Click for Llebroc
Click for Westport
Click for DeAngelo
Click for Ferretti
Click for Dockwise
Click for Pacific Mariner
Go Back   YachtForums.Com > YACHT DESIGNERS > Yacht Renderings & Plans > 70m (230ft) Concept

Login to YachtForums
Username
Password

Reply

70m (230ft) Concept

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 11-02-2007, 11:12 AM   #1 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Nothing to see here
Posts: 34
70m (230ft) Concept

I have attached a few renderings of a 70m (230ft) superyacht concept that I have been working on.

I have been involved in yacht design for a couple of years, but typically the things I doodle tend to be a bit outlandish and impractical, so I decided I should make an attempt at something more conservative to add to my portfolio.

This was only intended to be a quick study, therefore much of it was designed "on the fly" whilst I was building the model, and I am not totally happy with the proportions in profile, but can't quite put my finger on the problem.

Similarly, I have not done a GA as such, but assumed a typical layout for a vessel this size - "technical spaces" (such a useful phrase), storage and services on the lower deck, crew & more technical spaces up a level, the main deck with saloon aft, guest cabins fwd, owner accommodation and bridge above that, and a sundeck with helipad on top.

Thanks

Peter Wells
Attached Images
PFJW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2007, 09:02 PM   #2 (permalink)
Publisher/Admin
 
YachtForums's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Florida
Posts: 18,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by PFJW
I am not totally happy with the proportions in profile, but can't quite put my finger on the problem.
Peter,

I can’t quite pinpoint it, but possibly enlarging the upper deckhouse would help bring balance to the overall structure. In the side rendering, the skylounge deck tends to overpower the fly deckhouse, resulting in an elongated profile that is further accentuated by the swim platform extension, which in itself is longer than average. Not that any of this is bad. It’s certainly better then a Wedding Cake yacht. For our readers that are unfamiliar with the term, "wedding cake" is often used as a negative connotation that refers to a yacht being too tall, or having too many “layers”. Not only does this look unbalanced, it looks inherently unstable. A classic example of this is Feadship’s Wedge II or Utopia (see below).

That said, your work, both artistically and mechanically is excellent. Welcome to YF!

YachtForums is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2007, 09:07 PM   #3 (permalink)
Publisher/Admin
 
YachtForums's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Florida
Posts: 18,134
A little disclaimer...

I'm not an expert in design, but I am an expert in what I like!

YF members AMG and CODOG are the real experts. Maybe they can chime in...
YachtForums is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2007, 10:05 PM   #4 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Nothing to see here
Posts: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by YachtForums
possibly enlarging the upper deckhouse would help bring balance to the overall structure.
I think that is where the problem lies. The upper-most deck house probably needs to be a bit further forward, and a bit taller.

I'll probably rework some areas in due course - it was supposed to be a quick study after all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by YachtForums
Not only does this look unbalanced, it looks inherently unstable. A classic example of this is Feadship’s Wedge II or Utopia
I agree that they are not the most balanced or sleekest designs on the water, but they have their merits. Wedge II, particularly, I think is quite a smart looking yacht, with some very interesting details.

Quote:
Originally Posted by YachtForums
That said, your work, both artistically and mechanically is excellent. Welcome to YF!
Thank you for saying so.
PFJW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2007, 02:04 AM   #5 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
KCook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,231
Well, to steal Carl's line, I'm no expert, but I know what I like ...

My concerns are different. I like a large open top deck area. To better achieve that I would relocate the hardtop forward a bit.

The other area I'm not sold on is the stern treatment. The very long hull extensions have been done on other yachts. But I'm just not a fan unless the beast is Pelorus sized! Also the shapes seem at odds with the superstructure.

But on the whole, nice job,
Kelly
KCook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2007, 07:27 AM   #6 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Not too bad Peter, here are my comments (please don't take them as -ve, more constructive and it's also just my personal tastes too..)

Ref the design -

1) Your bow line (in profile) has a kink at the knuckle - would look much nicer (imo) if it was smooth. I usually spend a complete day just modelling the hull/bow, it can be a really tricky area.
2) The bulwarks around the fore deck look a little high, I would try to keep this at 1m or a little more (so maybe raise your foredeck instead of dropping the shear line).
3) The top side of your hoods look a little feature-less and are possibly too chunky up forward. One way to combat this is to keep a sleeker/shallower hood line and where you need to keep a 1m height bulwark (for the walkways) just model in a local 'upstand' that blends back into the hood.
4) I personally think that your hoods look too elongated in plan too. I think if you use the shape that you've got for the sundeck bulwark (more of an arc shape) and copy that down for each hood.
5) Possibly some sort of 'styling relief' lines along the coaming sides (on the tiers above the main deck) or reduce the height of the bulwarks and then make it back up with some nicely styled railings, maybe teak capped??
6) The heli pad looks a bit too small, I think it could do with a little more length imo.
7) The aft overhangs don't seem to line up as nicely as the front hoods and the angle of the transom 'pod' seems to fight with the other lines in that area.
8) I would have the transom platform wrap around the side of the hull and travel forward untill just fwd of the garage doors, this will act as a handy fender.

Ref the rendering -

1) The water is nearly there, I like the bumps and the colour variation you've achieved but think the reflection needs tweaking - possibly just use a strong fresnel reflection only.
2) In the lower camera shots add some (but not too much) fog/atmosphere to the horizon so that it gives you a sense of depth.
3) In the higher camera shots your false horizon looks out of place - let your sea extend as far out as possible.
4) Find some nice cloud textures to use as a background environment - this will also help with reflections.
5) Try not to loose too much detail in your superstructure with the 'blooming out' of the white highlights. I know this happens in real life, but in order to convey the design shape to the client it may be better to reduce this effect a little. Maybe by a combination of material tweaks and a bit of photoshop work.
6) Are you using global illumination or faking it with multiple lights? I'd always go for GI even though render times will be greater.

Overall I'd say you were 80% there, just a bit of tweaking and you'll have a pretty impressive portfolio piece.

By the way, what software are you using for modelling/rendering?
Renderholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2007, 02:26 PM   #7 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Nothing to see here
Posts: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renderholic
I usually spend a complete day just modelling the hull/bow, it can be a really tricky area.
Quite.

I think I have reached the same conclusions regarding the upper decks as yourself and Kelly - move the sundeck deck house forward will probably help the profile, and free up a bit more room for the chopper, and a bit more consideration of detail to add a bit of visual interest.

I'd started the hull with a view to doing something a bit different, but it wasn't working, so I changed tack, leaving the long extension rather than rebuilding it, it could probably loose a good 5m or more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renderholic
3) In the higher camera shots your false horizon looks out of place - let your sea extend as far out as possible.
It is a bit of a compromise, you can have a more realistic horizon line, but then it tries to render the reflections on every single wave and takes a week. it might be possible to do a composite, with a simpler surface towards the horizon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renderholic
6) Are you using global illumination or faking it with multiple lights? I'd always go for GI even though render times will be greater.
Two lights, an ambient to provide illumination, with a directional one for casting shadows.

The modelling was done in Alias/Rhino and the rendering with Alias.
PFJW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2007, 04:00 PM   #8 (permalink)
YF News Associate
 
Yacht News's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Caribbean
Posts: 12,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by YachtForums
A classic example of this is Feadship’s Wedge II
Wedge Too Carl not Wedge II
Yacht News is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2007, 04:03 PM   #9 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 30
I'm a Rhino modeller myself, difficult to beat it imo (at least for the price).

So which bits did you model in Alias? How do you find Alias as compared with rhino?

Ref the sea reflections - I used to render with lightwave and had to do composites of the sea to achieve good renders. I'd render out the boat in one pass, the foreground sea (displacement mapped) in another and then the distant sea (a bump mapped plane), then fudge them together in photoshop after. What a pain!

Your exterior renders shouldn't be taking that long to render, unless the Alias renderer isn't too efficient. I think you should be able to render one of those views at 2k res in a couple of hours (with full GI). Take a look into 3dsMax along with one of the 'plugin' renderers, should speed things up a little.

For the moment though, I think you could get away with not having those close horizons by cropping the image to a different aspect ratio.
Renderholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2007, 03:39 PM   #10 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Nothing to see here
Posts: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renderholic
So which bits did you model in Alias? How do you find Alias as compared with rhino?
Most of the superstructure was done in Alias.

I find Rhino good for quickly putting together fairly simple shapes, but Alias seems better for getting more control over surfaces - given more experience, it may be possible to do the same things in Rhino, but I am more familiar with Alias.

I think Alias' interface is quite good, the marking menus are a massive bonus. You can't type in commands, and some of the transform controls are a little restrictive - you can't specify an axis to rotate/mirror around, you are stuck with X Y and Z, AFAIK, but that is not too much of a problem.

Thanks for the tips, I'll have another go at it when I have some spare time.
PFJW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2007, 08:20 AM   #11 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
CODOG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bournemouth, southern England
Posts: 419
I like it too. As to your issue with the profile, perhaps its the fwd coachroof tops being too flat and straight for too long ? The general shape of the coachroofs could be curved off far more in profile resulting in less of a flat surface on top. To me, any issues in pure profile disapear in the perspective views, so Id put it down to lack of surface curvature in profile. However, its your baby...I for one hate offering personal critique against fellow designers unless prompted or if has an obvious fault. In your case you seen to know what you are up to and its an attractive and powerful overall design, the rest is down to personal taste. But I know what its like when you have something that has just a wee element that you are not quite happy with but cant put your finger on...in my case I sometimes dont solve these issues until several are built and afloat by then its too late and its onto the next project.
CODOG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2007, 09:29 AM   #12 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
KCook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,231
CODOG's comments prompted me to review those forward coachroofs. I agree they look a bit "fat" in the one profile plan, but are fine in the perspective POV renderings. In those renderings it's also clear that there is a lot of curvature in the section outline to these roofs. Which is quite nice. But that one profile offered does not hint at this curvature. Rather it leaves the sides of the roof with a slab like appearance. So possibly the real problem is in the rendering of the lighting in the profile view? Not the actual design?

Kelly
KCook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2007, 06:13 PM   #13 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Nothing to see here
Posts: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by CODOG
I for one hate offering personal critique against fellow designers unless prompted or if has an obvious fault.
So long as it is productive in some manner, criticism is valuable, as is knowing when to listen and act on it, and when it can be overridden. I appreciate that a degree of discretion is polite though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CODOG
To me, any issues in pure profile disapear in the perspective views, so Id put it down to lack of surface curvature in profile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCook
I agree they look a bit "fat" in the one profile plan, but are fine in the perspective POV renderings. Kelly
I think it was the fact that it seemed to look ok in perspective was a bit of a red herring in that respect. I have sketched out a revised profile, and I'll neaten it up, resize it etc, gauge some opinions.
PFJW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2007, 01:13 PM   #14 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Nothing to see here
Posts: 34
I've made the upper deck house a bit more substantial, and moved it forward slightly, and tweaked a few other detail which frees up a bit more deck space aft too.

It makes an awful lot of difference I think

I actually got round to measuring it too, it's actually 76.5m. Oh well.
Attached Images
PFJW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2007, 05:46 AM   #15 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Definately made a big difference! The second design is the one I'd go for.
Renderholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are EST. The time now is 07:33 PM.

Click for Cheoy Lee
Click for Horizon
Click for McConaghy
Click for Christensen
Click for Cape Scott
Click for Delta


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2