.
-
It's not relevant in the slightest. What's to say that this "fact" is any more correct than the others you've got wrong? :evil:
These bits of inconsequential trivia are getting very boring, to be honest. :sleepy:
-
What's to say it's right?
Hmm....
It COULDN'T be that the book was written by 4 Titanic experts and edited by a 5th....
:P
Usually in these cases, it's a misinterptretation on my part.
Here is the original passage for you to read to see where I could have misread:
"As previously noted, when Titanic's wheel was put 'hard over', the rudder was able to turn a maximum of 40o."
-
One says, who cares?
Can you just Calm Down about Titanic? Do you REALLY have to fish out evidence that Vstep have produced a really bad version for their game and bore everyone with facts and figures that you yourself regretted to have started topics about in the first place?
As Terry said, Its not relevant.
-
Uh-Oh, The Titanic's rudders turn 5 degrees too much! Somebody must contact VSTEP and demand that they open up the model dyn and edit a lot of code for a lengthy period of time just so that the realism is there and the Titanic turns 3 seconds slower than it did! Now that sure would be noticable and get VSTEP lots of money and credi....no. It isn't happening is it? :P
-
Uh-Oh, The Titanic's rudders turn 5 degrees too much! Somebody must contact VSTEP and demand that they open up the model dyn and edit a lot of code for a lengthy period of time just so that the realism is there and the Titanic turns 3 seconds slower than it did! Now that sure would be noticable and get VSTEP lots of money and credi....no. It isn't happening is it? :P
Neither is it for the Pride, Nathan, neither for the Pride.
I had figured that rudder angle, like mass, affects how a ship turns, thereby affecting dynamics. I will do a little test for myself later to see how much it affects it in-game.
-
Yeah but the Pride is actually useful for learning modern ship navigation - And there isn't anything wrong with the rudders at the moment, or not much.
In a flat sea, with ideal conditions (no wind etc.) I cannot see 5 degrees providing much difference to the ROT? Unless somebody can prove me wrong? And anyway, that 5 Degrees isn't going to make much difference when docking.
-
Just got back from some tests.
With a flat calm sea with no wind:
ROT with rudder at 40 degrees: 61-2
ROT with rudder at 45 degrees: 68-9
Not a big difference, but enough to be noticed in the photos below.
These pics were taken at identical angles in the orbit view. When watched side by side, differences in list and wake trail can be noticed.
It's a small difference, but not too small to be picked up by the GUI and visually.
(First picture is at 40 degrees, second is at 45)
-
I have yet to see any book on Titanic, the 16 on my shelf or any others, that was entirely free of factual errors. The many, many “experts†spend much time arguing among themselves—when they are not parroting each other’s errors.
More significant than a 5 degree difference in max rudder angle is the fact that it took a full 30 seconds to go hard over. Unless the model also takes that long, accurate turning comparison is difficult.
The ability of the rudder to turn the ship is set in the dynamics in such a way that the maximum rudder angle displayed on the HUD is irrelevant. The model does not have a real rudder that makes it turn.
All you have shown in your test is what is intuitively obvious to anyone who understands the real issue—the ROT at a rudder angle less than maximum is less than the ROT at maximum rudder angle. Duh.
It has nothing to do with what the indicated maximum rudder is. The behavior of the model is controlled by a number of transfer functions —graphs—that are inherently dimensionless. The rudder could be from 0 – 100 furlongs if the inputs to the transfer function were so scaled.
-
Gigantic.
If you dont like theway the rudder turnes, just turn it 40 dgrees rather then 45!
Wasn't that easy?
One last time: IT DOESNT MATTER!
-
Gigantic.
If you dont like theway the rudder turnes, just turn it 40 dgrees rather then 45!
Wasn't that easy?
It would be if it felt right. Alas, hard over isn't hard over, it seems.
I can deal with 45o for the time being. It's just a thought relating to accuracy and dynamics.
Whenever I make these threads, they never include things I expect to see enacted on in the current game, or the game after that, or even two games down the road.
-
Oh, please.
This is getting so annying, that I can only just contain myself from swearing wildly at you.
And thing is, you deserve it.
-
Well, I don't tell you how to live your life.
-
Perhaps there is another factor that needs to be taken into consideration - your graphic card?
For instance when I played a mission involving RED JET 4 from Ryde Pier to Portsmouth, it would take me around 10 mins with my old graphic card. When I installed new graphic card, and played same mission, I completed it under 7 mins and also noticed that the handling improved too. (I know there's a big difference between the 2 vessels)
So perhaps your graphic card will determine how fast your vessel will travel, turn, stop etc?
And before anyone ask, no, I will not take out my new graphic card and put in my old one so that I can take TITANIC out for a spin to take notes of any comparsions ;) :P :lol:
-
Hi Kevin.
Much though I hate to get back into a topic that is so terminally boring that I struggle to stay awake, the graphics card won't affect the rudder angle shown on the HUD.
(BTW: I'm not referring to your post, just the purpose of the topic - to claim things are wrong that then turn out to be correct, and to never appologise for the insulting title of the topic even after the basic claim has turned out to be a load of spherical objects)
-
Now it's clear that Gloat is the King of Austria! I must show my flag(s) too...
I am king of many places, actually, Including Campania and Pompeii
;D
-
I am king of many places, actually, Including Campania and Pompeii
;D
Campania and Pompeii are taken? Ill be king of the lost city of atlantis. and occitania. and aquitania. and Mauretania. And Russia. and Scandinavia. and I might aswell be king of Ipswich while Im at it.
-
You forgot Salzburg.
Mine now! Along with Antarctica. And Ill be the emperor of Sardinia while I am at it.
DIAMANT, I am the Forum Blob. AKA, a useless posting member that offers nothing new to any topic.
Although - I am coming up with a plot to take over the forum!
-
Terry. Do we have permission to go permanently off topic from this boring thread and have some fun rather then disscuss the way Titanic should be?
-
Heh heh heh
-
OK chaps.
I nodded off for a while, but please keep on topic or else start a new one. At least out of respect for the originator.
It's only fair and we Kings and Emperors must lead by example, eh?
update: I've removed the two off-topic posts that followed this one. I'll do it again if needed. ???
-
I figured the apologies weren implied.
If not, then I apologize for any past, current, and future incorrect assumptions I make....
-
Aplogy accepted. But Sorry usually means you dont do it again, either, so lets stop posting titanic errors, ok?
-
I just never misinformation, as people tend to take practically anything they see or hear as fact....
-
Well its hard in the Titanics case, Some souces say something and others say different, this is why people get annoyed.
-
I get most of my information from the TRMA and the work of their trustees. Unlike what mvsmith had described, these experts don't argue over who's right, but rather spend more time finding new information on Titanic and her sisters, or giving answers to those who have questions.
The average topic is usually a picture, leaving the TRMA Trustees and other knowledgable members of the community to weigh odds and evidence as to what it means. One of the more recent finds being that the railing on the roof of the 2nd class staircase at the boat deck was not continuous (like in the game), but actually stopped against the two vents in the back, with a short segment between them.
That got a little off-track, but the point is that they rarely argue because the knowledge shared there becomes known by the community.