| Shipbucket http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/ |
|
| belowdeck parts http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2755 |
Page 30 of 36 |
| Author: | acelanceloet [ May 25th, 2014, 7:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: belowdeck parts |
Ah, there is An 6 there which I read as an zero, but still 6 pixels too big? |
|
| Author: | MihoshiK [ May 25th, 2014, 7:22 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: belowdeck parts | |
Ah, there is An 6 there which I read as an zero, but still 6 pixels too big?
I dunno, if I scale that drawing to 30 pixels high, the total width ends up as... 70 pixels. Frankly I went over that cannon, and so did Mitch, and as much as I am glad he's gone, at the end of the day neither of us could find much to improve on it, and we scaled mostly off photographs. I think that drawing is fuxxored. |
||
| Author: | acelanceloet [ May 25th, 2014, 7:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: belowdeck parts |
what I mean is, this might be the ultimate proof that that reference is wrong (of the same sources) for the LW turret. |
|
| Author: | MihoshiK [ May 25th, 2014, 7:51 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: belowdeck parts | |
what I mean is, this might be the ultimate proof that that reference is wrong (of the same sources) for the LW turret.
Well, it probably is.I mean, I got real fortunate in finding excellent photographs of Bergamini to scale the turret to. Otherwise I would probably have scaled it too small, considering the "prototype" pictures. Check this out: Forward view from Bergamini: ![[ img ]](http://www.occar.int/media/intemplate/104_DSC_7492ab.jpg) Bergamini with new turret: ![[ img ]](http://i1232.photobucket.com/albums/ff375/April_Bikirk/ffgfremmitgp.png~original) Turret height compared to the bridge windows is just about spot-on. |
||
| Author: | sebu [ May 25th, 2014, 8:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: belowdeck parts |
I appreciate your work to get things right; that's for sure. But how on earth you are agreeing with a pixel which is 150mm in real world?? |
|
| Author: | acelanceloet [ May 25th, 2014, 10:02 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: belowdeck parts | |
I appreciate your work to get things right; that's for sure. But how on earth you are agreeing with a pixel which is 150mm in real world??
what are you talking about?
|
||
| Author: | BB1987 [ May 26th, 2014, 5:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: belowdeck parts |
5"/54 Mk.39 with belowdeck added: ![[ img ]](http://www.majhost.com/gallery/BB1987/Shipbucket/belowdeck_5-54_mark_39_single.png)
|
|
| Author: | acelanceloet [ May 26th, 2014, 6:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: belowdeck parts |
awesome. I'll add it the next time I update the first post (remind me if I change the first post without adding this in) |
|
| Author: | Shipright [ June 3rd, 2014, 3:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: belowdeck parts |
![[ img ]](http://www.majhost.com/gallery/Shipright/FFLX/allison_gtg.png) Allison AG9140 produced by Rolls Royce. This is the generator used on the DDG51 class amoungst others. Source: http://www.rolls-royce.com/Images/MMS%2 ... 2-9324.pdf |
|
| Author: | heuhen [ June 3rd, 2014, 3:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: belowdeck parts |
Shipright, it's better to write Arleigh Burk class than DDG51 class. specially for those that doesn't follow on the US Navy, like me (I think yeah they are big and have big arsenal, but how big is the bang for the buck!?!), or for those people that don't know, but are not bothered to use Google... |
|
| Page 30 of 36 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|