055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Iron Man
you're pushing hard LOL

I like though when somebody attempts to say something more precise than what's evident (like your "170-185m" above), but there's a risk involved
Of course there's a risk. When you challenge something based on loose assumptions, you can get called out, which is what is happening here.

Okay so first I give you an estimate without the maths behind it, and now that I provide an estimate with some maths and a numerical degree of accuracy which your last post demanded, apparently I'm being pretentious.

Thanks man, it's great to see where a constructive conversation between us can lead to.
Nope, don't try to muddy the waters here. It is NOT your attempt to provide an estimate with parameters and methodology that is pretentious, but your initial attempt to nitpick a very narrow estimate as being wrong in the first place without a solid basis of evidence behind you. In any case, just because you provided a reason for a range doesn't mean the reason (or the range) is legitimate. In this particular case you eyeballed the edges of a low res photo with a ruler and then just assumed it was correct to within a 0.5mm margin of error! Yes, I see your methodology and note your range. I just don't happen to agree that it is solid enough for you to say that a difference of 4m length and 1m beam as being "off". Get yourself a crisper photo and I would be more inclined to agree. In fact I would just go ahead and do the same thing myself, actually.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Nope, don't try to muddy the waters here. It is NOT your attempt to provide an estimate with parameters and methodology that is pretentious, but your initial attempt to nitpick a very narrow estimate as being wrong in the first place without a solid basis of evidence behind you. In any case, just because you provided a reason for a range doesn't mean the reason (or the range) is legitimate. In this particular case you eyeballed the edges of a low res photo with a ruler and then just assumed it was correct to within a 0.5mm margin of error! Yes, I see your methodology and note your range. I just don't happen to agree that it is solid enough for you to say that a difference of 4m length and 1m beam as being "off". Get yourself a crisper photo and I would be more inclined to agree. In fact I would just go ahead and do the same thing myself, actually.

Forgive me, I'm not used to having to defend my pretentiousness on SDF, it may have caused me to mix up your allegations.

I can agree that the beam is difficult to estimate, and I did write in a later post that I think the length was a bigger issue.

However I believe that my length estimate is solid enough to say that their estimate is "a bit off". In fact, if we had a clearer image that produced the same result then I would not say that the drawing's estimate was "a bit off". I would say something closer to "wrong".




@Iron Man, @Bltizo,

For the love of God, could you two continue your lively discussion via private messages? You are taking way too much space on this thread, and it's getting to be a pain in the arse to keep up. I could be wrong, but the tenor of your discussions have gotten beyond pedantic and getting a bit too heated.

I think we've more or less reached the end point of this strand of discussion. Apologies to others for taking up so much space in a big topic thread. It would be much easier if this forum could show more than 10 posts per page, and was more like CDF and could show 20.
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Forgive me, I'm not used to having to defend my pretentiousness on SDF, it may have caused me to mix up your allegations.

I can agree that the beam is difficult to estimate, and I did write in a later post that I think the length was a bigger issue.

However I believe that my length estimate is solid enough to say that their estimate is "a bit off". In fact, if we had a clearer image that produced the same result then I would not say that the drawing's estimate was "a bit off". I would say something closer to "wrong".
"A bit off" and "wrong" mean exactly the same thing, so let's not try and parse words here. You weren't saying the CGI number was "a bit off" as in "maybe right maybe wrong", you were just saying it was wrong. As if you already had that crystal ball. Thus the pretension. It's not rocket science here, mang.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
"A bit off" and "wrong" mean exactly the same thing, so let's not try and parse words here. You weren't saying the CGI number was "a bit off" as in "maybe right maybe wrong", you were just saying it was wrong. As if you already had that crystal ball. Thus the pretension. It's not rocket science here, mang.

Yano, most of us are here to share ideas and information, not to win petty ego contests...If we all agree that none of us can know for sure without some kind of trusted or official source then there's basically no harm or foul in throwing around different ideas, especially if the ideas have some kind of reasoning behind it. The value of participation here, ideally, should be in the thought and discussion, not in trying to assert domination or superiority. There's no value in "winning" here. Blitzo had an opinion about the specs that were shared in the graphic, and he clearly showed he had a rationale for that opinion. He should (as should be the case for everyone here) be allowed to have an opinion without being targeted for personal abuse. That he disagreed with the figure in the graphic is not in of itself pretentious. The graphic is not some special authority, and disagreeing with it is not some special kind of offense. You may have disagreements with him of course, but you can explain why you disagree with someone without resorting to condescension and persecution.

We don't need anyone to appoint themselves the accuracy police here. We're not here to appease you every time you find some particular exception with how someone qualifies an idea. Nor are we here to be your punching bags, or to give you personal validation. In the future it would be nice if you could treat the people you interact with more respectfully, without lobbing personal accusations or attacking their character, especially since this seems to have become a recurring pattern in your exchanges with multiple members.
 
Last edited:

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Yano, most of us are here to share ideas and information, not to win petty ego contests...If we all agree that none of us can know for sure without some kind of trusted or official source then there's basically no harm or foul in throwing around different ideas, especially if the ideas have some kind of reasoning behind it. The value of participation here, ideally, should be in the thought and discussion, not in trying to assert domination or superiority. There's no value in "winning" here. Blitzo had an opinion about the specs that were shared in the graphic, and he clearly showed he had a rationale for that opinion. He should (as should be the case for everyone here) be allowed to have an opinion without being targeted for personal abuse. That he disagreed with the figure in the graphic is not in of itself pretentious. The graphic is not some special authority, and disagreeing with it is not some special kind of offense. You may have disagreements with him of course, but you can explain why you disagree with someone without resorting to condescension and persecution.

We don't need anyone to appoint themselves the accuracy police here. We're not here to appease you every time you find some particular exception with how someone qualifies an idea. Nor are we here to be your punching bags, or to give you personal validation. In the future it would be nice if you could treat the people you interact with more respectfully, without lobbing personal accusations or attacking their character, especially since this seems to have become a recurring pattern in your exchanges with multiple members.
Correct, the graphic is not some special authority. But he WAS claiming special authority. I can claim a length of "178.54364m +/- 0.000043mm", and as long as I don't tell you that you're "off" just because I put a ruler to a fuzzy image and determined this was accurate and therefore you're wrong, then we're all good. But if I tell you that you ARE wrong based on my clearly simplistic and vague calculations, then we're not all good, and I'm being pretentious, because I don't actually have the stones to tell you you're wrong, and you should feel free to call me out on it. Also, you talk as if people debate online in some kind of emotional vacuum, completely devoid of bias, ego, emotion, or history. These and other things are invariably part of online discussions, and you refusing to see that many people if not ALL people are influenced by such emotional considerations, not least of which including you personally, makes me think you either don't go online much or you just have a personal agenda here. Incidentally, I don't need yours or anyone else's "personal validation", and I have absolutely no problem at all if someone like you hits that ignore button. Go right ahead, I'm not dying every day to talk to you or something.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
If you have no idea, then you have no rational basis for including or excluding an estimate, especially one that is within a few meters of your own. That is a plain fact.

I don't have a range, and that's my point. I don't have the numbers, rationale, or evidence to have one. And neither do you. All we have are grainy low res photos and yet here we have you telling us that this or that estimate is "off" with self-admittedly no rational justification for these statements at all.
You can noted we don't have also ofc... exact size, displacement for Type 901 yet build and only a replenishment ship which is much less " sensitive "...so with 055 we can again wait.
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
You can noted we don't have also ofc... exact size, displacement for Type 901 yet build and only a replenishment ship which is much less sensitive...so with 055 we can again wait.
Yes, exactly. Let's wait on disputing smallish differences in size estimates until we get clearer pictures.
 
... something.
the discussion became pure fun now LOL I also had felt I might become your
Iron Man
"punching bag" (expression from
#3956 latenlazy, 46 minutes ago)
when I estimated the size of the panel based on the height of people on the deck (LOL I didn't know if they weren't 7 ft tall, no), but later I just posted Yesterday at 3:18 PM


anyway I looked at the numbers from Today at 2:10 AM
Here is an updated 055 CGI:
View attachment 40653

and the comment made Today at 3:00 AM
...

I think the dimensions they list are a bit off as well. I think the beam of the ship is closer to 20m, while the length of the ship is closer to 180m. ...

the difference would be the length-to-beam ratio, when rounded to integers, "approaching" 8:1 or 9:1

just saying
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top