MT Only: Control Points calculations?

[AnotherDilbert]

You should have three identical computers for a space craft.

Flying craft should have two computers, one is a safety backup. Space craft should have three computers, two are safety backups.

 

[Redcap]

Checking the MT RM, we find on page 62, Basic hull Design, middle bottom column and chart, s3 small craft hulls, the text below the chart:

UCP is Universal Craft Profile displacement
tonnage. Volume is in kiloliters. Weight is In
metric tons. Price is in credits for vehicles,
and in megacredlts for small craft and space
vessels

So, the hull price is sadly and expensively correct, it would seem.

 

[Redcap]

You should have three identical computers for a space craft.

Missed that, thanks.

 

[Redcap]

You have two RFX-14 guns, but only one PD module?

Each gun mount needs a PD module to be PD capable. To have two independent PD capable mounts you need two PD modules.

Noted, thanks

Basic Life-Support is ten times too large, see errata.

Gagh. Right, thanks.

Power seems off for Artificial Gravity.

AGrav should be 0.05 MW per m³ Hull, so 0.05 × 270 = 13.5 MW.

I'll double check, thanks.

You need more power, the craft consumes ~600 MW.

You need fuel for the power plant.

Am aware; planning to address it after all other items specified, but thanks

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Checking the MT RM, we find on page 62, Basic hull Design, middle bottom column and chart, s3 small craft hulls, the text below the chart:

So, the hull price is sadly and expensively correct, it would seem.

See errata:

Page 62, Step 3, Select Small Craft Hull (correction): The price column is in thousands of credits on the Small Craft Hull Table.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Cost of craft is off. I get about MCr 36 total.

The first "Running Total" line seems off?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Ah, I musunderstood the process, then, thanks

The MT design system is quite fiddly, the control system especially.

Most people seems to get it wrong the first time, I probably did too ~35 years ago...

 

[Redcap]

See errata:

Oh... wibble.

Cost of craft is off. I get about MCr 36 total.

The first "Running Total" line seems off?

Huh. Good catch.

The MT design system is quite fiddly, the control system especially.

Most people seems to get it wrong the first time, I probably did too ~35 years ago...

I've not used it in... a looooooooong time

 

[Redcap]

Check me, 'cause I'm messed up to hell with maths.

44.55 kCr is 0.004455 MCr?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

44.55 kCr is 0.004455 MCr?

Off by a zero.

Divide by 1000 = move the decimal point three steps.

kCr 44 is MCr 0.044.

 

[Redcap]

Right. Thanks

 

[Redcap]

The errata is confusing the crap outta me, or I'm overtired, or both.

Errata Page 64, Step 1, Power Supply (corrections and clarifications): The table heading is misleading. Power Out, Weight
and Price are per kiloliter of volume; Power Out, Weight, Price, and Kl/Hour columns of each table entry are for 1 kiloliter
of power plant volume. The Kl/Hour column then represents the fuel consumption rate in kl/hour for 1 kiloliter of power
plant volume. The Volume column should be labeled Minimum Volume, the smallest volume to which the described power plant
may be built.

TL 13-14 Fusion Power Plant: Kl/Hour entry should be 0.0045, not 0.005.

I need a what, 600 power output plant. I can't get my head around this. HILFE!

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Don't overthink it.

You need 600 MW. Each kl produces 3 MW × 3 scale factor = 9 MW. You need 600 / 9 ≈ 67 kl power plant.

Each kl power plant has a mass of 3 tonnes, costs MCr 0.2, and requires 0.0045 kl fuel every hour.

So 67 kl power plant is:
603 MW, 201 tonnes, MCr 13.4, and requires 0.302 kl fuel per hour

 

[Carlobrand]

...TL 13-14 Fusion Power Plant: Kl/Hour entry should be 0.0045, not 0.005. ...

I believe they were rounding off to the nearest thousandth.

Add:
This is a Striker thing. Your fusion guns as listed would appear to be in fixed mounts: no turret is mentioned. However, you've got them set up with a PD system. You might want to mention having them in turrets, or they're not going to be able to cover your flanks. No added volume needed above what you've already got, it's just a pair of 110 liter turrets each occupied by a 110 liter RFX. I don't think turrets for ground-attack weapons would count as hardpoints: at 110 liters each, they'd be a little smaller than a large U-haul moving box, assuming they're remote turrets operated from some station within the craft, which is peanuts compared to a 13500 liter spacecraft turret, and ground combat turrets are very different beasts from space combat turrets: they don't need anywhere near the level of precision control that space combat turrets need. Space combat turrets need to aim so precisely at the longer ranges that a vibration through the hull could cause a miss.

 

[Redcap]

There will be a hiatus while I print off pages 62-89 of the MT Referee's Manual, and pages 27-39 of the Errata, and then go through both of the buggers and update the RM. Once THAT wossit of a task is done, I'll get back to this design.

I need time to do something I CAN do. And that ain't ruddy maths

Good lord, I miss CT designs.

Someone tell me again why I went with MT?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Your fusion guns as listed would appear to be in fixed mounts: no turret is mentioned. However, you've got them set up with a PD system. You might want to mention having them in turrets, or they're not going to be able to cover your flanks. No added volume needed above what you've already got, it's just a pair of 110 liter turrets each occupied by a 110 liter RFX.

Quite, see p63, section 12.

Basically you need to specify the volume of the turret and reserve some power (0.01 MW per kl turret).

I would place the PD module in the turret.

 

[Redcap]

I give up. This damned ship design system is making me short on temper, foul of mood, and depressed as hell. This is NOT the way a hobby should affect someone.

Looking at options.

 

[Redcap]

Right, enough. Going to revert to a CT Book 5 design. At least I have software that'll do the maths (High Guard Shipyard v3).

I'll have a look at Striker for ground weapons, a la mounted FGMP-14 or whatever, but until someone can come up with a software - not spreadsheet, SOFTWARE - solution that acceptably models MT ships without breaking all the rules in the book, then CT it is.

For those that wonder why the problems: Accept that some of us poor bastards can only just about manage simple arithmetic, and having to cross reference and patch up over twenty pages of double sided A4 just to design a ship for an adventure is just not on.

Thanks to those who tried to help; it just wasn't to be, at this time.

 

[mike wightman]

Option 1 - stick with it.
Option 2 - just write up the capabilities you want and to hell with the design system
Option 3 - move to a better design system , FF&S is what I use for complex stuff intended for PC use
Option 4 - move to a simpler design system - LBB2, HG80 (the vast majority of the stuff I use at the gaming table is LBB2 or HG80 + optional stuff borrowed from elsewhere)
Option 5 - jus rip off other people's stuff, even from other rpg systems.

I love playing with Traveller, I like tinkering with the various incarnations of the rules, design systems and the like. When I play/referee Traveller I keep it as simple as I can.

 

[Redcap]

Not looking for the sympathy vote here, I've been fighting this bastard for all of my 55 years on this here rock: Look up Dyscalculia. I have a relatively mild infliction compared to some other folks, but it's real, and it's been a pain in the backside since forever.

This is why I prefer software solutions for ship design. I can write, I can draw, but maths has ALWAYS been a curse.

Just an FYI, but thanks for the replies.