054B/new generation frigate

Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
ChongqingHotPot92 said:
So still diesel powered like 054A as opposed to having gas turbine engines? Sorry I am a bit confused about determining the propulsion. And no IEP?
Click to expand...

There is no way to determine the propulsion based solely on the number of exhaust stacks (it would be different it we could see the geometry and number of exhaust vents inside the stack structure).

As for what Helius meant, I will not speak for him, but there was quite a number of CGIs of a large variety that depicted various exhaust configurations which were mostly educated guesses, with some being close to the real thing and some less so. I'm not sure how the accuracy of fan CGIs is worth mentioning here at all.


Edit:
Also, there are some recent CGIs done in the last few weeks (but before the launch) where various details were closer to the real thing that we see, such as the exhaust in this CGI below (there are more in the set but I don't need to post them to make this point). Naturally some other details are different such as exact geometry of some systems like the rear mast, gun geometry, main mast height etc, but the exhaust in this one is pretty close to the actual thing

054b art 1.jpg054b art 2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Helius

Helius

Senior Member
Registered Member
ChongqingHotPot92 said:
So still diesel powered like 054A as opposed to having gas turbine engines? Sorry I am a bit confused about determining the propulsion. And no IEP?
Click to expand...
The thing with CGIs is the expectation(s) inherent in the imagery the artists/authors sometimes seek to convey, often informed by an incomplete set of information at any given time frame and, like Blitzo said, educated guesses. This naturally aids the viewer in visualising the end product which in turn influences to some degree or another the formation of the viewer's own expectations as a result e.g. "a prospective Type 054B should have this and that".

Of course, this sort of effect isn't unique to CGIs, only that it's much easier to look at an image and go: "Hmm, right..." than to scour bits and pieces of often disjointed and unverifiable information and hearsay when it comes to forming a picture in your own head of what you think the thing should/would/could/ought to look like.

So long answer short, no, a single smoke stack doesn't mean anything at this very moment as far as the mode of propulsion goes, only that the 054B also appears to have a single smoke stack like the 054A before it. Any speculation based on that remains exactly that, speculation. And of course, like I said, RIP the CGIs that purported otherwise.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Helius said:
The thing with CGIs is the expectation(s) inherent in the imagery the artists/authors sometimes seek to convey, often informed by an incomplete set of information at any given time frame and, like Blitzo said, educated guesses. This naturally aids the viewer in visualising the end product which in turn influences to some degree or another the formation of the viewer's own expectations as a result e.g. "a prospective Type 054B should have this and that".

Of course, this sort of effect isn't unique to CGIs, only that it's much easier to look at an image and go: "Hmm, right..." than to scour bits and pieces of often disjointed and unverifiable information and hearsay when it comes to forming a picture in your own head of what you think the thing should/would/could/ought to look like.

So long answer short, no, a single smoke stack doesn't mean anything at this very moment as far as the mode of propulsion goes, only that the 054B also appears to have a single smoke stack like the 054A before it. Any speculation based on that remains exactly that, speculation. And of course, like I said, RIP the CGIs that purported otherwise.
Click to expand...

I don't want to belabour this part too much, but from the PLA watching pov I think it is important for us to recognize that CGI artists are not necessarily making a claim or prediction that the final thing will look exactly like their CGI.

Instead, they generally are just doing CGI mockups for what rumours and indicators at a given time period are saying.


I think saying "RIP the CGIs that purported otherwise" may give the false impression that CGI artists have a major role in "predicting" what a given ship or aircraft may look like, whereas they are only just creating it based on what has been told or indicated to them. OTOH, if there are CGI artists who adamantly state that their own CGI is perfectly reflective of a final piece of hardware, then that is different and they would deserve the blowback from it.
 
Helius

Helius

Senior Member
Registered Member
Blitzo said:
I don't want to belabour this part too much, but from the PLA watching pov I think it is important for us to recognize that CGI artists are not necessarily making a claim or prediction that the final thing will look exactly like their CGI.

Instead, they generally are just doing CGI mockups for what rumours and indicators at a given time period are saying.


I think saying "RIP the CGIs that purported otherwise" may give the false impression that CGI artists have a major role in "predicting" what a given ship or aircraft may look like, whereas they are only just creating it based on what has been told or indicated to them. OTOH, if there are CGI artists who adamantly state that their own CGI is perfectly reflective of a final piece of hardware, then that is different and they would deserve the blowback from it.
Click to expand...
Nor I in necessarily inferring that CG artists are purporting to make claims or predictions via their CGI.

My response to ChongqingHotPot92 was precisely that - that often the CGIs are produced and thus shared due to information, credible or otherwise, that is available at any given time which in turn serve to allow viewers to visualise an end result as collated from these various sources that these CGIs by their very nature represent.

Whether the images produced are 'accurate' or not is inherently irrelevant as they cannot be accurate in the absence of actual evidence e.g. photos or documentation of the subject matter in question to support that "accuracy". Which is why I specifically worded my response in terms of the expectation the artist may seek to convey with their CGIs i.e. "Here's what I've come up with from what I've read/heard", which honestly is not that different to someone opting instead to make a commentary in lieu of graphics, would that person be then considered as given to making 'predictions' via the content in his comments?

So no, personally I don't have an opinion on what 'role', if any, CGI artists have in predicting whatever. My comment of "RIP CGI" was more of a flippant one in light of the effort it must've taken one to produce such graphics in the first place (as it would be for me) than anything so serious as implying: "They've 'predicted' it wrong". So if that was the impression you got, I hope I've clarified it for you.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Helius said:
Nor I in necessarily inferring that CG artists are purporting to make claims or predictions via their CGI.

My response to ChongqingHotPot92 was precisely that - that often the CGIs are produced and thus shared due to information, credible or otherwise, that is available at any given time which in turn serve to allow viewers to visualise an end result as collated from these various sources that these CGIs by their very nature represent.

Whether the images produced are 'accurate' or not is inherently irrelevant as they cannot be accurate in the absence of actual evidence e.g. photos or documentation of the subject matter in question to support that "accuracy". Which is why I specifically worded my response in terms of the expectation the artist may seek to convey with their CGIs i.e. "Here's what I've come up with from what I've read/heard", which honestly is not that different to someone opting instead to make a commentary in lieu of graphics, would that person be then considered as given to making 'predictions' via the content in his comments?

So no, personally I don't have an opinion on what 'role', if any, CGI artists have in predicting whatever. My comment of "RIP CGI" was more of a flippant one in light of the effort it must've taken one to produce such graphics in the first place (as it would be for me) than anything so serious as implying: "They've 'predicted' it wrong". So if that was the impression you got, I hope I've clarified it for you.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm aware that your intention was meant in a joking, humorous manner, but I also felt that it left room for people to interpret it as if you meant that there was some sort of meaningful implication which others less familiar with the PLA watching (rumour-CGI pipeline/relationship) might read into. Chongqinghotpot's own question very much is in evidence of that.

My reply/clarification is thus for people who might read or interpret things from the flippant part of your reply.
 
Helius

Helius

Senior Member
Registered Member
Blitzo said:
Yes, I'm aware that your intention was meant in a joking, humorous manner, but I also felt that it left room for people to interpret it as if you meant that there was some sort of meaningful implication which others less familiar with the PLA watching (rumour-CGI pipeline/relationship) might read into. Chongqinghotpot's own question very much is in evidence of that.

My reply/clarification is thus for people who might read or interpret things from the flippant part of your reply.
Click to expand...
Obviously I can't speak for ChongqingHotPot92, so if he wishes to chime in then by all means. But I think his question stemmed more from my pointing out that the 054B now appears only to have one smoke stack, notwithstanding my subsequently commenting on the CGIs depicting as such.

That, to be honest, no one really has control over if someone (not ChongqingHotPot92, mind) is prone to interpreting a particular piece of information and make their own inferences, whether a reference was made to any CGI by me or anyone else.

Frankly I could've worded it as: "RIP those who thought the ship would have two stacks", and it would've made no difference except probably piss a few people off in the process; or I could've stopped at: "Looks like the ship only has one stack", and I'm willing to bet someone's gonna question its propulsion afterwards.

So ultimately I don't think CGI is the issue in prompting people, less informed or otherwise, into drawing their own conclusions, since pretty much anything else can have the same effect anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top