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


  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Contests and Competitions
    • Events
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Contributor Corner
    • Support
  • Off Topic
    • Off-Topic
  • Historical Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
  • Player's Section
    • Team Play
    • 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


  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 4 results

  1. DERPdurDERP

    Look here.

  2. WG has committed several errors when modeling the B-65 Type “Super A” class cruiser Azuma. These are not massive faults, yet are worthy of mention and correction ingame. As Azuma is specifically referenced to be of the B-65 type, I view these inaccuracies as fair game for correction, as they do not match the available material and final design for said ships. For reference purposes, all values and images are scanned from my copy of Linton Wells II and Eric LaCroix’s excellent “Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War”. This is by far and away the premier English resource for all things regarding the design, production, and combat history of Japanese cruisers produced between the world wars. To my knowledge, there is no finer or comprehensive source available on the subject. All other values are pulled from the ingame armor model viewer, as well as several from GM3D, due to its ease in highlighting specific small sections of armor. The Belt. As it appears ingame. The belt on the Super A class cruisers is specifically stated by Wells & LaCroix to have been designed to be 190-millimeters thick, sloped at 20 degrees from vertical, and made of VH steel. This plate tapers to 150-mm at its lower edge, where it then switches to a 150-mm thick MNC plate, which then proceeds to taper to 90-mm at its lower edge. There are several problems here with WG’s armor model in relation to the belt. Rather than starting above the waterline at the designed 190-mm, instead we have again run into the issue which plagued earlier ships with tapering belts in the game, chief among them being the Iowa’s and Alabama. Rather than model smaller descending bands, WG has simply “averaged” out the thickness of the upper plated taper. This has resulted in the entirety of the top VH section becoming a flat 178-mm, which then transforms into 144-mm at the waterline, and then to 96-mm below that point. There is a rather simple fix for this problem, and that is to utilize the more detailed “banding” which was used to simulate the taper on other ships with a similar armor scheme. Rather than having three sections of averaged thickness which result in a loss of armor protection, it would be better to include four to five of them in order to more accurately represent the taper, and retain the maximum belt thickness in the areas which had it (these being roughly where the current 178-mm section is located, the taper to 150-mm being much more gradual below the waterline). The belt, actual thickness and design specification. The upper section itself, the part extending above the waterline, should be an almost uniform 190-mm. This matches the desired immunity zone to the 31-cm shell, that being 20-30,000 meters. Although one could argue the true utility of 12-mm of armor at a tier where some guns are breaking 750-mm of penetration, I counter with the same rhetoric: if the difference is so trivial, then why not do it right? The Auxiliary Rudder Machinery Belt. This is another section where it seems that a random number was chosen. The design itself calls for this to be the same 175-mm of MNC as is present on the primary rudder’s armor box. To the extent of the material available to me, there is no reason why this section of armor should be modeled as 148-mm instead of 175-mm. The auxiliary rudder belt. The Conning Tower. Another seemingly arbitrary change in thickness, this time an increase. The B-65 design called for 180-mm of VH armor on the front and sides of this area. Ingame, it has gained an extra 35-mm, now being 215-mm thick. This is in spite of the fact that the conning towers roof has remained the correct 125-mm. The conning tower. “B” Barbette and “X” Barbette. Both of these sections of armor, the cylindrical barbettes for “B” and “X”, have been modelled too thickly. The armor layout calls that the raised section for “B” to be 210-mm of VH armor. Ingame, this has somehow become 260-mm. The lower section is correctly modeled as having thinned somewhat, however it is also too thick, being 210-mm instead of the designed 190-mm. A similar story has occurred around “X” barbette. Although calling for 190-mm of VH armor, ingame this has been increased to 210-mm. The barbettes. That’s the extent of what I could find in terms of noteworthy errors in the armor model. There has been some question as the the legitimacy of the internal placement of the armor belt, where such a design had never before been used by the Japanese. However, the armor layout diagram available in LaCroix seems to indicate that this part is accurate. Another question arises about the absence of torpedo tubes on Azuma. This does not seem to have been an error on WG’s behalf, as it indeed appears that B-65 lost it’s torpedo armament relatively early on, if they existed at all. The confusion over this fact seems to stem from the stigma that all Japanese cruisers were to be armed with the Type 93 in some form or the other, but this appears to have not been the case with B-65, or the unique command-cruiser Oyodo. Anyways, thank you for reading. Hopefully this issues can be corrected at some point, as for the most part they are merely a question of accurately modeling the thicknesses, rather than having a large influence ingame. The addition or subtraction of 12-50-mm may not seem like much, but I do believe that it is worthwhile, for accuracy's sake. This thread has been posted here in GD, as the rules for the Bug Reporting section explicitly forbid the posting of such topics. All values and charts have, again, been pulled from Linton Wells II and Eric LaCroix’s “Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War”, and are accurate to the extent of my knowledge. Discrepancies in Type 96 25-mm numbers from those listed are most likely entirely as a result of “logical wartime progression”, as viewed by WG. Anyways, that's all. Special thanks to @Shikikaze for helping me find some of these to begin with, and inspiring me to shell out the $175 for LaCroix in the first place. @iKami , @Femennenly If either of you could potentially weigh in on if these corrections could possibly be considered, or perhaps forward them to those who might be interested, I would be very appreciative.
  3. 7_3_PowerStroke

    1/100 Bismarck model

    Came across this video of a 1/100 Bismarck model earlier today. The amount of time and effort that must have gone into this is incredible. Enjoy!
  4. Nicely produced video - see what you think of the build and video quality.