Deckplans 1: Scout/Courier (Type S)

[Klaus]

Hmmm, I kinda like the original CT scout - not that there's anything wrong with these at all. It's just that the original one had all that empty equipment space. I'd always thought that when in service with the scouts the type S would have 17 tons of stuff added on board - a type 4 computer for sensors, extra data storage for those sensors, with that extra room at the back being a small lab or carrying the 5ton mail unit.

In CT it's stated that when detatched or sold all this specialist kit is removed. Using the book 2 rules the deckplan had too much room, yet there was no spare tonnage for all the active duty kit. So for me the T20 ruleset legitimises the original deckplan. If you count the upper storage bay and the aft room to the dedicated 3 ton cargo bay you get about 20 tons worth, 'bout right.
The reason I'm saying this (and I have been up too long and my English is suffering) is that the original deckplan is more 'romantic'. I like the fact that for such a small ship theres alot of places to go for privacy, surely important on such vessels. Of course loading and unloading cargo becomes awkward in such conditions, with all the cargo space spread across 3 compartments on opposite sides of the ship, but then this becomes a nice quirk of the design.

Thats my incredibly longwinded way of saying that while these plans are good, I find the crew areas claustrophobic, and that the original CT V-design has a certain magic to it.

 

[Klaus]

Resolution - IMTU I'll say that the CT design is , I dunno, the Mk3 Type S and that this design is the Mk4.

In that case, the Mk2 would have the original LBB2 stats, ie: 3 tons cargo, but otherwise similar performance - tho no idea what deckplan that should have.

Or, since this is Gateway 990, it could be reversed, with this being the MK3 and the CT version the Mk4.

I know from T4 that the type S has had virtually the same performance for 1000 years. IMHO I'd have to say that there must be operational differences for the type S in different eras, even if they're not apparent in the raw design data.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Personally I think the ISS would buy from the second lowest bidder. Since they buy lots and lots of them there would be more than one Standard Scout/Courier. I figure they purchase different models as the political winds change. (Take for example the change from the Bell Jetranger to the Hughes 500 back to the Bell Jet Ranger. All because of politics.)

Here is a requirement for a type that has existed for over 1000 years. Lots of them have been produced. The 100 Ton Scout ship is supposed to be the most common ship in space. Well if four different manufacturers each produced a version of the Scout/Courier, then you would be likely to have 4 different models. (And since they tend to be in service for 100 years or more then there will be several variations of each type.) So far we have the Suileman, the Intrepid, the Scorpion and whatever it is we are calling this new one, and whatever we are calling the single deck version (both deckplans) of this one. Each has its own quirks, advantages and disadvantages. Now if someone comes along and starts selling a new TL13 version and a TL15 version, they get more free space and actually cost less, though they will be more limited as to where they can be repaired.

I still don't think the Standard Scout can get by with a Model 1Bis computer under the T20 rules. But none of the deckplans allow space for a bigger computer. (And I don't understand why they would pull out a 100 year old computer and replace it with a brand new one, wouldn't it be cheaper and more effecient to leave the old one in? After all when the Scout Service does the annual maintenance they do pull the sensor logs to help with things like surveys and intelligence gathering. (There is a price for that free fuel and free maintenance.)

 

[Tekrat04]

Originally posted by Scarecrow:
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.

I don't know why you would like thes deckplans because lack of headroom is the main issue here. Taking into account the hull, floors, and minimal machinery space the maximum headroom for 3 evenly spaced decks would be less than 145cm (4'9"). A lot less in some places. For example at the pilot seat the headroom would be less then 25cm (under 10")and at the main engineering control 50cm (under 20")of headroom.

This starship is the perfect example as to why the piecemeal aproch to ship design is a flawed process. When the statistics, artwork and deckplans are done independently of one another and little to no care is taken to see if they can be mesh together, you get a mess like this. Taken on there own each of the three element are good if not excelent. When ussing them as a whole they falls flat on their faces.

This product looks impressive but its seriously flawed.

This is not the first time QLI has publish ships in witch the 3 elements do not mesh with one another. The mechant cruiser, scout cruiser and mercenary cruiser suffer from the same problem. I just hope that someone will take a serious and hard look at those designs and try to correct the problems before republishing them as part of the deckplan serries.

 

[flykiller]

This product looks impressive but its seriously flawed.

geez. most players when presented with deckplans don't whip out rulers or count squares.

not my style, but I think it looks ok.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Klaus:
Hmmm, I kinda like the original CT scout - not that there's anything wrong with these at all. It's just that the original one had all that empty equipment space...

Most of which had to be a few cm high to a meter, maybe. Even the 3ton cargo hold was always in the wrong end. There was no room for full height at the nose under the bridge. It did fit in the back room to the side opposite the air-raft so that's where I put it in mine, and the "attic", gone, didn't fit so it didn't exist. Of course I'm talking CT Book 2, the original. Story changes with every new rule set

What you describe fits some later editions better but not the hull depicted. I agree with all the points. I've made them myself in my own article and deckplans for the T20 Type S. I had no idea it was a huge secret, thought I'd plugged it often enough and got favorable enough feedback that Hunter's pdf seemed sorta redundant. Except for one fact. It is official. As I said I'd have been happy to have Hunter use mine if it suited his purposes, gratis even since it's already been sitting here on CotI for more than a year.

Or as I also said there are plenty of others out there, as good or much better for pretty much every design Hunter has on the list. He was talking at one time not long ago about maybe a deckplan contest with some official status and then this comes along so I'm not sure where it stands but that would have saved him a lot of work, maybe. Or he might just like doing them too. I know I do. And yes I've had some criticism that was hard to take but it helps so I hope Hunter isn't taking this all too hard. I almost regret posting it. I really do want to see good ships. Meaning art, profile and interior, deckplans that are both good to look at and good for a game, and of course some logic in the design. A merchant ship should be built to make money not lose it as fast as possible, unless it's a subbie

My equally long winded way of saying I agree with your wishes Klaus. I think my version shows some of that.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
I still don't think the Standard Scout can get by with a Model 1Bis computer under the T20 rules. But none of the deckplans allow space for a bigger computer. (And I don't understand why they would pull out a 100 year old computer and replace it with a brand new one, wouldn't it be cheaper and more effecient to leave the old one in? After all when the Scout Service does the annual maintenance they do pull the sensor logs to help with things like surveys and intelligence gathering. (There is a price for that free fuel and free maintenance.)

I agree, it is barely enough computer to work, though in T20 it is better than any other version software wise. My deckplans actually do allow more computer, as noted in the little writeup. And as for pulling an old bigger computer to replace it with a new smaller one, well that's not quite how I see it working.

I see it more as a modular rack deal. So what they do is pull the modules you don't need in the detached duty or surplus sale one and leave you with the bones and the minimal units to let you run the ship, the oldest ones they can find on the shelf, since the newer ones and the extra modules they pull will be re-used in service as duty ships come in for maintenance, or for the detached duty ship that needs a little more for an assignment.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This product looks impressive but its seriously flawed.

geez. most players when presented with deckplans don't whip out rulers or count squares.

not my style, but I think it looks ok. </font>[/QUOTE]Must be a gearhead gene. I didn't actually need a ruler to see there was a problem with the measurements as realted to fitting two full decks into it. And I didn't actually count the squares to check the tonnage. I might have if there hadn't been the obvious (to me at least, in a moment of clarity perhaps) issue with the decks actually fitting the height. And if I had it would have been no problem if it had been out a little. I strive for zero percent myself but am happy with close in others.

Again, I'll say I don't mind the look of them, it's the putting it with the profiles art that grates as Tekrat04 noted. Either on their own are fine, together, sadly no.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This product looks impressive but its seriously flawed.

geez. most players when presented with deckplans don't whip out rulers or count squares.</font>[/QUOTE]Let me make an analogy, flawed though it may be, being late...

Player comes to my game with a character, I look it over, Str 14, Dex 18, yada yada...

OK says I, looks good, let's play...

Later in combat the player says something along the lines of I pick up the car and throw it at the guys chasing us...

With Str 14 says I, not bloody likely.

Well yeah says he, that's my design Str, but I'm allowed plus or minus 20% on that so I'm using Str 17, I rounded up a little. Also I'm borrowing 10 points from my Dex since 8 is enough there so actually my Str is 25 and my Dex is 8 for this layout but I only look like a normal guy with basic bones and muscles like any Str 14 and I move with the apparent grace of Dex 18.

That's what happens when you have rules to build a ship and then allow deckplans to fudge that with a plus or minus (and few use the minus side or go less than 20% over) and not require that a ton of drives be used for drives and not cargo. It wouldn't fly for characters, why should it for ships? I see ships as (usually) the referee's main NPC so it's important that there be some rhyme and reason to them. Otherwise why have rules for them at all. Just let me draw the thing how I want and call the performance whatever fits the situation. Might as well just let players do the same.

As I said it's late, and maybe I'm a little cranky about this. I'll feel better in the morning so don't take this too seriously. I certainly mean nothing personal by it flykiller, just your statement serves so well for my rant. Can ya forgive me?

 

[far-trader]

Last word from me in this forum, for this session at least

Hunter probably hates me for starting this debate. I could understand it. Well, ok, not hate, not really, but not happy with me.

Really I mean no harm to the project, I just want to see it done better if possible. Maybe it's too much to hope for, for the reasons I outlined here earlier, and others I can't guess.

If anything though the fact that it is up to 4 pages shows there is interest in seeing this type of product so I hope he does go through with it. And I can also hope that some of them will be more appealing to me. I don't think it a forlorn hope in either case.

 

[flykiller]

That's what happens when you have rules to build a ship and then allow deckplans to fudge that with a plus or minus

'sposed to be an RPG, not an engineering project.

you spent six months laying out one ship? you should contact hunter and offer to do one or two boats for this series, put your talent to good use.

and no apology necessary.

 

[Tekrat04]

Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This product looks impressive but its seriously flawed.

geez. most players when presented with deckplans don't whip out rulers or count squares.

not my style, but I think it looks ok. </font>[/QUOTE]No rulers, no calculators. Just common sence and eye for detail made me look up and say: "hey, something is wrong here".

The ruler and calculator we used only to confirm that there was indeed a problem with the design and report it. Not to go out and try find every small discrepency and cry follow.

The problems with this design need to be pointed out in order to learn from the mistakes that were made. Hopefuly this will improve the future books in this line.

 

[flykiller]

Hopefuly this will improve the future books in this line.

so submit a better one.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />That's what happens when you have rules to build a ship and then allow deckplans to fudge that with a plus or minus

'sposed to be an RPG, not an engineering project.

you spent six months laying out one ship? you should contact hunter and offer to do one or two boats for this series, put your talent to good use.

</font>[/QUOTE]True, but for me at least part of the game has always been the little "engineering projects"

I've even had most of my PC's take Naval Architect as a skill so I could add that to the role playing. Besides the gearheading and drafting lets me enjoy our great old game even when I can't actually play.

As for the six-months that's only a couple or so weeks averaged for each rule set, over the past 20 some years. If I'd known then...

It (the Beowulf) first fell to my attempts way back in CT when I really hated the layout in the Snapshot game back in '83. Before that we were usually happy with the produced plans.

That led to a rough (but less so) layout for my CT Book 2 version. Then there was a High Guard version when we finally decided to stop using Book 2 design at about the same time I think. And so on through each (well, most) rule set as they came out and changed things a little. And of course variations. All (or most) of this done on one Apple computer or another in Appleworks (aka Clarisworks, and again aka Appleworks). I have little of those older ones saved over all the years, just an Empress Marava class in fading dot-matrix printout at fig scale

The most recent update for T20 took about a week of evenings, most of that just little nudges and tweaks. But I did finally manage to get plans showing exactly 200tons (well maybe 0.25tons off iirc

and under if you're curious) in the hull shape and proportions of the old ship mini. It suits the mini, and keeps most of the layout of the official versions. I even touched it up to redo my CT Book 2 version to match.

As for contacting Hunter, well I've posted here, and PM'ed him but as I said (somewhere?), kicking the boss and then asking for a job is probably not good interview strategy

Or maybe he's just busy. Or maybe it's the wrong channels. Or maybe it's my first attempt at writing for QLI some time ago that ran into a few snags that has me on the list of last call. In my defence what I offered I felt I could deliver. I was asked to add to it and should have said no, but I didn't. And then while doing the extra work under pressure I had computer problems and had to start pretty much over, largely from memory. So when asked if I could complete it in time or if it should be handed to someone else, I had to say no, reassign it. I wanted to see it published sooner even if it wasn't by me. Sadly that product is still not published and last I heard it wasn't even completed, but that info is a few months old so it could be in the pipe now. Ah well, I did kind of run on, off topic, there

 

[The Oz]

Has anyone ever tried doing a ship layout backwards? By which I mean taking the ship design specs (whether CT, HG, T20, or anything else) and using them to generate a deckplan, and only =then= trying to draw what the ship would look like from the outside?

 

[vutpakdi]

Originally posted by The Oz:
Has anyone ever tried doing a ship layout backwards? By which I mean taking the ship design specs (whether CT, HG, T20, or anything else) and using them to generate a deckplan, and only =then= trying to draw what the ship would look like from the outside?

It would be better to do the deckplans at the same time as the design specs. I've run into problems where a design spec says that things should fit (by volume), but getting things so that they can be laid out in a way that makes logical sense and fits in the deckplans doesn't.

A specific example was doing one of the small craft variants in the upcoming Small Craft TA where the design specs said that one more emergency low berth would fit, but I couldn't get them to work within the confines of the available space on the deckplans (so I dropped that extra emergency low berth in the design specs).

I'd do the design specs and deck plans first. Then, with the deckplans, I'd do the external view, iterating if necessary. I've only tried this approach a couple of times though (and not with anything that I'd be willing to publish) because I'm not a decent artist.

Ron

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by The Oz:
Has anyone ever tried doing a ship layout backwards? By which I mean taking the ship design specs (whether CT, HG, T20, or anything else) and using them to generate a deckplan, and only =then= trying to draw what the ship would look like from the outside?

Sure, at least I have. Pretty sure this was Scarecrow's approach too for his designs. Though maybe it'd be more accurate to say that the two (deckplan and model) were developed in concert. That's pretty much the easiest way to make it all work.

Normally though, I find my inspiration in the shape. So I'll start with a picture, then get the stats (my own or published), from there it gets hard, making it all fit and work. Hard being a relative term. I find that the Traveller fuel paradigm allows a large variation in scaling a shape to allow the "hard" spaces (quarters and drives) to fit. So I usually start with an approximation of the shape for volume, see if the plans fit, then adjust the scale of the shape till the plans fit. All the unused space is "fuel" and I don't worry too much about it's accounting on the deckplans in most cases, as long as it's close.

 

[Scarecrow]

Originally posted by Tekrat04:
I don't know why you would like thes deckplans because lack of headroom is the main issue here.

Yeah. Yeah. That'll learn me to read the rest of the post before jumping straight in there. There is quite clearly not enough vertical space, which is kind of irksome. It's a schoolboy error, especially as these are intended as commercial publications and not, as I first thought free CotI downloads.
I stick by the rest of my comments though.

This starship is the perfect example as to why the piecemeal aproch to ship design is a flawed process. When the statistics, artwork and deckplans are done independently of one another and little to no care is taken to see if they can be mesh together, you get a mess like this.

I couldn't agree more. It's also why so many ship designs are excruciatingly dull. Either drawing a hull around blocks of squares, resulting in a flying brick or trying to squeeze a coherent deckplan into a previously drawn silhouette resulting in a broken and nonsensical layout. This is why my design process tends to be a fudge back and forth between volume, function and form to get the best results. I'm fortunate in that I have a powerful 3D program that allows me to shuffle accurate volumes around in 3 dimensions rather than just the usual two.

Now, if only I could just finish something for once...

Crow

 

[BetterThanLife]

I have always done an approximation of the exterior first. After all if it isn't pretty to look at then you won't sell the interior. People buy the packaging before they buy the contents.

Are they always accurate? No. I am definitely not the perfectionist, nor a professional in these regards. I could never dream of approaching Scarecrows talent. But they work for the game.

 

[GypsyComet]

Originally posted by The Oz:
Has anyone ever tried doing a ship layout backwards? By which I mean taking the ship design specs (whether CT, HG, T20, or anything else) and using them to generate a deckplan, and only =then= trying to draw what the ship would look like from the outside?

Sure, though I try to have an idea before I start.

Fitting deckplans to existing artwork is more of a challenge (ie, more fun, most of the time), and often involves invoking Rule 2 ("Came from a different shipyard").