Realistic?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

[AriesDW]

It is interesting to say there were heading in the same direction. From several printed sources, it informed me they were in face heading towards one another. One vessel heading in and the other out, Olympic being the later. Considering the width of the "channel" they were steaming through, Olympic at the time still did not need to be steaming at 19 knots at the time of the accident. That is practically full speed for the Olympic class (which was at the time recorded to be 21.23 knots - in 1925 it was later recorded at 25.47 knots.) So one has ask, why was EJ at such a speed in such an area? I would think at the time he would be more cautious, especially considering the massive size of the vessels, as well as her "newness".

My printed source (Titanic, Britannic, and Olympic as one source) quoted that the Hawke was "suddenly pulled towards" the Olympic, thereby causing the collision. They too stand that the ships were traveling in opposite of each other. Of course, I woll look at some of my other sources to confirm this.

However, yes, the incident did leave severe damage to Olympic. I have a series of photos of the damage. And she had a pretty good list going when she was brought to dry dock.
 
Nonetheless the story, the commanding officers at the scene were both being what I would consider quite careless at the time. The Olympic class liners even were bearing the warning signs on the stern railing before the incident, thereby advising ships to hold off from approaching the ships while the engines are in operation. . . .

Strange incident. It is too bad so much was tied to the Olympic class, I think that skewed the results of the investigation. Many believe it was EJ Smith was the commander who was at fault. Considering that no matter the direction Olympic was heading, he was moving the Olympic quite quickly in close proximity to another vessel. And if he indeed did pass the Hawke while heading on a similar course, it is even more so prooving he is at fault, assuming the vessels were close enough for Olympic to draw the Hawke in. EJ, by the time, with his experience at the time, should of known better than to bring the Olympic so close to another vessel when he is moving at such speeds.

This does bring a question, however - If he was 15 miles away from port and was already at 15 knots (one source) 19 knots (another), so assuming 17 knots - he would have been burining the boilers pretty hard and running the telegraph at full ahead to get her at that speed within that distance. Thoughts?

[AriesDW]

If the speed and distance holds true, EJ Smith would of gained, not calculating for the acceleration curve, but looking at an average acceleration over distance, an average of 1.13 knots per nautical mile.

Thoughts about this RoA?

[LucAtC]

A very good question,  thank you very much ... for having asked

This does bring a question, however - If he was 15 miles away from port and was already at 15 knots (one source) 19 knots (another), so assuming 17 knots - he would have been burining the boilers pretty hard and running the telegraph at full ahead to get her at that speed within that distance. Thoughts?

After some estimates power-mass-thrust-resistance, and engaging the turbine around 17.5kts, etc.. and at max available power/thrust a speed of 10 kts could be reached after just less than 2.5 NM and 30 minutes, 15 kts after 7NM and 50 minutes. 19 kts after 90 minutes and 17NM
Her max speed just under 2 hours after departure and 25 NM?
It is only a rough guess, not knowing much about steam reciprocating engines. I think the thrust was readily available, because of preheating etc.. but the amount of work and time due to the coke furnaces, valves, etc.. is difficult to assess.
Anyway, quicker than my estimate of accelerations seems unlikely. Yours seem to have been taken around 19 kts... By definition, the acceleration is not a linearly accelerated movement: the initial acceleration for the first cable is over 20kts per NM,  the first mile 7kts etc...
True, the value you gave seems indeed in agreement around 19kts although I dont understand from where you gained the acceleration. Did you know when she departed?
(Semantics!) RoA would not be my preferred choice. The RoA is indeed an acceleration per second, a third derivative of distance vs time. In our case, it moves somewhere between -0.1 to -1 mm/s² per second....

Now about responsibilities...

...Strange incident. It is too bad so much was tied to the Olympic class, I think that skewed the results of the investigation. Many believe it was EJ Smith was the commander who was at fault. Considering that no matter the direction Olympic was heading, he was moving the Olympic quite quickly in close proximity to another vessel. And if he indeed did pass the Hawke while heading on a similar course, it is even more so prooving he is at fault, assuming the vessels were close enough for Olympic to draw the Hawke in. EJ, by the time, with his experience at the time, should of known better than to bring the Olympic so close to another vessel when he is moving at such speeds....

It is the way by which you describe the accident that gives the responsibility to Olympic, not the described facts. It is like throwing one's chin on the gloves of your opponent!
In your text, you can interchange Hawke and Olympic without difficulty, let us try:

...Strange incident. It is too bad so much was tied to the Edward class, I think that skewed the results of the investigation. Many believe it was WF Blunt was the commander who was at fault. Considering that no matter the direction Hawke was heading, he was moving the Hawke quite quickly in close proximity to another vessel. And if he indeed did pass the Olympic while heading on a similar course, it is even more so prooving he is at fault, assuming the vessels were close enough for Hawke to draw the Olympic in. WF, by the time, with his experience at the time, should of known better than to bring the Hawke so close to another vessel when he is moving at such speeds....

Thoughts?
Regards,
Luc

[Stuart2007]

Where precisely did this incident take place?

I'm assuming that on departure she would have been E->SE of Isle of Wight, so basically past spit head and out of controlled water. It is quite normal for a ship to run full ahead from that point.

I know Pride of Bilbao is a bit more manouverable and has navagation equipment etc, but my GPS showed us going about 17-18kts last time.

So, whats wrong with Olympic at this speed?
Stu

[AriesDW]

Where precisely did this incident take place?

I'm assuming that on departure she would have been E->SE of Isle of Wight, so basically past spit head and out of controlled water. It is quite normal for a ship to run full ahead from that point.

I know Pride of Bilbao is a bit more manouverable and has navagation equipment etc, but my GPS showed us going about 17-18kts last time.

So, whats wrong with Olympic at this speed?
Stu

Well, Olympic is MUCH less manuverable than Pride of Bilbao, much heavier,  and due to her propulsion/propellor configuration, I believe she has a much large cavation zone. Aside that, no one knew how to yet handle a ship of her size and they were flying along with her like that, that along is dangerous even if you have todays technology. You need to know how to handle the ship before flinging her about.

[AriesDW]

A very good question,  thank you very much ... for having asked
After some estimates power-mass-thrust-resistance, and engaging the turbine around 17.5kts, etc.. and at max available power/thrust a speed of 10 kts could be reached after just less than 2.5 NM and 30 minutes, 15 kts after 7NM and 50 minutes. 19 kts after 90 minutes and 17NM
Her max speed just under 2 hours after departure and 25 NM?
It is only a rough guess, not knowing much about steam reciprocating engines. I think the thrust was readily available, because of preheating etc.. but the amount of work and time due to the coke furnaces, valves, etc.. is difficult to assess.
Anyway, quicker than my estimate of accelerations seems unlikely. Yours seem to have been taken around 19 kts... By definition, the acceleration is not a linearly accelerated movement: the initial acceleration for the first cable is over 20kts per NM,  the first mile 7kts etc...
True, the value you gave seems indeed in agreement around 19kts although I dont understand from where you gained the acceleration. Did you know when she departed?
(Semantics!) RoA would not be my preferred choice. The RoA is indeed an acceleration per second, a third derivative of distance vs time. In our case, it moves somewhere between -0.1 to -1 mm/s² per second....

Now about responsibilities...It is the way by which you describe the accident that gives the responsibility to Olympic, not the described facts. It is like throwing one's chin on the gloves of your opponent!
In your text, you can interchange Hawke and Olympic without difficulty, let us try:
Thoughts?
Regards,
Luc

So is this an exercise in showing how easily facts may be confused or is there another intention here?

[Stuart2007]

Well, Olympic is MUCH less manuverable than Pride of Bilbao, much heavier,  and due to her propulsion/propellor configuration, I believe she has a much large cavation zone. Aside that, no one knew how to yet handle a ship of her size and they were flying along with her like that, that along is dangerous even if you have todays technology. You need to know how to handle the ship before flinging her about.

But they were out of traffic seperation patterns and into open water. I'm no expert but at what point CAN they go full ahead?

Dave, I'm not saying you are wrong- I'm not qualified to do so. All I a saying is that to rely on evidence at a probably biased board of enquiry nearly 100 years later is not possible with any accuracy.

Stuart

[LucAtC]

So is this an exercise in showing how easily facts may be confused or is there another intention here?

In my reply, there were two parts, answering your 2 posts, in reverse chronological order:
The first part was an answer to the posts

If the speed and distance holds true, EJ Smith would of gained, not calculating for the acceleration curve, but looking at an average acceleration over distance, an average of 1.13 knots per nautical mile.

Thoughts about this RoA?

and also...

This does bring a question, however - If he was 15 miles away from port and was already at 15 knots (one source) 19 knots (another), so assuming 17 knots - he would have been burining the boilers pretty hard and running the telegraph at full ahead to get her at that speed within that distance. Thoughts?

Average acceleration over distance is a relatively less known concept, while the derivative of acceleration over distance has no particular physical meaning, it being the inverse of time squared.
An acceleration curve over time can be done, and the data you gave indicate that the Olympic could easily reach 19 knots before being even at the height of Portsmouth.
Also, Rate Of Acceleration is surely not a concept understandable by everyone. (How many m/s² per second).
Of course, be aware I tend for different reasons to remain too factual , perhaps because I tend to translate what I read, perhaps in a too litteral way?
The second part of the answer is that the responsibilities cannot be fixed today, the only well known fact being that the bow of Hawke rammed into the stern of Olympic (or equivalently that the stern of Olympic rammed into the stem of Hawke...), the speed of Hawke and of Olympic being somewhat equivalent, as was the initial heading.

Regards,
Luc

[Stuart2007]

Luc

carry on being factual. There is nothing wrong with being factual.

It is people that spout the word 'truth' rather than 'opinion' that cause the confusion.

Stu

[Stuart2007]

Well, Olympic is MUCH less manuverable than Pride of Bilbao, much heavier,  . Aside that, no one knew how to yet handle a ship of her size and they were flying along with her like that, that along is dangerous even if you have todays technology. You need to know how to handle the ship before flinging her about.

Only about 7000 tonnes heavier.

The Olympic class may have been the biggest of their time, but surely previous ships were big enough to teach the basics. With respect you are making it sound like Capt EJ was a novice. Surely once ships reach a certain size there will be patterns to their sea keeping.

Stuart

[AriesDW]

Well, the Olympic class was not only heavier, but her dimensions in every fashion were also larger, which effects how she interacts with the water. Also, being she had too small a propellor, a center prop that only spun forward as opposed to both fore and aft, as well as new type of reciprocating engines (which were cleaner burning but also slower in response time), I would say she was still a wild card at the time EJ Smith commanded her. He was, by now means whatsoever a novice. However, I would say he certainly was not solid with her at the time of the incident.

Also at the time of the accident was around the period where they changed piloting operations. It was once tradition to saw you wanted the helm to turn one direction and he would do the opposite (something the crew of the Titanic were still coming to grips with, as reported by Mr. Lightoler, 2nd Officer, RMS Titanic).

Nonetheless, I do see your point, and it is my mistake to put him down. However, I feel the accident occurred to inexperience with a vessel such as the Olympic class, and possibly some lack of care on the part of both commanding officers.

I think it was an awesome exercise of how well the Olympic class could, or possibly could not, cope with collissions.  I think it was am omen of sorts, hinding to the disaster to come to the Olympic class within the next 5 years. At least Olympic lasted until the 30s at which time she was scrapped, unlike her other two sisters which make wonderful homes for exotic fish.

Regardless the fate of this class of ships, I take them all as a lesson to builders, designers, and mariners as a whole, of which their lessons still ring strong and true to this day. These ships all fulfilled a purpose in their careers, albiet at a high cost. They remind me of many things, most of which I am reminded daily as I have a Titanic painting hanging in my office . . .

[[RWP]DJM]

.....I have a Titanic painting hanging in my office . . .

Same here, but at home....directly above my fish tank lol.

Looks great though, it's called 'Titanic's Last Sunset'

Regards.

DJM.

[AriesDW]

Same here, but at home....directly above my fish tank lol.

Looks great though, it's called 'Titanic's Last Sunset'

Regards.

DJM.

By?

[[RWP]DJM]

Oops, sorry about that 

Adrian Rigby.

It's not technically accurate, the fourth funnel (as we all know) was only a steam vent, this picture shows it as a smoke stack 

Anyway, I still love the picture

Regards.

DJM.

[AriesDW]

Oops, sorry about that 

Adrian Rigby.

It's not technically accurate, the fourth funnel (as we all know) was only a steam vent, this picture shows it as a smoke stack 

Anyway, I still love the picture

Regards.

DJM.

Ahh . . . Mine is a Ken Marshall.

[[RWP]DJM]

Ahh . . . Mine is a Ken Marshall.

Cool

It still amazes me how many people across the world have been, and still are influenced by Titanic's story.  Gotta love that ship eh

Regards.

DJM.

[Stuart2007]

Regardless the fate of this class of ships, I take them all as a lesson to builders, designers, and mariners as a whole, of which their lessons still ring strong and true to this day. These ships all fulfilled a purpose in their careers, albiet at a high cost. They remind me of many things, most of which I am reminded daily as I have a Titanic painting hanging in my office . . .

The problem is they DON'T learn. Look at the Herald of Free Enterprise, Zeebrugge or the MV Estonia. Both sunk by certain gross negligence and possible design faults.

I feel very confident when going on a ship now (although different countries enforce different standards) but look back even 20 years and many ships were unsafe, due to design and crew competence levels.

Even now, our coastguard regularly detains ships (as do most countries I would think). When I was waiting for P&Os Bilbao, the competing service was detained on its maiden voyage due to safety issues.

Ive read a lot from www.maib.gov.uk which is the british marine investigation board

Stu

[muns]

Even now, our coastguard regularly detains ships (as do most countries I would think). When I was waiting for P&Os Bilbao, the competing service was detained on its maiden voyage due to safety issues.
Stu

Detention within the UK falls to the MCA (Maratime and Coastguard Agency) www.mcga.gov.uk (http://www.mcga.gov.uk), H.M. Coastguard is part of that organisation and is responsible for search and rescue.

Regards

Mark

[AriesDW]

So, returning this thread to the original topic . . . Does this sim reflect reality, apparently with what we have discussed (Olympic and Hawke incident), the game does not reflect this, and therefore is prooven not to entirely reflect reality.


So . . . . what easily solutions are there? Luc and I already hammered out large wave behavior ideas, so what else?

[Cloud]

Realistic?....Quick Answer, definitely not! But very entertaining...   

Some constructive feedback. I've only had 2008 installed for a few hours but the unrealistic reaction of the vessels is immediately apparent.

Some things I have noticed so far;

1) No Reaction to wind; with a gale on my beam i just sat there as if i was running an incredible DP system or something....

2) Unrealistic reaction to anchoring; Seems to act more like poles than a chain, not really fluid and dynamic at all....Would also add tremendously if you could heave up and slack out (on mooring lines also!).

3) VLCC; you get some sense of inertia but it's not right for example once in a turn with the rudder hard over, Rate of turn comes off way too fast after returning the rudder to midships.

4) When you have anchors or mooring lines deployed, vessel motion is choppy sometimes just surging into motion after thinking about it for some time....Did i part a line??

Anyway...like i said just installed it a few hours ago and these are some obvious things I've noticed. Hopefully these things can be tweeked but my guess is we won't see substantive changes until the next version. Seeing the difference from 2006, we're moving in the right direction, but there is a long long way to go before we can talk about realistic.

Regards,

Larse Klaoud

 

[R.Cain]

Hi,

I'm new to this forum, SS08, and piloting ships.  My only experiences have been at the helm of a restored 2 masted sailing vessel (type, I don't remember - early 1900s), numerous sporting boats, and (my favorite) hands on the tiller of the Delta Queen for about 1/4 mile upstream (it was 1968, they responsible party is surely retired now).

Anyway, I have to admit it was the HMS Titanic that drew me to purhase this sim and take her for a test drive....uhm, sea trial.  After one day of running around in free roam and completing the first few missions, I'm getting the hang of the key commands and interface.  (..<-slow learner)  My completments on a wonderful sim and look forward to all updates/patches! 

Although I'm new to this platform, I'm a "veteran" M$ Flight Sim (2004) fan.  I've noticed that issues with that platform and it's "popularity" among "gamer$" are influencing the development of SS08 too.  It's economics 1.01.  With FS, it was the Cessna from the original platform (pre-M$) that was and is the only reasonably accurate flight model that came with FS$ since Micro$oft bought the company.  I'd hate to see the same happen here.  Many forums and third-party designers (real engineers and real pilots) have since modified flight dymanics and built aircraft and dynamics from scratch that are "as real as it gets".  I, for one, would be REALLY happy to see a 2 or 3 level "Reality" slider, or equivilant added to this sim for those of us (..and there seem to be quite a few here) that would appreciate "real world" time, weather, and functionality of the vessels.

For example, I love flying a B-314 "Clipper" to Hawaii, or the Graf Zepplin from Germany to Lakehurst, NJ.  I would be overjoyed to pilot the Titanic from Southampton to New York in real-time (granted, it's a fantasy, but isnt' that why we're here?)  I haven't gotten to any threads that address the issue, or missed them, but I hope this sim will, in future, seamlessly integrate the transitions from harbour to ocean to harbour.  (Any ideas as to when?  )

As to realistic operation of Titanic, I understand that things are the way they are right now.  For those "purist" wannabees like me, if the rudder is more effective that it should be, what should the maximum deflection I should use to simulate the old Spambot' turn rate?  ...maybe 35?  As for slow manipulation of the wheel, whether by sail, steam, or gasoline, that was my FIRST lesson in all 3....but how fast is "too" fast?  (Well, for HMS Titanic, I guess we'll never have a firm answer, but I'm open to suggestions)  As for the telegraph, is there a time I should let lapse before sending down a change or advance in engine speed?

Oh, one suggestion I'd like to make as to recorded times...  I'd think that would only be a factor for rescue missions, wether a drowning man, or a race with an oncoming storm.  In other situations, I'd like to see accuracy in navigation and staying "within the speed limit" as the "Standard" for an excellent performance by a pilot/captain.  (If this point should be posted elsewhere, please let me know where.)

Yours,

[clanky]

OK, I know that I am repeating myself, but there seem to be quite a few threads on the same subjects at the moment (maybe some merges required mods?)

The physics involved in ship handling is incredibly complex and no two ships handle the same, even the same ship will handle differently in different conditions.

Yes realism would be great, but the game has to work within the following criteria:

a) it has to be playable by people who don't have the years of training needed to handle real ships (even qualified ships officers don't normally handle ships within port limits until they reach chief officer level)

b) it has to be enjoyable, if you cannot handle the ships or if it takes 4 tugs and 90 minutes to get Titanic off the Quay many people will get bored and give up.

c) it has to be able to run on a home PC or laptop.  Real life ship simulators used for professional training require huge amounts of computing power.

As a few people have suggested, maybe there could be game play options which would allow slightly more realistic handling for those who want it, but it would have to be done within the limits of what can be achieved on a home PC.

[nilrem]

Am professional seamen and defiantly game is not realistic.
Do not know why can’t be done, as we all know that MS Flight Simulator works very well, as I spoke with pro air pilots. (And do not require last generation of hardware.)

SOG, ROT, stop distance, advance and transfer are in every vessel maneuvering card, so do not know why the same are not used to make this game.

In this game all is going slow, by calculation cca half of the realistic (large vsls)

Hope that can be improved within next patch

Tks

[J3nsen]

Peopel writing to much! Have no time to read all of this! xD

[groennegaard]

Peopel writing to much! Have no time to read all of this! xD

Hi J3nsen,

Thanks for your important contribution... 
If you don't have time to follow this discussion, then simply don't follow it. 

Regards
groennegaard