• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

As promised, my first deck plan!

Sturn

SOC-13
I completed my first Scout deck plan as promised in another thread. I used AutoREALM since it gives the plans a "CT" look and was simpler then CC. I wanted CT style plans, with some more detail.

There are a few minor issues I'm aware of (some of my hatch icons need some updating), but it's ready to be critqued.

PLEASE read my notes on the hows and whys of my plans before ripping them apart:

See the link to the Scout at Sturn's Shipyard or go directly to the 100 ton Scout.
(website is a work in progress)
 
Last edited:
Nice, I like that.

Keep us updated. I've downloaded a few sites with a mirror tool (wGET or WinHttrack) so I can view them offline.
 
Crisp and clear. I like that!

Also, your version is more readable than the one in the MongT preview.
 
Instantly recognizable, and nicely done. Your changes make sense. I assume the armor and fuel refining displacement is from MGT ?
 
Yep, nice style. I'll keep it in mind. Some sensible changes to the layout there. I'm not sufficiently A-R to count the squares on someone else's design, but those are very roomy cabins compared with my 3m cubes.
 
Instantly recognizable, and nicely done. Your changes make sense. I assume the armor and fuel refining displacement is from MGT?

Yes. Also the fact that the computer tonnage is included in the bridge.

I'm not sufficiently A-R to count the squares on someone else's design, but those are very roomy cabins compared with my 3m cubes.

The original CT plans have the same sized staterooms as mine, and even describe them as "large and spacious" (Supplement 7). Of course my version would have less tonnage for the common area then yours. My Seeker plans will have the 3x3 cabins, just like the CT Seeker.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the the praise and the glances at my plans. It's motivated me to keep working. My Seeker is almost done. I think I will turn to the Far Trader next after hearing some comments on it.
 
I very much like your design of the Scout, and I am really looking forward to
seeing your versions of the Seeker and the Far Trader.
 
I very much like your design of the Scout, and I am really looking forward to seeing your versions of the Seeker and the Far Trader.

Thanks! :D I finished the Seeker in AutoREALM today, I should have the webpage up by tomorrow night? It's based on the MGT version (has mining drones) and I had fun (per MGT) making ore processing equipment. The systems displayed (drones, seeker buggy, ore bays, processing station) I think will allow those looking at it to understand how the Seeker actually can gather and process the ore.
 
Last edited:
Visually very nice and some interesting choices in layout where it differs, but...

...the discrepancy between:

16tons of drives, which actually shows about 16tons of drives (close enough, with some access and I like the workstation inclusion)

and

16tons of staterooms, which actually shows about 22tons of staterooms, doesn't fly here, not even when allowing the +10-20% slop allowance. I know* you could easily cut each stateroom down to 4 squares, and slice another row out of the commons (or not if you use the +10-20% slop allowance there).

* since that's how I did mine :)

On the upside it is more accurate than most canon published deckplans.

Over all I like it. Kinda curious to see the Seeker conversion too :)
 
Last edited:
16tons of staterooms, which actually shows about 22tons of staterooms.

I think the important thing for me was the total tonnage, counting up full and "1/2" outter squares (due to the wedge shape), adds up to 95 tons (100 - 5 tons for the armor of a MGT scout). Some of the tonnage from the bridge was shifted from it to what would normally be taken from stateroom space in order to keep the overall look of the classic scout.

Some of the bridge tonnage (10 tons of it) has been used in what would normally be taken from stateroom space. After duplicating the scout bridge, using some of the tonnage for the 'outter' half-sized landing squares and crawlspace, some was still left over and thus used for my 'life support', hallway, and ship's locker. I also had to use electronics tonnage for my MGT version (that is in addition to the bridge tonnage).

I would have rather used stateroom tonnage for life support, for example, but then I would have ended up with a large bridge (unlike CT) or shoving some space into a bridge ready room (also unlike CT). So to keep the classic small scout bridge (only 2 tons), I had to put the rest someplace. Some of it went into a hallway, life support, and ship's locker.....normally taken from stateroom tonnage.
 
Last edited:
I think the important thing for me was the total tonnage, counting up full and "1/2" outter squares (due to the wedge shape), adds up to 95 tons (100 - 5 tons for the armor of a MGT scout). Some of the tonnage from the bridge was shifted from it to what would normally be taken from stateroom space in order to keep the overall look of the classic scout.

Some of the bridge tonnage (10 tons of it) has been used in what would normally be taken from stateroom space. After duplicating the scout bridge, using some of the tonnage for the 'outter' half-sized landing squares and crawlspace, some was still left over and thus used for my 'life support', hallway, and ship's locker. I also had to use electronics tonnage for my MGT version (that is in addition to the bridge tonnage).

I would have rather used stateroom tonnage for life support, for example, but then I would have ended up with a large bridge (unlike CT) or shoving some space into a bridge ready room (also unlike CT). So to keep the classic small scout bridge (only 2 tons), I had to put the rest someplace. Some of it went into a hallway, life support, and ship's locker.....normally taken from stateroom tonnage.

So basically, some of the 'bridge components' have been distributively positioned elsewhere on the ship so that they appear to be accommodation space? I have no problem with that - it's no worse than distributing the computer.
 
Somebody had to pick a nit :)

I think the important thing for me was the total tonnage...

Which isn't a bad goal in itself, but it can lead to problems. Better to be thinking about distinct sections adding up correctly imo.

But yes, there has to be some forgiveness for (or usage of volume from other sections) to make most deckplans work.
 
You didn't do rear and side cross-sections did you?

1. Your pilot is sitting down in a chair and looking straight up (and not forward) out of his viewport as he flies around. To be able to look forward while flying you need to move the bridge forward 3-4.5m or extend the view windshield to where the second red band first crosses the centerline of the ship. Maybe you could slide everthing from the bridge aft, forward about 3m and redraw what is in the attic and lower hold onto this deck somehow.

2. Your upper "attic" and lower "hold" are at peak maximun 2.286m (7'6") tall. A majority of these decks are really just 1.5m (half deck) tall. One can adjust the area on the deckplans to be slightly bigger to compensate or make the decks starting from the stern forward about 7.5m into two decks. But these decks could only be 7.5m wide at best.
 
Last edited:
Your pilot is sitting down in a chair and looking straight up (and not forward) out of his viewport as he flies around. To be able to look forward while flying you need to move the bridge forward 3-4.5m or extend the view windshield to where the second red band first crosses the centerline of the ship....

Thanks for pointing this out! (really). I will update this in my Autorealm external plans and eventually update it on the website.

Your upper "attic" and lower "hold" are at peak maximun 2.286m (7'6") tall. A majority of these decks are really just 1.5m (half deck) tall. One can adjust the area on the deckplans to be slightly bigger to compensate.....

I will look into this. I just "guestimated" when dividing the decks into half and full squares. My end result was after many, many redraws until the tonnage of the half and full squares added up to a proper total tonnage. I did have a larger attic and hold, but ended up reducing their size to make the math right.......

.....I looked into this on my original that has more graph lines across it. The peak for the attic is at 3 meters, but of course that is not considering floor and bulkhead thicknesses (I will probably never strive for that much mathematical accuracy in my plans). Looking at my aft view super-imposed with a 1.5m grid shows the inner 4 squares average 2 squares high, while the outter squares on each side average 1 square high (when being forced to choose between 1 or 2 squares high, nothing in between or smaller). As you go forward, the number of 2 square height squares would dwindle quickly, the reason I ended up with the plans going from 4-squares wide at the back, to quickly dwindling to 1-square wide as you go forward.

I did notice that the hold would not have a flat floor (due to the "underpeak") if it were to have the same sized squares as the attic. I can look past this, but others may not like it. Perhaps the cargo bay is not flat, but dips somewhat in the middle? Floor grating with some of the cargo space below it? The scout may have not been the best choice for a first deck plan due to the strange wedge shape. :)

I limited my squares on my pencil sketch when computing tonnage to a choice of either 2 squares high or 1 square high for simplicity sake. Of course these are gross averages, not exact heights for each square.

You will note that the air/raft attic bay is wider then 4-squares. If you count the tonnage, the side squares are actually half height (all 4 of them add up to 1 ton). If you look close there are dashed lines to indicate where this happens. This makes the bay 4 tons, not 5 tons like it might appear at first. I noted this in the plans, saying the outter walls are greatly slanted.

I in no way claim that my plans will hold up under exact mathematical scrutiny. I never intended them to. But I did try to improve on the accuracy from the CT version and consider the wedge shape.

Thanks for the criticisms (again, really) :)
 
Last edited:
I finished a Free Trader, ready for review. Based on critque's of my scout and seeker, I put in some smaller freshers.

I'm currently working on an AutoRealm tutorial for anyone interested in it to make Traveller deck plans (took notes and screenshots while making the Free Trader).

Free Trader
Seeker
Scout

STURN'S SHIPYARD
 
Back
Top