Errata - that difficult subject

[infojunky]

I do not believe that the bridge slice of life support and grav plating cover components like engineering, cargo spaces, staterooms, labs, workshops, hangars, or other components not associated with the bridge that designers may add.

Ah, see this is where we will differ then. As the 2% volume covers a lot of ground in the inconsequential equipment installations.

But there is also the differences in volumetric assumptions between the two as well. First off CT uses a general rounding of 14 cubic meters to the dTon, Not to mention the uncounted waste space for access features. A liberal reading of all the entries on Deckplans across the books of CT finds that a liberal interpretation of what the numbers mean up 120% of the rated tonnage plus the non-counting of required corridor space, make my initial assertion for CT workable.

Now for MT one goes the other way, the design system lends itself meticulous assignment of ships fittings. Which is fine but a whole different kettle of fish.

With that going back to the assignment of Life Support and Gravity to the entire hull, I find the fuel tanks would greatly benefit from having such equipment.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello infojunky,

I do not believe that the bridge slice of life support and grav plating cover components like engineering, cargo spaces, staterooms, labs, workshops, hangars, or other components not associated with the bridge that designers may add.

Ah, see this is where we will differ then. As the 2% volume covers a lot of ground in the inconsequential equipment installations.

But there is also the differences in volumetric assumptions between the two as well. First off CT uses a general rounding of 14 cubic meters to the dTon, Not to mention the uncounted waste space for access features. A liberal reading of all the entries on Deckplans across the books of CT finds that a liberal interpretation of what the numbers mean up 120% of the rated tonnage plus the non-counting of required corridor space, make my initial assertion for CT workable.

Now for MT one goes the other way, the design system lends itself meticulous assignment of ships fittings. Which is fine but a whole different kettle of fish.

With that going back to the assignment of Life Support and Gravity to the entire hull, I find the fuel tanks would greatly benefit from having such equipment.

The slice of life support and grav plates needed for the bridge does not cover the slice of life support and grav plates required by the engineering space, cargo spaces, staterooms, labs, workshops, hangars, fuel tanks, or other component. GURPS Traveller used slices in a similar manner to what I believe you describe, however they are added together to come up with the total size of the power plant, life support, and artificial gravity generation.

Looking at the various Traveller deck plans a majority of them show that the bridge is isolated from the next space/compartment by a bulkhead with a hatch which based on my experience on submarines and surface ships, science fiction books and movies is airtight. The arrangement is designed to prevent damage in one compartment from effecting surrounding compartments.

In CT grav plates volume, cost, power requirements, and weight are totally ignored. CT Life support has a cost per stateroom but is otherwise ignored.

The access space for CT is in my opinion lumped in with the total volume of the compartment. On a bridge deck plan any space around a component like an acceleration/control couch includes the access space.

I agree that MT went from virtually ignoring life support and totally ignoring grav plate requirements to calculating their requirements for the ship's total internal volume.

The rounding used in determining volume in CT I agree does add to the deck plan slop factor, however I vaguely recall but I have not found the text for MT deck plans using the same requirements as detailed in CT. TNE FF&S Mk I Mod 1 provides the dimensions need to get 14 m^3 and indicate that 0.5 m^3 is lost to deck thickness, environment ducting, lighting and other systems. Unfortunately TNE also allows a 10 to 20% slop factor in the deck plans.

I am one of the I believe majority who need the slop factor since I do not have the level of skill and/or patience to draw detailed and accurate deck plans regardless of today's applications for drawing blue prints.

To summarize I can go with calculating the life support and grav plate statistics based on the volume used by each separate component. I do not agree that the slice of life support/grav plate required by the bridge is going to work for any other component. I agree that CT lumps life support, grav plates, access space and a number of other items together while MT calculates requirements based some items on the total internal hull volume and on individual systems.

 

[infojunky]

In CT grav plates volume, cost, power requirements, and weight are totally ignored. CT Life support has a cost per stateroom but is otherwise ignored.

The access space for CT is in my opinion lumped in with the total volume of the compartment. On a bridge deck plan any space around a component like an acceleration/control couch includes the access space.

This is a point where we may just have to disagree in that it falls on the definition of Bridge in CT. My view of the bridge is the the central control truss that runs throughout the ship, connecting all major ships systems, it also includes all the primary avionics. Note in various publications and rules it controls all Atmospheric and gravity conditions throughout the ship. Thus my inclusion of Control and distribution portions of environmental controls there. (Note gross life support capacity still remains a function of volume relegated to Staterooms, and by extension Smallcraft fittings)

CT lumps a lot of ship functionality and control into both the bridge and Computer, thus a lot of license is needed to fill in the blanks described by those two features...

The rounding used in determining volume in CT I agree does add to the deck plan slop factor, however I vaguely recall but I have not found the text for MT deck plans using the same requirements as detailed in CT. TNE FF&S Mk I Mod 1 provides the dimensions need to get 14 m^3 and indicate that 0.5 m^3 is lost to deck thickness, environment ducting, lighting and other systems. Unfortunately TNE also allows a 10 to 20% slop factor in the deck plans.

MT uses 13.5 cubic meters to the dTon as per the design system.

MT Referee's Manual Pg. 89, middle of the second column.

And yes the slop factor is retained.

I am one of the I believe majority who need the slop factor since I do not have the level of skill and/or patience to draw detailed and accurate deck plans regardless of today's applications for drawing blue prints.

Again this is a point of view situation as well as a utility one. In that from the scale modeling point view a wonderfully detailed plan which one can build a model of infinite detail from is a work of beauty and hobby unto itself. Whereas a plan that lays out the general locations and form of a ship has great utility in playing both RPGs and miniatures games. (Note the latter case the slop factor is especially useful as what might be a 0.5 meter accessway in real life turns into a 1.5 meter corridor on the plan...)

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Infojunky,

This is a point where we may just have to disagree in that it falls on the definition of Bridge in CT. My view of the bridge is the the central control truss that runs throughout the ship, connecting all major ships systems, it also includes all the primary avionics. Note in various publications and rules it controls all Atmospheric and gravity conditions throughout the ship. Thus my inclusion of Control and distribution portions of environmental controls there. (Note gross life support capacity still remains a function of volume relegated to Staterooms, and by extension Smallcraft fittings)

CT lumps a lot of ship functionality and control into both the bridge and Computer, thus a lot of license is needed to fill in the blanks described by those two features...

Yes, we will have to just disagree since CT and MT lumped things together to make the design system work. TNE FF&S Mk I Mod 1 is in my opinion closer to both how a bridge works in real world and on the science fiction ships seen I have seen on television, movies, and read in books.

MT uses 13.5 cubic meters to the dTon as per the design system.

MT Referee's Manual Pg. 89, middle of the second column.

And yes the slop factor is retained.

Thank for providing page numbers, confirming that MT has the same slop factor as CT, and my apologies for not being clear that I understand MT uses 1.5m x 3m x 3m = 13.5 m^3 = 1 d-ton

Again this is a point of view situation as well as a utility one. In that from the scale modeling point view a wonderfully detailed plan which one can build a model of infinite detail from is a work of beauty and hobby unto itself. Whereas a plan that lays out the general locations and form of a ship has great utility in playing both RPGs and miniatures games. (Note the latter case the slop factor is especially useful as what might be a 0.5 meter accessway in real life turns into a 1.5 meter corridor on the plan...)

If the plan scaling is done correctly then the 0.5 meter access way should shown on the plan as 0.5 meters. Of course I still have not been able to get the scaling right especially when I try to draw the consoles, seating, and other components.

 

[infojunky]

TNE FF&S Mk I Mod 1 is in my opinion closer to both how a bridge works in real world and on the science fiction ships seen I have seen on television, movies, and read in books.

I am not going to disagree with you there. Though I will say MT also has a interesting system for apportioning it as well.

My problem with the "bridge" in both FF&S and MT is that there was never any good guidelines for the bare minimum required avionics for civil space flight operations.

Thank for providing page numbers, confirming that MT has the same slop factor as CT, and my apologies for not being clear that I understand MT uses 1.5m x 3m x 3m = 13.5 m^3 = 1 d-ton

It's not a problem, I had just recently been through that section looking for layout ideas for vehicles designed using the MgT Vehicles SRD. I also have found lots of use Comparing and contrasting MT with Ct design systems to inform Ideas I am working on now. What I am finding is that there are a lot of limitations that are both Explicit and Implicit that have been paved over in later works.

If the plan scaling is done correctly then the 0.5 meter access way should shown on the plan as 0.5 meters. Of course I still have not been able to get the scaling right especially when I try to draw the consoles, seating, and other components.

The case there is what are you using the plan for, as i said a Scale representation is very different from a representation designed to work with counters or miniatures. It's not so much a issue of Draftsmanship but one of Cartography, the drafting solution allows for direct scaled representation, while a cartographic one only represents the bits and areas that useful.

(The first lesson in Cartography is that all maps are Lies, then you spend the next three years learning how to best display the required information in the clearest way possible. )

A hint for your drafting, try using a a half meter grid. A chair generally fits in such a grid, a smallish desk is approx that in depth.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello infojunky,

First my apologies for bad proofreading of my last post. Reminder to self Do not post after midnight Pacific Standard Time.

TNE FF&S Mk I Mod 1 is in my opinion closer to both how a bridge works in real world and on the science fiction ships I have seen on television, movies, and read in books.

I am not going to disagree with you there. Though I will say MT also has a interesting system for apportioning it as well.

My problem with the "bridge" in both FF&S and MT is that there was never any good guidelines for the bare minimum required avionics for civil space flight operations.

I am probably wrong but in MT the communicators, sensors and electronics are designed for off-the shelf installation while TNE allows for customization of the systems.

I agree that CT LBB 5 HG 2e, MT, and TNE do not clearly define minimum requirements for civilian systems or in my opinion military systems. CT LBB 2 Starships 2e p. 32 I think provides a clue for at least part of the ship's avionics. "Ordinary or commercial starships can detect other ships ot to a range of about one-half light-second; about 1,500 millimeter. Military and scout starships have detection ranges out to two light-seconds; 6,000 mm or 6 meters."

Thank for providing page numbers, confirming that MT has the same slop factor as CT, and my apologies for not being clear that I understand MT uses 1.5m x 3m x 3m = 13.5 m^3 = 1 d-ton.

It's not a problem, I had just recently been through that section looking for layout ideas for vehicles designed using the MgT Vehicles SRD. I also have found lots of use Comparing and contrasting MT with Ct design systems to inform Ideas I am working on now. What I am finding is that there are a lot of limitations that are both Explicit and Implicit that have been paved over in later works.

I agree with you about CT and MT design systems, however I also feel that the other Traveller variants as well as other game systems have limitations that are implicit and explicit that have been paved over by later works.

At this time I am going through MgT HG 2e and plan to pick-up the company's other books that have design systems in them. My opinion is that MgT 2e did a good job at integrating the spacecraft design systems found in CRB 1e and HG 1e. Further MgT HG 2e, when I get a handle on the system, is something I probably will be using more when creating designs. Deck plans unfortunately are still something I will be just as crappy with as I am in the other Traveller rule sets.

If the plan scaling is done correctly then the 0.5 meter access way should shown on the plan as 0.5 meters. Of course I still have not been able to get the scaling right especially when I try to draw the consoles, seating, and other components.

The case there is what are you using the plan for, as i said a Scale representation is very different from a representation designed to work with counters or miniatures. It's not so much a issue of Draftsmanship but one of Cartography, the drafting solution allows for direct scaled representation, while a cartographic one only represents the bits and areas that useful.

(The first lesson in Cartography is that all maps are Lies, then you spend the next three years learning how to best display the required information in the clearest way possible. )

A hint for your drafting, try using a a half meter grid. A chair generally fits in such a grid, a smallish desk is approx that in depth.

My memory has dredged up the reason why I am so fixated on the need to have deck plans that more closely represent the dimensions/volume of Traveller's design rules. I had to use small books that had drawings showing how the submarine's and the one surface ship's systems were laid out. These drawings showed the basic layout of the system indicating where key and secondary components were located in a vague fashion. For example the drawing of the ventilation system would show, in the case of a submarine, the location of the fan room and then indicate the direction that air flowed, the location of isolation valves, booster fans to and then back to the fan room. The problem is that the drawings showed that the component was a compartment or space but not the exact location. The exact location even on the submarines of the class was usually different.

The tunnels, passageways, and other feature represented in my D&D dungeon maps used scaling that accurately represented distances. Of course map fragments given to the players rarely showed everything.

Thank you for the hint about using a grid square of 0.5 meters, hopefully I will remember to try this on my next attempt at drawing a deck plan.

 

[aramis]

I am not going to disagree with you there. Though I will say MT also has a interesting system for apportioning it as well.

My problem with the "bridge" in both FF&S and MT is that there was never any good guidelines for the bare minimum required avionics for civil space flight operations.

Really? Spacecraft REQUIRE a computer, and the BL Tech book makes it clear a PEMS is expected.

MT merely implies a PEMS is expected.

 

[Wol]

Hello once again with possible WBH errata

The example for the Atmosphere Related Details 3 Step 7c Daytime Rotation Effects is using 1.9 for the value of R. R is the Rotation-Luminosity Factor determined in Step 7b which in the example is 1.09.

WORLD BUILDER'S HANDBOOK (875, 1989)

Page 66, Atmosphere Related Details 3 Step 7c Daytime Rotation Temperature Effects Example (correction): In the example change all values of 1.9 to 1.09 in the formulas. The correct formulas and calculated values are: 1.0 degrees x 1.09 = 1.09 degrees C per hour; 336 hours x 1.09 degrees = 366 degrees C; and the most that can be added determined by the absolute limit formula (95+273) x 0.1 x 1.09 is 40 degree C.

Worth noteing that these are temps above/below the average temperatures. It still might be possible to have a world that cools off so much at night that it can never warm up enough during the day to get to its above base maximum and vice versa.

This is something that bothers me a bit.

regards

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Wol,

Worth noting that these are temps above/below the average temperatures. It still might be possible to have a world that cools off so much at night that it can never warm up enough during the day to get to its above base maximum and vice versa.

This is something that bothers me a bit.

regards

Thank you for the reply and additional twist that may occur. However, the errata recommendation is based on the way the example indicates that the numbers used are from the previous step. The number from the previous step is 1.09 not 1.9.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello aramis and infojunky,

I am not going to disagree with you there. Though I will say MT also has a interesting system for apportioning it as well.

My problem with the "bridge" in both FF&S and MT is that there was never any good guidelines for the bare minimum required avionics for civil space flight operations.

Really? Spacecraft REQUIRE a computer, and the BL Tech book makes it clear a PEMS is expected.

MT merely implies a PEMS is expected.

infojunky has already indicated that MT, as well as all of the other Traveller variants, design systems require a computer on hulls >= 100 d-tons.

I believe that infojunky's reference to "avionics" is suggesting the application of the active and passive systems used by aircraft while they are airborne to spacecraft.

I have and probably missed BL's Technical booklet clearly expecting the installation of a PEMS or AEMS. My view is that spacecraft will have at minimum RADAR and Visible Light and IR Enhancement Sensors. At TL 10 and above installation of AEMS and PEMS Arrays would be a better option. If the spacecraft is going to be flying around a planet close to the surface I probably include Flight and Terrain-Following Avionics.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello infojunky,

This is a point where we may just have to disagree in that it falls on the definition of Bridge in CT. My view of the bridge is the the central control truss that runs throughout the ship, connecting all major ships systems, it also includes all the primary avionics. Note in various publications and rules it controls all Atmospheric and gravity conditions throughout the ship. Thus my inclusion of Control and distribution portions of environmental controls there. (Note gross life support capacity still remains a function of volume relegated to Staterooms, and by extension Smallcraft fittings)

CT lumps a lot of ship functionality and control into both the bridge and Computer, thus a lot of license is needed to fill in the blanks described by those two features...

While posting a reply to aramis a couple of items popped up that I hope provides a clearer description of how I view a Traveller's starship/non-starship/small craft bridge.

The first image of a starship's bridge I have is from Star Trek and the blueprints I purchased in 1975. In Star Trek the bridges, there is one in the saucer and another one in the main hull, are compartments used to centralize the operation of the ship.

I agree that the bridge consoles provide personnel the ability to control and monitor systems throughout the ship which is support in my opinion by the blueprints and events in the shows and movies. However, the shows movies, and books, again in my opinion, do not show that slices of the Bridge's life support system are shared with the ship's other compartments.

Of the Traveller rule sets I have, T5 is not one of them, the bridge calculated as a separate component which on the CT based deck plans appear to be a separate compartment. I applied the material from Star Trek, various science fiction books with bridge details, and two to three years exposure to USN training to CT LBB 2 Starships 1e.

In GURPS Traveller most components calculated the slice power and life support requirements needed based on the component. These slices are then added together to determine the total requirements for the power plant and life support.

From the few foreign science fiction shows I've seen their ships follow a similar pattern to Star Trek.

I know we still disagree on the definition of a CT Bridge.

 

[aramis]

Ship Bridges in editions
CT Bk2 & Bk5, T20, Traveller Hero: 2%, minimum 20Td
MT: None.
TNE/T4: Built from workstations
GT: two sizes 2.5 (for ≤1000Td) and 5 ton (>1000Td) Also requires an engineering core, adding 1 ton.
T5: Workstation model
MGT 1E core: Three sizes 10 T (100-200T), 20T (to 1000Td), 40 T (Capital Ships)
Cephus, MGT2, MGT1 HG: 4 sizes —10 T (100-200T), 20T (to 1000Td), 40 T (≤2000 Td), 60T (Capital Ships)

Noting that most have an additional size or 2 for <100Td craft.

 

[SanDragon]

Two percent, minimum 20 tons?

 

[infojunky]

Ship Bridges in editions:
MT: None.

It is buried in the Control panel calculations.

 

[aramis]

It is buried in the Control panel calculations.

Nope. There's no bridge. Just piles of control panels. Many interpret that to be the bridge, but the panels themselves are too small to account for the users.

 

[infojunky]

Nope. There's no bridge. Just piles of control panels. Many interpret that to be the bridge, but the panels themselves are too small to account for the users.

There IS!!..

OK, not specifically designated as such, but still effectively the same thing. Or weirdly all the volume generated by MT:RM Page 81, the page titled Bridge could be considered as such a bridge. (And strangely recursively supporting my comments about CT's bridge volume in a earlier response.)

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello aramis

I disagree with the Ship Bridges in editions with the entry of MT: None MT

Referee's Manual Craft Design p. 60 Controls and Bridge Section provides details for the tables found on Referee's Manual Craft Design 8 - Bridge p.81.

Referee's Manual Craft Design 8 - Bridge p. 81
1. Environmental Controls, 2. Control Points, 3. Computers, 4. Control Panels, 5. Special Control Panel Add Ons, 6. Electronic Circuit Protection, 7. Compute Controls Totals

Ship Bridges in editions
CT Bk2 & Bk5, T20, Traveller Hero: 2%, minimum 20Td
MT: None.
TNE/T4: Built from workstations
GT: two sizes 2.5 (for ≤1000Td) and 5 ton (>1000Td) Also requires an engineering core, adding 1 ton.
T5: Workstation model
MGT 1E core: Three sizes 10 T (100-200T), 20T (to 1000Td), 40 T (Capital Ships)
Cephus, MGT2, MGT1 HG: 4 sizes —10 T (100-200T), 20T (to 1000Td), 40 T (≤2000 Td), 60T (Capital Ships)

Noting that most have an additional size or 2 for <100Td craft.

 

[aramis]

Tom:
If you want to delude yourself that Life support systems are part of the bridge, fine. I won't change my view just because DGP failed to actually allocate space for people ANY THE BLOODY WHERE in the bridge section. (In CT, the computer is separate).

Computers are not part of the bridge tonnage except in MGT. And that's because MGT claims ship computers shouldn't be big enough to fill even 1 ton. (which implies a certain lack of knowledge... also exhibited boldly by not knowing the meaning of "Merchant Marine." )

The largest control panel is 0.4 cubic meters... the standard are 0.01... that's 10cm x1m x1m. That's JUST a panel. Even when you add them up, and consider half to be access space, you don't have room for a person on a scout courier.

Also note: The section total lists "Controls" not bridge. Controls is more descriptive, but the LS belongs in the accomodations section. And for controls needed, Evironmental is separate from the rest of the stuff on the "bridge" page.

There's not enough tonnage required to matter, unless one does stupid things like build a TL15 ship with a model 1...

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Aramis,

Tom:
If you want to delude yourself that Life support systems are part of the bridge, fine. I won't change my view just because DGP failed to actually allocate space for people ANY THE BLOODY WHERE in the bridge section. (In CT, the computer is separate).

Referee's Manual Craft Design p. 60 Controls and Bridge Section provides details for the tables found on Referee's Manual Craft Design 8 - Bridge p.81.

Referee's Manual Craft Design 8 - Bridge p. 81
1. Environmental Controls, 2. Control Points, 3. Computers, 4. Control Panels, 5. Special Control Panel Add Ons, 6. Electronic Circuit Protection, 7. Compute Controls Totals

Looking at the front cover of my hardcopy of 0212 MegaTraveller (MT) Referee's Manual Marc W. Miller is listed and in the lower right hand corner is the stamp for GDW. On p. 1 at the top is Marc W. Miller, edited by Joe D. Fugate, Sr. and Gary L. Thomas and published by Game Designer's Workshop On p. 2the information also shows the book is published by GDW. Looking in my hardcopy of The Traveller Bibliography by Timothy Collinson p. 22 the Referee's Manual the publisher is GDW. Mr. Collinson indicates cites that among the significantly updated Traveller rules was the addition of the task system first developed by DGP.

Based on the information I have MT Referee's manual is a product of GDW not DGP and that Mr. Miller approved the book.

My apologies for not stating whether or not I agreed with the requirements listed on MT Referee's Manual Craft Design 8 - Bridge p. 81. My disagreement is that MT does have a Step that is titled "Bridge."

My first Traveller related sites were ct-starships, MT (not MgT), and Striker. Among my questions was about the MT Bridge. The response was that Environmental Controls was not part of the Bridge and should be part of Engineering.

To be clear I do not agree that Environmental Controls is listed as part of the Bridge requirements and I have not considered it part of the Bridge per the information from MT Yahoo Groups.

Based on CT I automatically associated the MT Bridge to be composed of the Control Points allocated to the Hull, Sensors, and Communications sections is the Bridge and determines the number of Control Panel Units needed. Engineering is controls are determined by the Power Supply, Locomotion, and Environmental Controls.

Also based on CT I automatically allocated the computer's volume to a space separate from the Bridge. My understanding has been that the reason the Ship's Computer is part of the Bridge is that it's CP Multiplier alters the number of Control Panel Units.

Based on the above my understanding has been that a MT Bridge is the number of control panel units is determined by adding together the total (Control Points of the Hull + Communications + Sensors) divided by the (Control Panel + Special Control Panel CPs). which I think would equal the number of control panels needed by the crew.

Computers are not part of the bridge tonnage except in MGT. And that's because MGT claims ship computers shouldn't be big enough to fill even 1 ton. (which implies a certain lack of knowledge... also exhibited boldly by not knowing the meaning of "Merchant Marine." )

I have reviewed the Computer requirements in MgT CRB 1e pp. 107-108 Computer, first sentence copied and pasted from PDF.
"Computer
The basic controls do not include the ship's computer, which is usually installed adjacent to the bridge."

MgT HG 1e Capital Ship p. 65 first sentence
"Computer
Capital ships have multiple distributed networks, but always include a central computer core that controls the ship's jump engines." My understanding is that in all other respects Core Computers are installed per CRB 1e computer rules.

MgT CRB 2e does not have a spacecraft design chapter everything was moved to MgT HG 2e.

MgT HG 2e Step 6: Install Computer p. 18 first sentence:
"Every ship needs a central computer, usually installed near the bridge."

In MgT computers are, in my opinion, clearly identified as not being part of the Bridge as the other Traveller rule sets.

MgT does not indicate that computer volume is subsumed in the bridge. However, MgT does indicate that the computer is distributed throughout the hull which also somehow minimizes the volume needed to the point it does not need to be tracked. Of course I do not agree with the ruling, but then again I have not agreed with the amount of space the other Traveller rule sets indicate. Until the rule sets change one either accepts the requirements or creates house rules.

The largest control panel is 0.4 cubic meters... the standard are 0.01... that's 10cm x1m x1m. That's JUST a panel. Even when you add them up, and consider half to be access space, you don't have room for a person on a scout courier.

Also note: The section total lists "Controls" not bridge. Controls is more descriptive, but the LS belongs in the accommodations section. And for controls needed, Environmental is separate from the rest of the stuff on the "bridge" page.

There's not enough tonnage required to matter, unless one does stupid things like build a TL15 ship with a model 1...

Another question I posted on Yahoo Groups was did control panels include the seating for the operator. The reply was that I should use 9 - Accommodations Step 6. Of course, I have never gotten around to implementing the suggestion so I have no idea how it affects the design process. I also received the suggestion to use TNE FF&S.

Thank you for pointing out that MT Environmental Controls should be included in 9 - Accommodations. However, I believe the reason why Environmental Controls is on MT Referee's Manual p. 81 is that the computer and control panels are used to monitor and control the Environmental Systems.

 

[Condottiere]

Bandwidth five is your iPhone, and probably not the newest model.