Deckplans 1: Scout/Courier (Type S)

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Ron Vutpakdi:
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

I certainly didn't mean to imply otherwise, and thought I said as much. Not plainly enough perhaps, but I agree and know from personal experience like yourself that it's not easy.

But I also know it can be done. And again from personal experience that once done and then found wrong can be a devil to correct. This was just such an easy enough error to make, but the only easy way to fix it is change the exterior view of the profile by 200% vertically. It looks a lot like the Guppy or other heavy lift air-transport (c 20thC Earth) then, which is not too bad, just not in keeping with the art, which includes some very nice 3D images out there on the web too.

 

[Tekrat04]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
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.

That is incorrect. On the small image of the side view from the sample I got 12mm for height and 48mm for length. that gives it a 1:4 ratio that is exactly the same ratio as the stated dimensions.

Using the larger image from the cover printed without shirinking the image to fit on the page I got the following measurments for the side view: 196mm for length an 47mm for height. If the length is 24m this gives us a scale of .1225m per mm. This gives us a height of 5.755m from the lowest point on the hull to the top of the turret. The turret itself is 9mm high or 1.10m.

The top view is another problem all together. The dimmention are 188mm for the length of the hull and 136mm for the width (68mm from centerline to widest point multiplied by 2). If we use the 24m and 18m repectively for the length and width we get to completely different scales, 0.128m per mm and 0.132m per mm. Neither of which matches the scale of the lenght from the side view. The problem here is that the side veiw and the top view vary for a host of minor and major detail. The noses lineup with one another but the back of the hull is off by 8mm. If you look at the turret, windows, sensors, and antenas you quickly find that none of them actually lineup.

I'm not impress by the work that was done on this product. QLI has to improve its quality when it comes to designing starships.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
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.

I think you need to check again Bhoins. I don't make such claims lightly and in my version the length is right at about 4 times the overall height (top of turret to bottom of fuel deck at the deepest). So 24m long divided by 4 gives the 6m listed as the overall height and that means the two internal decks are about 1.5m high each. I'd be thrilled to be shown wrong but even Hunter agreed the height was the error, unless that was what he meant in which case, well, I have to still say it's wrong until I can be shown otherwise.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Tekrat04:
...The problem here is that the side veiw and the top view vary for a host of minor and major detail. The noses lineup with one another but the back of the hull is off by 8mm. If you look at the turret, windows, sensors, and antenas you quickly find that none of them actually lineup.

Yep, I noticed that too when Bryan's art for the profiles was first posted way back. I'm much more forgiving of those mostly minor fudges because 1) they are artistic renders and 2) it was easy enough to mod my strictly for personal use versions so the two matched better. I've noticed it in other similar views art but again it doesn't bother me, I like Bryan's drawings too much for that to be a major distraction I guess

 

[mike wightman]

Minor nit pick, and this applies to the standard design version in the T20 book and the downloadable file, but shouldn't there be 1 ton for fire control or for the turret, wherever you want to account for it?
Or do you only pay tonnage when the weaponry is installed?
In CT the fire control ton must be accounted for when the turret is installed, even if it is empty.

I like the deckplans, they'll look really good once I get them laminated

 

[Scarecrow]

Well, I'm going to chime in here and say that I really like them.
I know I was quite vocally critical about the original plans, but these I like.
I've not gotten my slide rule and calculator out but then who gives a damn!

I like the layout. I like that the Airraft has a bay with room around it to get in and I like the nose-mounted loading ramp for both AirRaft and cargo bay.
I LOVE that it's done with vectors so it can be scaled to any size. That's a great idea.

I like that there's colours and textures but not enough to confuse the issue.

I have a couple of minor crits but they are so minor I don't want to mention them.

Nice one Hunter and whoever. MORE!!!!

Crow

 

[GypsyComet]

Originally posted by hunter:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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 </font>[/QUOTE]A second count confirms that. The fuel deck should probably be made bigger but shallower, as it is filling that gradual slope across the bottom.

The thing that got my attention was the huge engineering space, and really having to scrape to find even 80% of the cargo space.

That and the wake up call the poor bas...uh, crewman in the port aft stateroom will get if the starboard M-Drive blows in the wrong direction. Superheated particle-of-the-week straight up the stairway...

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by GypsyComet:
...and the wake up call the poor bas...uh, crewman in the port aft stateroom will get if the starboard M-Drive blows in the wrong direction. Superheated particle-of-the-week straight up the stairway...

The stairs had me worried at the first quick glance too. It looked like the quarters deck was open to the cargo bay, so every time you opened it in vacuum the whole ship except engineering and the bridge were in vacuum too. But a closer look seems to suggest walls, but no obvious doors/hatches. I'm guessing it's supposed to be there, just one of the minor nits I didn't bother with since it'd be an easy fix, either on my own if I were using it, or for Hunter (maybe) if he could make it clearer.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Scarecrow:
...I've not gotten my slide rule and calculator out but then who gives a damn!

Scarecrow, I gotta say you suprised me, and little does anymore, but there is a certain point where we all go "yeah, it's a game, close enough". I guess I just didn't think I'd witness your moment

Maybe the work on the Wedgie broke you?

On your likes, I agree. The first thing that caught my eye as "sweet" was the nose ramp for cargo and the raft's straight shoot down it.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Now the forward ramp for both Cargo and the Air/Raft was one of my minor nitpicks. Not that a ship wouldn't be designed that way, but if you have a full cargo load you would have to off load cargo to get the Air/raft out.

I still like it, it is a feature not a bug, but it isn't the way I would have designed it.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by far-trader:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
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.

I think you need to check again Bhoins. I don't make such claims lightly and in my version the length is right at about 4 times the overall height (top of turret to bottom of fuel deck at the deepest). So 24m long divided by 4 gives the 6m listed as the overall height and that means the two internal decks are about 1.5m high each. I'd be thrilled to be shown wrong but even Hunter agreed the height was the error, unless that was what he meant in which case, well, I have to still say it's wrong until I can be shown otherwise. </font>[/QUOTE]OK Checking again. (I guess this is what happens when I do this kind of math half asleep and with a less than accurate ruler.

I'll get the engineering scale out.

OK Engineering scale out. Good Calculator. Now the top of the turret is just a little ahead of the lowest point of the ship. But measuring from the top of the turret straight down with the good ruler, I still get 7/8ths. Because of the Black Line on the hull of the side view it is more difficult to stay on the side view and get the total length, so I took that from the top view, which appears to correspond. I still get 14/8ths. That tells me that the ship's max height, if the ship is 24m long, has to be 12m. It certainly isn't that high for the whole ship but if the fuel deck has a sloping floor.... Those are the measurements from the small pic on the demo PDF. I don't have the original around here, but I do seem to remember the first time I saw the top and side view I though that it definitely looked like it was more than one deck. Though at first the Black line on the side of the hull confused me. (Racing Stripe?)

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by Michael Taylor:
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

If I had one within 30 miles I might just do that. However even if I did it would likely double the cost of the deckplans. Sending it via the internet to say Fedex Kinkos and having them mail the printout to me would be even more costly. <shrugs> As I explained earlier it’s not a priority must have for me. Adding to the cost makes it even less so.

Most deckplans I've seen on the web don't have solid color decks (i.e. they have white blank space for the open squares) and to my eyes at least the grey pattern tends to make everything blend together.

I do like that it has d20 Future stats. From the sounds of it d20 Future needs some good ships and maybe after comparing the d20 Future stats to the Traveller ones folk will consider looking into Traveller.

As always, YMMV.

Casey has GoO Tekumel (link)! La!

 

[Michael Taylor]

Sorry Casey I was not aware of your geographical isolation

 

[far-trader]

Nope I still don't see how we get such different answers Bhoins. Maybe explaining mine will reveal something. Here's how I'm getting 6m overall height. Follow along and check the image below, also from the tiny free pdf image.

I first cropped the image out of the starfield, then cleaned it up a little and seperated the two views. Copied, pasted and flipped the full half of the dorsal view to make a full view. Fudged a little to make things even (no more than a couple pixels) and played with the back end to make the length match that of the side view. Things line up pretty well. Ignore the filling in at the back, it's just doodling mostly.

Now taking the length as 24m I made up a scale to show that in 1.5m increments. I also made a square to show the same scale so you can check your monitor and/or printer for true square display. Sliding the scale to the back I get a overall width of 18m and a height from the top of the turret to the bottom of the fuel pan of 6m. Have I goofed somewhere?

edit: The scale square in the image may be a little small for measuring to test for square display. The image itself it 288 pixels square so you could just measure the white on gray background as displayed above (well on my screen at least).

edit again: For what it's worth I decided to extend the line of the hull outboard and aft a little more and it now comes to the listed 18m width while maintaining a similar profile.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Nope I still don't see how we get such different answers Bhoins. Maybe explaining mine will reveal something. Here's how I'm getting 6m overall height. Follow along and check the image below, also from the tiny free pdf image.

Doesn't look like you goofed. And I am not saying that it appears to be 1/2 as high as it is long. But I have used three different rulers now and they all come up with the same answer to within less than a 32nd of an inch. 7/8ths of an inch high. 1.75 inches long. (again less than a 32nd of an inch off.)

Aw crap, that is what happens when I start these things tired.

Make one mistake while you are tired and your brain will tell you you are correct even if you aren't when you look again later.

I have always said I will quickly admit I am wrong when I am. Measuring a 4th time I looked more closely at the ruler and noticed something. It isn't 7/8ths it is 7/16ths. Giving an aspect ratio of 1:4 not 1:2. Or a 6m height.

(I'll just go back and crawl under my rock now.

)

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
I'll just go back and crawl under my rock now.

No need for that, though I hear it can be comfy and safe You did have me doubting my own check so I had to know. Keeping each other on our toes is a good thing. I know I've done similar stuff more than once.

 

[mike wightman]

And a plus is the discussion spurred Dan on to make that rather spiffy scale drawing.

Which is nice

You should try to persuade Hunter to add it to the pdf

 

[Tekrat04]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
And a plus is the discussion spurred Dan on to make that rather spiffy scale drawing.

Which is nice

You should try to persuade Hunter to add it to the pdf

I don't think Hunter would do that since it would mean admitting that he is trying to fit 9m worth of deck in a hull less that 5m high.

 

[far-trader]

Well, not that it helps much but it only took a minute, and the deckplans will fit, I give you the "fat" scout

Makes the U.S. Space Shuttle look positively sporty

 

[Scarecrow]

Originally posted by far-trader:

Scarecrow, I gotta say you suprised me, and little does anymore, but there is a certain point where we all go "yeah, it's a game, close enough". I guess I just didn't think I'd witness your moment

Maybe the work on the Wedgie broke you?

Yeah, I know. I blow hot and cold like the weather. I dunno. I find it bugs me when deckplan silhouettes don't match the plans they're based on and I go positively potty when there are rooms with no headroom or paper thin exterior walls and a number of other minor issues. But I'm easy with tonnage and what it's used for. That's when I'm happy to say, 'phukk it! It looks kewl!'
I know the silhouettes on these plans don't match Bryan's original drawing exactly but they're drawn with vectors so there were sacrifices that needed making. Fair enough.

I like them. They're nice to look at. They're free and they have no bloody iris valves. I'd like to see more plans done in this style.

Crow