Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
DeliciousFart

Gearing model is incorrect and currently too wide

67 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
1,296 posts
881 battles

Note: This describes the state of Gearing's model as of patch 0.7.7. I intend to update this if WG makes any modeling updates.

I've always been perplexed by the apparent beam (general nautical term for width) of the Gearing in-game when compared to the Fletcher and especially the Sumner (represented in-game by Yueyang). Even at first glance, the proportions of the Gearing's in-game model seemed strange to me. In fact, the Gearing is largely a Sumner with 14 ft of length added in order to improve endurance; the most visible difference between the two is the increased distance between the funnels on the Gearings. There is no mention of alteration of the beam; indeed, given that the goal is to allow existing shipyards to transition from Sumner to Gearing as fast as possible, increasing beam and subsequently re-lofting the hull would add to delay in construction.

Recently, I obtained the book Sumner-Gearing-Class Destroyers, Their Design, Weapons, and Equipment by Robert Sumrall in order to get more information about these ships. The literature values given for the hull beam were 39.3 ft (12.1 m) for Fletcher, 40.5 ft (12.3 m) for Sumner, 40.5 ft (12.3 m) for Gearing, while extreme beams were 39.7 ft, 40.8 ft, and 40.8 ft respectively; note that Sumner and Gearing (as built) have the same values for extreme beam. The Gearing model in-game seemed unduly wide. Recently, I ran across an image of someone who extracted and rendered the WOWS models to measure them gave the following beam values.

image.thumb.png.43fc94fde29846da1f4f601eba26943a.png

Although both Yueyang and Gearing widths in-game are off from literature value, the Yueyang's value is considerably closer, while Gearing's is off by more than a meter. More importantly however, note just how much wider the Gearing is relative to Sumner (Yueyang); Gearing is some 14% wider than Yueyang in-game, which I consider to be very significant and well outside the margin of random error unless Gearing was modeled to an incorrect value for width. Furthermore, when taking a centimetric ruler to measure and calculate the length-to-beam ratio of the in-game model, the Gearing's ratio is much further off the historical value compared to Sumner (Yueyang). By contrast, this is the top down diagram comparing the two, where their beams are just about identical.

image.thumb.png.7e2fa4c4356649b4cb17b0256cc57c3d.png

I'm not sure how WG got the Gearing model wrong. It's possible that the FRAM upgrades (not represented in game) for Sumner and Gearing after World War 2 resulted in some changes in extreme beam, and perhaps WG accidentally used one of those values when lofting the Gearing's hull model. Note that WG has given the Gearing 36 knots of speed rather than its actual combat displacement speed of 34.5 knots. In some ways, I can accept and forgive WG for doing this because the Gearing sits substantially higher than Sumner (Yueyang) in-game, which would mean lighter displacement than its design combat value. Coincidentally the lower draft of the Gearing in-game also makes her easier to hit, which I think is a fair trade.

Given that Gearing is one of the earliest ships introduced in-game, I think the ship model should be updated and corrected. While WG does take liberties when it comes to deviating from historical values for turret traverse, max speed, turning circle diameter, etc., the ship models themselves are generally very accurate. Again, given that Gearing's model is one of the oldest in game, I hope that it can be corrected and brought more in-line with the more recent models.

EDIT: I've gotten acknowledgement of this issue from a member of WG's EU staff on Reddit, and his response below.

I personally don't agree with his statement that this is a low priority issue that won't be fixed in the foreseeable future. I'll try to bring this to Sub_Octavian's attention in his next Q&A.

Edited by DeliciousFart
  • Cool 19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester, Beta Testers
5,783 posts
8,152 battles

There appears to be something wrong with the provided picture. The Z-52 is too skinny compared to what it actually looks like in game. Whereas the Gearing looks fine. In fact, everything but the Gearing appears to have been squished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
519
[CUTE]
Supertester, In AlfaTesters
1,985 posts
11,042 battles

It’s because the ship scaling in wows if not real I believe all the dds are up scaled. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,296 posts
881 battles
22 minutes ago, Compassghost said:

There appears to be something wrong with the provided picture. The Z-52 is too skinny compared to what it actually looks like in game. Whereas the Gearing looks fine. In fact, everything but the Gearing appears to have been squished.

Are you sure? Z-52 appears to be about as wide as Gearing in-game, and the game model image suggest that they're of comparable beam. Z-52 might seem wider due to difference in freeboard.

6 minutes ago, Shigure_DD said:

It’s because the ship scaling in wows if not real I believe all the dds are up scaled. 

No, I believe the ships are scaled accurately, and at the very least their dimensions are proportional to their real-life values. Gearing's length-to-beam ratio in-game is considerably more off from real-life value compared to Yueyang.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
441
[KRAB]
Members
887 posts
7,326 battles

Maybe WG made it wider so it takes more damage from BB and CA AP shells. Either that, or they just used bad data. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
99
[WAIFU]
[WAIFU]
Members
419 posts
10,348 battles
2 minutes ago, MaxL_1023 said:

Maybe WG made it wider so it takes more damage from BB and CA AP shells. Either that, or they just used bad data. 

Reason why it eats more pens cause the gearing ingame has an 21mm plate compare to all the other dds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
519
[CUTE]
Supertester, In AlfaTesters
1,985 posts
11,042 battles

What it might be also is that the gearings been in the game since the start and the YY/sumner is a newer model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,757
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
6,713 posts
12,162 battles
14 minutes ago, Muki41 said:

Reason why it eats more pens cause the gearing ingame has an 21mm plate compare to all the other dds

That plate used to be an advantage, proofing those sections against 127mm guns.

Problem is that 130mm guns pen 21mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,296 posts
881 battles
46 minutes ago, MaxL_1023 said:

Maybe WG made it wider so it takes more damage from BB and CA AP shells. Either that, or they just used bad data. 

I strongly think it's the latter. WG probably used a wrong value for the beam when lofting the Gearing's model.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
462
[P-V-E]
Members
1,382 posts

I wouldn't trust some third parties image that purports to be something.

 

likewise I would not trust most of the info on the internet regarding beam of specific classes of ships, especially when you have 10 or more in a class, built over multiple years at multiple yards, likewise beam without qualification is normally taken at the waterline, and over the life of a ship along with length at waterline will change, which is why there is variance in many ships, as any change in drought affects the other two waterline measurements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
430
[WOLF5]
Members
757 posts
15,951 battles

I have always noticed the Gearing is too wide. If you've played that line, the Gearing seems to be a completely different kind of boat. So, there is something wrong with the model and has been since it came out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,296 posts
881 battles
44 minutes ago, b101uk said:

I wouldn't trust some third parties image that purports to be something.

 

likewise I would not trust most of the info on the internet regarding beam of specific classes of ships, especially when you have 10 or more in a class, built over multiple years at multiple yards, likewise beam without qualification is normally taken at the waterline, and over the life of a ship along with length at waterline will change, which is why there is variance in many ships, as any change in drought affects the other two waterline measurements.

I can do scans directly from Robert Sumrall's Sumner-Gearing book to compare their actual beams when I get the chance. The beam values were pulled directly from that book, and perhaps someone with Friedman's US Destroyers book can verify. I'm almost certain it would give the same values. Furthermore, it's readily apparent that the Gearing is substantially beamier (by 14%, a very significant value) than Sumner in-game, even though no sources suggest that this is the case.

What would you "trust" then?

Edited by DeliciousFart
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,367 posts

Is that you Robert Perry Yacht Designer? 

Yes, Gearing is too fat. I agree the likely cause is that Gearing is one of the early ships prior to WOWs knowing how to balance and create differences between classes where real life differences were minor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20
[ZMZ]
Beta Testers
26 posts
1,044 battles

Fletcher, Sumner, and Gearing all had the same beam measurement (within 1 foot to account for different building yards, minor variations in plating thickness, etc). Gearing had a 14' hull plug added between the stacks for extra fuel bunkerage to extend useful range. The beam was never modified. This is freely available information and Robert Sumrall is as reliable a source as Norman Friedman. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,002
[SYN]
Members
5,572 posts
12,857 battles
2 hours ago, DeliciousFart said:

I've always been perplexed by the apparent beam (general nautical term for width) of the Gearing in-game, et al...

 

For years, WG has had issues when it comes to scaling of objects in their games.  The relative scale of player objects to the game environment,  the scale between the different player objects, and even the component scale and proportions of an individual player object itself.  This has long since been the case in World of Tanks, where in some cases vehicles have been obviously altered for the sake of "balance" - the IS-3's disproportionately small, relatively flat turret and "modified" lower glacis immediately comes to mind.  Many vehicles are bigger or smaller relative to each other than they were in reality.  Etc...

They've been doing the same thing in World of Warships.  The fat Gearing is just one example.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
462
[P-V-E]
Members
1,382 posts
48 minutes ago, DeliciousFart said:

I can do scans directly from Robert Sumrall's Sumner-Gearing book to compare their actual beams when I get the chance. The beam values were pulled directly from that book, and perhaps someone with Friedman's US Destroyers book can verify. I'm almost certain it would give the same values. Furthermore, it's readily apparent that the Gearing is substantially beamier than Sumner in-game, even though no sources suggest that this is the case.

What would you "trust" then?

But again there were 98 ships in the Gearing class, built at 9 different yards from 1944 to 1946, with the last batch commissioned in 1949 (excluding USS Timmerman that was lunched in 1951 and commissioned in 1952)

 

Likewise with freeboard and the shape of hulls its quite easy to gain ~1m between normal waterline beam and extremities of breadth at the main deck, 1m is only 0.5m each side, which is hard to see on something that is >100m long that has compound curvature to its sides along its whole length, given the freeboard between the waterline and main deck is definitely NOT vertical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,296 posts
881 battles
15 minutes ago, b101uk said:

But again there were 98 ships in the Gearing class, built at 9 different yards from 1944 to 1946, with the last batch commissioned in 1949 (excluding USS Timmerman that was lunched in 1951 and commissioned in 1952)

 

Likewise with freeboard and the shape of hulls its quite easy to gain ~1m between normal waterline beam and extremities of breadth at the main deck, 1m is only 0.5m each side, which is hard to see on something that is >100m long that has compound curvature to its sides along its whole length, given the freeboard between the waterline and main deck is definitely NOT vertical.

I'm frankly not convinced. You're talking about more than 1.5 ft of difference on either side for ships that are only 40.5 ft wide as designed. Even Iowa (beam of 108 ft 2.063 in) and New Jersey (beam of 108 ft 1.375 in) only deviated from their design beams (108 ft 2 in) by mere fractions of an inch, and that's a far bigger ship. No shipyard would have the kind of deviations that you're talking about.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
79
[WOLF2]
Members
252 posts
6,149 battles
10 minutes ago, DeliciousFart said:

I'm frankly not convinced. You're talking about more than 1.5 ft of difference on either side for ships that are only 40.5 ft wide as designed. Even Iowa (beam of 108 ft 2.063 in) and New Jersey (beam of 108 ft 1.375 in) only deviated from their design beams (108 ft 2 in) by mere fractions of an inch, and that's a far bigger ship. No shipyard would have the kind of deviations that you're talking about.

I'd add that even if there were yard variations, it would be odd for WG to model the ship so far off from it's design specification.  That is, unless they were modeling a specific ship (such as Kongo actually being Hiei).  I'm unaware of any specifically famous Gearings.  There are, however, 2 still in existence as museum ships (well, maybe more, but I only know of two) so perhaps one of these two has a slightly wider beam in its current configuration that led to this error?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester, Beta Testers
5,783 posts
8,152 battles

The black and white blueprints for the two destroyers are not to scale with each other.

3e6HXgV.png

 

Because of the small image resolution, there's no way for me to properly adjust for deviation of pixels, but this is what the image should look like, overlapped.

 

LS3sUHQ.png

 

7qIA8hQ.png

 

This doesn't change the fact that the models may be off in-game, but the reason the two destroyers look the same width is because the scale is not identical between the two ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,296 posts
881 battles
14 minutes ago, Compassghost said:

The black and white blueprints for the two destroyers are not to scale with each other.

Thank you for pointing this out. When I get back I'll try to scan images directly from Sumrall. Regardless, the beam of the Gearing in-game is still noticeably more than it should be, and even when you've scaled Gearing properly when overlapping your image, the beams of the two ships are still almost identical.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20
[ZMZ]
Beta Testers
26 posts
1,044 battles

The scan you've posted is from Squadron/Signal's "US Destroyers in Action" - there's no indication if the illustrations on that page are in the same scale. 

The beam was not different between the classes -- I'm unsure why this simple, straightforward, obvious, and well-supported fact is not accepted by those in this thread. Wargaming's model of Gearing is incorrect. End of story.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
462
[P-V-E]
Members
1,382 posts
32 minutes ago, DeliciousFart said:

I'm frankly not convinced. You're talking about more than 1.5 ft of difference on either side for ships that are only 40.5 ft wide as designed. Even Iowa (beam of 108 ft 2.063 in) and New Jersey (beam of 108 ft 1.375 in) only deviated from their design beams (108 ft 2 in) by mere fractions of an inch, and that's a far bigger ship. No shipyard would have the kind of deviations that you're talking about.

Building a couple of ships and building 98 ships at 9 yards is somewhat different, it’s not about accuracy per se, it’s about the refining of a process that comes from building so many ships and implementing what you have learnt along the way, like how the first couple coped with the sea trials can mean some very subtle changes were implemented in later ones under construction, likewise technology was moving along at a fair pace in 1944 to 1946 and equipment was becoming obsolete quite fast, if it sits deeper or shallower in the water that changes beam, if beam is measured in LA or Texas in the summer, that will differ from the beam of the exact same ship transposed to Bath or Seattle in the winter.

 

If you want to see an example of curvature in the freeboard from the waterline, look at some of the various WG footage from USS Kidd, captured from drones or standing around on the banks near/underneath USS Kidd, now granted it’s a different ship type, but it illustrates how a top-down view definitely doesn’t give the whole story of the compound curvature of a hull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,381
[WOLF9]
Privateers
12,508 posts
4,602 battles

In addition, the taper behind the waist is different between the two models.  Note how Sumner/Yueyang narrows while Gearing remains fat till behind the aft mounts, with a wider fantail.  Doesn't look like the same hull at all. 

Btw, isn't beam measured at the waterline?  A plan view may not reveal a difference, though it should be pretty close. 

 

Edited by iDuckman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,296 posts
881 battles
6 minutes ago, b101uk said:

Building a couple of ships and building 98 ships at 9 yards is somewhat different, it’s not about accuracy per se, it’s about the refining of a process that comes from building so many ships and implementing what you have learnt along the way, like how the first couple coped with the sea trials can mean some very subtle changes were implemented in later ones under construction, likewise technology was moving along at a fair pace in 1944 to 1946 and equipment was becoming obsolete quite fast, if it sits deeper or shallower in the water that changes beam, if beam is measured in LA or Texas in the summer, that will differ from the beam of the exact same ship transposed to Bath or Seattle in the winter.

 

If you want to see an example of curvature in the freeboard from the waterline, look at some of the various WG footage from USS Kidd, captured from drones or standing around on the banks near/underneath USS Kidd, now granted it’s a different ship type, but it illustrates how a top-down view definitely doesn’t give the whole story of the compound curvature of a hull.

The coefficient of thermal expansion of steel is somewhere around 10 to 17 * 10-6 M/(M*K); in other words, the temperature difference between different shipyards can't possibly result in such a large difference in dimensions. In short, I can't see any possible way of a Gearing deviating from its design values this much unless a shipyard produced a ship to the wrong specifications, and somehow that ship's dimensions are used by WG to model the Gearing. But I've yet to see any evidence that this was the case. On the other hand, every source puts Sumner and Gearing at the same beam, with the principal difference being 14 ft worth of additional frames amidship in the Gearing compared to Sumner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
462
[P-V-E]
Members
1,382 posts
13 minutes ago, DeliciousFart said:

The coefficient of thermal expansion of steel is somewhere around 10 to 17 * 10-6 M/(M*K); in other words, the temperature difference between different shipyards can't possibly result in such a large difference in dimensions. In short, I can't see any possible way of a Gearing deviating from its design values this much unless a shipyard produced a ship to the wrong specifications, and somehow that ship's dimensions are used by WG to model the Gearing. But I've yet to see any evidence that this was the case. On the other hand, every source puts Sumner and Gearing at the same beam, with the principal difference being 14 ft worth of additional frames amidship in the Gearing compared to Sumner.

 

the buoyancy of water is affected by temperature and salinity, to a ship cold water offers more bouncy than warmer water, just as salty water offers more buoyancy than fresh water at the same temperature.

 

which is why ships have different draught marks for tropical fresh water to winter salt water oporations, normally marked with TF (tropical fresh), F (fresh), T (tropical), S (summer), W (winter), WNA (winter north Atlantic) which you use for conversion.

Edited by b101uk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×