hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
Not yet keyed (it will soon be available as a complete, free PDF), but folks were asking to see it so here you go!
Scout/Courier Deck Plans
Hunter
Scout/Courier Deck Plans
Hunter
100-ton Scout/Courier Deck Plan
- Thread starter hunter
- Start date
DaveShayne
SOC-12
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hunter:
Not yet keyed (it will soon be available as a complete, free PDF), but folks were asking to see it so here you go!
Scout/Courier Deck Plans
Hunter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The staterooms look kind of small. Admitedly a Type S should be a bit cramped but not (IMHO) that cramped.
------------------
I am increasingly of the opinion that RPGs are by the nature of their creation subjective phenomenon. due to the interaction between game designers, game masters, and game players all definitions, rules, settings, and adventures are mutable in acordance with the uncertainty principle as expounded by Heisenburg. This is of course merely my point of view.
David Shayne
Not yet keyed (it will soon be available as a complete, free PDF), but folks were asking to see it so here you go!
Scout/Courier Deck Plans
Hunter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The staterooms look kind of small. Admitedly a Type S should be a bit cramped but not (IMHO) that cramped.
------------------
I am increasingly of the opinion that RPGs are by the nature of their creation subjective phenomenon. due to the interaction between game designers, game masters, and game players all definitions, rules, settings, and adventures are mutable in acordance with the uncertainty principle as expounded by Heisenburg. This is of course merely my point of view.
David Shayne
hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaveShayne:
The staterooms look kind of small. Admitedly a Type S should be a bit cramped but not (IMHO) that cramped.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They are about 2 tons actual displacement, and double bunked which is about right. A 4 ton stateroom not only includes the 'accomodations' but part of that tonnage is also used for common areas, accessways, etc.
Hunter
The staterooms look kind of small. Admitedly a Type S should be a bit cramped but not (IMHO) that cramped.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They are about 2 tons actual displacement, and double bunked which is about right. A 4 ton stateroom not only includes the 'accomodations' but part of that tonnage is also used for common areas, accessways, etc.
Hunter
Fulacin Highport
SOC-9
Very nice - I like it!
I always pictured Scouts to be more cramped than they had been depicted, so this is to my liking!
I would also be interested in the grid scale; are those 1 meter squares?
------------------
Joe Brown
I always pictured Scouts to be more cramped than they had been depicted, so this is to my liking!
I would also be interested in the grid scale; are those 1 meter squares?
------------------
Joe Brown
Very nice, but aren't there supposed to be four staterooms? I see see four berths but only two staterooms.
Also, shouldn't the air/raft have a seperate hanger rather than just being parked in the cargo hold?
I agree with Joe that it's nice to see a cramped scout. Previous designs had way too much unaccounted for space.
------------------
Paul
Also, shouldn't the air/raft have a seperate hanger rather than just being parked in the cargo hold?
I agree with Joe that it's nice to see a cramped scout. Previous designs had way too much unaccounted for space.
------------------
Paul
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
Please don't print that. Subtly asymmetric hulls went out with FASA...
To see what I mean, check the grid count from centerline to each turret. You can also see that one turret sits right on grid, while the other is sitting on a line...
Follow the centerline back to the aft bulkhead and look at the relative positions of the engines...
[This message has been edited by GypsyComet (edited 09 October 2001).]
To see what I mean, check the grid count from centerline to each turret. You can also see that one turret sits right on grid, while the other is sitting on a line...
Follow the centerline back to the aft bulkhead and look at the relative positions of the engines...
[This message has been edited by GypsyComet (edited 09 October 2001).]
hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GypsyComet:
Please don't print that. Subtly asymmetric hulls went out with FASA...
To see what I mean, check the grid count fron centerline to each turret. You can also see that one turret sits right on grid, while the other is sitting on a line...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
1) They are line up as far as I can tell
2) They ain't turrets...try sensor and commo pods
Hunter
Please don't print that. Subtly asymmetric hulls went out with FASA...
To see what I mean, check the grid count fron centerline to each turret. You can also see that one turret sits right on grid, while the other is sitting on a line...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
1) They are line up as far as I can tell
2) They ain't turrets...try sensor and commo pods
Hunter
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hunter:
1) They are line up as far as I can tell
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
NOT back to front distances, distance from nose-to-tail centerline.
The nose is three grid wide. follow that central gridsquare line to the back of the ship and count sideways to each engine. The left engine starts in the third gridsquare off centerline, while the right engine starts in the fourth.
The entire hull is skewed.
[This message has been edited by GypsyComet (edited 09 October 2001).]
1) They are line up as far as I can tell
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
NOT back to front distances, distance from nose-to-tail centerline.
The nose is three grid wide. follow that central gridsquare line to the back of the ship and count sideways to each engine. The left engine starts in the third gridsquare off centerline, while the right engine starts in the fourth.
The entire hull is skewed.
[This message has been edited by GypsyComet (edited 09 October 2001).]
hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GypsyComet:
NOT back to front distances, distance from nose-to-tail centerline.
The nose is three grid wide. follow that central gridsquare line to the back of the ship and count sideways to each engine. The left engine starts in the third gridsquare off centerline, while the right engine starts in the fourth.
The entire hull is skewed.
[This message has been edited by GypsyComet (edited 09 October 2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok I see what you mean. Its just that the right sid isn't extended out far enough (the angle is off). Not a big deal to correct, it won't affect the plans themselves.
Hunter
NOT back to front distances, distance from nose-to-tail centerline.
The nose is three grid wide. follow that central gridsquare line to the back of the ship and count sideways to each engine. The left engine starts in the third gridsquare off centerline, while the right engine starts in the fourth.
The entire hull is skewed.
[This message has been edited by GypsyComet (edited 09 October 2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok I see what you mean. Its just that the right sid isn't extended out far enough (the angle is off). Not a big deal to correct, it won't affect the plans themselves.
Hunter
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hunter:
Ok I see what you mean. Its just that the right sid isn't extended out far enough (the angle is off). Not a big deal to correct, it won't affect the plans themselves.
Hunter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
yes it will. The rear airlock isn't on the centerline if you take the centerline from the bridge.
The fore cargo bulkhead is the point at which the centerline jumps a half-grid. so...
The easiest way to fix it it is to take all the interior details from the fore cargo bulkhead forward and shift them a half-grid to the right, then redraw the outside hull lines.
[looking more] no, that won't work either...
[This message has been edited by GypsyComet (edited 09 October 2001).]
Ok I see what you mean. Its just that the right sid isn't extended out far enough (the angle is off). Not a big deal to correct, it won't affect the plans themselves.
Hunter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
yes it will. The rear airlock isn't on the centerline if you take the centerline from the bridge.
The fore cargo bulkhead is the point at which the centerline jumps a half-grid. so...
The easiest way to fix it it is to take all the interior details from the fore cargo bulkhead forward and shift them a half-grid to the right, then redraw the outside hull lines.
[looking more] no, that won't work either...
[This message has been edited by GypsyComet (edited 09 October 2001).]
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hunter:
Standard CT grid: 1.5 meter squares. 2 squares=1 ton displacement.
Hunter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, all ships should have at least one very short crewmember to be able to sleep in the bedroom at the right! Now that I know of the assymmetry it does bothers me a lot. I hope that the illustration was rendered in a CAD program. If so, adjustments will be very easy to be made.
Standard CT grid: 1.5 meter squares. 2 squares=1 ton displacement.
Hunter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, all ships should have at least one very short crewmember to be able to sleep in the bedroom at the right! Now that I know of the assymmetry it does bothers me a lot. I hope that the illustration was rendered in a CAD program. If so, adjustments will be very easy to be made.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hunter:
Standard CT grid: 1.5 meter squares. 2 squares=1 ton displacement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which lines up nearly perfectly with D20's 30 mm combat system (1 inch=5 feet or 1.5 meters).
This means you can look at any CT-scaled drawing and copy it square-for-square on your battlemat!
It was awfully nice of WoTC to keep CT in mind when they changed the grid to 30 mm scale!
(For you purists out there, I'll admit that there 60 inches in 5 feet and only 59.06 inches in 1.5 meters, but that's close enough for my Battlemat!)
------------------
--
J.P. Gill
http://www.RPGgazette.com
Standard CT grid: 1.5 meter squares. 2 squares=1 ton displacement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which lines up nearly perfectly with D20's 30 mm combat system (1 inch=5 feet or 1.5 meters).
This means you can look at any CT-scaled drawing and copy it square-for-square on your battlemat!
It was awfully nice of WoTC to keep CT in mind when they changed the grid to 30 mm scale!
(For you purists out there, I'll admit that there 60 inches in 5 feet and only 59.06 inches in 1.5 meters, but that's close enough for my Battlemat!)
------------------
--
J.P. Gill
http://www.RPGgazette.com
csimpson991@home.com
SOC-2
I like it... But most of all ready have deck plans from past Traveler books.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hunter:
Not yet keyed (it will soon be available as a complete, free PDF), but folks were asking to see it so here you go!
Scout/Courier Deck Plans
Hunter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hunter:
Not yet keyed (it will soon be available as a complete, free PDF), but folks were asking to see it so here you go!
Scout/Courier Deck Plans
Hunter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by csimpson991@home.com:
I like it... But most of all ready have deck plans from past Traveler books.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well. if we're basing what we're including in the books by what we own, the books would be empty because most of us already have rules from past Traveller books...
The company needs to support the new Traveller gamers as well as us old timers.
------------------
--
J.P. Gill
http://www.RPGgazette.com
I like it... But most of all ready have deck plans from past Traveler books.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well. if we're basing what we're including in the books by what we own, the books would be empty because most of us already have rules from past Traveller books...
The company needs to support the new Traveller gamers as well as us old timers.
------------------
--
J.P. Gill
http://www.RPGgazette.com
I like the style and the detail level is about right.
The grid lines are out, but it should be too much to fix.
I realise that this isn't just another deckplan for the old style scout ship, it is in fact a different ship with a different external shape but the right hand stateroom will be a little low. But on the other hand it may be low, it may just be a feature of the design. Scout ships normally carry less than 4 crew so providing lots of space for a fourth crew man may be unnecessary.
There are four positions on the bridge? Pilot, Nav, gunner? and engineer?
Shouldn't the engineer be in engineering?
The layout seems a little inefficient in places, partcularly where the corridor loops round 3 sides of the left hand stateroom.
I think you need to double check the tonnage, the cargo bay is too small and the air/raft should have it's own hanger.
J.
The grid lines are out, but it should be too much to fix.
I realise that this isn't just another deckplan for the old style scout ship, it is in fact a different ship with a different external shape but the right hand stateroom will be a little low. But on the other hand it may be low, it may just be a feature of the design. Scout ships normally carry less than 4 crew so providing lots of space for a fourth crew man may be unnecessary.
There are four positions on the bridge? Pilot, Nav, gunner? and engineer?
Shouldn't the engineer be in engineering?
The layout seems a little inefficient in places, partcularly where the corridor loops round 3 sides of the left hand stateroom.
I think you need to double check the tonnage, the cargo bay is too small and the air/raft should have it's own hanger.
J.
bryan gibson
Absent Friend
j,
bryan gibson here.( the artist.)been getting hits on the plans , some certainly legit, others I think less so.
I like the style and the detail level is about right.
Thanx, we try
The grid lines are out, but it should be too much to fix.
as others have pointed out. a fix is underway. to all, thanx for the good eyes. a boner on my part.I miscalculated the grid when i laid it out.
I realise that this isn't just another deckplan for the old style scout ship, it is in fact a different ship with a different external shape but the right hand stateroom will be a little low. But on the other hand it may be low, it may just be a feature of the design. Scout ships normally carry less than 4 crew so providing lots of space for a fourth crew man may be unnecessary.
basically the idea. think of a sub and you get the idea.
There are four positions on the bridge? Pilot, Nav, gunner? and engineer?
Shouldn't the engineer be in engineering?
sensor ops. it IS a scout ship, after all.
The layout seems a little inefficient in places, partcularly where the corridor loops round 3 sides of the left hand stateroom.
low bid contracter, govt procurement is like that, even in the future some things will never change.
I think you need to double check the tonnage, the cargo bay is too small and the air/raft should have it's own hanger.
nope, on this one the difference in design is apparent. the alloctions are not always exact as cargo " displacement" must also include the companionways and accesses.
Bryan Gibson
J.[/QUOTE]
bryan gibson here.( the artist.)been getting hits on the plans , some certainly legit, others I think less so.
I like the style and the detail level is about right.
Thanx, we try
The grid lines are out, but it should be too much to fix.
as others have pointed out. a fix is underway. to all, thanx for the good eyes. a boner on my part.I miscalculated the grid when i laid it out.
I realise that this isn't just another deckplan for the old style scout ship, it is in fact a different ship with a different external shape but the right hand stateroom will be a little low. But on the other hand it may be low, it may just be a feature of the design. Scout ships normally carry less than 4 crew so providing lots of space for a fourth crew man may be unnecessary.
basically the idea. think of a sub and you get the idea.
There are four positions on the bridge? Pilot, Nav, gunner? and engineer?
Shouldn't the engineer be in engineering?
sensor ops. it IS a scout ship, after all.
The layout seems a little inefficient in places, partcularly where the corridor loops round 3 sides of the left hand stateroom.
low bid contracter, govt procurement is like that, even in the future some things will never change.
I think you need to double check the tonnage, the cargo bay is too small and the air/raft should have it's own hanger.
nope, on this one the difference in design is apparent. the alloctions are not always exact as cargo " displacement" must also include the companionways and accesses.
Bryan Gibson
J.[/QUOTE]
Fulacin Highport
SOC-9
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bryan gibson:
I miscalculated the grid when i laid it out.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
[/B][/QUOTE]
Ok.
So how can I build an accurate model if I don't know the size, eh?
(change the apparent scale, THAT's how!)
------------------
Joe Brown
I miscalculated the grid when i laid it out.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
[/B][/QUOTE]
Ok.
So how can I build an accurate model if I don't know the size, eh?
(change the apparent scale, THAT's how!)
------------------
Joe Brown
Bryan,
sensor ops. it IS a scout ship, after all.
Fair point, but pilot + nav + sensor ops + gunner + engineer gives 5 crew and you've only got 4 bunks (or are some of them double bunks one on top of the other).
Also Sensor ops crew members aren't included in the High Guard design sequence.
low bid contracter, govt procurement is like that, even in the future some things will never change.
True, and it all adds character to the ship.
nope, on this one the difference in design is apparent. the alloctions are not always exact as cargo " displacement" must also include the companionways and accesses.
True, also comparing the plan to the external pictures, the cargo bay is probably higher than a standard deck height (3m) and so would be bigger than I initially calculated.
The reason the air/raft should have it's own hanger is to allow it to be launched in orbit, without losing all your cargo. the Cargo air lock doesn't look big enough to hold the air/raft. But this again this could be down to the low bidder reason above.
Sorry if I came across as a little too critical in my first post. But traveller is littered with incorrect deckplans, I didn't want T20 deckplans to follow the same trend.
J.
P.s. Where's the toliet, erm i mean fresher?
[This message has been edited by J (edited 11 October 2001).]
sensor ops. it IS a scout ship, after all.
Fair point, but pilot + nav + sensor ops + gunner + engineer gives 5 crew and you've only got 4 bunks (or are some of them double bunks one on top of the other).
Also Sensor ops crew members aren't included in the High Guard design sequence.
low bid contracter, govt procurement is like that, even in the future some things will never change.
True, and it all adds character to the ship.
nope, on this one the difference in design is apparent. the alloctions are not always exact as cargo " displacement" must also include the companionways and accesses.
True, also comparing the plan to the external pictures, the cargo bay is probably higher than a standard deck height (3m) and so would be bigger than I initially calculated.
The reason the air/raft should have it's own hanger is to allow it to be launched in orbit, without losing all your cargo. the Cargo air lock doesn't look big enough to hold the air/raft. But this again this could be down to the low bidder reason above.
Sorry if I came across as a little too critical in my first post. But traveller is littered with incorrect deckplans, I didn't want T20 deckplans to follow the same trend.
J.
P.s. Where's the toliet, erm i mean fresher?
[This message has been edited by J (edited 11 October 2001).]
