Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
puxflacet

Ship Models Errors Gathering Thread

60 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Modder
399 posts
14 battles

wg's fictional refits created some weird problem: apparently some helmsmen must have eyes like x-men to navigate their vessels

this is kaiser's second hull - as you can see additional rangefinder on top of the turret is completelly obstructing view from the navigation bridge

lT2x4Rp.jpg

 

konig's second hull has the exact same issue

M4skejP.jpg

 

emile bertin's helmsman also received this challenge with additional bofors. however unlike german bb's this could be fixed with some effort. with moving the bofors on top of the conning tower the navigation bridge will have free view again. however some surrounding devices will be still obstructed. but this is probably better solution

 

SBJLcLh.jpg

 

the very same thing arrived with british battleships as well...this is second hull for iron duke

QYueWIc.jpg

in this case the solution is pretty simple since the platform is very convenient. just lift that a bit higher and visibility wont be obstructed

 

orion has this problem as well while in her case navigation bridge has clear view. only view from conning tower is blocked and again this can be easily fixed

Edited by puxflacet
  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
782 posts
62 battles

Couldn't agree more.

 

WG's additions don't only look terrible, they don't make sense either. And while you will certainly find ppl defending WG here again things can even get more obvious. Have a look at Hindenburg's aft rangefinder - it's line of sight is blocked by a 5.5 Flak-Gerät

 

Btw still don't understand what crazy crapWG was smoking when they did Kaiser ... never ever seen such an unprofessional and clueless fantasy design of any sorts ...

Edited by lron_Dog_of_Jutland
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
399 posts
14 battles
13 minutes ago, lron_Dog_of_Jutland said:

Couldn't agree more.

 

WG's additions don't only look terrible, they don't make sense either. And while you will certainly find ppl defending WG here again things can even get more obvious. Have a look at Hindenburg's aft rangefinder - it's line of sight is blocked by a 5.5 Flak-Gerät

 

Btw still don't understand what crazy crapWG was smoking when they did Kaiser ... never ever seen such an unprofessional and clueless fantasy design of any sorts ...

 

youre right with hindenburg's aft rangefinder...and now i see that it has the exact same problem with navigation bridge

 

kaiser's refit is indeed probably one of the ugliest creationst by WG. takes away all the beauty germans put in their designs...sadly, because for example i really like what they did with myogi

Edited by puxflacet
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
782 posts
62 battles
14 minutes ago, puxflacet said:

 

youre right with hindenburg's aft rangefinder...and now i see that it has the exact same problem with navigation bridge

 

kaiser's refit is indeed probably one of the ugliest creationst by WG. takes away all the beauty germans put in their designs...sadly, because for example i really like what they did with myogi

 

Well from the looks of Myogi WG heavily borrowed from Ise's rebuilt Pagoda mast including the additional platforms around the funnels. I guess that is why it looks good - which it does - totally agree 

 

To your question about "will it be fixed"? I certainly hope so. What they delivered here can unfortunately only be called inappropriate for a company which obviously wants to deliver a very high quality! Just look at how well done and super detailed the ships are in general - absolutely stunning! So these errror are so cheap in comparison  it doesn't look right. I am sure they can do something about it! 

(I am afraid noting could save Kaiser's model though - maybe s new one... I wonder if they know about Yavuz and how she looked in the 1940s/50s - she carried some 40 auto cannons at the end - certainly enough to survive at T4)

 

@Sub_Octavian are you able to comment on the errors pointed out above and if they are known to you?

Edited by lron_Dog_of_Jutland
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,275
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
9,091 posts
7,978 battles

Just saying...

4796ad24-8a02-11e5-917f-e4115be59678.jpg

Old Hindenburg AA layout looked the best imo

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
399 posts
14 battles
7 hours ago, lron_Dog_of_Jutland said:

 

Well from the looks of Myogi WG heavily borrowed from Ise's rebuilt Pagoda mast including the additional platforms around the funnels. I guess that is why it looks good - which it does - totally agree 

 

To your question about "will it be fixed"? I certainly hope so. What they delivered here can unfortunately only be called inappropriate for a company which obviously wants to deliver a very high quality! Just look at how well done and super detailed the ships are in general - absolutely stunning! So these errror are so cheap in comparison  it doesn't look right. I am sure they can do something about it! 

(I am afraid noting could save Kaiser's model though - maybe s new one... I wonder if they know about Yavuz and how she looked in the 1940s/50s - she carried some 40 auto cannons at the end - certainly enough to survive at T4)

 

@Sub_Octavian are you able to comment on the errors pointed out above and if they are known to you?

 

yeah. thats really the question: why kaiser needs such extensive refit at tier 4? she could do well there even in 1918 config imho. there are other battleships at tier 4 with literally no aa. but konig albert probably has something to do with wg decision making in this regard...but anyway i was always saying that wg went way too far with how german battleships are aa efective (gneisenau says hello)

 

6 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

Just saying...

4796ad24-8a02-11e5-917f-e4115be59678.jpg

Old Hindenburg AA layout looked the best imo

 

i didnt know. that pretty much proves that these aditional flaks were slapped on that model as last minute decision to buff her AA without really think that out

Edited by puxflacet
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
414
[KAPPA]
Members
1,342 posts
7,816 battles

I have another possible model issue that I've noticed. On the battleship Kii, it looks to me like she uses a visual model for her turrets that is based on Mutsu's turrets, but has the armor model of Nagato and Amagi's upgraded turrets, as developed for the Tosa-class ships. What I'd like to know is where all that extra plating is on Kii's turrets as you can see the added thickness and extra plates on Nagato's turrets compared to Mutsu's turrets. It doesn't seem right to me that they'd be able to squeeze so much extra mass of metal into those turrets and still have room to work the guns. I'd think that the extra plating would have to be at least partially external and therefore visible. It also bothers me that they'd go back to using sighting hoods on top of the turret when they made a clear choice with the Tosa turrets (as mounted on Nagato) to switch to side mounted sighting ports, not to mention the uncharacteristic tiny rangefinder on top of the turrets. It just doesn't fit with what the IJN were doing with the ships they built and upgraded IRL (the Nagato-class).

Edited by CaptHarlock_222
Additional thoughts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
399 posts
14 battles
On 30. 10. 2017 at 3:32 PM, CaptHarlock_222 said:

I have another possible model issue that I've noticed. On the battleship Kii, it looks to me like she uses a visual model for her turrets that is based on Mutsu's turrets, but has the armor model of Nagato and Amagi's upgraded turrets, as developed for the Tosa-class ships. What I'd like to know is where all that extra plating is on Kii's turrets as you can see the added thickness and extra plates on Nagato's turrets compared to Mutsu's turrets. It doesn't seem right to me that they'd be able to squeeze so much extra mass of metal into those turrets and still have room to work the guns. I'd think that the extra plating would have to be at least partially external and therefore visible. It also bothers me that they'd go back to using sighting hoods on top of the turret when they made a clear choice with the Tosa turrets (as mounted on Nagato) to switch to side mounted sighting ports, not to mention the uncharacteristic tiny rangefinder on top of the turrets. It just doesn't fit with what the IJN were doing with the ships they built and upgraded IRL (the Nagato-class).

 

im looking at gamemodels3d.com and kii has exactly the same turrets as mutsu has, same visually and same armor numbers. but i agree that she should probably have amagis turrets as she hardly would be refitted with turrets left intact

 

but speaking about kii - another feature which is weird on kii is her torpedo launchers placement. they are so low that they would be unusable at most sea conditions irl (imagine what would a wave do to this launcher if it would stick out to fire the torps not to mention that this section would be constantly flooded). i can think of 2 better placements:

in the casemate in the midship

iyLFLiR.jpg

 

...or on the deck slightly behind the current location  EDIT: they would probably block the turret

Rm2Pn7Q.jpg

Edited by puxflacet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,275
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
9,091 posts
7,978 battles
9 hours ago, puxflacet said:

i didnt know. that pretty much proves that these aditional flaks were slapped on that model as last minute decision to buff her AA without really think that out

 

It wasn't even really buffed. It just got re-arranged. From what I see it had the following AA at release:

2x2 20mm

9/11(not sure)x4 20mm

4x1 40mm

2x1 55mm

6x2 55mm

8x2 105mm

 

Now it is:

4x2 20mm

9x4 20mm

2x1 55mm

7x2 55mm

8x2 105mm

 

So basically they removed four 40mm single mounts for a 55mm twin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
399 posts
14 battles
1 hour ago, SireneRacker said:

 

It wasn't even really buffed. It just got re-arranged. From what I see it had the following AA at release:

2x2 20mm

9/11(not sure)x4 20mm

4x1 40mm

2x1 55mm

6x2 55mm

8x2 105mm

 

Now it is:

4x2 20mm

9x4 20mm

2x1 55mm

7x2 55mm

8x2 105mm

 

So basically they removed four 40mm single mounts for a 55mm twin

 

youre right. now when im looking closely at the picture you posted and comparing it to the actual model there are some weird re-arrangements. especially those 3 single 55mm on the aft superstructure surrounding the fire control station replaced with current 1x single 55mm + 1x quadruple 20mm + 1x twin 55m ... i 100% agree that original setup looked more natural. now its just weird. those twin 55mm on the top of the turrets are simply wrong and even the 55m on the bow looks weird - it doesnt even have any breakwater  to protect the crew. it would be very unpopular post

Edited by puxflacet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,194
[SYN]
Members
5,877 posts
13,296 battles

While I agree with the OP and the details he's pointing out, I've long since stopped taking this game seriously enough to care.

 

There's a laundry list of egregious liberties that WG has taken with the ships in this game and their capabilities - and depending on their nationality, especially those that never actually served or even existed.

 

While IMO the ship models in this game are for the most part gorgeous to look at, the visual problems the OP rightly points out are clearly self-evident and, based on that, it is likely WG thinks there is nothing to fix.

 

 

 

Edited by Kuckoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23
[AGBSL]
Members
63 posts
7,363 battles

I've noticed that Izumo's belt armor texture doesn't match her armor model. From the texture, it would appear that the belt would stop before turret 1 and probably angle in to the center, similar to Yamato's, rather than squared off at the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,197
[INTEL]
Members
1,778 posts
15,774 battles

Helmsmen don't steer by sight. They steer as ordered by the Officer of the Deck and occasionally the Junior OOD. Ships have lookouts stationed 24/7 when underway in constant communication with the Bridge. Ships in visual range are plotted for course and speed by the Quartermaster of the Watch on an overlay of the currently applicable chart (map). The OOD and JOOD spend a large amount of time on the wings of the bridge observing the vessel/s or land feature that could present a hazard. Forward vision from the Bridge is a convenience, not a requirement. Many times in my 14 years serving in the US Navy you couldn't see ANYTHING from the bridge without going onto the wings. Sometimes you couldn't even do that. One pleasant November Day (1997) we were sailing in company with the New Jersey off Norway in a sea state of 7. Heading into the swells. The NJ was doing about 20 knots and we couldn't maintain position because we were getting green water OVER the Bridge. Take a peek at the drawings of the USS Ticonderoga (CG47) and you'll get a idea just how high that water was coming over our bow. We were navigating from CIC based on radar and visuals from the QM shack on top of the bridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
554
[ONE38]
Members
3,781 posts
13,341 battles
On 10/30/2017 at 8:50 AM, puxflacet said:

 

im looking at gamemodels3d.com and kii has exactly the same turrets as mutsu has, same visually and same armor numbers. but i agree that she should probably have amagis turrets as she hardly would be refitted with turrets left intact

 

but speaking about kii - another feature which is weird on kii is her torpedo launchers placement. they are so low that they would be unusable at most sea conditions irl (imagine what would a wave do to this launcher if it would stick out to fire the torps not to mention that this section would be constantly flooded). i can think of 2 better placements:

in the casemate in the midship

iyLFLiR.jpg

 

...or on the deck slightly behind the current location

Rm2Pn7Q.jpg

 

Yeah, that's the most glaring mistake of them all, IMO. There's no way an opening like that would be punched into the hull, that close to waterline.  Speaking of which, no sign of anti-fowling paint or boot strip above the waterline makes me also wonder whether they've got the model riding too low in the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
782 posts
62 battles
4 hours ago, lemekillmister said:

 

Yeah, that's the most glaring mistake of them all, IMO. There's no way an opening like that would be punched into the hull, that close to waterline.  Speaking of which, no sign of anti-fowling paint or boot strip above the waterline makes me also wonder whether they've got the model riding too low in the water.

 

Nope, but they placed the tubes without any understanding how this would work in real life. The hull itself is ok - apart from the absolutely un-Japanese bow section. Another testament to the lack of understanding they show in most fantasy refits. The best fantasy creations they did were clearly the ones when they copied a configuration almost in one onto another ship or when they toned down the extend of the refitso it isn't so blatantly obvious they do crap. Example for the first category is Myogi.

 

But when you look at the German Lowtier BBs you can easily see that the guys at WG have literally NO freaking clue about German shipbuilding of that period and that they totally dismiss common sense and logic. And I don't even want to go into the fact why Roon doesn't make any sense either.

 

It is sad as these points are really detrimental and break the immersion.

 

And it is typical that neither Sub_Octavian nor any other WG person comments on this. 

Edited by lron_Dog_of_Jutland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
399 posts
14 battles
8 hours ago, Ares1967 said:

Helmsmen don't steer by sight. They steer as ordered by the Officer of the Deck and occasionally the Junior OOD. Ships have lookouts stationed 24/7 when underway in constant communication with the Bridge. Ships in visual range are plotted for course and speed by the Quartermaster of the Watch on an overlay of the currently applicable chart (map). The OOD and JOOD spend a large amount of time on the wings of the bridge observing the vessel/s or land feature that could present a hazard. Forward vision from the Bridge is a convenience, not a requirement. Many times in my 14 years serving in the US Navy you couldn't see ANYTHING from the bridge without going onto the wings. Sometimes you couldn't even do that. One pleasant November Day (1997) we were sailing in company with the New Jersey off Norway in a sea state of 7. Heading into the swells. The NJ was doing about 20 knots and we couldn't maintain position because we were getting green water OVER the Bridge. Take a peek at the drawings of the USS Ticonderoga (CG47) and you'll get a idea just how high that water was coming over our bow. We were navigating from CIC based on radar and visuals from the QM shack on top of the bridge.

 

it was already pointed out to me on european forum. however i cant believe that there would be any refit made that way. so that it would deliberately block the view from navigation bridge - kaiser's and konig's examples are way too much imho. when you take into account how extensive are these refits wg conceived i simply cant believe that irl germans would not lift the bridge above those rangefinders and aa platforms

Edited by puxflacet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
480 posts
4,676 battles

I've started losing respect for WG at this point. I see ships like Iron Duke (with her single funnel for some reason), the blatant removal of historical stock hulls (they couldn't just give it for free), Izumo and basically copy and pasting KGV's hull three times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
414
[KAPPA]
Members
1,342 posts
7,816 battles

I have to agree on the torp placement on Kii, that's just too low to the water for comfort. I don't think they'd put the launchers in the space below the 100mm turrets though, as that's were the 140mm guns were previously, and the torp launchers would have been on the ship from the beginning from what I've seen. I think the best place for them is deck mounted around the area pointed out earlier. The more I think about it, the more I'm sure that Kii is a modified version of Ashitaka's model created most likely to recoup any possible loss due to the time put in on the model for Ashitaka. I'm guessing they think they've got another Mutsu on their hands, which is funny to me as I don't get why people think she's so terrible, she's been excellent in my experience. There are times I'd rather have her in a tier 8 match than Nagato. As to the copy and paste thing stated in the above post for KGV, that's about what Lion was, an improved KGV. Conqueror is kind of an improved Lion and Monarch is an alternate version of KGV with a proposed 15 inch gun layout. By extension, Vanguard will be a modified Lion because she was meant to be a faster, cheaper solution to getting a modern-ish BB into service, so they took a Lion based design and re-used some old 15 inch guns and turrets removed from some of the WWI era battlecruisers. Can't blame WG for design work done by the British building upon previous designs (the US navy did that plenty as well, the 'standard type battleship' for instance).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
4,296 posts
6,940 battles

Reality check: In practice, a ship in combat would be steered from inside the conning tower anyways. Your line of vision is basically purely notional from inside a conning tower to start, seeing less doesn't matter too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
399 posts
14 battles
9 hours ago, Aetreus said:

Reality check: In practice, a ship in combat would be steered from inside the conning tower anyways. Your line of vision is basically purely notional from inside a conning tower to start, seeing less doesn't matter too much.

 

not quite reality check - most of the warships never saw combat anyway ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
497
[TF_34]
Beta Testers
1,475 posts
5,114 battles
On 10/31/2017 at 3:55 PM, Ares1967 said:

Helmsmen don't steer by sight. They steer as ordered by the Officer of the Deck and occasionally the Junior OOD. Ships have lookouts stationed 24/7 when underway in constant communication with the Bridge. Ships in visual range are plotted for course and speed by the Quartermaster of the Watch on an overlay of the currently applicable chart (map). The OOD and JOOD spend a large amount of time on the wings of the bridge observing the vessel/s or land feature that could present a hazard. Forward vision from the Bridge is a convenience, not a requirement. Many times in my 14 years serving in the US Navy you couldn't see ANYTHING from the bridge without going onto the wings. Sometimes you couldn't even do that. One pleasant November Day (1997) we were sailing in company with the New Jersey off Norway in a sea state of 7. Heading into the swells. The NJ was doing about 20 knots and we couldn't maintain position because we were getting green water OVER the Bridge. Take a peek at the drawings of the USS Ticonderoga (CG47) and you'll get a idea just how high that water was coming over our bow. We were navigating from CIC based on radar and visuals from the QM shack on top of the bridge.

Couple problems with your sea story, shipmate. First, New Jersey was decommissioned 8 February  1991 at Long Beach Naval Shipyard. She was my first ship, and I was there through the bitter end ..which makes it extremely problematic that you were in company with her in 1997.  Missouri was the last battleship in commission and she decommed 31 march 1992. If you fat fingered the dates and meant 1987, you were likely running with Iowa off Norway. Also...the QM shack on a Tico isnt atop the bridge; only thing atop the pilothouse is the VHF whip antennas, the two forward SPG-62 illuminators for SM 2, and the WSN-5 Sat Nav antenna. At least on Chancellorsville (CG 62) --my second boat--, the QM shack was aft of the pilothouse near the head.

As far as green water over the pilothouse in a Tico..yep, it happens. Ran into a storm on the way to Vancouver in C-ville...actually had the water blow the bull nose cover off the bow and it smashed into the pilothouse windows about 6 feet from where the XO was sitting. Got our attention.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,197
[INTEL]
Members
1,778 posts
15,774 battles
1 minute ago, BBsquid said:

Couple problems with your sea story, shipmate. First, New Jersey was decommissioned 8 February  1991 at Long Beach Naval Shipyard. She was my first ship, and I was there through the bitter end ..which makes it extremely problematic that you were in company with her in 1997.  Missouri was the last battleship in commission and she decommed 31 march 1992. If you fat fingered the dates and meant 1987, you were likely running with Iowa off Norway. Also...the QM shack on a Tico isnt atop the bridge; only thing atop the pilothouse is the VHF whip antennas, the two forward SPG-62 illuminators for SM 2, and the WSN-5 Sat Nav antenna. At least on Chancellorsville (CG 62) --my second boat--, the QM shack was aft of the pilothouse near the head.

As far as green water over the pilothouse in a Tico..yep, it happens. Ran into a storm on the way to Vancouver in C-ville...actually had the water blow the bull nose cover off the bow and it smashed into the pilothouse windows about 6 feet from where the XO was sitting. Got our attention.

 

 You're correct, it was 87' and the Iowa. The Tico however did have a small QM shack slightly higher and aft of the bridge.

 

 That was a very strange deployment. Departed Norfolk as a BBBG, 6 ships total. Iowa, Tico, one of the Kidd class. (Scott?) A Spru, and a pair of Knox-cans. As soon as we hit the Med we split with the Iowa and Tico going into Marseilles for a week or ten days. Rumor was they were going to split the group, sending some back to Norfolk and the rest going to the Gulf for escort duty. They did split us, Iowa, and Tico went to Bergen, Norway, the Kidd class stayed in the med, and the other three went home.. a month into a 6 month deployment. And THEN we went to the Gulf. Iowa would park her fat butt in the middle of the Straight of Homuz with Tico doing air defence escort/air commander duty while convoys were passing through. Silkworm Aniti-ship missile sites and small gunboats vs an Iowa and a Tico, not exactly a contest. Midway was over there along with one of the French CV's, Clemenceau I believe.

I got my "Blue Nose", "Shellback" and "Suez Safari" on that cruise. The Shellback came when we made a short visit to Diego Garcia.

 Bergen, Norway is.. amazing. Diego Garcia OTOH is a "$h1thole" stunning visually but you cant swim on the ocean side because of the surf and rocks, and you cant swim in the lagoon because of hammerhead sharks. Effectively the only thing to do there is visit the EM club for a drink or 50.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×