SpringSharp 3.0 Beta 3.0 Now available

Re: SpringSharp 3.0 Beta 3.0 Now available

feeds@yuku.com (P3D) — Tue, 13 May 2008 22:28:21 GMT

Another suggestion.
The height of the Armored Deck above the WL should be a user input, as it have a significant impact on stability/steadiness.

Re: SpringSharp 3.0 Beta 3.0 Now available

feeds@yuku.com (Brad R) — Mon, 12 May 2008 06:46:41 GMT

Ian, I've been testing the program in what little spare time I've had.

Some minor comments. 1.) You can't use the delete button in textboxes. 2.) When adding depth charges, hull strength didn't change until I changed something else on another page. 3.) Could you please take the picture on the armor page and change "inclided belt" to inclined belt?

I've taken some beta 2 files and copied them into beta 3 and run them. All of them had...

Re: SpringSharp 3.0 Beta 3.0 Now available

feeds@yuku.com (IanRG) — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 03:52:52 GMT

Nebfer, thanks for you explanation.

I have recreated the problem and know why it occurs. The location of the gun mounts at the bottom of each gun group starts at none. As soon as you give the mounts in either group a location other than none the NaNs on the Performance tab disappear.

This has highlighted a glitch in that it occurs at all and in that it can be cleared by having all the mounts in Group 1 and the location in Group 2.

Ian

www.springsharp.com

Re: SpringSharp 3.0 Beta 3.0 Now available

feeds@yuku.com (Nebfer) — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:24:31 GMT

IanRG said:

Please explain

I'l try my best to explain.

When one starts a new ship the performence tab has the values of NaN. So I start making my ship (lets say it's 500 ft Long by 60 feet wide and 25 feet deep ~11,700tons).
The tabs still say NaN but as composite strength is dependent of freeboard I'll do that next. just to make it simple I just click on the flush deck button. and the...

Re: SpringSharp 3.0 Beta 3.0 Now available

feeds@yuku.com (P3D) — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:47:35 GMT

IanRG wrote:
In regards to the question to better define stream technologies, boiler numbers etc - Yes - but first I have been promising handling non steam technology better first.

Ian

Ian,

I was thinking about destroyer hull strength. Perhaps it would be better to sim destroyers with 0.8-0.9 hull strength to reflect light construction, and leave 1.00 hull strength to ships build for...

Re: SpringSharp 3.0 Beta 3.0 Now available

feeds@yuku.com (Hrolf Hakonson) — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:35:57 GMT

I've figured out the issue with bulkheads: it's that I was interpreting "between bulkheads" as between multiple bulkheads within the TDS, while the program is interpreting it as the amount of beam not included as part of the TDS. Once I modify the value to correspond to this understanding, it works fine.

Re: SpringSharp 3.0 Beta 3.0 Now available

feeds@yuku.com (IanRG) — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:23:20 GMT

In regards to the question to better define stream technologies, boiler numbers etc - Yes - but first I have been promising handling non steam technology better first.

Ian

Re: SpringSharp 3.0 Beta 3.0 Now available

feeds@yuku.com (Pengolodh) — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 03:37:38 GMT

Query: Will there some time in the future be an option to select which type of boiler technology to use in times of change (as one can do with coal firing vs oil firing)? The change from fire-tube to water-tube, and the change to small-tube boilers could have a large effect on the machinery plant. For instance, the Renown and Repulse - laid down in January 1915 - had 42 boilers for 112,000 shp, while Courageous, Glorious and Furious - laid down in March, May and June 1915 - have 18 boilers...

Re: SpringSharp 3.0 Beta 3.0 Now available

feeds@yuku.com (IanRG) — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:27:40 GMT

It seems for me the composite strength is not working very well.
neather is seakeeping, stability & steadiness.

Please explain

Ian

www.springsharp.com

Re: SpringSharp 3.0 Beta 3.0 Now available

feeds@yuku.com (IanRG) — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:21:54 GMT

Will check the bulkhead calcs. I confirm that the engine weight slider is not yet operational and that this should allow better (realistic) Destroyer designs - at 1.00 Composite Strength.

Copy Report To Clipboard is a great idea and putting engines before armour logical.

Still looking for the hick up before I will consider this a stable release.

Ian

www.springsharp.com

Re: SpringSharp 3.0 Beta 3.0 Now available

feeds@yuku.com (Nebfer) — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:02:56 GMT

It seems for me the composite strength is not working very well.
neather is seakeeping, stability & steadiness.

Re: SpringSharp 3.0 Beta 3.0 Now available

feeds@yuku.com (Hrolf Hakonson) — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:52:42 GMT

I'm seeing some odd behavior with ships with torpedo bulkheads. They seem VERY sensitive to the "Beam between bulkheads" entry, and wanting what appears to be ludicrously large entries there.

The destroyers may be a result of not yet having the engine weight inputs working, but having other parts of the model up and going.

Re: SpringSharp 3.0 Beta 3.0 Now available

feeds@yuku.com (Carthaginian) — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:51:15 GMT

After getting it to work (for some reason my compression program didn't like it) I agree.
The engine slider doesn't appear to be working yet... the only engines we can select are heavy-duty engines. I imagine when the engine adjustment begins working, we'll have the ability to build faster- not slower- destroyers.

Re: SpringSharp 3.0 Beta 3.0 Now available

feeds@yuku.com (splott) — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:38:03 GMT

But it seems that designing lighter ships such as destroyers has become harder, I had to reduce the speed on a destroyer design
from 32,7 kn max speed to 30,9 in order to get it over the magical 0.5 Composite strength.

Re: SpringSharp 3.0 Beta 3.0 Now available

feeds@yuku.com (Carthaginian) — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:01:29 GMT

Then could someone send me the file, uncompressed?
Address is CSN290@yahoo.com
For some reason, it doesn't extract right for me.
I still get a 'file corrupted' notice.

Re: SpringSharp 3.0 Beta 3.0 Now available

feeds@yuku.com (splott) — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:57:09 GMT

It works great as you can see below. I even saved some money compared to version 1.1 :-)

I only got two things to "complain" about
1. Could you add a "Copy report to the clipboard" function? It would really be nice to have.
2. If you could rearrange the order of the armour and engine tabs, because what you do
on the engine tab effects the armour so it would be a better flow if those two where swapped place.

Otherwise I say "Release...

Re: SpringSharp 3.0 Beta 3.0 Now available

feeds@yuku.com (Carthaginian) — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:29:01 GMT

I get a 'file corrupted' message every time I d/l and try to unzip.
Is there a problem with the file posted?

SpringSharp 3.0 Beta 3.0 Now available

feeds@yuku.com (IanRG) — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 09:30:39 GMT

The next beta release of SpringSharp 3.0 has been uploaded.

This is the first release that requires .Net Framework 2.0. You may need to download this unless you use Vista or another program that required it.

This release has been restructured so it is much smaller and faster. Beta 2 when converted to .Net 2.0 and used on a Pentium 4.0 with Vista suffered a massive speed drop. The restructured version may still have some new instabilities or places where it does not...