| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 used to be remf |
Springsharp 3.0 - how's it coming along |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 431 ( 3-Jan-2008 15:34:10) |
Hi there,
Does anyone know if there is another beta of SS 3 due anytime soon, and whether there is any up to date plan for a final release? Kind regards R3MF |
||
|
IanRG |
|||
|
Posts: 319 ( 5-Jan-2008 08:03:38) |
I am still working on it.
2007 was a busy year - I started my PhD and we took over our major competitor at work. Ian |
||
|
borys68 |
|||
|
Posts: 2274 ( 5-Jan-2008 11:31:39) |
Quick SS2 question- in SS2 why do prices increase 10% a year from 1912 onwards?
Borys |
||
|
IanRG |
|||
|
Posts: 320 ( 5-Jan-2008 12:17:58) |
The price increase formula is unchanged from SpingStyle. I have not spent anytime on this so it is a question for Rick |
||
|
used to be remf |
|||
|
Posts: 434 ( 5-Jan-2008 14:27:40) |
Many thanks for the update.
Kind regards R3MF |
||
|
borys68 |
|||
|
Posts: 2275 ( 5-Jan-2008 16:55:45) |
Ahoj!
Thanks for the explanation. Borys |
||
|
Rick Robinson |
The cost model ... | ||
|
Posts: 1681 ( 6-Jan-2008 19:22:42) |
IanRG wrote: The cost model is a simple approximation of inflation, starting from 1914. It applies to ships laid down from 1912 on because capital ships usually took 3-4
years to build. The model is decent for the WW I and WW II eras, but may be off for the period around 1930 - no battleships were being built, so I had no good
benchmarks of construction cost.
|
||
|
borys68 |
|||
|
Posts: 2286 ( 7-Jan-2008 00:25:48) |
Ahoj!
IMO the cost increased as the ships are larger, better armoured, faster, with bigger, more costly guns. I am not happy with the present model. Is it possible for you to quote the yea on year increases? 10% a year is IMO too steep. Cost increase is tied solely to lay down date. I'm playing a sim and identical ships - I manually adjust engine and gun year to same year, with the sole difference being laying down date, cost me differently. A 1912 ship is 2M GBP, a 1914 identical ship is 2,4M GBP - doesn't seem right. Would it be possible to split, in SS3, inflation, between hull, engines and guns? Even if by fixed eyeballed percentages, e.g. hull (with radio, FC, ice cream machine, etc.) costs 20%, engines cost 20%, guns cost 30%, and armour costs 30%? Oh, I'm rambling - time to bed ... Borys |
||
|
NewGolconda |
|||
|
Posts: 2989 ( 7-Jan-2008 21:44:00) Commonwealth Moderator |
RN cost increases were virtually 1:1 with displacement 1905-1914 with minimal inflation. Then there was rapid inflation during WWI and just after (costs nearly
doubling in five years), stabalising by the time the Nelsons were built at a new, higher baseline. Then there is good evidence that the RN costs actually fell
from 1927-1939 due to deflation, before rising again during WWII.
I think if I were a gamer, I would not base too much on the SS cost model. Different countries have different cost structures. But for most, costs (given their cost structure) were proportionate to displacement. |
||
|
borys68 |
|||
|
Posts: 2297 ( 9-Jan-2008 12:55:44) |
Ahoj!
Thank you for you answer. Another SS question - I can't post new topics with Mozilla, so I prefer to use exisitng threads. Casematte face armour - is that the thickness of the "mantlet", the part which shifts with the gun, covering up the hole? Or is that the thickeness of the armour protecting the casematte deck? Or both? I'm asking as I always assumed it to be the mantlet, and seeig 6" casematte armour on WWI designs made me imagine the poor gunners getting hernias from pushing that slab of steel. So - what exactly is "casematte face" armour in SS? Borys Borys |
||
|
P3D |
|||
|
Posts: 712 (15-Jan-2008 22:23:07) |
Can the seakeeping equation be modified for destroyers? If a DD is simmed with historical freeboard and metacentric height, SS2 gives poor seaboat rating -
even if said ships were not considered bad seaboats (for a destroyer, that is).
|
||
|
Hoss.parallaxscurioa... |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 2 (25-Feb-2008 00:21:48) |
Any thoughts on doing a Springsharp for modern ship classes?
|
||
|
used to be remf |
|||
|
Posts: 493 ( 1-Sep-2008 15:38:41) |
would you be able to provide an update on Springsharp 3.0 progress please?
kind regards |
||
|
IanRG |
Been busy | ||
|
Posts: 329 ( 2-Sep-2008 03:10:37) |
Sorry guys
I've been away for a while - New job, and doing my PhD My current intention is to make the latest a full release (version 3.0). To do this I need feed back as to whether people are happy with the beta as is (ie not a request for new features just if the current beta works OK Then I will release version 3.01 using the SpringStyle resistence model updated to handle other power sources especially deisel. Finally version 3.1 will replace the SpringStyle reistance model with a Holtrop Mennen resistance model. Ian |
||
|
used to be remf |
|||
|
Posts: 494 ( 4-Sep-2008 13:49:56) |
thank you for the update.
|
||
|
Michael Garrity |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 32 ( 4-Sep-2008 21:31:46) |
Ian:
I do hope you will be including nuclear power as a propulsion option. Mike Garrity |
||
