Greetings from FLA: The concerns over standard parts seem to be well constrained with a STANDARD hull shape which seems to be part of the function of Steampunk. The hydrodynamic laws do not change. I would like to try to go to this build if it is held and I can go. I will prep the Jeep for overnight sleep accomodations for this occasion. Manuel Mejia, Jr.
I just saw this thread. ZOMG!! Seriously. I really like this idea. Simple construction? Creativity? Whimsy? Awesomeness? I can has??? I have so many sweet ideas floating around inside my head right now that my brain might 'SPLODE! Ok, when you guys get the final plans nailed down I think I may have to start on one of these. I am thinking of something Russian Gangut DN-ish, but with more punk. Would a SS that has St. Basil's Cathedral-esque look be considered out of line?
I think St. Basil's on a boat would be very whimsical. Though this is the Gangut that is more in the contemplated period. Gangut 1888
Getting back to working on USS Olympia, this weekend, I was disappointed to discover that the proposed basic dimensions for a Protected Cruiser hull (44"x5") don't fit her well at all (43"x6.6".) 5" of Beam is no where near enough to make it look scale. Just to see what's do-able for Armored Cruisers, I checked out the 1/96th dimensions for USS Brooklyn (ACR-3) and it seems 48"x7.5" is not so bad for her (50"x8".) How "set in stone" are those dimensions? Or is it more the canoe shape that matters?
I believe the whole idea behind Steampunk was for there to be three regulated lower hulls (PC, AC, & BB) to which you can build atop anything you like. Trying to match real ships isn't the point. The whole idea revolves around the human imagination and being creative. If we were trying to be scale we wouldn't call it Steampunk. As far as being set in stone, I don't think anyone is using rocks to build ships, yet, but I do know that a number of AC hulls have been made to the plans Steve has provided and it would be awfully rude and unfair to change the design after they've put the time and effort into it, wouldn't it?
From what I can see, I'm the only person to ever even draw a PC and the people who built AC's *DID* change the design already. There's also the questions of ballast and powering them. I don't think we've seen a picture of two of these ships on the water together, yet, and it's been nearly 4 years since it was proposed. If every detail was already perfect then, I think we'd see some more of these around? Steampunk Flotilla is, clearly, a work-in-progress format. Anyway, I'm not asking anyone to rebuild their hulls. I'm asking if the proposed 5" of beam for a PC could be adjusted or have enough tolerance to allow for actual examples of protected cruisers. Even if one doesn't care about it looking right, the current length/beam ratio will make it difficult to build a stable model. Implying that I'm being rude for asking a question is a great way to drive people away from this hobby.
I don't think he was implying that you were rude, but that doing what you suggested could be rude. Semantics I know but still important. As far as pushing people away from the hobby goes, if someone has a libtard entitled attitude, PUSH AS HARD AS POSSIBLE, as they will the death nail of the hobby just like everything they have ever touched. History bears this out factually, so if you fit this description open your eyes and think for the first time in your life. Ok rant off.
I do get a bit hardnosed when it comes to that subject, I was trying to make a point about being to sensitive and inadvertently turned it into a political rant. Not my intention, lol.
Can someone else, SteveT44 perhaps, just answer the question? Is there any tolerance on that 5" dimension?
Dude, build whatever you want. It's not like the format is active (or will be anytime soon). Be prepared to not have the model accepted if the format ever does get off the ground. The 5" beam was agreed upon by those hashing it out back in the day so as far as I'm concerned, it's set in stone for now.
