Hey Anthony,
Still here!!! I got cancer which set me back a bit. but still around.
"Got his head bit off"
Well, mostly my own doing. You are touching on some of the points here. "Accuracy", "the real world"...
I found though that it starts to encroach on someone's process, and can feel offensive. So have been working at avoiding "philosophies".
Your prop was a fun project. You were open to changing your process to get a result. In the REAL WORLD, big Ship prop makers for instance, have a highly paid, experienced guy, with a GRINDER in his hand, working and balancing the part. after it is manufactured.... lol
Cant really do "Accuracy" from a 2d drawing, most likely downloaded from the internet. A REAL ship drawing would be far more intense. Filled with math.
So, here when we talk about accuracy, I believe we are talking about "How much time are we willing to put in"... REAL models can be YEARS in the making. Down to the PATCH, bolstered by mountains of math and supporting files for each patch...
Michael already posted a link to a thread where I discussed with a guy his ship model (Mark Brown). He ended up making some beautiful stuff. I think he worked on it for "MONTHS".... The idea that a few curves and a loft to generate an entire hull, is reaching.
My suggestion in his approach would be the same here. Model your curves as "Waterline" instead of station. In a real world ship build, the stations are just a means to create the waterlines, which ARE the design of the ship....
But I would have to tell the OP to scrap all his work, start over and work for months to generate the design... So just gracefully getting across Michael and Barry's points and methods, are good. Being stuck on "The accuracy and this drawing", is a no win.... Allowing in "Loose loft" methods, and adjusting for that, really goes a long way.....
Damn, really sorry to hear about getting cancer. That's terrible. I hope you are able to beat it.
Yeah, the mountains of math is the hard part. I'm still finding bugs with PROP_DESIGN. I started with a code called PROPSY, thinking I could scan it it and it would just work. Damn, was I wrong. 10+ years latter and still pounding on it. You helped a lot with figuring out the leading edge was an ellipse. That was not clear at all from the NACA definition.
At various times, I asked if a script could be made to automate the geometry creation process. Some progress was made but don't think a finished product was posted. However, that helped me find some important bugs as well. So it was helpful.
Yeah, I hear you about forum posts regarding accuracy. A lot of the work flows that seem to be popular aren't something I could use. Even a loose loft is not an option. So I just kind of shut up as well. Just easier that way I guess. Plus I saw what happened to you. I couldn't stand that guy either. Naming lofting after himself. The arrogance was unbelievable. Yet he was a popular user. So that left me pretty dumbfounded.
I started with a 2 rail sweep using 1 profile. I ended up finding out Rhino was screwing up the geometry. Even small deviations had big impacts on stress and vibration. You would be surprised what a small deviation can do. Eventually I figured out lofting with multiple profiles was the best way to go in my case. That ensures the aero and structural performance.
that's great news, except for the horrible treatment. you reminded me of the beginning of the movie shallow hal. the kid goes to talk to his father who's high on morphine. tells him a bunch of crazy but true sh** that changes his life.
I am affraid that you must run it on MAC with "emulator"(?) ...like the free PlayonMac (someone use Freeship with success ) https://www.playonmac.com/en/
Good luck!
Ps That must maybe run also fine for any other program like the free PolyCad ;) http://www.polycad.co.uk