Question re: Vermaas - & the Praise of Latitude

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

[Chrystine]

 
    Hi again all,
 
  Please forgive me if this has already elsewhere been asked and answered, but I honestly can’t think of any way to Search for this one.
 
  Just to assure myself it’s not me being a ditz or missing something: - is it possible to go forward (to or towards the bow) on the Vermaas?
  There’s that place on the lower (main? / cargo?) deck where it’s all painted red, where you turn and can walk back all the way to the stern (very cool!) – and just there, it looks as though you could do the same thing going forward towards the bow – but I’ve tried several times and just always get ‘stuck’ (literally!).
  I’m thinking that way’s just blocked for some reason..?  Though I can’t imagine why and it does really look as though it should be possible.
 
  It’s part of the reason that in my view & humble opinion, the Latitude is The Finest ship (and model) in SS 08.
  I Really, really like and appreciate that ship.  It Looks superb – especially as I run SS 08, everything is Maxed and at quite high resolution (runs smooth as silk) – the details on that ship are almost not to be believed.  Really a superb piece of modeling and superb texturing.  Kudos to VSTEP for this gem!
  ( I include two Screens also, not re-sized to show the resolution scale and incredible clarity & details ).
  And, not least – pretty much any place/area you can SEE on Latitude you can actually go there (in Walk-through).
  Though of course, I haven’t the faintest clue how a real Super Tanker feels and handles, I’ve no trouble at-all imagining VSTEP has modeled & represented that very well in Latitude.
 
  Closely following my appreciation of and affection for that ship, comes Vermaas.  For most of the same reasons.  Brilliant piece of work, IMO.
  I’m just left wondering whether it’s possible to move forward on her – and if so how? ..if not – how come?
  The length can’t have been the issue.  One can walk stern to bow and bow to bridge on Latitude.
 
  If anyone might be kind enough to enlighten me, I’ll be most grateful…
  As ever – many thanks! 
 
  Best regards,
  Chrystine
 
 
   P.S.  I suppose a Forum limit has forcefully resized these SS’s.
  The original resolution is 1280 x 1024 ( 75 Hz ).
 

[mvsmith]

Hi Chrystine,
I’ll skip any suggestions concerning the NordicTrack and say that you can go all the way forward on Vermaas, at least on one side—I don’t remember which. You need to squeeze past tight spots, which you can do by facing the inner bulkhead and moving crab-wise with the left/right key, being close to the railing without finding yourself on the wet side of it.
Good luck,
Marty

OK:
Go down to the red deck on the starboard side. You can pass the first bollard on the inboard side. You may need to make several tries, alternating between going forward and crabwise. Eventually you will squeeze through. The third bollard is also a tight one.  The rest should be easy.

[Chrystine]

 
     
 
  Many many thanks Marty!
 
  I will try again then!
  I’m guessing and thinking it must perhaps be on the Port side, as I’ve tried so many times unsuccessfully on starboard.
 
  I’ll try the careful-crab …
 
  Thank you! 
 
  Best,
  Chrystine
 

[saltydog]

Keep on trucking Chrystine, it can be done..

[Chrystine]

 
      Ahhhww!  Marty… You went and had a look just for me?!
  Thanks!  Too kind!
 
  Got it!  Tight, determined, half-crab-squeeze past inboard bollard and brace for the 3rd, starboard side…
  Will do! 
 
  Really great to know – just looking at that point, it seems ‘evident’ you can do it …  I guess I wasn’t quite determined enough.
  I was thinking – if it’s just blocked and impassable by design, I don’t want to keep trying and wind up staring at my desktop…
 
  I’ve a long voyage in Vermaas coming up soon (starting tomorrow morning probably) – so will have ample time to squeeze myself through there.
  ( I’m tiny anyway – I should fit no problem! )
 
    Thanks Salty dog!
  I Will..!
 
  Best regards,
  Chrystine
 

[Person264]

You just have to keep at it, the way I got through was to go at it (starboard side) and as you get stuck at the bollard, keep pressing forward and maybe shift to run and after a while you get through to the other side. Further along there is a bollard where you can't get past it the normal way, and so you have to go round the outside almost as if you are walking off the ship. After that its fairly good and if you are lucky you will get some bow splashes spraying in your face.

Have fun sailing

[Chrystine]

 
   Hi guys,
 
  Sorry away and quiet so long, caught the flu almost a week ago – and it’s been smackin’ me around ever since.
 
  &nd for my late reply to you, Person264, my apology: no rudeness was intended.
  Many thanks for your thoughtful and helpful reply as well!
  I’m not complaining, but it’s a little curious re: what you and the others have said concerning the second ‘tricky bollard’ pass, as I didn’t come across another at all.  Not even one that made me ‘pause’ so much as a second (a bit more below).
 
  I’ve been wanting to come back here to at least say – I did finally manage to get up to the bow aboard Vermaas.  Passing that ‘1st’ bollard is super tricky.  I was about to give up after another long effort when I somehow managed to just pop through (going backwards – facing the stern, finger still on the down arrow key apparently).
  After that – it was a piece of cake: I didn’t encounter anything else ‘in the way’ at all – just walked up to the bow in the same way as one would walk back to the stern.
 
  So – in all events, many thanks again to all of you for the information & encouragement!
  At least now I know it can be done and I can even manage it myself – somehow… Still not quite sure how that happened – apart from the requisite persistence. 

 
  If I may – I do have another unrelated question, that seems rather pointless to start a whole new thread just to ask?
 
  If someone who knows will see and read this – might someone please be kind enough to tell me – what’s the effective range of the Sherpa?
 
  I well enough imagine there are many variables one could enter into such calculus – but I mean generally speaking, assuming full fuel tank, fair weather and relatively calm seas, etc…
  What then would be her effective, practical range running at – say full throttle?
 
  ( I know some of you – like my husband – will probably cringe at my adding that last one! )
 
  If anyone would be so kind as to let me know, as ever I’ll be most grateful.
 
  Many thanks again everyone...!
 
  Best regards,
 
  Chrystine
 

[mvsmith]

Hi Chrystine,
I haven’t found Sherpa’s fuel capacity in a quick look on Fairmount’s web site, but you could probably find it there, or on Dreyfus’ site.

She was designed to tow heavy stuff halfway around the globe, probably without refueling along the way.
 
Regards,
Marty

[Chrystine]

 
   Hi Marty,
 
  Many thanks as always for the kind, timely and helpful reply.
  That in-itself answers quite well for my purpose.
  I can’t imagine I’ll ever take her even a tenth that sort of distance – my interest was more in the other direction, not wishing to take her further than her range might be if it were a short-ranging vessel (and I was totally clueless what it might be).
  So that’s not going to be a problem..! 
 
  Most gratefully & –
 
  Best regards,
  Chrystine
 

[LucAtC]

Hello Marty & Chrystine,
I found a reference (http://www.maritimejournal.com/archive101/2005/july/tugs__and__towing/fairmount_sherpa_-_the_first_of_a_formidable_fleet) announcing a 2200m³ fuel capacity.
At 15 knots, ships similar to Sherpa can use 2400 ekW for their own propulsion only, disregarding auxiliaries or any other/electrical needs. 12 tons/day is not improbable, and of course much more when towing.

Regards,
Luc

[Chrystine]

 
   Hi Luc, 

  Many thanks for that informative reply too!
  Unfortunately – almost all of what you’ve offered here is rather lost on me…
  I just don’t understand.

  Thanks also for the great link!  A very interesting read – though again, I understand but a fraction of it.  I’ve book-marked it, and will share it with my husband…
  I think probably he can explain all I’m missing (t)here – or most of it – to me, so I’ll ask him.

  Very gratefully,
 
  Best regards, 
  Chrystine
 

[mvsmith]

Hi Chrystine,
If you are worried about getting stuck in the middle of the ocean aboard Sherpa with dry tanks, it won’t happen in Ship Simulator. Even though some vessels such as the yacht Portoferraio Angel have fuel gages that go down to Empty, I haven’t found one that stops because of that. I ran the Yacht to Empty in an 8-hour mission, but it “switched to the second tank”—which could not be displayed.
Regards,
Marty

[TerryRussell]

Hi Chrystine.

To explain Luc's data:

The vessel holds up to 2,200 cubic metres of fuel.

1 cubic metre of water weighs 1000Kg. (Fuel oil is probably similar enough fro this explanation)
http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_materials.htm

There are three different types of "tons".
A "metric" ton weighs 1000 Kg (see above)
The US ton (the "short" ton) is 2000 lbs and  weighs 907 Kg
The British ton (the "long" ton) is 2240 lbs and weighs 1016 Kg

So, broadly speaking a ton is about 1000Kg or 1 cubic metre of fuel.

So Sherpa uses around 12 tons per day. She carries up to 2,200 tons so can go for about 183 days without stopping.

[Person264]

Wow that's a long time!

[Chrystine]

 
   Hi Marty and Terry!
 
  Thank you both very much indeed! 
 
  “If you are worried about getting stuck in the middle of the ocean aboard Sherpa with dry tanks, it won’t happen in Ship Simulator.”
 
  I do appreciate your mentioning this, though it was one of my earliest ‘discoveries’ regarding SS 08 (without some affirmative or negative statement, it’s impossible to know what I may have picked up on or have missed completely).  It’s been my impression that it’s simply ‘impossible’ to exhaust fuel-supply – for any ship: though I haven’t checked them all out in this respect of course, and it’s interesting to read your note concerning the Portoferraio Angel.
 
  Rather my ‘concern’ was simply to avoid doing something utterly nonsensical – such as taking her out for a cruise that would exceed her actual range/ability.
  I really was absolutely clueless as to what her actual range even might be.  As far as I knew, could have been 150 nm's or 5,000 + .
 
  Do you think that (fuel supply) is something which might be modeled and factored into a future version of SS?  I think it would be nice to have, making the Captain responsible for fuel supply/consumption which, for any vessel powered exclusively by engine(s) is an inescapable, fundamental issue.
  ‘O’, you will take care of your fuel – or had best start polishing those oars!’ 
  I hope VSTEP will consider it for the future…
 
  Terry,
 
  Thanks so much for that!  You are so kind!
  My husband was just so exhausted when he got home, I couldn’t do anything but bring him a cold one and rub his back & shoulders ‘til he passed out.
  I much appreciate that crystal clear explication.
  I’m sure there’s some great reason it’s stated in those terms, I just have no idea what that would be.  Is there some way to derive even a general idea of total distance in nm’s for such capacity (2,200 tons / 12 tons p/d) - ?
 
  &nd one last question if I may, please?
  On the Page discussing the Sherpa for which Luc kindly provided the link, it mentions “16,320 brake horsepower.”  That’s a new one for me – I now believe this must’ve been what’s meant when I’ve encountered ‘bhp’ in reference to some ships – which I’ve thus always misread as ‘British Horsepower’ – thinking there’s just a difference in hp rating between the US and British measures: but – what then is ‘brake horsepower?’ – if there might be any way to spell it out in relatively ‘simplistic terms?’
  If it can’t be or would be too difficult – I understand; but if its explained to me in terms that are ‘too-technical’ I’ll probably still not understand.
 
  Thank you all again very, very much!
  You’ve all been most helpful! 
 
  Person_,
 
  Yeah!  ..Gosh, that is a long time!
  It’s a fair bit more than my best guess would have been…
 
  With much gratitude and best regards,
  Chrystine
 

[saltydog]

From what I understand, brake horsepower is the "end" power, after all the losses caused by gearbox and other components, as well as friction, etc..
Here's a lengthy article, maybe something to read when trying to get to sleep..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#Brake_horsepower

[LucAtC]

Hello, some arithmetics to explain the theoretical range:
2200 tons divided by 12 tons per day is 183.3 days.
15 knots is 15 times 24 nautical miles a day, ie 360.
183.3 days at 360 NM is 65988 nautical miles, whereas 360° times 60' is 21600' or nautical miles.

There are also very good explanations about ship propulsion, for instance a nice introduction by MAN B&W in this paper (http://www.manbw.com/files/news/filesof5405/5510-0004-00ppr.pdf), that could explain in some more details saltydog's reference  .

Regards,
Luc

[Chrystine]

 
   
 
  Well, bless your heart – thanks Salty dog!
  &nd sorry – I should have thought to just check Wiki_ myself before asking here, but for questions regarding things ‘very technical,’ I have a poor record of being able to take much from them on my own.  I’m about as technical as a toothpick.
 
   This one would probably be a bit of an exception.
  I think I at least get the gist of it and the essence of my question regarding ‘b(rake)hp’ is nicely answered there.
 
  If I take the gist of it all correctly(?) – bhp is best grasped in its general-most terms viewed in comparison with thp.
  That at-least makes perfectly good sense to me – even though most of the rest of the techno-specifics do a rapid & high-altitude fly-by …
 
  Hi & thank you, Luc! 
 
  Me & math …. NOT good friends… 
 
  Usually, for the ‘technical stuff’ – I’m happiest with having the gist of the matter / point / issue, etc.  If I can at-least have an accurate general idea and understanding, that’s good and ‘enough’ for me.
  I know – I should probably be a little more ambitious about it – but, I’m also a realist.  My mind’s not geared well for such things and the time and energy investment would negate a huge part of my life and other active intellectual pursuits – (yes! ..even I have some! ).
  I’ll check ‘the paper’ – and thank you for this link provided as well…
 
  Many thanks again, each & all! 
 
  Best,
  Chrystine
 
 
  P.S.  Wow!  Thanks Luc!  I was having some serious doubts I’d be able to understand much if anything from ‘This Paper’… but this looks Great!
  Fascinating stuff and presented in language and format I think I can easily follow.
 
  Many thanks indeed!
 

[TerryRussell]

Hi Chrystine.

Why are so many different units used when measuring fuel consumption? Well, you might wonder "why not say a vessel does 8 miles to the gallon"?

In the case of Sherpa, she uses 12 tons per day. If she is unladen on a flat sea, she may go 400 miles (for instance).

If she is towing a large vessel, she still uses about 12 tons per day, but doesn't go so far. If the sea is rough, she may use about the same amount of fuel and go even less far.

OK, so why give it in tons per day, rather than gallons per day? That's mainly history. Until recently, it was far easier to weigh large quantities of fuel than to measure the volume. That is still very true in some of the fuelling facilities in far-flung corners of the world.

Weight and volume are interchangeable. As I explained, a cubic metre of fuel weighs about a ton. They don't use gallons because it is easier to visualise 12 tons, rather than 3,170 gallons. But, 1 ton of fuel = 1 cubic metre = 264.173 gallons.

On this site (http://www.btinternet.com/~matthewbrown/a-c.htm), you will see all sorts of cross-measures. So you can see that my butt holds 126 gallons! 

Nevertheless, on smaller vessels, gallons may be used. On my own boat (a 28 foot Sunseeker Monteray), I have a tank that holds 300 gallons. I get about 1 - 2 miles to the gallon, on a flat sea, once I get her on the plane (i.e. above about 12 kts, up to 45 kts).

[Chrystine]

 
   Hi Terry, 
 
  As ever, I’m most grateful for your kind & helpful reply.
 
  That does all make perfect sense of course.
  It’s one thing to have the luxury of being able to formulate a question with specific parameters – e.g. ‘in fair weather, full tanks, no winds, calm seas, towing nothing, at full throttle, etc’ – but such niceties of course never survive contact with reality.
 
  I rather suspected that was probably the reason for it – but now that you’ve stated it all so clearly, it takes on the full aura of ‘common sense.’
 
  Many thanks to you sir… Again & again… 
 
  Best regards,
  Chrystine
 
 
 P.S.  For the record, I’ve always been most comfortable with Aboriginal math…  You know – 1, 2 – plenty …   

[TerryRussell]

As always, it is a pleasure to talk with you, Chrystine.

Did you ever get to Creators Forum? We love to see new missions there.

[Chrystine]

 
    ..Thank you, Terry..!
 
  Always a pleasure to speak with you as well.
 
  Yes – well, I’ve been to the Creators Forum and looked about, briefly.
  Found and downloaded a couple of helpful *.pdf’s …
  I tried look in on the ‘Message Board’ (Forum) part, but it was ‘closed’ at that time for some reason – then I fell quite ill (not related ).
 
  I don’t think anyone would love seeing my Missions! 
 
  I set one up to transfer from Vermaas to Latitude in the mid-Atlantic which was fun in the end – but horribly frustrating trying to get it all to ‘work.’  I finally did though!
  Sometimes I can be about as dumb as a box of hammers.
  Still learning a lot as I go – with most-everything yet to discover and learn still ahead.  So I imagine my ‘Missions’ at this point would be about as exciting as watching paint dry.
 
  I don’t like using the WP’s though.  Unless there’s a way one can make those horrid green circles invisible – but still function normally?
  I recall a bit about ‘hiding WP’s’ in the Tutorial *.pdf – but I haven’t really read or tried that as yet, and not sure what that means.
 
  I may well wind up there in time though…with some crazy Mission to drive everyone nuts – or into fits of laughter…    ..Or, more probable still – seeking help for some simple thing or other I’ve gotten all bungled & botched.
 
  I like the Site however – easy to navigate, nice layout and I’ve no doubt, a wonderful resource to tap into.
 
  Best, as always - 
  Chrystine
 

[TerryRussell]

The problem with hidden waypoints (known as triggers) is that unless the player vessel hits them, and in the correct sequence, the mission won't end. Missing those hidden waypoints is a major cause of "faulty" missions,

Glad you liked the Creators Forum. It's entirely hand crafted by me. None of that ready-made, off the shelf stuff.