Mexican Cruiser

[Walter]

Call it laziness then. ;D SS assumes more things, like all miscellaneous weights located above the main deck, even if you use it to sim cargo that is located deep down in a cargo hold. :)

Edit: Oh wait! I remember why I do it. I use the upper belt to sim the weight (at least something like that) of the teak backing in a ship.

[Carthaginian]

Call it laziness then. ;D SS assumes more things, like all miscellaneous weights located above the main deck, even if you use it to sim cargo that is located deep down in a cargo hold. :)

Edit: Oh wait! I remember why I do it. I use the upper belt to sim the weight (at least something like that) of the teak backing in a ship.

Not a bad reason... but one of those times I'd say (and have on my designs) "Screw this, it's just too much work to figure out how this should be simmed; let's just go with 'simple'."
One of my ship classes is technically a 'Composite' design of wood and steel- but I just simmed it as straight-up steel as it was frankly too much work at something I know too little about to try and figure out exactly how to sim something that off the wall!

[Walter]

"British Battleships: Warrior to Vanguard" gives Warriors armor weight as "1,305 tons (950 tons plus 355 tons teak)". It has 18" teak backing so for teak backing on the few designs I made, I use an upper belt with the same dimensions as the main belt (minus the transverse bulkhead bit) and roughly go for a weight between the 300 and 400 tons, depending on the thickness I enter. Is it the right way to do it? No idea but at least it is something. :)

[Carthaginian]

It sounds as good a way as any for an iron ship with a wood belt... but I mean that my ship is a true 'Composite' vessel- a wooden vessel with iron framework and armor! To sim that is far, far too complex for me, so I just treat the whole ship as being metal.

[Korpen]

"British Battleships: Warrior to Vanguard" gives Warriors armor weight as "1,305 tons (950 tons plus 355 tons teak)". It has 18" teak backing so for teak backing on the few designs I made, I use an upper belt with the same dimensions as the main belt (minus the transverse bulkhead bit) and roughly go for a weight between the 300 and 400 tons, depending on the thickness I enter. Is it the right way to do it? No idea but at least it is something. :)

Upper belts include a transverse bulkhead... ;)

[Walter]

Don't worry Korpen. I assume that since the main belt already has it, as you pointed out to me yesterday, then the upper belt would have it as well. However, I have yet to correct the posts I made with those designs, so when you look at the designs in those posts, the upper belt should have (in most cases) the same height and length as the main belt minus the transverse bulkhead bit I added to the main belt (which I need to remove).