055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Blitzo]

Let me be clear, I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with either the CGI's numbers or your numbers. My point is that at this time there is no reasonable basis for saying one estimate is better than another when we are talking about differences of only a few meters, especially in the context of crappy low resolution images being all that we have to go on.

Yes, and I'm saying I think with the poor resolution images we do have, we are able to make an estimate with a margin for error and to exclude other estimates outside of that range as unlikely.

Basically, this is about what we consider to be a reasonable estimate range given the quality of the image that we have.

 

[Iron Man]

Yes, and I'm saying I think with the poor resolution images we do have, we are able to make an estimate with a margin for error and to exclude other estimates outside of that range as unlikely.

Basically, this is about what we consider to be a reasonable estimate range given the quality of the image that we have.

Really? So what exactly is your margin of error and what is the methodology by which you have come up with this number?

 

[Blitzo]

Really? So what exactly is your margin of error and what is the methodology by which you have come up with this number?

No idea, and I don't claim to have a clear method for calculating the error.

But I think 175.5m is an estimate that I consider to be either outside of that range or on the distant fringes. Let's call it 179m +/- 2m for posterity's sake.


I'm interested now that you bring it up -- what do you consider to be your range? You're saying neither 175.5m or 180m estimate are worse or better than each other as an estimate... then what's your bottom and top for estimating 055's length?

 

[Iron Man]

No idea, and I don't claim to have a clear method for calculating the error.

But I think 175.5m is an estimate that I consider to be either outside of that range or on the distant fringes. Let's call it 179m +/- 2m for posterity's sake.


I'm interested now that you bring it up -- what do you consider to be your range? You're saying neither 175.5m or 180m estimate are worse or better than each other as an estimate... then what's your bottom and top for estimating 055's length?

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.

 

[Blitzo]

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.

Well the rational basis would be taking various potential lengths of 055 and seeing what that translates to in terms of meters to pixels or meters to millimeters and how reasonable it would be to accidentally measure those various potential lengths.

I'll try my hand at a mathematical way of it, we could take the image and measure 055's size at 100% normal magnification using a ruler (rather than measuring pixels, as that would probably be an exaggeration of how accurate we can be as we'd be going +/- half a pixel), giving a measure of 89mm. Taking standard mathematical practice where accuracy is described as + and - half a unit either way of the smallest unit, we get 89mm +/- 0.5mm
For 052D, it measures at 77mm +/- 0.5mm

Using the accepted measure of 052Ds length as 155m, we get the ratio that each mm = 2.01m

So for 052D, it's measured length would be 155m +/- 1.005m
For 055, it's measured length would be 178.9m +/- 1.005m

Feel free to challenge the maths if you want, but that isn't really the thrust of my position. With or without that, I would still stake my estimate range as about 179m +/- 2m.

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.

Leaving aside whether or not there is a basis or not to make a reasonable estimate, which we simply aren't going to come to an agreement to...

Surely you must have a range. I suppose you think 055 could be 170m? 165m? 155m? 15m?... Come on, there must be a bottom line.

 

[Iron Man]

Well the rational basis would be taking various potential lengths of 055 and seeing what that translates to in terms of meters to pixels or meters to millimeters and how reasonable it would be to accidentally measure those various potential lengths.

I'll try my hand at a mathematical way of it, we could take the image and measure 055's size at 100% normal magnification using a ruler (rather than measuring pixels, as that would probably be an exaggeration of how accurate we can be as we'd be going +/- half a pixel), giving a measure of 89mm. Taking standard mathematical practice where accuracy is described as + and - half a unit either way of the smallest unit, we get 89mm +/- 0.5mm
For 052D, it measures at 77mm +/- 0.5mm

Using the accepted measure of 052Ds length as 155m, we get the ratio that each mm = 2.01m

So for 052D, it's measured length would be 155m +/- 1.005m
For 055, it's measured length would be 178.9m +/- 1.005m

Feel free to challenge the maths if you want, but that isn't really the thrust of my position. With or without that, I would still stake my estimate range as about 179m +/- 2m.

Again, this is just you eyeballing your personal opinion of the edge of the bow and the stern, which going by the photo you provided that you measured with, certainly doesn't definitively lend itself to within a mm of accuracy at 100% blowup. In fact I wouldn't even use that photo to make any kind of "reasonable" estimate given you could just be dramatically off with your end markers. If you had wanted to make an estimate just for fun or as a rough guide, that would be something else, but you are obviously attempting to claim some degree of accuracy, at least enough to critique other similar estimates, including a beam difference of just 1m (ROFLMAO) as being "off". And if you now want to backtrack and say your beam estimate isn't necessarily "on" to being with, then why did you even bother mentioning another beam estimate as being "off" by just 1m in the first place??? Actually less than 1m because you said "closer to 20m". This degree of measurement accuracy nitpicking smacks of pretension, yet not anything backed up by evidence, at least not any that are currently available to us now.

Leaving aside whether or not there is a basis or not to make a reasonable estimate, which we simply aren't going to come to an agreement to...

Surely you must have a range. I suppose you think 055 could be 170m? 165m? 155m? 15m?... Come on, there must be a bottom line.

What's the point of repeatedly asking me this question? Is there motive behind it, I wonder? I already told you, I don't have any rational basis for a range, but if you must have a random guess from me, I will say 170-185m.

 

[Jura The idiot]

since in:

... 055's size ... a measure of 89mm.
...
For 052D, it measures at 77mm +/- 0.5mm

Using the accepted measure of 052Ds length as 155m, we get the ratio that each mm = 2.01m

So for 052D, it's measured length would be 155m +/- 1.005m
For 055, it's measured length would be 178.9m +/- 1.005m

one mm corresponds to 155/77 (which, when rounded, is 2.01 as you said above),
89 mm would actually mean
(155/77)*89 =179.2 m (rounded)
which is still within your range, of course:

Feel free to challenge the maths if you want, but that isn't really the thrust of my position. With or without that, I would still stake my estimate range as about 179m +/- 2m.




Leaving aside whether or not there is a basis or not to make a reasonable estimate, which we simply aren't going to come to an agreement to...

Surely you must have a range. I suppose you think 055 could be 170m? 165m? 155m? 15m?... Come on, there must be a bottom line.

 

[delft]

It is improbable that during the life of the 055 class USN will not develop ballistic missiles to be able to attack PLAN flattops so the ships will have the power necessary.

 

[Jura The idiot]

Again, this is just you eyeballing your personal opinion of the edge of the bow and the stern, which going by the photo you provided that you measured with, certainly doesn't definitively lend itself to within a mm of accuracy at 100% blowup. In fact I wouldn't even use that photo to make any kind of "reasonable" estimate given you could just be dramatically off with your end markers. If you had wanted to make an estimate just for fun or as a rough guide, that would be something else, but you are obviously attempting to claim some degree of accuracy, at least enough to critique other similar estimates, including a beam difference of just 1m (ROFLMAO) as being "off". And if you now want to backtrack and say your beam estimate isn't necessarily "on" to being with, then why did you even bother mentioning another beam estimate as being "off" by just 1m in the first place??? Actually less than 1m because you said "closer to 20m". This degree of measurement accuracy nitpicking smacks of pretension, yet not anything backed up by evidence, at least not any that are currently available to us now.


What's the point of repeatedly asking me this question? Is there motive behind it, I wonder? I already told you, I don't have any rational basis for a range, but if you must have a random guess from me, I will say 170-185m.

Iron Man
you're pushing hard LOL

I like though when somebody attempts to say something more precise than what's evident (like is your "170-185m" range above), but there's a risk involved

 

[Blitzo]

Again, this is just you eyeballing your personal opinion of the edge of the bow and the stern, which going by the photo you provided that you measured with, certainly doesn't definitively lend itself to within a mm of accuracy at 100% blowup. In fact I wouldn't even use that photo to make any kind of "reasonable" estimate given you could just be dramatically off with your end markers. If you had wanted to make an estimate just for fun or as a rough guide, that would be something else, but you are obviously attempting to claim some degree of accuracy, at least enough to critique other similar estimates, including a beam difference of just 1m (ROFLMAO) as being "off". And if you now want to backtrack and say your beam estimate isn't necessarily "on" to being with, then why did you even bother mentioning another beam estimate as being "off" by just 1m in the first place??? Actually less than 1m because you said "closer to 20m". This degree of measurement accuracy nitpicking smacks of pretension, yet not anything backed up by evidence, at least not any that are currently available to us now.

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.

What's the point of repeatedly asking me this question? Is there motive behind it, I wonder? I already told you, I don't have any rational basis for a range, but if you must have a random guess from me, I will say 170-185m.

I ask because I was trying to figure out how you came to your own internal estimate of whatever 055's length may lie in.