One off fiberglass non mold resources

I disagree about simulation. Yes the variables input counts but it's far better than just winging it.

 

So, you believe that running a simulation without understanding the basic principles of a system will give you valid information?

 

Entirely not what I said at all. I can't even fathom how you came to that conclusion from what I said and I would argue your methodology is exactly what you are attempting to attack. Have you ever designed a boat hull and how did you choose a rough shape from scratch?

In the new boat design programs alot of that is covered instantly. Framing is automated to ideal parameters. So much is automatically taken care of so you can spend more time tweaking the design?

As far as Sims go, there are many different types of simulations that account for factors that other Sims don't. It's ten times faster and cheaper than trying to design a boat from absolute scratch.

 

I choose a rough shape from historically successful designs. If a design is going to depart radically from anything that has shown successful, then it has to present some significant advantage. Automating framing sounds like leaving the structural design, and the critical thinking that should go along with it, to a computer. Unless you understand what the limitations of the program is, the results will not be good. Instant solutions are different from good solutions. What I read in your response is that anything that does the work for you is good. I disagree with that approach. From my perspective, anything the computer outputs has to be in agreement with what I have experience through years of designing, building and working at sea.

 

Yes I also use a rough shape from a previous design.

I don't intend that things that do stuff for me is always good.

3dboatdesign has done over 250,000 boats. None of which have failed. With machine learning, designs can be further optimized, which is what I am going into with regenerative design.

While you claim I like things to be automated based on criteria of 100s of 1000s of previous inputs.
It seems like you like doing extra work that is not necessary.

The worst possible case scenario is you lose a knot or two in a specific scenario, which is just as, if not more likely, by done by human eyeball and measuring stick alone.
I don't know anybody designing and solidifying boats architecture with old-school drafting pencils other than basic exploratory concept drawings.

On top of all of those benefits. I have an immediate stl file which I can also place measurement markers onto frames that I have cut from the stl file. 10 times faster and more precise.

 

I studied theoretical physics for 13 years, including aero, hydro and magneto hydrodynamics. Design, and functionality is not my issue. Technical manufacturing details and materials are my main areas of inquiry.

 

Do you have data to back that claim or is is a rhetorical exaggeration?

 

Is this a rhetorical question or do you really not know the answer?

 

Boat design 3d had made 195,000 boats as of 2019.

I see no evidence of design software being the cause of any ship fail.

Unchecked fatigue, operating in unintended environments, and overloading beyond the ships specifications are the leading cause of ship failure. Aside from pilot error. I.e., running aground, etc.

 

Alternatively, can you find a single case of hull design software causing a failure to the hull in its recommended operating scenarios?

 

Not really sure of what the modus ponens of your argument is. Are you claiming that drawing a boat hull with a pencil is more structurally sound than drawing it in 3dboatdesign software?

 

There are people who, not being able to use a CAD/CAM package, decide that, without reasoning why, all manual methods are better.

 

Once more, do you have any data to prove your claims?

You need to defend your claim that there were no failures and provide proof.