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.....
|
