There were difficulties with large changes in the Cmfact value due to its linear transformation of each station toward either of its two diagonal corners. As the change got larger, each section shape developed a corner knuckle or dimple, depending on the direction of variation from the parent shape. Rounding off the hard knuckle corner (at point Q) to use for a Cmfact value of 1 would improve this problem. It would give the vessel a small bilge radius for a Cmfact of 1.0, and would smooth the section shape changes over a greater range of Cmfact values. OTHER VARIATIONS There are many more potential avenues for hull variation, such as: o Variation of the deadrise angle o Variation of the profile rocker of the boat o Change sections from U-shapes to V-shapes o Change section shapes while maintaining constant LWL, BWL, draft, and section area. Many of these hull variations are important in their own right, but for the resistance evaluation routine described in this program, they play a smaller role than varying the major hull shape parameters. HULL CONSTRAINTS The Stretch variation changes the length, beam, and depth of the boat, but the displacement, Cp, lcb, etc. all change. Balance determines the new draft (T) for a given displacement, but the length, beam, Cp, etc. all change. Lackenby maintains constant LWL, BWL, and draft, while varying Cp, lcb, Pfwd, and Paft, but displacement changes. CmVary maintains constant length, beam, and draft, but varies the displacement and prismatic coefficient. It is impossible to fix all of these major design variables to create one specific derivative hull shape. If one variable is set or changed by the program, then at least one other variable must change at the same time. The goal, however, is to allow the designer to change the major design variables in a controlled manner using constraints. The following equations show the relationships among many of the major design variables. 부탁드려요 ㅠㅠ