• 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.

Deckplans 1: Scout/Courier (Type S)

far-trader

SOC-14 10K
Sorry to say I'm not impressed with the sample. The quantity and price are fine, just not the quality.

First off, the scale is wrong. Yes the plans shown are pretty close in area I think at a quick glance BUT not in the third dimension. The stats list the ship as being 6m tall, and that is accurate if you count the height being from the top of the turret to the lowest part of the fuel deck for the scale shown. Which means that the upper and lower deck, as well as the turret and deepest part of the fuel deck are each only 1.5m high. Not the 3m needed to conform to volume.

Second is a relatively minor issue, and probably an easy fix but one that should have been caught in editing before posting. All the numbers keyed to the deckplan seem to be shifted down relative to where they should be. Very confusing until I figured it out which granted didn't take long. It's just sloppy.

Finally, the layout. Well, I'll just chock that up to artistic differences but it doesn't fit my vision for my game so c'est la vie. I won't be needing it or interested in the future titles. I don't say this lightly. I have struggled with doing my own for decades, generally I like what I come up with but there's no way I'd do it for money. It wouldn't pay. They are more a labor of love or a way to pass the time. For example I just recently found my old Type A Free-Trader plans and, needing an update for the differences in T20 I have worked them up again. Total time invested in the deckplans over the years and different systems, about 6 months of full time work if you figured it that way. So let's say $3 a copy, I'd only need to sell about 5,000 copies to make minimum wage out of it
You see what I mean. So I understand the publication need to call it good enough at a certain point, as opposed to the hobbyist who just keeps tinkering in solitude.

So, I wonder if you are interested in deckplan submissions Hunter? Or will you be doing them all in house?

There is a certain consistancy that way which is good but this style won't interest me. I don't mean the graphic part, though that is not to my taste either, but the accuracy part. I'm tired of all the grossly out of whack scale deckplans published. I can make my own or find other fan-plans that are better that way. Sorry if this comes off as harshly negative but I felt I had to speak to this honestly.
 
Originally posted by far-trader:
Second is a relatively minor issue, and probably an easy fix but one that should have been caught in editing before posting. All the numbers keyed to the deckplan seem to be shifted down relative to where they should be. Very confusing until I figured it out which granted didn't take long. It's just sloppy.
Weird. They weren't that way in my original. Looks like the numbering somehow got shifted down while the PDF was being generated. I am regenerating the PDF now and will post a corrected version shortly.

You are right though, I should have caught that.

Hunter
 
Deckplans of ships that are already available on the web for free or I don't use. Solid grey decks so I can’t feasibly print them out even if I wanted to. For tabletop I use dry erase and handouts and online I don’t need printouts at 15 or 25mm. LKW’s small boat pdf had variants in it and won’t eat ink cartridges.

Frankly this pdf line came out of nowhere when there are plenty of works that have been in the pipeline for a good while now that I’m far more interested in.

Pass.
 
I've seen PDF generation do that shift thing to Powerpoint docs, so I suppose it could happen elsewhere.

The deckplans being 100 tons before adding fuel can't really be blamed on the PDF engine, though. I'd have probably wrapped the tankage around the main deck instead and shrunk everything else on that deck a little to compensate. Just my opinion...
 
Originally posted by GypsyComet:
The deckplans being 100 tons before adding fuel can't really be blamed on the PDF engine, though. I'd have probably wrapped the tankage around the main deck instead and shrunk everything else on that deck a little to compensate. The art does not look three decks high...
The height I agree is off, but by my grid count, the tonnage comes in right around 100 tons or 200 squares.

Top deck = approx. 56 squares or 28 tons
Lower deck = approx 120 squares or 60 tons
Fuel deck = approx 39 squares or 19.5 tons

Which falls within 10% of 100 tons.

Where are you seeing the tonnage off?

Hunter
 
I personally don't find the deckplans all that offensive. Now that the numbers line up correctly. I do agree that the height of the ship must be wrong, but looking at the cross section drawing, the plans fit the exterior view. And it appears that the 6m height is wrong in the exterior view.

It is one of the more accurate deckplans officially published. Since the Old Type-S plans are based on the LBB2 design and not a HG design and I always thought much of the original Adventure 0, Supp-7 was a bit empty. The T20/HG proportions needed a new accurate set of plans. (The same with the rest of the Standard Designs.)

I may not agree with all of the design ideas in it but I actually like these plans. Though I do agree that printing the deckplans will definitely eat Ink Cartridges. Especially if you get the full planned set of 10.
 
My god, someone actually saying something *positive* about Hunter's efforts in this area. What a stunning turnaround.

If ink carts are a problem, put the PDF on a disk or CD, hop down to a copyshop and print out some cheap BW laserprints. I'm now wondering if such logical, simple advice will be met by a blizzard of abuse :)
 
Originally posted by Bhoins:
The T20/HG proportions needed a new accurate set of plans. (The same with the rest of the Standard Designs.)
Agreed. I just don't think this quite cuts it, again with apologies if that hurts the designer's (Hunter?) feelings. It's one thing to just do a set of deckplans but in this case the attempt was to make a set of deckplans to match Bryan Gibson's art, and it missed a bit. Yes the plans fit the footprint of the overhead elevation but they don't account for slope and more importantly the height.

As far as actual deckplans go, Hunter only needed to ask or look and he'd have found a few that fit the bill. Two decent ones are in the banner rotation of the Yahoo Deckplans group at the moment. Click this link and then let the gif movie load to have a quick look. You don't need to be a member or sell your soul to Yahoo to see it ;) Or if you want a longer look at mine click this link then click (or whatever for your browser) the thumbnail for a full view. The link below the thumbnail is back here to the posts describing it. My own free version of this offer, with apologies for the competition. I'd have been happy to have expanded on all that a bit for Hunter or sold him the bits he wanted for a song, though I'd probably want to do a little massaging on the deckplan. My ideas have evolved a bit since I did it. But it does fit wholly within the hull outline (shown in blue) and the height, and comes out at the right displacement, my first goal in doing it. My second was to match Bryan Gibson's interior sketches for it, also accomplished, well close to anyway. You can see them on his site here . They're in the Starships and vehicles section, page 1, labled Scout Interior. What's more I think it has some character as a gutted out-of-service Type S.

Originally posted by Bhoins:
I may not agree with all of the design ideas in it but I actually like these plans.
And again I can agree with you, to a point. As I said I put down differences there to artistic choices. That's fine.

I guess a part of my problem too is that as Casey mentioned these came rather out of the blue with a few Traveller's Aides in the pipe for some time that were supposed to be covering some of the same territory.

Originally posted by Bhoins:
Though I do agree that printing the deckplans will definitely eat Ink Cartridges. Especially if you get the full planned set of 10.
This part reminds me of the issues with the first Traveller's Aides now that I think back. Concerns were raised by those who wanted to print out copies that the color border would suck printers dry so the decision was made to provide a plain border printer version. Perhaps Hunter can do the same here. Have the pdf with the full color plans showing the details and then add a simpler outline version with just a couple shades of grey or even just black line and white space, and only the major elements drawn in for printing.
 
Originally posted by Michael Taylor:
My god, someone actually saying something *positive* about Hunter's efforts in this area. What a stunning turnaround.

If ink carts are a problem, put the PDF on a disk or CD, hop down to a copyshop and print out some cheap BW laserprints. I'm now wondering if such logical, simple advice will be met by a blizzard of abuse
I guess maybe you weren't around for round 1 of the "new" Scout/Courier deckplans, and the abuse heaped on Bryan Gibson. I don't think in either case my comments are abusive. Critical yes, and meant to improve. I'm sure they can both take constructive critique, but won't stand for abuse.
 
Originally posted by Paraquat Johnson:
Why isn't the far trader on the list of future deckplans? Is it not going to be offered?
Perhaps because there is a set of deckplans for a T20 Fartrader in Golden Age EA1? (Though not in 15mm.
)
 
Originally posted by Paraquat Johnson:
Why isn't the far trader on the list of future deckplans? Is it not going to be offered?
My real guess is that the list is a starting point. There is nothing to say that is all that will be offered. Of course if none of these get bought then there will be little incentive to finish the list much less add to it.
 
Originally posted by Bhoins:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paraquat Johnson:
Why isn't the far trader on the list of future deckplans? Is it not going to be offered?
My real guess is that the list is a starting point. There is nothing to say that is all that will be offered. Of course if none of these get bought then there will be little incentive to finish the list much less add to it. </font>[/QUOTE]And that would be a pity. It's not my point here to demean the product and kill it, but to try to make it and the rest better. If they are better they will sell is my thought. Heck I'd even buy if it were better, but I can't see it from this example.

As for the Far-Trader in the GA Epic, well it's not the classic design by far but it is nicely done. Well thought out, sensibly presented (meaning easy to print), and fits the artwork and volumes iirc.
 
Originally posted by Paraquat Johnson:
Why isn't the far trader on the list of future deckplans? Is it not going to be offered?
Cause I forgot to list it ;)


Hunter
 
I feel obligated to point out that it can be a real pain to try and draw deckplans which fit an external view drawing. The drawing may look fine and all, but when trying to lay out a deckplan to match, I've sometimes found that the apparent proportions, size and the layout make the actual deckplans really difficult to do if the drawing wasn't done to appropriate volumes calculated.

Ron
 
Originally posted by hunter:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paraquat Johnson:
Why isn't the far trader on the list of future deckplans? Is it not going to be offered?
Cause I forgot to list it ;)


Hunter
</font>[/QUOTE]Better Answer! :D
 
Well I hope that the Javelin, the Qasar, the Lorimar, the Ramada (both versions), the Gazelle and the Firery will make the list.
Especially the Javelin.

Bruce
 
By the way, proportion wise. If the Scout ship in the drawing is 24m long then at its tallest point, from the bottom of the hull to the top of the turret it is, by proportion, 12m high not 6m. When printed out the top of the turret to the bottom of the craft is 7/8ths of an inch. The length of the craft is 1 3/4 inches. Or 7/8 vs. 14/8 (50%). The problem isn't the deckplan vs the exterior view, it is the dimension given as 6m. And works very well vs the exterior views if the fuel tank isn't of uniform height.
 
Back
Top