Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Seeing the screencap reminded me of the little I've worked on AutoCAD and I'm thinking it's an issue with 3ds max.

With how 3ds max deals with the topography of objects, it spits out a whole bunch of extra and nasty junk if you chamfer much on an already complex shape. Other tools that would be important are rather fickle and also spit out a bunch extra junk that makes life tough.

While 3ds max uses vertices and polies and all that, AutoCad and SolidWorks look like they operate more on fancy lines.

While you can technically work with just lines in 3ds max, it's like using Microsoft Word for spreadsheets instead of excel.

I'm too lazy to look for plugins and would rather learn solidworks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 338
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

3ds Max isn't very nice for telling you how much something will weigh and all that jazz, so I'm probably just going submit eye candy with backstory tacked on.  That was pretty much my original goal an

FINAL VERSION CARACAL MMEV A MEDIUM TANK FOR THE MODERN AGE THE HONDENAAIER INDUSTRIES, LTD. CARACAL MEDIUM MULTIPURPOSE EXPEDITIONARY VEHICLE Hondenaaier Ind., Ltd. is proud to present its new

Thanks for the welcome.     The name "Stormpanser" means something close to "Assault armor" when translated from Norwegian into English.   And:   Germanic languages: German: Panzer Swedish: P

From what I've heard, AutoCad doesn't really work and you should never use it.

 

SolidWorks, as I understand it, is the 3D equivalent of a vector-drawn image program.  The model isn't based on polygons and vertices, it's based on dimensions.  The polygons and vertices shown on screen are calculated from the dimensions.

 

This takes much more horsepower to render, but it can be manipulated much more readily.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I probably won't have actual time to work on my thing until Monday, but it keeps turning into a more and more serious submission in my mind. It's also turned more unto a heavy recon thing that doubles as mobile firepower.

Currently trying to decide between a 2 man crew or 3 man. With those fancy new target tracking systems and autoloaders, the tank can occupy the role of the loader and half the role of the gunner. 2 crew means more ammo stowage and smaller size.

3 man crew takes up more space, but it's another guy inside to do things. I don't currently have an area set aside for number 3.

Gun is likely a 60mm autocannon, with a coaxial MG for more dakka. Turret is weird. It's unmanned, but the gun stuff is partitioned off from the crew for NBC protection. Commander is positioned under that bump on the MG side of the turret.

Road wheels and idler wheel are taken from existing designs.

Protection without armor upgrades is supposed to be 30mm APDS on the frontal arc and 14.5mm from all other sides. I made the hull floor shape a bit better for mines.

From what I've heard, AutoCad doesn't really work and you should never use it.

SolidWorks, as I understand it, is the 3D equivalent of a vector-drawn image program. The model isn't based on polygons and vertices, it's based on dimensions. The polygons and vertices shown on screen are calculated from the dimensions.

This takes much more horsepower to render, but it can be manipulated much more readily.

I guess that's another way to put it, ans it probably works better than my anology. Tomorrow I'll try to grab an example of the monstrosities I was talking about in 3ds max.

I will say there's a reason why I've dealt so little with AutoCAD (I don't like it). It's free for me since I'm a student, and I've had to use it in a couple courses. Beyond that, I avoid it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FINAL ENTRY

 

2S37 плесень

 

gLWUXMp.png

 

JplG41Y.png

Width: 3.28m

Length (not including main armament): 6.22m

Length (gun forward): 10.18m

Length (gun rear): 9.72m

Height: 2.48m

Crew: 3 (driver, commander, gunner)

Weight: 30 tons

Frontal Armor: 50mm at 65 deg

Other armor: 20-30mm

Hull empty weight: ~8450 kg

Turret empty weight: ~2700 kg

Turret ring diameter: 1800mm

Turret front armor: 60mm at 45 degrees

Other turret armor: 30mm

Track width: 400mm

Length of contact patch: 4.70m

Total surface area in contact with ground: 3.76m^2

Ground pressure: 78 kPa = 11.3 psi

Engine: V-92S2

Engine power: 746 kW / 1000 hp

Engine dimensions: Length 1.5m, Width 900mm Height 900mm

Engine weight: 1020 kg

Engine+Transmission+Cooling system weight: ~4000 kg

Main armament: 2A29K smoothbore 100mm gun

Main armament loading system: Autoloader similar to T-72

Main armament rate of fire: ~10 rpm

Main armament elevation range: -12/31 degrees

Main armament + loading system weight: 2,500 kg (wiki list's 2,750 kilos, but that's including wheels, gun shield, towing equipment, and other stuff that isn't needed)

Secondary armament: AGS-30 automatic grenade launcher

Secondary armament: KPV 14.5mm heavy machine gun

 

Description

 

Upon receipt of design requirements, it was decided to use another vehicle as the "base", and modify the design from that. Originally, this was to be the BMP-3, however, upon further thought, it was decided to use the 2S25 Sprut airmobile tank destroyer. While the final design of the 2S37 does not share any major components with the 2S25, the Sprut was something of an inspiration.

 

The 2S37 was an attempt to meet three sometimes contradictory design requirements; anti-vehicle performance, infantry support capability, and easy transportability. Almost immediately, it was realized that not all requirements put forth could be met at the same time. Fitting the vehicle into a C-130/An-12 class aircraft would have imposed severe constraints on design and weight, which would have adversely affected performance in other areas. Instead, it was decided to design the 2S37 for transport in an Il-76 class aircraft. Assuming a total payload of 60 tons, a weight of 30 tons would allow two 2S37s to be carried in each aircraft.

 

The next choice was the main armament. While the 2S37 was not intended to face modern vehicles such as the M1 or T-90, it was realized in various "brushfire" conflicts it could run into tanks such as the T-55 or M48. Having a gun capable of defeating these tanks was thought to be essential. The Sprut managed to fit a 125mm gun into a chassis weighing less than 20 tons, but at the cost of low armor and other compromises. Instead, it was decided to use the 2A29 100mm antitank gun, fitted with an automatic loading device, and a modern stabilization and fire control system. Though an older weapon, the 2A29 with modern ammunition was easily capable of defeating tanks such as the T-55 from long range. The addition of the 9M117 gun launched anti-tank missile increased the weapon's range even further. Another important factor was the large HE payload of the 100mm gun (compared to other options considered such as a 57mm autocannon). This would enable the 2S37 to be useful in an infantry support role, or even as ad hoc artillery. It was considered to put the main armament in an unmanned turret, but this was decided against, for reasons of simplicity and to allow the crew to load the gun in the event of autoloader failure (this would severely reduce RoF).

 

However, the 2A29 not be sufficient for infantry support and operations in urban areas. A coaxial KPV machine gun was an easy fitting to improve this, but the designers felt that more was needed. The AGS-30 automatic grenade launcher was a low-weight weapon system which massively improved utility in the close support role. Fitted in a smaller turret on the rear of the main one, the AGS-30 could be used in a direct fire role or indirect fire at short ranges against soft targets.

 

The armor layout of the 2S37 was another important aspect of the design, one which was driven by both the weight and design philosophy. The primary armor material is a lightweight steel alloy (ρ = 7300 m3), which allowed for some weight savings while still having good properties. It was desired to make the 2S37 immune to low caliber autocannons in the frontal arc, in order that it could engage vehicles such as the M2 Bradley with impunity. While the 2S37's superior main armament would help, armor was also needed. Research showed that approximately 80mm of line of sight thickness would provide an acceptable level of protection. It was decided to utilize a 50mm thick armor plate sloped at 65 degrees, for a total thickness on the upper glacis, for a total LoS thickness of about 115mm. This would provide an adequate margin, and the sloping would give some protection against move primitive shaped charges. ERA plates can optionally be fitted, although the addition of these will increase the weight of the 2S37 beyond transportability limits. The sides and rear of the vehicle were armored to 30mm, to provide resistance against machine gun rounds.

 

The V92-S2 engine from the T-90 was chosen as the powerplant, giving a power/weight ratio of 33 horsepower / ton. This gives the 2S37 excellent mobility, while using an off-the-shelf engine. A new cooling system was required to fit the V92 into the 2S37's smaller chassis. The V84 engine is also available as a low-cost option. Suspension is conventional torsion bars, utilizing purpose designed components.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggestion: Can the deadline for this and all future contests be moved to like, the 5th or something? I have been scrambling to catch up on work for the end of the month and would appreciate a few days to put together something nice for this contest.

Sure.

Other contestants, give a shout if the new date suits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, pushing it back would be nice since I've been busy and I joined late. Haven't been able to work much these past few days.

Settled on my idler wheel, working on the commander's main sights.

I don't know if mine really counts as an entry either since I've not made an effort yet to use existing parts and I've not paid much attention to the guidelines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

   So, what date is now final?

   I propose a next thing - in last day every contestant post their final version submission with big red FINAL VERSION in caps in as their first words of the post, so it will be easier for judges to not get lost in pictures/posts/etc.

 

   After that, the judges should look at which design was able to fulfill requirements, probably via teamspeak or PM. If we will have 2 or more submissions, that managed to match completely in first comparison, than we will look at them with magnifier.

 

   Judges are: Me, Collimatrix, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks.

 

50$ is SRS BSNSS

50_bucks_by_greenchikin.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Loooser suggested them, so that's easy.

I'll chat to coli and Jeeps as well.

I'll also send a PM to the other contestants.

 

LoooSeR suggested what? The rules section of this subforum is something I made up.

BTW, my submission should be ready in the next day or two. I have some renders and a write-up to make, but it'll be here soon. I am going to create a new post for it, so that others can still look at my worksheet if they want.

Be warned: It will come in the form of a company brochure...

Link to post
Share on other sites

LoooSeR suggested what? The rules section of this subforum is something I made up.

BTW, my submission should be ready in the next day or two. I have some renders and a write-up to make, but it'll be here soon. I am going to create a new post for it, so that others can still look at my worksheet if they want.

Be warned: It will come in the form of a company brochure...

 

 

   So, what date is now final?

   I propose a next thing - in last day every contestant post their final version submission with big red FINAL VERSION in caps in as their first words of the post, so it will be easier for judges to not get lost in pictures/posts/etc.

 

   After that, the judges should look at which design was able to fulfill requirements, probably via teamspeak or PM. If we will have 2 or more submissions, that managed to match completely in first comparison, than we will look at them with magnifier.

 

   Judges are: Me, Collimatrix, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks.

 

50$ is SRS BSNSS

50_bucks_by_greenchikin.jpg

 
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Sturgeon
      The LORD was with the men of Deseret. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots of steel.
      —The Book of Latter Day Saints, Ch 8, vs. 3:10, circa 25th Century CE
       
      BULLETIN: ALL INDUSTRIAL-MECHANICAL CONCERNS
       
      SOLICITATION FOR ALL-TERRAIN BATTLE TANK
       
      The Provisional Government of the Lone Free State of Texas and The Great Plains issues the following solicitation for a new All-Terrain Battle Tank. The vehicle will be the main line ground combat asset of the Lone Free State Rangers, and the Texas Free State Patrol, and will replace the ageing G-12 Scout Truck, and fill the role of the cancelled G-42 Scout Truck. The All-Terrain Battle Tank (ATBT) will be required to counter the new Californian and Cascadian vehicles and weapons which our intelligence indicates are being used in the western coast of the continent. Please see the attached sheet for a full list of solicitation requirements.
       

       
      Submissions will be accepted in USC only.
       
       
      Supplementary Out of Canon Information:
       
       
      I.     Technology available:
      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a judge.
      Structural materials:
                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA
      Basic steel armor, 360 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches (RHA) 8 inches (CHA). 
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3.
                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083
      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.
       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 0.1 lb/in^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).
      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:
      For heavy vehicles (30-40 tons), not less than 1 in RHA/1.75 in Aluminum base structure
      For medium-light vehicles (<25 tons), not less than 0.5 in RHA/1 in Aluminum base structure
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:
                                                                  iii.     HHA
      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately 1.5x as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 1 inch.
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3
                                                                  iv.     Fuel
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.
      Density-0.03 lb/in^3.
                                                                v.     Assorted stowage/systems
      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.
                                                               vi.     Spaced armor
      Requires a face of at least 1 inch LOS vs CE, and at least 0.75 caliber LOS vs fullbore AP KE.
      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 4 inchair gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.
      Reactive armor materials:
                                                                  vii.     ERA
      A sandwich of 0.125in/0.125in/0.125in steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 2 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                  viii.     NERA
      A sandwich of 0.25in steel/0.25in rubber/0.25in steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.
      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.
      b.      Firepower
                                                                    i.     Bofors 57mm (reference weapon) - 85,000 PSI PMax/70,000 PSI Peak Operating Pressure, high quality steel cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USA in the year 1960.
                                                                   ii.     No APFSDS currently in use, experimental weapons only - Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.
                                                                  iii.     Tungsten is available for tooling but not formable into long rod penetrators. It is available for penetrators up to 6 calibers L:D.
                                                                  iv.     Texan shaped charge technology - 4 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 5 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.
                                                                   v.     The subsidy-approved GPMG for the Lone Free State of Texas has the same form factor as the M240, but with switchable feed direction.. The standard HMG has the same form factor as the Kord, but with switchable feed direction.
      c.       Mobility
                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:
      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)
      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)
      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)
      4.    Detroit Diesel 8V92 (400 HP)
      5.    Detroit Diesel 6V53 (200 HP)
                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).
                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).
                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.
      d.      Electronics
                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable
                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable
                                                                  iii.     I^2- Gen 2 maximum
                                                                  vi.     Texas cannot mass produce microprocessors or integrated circuits
                                                                 vii.    Really early transistors only (e.g., transistor radio)
                                                                viii.    While it is known states exist with more advanced computer technology, the import of such systems are barred by the east coast states who do not approve of their use by militaristic entities.
       
      Armor calculation appendix.
       
      SHEET 1 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 1200 yd
       
      SHEET 2 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 2000 yd
       
      SHEET 3 Armor defeat calculator 6in HEAT
       
      Range calculator
       
    • By Toxn
      This is the competition entry thread.
       
      Please submit your complete entries here (all entries will be judged complete when judging begins in the first week of November) and keep the other competition thread for discussion and chatter.
       
      Once judging is complete I will make a post here to discuss the entries and announce a winner.
       
      Best of luck!
       
      Update: final submissions should be in hand by the 22nd of November 2020.
    • By Toxn
      You are an engineer at an Italian locomotive and tractor-making company in early 1943. The writing is on the wall for the Italian army in North Africa, with a lot of equipment having been lost and the enemy on the brink of kicking the axis out of Tunisia and then heading across the Mediterranean. In short, things are looking more than a little desperate. 
       
      However, all is not lost. Il Duce himself has stepped in and, with the assistance of the Germans, procured both some of their finest captured vehicles for use in the upcoming defense of the homeland. Since many of these vehicles have been... gently used, and the existing firms like Ansaldo are flooded with orders, your firm has been asked to work on them in order to bring them up to the standards demanded by modern warfare. 
       
      In addition to these vehicles, the Germans have also graciously agreed to sell weapons from their existing stock of captured equipment, as well as providing production licenses for some of their more modern equipment. You have also been given permission to work with local weapons manufacturers in order to modify existing artillery to suit your needs. Italian automotive and engine manufacturers are similarly available to help. Finally; your firm's experience in locomotives and tractors means that you can modify hulls and put together turrets and turret rings. You can also produce castings (although not very large ones) and weld armour plates.
       
      Your job, which you have no choice but to accept, is to choose a vehicle from among the captured stock being offered for sale, and propose a series of plausible fixes in order to give it a fighting chance against the American and British equipment currently in the field (specifically light tanks and light anti-tank weapons).
       
      It is not foreseen that any of these vehicles will be able to plausibly take on modern medium or heavy designs head-on. Instead, what is wanted are general, implementable improvements to the characteristics of the chosen vehicle. These improvements should be aimed at making these vehicles more useful in the initial battles which are foreseen taking place against airborne and landing forces, in general cooperation with infantry, and as scouts.
       
      The submission should include one or more drawings or blueprints (at least a side view of the vehicle, but preferably a 3-point view and isometric view), a description of the modified vehicle, a description of how the modifications would be accomplished and a description of how the modifications would improve the design overall. The text of the submission should short and descriptive rather than long and exhaustive, and should not exceed 1000 words in total. Images may be photoshopped using existing pictures.
       
      Judging will be done on the basis of plausibility and effectiveness, with innovative solutions being encouraged in order to get the most bang for buck out of the base vehicle. Beyond implementation, the fixes should prioritise combat effectiveness while also improving reliability, crew ergonomics, communication, mobility and protection as much as possible.
       
      The foreign vehicles available for modification are:
      Renault R35 (already in service) Hotchkiss H35/39 Somua S35 (already in use for training purposes) T-26 BT-5 T-28 (only available in very small numbers, so need to be extremely effective) Panzer II Ausf.C  
      The foreign weapons immediately available for purchase are:
      15mm ZB-60 25mm Puteaux and Hotchkiss 3.7cm KPÚV vz. 34/Pak 34 (t) 3.7cm ÚV vz. 38/KwK 38(t)
      3.7cm Pak 36 4.0 cm Pak 192 (e) 45mm M1937 (53-K) 4.7cm KPÚV vz. 38/Pak 38 (t) 47mm APX 7.5cm Pak 97/38 7.62 cm F.K.297(r) and  7.62 cm PaK 39(r) 8.8cm Raketenwerfer 43  
      Licenses are also available for the manufacture of foreign engines (Maybach HL62 TRM, Maybach HL120 TRM and Praga Typ TNHPS/II), periscopes, sights, radios, cupolas and automotive subassemblies. All foreign vehicle weapons, subassemblies and components are available for reverse engineering and manufacture.
       
      IMPORTANT NOTE: This competition hasn't been finalised, and is waiting on your input! Vote to participate by giving this topic a 'controversial' (grapefruit-induced tears being the only currency of value), and if we get enough participants we'll pull the trigger. Ask any questions you want below, and when/if the competition goes forwards I will make a new thread for entries.
       
      Edit: thanks to excellent feedback, the competition proposal has been somewhat edited. If you want an idea of what my mindset is here, read up on the battle of Gela (bearing in mind that the wikipedia entry is shite) and ask how much better the counter-attack could have gone if the Italian vehicles had been equipped with radios and had the ability to move faster than jogging speed.
       
      Edit 2: since I failed to mention this above - this is not a one-man, one-entry sort of competition (although I'm not keen on the ten-men, one entry approach either).
      If you have two good ideas then you can submit twice. The only rules are not to test my patience and to keep it within the bounds of good taste.
    • By Toxn
      So I got a request recently from {NAME REDACTED} as to whether we have a how-to guide or something for competitions. After a few moments of bitter, bitter laughter at the decade-plus of my life that I've spent cobbling together things that can maybe, sort-of, squint-your-eyes produce a facsimile of a realistic vehicle, I thought I'd share my process:
       
       
      Note: I was half-right - we definitely have supplementary info for aspiring pretend tank designers pinned to this very board.
       
      Finally, I'm inviting our forum grognards and past winners to share their process for folk that haven't been here since before the last ice age, so that all can benefit.

×
×
  • Create New...