Free!Ship 2.6+ vs Prediction resistance by Holtrop-Mennen started method

[Martijn_vE]

And a splendid gesture it is. It's just excruciatingly slow.

Now I understand.
Victor simply hasn't shown any interest in it. He might still not be interested now, but since there seems to be a demand for a more reliable download site he might want to consider moving to the sourceforge site. He can use the old freeship account or start start a completely new one, or leave things just as they are.
We'll see.

[Leo Lazauskas]

Now I understand.
Victor simply hasn't shown any interest in it. He might still not be interested now, but since there seems to be a demand for a more reliable download site he might want to consider moving to the sourceforge site. He can use the old freeship account or start start a completely new one, or leave things just as they are.
We'll see.

I think that this is a great place to put some useful free codes for students and those from under-developed countries (like New Zealand).

I'm putting together the next demo of Flotilla which will include Surface Effect Ships and hovercraft and I hope to post it on this forum. It will be crippled in some ways, but it will certainly be useful for some exercises and as a way to extend the work in textbooks like Faltinsen's "Hydrodynamics of High-Speed Marine Vehicles" and online notes such as Chris McKesson's "The Practical Design of Advanced Marine Vehicles".
http://www.mckesson.us/mckwiki/index.php?title=NAME_4177_-_The_Practical_Design_of_Advanced_Marine_Vehicles

If I have time I'll try to make the next demo output a Delftship table of offsets for displacement hulls for your comments. I'm sure we can eventually make Michlet and Flotilla click with Delftship.

Leo.

[daiquiri]

That is a very generous thing, Leo. You have my respect. (But I still hope you'll make some money too with your software :) )
I hope that grateful people from New Zealand will return back by gifting you at least few flocks of sheep. :P

[Leo Lazauskas]

That is a very generous thing, Leo. You have my respect. (But I still hope you'll make some money too with your software :) )
I hope that grateful people from New Zealand will return back by gifting you at least few flocks of sheep. :P

Only generous to a point, Slavi.

As I said, the demo will be enough to do some instructive hydrodynamic examples and to conduct some parametric studies, but not much more. I'm now trying to collect as much experimental data as I can to go with the programs so users can compare predictions with those of other codes. That IMO is the best way to illustrate the limitations of thin-ship theory. And the reliability or otherwise of experiments :)

Cheers,
Leo.

[conceptia]

u guys are simply gr8.. ;)

[Leo Lazauskas]

u guys are simply gr8.. ;)

It's a great site isn't it, Conceptia.

I'm waiting for Goggle to take it over and rename it YouBoat. Oh, how we'll laugh then.

Leo.
(It's not too soon is it, Brits?)

[conceptia]

hehe.. okay.. im waiting for da change.. Hope den dis site will be a part of ur prestige.... good luck pal..

[conceptia]

Also before coming to this forum, I had a feeling that hydrodynamics is related to da ship motions only(cos I had only worked for wave motion study of semis n ships). But now I'm developing a liking towards da propellers, n CFD. Its all cos of yourself, victor, dalquiri etc

[masrapido]

Only generous to a point, Slavi.

As I said, the demo will be enough to do some instructive hydrodynamic examples and to conduct some parametric studies, but not much more. I'm now trying to collect as much experimental data as I can to go with the programs so users can compare predictions with those of other codes. That IMO is the best way to illustrate the limitations of thin-ship theory. And the reliability or otherwise of experiments :)

Cheers,
Leo.

Apologies for breaking the thread, but what is the point of a thin ship? Cannot carry any useful cargo, cannot sail except under perfect weather conditions.

If it is about the speed, it would be a lot more practical to slap on a few wings and fly in ground effect. If it is about military applications, submarines are much better option in any respect.

I am probably missing something, but as a marine officer, with 17 years on the sea, I am not seeing any practical use for the format...

[DMacPherson]

It is necessary to distinguish the "thin-ship theory" of wave-making prediction with "ships that are thin". The former is a calculation methodology, that as we have seen, can be applicable - if checked very carefully and with all due caveats - to ships that are not all that thin.

Regards,

Don MacPherson
HydroComp, Inc.

[masrapido]

DMacPherson, my question was about the practicality of such ships, not about mathematical validity of the theories.

I doubt that a non-thin ship can be made to behave like a thin one in a real situation, under real, random sea and weather conditions. There are some laws that will see to prevent that.

I am not saying that certain optimisations are not possible, and not beneficial, but in reality, thin ship theories usually assume flat seas, no waves. While that does wonders for mathematical models, in real life such conditions do not exist, except in the Red Sea for better part of the year. Optimising a hull inevitably means reducing the beam, volume, or both, to gain speed.

And that inevitably leads to thin ships. I would be happy to see examples proving to the contrary. Bear in mind that our "regular" ships are already quite slender and thin, with ratios reaching 1:10 in some categories of military ships, and even cargo ships are not far off. Just look at oil tankers.

[Leo Lazauskas]

DMacPherson, my question was about the practicality of such ships, not about mathematical validity of the theories.

I doubt that a non-thin ship can be made to behave like a thin one in a real situation, under real, random sea and weather conditions. There are some laws that will see to prevent that.

I am not saying that certain optimisations are not possible, and not beneficial, but in reality, thin ship theories usually assume flat seas, no waves. While that does wonders for mathematical models, in real life such conditions do not exist, except in the Red Sea for better part of the year. Optimising a hull inevitably means reducing the beam, volume, or both, to gain speed.

And that inevitably leads to thin ships. I would be happy to see examples proving to the contrary. Bear in mind that our "regular" ships are already quite slender and thin, with ratios reaching 1:10 in some categories of military ships, and even cargo ships are not far off. Just look at oil tankers.

Thin-ship theory requires that the longitudinal hull slope is small. Thus detroyer hulls are quite Ok, as are catamaran demihulls, rowing shells, kayaks, and many other types of vessel.

Thin-ship theory is definitely inappropriate for tug boats, planing vessels, barges, and oil tankers.

Oil tankers often have long parallel middle-bodies (where the longitudinal slope is zero) but the slope is large at the bow. Even that is not too bad if the Froude number is high because the wavelength of waves created by the hull are longer than the region of the hull where the slope is large. Of course, oil tankers operate at low Froude numbers, and so the wavelengths are also relatively small. That's why thin-ship theory is inappropriate.

Hope that clarifies some aspects,
Leo.

[ngyen]

hy

i am trying to write a small program in VB to calculate resistance for ship which follow Holtrop Mennen.
following this paper.

http://www.4shared.com/document/Z-32...Vol29_1982.htm

I want to know the formulae for calculating the following parameter.i searched but cant get any specific formula for this.
In my program , the input is variable and they are ask the user to give ( L, B,T,H,Cb , Speed )

please provide me formula for these

ABT = Transverse sectional area of the bulb at the position where the still water surface intersets the stem = ???

SAPP = the wetted area of the appendages = ??

AT = Transom Area = ??

hB= Centre of bulb area abolve keel line = ???



please help
thanks

[Jecobin]

How do we download and use the projects that appear to be available on the website. When I try to download any of them I just get a TXT file. Am I missing something here?
John

[Victor T]

How do we download and use the projects that appear to be available on the website. When I try to download any of them I just get a TXT file. Am I missing something here?
John

There are NOT any TXT files. Click in your browser "Save As" and save it as FBM.

[Victor T]

Hi!

Release Freeship Plus 3.2+ is here: http://hydronship.net/index.php?lang=en

Best regards.

[daiquiri]

Thank you for the update Victor.
The new website is very attractive and simple to use. I see there is a "donation" button, but the webpage is still not ready. I hope it will be through PayPal system, as I find it simplest to use. I will make a donation as soon as the feature becomes available on your webpage, because I do believe that all your efforts deserve a reward.
Cheers!

[zeroname]

Nice work and nice new website.. you can make a mirror for download link. Downloading from http://depositfiles.com as "Free downloading" shows error and says i am already download some files.
i will suggest for a mirror here:

http://www.mediafire.com

You can open free account for permanent time, it also support resume and downloading software.

Best of luck

[daiquiri]

you can make a mirror for download link. Downloading from http://depositfiles.com as "Free downloading" shows error and says i am already download some files

It's quite clear that Victor's website is still "work in progress", so these things may happen...

If you click on the "Download" menu button in the upper part of the homepage screen (and NOT the big button on the right), you will get a page with all the files ready for download directly from the Hydronship.net server. So no need to pass through Depositfiles, Mediafire or else.

[zeroname]

oh i see... yes i clicked the right side big button.. its ok now..

[quequen]

Victor, when entering your web-site, I receive a warning from my resident antivirus (Malwarebytes). Seems like site has some problem?
IP is: 193.200.173.1

Thanks for your great work, Freeship is in good hands, I thought!

[Victor T]

Victor, when entering your web-site, I receive a warning from my resident antivirus (Malwarebytes). Seems like site has some problem?
IP is: 193.200.173.1

Thanks for your great work, Freeship is in good hands, I thought!

I am test my sites - viruses not find
Try this: http://vms.drweb.com/online/?lng=en

[daiquiri]

I have tested it with Virus Total website-analysis tool (http://www.virustotal.com/index.html) and got a negative result.
The site appears to be clean of malware:
57406

[quequen]

It's still there. May be false alarm, I don't know anything about virus.
Anyway, I'm attaching a screen capture of the message and the log file of Malwarebytes, could be useful for you (not for me...). What is an "Outgoing"?

[Victor T]

Victor, when entering your web-site, I receive a warning from my resident antivirus (Malwarebytes). Seems like site has some problem?
IP is: 193.200.173.1



This is NOT my site IP.
SITE - hydronship.net IP - 194.0.200.19

[Victor T]

Test only Version 3.22+
Released May 24, 2011
New features:
Новые изменения:
* Fixed bug with display CoG ship
* Added check in the calculation of the stability equation Zmin = 0
* Added displaying the distance between two points and the angles between the received segment and the axes
* Added displaying the distance between the endpoints and the angle between the sides (1-2 and 2-3)
* Added a conclusion of the angle between two segments (1-2 and 3-4) and the distance between 1 and 4 selected points
* Fixed a bug in the calculation of the resistance by the method of Mercier-Savitsky
* Added input and accounting components of the propulsive efficiency in the preliminary calculation of propeller series B
* Added a choice of type of propulsor and the interaction coefficients in the calculation of planing ships

Download: http://hydronship.net/download/FSplus3_22+.zip

[daiquiri]

Hi Victor, I have one technical question for you. :)

In the "Layer properties" window there is a check-box which says "Set weight and coord. of CoG manually". It is followed by the "weight" text box, where one should manually input the desired weight of the surface element - if I understood it correctly (please see the attached pic). However, that option is apparently not working. I can check the box, but I cannot input the weight of the piece.

the question is: can you please tell me what am I doing wrong and how to use that option? :confused:
It would be very handy for placing concentrated masses in the hull, like engines, tanks, winches, anchor etc. - in order to approximate more correctly the final ship's weight and CoG.

I'm using the latest version, 3.22 .

Thank you in advance, and keep doing the excellent job you've done so far on the development of Freeship. :)

Cheers!

[Victor T]

Hi Victor, I have one technical question for you. :)

In the "Layer properties" window there is a check-box which says "Set weight and coord. of CoG manually". It is followed by the "weight" text box, where one should manually input the desired weight of the surface element - if I understood it correctly (please see the attached pic). However, that option is apparently not working. I can check the box, but I cannot input the weight of the piece.

the question is: can you please tell me what am I doing wrong and how to use that option? :confused:
It would be very handy for placing concentrated masses in the hull, like engines, tanks, winches, anchor etc. - in order to approximate more correctly the final ship's weight and CoG.

Cheers!

Yes, so originally also it was planned for the task of weights and coordinates of the center of gravity of engines, tanks, winches, anchors and etc.
And it has then appeared to set easier weight cubes as, for example, in http://hydronship.net/projects/id/140.

While this feature is temporarily blocked.

Update on http://www.hydronship.net/download/FreeShip323b1.zip

Regards

[daiquiri]

Ok then. I think it's much easier to set the weight of these smaller items directly (manually) than having to play with plate thickness and density, but I guess it's a matter of personal preferences...

Just saw this work: http://hydronship.net/projects/id/189 . That's an impressive use of Freeship! :)

[CmbtntDzgnr]

Try to export as FEF file and import again.

Short answer:

It is related to the Intersections module -Stations -in my case. It is NOT (in my case) affected by Buttocks, Waterlines, or Diagonals. I had a station every meter for 170 stations, plus some 32 more to form the opposite-side half-planes of my model's transverse watertight bulkheads.

Quick interruption/background #1:

Reason I persevered on this path:

-- I deleted all blank/empty layers, and closed FS and restarted, to no avail.

-- I tried the FEF route and progressed on my work for a few hours. I saw the suggestion to export and reimport to/from .fef, and followed it. It did not resolve my issue, but it DID point out to me that I had neglected to look for intersections.

-- Going FEF export/reimport destroyed my stations. I have far too many stations to have to manually re-enter them every time I run into the Access Violation error message. It would be too painful and I dreaded that, so I pushed on with focusing on the Intersections.


Quick interruption/background #2:

These lines make it easier for me to see my compartments when for some reason I am not looking at color on the surfaces. Also, having a station at every meter gives me options for locating sideshell stiffeners once I've exported the model to DXF 3D Polylines. In my case, since I'm using a 3D modeling app to create sideshell stiffeners surfaces based on two lines (Web & Flange of two different sizes), swept along the station, and i don't want to get into the mess of trying to create a sweep path based on the inside face of the sideshell nor use any lines from meshes. After creating the swept lines' surface, I then create solids to them simply by thickening those surfaces. Since the surfaces are associative to the lines/curves, and since the solids follow the surfaces, i can leave the polylines in place and maiplate them as needed later.


I first downloaded HydroNShip Friday the 10th and put it through some paces related to my personal workflow. I ran into some issues and just accepted them. But, the crashing Design Hydros module got my attention Wednesday (yesterday, the 15th) and so Wednesday night I spent about an hour probing. I'm no programmer, so my only tools are my mind and my keyboard without use of any debuggers nor any programming knowledge.

Resuming:

I tend to write narratively, so please bear with me. I hope your patience lasts through to the end.

Longer Answer:

I at first targeted the Section Area Curve-related stations that counted in a way that made the SAC bulge more prounced inboard or outboard. I had no scientific approach to go on so I proceded haphazardly and randomly.

I had maybe 20 waterlines, and fewer than 10 Buttocks or Diagonals (can't recall which), but had around 90 Diagonals or Buttocks. Deleting all of the intersections except for Stations did not resolve my problem. But, deleting ALL of the Stations, and MOST of the Stations did resolve my problem.

Fortunately, I was closing in on the idea that it was not necessary to delete all my stations, particularly those forming my station center-plane and opposite sides/faces. I iteratively (or would that be regressively? I'm not a coder, but I have seen the words) or recursively closed without saving and reopened my fbm file and randomly deleted lines and then closed the intersections dialog and then ran the Design Hydrostatics tool.

No error message -- if a certain NUMBER of stations were deleted, regardless of their location along the hull. Along the way in testing, I specifically removed and tested with the presence of a high concentration of stations at my sonar dome. The concentration of stations was at each .1 of a meter so I could obtain decent meshes exported in that region. No appearance of error messages was related. So, I then focused on deleting some count or percentage of stations. Gradually, I realized that the number of stations must be a significant importance in performing integrations on the hull surface area to set up the remaining calculations. If the Design Hydrodynamics module sees all those stations (the 200+ I had), it bogs down the calculations in other places like in Fung/warship hydros, and in other methods.

I now figure I will deal with the need for extra stations by doing what I did the past 2 years in Delftship: save a copy, add the extra overhead to that file, and keep my main file lighter and nimbler. If I have to re-fair my main model, it is simple enough to save a copy and add stations every meter.

I hope this is useful to any who had the error message, and I wish Victor success and more time to add features even though success is random and time is in limited supply and refuses to stretch.

[CmbtntDzgnr]

Is there a persistently intermittent problem with the HydroNShip resistance calcs for NAVAL ships? I have 100% had functionality in the resistance calcs for Sea Ships, but only 3 times in the past 1+ week did i see graphs in Naval Ships resistance, and simply changing a single variable "broke" things. I am unable to use Naval ships resistance calcs in either Free!ship 3.20 Full or Free!ship Plus 3.22

I've uninstalled/reinstalled/emptied temp files, etc. If a "hasty donation" is what gets an updated module, I'm all for it.... I just want to compare my Sea Vessels resistance calcs to the Naval Ship values.

I've tried the supplied/available Type-23 Frigate hull, even turning off and deleting appendages. No joy. I've even made a hull from scratch, using the default new model, except making it about 132m lwl by 12 m bwl and closing up the transom. STILL, no joy.

I am getting error messages about my CPU, but that doesn't seem to be it. It is running win 7, and only a few apps, with 1.7 GB of RAM available on a 2GHZ CPU.

Please enlighten me!

Thanks!/Cheers!

CmbtntDzgnr

[Victor T]

Is there a persistently intermittent problem with the HydroNShip resistance calcs for NAVAL ships? I have 100% had functionality in the resistance calcs for Sea Ships, but only 3 times in the past 1+ week did i see graphs in Naval Ships resistance, and simply changing a single variable "broke" things. I am unable to use Naval ships resistance calcs in either Free!ship 3.20 Full or Free!ship Plus 3.22

I've uninstalled/reinstalled/emptied temp files, etc. If a "hasty donation" is what gets an updated module, I'm all for it.... I just want to compare my Sea Vessels resistance calcs to the Naval Ship values.

I've tried the supplied/available Type-23 Frigate hull, even turning off and deleting appendages. No joy. I've even made a hull from scratch, using the default new model, except making it about 132m lwl by 12 m bwl and closing up the transom. STILL, no joy.

I am getting error messages about my CPU, but that doesn't seem to be it. It is running win 7, and only a few apps, with 1.7 GB of RAM available on a 2GHZ CPU.

Please enlighten me!

Thanks!/Cheers!

CmbtntDzgnr

One of the reasons of delivery of the message of impossibility of calculation of resistance methods Hollenbach, Fung, Oortmerssen is the big loading of the processor by other processes, for example, antiviruses (Look in Task Manager). Temporarily disconnect at calculations check on viruses, etc. processes.

[CmbtntDzgnr]

Thanks.

I previously tried and failed to succeed. But, it makes sense, since it's intermittent. There must be a lot more processes to kill without keeling windows over.

But, I'll check deeper. I nixed (task-killed) Open Office.org, which was chewing up some 24 MB of RAM, and for 10 or so open exploder (explorer) windows, I lost some 17 MB of RAM, but i kept them open because it's easy to switch back and forth when looking for stuff.

BTW, is it easy (or is it difficult) to recompile the exe to a bin file to run natively in Linux? I wonder my PCLinuxOS machine would run it a lot nimbler than win7.

[CmbtntDzgnr]

I tried to "cheat" in the creation of tanks in FS 3.23, by exporting as parts the individual compartment sideshells of my model and then extruding the new boundary edges (fwd, aft, and deck edge) toward centerline and then reimporting the parts into the model, with the pre-existing shell turned off and removed from hydros.

I got either sharp increases in the SAC line (3x the surface area due to the newly-created fwd/aft/deck boundaries/meshes) or I got these funny looped/pig-tail-like SAC curves that i cannot figure out how to resolve.

If I chop down the deck lines successively to get to below the waterline where I want tanks to exist, I end up with two light-blue or cyan-colored points -- sometimes, that is. In any case, moving the lines inboard and trying to "join" them to end up with a solid doesn't work. I tried reversing the normals, but the change was insignificant.

I thought about "getting cute" and using DS pro to create boxes and then re-importing those to FS 3.23 as parts, but it all is extraordinarily time-consuming to try to arrive at 15 or 20 tanks that I hope to judge the influence of on my model's hydros, stability, acceleration, and so on. I'm trying this because I'm too poor to actually buy the tanks extension.

A curious difference I noticed between FS 3.23 and DS Pro is that when I Ctrl+click the boundaries in FS and then enter -20 to displace my crease-created points well at y=0, the new curve/line beautifully self-limits to y=0. In DS or rather, DS Pro, the displacement of -20 moves each point to its individual distance. Not sure what I'll do except maybe take it as a clue to form smaller tanks.

In FS 3.23, I found that the scale tool (set to x,y,z = 0.99) actually shifts my "compartment" part fwd by about 2 meters, but does not reduce it. I was trying to "cheat" that way, too, to produce tanks that fit inside the bounds of each compartment.

[CmbtntDzgnr]

Hi Victor,

Short:

Last night, I tried and failed to get the Fung and several other EXEC files to run in native Win 7, mainly, as I think you warned on your site, because they are not 64-bit compatible. Maybe even my 1.8 GHz CPU is burdened by the Fung and other exe files, but it runs Delftship, Freeship, Punch! ViaCAD, and many other apps, old and new, without a problem. The EXEC contents, though very small in file size, must be extraordinarily complex in step/sequence or something.

Longer:

My earlier (and last night) failure to run them was under the environment of Win 7 (on 64-bit hardware) running in VirtualBox, running in PCLinuxOS. It's been so long now that i did the Win 7 install (~Jan 2010) that I cannot recall whether Win 7 is the 64-bit, and whether or not it is, which version 32-bit or 64-bit of VirtualBox I'm running. However, in VirtualBox, neither my hardware nor Win7 seemed to present any 64-bit layers to the EXECs because none of them give any error messages about 64-bit incompatibility.

I also, last night, ran win 7 natively. In that case, there definitely were 64-bit incompatibility warning/error messages when I double-click directly on the .exe files in the EXEC folder. Strangely, VERY strangely (and humourously), FS 3.23 ran horribly slow in native win 7, yet it runs blazingly FAST in the Virtualized Win 7, and this is now causing me to vaguely recall having issues getting win 7 to run as 64-bit in VBox in early 2010, so my current VBox-hosted installation of win-7 must be 32-bit, given the lack of error messages about 64-bit from the Fung and other exe's.

Next, i ran FS 3.23 in Win Vista, 32-bit, older version of VirtualBox. No 64-bit error messages. But, still, no graph output under fun, although the output/report did give hydros information just like the win-7-VBox install did. The CPU on the Vista machine is about 1.2 GHZ or mayb 1.8, so, likely it is stressed and plausibly is one of the problem's contributing factors.

I did not yet run Vista natively. That machine has been running about 355 days now (PCLinuxOS) without a reboot (tho with almost daily suspend/resume without a hitch/issue), and since that uptime is nice, so I don't want to disturb it . However, my main computer also has PCLinuxOS, but it gets reboted 2 or 3 times a month, hehehe (for various reasons: dead battery, spontaneous seizure during suspend or resume....)

It seems the copyright, code complexity, and program age might be an obstacle to your having it updated to current 32-bit and 64-bit compatibility. Is it in Delphi Code? Is there some way port or recompile it to run in 64-bit and maybe luckly optimize the code? Strange thing is is that while it says some variables are out of range, I tend to get partial hydros, but not the scale graph.

Cheers!

[Victor T]

I tried to "cheat" in the creation of tanks in FS 3.23, by exporting as parts the individual compartment sideshells of my model and then extruding the new boundary edges (fwd, aft, and deck edge) toward centerline and then reimporting the parts into the model, with the pre-existing shell turned off and removed from hydros.

I got either sharp increases in the SAC line (3x the surface area due to the newly-created fwd/aft/deck boundaries/meshes) or I got these funny looped/pig-tail-like SAC curves that i cannot figure out how to resolve.

If I chop down the deck lines successively to get to below the waterline where I want tanks to exist, I end up with two light-blue or cyan-colored points -- sometimes, that is. In any case, moving the lines inboard and trying to "join" them to end up with a solid doesn't work. I tried reversing the normals, but the change was insignificant.


If you create inside layers or tanks in the hull that it is necessary to disconnect their account in project hydrostatics as they shouldn't create force of buoyancy (Archimedes force)

[Victor T]

Hi Victor,

Short:

Last night, I tried and failed to get the Fung and several other EXEC files to run in native Win 7, mainly, as I think you warned on your site, because they are not 64-bit compatible. Maybe even my 1.8 GHz CPU is burdened by the Fung and other exe files, but it runs Delftship, Freeship, Punch! ViaCAD, and many other apps, old and new, without a problem. The EXEC contents, though very small in file size, must be extraordinarily complex in step/sequence or something.

Longer:

My earlier (and last night) failure to run them was under the environment of Win 7 (on 64-bit hardware) running in VirtualBox, running in PCLinuxOS. It's been so long now that i did the Win 7 install (~Jan 2010) that I cannot recall whether Win 7 is the 64-bit, and whether or not it is, which version 32-bit or 64-bit of VirtualBox I'm running. However, in VirtualBox, neither my hardware nor Win7 seemed to present any 64-bit layers to the EXECs because none of them give any error messages about 64-bit incompatibility.

I also, last night, ran win 7 natively. In that case, there definitely were 64-bit incompatibility warning/error messages when I double-click directly on the .exe files in the EXEC folder. Strangely, VERY strangely (and humourously), FS 3.23 ran horribly slow in native win 7, yet it runs blazingly FAST in the Virtualized Win 7, and this is now causing me to vaguely recall having issues getting win 7 to run as 64-bit in VBox in early 2010, so my current VBox-hosted installation of win-7 must be 32-bit, given the lack of error messages about 64-bit from the Fung and other exe's.

Next, i ran FS 3.23 in Win Vista, 32-bit, older version of VirtualBox. No 64-bit error messages. But, still, no graph output under fun, although the output/report did give hydros information just like the win-7-VBox install did. The CPU on the Vista machine is about 1.2 GHZ or mayb 1.8, so, likely it is stressed and plausibly is one of the problem's contributing factors.

I did not yet run Vista natively. That machine has been running about 355 days now (PCLinuxOS) without a reboot (tho with almost daily suspend/resume without a hitch/issue), and since that uptime is nice, so I don't want to disturb it . However, my main computer also has PCLinuxOS, but it gets reboted 2 or 3 times a month, hehehe (for various reasons: dead battery, spontaneous seizure during suspend or resume....)

It seems the copyright, code complexity, and program age might be an obstacle to your having it updated to current 32-bit and 64-bit compatibility. Is it in Delphi Code? Is there some way port or recompile it to run in 64-bit and maybe luckly optimize the code? Strange thing is is that while it says some variables are out of range, I tend to get partial hydros, but not the scale graph.

Cheers!

It is very interesting information. But Delphi 7 compiles a code only for 32 bit OS. I don't check compatibility with 64 bit systems and Linux.
But on a site www.x64bitdownload.com it is informed on compatibility with 64 bit OS Windows 64.
See here: http://www.x64bitdownload.com/downloads/t-64-bit-freeship-plus-download-kxeryrsz.html

[CmbtntDzgnr]

If you create inside layers or tanks in the hull that it is necessary to disconnect their account in project hydrostatics as they shouldn't create force of buoyancy (Archimedes force)

I to my surprise and uncontrolled excitement last night serendipitously used a sealed, 4-pointed cylinder and added points and reshaped and constrained it to the confines of the bulkheads, centerline, and sideshell. When i turned on the hydros, it did not pig-tail the SAC. Upon closer inspection, i realized that by pure chance, my tank boundaries were at least (or something like) 20mm from the fore/aft boundaries of a given compartment/mesh of the compartment.

When I copied (by way of exporting and renaming and reimporting the part of) the tank and transformed its distance, the SAC changed, but then that was because it had situated too close to the station forming the fwd bdry. So, I moved it and WHALLA! The SAC returned to normal.

However, in the case of the first tank, flipping the normals has a noticable effect on the KM and displacement. One of the transformed tans fwd of amidships has a very minor effect. It still is a lot of work, but I'm okay with that since I can export the meshes and then in ViaCAD Pro, convert the meshes to surfaces, stitch them, assign them the material of "JP-5" and then get my tank weights. It would be nice if FS/DS directly calculated volume, but ViaCAD gives me the volume. Using meters as units, I can readily knock of 3 decimal places and get my tonnage in metric, and quickly decide how many more tanks I need. Currently, I'm aiming for 2,200 metric tons for JP-5, with the upper tank top or boundary at 4 meters, so it is below my DWL and also below the working decks.

Once I finalize my tank shapes and number and locations, I then can put them on a BOM (Bill of Materials) and export that to my spreadsheet where I'm tracking CGs for everything from stringers, girders, long'ls, and more, even the bulkheads. Later I'll cut the solid plates and insert facsimilis for watertight doors, scuttles, hatches, safety line stanchions, pillars, in-passageway transformers, the Gas Turbine and Reduction Gear foundations and so on.

Soooo much fun here, Victor!

[CmbtntDzgnr]

The perils of upgrading (willingly or by coercion, hehehe) to 64-bit...

If I give up on Fung, is it safe to assume that my Holtrop calculation results are (for fictional purposes, tempered by reality) are reasonably good as far as the tactical turns, stability, and powering and resistance calcs go? I'm pleased that Holtrop works fully (reports and graphic chart), but I suppose that I can live without Fung if it's not more than 10% different that Holtrop...

[CmbtntDzgnr]

Thanks, but I got this:

http://www.hydro.nuos.edu.ua/downloads/FreeShip3_07+update.rar

"The connection was reset

The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading."
by desktop and

"Web page not available

The Web page at http://www.hydro.nuos.edu.ua/downloads/FreeShip3_07+update.rar might be temporarily down or it may have moved permanently to a new address."

I searched for it using:

FreeShip3_07+update.rar

but I'm not sure of those sites and am on a work computer...

I'll have to try later...

[Victor T]

Thanks, but I got this:

http://www.hydro.nuos.edu.ua/downloads/FreeShip3_07+update.rar

"The connection was reset

The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading."
by desktop and

"Web page not available

The Web page at http://www.hydro.nuos.edu.ua/downloads/FreeShip3_07+update.rar might be temporarily down or it may have moved permanently to a new address."

I searched for it using:

FreeShip3_07+update.rar

but I'm not sure of those sites and am on a work computer...

I'll have to try later...

This is very old link and site www.hydro.nuos.edu.ua is not available now (intranet only). And Fung-Leibman method was added to 3.13+ and higher...

[CmbtntDzgnr]

Thanks!

I still checked, though, on a weak assumption that there might have been a different code base.

Cheers!

[daiquiri]

For what it's worth, I have never ever managed to make Fung calculation work (always get the error message about slow PC or something) even for hulls with parameters which should be ok for Fung method. I am running the FS in Win XP. At this point I suspect there is something wrong in the exe file.
Cheers

[CmbtntDzgnr]

Same here. I hope somebody fixes it, at least so there's a "Fung-Trop", hehehe....

But, I am hoping that the working Holtrop method and sea ships method are reasonably close or not glaringly out of comparison. It's not as if hobbyists knowing these things brings peril to real navies. In 1970, this would be somethng to worry about. Nowadays, overcompensating software can makeup for lack of information, at least at the State-level.

Funny thing about the Fung exe is that most of the data is there minus the chart.

What I am suspecting, though, is that (other than just being very busy with work/school) Victor probably had to disable or cripple it or leave it as it is, or maybe there is a hostile/litigous competitor out there, or the various governments or navies just are peeved and are activly causing it to "vanish" ro behave badly. DFARS and other things the USA imposes most likely DO have something at the military level to say about it, however antiquated missileers may make some things.

OTOH, so much exciting (and a lot of dry but necessary-to-be-studied) stuff is learned and available to Nav Arch students in the desire for States to cling to their domestic naval and commercial shipbuilding and operating programs that they have really little choice: recruiting and retaining qualified, motivated, commited, creative thinkers and designers is hard in the USA. A precipitous drop. Some of the various documents afloat in the Internet(s) have some excoriating things to say about failures on the part of the USA (some preventable, some inevitable due to the rise of Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and China, to just speak of modernized Asian locales, and due to ruthless, intense, laser-like focus on keeping or growing their markets through awe-inspiring efficiencies, cross-training, reduce union roles, and more. Sobering reading material.

Eventually, somebody will make some of the software more flexible and up to date. Imagine D&D (Dungeons & Dragons) or Trek-like fans who are programmers deciding to make online combat sims that rival the Longbow Apache games and others. Who'd play a game in which a ship has an implausibly constant turning circle lacking advance and transfer. Even ex-naval players will be excited if hydros behave according to physics and not according to a state imposition tha the waves respect classification markings... hehehehe

[CmbtntDzgnr]

Well Well,

There is a 3.23 Test version for Freeship at hydronship.

http://hydronship.net/index.php?lang=en

Been available since July 6. It is not the full version, apparently, since it is about 3.7 mb. But, maybe it'll do calcs if you put the requisite folders in the app's path.

I'm going to take it or a whirl tonight.

[CmbtntDzgnr]

Hmmmm... I thought that I had posted that 3.24 is available and that Fung-Leibman works for naval ships.

Now, the funny thing is is that when I look at historical information, USN ships hydros are checked using Holtrop.

I therefore went to using both, but the differences can be large.

On my cruiser hull, I see entrance angles of 82 degrees. I experimented, trying to push in control points to adjust the flare and beam of the hull at the waterline for the first maybe 20 meters. I cannot appreciably decrease the entrance angle.

But, when I scaled up by 1.3 x the Type-23 hull for length and draft... 1.25x for the beam, i found a somewhat better entrance angle in Fung-Leibman. But, in Holtrop, the entrance angle was better. But, not for my ship model.