Armor USP Rating & Ships

[sandman]

Sorry if it has already been posted, but I didn't find anything with the search.

Using p.259 table "Drives and Armor" and taking a 200t hull, we get an Armor Factor of "2"

and on p.268, in the "Standard Hull Armor",

with TL12-13 Armor we have a 2t/Units weightl. Just under that, in the "Armor USP Rating" paragraph, we have the following:

[snip snip] To achieve the first layer of armor (USP rating 1), a ship must install twice as many armor units as the armor factor specified for the hull size and TL of the armor. For example a TL12, 200t ship with Armor USP 1 must have installed 8 units of armor.

Using the above numbers, I shoud have the following data:

Armor Factor = 2 (from the hull size)
Armor Unit = 2t/units (from the TL)
Armor USP = 1 (from the example)
To get from USP 0 to USP 1 we have to pay twice (double the Units)

2(USP 0 to 1) * 2 (armor factor) = 4 units (not 8 as in the example)

The WEIGHT is 8t (2t/unit as per the TL)

To follow up on the sample ship, to go from Armor USP 0 to 12, it should have 13 * 2 units = 26 Units at 2t/units = 54t

NOT the 52 units as in the sample (bottom of the paragraph). Would be a very 200t ship that has 104t of armor

Don't hesitate to correct me if I'm wrong

Sandman

 

[sandman]

Very Lousy Ship that is

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening Sandman,

Yep, Murphy was here and the date was December 10, 2002, 11:43 AM.

Here goes my attempt to explain the rules, to see if I have them down. To get a TL-12 200-ton vessel to the maximum AR12.

First armor layer for a TL 12 200-ton vessel:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">1. AF (p259) = 2
2. AR TL12 (p264) = 2 t/unit
3. Form p268: "The ship must install twice (L1 =
2) as many armor units (AU) as the armor
factor specified for the the hull size and Tl
for armor."

1 2 3
AF x AR X L1 = AU
2 2 2 = 8</pre>[/QUOTE]4. There are now 11 remaining layers to go (12-L1= RL11). The formula here goes:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">1 2 4
AF x AR x RL = AU
2 x 2 x 11 = 44</pre>[/QUOTE]5. Adding L1 8 AU to RL 44 AU = 52 AU

That, at least I think, is what came out of the discussion thread.

Come to think about it this is only a variation on the Armor for Vechile Design Sequence (VDS) p236. Let me check this out (flip, flip, scribble, erase, scribble, yep the figures match). I've cross checked the steps in the VDS with the AFV (p293) Armor figures in the design specs, they match. The wording in the Spacecraft and Starship Design Sequence (SSDS) is slightly altered, okay muddied, but is almost identical to the steps for VDS Armor.

Hope this helps out.

 

[sandman]

[snip snip]5. Adding L1 8 AU to RL 44 AU = 52 AU

That, at least I think, is what came out of the discussion thread.

Aye... even if I miscalculate it to 54

A simple calculation (I think) is the following:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">For that same 200t ship with TL12 and AR 12:

AR = Desired Armor Rating
AF = Armor Factor

( AR + 1 ) * AF = number of units required
(12 + 1 ) * 2 = 26 Units, at 2t/each = 52 tons of Armor</pre>[/QUOTE]The problem wasn't with adding 8 (first two AR)to 44 (the 10 other AR), but with mixing the weight (in tons) with the Unit number.

the example showed installing an addition of 44 UNITS instead of 22 units OR 44 Tons (the weight of 20 Units of Armor at TL12)

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Using the SDB example in p.331, we have this:

200t with TL14 AR14 taking 15 tons
(200t = Armor Factor 2)

AF * (AR +1) => 2 * (14+1) = 30 units, taking 1 tons/units</pre>[/QUOTE] oops... how come the SDB have only 15tons of armor?

ok... lets check this from another point of view:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Armor costs => 1.8MCr, at KCr300 + KCr100/units that gives us:

(1.8 - 0.3) / 0.1 = 15 Units, as mentioned on p.331</pre>[/QUOTE]15 units sure isn't enough to bring a 200t ship to AR 14... because the Armor Factor isn't "1", but "2"

It seems it got only partial armor. with 15 units it should have

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">units = (AR +1) * AF,
15 = x+1 * 2

6.5, that is 6 (would have been 7 if 16 units)</pre>[/QUOTE]Logically, any ship can't have a total of Armor Units that isn't a multiple of it's Armor Factor, because to get a Single Armor Factor you've got to get that many Armor Units (and the first cost double)

So... either Armor Factoring isn't used for that ship, it gots some kind of super TL14 armor at 0,5 Tons/units, or I'm really screwed up in my calculations...

And I thought I wasn't a gearhead...

Anybody with a straight jacket?

 

[sandman]

As an aside:

1. AF (p259) = 2
2. AR TL12 (p264) = 2 t/unit
3. Form p268: "The ship must install twice (L1 =
2) as many armor units (AU) as the armor
factor specified for the the hull size and Tl
for armor."

1 2 3
AF x AR X L1 = AU
2 2 2 = 8

You can't use the p.268 2t/unit in that calculation, as the result wouldn't be in Armor units, but in Tons...

And Armor Units != tons, except at TL14+

 

[snrdg082102]

Originally posted by Sandman:
As an aside:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />1. AF (p259) = 2
2. AR TL12 (p264) = 2 t/unit
3. Form p268: "The ship must install twice (L1 =
2) as many armor units (AU) as the armor
factor specified for the the hull size and Tl
for armor."

1 2 3
AF x AR X L1 = AU
2 2 2 = 8

You can't use the p.268 2t/unit in that calculation, as the result wouldn't be in Armor units, but in Tons...

And Armor Units != tons, except at TL14+</font>[/QUOTE]Lo Sandman,

The concensus of the group from the topic Starship Armor in forum T20 Questions and Answers at Traveller-CotI Discussion Forums started by lightsenshi on 12/10/02 conculded that the # in the tons per unit was the TL of the armor factor.

As I indicated in my post there appears to be similarities between the Spaceships, and Starship Design Sequence's (SSDS) design steps on p268 and those for the Vechile Design Sequence's (VDS) on p236. These appear to be primarily a modification of the terminology in the text and of course the units of measure. The VDS use volume (vl) while the SSDS uses displacement which equals 1,400 vl (p223).

Looking at the VDS Armor Factoring sequence on p236 Armor Rating (AR) needs the following:

1. Chassis Base Armor Volume (CBAV) found in the
last column of the Chassis Size Table p235

2. Armor Factoring (AF) p236 found in the Second column, 10 lines from the top by TL.

3. To find AR the steps are as follows:

a. Moving from AR0 to AR1 = BAV x AF x 2 ("Must install twice the BAV specified for the chassis and TL of the armor.")

b. Moving from AR1 to any other AR = # of additional Armor Layers (aAL) x BAV X AF.

The above looks very similar to the steps on p268. Hmm, could the "...the armor factor specified for the hull size and TL of the armor." on p.268 be refering to the TL listing on p.236? I'm beginning to think that cutting and pasting got carried away. The units of vl should have been used in the example on p.236. One of the consistant items is that there are hiccups that don't always match-up between design and finished product.

I don't know what to tell you other than to get the attention of someone at QLI. Better yet get either or both Hunter's and/or Martin's attention to answer the questions.

Sorry I could help you out.

 

[sandman]

I don't know what to tell you other than to get the attention of someone at QLI. Better yet get either or both Hunter's and/or Martin's attention to answer the questions.

And what might be the best way to do so, non-intrusively?

Thanks for the answer tho, I think I *MIGHT* understand now

 

[sandman]

OK, Finally found the thread everybody made references to (prob w/searc engine yesterday? nah.. probably me)

So, Armor Tonnage(or units) seems to be:

((Desired USP Rating)+1)*(Armor Factor)*(TL Units) = x Tons of Armor

with the 200t ships at TL12 with USP AR(12) we get

(12+1)*2*2 = 52

If we consider the System Defense Boat to be in error, NOW I make sense of that

Me think those calculations should've been detailed :/

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening again Sandman,

Gald you found the article, I had trouble with the search engine myself. Unfortunately, the error was mine, since I forgot to change the search to more than 45 days.

So, Armor Tonnage(or units) seems to be:

((Desired USP Rating)+1)*(Armor Factor)*(TL Units) = x Tons of Armor

with the 200t ships at TL12 with USP AR(12) we get

(12+1)*2*2 = 52

Yep, that is basically how I understand things to work, which is simpler than the explaination in the book.

If we consider the System Defense Boat to be in error, NOW I make sense of that

Me think those calculations should've been detailed

Again, yep, as I indicated there apparently are many such oddities. I am, for some odd reason, trying to get the Computer Design Sequence to work and have found some strange things. The biggest one is that none of the Ship's computers on p282 are complete enough to run a starship. Using the design sequence those computers are just the cores. They don't have an operating system (Logic Programs) or interfaces systems (Command Programs). In fact they don't even have any software packages or control panels/keyboards.

Ciao,

Originally posted by Sandman:
OK, Finally found the thread everybody made references to (prob w/searc engine yesterday? nah.. probably me)

So, Armor Tonnage(or units) seems to be:

((Desired USP Rating)+1)*(Armor Factor)*(TL Units) = x Tons of Armor

with the 200t ships at TL12 with USP AR(12) we get

(12+1)*2*2 = 52

If we consider the System Defense Boat to be in error, NOW I make sense of that

Me think those calculations should've been detailed :/

 

[sandman]

Again, yep, as I indicated there apparently are many such oddities.

I was going crazy trying to understand it all. Being new to traveller, (and D20 if you don't count a single gaming session as a player) I was wondering if MektonZeta Plus was easier or not

(PS: I hate MZ+ for its complexity)

The biggest one is that none of the Ship's computers on p282 are complete enough to run a starship. Using the design sequence those computers are just the cores. They don't have an operating system (Logic Programs) or interfaces systems (Command Programs). In fact they don't even have any software packages or control panels/keyboards.

From my understanding, when you buy the "packaged Model-X" computer you get:

</font>

• The basic package for everything a ship's computer have to do. (OS, flight avionics, Sensors and Communication software)</font>
• The basic controls/panels/keyboard to be included with the Bridge</font>

And you get some free PP to do other tasks (P.282)

 

[snrdg082102]

Originally posted by Sandman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />]I was going crazy trying to understand it all. Being new to traveller, (and D20 if you don't count a single gaming session as a player) I was wondering if MektonZeta Plus was easier or not

(PS: I hate MZ+ for its complexity)

The biggest one is that none of the Ship's computers on p282 are complete enough to run a starship. Using the design sequence those computers are just the cores. They don't have an operating system (Logic Programs) or interfaces systems (Command Programs). In fact they don't even have any software packages or control panels/keyboards.

From my understanding, when you buy the "packaged Model-X" computer you get:

</font>

• The basic package for everything a ship's computer have to do. (OS, flight avionics, Sensors and Communication software)</font>
• The basic controls/panels/keyboard to be included with the Bridge</font>

And you get some free PP to do other tasks (P.282)</font>

During my study of the Computer Design Sequence I also put together a very basic Excel 97 Pro spreadsheet. When I started entering the line items listed in the table on p282 into the spreadsheet, the design stopped at the Computer Type And Model Table on p 244. Then, I went to the Ship's Compter Table on p 263 and discovered that the unit of measure changed from volume (135vl) to size (.1 displacement or dton). 1 dton = 1400vl. My next step was to convert the numbers 135/1400 = .0964 rounded up to .1 makes the numbers match.
This, tends to make me belive that the indicated computer core systems in the Ship's Computer Tables on p 263 and p 282 are not complete systems.
Another oddity is a difference in EP between the two tables. On p 282 the Model/1 M1 has an EP of 9, while the one listed on p 263 is 0 (zero). After some more searching I found in the text above the Ship's Computer Table on p 282 the instructions to "Divide EP by 10 if the computer is on a starship." Following the instructions EP 9/10 = EP 0.9. The only way to get this to match the EP on p 263 is to round down.

The table on p 282 shows that the Model/1 M1 has a CPU of 10,000 and has a Total PP handling capacity of 28 points, with a maximum of 11 points available for running a skill based program like Pilot.

In a different thread "Ships Computer and underpowered M-drive questions" on the T20 Q&A board apoc527 pointed out that the table on p 263, in the last column indicated that the computer has been loaded with logic/command programs and software programs since there are only 5 points of Free CPU Output left from the 10,000. Which, if my reading of the design sequence and math are right, this is not the case. apoc527 also asked about the relationship between Free CPU Output and PP points? I am sort of working on answer, but still have not come up with an answer I like or feels right to post anyway.

Of course I may be OTL on the whole thing and the computer design sequence doesn't appear to be generating much interest in getting the bugs worked out. Might be a good idea to drop the subject and build systems in the way I think is how the sequence is supposed works.

Sorry about the verbose nature of this reply. Catch ya'll later.

 

[sandman]

This, tends to make me belive that the indicated computer core systems in the Ship's Computer Tables on p 263 and p 282 are not complete systems.

I know they say that the Bridge contain control panels and the like, but I hope they're for the computer systems

apoc527 pointed out that the table on p 263, in the last column indicated that the computer has been loaded with logic/command programs and software programs since there are only 5 points of Free CPU Output left from the 10,000. Which, if my reading of the design sequence and math are right, this is not the case.

I'm thinking that not only it comes pre-loaded with many basic program, but since it's so vital to the ship it must have more redundancy than a Normal Computer, hence the lower Free CPU Output.

Of course, Free Cpu Output means nothing if we don't know its relation to Processing Power

Of course I may be OTL on the whole thing and the computer design sequence doesn't appear to be generating much interest in getting the bugs worked out. Might be a good idea to drop the subject and build systems in the way I think is how the sequence is supposed works

I think not. If it could be made to work without wholly re-designing it, it could be great to make many small or mega computers.

Just Imagines the computer in Forbidden Planet, a Mean, Ugly, Powerfull 20Mt Computer

Sorry about the verbose nature of this reply.

I'd rather prefer those kind of replies than the "I'ts broken, don't use it" ones

 

[snrdg082102]

Originally posted by Sandman:

This, tends to make me belive that the indicated computer core systems in the Ship's Computer Tables on p 263 and p 282 are not complete systems.

I know they say that the Bridge contain control panels and the like, but I hope they're for the computer systems

The control panels on the bridge should interface with the main computer, however there should be at least one terminal connected directly to the computer. This is especially true if the computer is not located on the bridge.

apoc527 pointed out that the table on p 263, in the last column indicated that the computer has been loaded with logic/command programs and software programs since there are only 5 points of Free CPU Output left from the 10,000. Which, if my reading of the design sequence and math are right, this is not the case.

I'm thinking that not only it comes pre-loaded with many basic program, but since it's so vital to the ship it must have more redundancy than a Normal Computer, hence the lower Free CPU Output.

Of course, Free Cpu Output means nothing if we don't know its relation to Processing Power

I agree that any computer constructed for a specific purpose will be loaded with, at least, the basic programs needed to do the job. Unfortunately, even taking into account standardization, the costs for the computers do not appear to include any programs (Logic, Command, or software), data storage or interfaces. The text above the table does say that including "such fittings increase(s) the cost listed below by x10."

Working through the computer design sequence, both on paper and spreadsheet, adding the programs, data storage, and interfaces I have yet to add enough stuff to shove the prices over the million mark indicated by the instruction on p.282.

I thought I might have a relationship between insert-Free- CPU Output and Total PP figured out, but while typing here I figured out that I missed something that appears to have knocked my theory OTL. Maybe if I throw out what I have you or someone else might see what I am missing.

Step 1. Determine the computer's core characteristics. I'll build the Model/1 M1 on p.282: Starting with the Computer Cores Table on p.224 - Advanced synaptic, with 1,000 core units which results in the following:
Cost: KCr100, Volume: 135vl, EP: 9, and (raw) CPU Output is 10,000 or 2,500 (x4) as per p.282. My thought on why the 10,000 is broken down in four 2,500 blocks is the need to share PP between the flight avionics, sensors, and communications sub-systems.

Step 2: Determine Type & Model from the second table on p.224, in this case we'll select the Model/1 from the Master (Type M1) sub table. Here I'll skip everything but CPU Req and Total Processing Power. CPU Req defined as the (minimum) total amount of raw CPU power that must be available to earn the desired Model/Type rating. Which in this case is 1,000 and we meet with just enough to spare and gives the computer a Total PP of 28 points to use each round.

On the Computer Type/Model table I first divided Total PP into CPU Req. which indicates, I think anyway, that 1 PP = 36 CPU Req. (rounded up from 35.71). This would mean that there are not spare PPs, which doesn't seem right. Next was to divide Total PP by CPU Req. This indicates that 1 CPU Req = .028 PP. To find out how many PPs are avialable in 5 Free CPU units do the following:
5 x .028 x 28 = 3.92 round up to 4 Total PPs free to play with. Problem is that the Model/1 M1 has a CPU Output of 10,000.

Of course I may be OTL on the whole thing and the computer design sequence doesn't appear to be generating much interest in getting the bugs worked out. Might be a good idea to drop the subject and build systems in the way I think is how the sequence is supposed works

I think not. If it could be made to work without wholly re-designing it, it could be great to make many small or mega computers.

Just Imagines the computer in Forbidden Planet, a Mean, Ugly, Powerfull 20Mt Computer

I don't see that the CDS needs to be rewritten since the system can design the computers, just make the readers aware that the computers are not complete systems. The handwavem on the top of p.282 of multiplying the cost by 10 is one way, not the best in my opinion, to correct the sysem. Another way is to construct a system, one using the computer, vehicle, and spacecraft design sequences from start to finish.

Sorry about the verbose nature of this reply.

I'd rather prefer those kind of replies than the "I'ts broken, don't use it" ones

Be careful of what you wish for, in this case I think it came true by a factor of about 10.

 

[sandman]

The control panels on the bridge should interface with the main computer, however there should be at least one terminal connected directly to the computer. This is especially true if the computer is not located on the bridge.

IMHO, in a multi MCr computer, it`s not a terminal that will boost the cost enought to be visible

I agree that any computer constructed for a specific purpose will be loaded with, at least, the basic programs needed to do the job. Unfortunately, even taking into account standardization, the costs for the computers do not appear to include any programs (Logic, Command, or software), data storage or interfaces. The text above the table does say that including "such fittings increase(s) the cost listed below by x10."

If you look up that model/1 and multiply it by 10 for the necessary console, controls, software etc, you get a figure of 1Mcr.

If you lookup the model/1 from p.263/264, with basic Avionics/Sensors/comms, you get a cost factor of 2, times the model # = 2MCr.

The additionnal MCr could be the cost of the actual Avionics/sensors/comm system hardware that the computer can drive.

As for the CPU per PP, all I can say it's that it's a nice exponential curve.

I don't see that the CDS needs to be rewritten since the system can design the computers, just make the readers aware that the computers are not complete systems.

IMHO, a Simple, Clear and Complete example of the calculation for the Model/1 sample (better! a complete sample for EACH Design Seq.) would've made many things clearer.

One sample for a computer, One for a vehicule and One for a ship. Each one with step by step explanation.

Posting a sample on the site isn't too hard, and would be *REALLY* usefull.

Martin, Hunter: "wink wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean?"

Anyhow...

Be careful of what you wish for, in this case I think it came true by a factor of about 10.

I didn't wish for anything, just told my preferences

 

[snrdg082102]

Originally posted by Sandman:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Be careful of what you wish for, in this case I think it came true by a factor of about 10.

I didn't wish for anything, just told my preferences </font>[/QUOTE]Okay, be careful in your preferences you might get one answered by a factor of 10