[Teenna]

Far to glorious we speak often regarding the designers. Here is a simple example of a failure design (Author: Tim Heywood), simply because done in 2D. It worked on a side profile, but once in reality and even shot with the unforgivable "tele" one can see that the rubrail doesn't look paralel any more to the water as the bow gets concave.

No, ooops, its the water that doesn't respect the water line. No, wait, it's both...well it doesn't look right.

Anyway, bow down is a common shipyard problem; when will designers stop using rullers and sit with a 3D guy for a minute, saying: "wait, let's give to a rubrail and bullwark an angle, just in case....") because, it's ALWAYS a designers fault! One should predict.

(BTW, another "Pelorus"...no, wait, it's "Perfect Prescription"...no, wait, the wing stations are square... it's ....woaaah!)

[tartanski]

When will all the traditionalists learn we live in a 3D world that means....... 3D things and we see things in 3D. etc..

[AMG]

Sure,

I´ll believe you when you show me a good looking yacht built from a 3D design...

Does anyone know if Redman Whiteley Dixon made the Ilona design in 3D?

[tartanski]

Ok AMG , will be hard for me to find that out,

lets be straight here, the initial sketches will usually come from 2D, but the coordination and finalising design in 3D.

Look at the Seaway Yachts,

Shipman 50 and 60,

http://www.shipman.dk/

Skagen 50 and 65.

Heesens Alumerica, was conceived in 3D, (debatable if a good looking yacht)

http://www.heesenshipyards.nl/HEESEN...arameter =All

Banneburg build 3D physical models of most of his, I hope before production

but lets not start another 2d 3d discussion here

[Teenna]

I belive the new oceancos are all in 3D, I saw them on their site. It's Tim Heywood that doesn't model in 3d and one can see that. I belive that the "BIG" guys don't model in 3D, at least this is what one can see.

[AMG]

Originally Posted by tartanski

... lets not start another 2d 3d discussion here

It was Teenna who started to say that 2D design was the problem with Kogo...

3D-renderings and models can be great for selling a concept and 3D-files are necessary for CNC production. But for design I think 2D will rule until really good software appears...

[Teenna]

Sorry, but I had to...you see what happens otherwise...

[AMG]

I don´t mind this kind of discussions and this part of YachtForums is open for all of us to discuss yacht design.

Regarding 3D, be it with a pen on a napkin or in a computer, it is mainly to visualize what the designer has in mind.

To give a design the right dimensioning, we need a drawing board or a computer where it is drawn up in 2D. The 2D drawings can then be translated into 3D for manufacturing or just to see the yacht from all angles.

A less good design can then be adjusted and I guess this is what Teenna is saying. But a good designer know at the 2D stage what the yacht will look like and the computer or the 3D program can not assist in this, rather the opposite according to some users who is claiming the final design can reveal which 3D-program was used...

[KCook]

Interesting points Lars.

Another thing I wonder about, as an outsider. To what degree does the final yacht conform to the designer's original concept? Given that the design starts with a "designer" (who may not be an NA) and is then passed through a NA office to be put into working drawings. In the example Teena started this thread with: was that "error" (which I think is really nit-picking) owned by the designer or later imposed by an NA?

Kelly Cook

[AMG]

I can not answer on behalf of Tim Heywood, but I believe we are using computers in the same way, making 2D drawings of all that you see above the waterline. The shipyard or an independent naval architect are then responsible for what you don´t see. Meaning the yacht should look more or less exactly as we present it to the buyer.

On the 40-footer I am producing right now, the 3D-drawings made by another guy for the CNC-cutting, only differ by a few mm:s from my drawings. Nothing that change the appearance, more a result of how curves are drawn in different programs.

[KCook]

Thanks for the info Lars

[TomTom]

As long as they can produce such equalized elegant vessels like the Carinthia VII (their) 2d-designing can't be so bad. The discussion ab. 2D and 3D looks somehow abstract. I am sure, they've got their lines in their heads. What they show their clients on which occasion seems to me as a personnel form of communikation. Some learned by aducation, some in the professionell traffic. And if - along that way - the client gets it in a drawn 2D-form or in a 3D-rendering is more ore less a the way that designer communicates.
Famous real estate-architects hate computer graphics and loose their forms when looking at the capabilitis of the programs, and i am sure, famous yacht designer behave similar.

Additional there comes the skill of making a good rendering into play - designing and presentating are two, sometimes very different things. Today most of the students grew up with computers, 3D-programs often are cheap and avaiable. So it is easy to predict, that more and more of them will simply design in 3D. No way to resume backwards, that an ugly vessel (perhaps only an ugly photo) is the result of 2D-designing. (This is no actual comment to the possible discussion inside many design-companies).
Teena's post was a joke, yes?

ts
tsoe.com

[Teenna]

As long as they can produce such equalized elegant vessels like the Carinthia VII...

But did they? I hear that Carinthia has been on board much longer before Mr. Banneberg left the studio for good. To my information the "nice Tim Heywood" projects were all started under Bannenberg (let's not forget that Tim Heywood was doing his advertising at the beggining also with Limitless's bridge picture).

I say the hand of the master is missing and one can notice this in the basic design elements. But this is only my eye perhaps, I might be wrong I'm not a designer. Perhaps this Kogo thing is acceptable and I'm being picky.

As far the design process, it's like anything else, old Banneberg said a designer is like a conductor of the orchestra. If he doesn't hear all the team one might be playing bad and the whole sound picture will be ruined.

My comment goes to the fact that a designer produces scetches, and renders and handles them to the yard rather than within it's own structure developes also a 3D and CONTROLS the design also in this tricky stage. because what's going to be built is not a render but a final 3D model. And here Tim heywood simply din't check all the angles and aspects of the Kogo design. If he did he would have noticed what today is notable on the photo above. It's always a designers fault.

[Mov-it!]

I've studied art history (fun, but pretty useless) and I've learned that the human mind is more likely to judge and accept proportions in 2D. This has something to do with the way our creative mind is developed. This starts at the very beginning when you use a pencil and paper and start scribbling on paper (or on the walls like my daughter). At this early stage you learn to tramsform your imagination to hand coordination.

Bet you didn't think that the issue would go back this far?

Once a drawing goes from 2D to 3D you add space to your concept. This is where 3D starts to make sence. It gives you an exact view of how an object is constructed. This allows you to make optimum use of the space available.
This can prevent major flaws in the design.
3D drawings still don't give an accurate view of the result.
To really get a good feel of proportions and desing you would have to build a clay model. Nowadays you can use a 5 axis mill hooked to your 3D software that cuts an accurate clay model of you project. This is an amazing sight.
I once watched a car model being cut by the mill. It took a couple of hours but it is amazing how out of this block of clay an object emerges.

[AMG]

To make it easier to understand how a design is made, I´ll show you some of what I am doing right now.

At this stage the hull and deck moulds are already finished from the 3D-files I mentioned and I am doing some interior drawings. As you can see, I do this in 2D, however all three dimensions is present in my drawings too.

So this is where I can see where the space is and how to use it. This is of course made to scale so I always have the right measurements indicated in the margin when I draw a line.

There is no big difference in doing like this compared to making it as a full 3D-rendering, with the right program all my lines can snap together and become a volume. (Which I am not interested in...).

In reality I think the designer is mainly halted by making 3D-renderings and when you see these computer generated "walk-through" interiors, what do you get out of it really? Do you get a true feeling of the volumes?

No, I think the good thing with Computer Aided Design is that we can make changes very easy compared to paper drawings, we can make several solutions and play around on the screen until it looks good. Then the engineers and carpenters can use some of our files for Computer Aided Manufacturing, a fast and precise method to get all the pieces to fit together.

This is CAD/CAM. Which is not the same as the 3D-design some Yacht Brokers love to show off with, even if we always did and always will design in three dimensions...