Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'model'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News and Announcements
    • Patch notes
    • Contests And In-Game Competitions
    • Support
    • The Pigeon's Nest
    • Player Gatherings and Events
    • Surveys
  • General Gameplay Discussion
    • General Discussion
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Off-Topic
    • Player Modifications
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests

Calendars

  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Found 23 results

  1. Hi guys! So, us at Hinon were chatting about the newly announced Salem and looking at the model, when @RivertheRoyal pointed out, "Are Salem's guns longer than DM's? I was just wondering, because DM's guns always seemed stubby to me, and I don't get that feeling from Salem." So, started a round of comparing DM's rifles to Salem's from @renegadestatuz @Nuk_ @Jnobsir and I, and low and behold... Des Moines. Salem. Notice the barrel's length and size? IRL Des Moines for clarification. So I started staring at it, and thought, "Those look like 6"/47s more than 8"/55s." So the comparison was made: Cleveland. Des Moines. Close up comparing the two. Especially the #2 turret looks very off. And it very much appears to be a 6" gun and not an 8" gun. (Visually, and just the barrel, not the turret, not game performance wise) For added reference, here is Baltimore with her guns (Same gun, same caliber, just different loading system): With DM's, and Cleveland's guns for reference. So it appears that while the turrets are not Cleveland's, nor are the guns really, Des Moines' guns are still too short. What are your thoughts? Are we just seeing something that isn't there? Or are we onto something that has been hidden since beta and only now with the Salem coming out do we have a point of reference. If it is a visual error, I'd like to bring it up to @Pigeon_of_War Credits go to River for pointing this out and for Cleveland and Des Moines on Ocean port. Jnobsir for the rest of the images that are not historical photos. Fair winds and following season captains!
  2. So I'm sitting at 15K exp from unlocking the Bismark and I was thinking to celebrate the occasion by building a model of the Bismark to go up on the wall. I don't have a whole lot of model building experience but I did build one of a car that I owned once so I could put it on the car when I showed it. I want a decent size model no smaller then 1:700 but bigger would be better I'm just not sure on which to get with all the different ones out there and help would be welcomed.
  3. Content Season

    For some reason I have been working on producing more content his time of the year. Whether its been putting up some videos on YouTube and getting 100 subscribers or just procrastination from schoolwork; ouch. I have had a weird influx of content being worked on. Now for any who see this I plan on holding a contest within a few weeks for my 100 subs on YouTube. I plan on giving away some ships and maybe some doubloons. I don't mean this as an advertisement as much as it is... But with the information being released about the US cruiser split I feel I should be posting a hint of what I have been saving for an entry for a contest in the future. This has been a lengthily project that I know when the right contest comes up I will enter it in. Hopefully before the new US cruisers are introduced. Try to guess the ship, i'm trying to be accurate to some extent. But for now just a peak of a special creation that will be made IRL at some point in the future when funds allow. Also if anybody has some ideas for the next model, let me know. I can post instructions when completed.
  4. cardboard model of Hosho

    Hi all, I'm looking to make a cardboard model of the IJN aircraft carrier Hosho. Does anyone know where I might find templates on line?
  5. My main is on Asia and this post was originally posted on reddit. I was reminded by a fellow player that I should page Sub_Octavin and seeing how the devs are active on the NA server I thought I should probably post it on here. Off topic: I get much better ping on NA server (~120ms) than on Asia server (~230ms) (I live in Australia), I should have played on NA since the beginning. (The following is a copy of my post from Reddit, slightly formatted for the forums) Long post ahead, you have been warned. First, we need to understand the difference between a paper ship and a paper ship. Some ships in the game are purely fantasy ships, i.e: their design is completely fabricated by Wargaming. Such examples are the Roon, Hindenburg, the Henri IV and the Zao. Alright, maybe Zao have a bit of historical background, as the IJN had actually planned to lay down a new generation of heavy cruisers, however, no such plans for the class survived the war and the current Zao in-game closely follows that of a fan-design on a Japanese Warship Magazine. Then there are the ones that have historical designs but some parts have been altered by Wargaming. Examples in-game included the Hakuryu-she have the dimensions of the G-14 Project but have G-15 (kai-Taihou) project features, the Großer Kurfürst (the H-class designs all had 4 twin mounted turrets in a A-B X-Y layout not the triple turret it had in-game, and the upgraded Friedrich der Große with 420mm guns (H-39 class were not to have 420mm guns). Then there are designs which haven’t been altered (except for things like AA armament, torpedo belt and whatnot-these things are for balancing the ship into a specific tier) but are in various stages of design, some near finished, some not, some are purely design studies. Examples are the Izumo, the Nicolas, the Phoenix, and some French/Russian/British cruisers and destroyers. And then there are the designs that existed, finalised and are either ready to be built/laid down but cancelled for whatever reason. Examples in game are the Ibuki, Montana, Amagi, De Grasse, the Friedrich der Große with stock guns, some Russian/British cruisers/destroyers. One thing that differs finalised designs and designs in various stages of development is that, with finalised designs, you have accurate drawing of the said ship, many times you have wooden mock up models, and everything is finalised-including how the external appearance will look like when constructed. But with designs in various stages of development, the actual external appearance of the said ship are not ever finalized. There are rough indication of the positions of guns and funnels and superstructures and other stuff but they are not to be treated as if this is how they are going to look like if built. Wargaming have done a fantastic job on modelling paper ships. The Roon and the Hindenburg, though completely fictional, resembles many signature details of Admiral Hipper (the Bridge/conning tower shape, the seaplane facility aft of the funnel, the location of the fore and aft range finders, the Friedrich der Große and Großer Kurfürst have similar shapes of the Bismarck as well. The high tier french cruisers shares the look of the Dunkerque and the Richelieu, with the hexagonal bridge and the spikes (I don’t know what to call them) and the funnel that is swept backwards and in some ships integrated with the aft superstructure much like the Richelieu class. The Russian cruisers of Moskva and Donski all had their fair share of the Russian cruisers’ oddly high bridge and large superstructure profile. The Hakuryu looks just like an enlarged Taihou and the Zao’s superstructure and mast are not much of a departure from the Mogami class. The Myogi’s bridge also resembled that of the Modernised Kongo class. (Note that the in-game Kongo actually uses the real-life Hiei’s bridge. Hiei is the only Kongo class that have a completely different bridge than the other Kongo’s) The Conqueror, Lion and the Monarch all resembles the Vanguard/KGV/modernised QE class’s sturdy bridge look, the secondary placement and the seaplane facility located between the two smoke stacks. I think you all get the idea, WG is not bad at modeling fictional warship superstructures at all. They can, and they does closely examine built ship’s appearances and applied it to paper ships but with a slight modernisation effort. Such as the addition of FC radars and whatnot. And then there’s Izumo. Man, I never knew the Japanese opted for a minimalistic appearance for their battleships! WG’s excuse for the Izumo is that, as that’s how it looked like in the design drawing, that’s how they modelled it because that’s the official design. Is it really? Apart from ships, such as the Montana, Ibuki and the Amagi, they are been built when cancelled and the appearance is firmly decided in official drawings and plans. And Montana and Amagi even have mock up models built. The Izumo is far from been a finished design. It is one of the sub-designs of the J-series of the Yamato’s preliminary designs. It only went as far as a design study. There is a reason why only the J-series of the Yamato designs have 410mm guns as opposed to other designs which have 460mm guns. This is because it is a design study based around the fact that if it possible to for a battleship that can be built and maintained using existing dry docks and other facilities. The gun of course is downscaled to 410mm and the armour is downscaled as well. It is a design study, and it is not even close to finalised, that’s why the drawing should never be used as the basis of the Izumo’s appearance. This is the design the Phoenix in-game is based upon, WG, why didn’t you copy the appearance? https://i.imgur.com/Q7CSuBD.jpg Would you call this the Farragut? https://i.imgur.com/LkjDrZh.jpg If not, then why is this the in-game Izumo that we see? (Please note: I was unable to find the exact drawing for A140-J2 which Izumo is based upon, but this is the other design with all turrets forward.) https://i.imgur.com/Df63RPA.png But you get the idea, the drawing is far from a complete, finalised drawing. Check this design drawing for Moskva: https://i.imgur.com/xI497na.jpg How about this wooden mock-up of Montana at New York Navy Yard? https://i.imgur.com/qS1u1NG.png The reason these ships’ in-game model closely resembling their actual drawings is that they are basically finalised and that’s how they are going to look like had they being completed. The Izumo is not. I hope this will end the debate on the historical accuracy of Izumo’s in-game model. Now I wish to talk about how Wargaming could fix the model. Failure No.1 The placement of fire control director with the rangefinder. Let’s start with the bridge, https://i.imgur.com/dY9XTjq.jpg Note the part in red (Main fire control director) and the blue (forward rangefinder) For all modernised IJN battleships, there are three distinct placement styles of fire control director with the rangefinder. The Kongo class and the Fuso class https://imgur.com/a/E58YX Note that Fuso’s bridge is on top, the bottom one is actually the in-game Myogi. However, as I mentioned above, the in-game Myogi actually resembles the real life Kongo. While the in-game Kongo resembles the real life Hiei. The FC director is located forward of the rangefinder and they rotate individually. The Nagato Class https://i.imgur.com/0FHmdF7.jpg The FC director sits at the top while the rangefinder is located a couple of levels down. They rotate individually and the rangefinder actually rotates around a rail, (it’s hard to see the rail in my screenshot) And there is the Hiei-Yamato style:https://imgur.com/a/2thbR Top is Hiei (again, that’s the Kongo in-game, which is modelled after the real-life Hiei), and Yamato on the bottom. Note that they have FC director sits directly on top of the rangefinder and they rotate together. Coming back to the Izumo, why did you realise? https://i.imgur.com/dY9XTjq.jpg It have the Nagato style layout. Which completely makes no sense whatsoever. As you will see next. The reason why Hiei have a different superstructure than her sisters is that, she was a training ship demilitarised under the treaty. And she was the last ship to be modernised and refit into service. All the Kongo class received a second refit between 1934-1936. Except, Hiei’s modernisation began at 1937. She was used as an experiment platform to test out some of the features that would have been used later on the Yamato class. One of these are her bridge shape including her FC director and rangefinder layout. That is why they look so similar. I don’t think it would take a genius to figure out that had Izumo been built, she would have the same style as Yamato. Unfortunately not, she retained the layout of the Nagato class. Failure No.2 The bridge shape Now let’s move onto the bridge itself. As we can see from my screenshot before, the Hiei and Yamato’s bridge are very similar, not only did they lose the ‘pagoda’ look common to other battleships, it looks much more compact and the shape are swept backwards. There are other features which are similar, including the AA platform (where all the binoculars are) situated directly below the rangefinder, the different platform levels, the location of AA directors and so on. That should be what Izumo looks like. Failure No.3 and No.4 combined: the lack of superstructure and the placement of secondaries. Moving on, Izumo’s mid section. https://i.imgur.com/uryG4VU.jpg 404 superstructure not found. Ehh, what on earth? How would there be barely any built up? Even in its Hull C (did not have the credits to buy Izumo back so I borrowed a youtube thumbnail) https://i.imgur.com/1Yc2mmo.jpg There are no superstructure. There should be plenty of superstructure around the smoke stack and between the Bridge and the aft bridge. This is yamato on trails:https://i.imgur.com/iVFU2wd.jpg Yamato’s refits only came with the addition of AA guns and secondaries, there are always plenty of superstructure. Why don’t Izumo have them? All nation’s new generation battleships comes with superstructure. You don’t just waste empty places a ship, you can have places for AA ammo storage, addition of AA directors, more AA guns etc. Oh yeah, AA guns, this is where WG have shown themselves to be lazy, use the C-hull Izumo again:https://i.imgur.com/bbimvIc.jpg Ah, fluent use of Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V, truly a masterpiece indeed. Looking back at every nations’ new generation battleships: (Yamato, Missouri, Tirpitz, KGV) https://imgur.com/a/h286D Note how the secondaries AA guns are all S P A C E D A P A R T (and on different levels) There are very good reasons why every nation have this layout, not only does it make all guns spread apart and firing blasts won’t affect other guns and their crews, this also gives every gun much more firing angles and they can cover multiple enemy plane approaches from different heights and different angles. And even if a bomb hit as not all of them are crammed together the damage will be smaller. You can see, not only should Izumo have much more superstructure, she would certainly have AA guns on different levels as opposed to the in-game C hull where they line up closely with each other. On top of that, check the A hull-https://i.imgur.com/uryG4VU.jpg And C-hull again-https://i.imgur.com/bbimvIc.jpg No addition of AA directors at all….whew lads...what can I say… Failure No.5 Lack of local rangefinders on main turrets Even though they are all located forward, there must be local range finders for turrets. See this IJN Tone picture for example: http://i.imgur.com/7hcEJbg.jpg In-game? Not present.https://i.imgur.com/bbimvIc.jpg Of course, not all turrets should have it. Turret A situated at the forward and in heavy seas the local rangefinder is nigh impossible to use. Turret C may have transverse problem if it have them. But how about turret B? High enough, and nothing to block it, it only makes sense for there to be local rangefinders, starting from A-hull. Overall, my take on the Izumo’s model: (NOTE: I rushed these with MS paint, I may redrawn these, for now they are for rough illustrative purpose only) Overall appearance regardless of which hull: Picture 1: It should have Yamato/Hiei style bridge, local rangefinder to be installed on B turret. Picture 2: More superstructure surrounding the smokestack where I coloured in red, and the funnel should be extended to avoid interference with operation on these levels. Next, AA placements according to which hull the player is using, I tried to resemble Yamato’s historical AA refits. But without any change in actual in-game characteristics. Hull A: Izumo as she was completed, red is 15.5cm, green is 12.7cm and blue is 25mm triple AA. Note that 12.7cm is built on the superstructure, much like how Yamato is when it was completed, they are NOT on deck level. Hull B: Again, red is 15.5cm, green is 12.7cm and blue is 25mm triple AA. The in game hull B have single mounted 25mm AA, i replaced them all with triple mount 25mm. Number of barrels stays the same as in-game (AA DPS stay the same). The placements of the 25mm are very similar to the Yamato before Letye Gulf. Also more Type 95 AA directors need to be installed along with the AA. Hull C: Again, red is 15.5cm, green is 12.7cm and blue is 25mm triple AA. The number of 12.7cm increased and so two 15.5cm are removed to save weight. I replaced all the single 25mm with triple mounts but kept the barrel count the same again so DPS is same as in-game. Placements of 25mm kind of resembles that of Yamato before final mission. Stern has two 25mm AA. added 4 more near the seaplane facility. Where the 15.5cm are were plated over add two 25mm on top. three 25mm AA added on the edges on both side. B turret gets two 25mm on top. Again, more Type 95 AA directors need to be installed along with the AA. Feedbacks are more than welcome, if you have any suggestions that I may have overlooked, please feel free to tell me in the comments.
  6. Can Models be Swapped?

    I've been checking all over the forum getting mixed signals over whether model swapping is still possible or not. Is it? If one can still swap models for the game, could someone explain to me how to do it? I have no idea how the process works, and it sounds like the previous methods are now outdated. I would like to do something simple like taking the turrets of the New Mexico and placing it on the Colorado. Doing so would make it look like a Tennessee-class battleship, which as seen on the left ship in the picture from Pearl Harbor, looked exactly like a Colorado at the time but with different armament. Could someone provide some help? Thanks to all in advance!
  7. Okay, now that I have your attention, I shall begin. I found this cool function graphing website for an engineering personal project (build a gazebo for the local church, needed a quick project for the kids there to figure out using math, long story for another time). This website can graph mostly anything and I thought: "Hey, I could make something for WoWs in what little free time I have." Okay, I didn't actually think that, but you get the point. This is the final result: No, it is not to scale, but I thought it came out pretty good. I attached the link HERE for you to see the functions I used. Getting a degree in mathematics never helped this much... haha. Hope you enjoy! I might be tempted to build some other things (to scale maybe) if interest is high. What are your thoughts? Regards - Shield
  8. Well, I had hoped I wouldn't need to do this, but good lord this is just too massive of an error to pass up talking about. First let me say something: This thread is not in regards to the height of Alabama's citadel. WG has stated that its necessary in order to balance its incredible maneuverability and TDS value. Okay, I'm fine with that. What I'm NOT fine with however, is this. Oh lordy, what the hell have you done WG? Firstly, I understand that WG is incapable of modeling armor faces of tapering thickness. That's okay, calculating the exact thickness at any given point on a tapering plate would be ridiculous. WG normally solves this with "bands" of thickness averaged from the section of plate they sample along its face. Usually this works semi-acceptably for things like barbettes that decrease in thickness beneath protective decks or behind belt armor. Bayern is a good showcase of this working properly. The varying armor "bands" are clear to see. Where this system begins to become a problem is with the belts of high tier USN battleships. WG has also now under-modeled massive sections of armor on Alabama. The issue exists because of the tapering thickness on the belts/bulkheads of these ships. On Alabama, the main belt is 12.2" of class A armor plate resting above a lower plate of class B armor plate, which tapers from 12" down to 1.5" or so at the bottom of the side, far below the waterline. The upper belt was 3.2 meters tall, and the 12" section of the lower belt was roughly 1.2 meters tall before tapering to 6", then 4" and finally 1.5". The Iowa class also essentially mimics this armor scheme. Here's a visual aid, with a blue line showing the waterline at around standard displacement. Now unfortunately, WG has decided on the Alabama, that the upper section of 12" class B plate shouldn't be its own band, and has tossed in the average of the taper in that area below it. Whats this means is that Alabama's armor model essentially "skips" over a huge chunk of the primary belt armor, and instantly transitions from 310mm (12.2") to 184mm (7.2"), just below the waterline. Since this is bad resolution and blown up horribly from youtube, ENHANCE: That right there is how WG has the belt armor modeled currently... WHY DID THEY DO THIS!? Frankly, this armor model looks unfinished, but this is from right after the NDA was lifted, and no other changes to the ship have been posted as of yet. There are no multiple bands of thickness on the entire belt, just an instant transition from 310mm to 184mm where it should transition to 310mm and begin tapering down in thickness not above or at the waterline, but a nearly 2 meters BELOW it. That section there should look more like this: ^^^^^^^^^^^ THAT'S what the belt armor section on Alabama SHOULD look like. The overall thickness of the plate is decreased underwater, but the 12.2" section of the belt actually extends below the waterline down to where it should be before tapering. This is a fairly glaring issue and should be fixed as soon as possible, otherwise Alabama is going to make the citadel issues that plagued Warspite look small-time, and be open to citpens through her belt from 8" cruiser guns as far away as 14km. It also makes angling the ship a ridiculously fine line between utter failure and success versus enemy battleships, even more so than the notoriously difficult to handle Iowa. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see the issues here, especially when WG has been actively implementing changes to encourage aggressive battleship play as of late. WG, pls fix.
  9. As it says on the tin, the placement of the quad 40mm on the rear turret was fixed but all of the turrets are still missing their primary rangefinders. They can be seen in previous versions of the game or on Iowa.
  10. Model bug?

    This is my first time doing this so here it goes (This is Patch 0.15.2). It appears that the Nagato has a model bug. The sand bags (at least that's what I think they are) are missing from the turret aa on hull c and the aa on the bow appears to be missing their shields.
  11. Perth render/model issues?

    Hey guys, May not be the exact forum sub for this, but my Perth looks funny. Y'all see those extra triangles on the stacks? I googled the heck out of it, but I can't find any images of this ship with those. Thoughts?
  12. I am building a 1:800 scale model of Mikasa and I started doing some math and sketching on a peice of paper to get a few important measurements for the deck. The length listed on Wikipedia is 432 feet and beam of 76 feet. Once I converted the measurements roughly to 1:800 I got 6" 15/32 for length and 1" 5/32 for beam however once drawn on the paper this is an impossibly narrow vessel for Mikasa. Are wikipedia's measurements completely incorrect or is there something crucial I am missing? According to my math the measurements listed make Mikasa look like a DD rather than a wide pre-dreadnought.
  13. I think someone may have messed something up here...
  14. Where are the models?

    Does anyone know where the model's for the sailor in the container ship. Also when I unpack the unpacking is somewhat inconsistent. Also is the helpers folder the skin for the people on the container.
  15. ¡Greetings all! Well guys, this topic have one function: be a place for those who enjoy creating ships of the ww1 or ww2 in any kind of format: 3D Modeling, hand drawing, paper model, wood, etc, also, minecraft and lego are allowed too, then ¡dont be shy and show us what you can do! and you are able to discuss about your work or about the work of others. Just post your WIPs designs step by step or ships already finished, ask for help or tips with your work or look at those fictional or real ships and enjoy the creativity of the comunity. I will post my own work to start this: Well, after a few months, finally i can show you something a bit less empty... Was a lot of work to gather some info about a few things to take in mind at the time to make each part of this bridge, for now is looking good, but it need some improvements, but lets start with this: As you can see, this bridge have a lot in common with the Yamato-class figure (is almost the same bridge), but with some differences, some of them listed here: -The main telemeter system, for the main guns and secondary guns: The size of the telemeter for the main guns is 14 meters long, and 9 meters long the other, then in the next picture we have: -The machine-gun control towers among two enclosed 40mm (2in) AA guns and the auxillary machine-gun control towers (the small ones) Another picture to look the arrangement of each component (keep in mind one thing, the two quadruple enclosed mounts are a placeholder, because i still have to model a periscope or a dual 40mm mount (or why not both) to fill that empty place, keeping in mind the weigth over the structure: At the bottom of the structure, you also can see three 40mm AA mounts and next the rangefinder for high angle fire control system, the ship will have four of those systems. For now i can say this: the bridge is almost completed (like the 85%), but it will have a bit more of details soon. After that, i will start work over the main guns. And to finish this post, i will leave two more pictures, one taked from the top side of the structure and one of the side: Hope you like this idea, i will wait to see your works guys
  16. Hi everyone. I build 1/700 scale models from time to time and am right now converting an E-Class destroyer kit into HMCS Saskatchewan (formally HMS Fortune). Shortly before this ship was gifted to Canada from the UK it underwent a conversion in which some of the weapon layouts changed. Unfortunately I’m having difficulty finding the details of the change. I know the aft torpedo tubes were removed and I know the aft most turret was removed. My problem is that I can’t figure out what was put in their place. I would really appreciate it if anyone with any knowledge of this conversion would help me out. Even information on similar conversions to other British destroyers would be a big help.
  17. Stock Gneisenau

    This is merely a formality, but I would love to have the stock Gneisenau as she appeared prior to the fitting of the atlantic bow, as shown: Notice also the funnel top is straight and not angled. This is what she looked like prior to the upgrades, which can remain as the B hull, that would sit well with the lower speed of the ship, and we can visually differentiate them the stock and upgraded hulls. It is an idea, any thoughts?
  18. Hi guys It has been a long time since the alpha stage of WoWs ended, and during that period, here was a small place where everyone could leave our design work. Now, i create this place to show you my naval creations. Here we go: The Ship Design Bureau: Designing a Fleet for the ARA The main theme of my project is to create a fictional fleet for the ARA in the period of the WWI and WWII during a fictional conflict (in part) between the powers of South America, the famous ABC. For now, here above these lines, you can see my Zapaleri-class Heavy Cruiser Tuzgle, with my latest creation: the Battleship General Lamadrid-class. While i was improving my creations over the years, there were certain projects and designs that leave behind and i would like to rescue or at least re-use in future designs.Here you can see for example, the bridges i was creating, from my beginnings to the most recent, the prototype for a new battleship: In this case, you will see that is quite similar to the bridge of the Yamato, because that's the idea, which take certain characteristics of that ship: I made this survey by the fact of wanting to know well wich one of those ideas could be useful and which i will use in the end for the main armament and armored belt. I planned to follow the line of the battleship Andrea Doria because i liked how that ship looks, but i would like to know the opinion of you guys. And here is the list of my fictional fleet and future creations: BB/BCs: -Design A-7 Prototype (Under Construction). -Design A-6, General Lamadrid-class BB, two units: General Lamadrid and Las Heras. -Designs A-0, A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5 (Under Study). CA/CLs: -Design C-6, Zapaleri-class CA, four units: Zapaleri, Tuzgle, Vilama and Chañi. -Future Design: Design C-5; Santa Bárbara-class CA, four units: Santa Bárbara, Branqui, Siete Colores and Hornocal. -Designs C-0, C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4 (Under Study). DDs: (Under Study). CVs: (Under Study). Well, i will post the progress later, at least with the bridge for now, hope you liked this, any comment, sugestion or opinion are welcome
  19. 1/700 Scale Yuubari Model

    Good morning everyone! I wanted to share a little project I was working on over the past 2 weeks. As the title says, I built a model Yuubari! The one I built was the Tamiya Waterline Series 1/700th scale Yuubari. I couldn't find it here so I had it imported. I let a link to the website I ordered it from under the spoiler tab. I painted it with a similar style to the one in-game, with a 3-coloured melon/pickle camouflage! The scale wasn't as hard to work with as I thought it would be, though I do wish it could have been a tad larger. I had a lot of fun making it! Please, feel free to ask any questions or comments, or share your own modelling stuffs! My next project is working on Italian P40 Heavy (Medium) Tank, and then I'll go back to working on Musashi. Pics are under the spoiler tag.
  20. Hey, question: I am going to be making a Ceramic or Wood model of a Destroyer (IJN) (or any other warship(s) I just prefer destroyers) and I am wondering, are there any 3D Mesh/renderings of a warship that is of the WW2 era out there? I am thinking of making either the Minekaze or Shimakaze, and would like if someone could point me out to a 3D Mesh/rendering of one of those warships. The reason for the render/mesh, is to be able to play with the model and get sizes easier than with pictures. Post a download link for the Mesh/Render down below if you have found one, and if it is of a different Warship of the WW2 era.. then I do not mind! seriously, I don't mind what ship it is, I would just prefer to make a replica of one of those beasts above... I may even try for the Yamato.. but that might be a little to detailed, we'll see. Optional: In the event you DO find a Mesh/Render of one of the Warship(s) above, could ya make a scale for it? I mean, I could.. but that'd take a little time. (I won't be doing this for a while.. a couple months at least. But I would just like everything prepared before-hand) Thanks! -DD Err.. I realize I should've posted this in off-topic, sorry!
  21. My Special Factory Model Tirpitz.

    It has no Turret AA for some reason, I have no idea why? Special Factory Model right off of the conveyor belt right here. Just thought it was interesting, Anyone know why it might not be there? i have no model affecting mods on lol. It's like that all the time, Not a rendering issue.
  22. http://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/common/Italeri-Bismarck/ Obviously this is from the EU WoWS site, but I'm curious if I can buy this and use it on NA? I haven't built a model ship in years, so this would be a good excuse to try that again, and I enjoy the low tiers as much as the mid-upper so that tier 2 Russian CA sounds fun too, add in 1000 doubloons and the friend invites and I rapidly start running out of reasons to not open my wallet, except I haven't seen any mention of it for NA. In short, anyone know about this toy boat?
  23. Why the Mogami doesn't have the imperial seal at it's head? All the JP ships has it why not the Mogami? Shameful dsipray to the emperor? Plz add the imperial seal to the honorabra Mogami. [Content Moderated - Incorrect Language] --Rhonico
×