Errata - that difficult subject

[AnotherDilbert]

Fuel Purifiers?

How should a Fuel Purifier be calculated?

They have a minimum volume, but mass (etc) is given per kilolitre of fuel.

Reasonably the mass should be proportional to the volume?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Agility?

Upon rereading the rules Agility is not limited by the M-Drive, but simply by power.

So, in order to avoid to be hit in combat it is better to have a smaller M-Drive, hence lower mass, hence higher agility?

The explanation makes no sense. M-Drive rating has nothin to do with speed, but with acceleration = ability to change the velocity vector = agility.

It is completely ridiculous to be able to have higher agility than the acceleration the ship is capable of.
Shouldn't Agility be limited by M-Drive rating?

 

[McPerth]

Upon rereading the rules Agility is not limited by the M-Drive, but simply by power.

So, in order to avoid to be hit in combat it is better to have a smaller M-Drive, hence lower mass, hence higher agility?

The explanation makes no sense. M-Drive rating has nothin to do with speed, but with acceleration = ability to change the velocity vector = agility.

It is completely ridiculous to be able to have higher agility than the acceleration the ship is capable of.
Shouldn't Agility be limited by M-Drive rating?

From Consolidated errata (2013 version):

Page 87, Agility (clarification): In the old High Guard system, agility was defined as an attribute of maneuver drive—that is, “how effectively can my drive out-maneuver yours.” In the new MegaTraveller rules, separating out weight and volume into unique craft attributes made it clear that agility needed to be more precisely defined as its own unique attribute, related to ship mass, not to ship speed.

Under the new rules, agility is defined as the “ability to change your craft’s orientation over time,” which is more a function of ship mass than of ship speed. Under this new definition, it becomes immediately obvious that smaller vessels will tend to have a greater agility than larger vessels. Consider which is faster, the Queen Mary, or a rowboat? Which can change its heading more quickly? The rowboat has the greater agility, even though its “maneuver drive” speed rating is far less than the Queen Mary’s.

I know this has detractors, but is the oficial explaining, and so seen, the MD does not necessarly be related to agility

 

[McPerth]

How should a Fuel Purifier be calculated?

They have a minimum volume, but mass (etc) is given per kilolitre of fuel.

Reasonably the mass should be proportional to the volume?

As I undertand them, the numbers are multiplied by the Kl of volume you want to purify in 6 hours, with a mínimum volumen for the plant.

So, at TL 15, if your fuel tanks have 4000 kl capacity (let's make numbers easy):

• A 600 kl purification plat would purify all of them in 6 hours (you'll need 20Mw, and it will mass 1200 tons)
• A 300 kl purification plant will purify iall your fuel in 12 hours (you'll need 10 Mw adn it will mass 600 tons
• A 150 kl purification plant will purify iall your fuel in 24 hours (you'll need 5 Mw adn it will mass 300 tons
• The smallest purification plant (40 kl, Mw and 80 tons) will purify it in 90 hours...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I know this has detractors, but is the oficial explaining, and so seen, the MD does not necessarly be related to agility

Thank you.

That is the explanation that I find ridiculous.

Avoiding to be hit means changing your velocity vector. Changing your velocity vector means accelerating. Accelerating means using your M-Drive.

HG appears to handle this reasonably.

I guess I can put MT back into the "Heavily House-rule or Reject" box.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

So, at TL 15, if your fuel tanks have 4000 kl capacity (let's make numbers easy):

It's smaller plants that are the problem:

To purify 400 kl in 6 hours it takes 80 m³, 160 tonnes, MCr 6.
To purify 200 kl in 6 hours it takes 40 m³, 80 tonnes, MCr 3.
To purify 100 kl in 6 hours it takes 40 m³, 40 tonnes, MCr 1,5.
To purify ..50 kl in 6 hours it takes 40 m³, 20 tonnes, MCr 0,75.

The bolded values are the minimum volume, but the weight, cost, and power have no minimum, so they decrease even if the size of the plant stays the same. It seems strange?

 

[McPerth]

Thank you.

That is the explanation that I find ridiculous.

Avoiding to be hit means changing your velocity vector. Changing your velocity vector means accelerating. Accelerating means using your M-Drive.

HG appears to handle this reasonably.

Well, that's argueable. Imagine a man in a car trying to overrun or hit with a revolver another who is on foot, without any obstacle among them.

1. who has greater acceleration (MD)?
2. who can maneuver better to avoid being hit (agility)?

My guess is that answer to 1 is the car and answer to 2 is the pedestrian, and the car is likely to be hit more often (and not only for its size) than the pedestrian (albeit probably with lesser effect, but that's another discussion)

I guess I can put MT back into the "Heavily House-rule or Reject" box.

If you add errata to house-ruling, havn't you realized that until now?

And yet is my favorite Traveller version...

It's smaller plants that are the problem:

To purify 400 kl in 6 hours it takes 80 m³, 160 tonnes, MCr 6.
To purify 200 kl in 6 hours it takes 40 m³, 80 tonnes, MCr 3.
To purify 100 kl in 6 hours it takes 40 m³, 40 tonnes, MCr 1,5.
To purify ..50 kl in 6 hours it takes 40 m³, 20 tonnes, MCr 0,75.

The bolded values are the minimum volume, but the weight, cost, and power have no minimum, so they decrease even if the size of the plant stays the same. It seems strange?

I see your point, but I guess minimal size also implies minimal weight (probably an errata, and so in the right thread). Not so sure about power, as you can run it at less than its minimal capacity, even if the size keeps the mínimum...

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello again aramis,

The discussion between infojunky and myself is how we define the Bridge and the systems installed there not the amount of space a Bridge requires.

I do not believe that in CT or MT that life support/environmental system as part of the Bridge. CT with the exception of staterooms appears to subsume life support/environmental systems as part of the hull. MT in my view indicated that the control points needed to monitor/control the environmental systems/life support was part of the Bridge not the environmental systems/life support requirements.

Infojunky's view from Dec. 29, 2016, 12:33 AM Post # 863 is " 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.."

I also think that the Bridge can has a back-up environmental system/life support that can be used if connection with the primary environmental systems/life support is disrupted. Actually, I feel that most of the occupied spaces have a back-up system. Unfortunately, the only Traveller Rule Set that gets close to my view is GURPS Starships.

Thank you for all the replies you have made.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Well, that's argueable.

Well, nothing is perfect.

Imagine a man in a car trying to overrun or hit with a revolver another who is on foot, without any obstacle among them.

1. who has greater acceleration (MD)?
2. who can maneuver better to avoid being hit (agility)?

My guess is that answer to 1 is the car and answer to 2 is the pedestrian, and the car is likely to be hit more often (and not only for its size) tan the pedestrian (albeit probably with lesser effect, but that's another discussion)

Not when you are floating in space. It does not matter how much you flail around, to avoid an attack you have to move, to move you have to accelerate using the M-Drive.

If you add errata to house-ruling, havn't you realized that until now?

I think I did 30 years minus a few months ago...

I took a look again recently while trying to make a mass based system, instead of the usual displacement based systems.

I see your point, but I guess minimal size also implies minimal weight (probably an errata, and so in the right thread).

Sounds reasonable, but that is not what the rules say...

 

[McPerth]

Not when you are floating in space. It does not matter how much you flail around, to avoid an attack you have to move, to move you have to accelerate using the M-Drive.

But to avoid attack (or to aim your spinal, that is another use for agility) what is more important, the raw power of your MD (so acceleration Gs) or the capacity to project it to any direction, be it by turning your ship or whatever?

Again my guess is that a ship that is only capable of 1 G but may project it to any direction would be harder to hit than another ship able to 6 G but that can only direct it to one direction (or that is slow to turn).

 

[aramis]

Tom, the official errata does not require seats for crew on ships.
Section 9, Accomodations, Step 1, totally and explicitly bypasses the seats for ships.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Again my guess is that a ship that is only capable of 1 G but may project it to any direction would be harder to hit than another ship able to 6 G but that can only direct it to one direction (or that is slow to turn).

Let's make an estimate.

At a range of 1 ls it will take 1 s for sensor information to reach the attacker, and another 1 s for a laser beam to reach the target. Totally the target has 2 s for evasive action.

In that time the target can change its velocity vector by at²/2.

A 1G target with very high turn rate can change 10 × 2² / 2 = 20 m in any direction. It can be anywhere within a circle with an area of πr² ≈ 3,14 × 20² ≈ 1256 m² as seen from the attacker.

A 6G target with low turn rate, say ±30°, can change 60 × 2² / 2 = 120 m, but only ±30°. It can be anywhere in an equilateral triangle with a side of 120 m that has an area of √3/4×120² ≈ 6235 m² as seen from the attacker.

Under these assumptions the high G low turn rate target is much more difficult to hit than a low G high turn rate target.

A difference in turn rate must be very large to outbalance the higher acceleration.

 

[Hyphen]

See, I have differing view here, being that the bridge slice covered a lot of the incremental volumes of those subsystems.

Marc Miller's view too. See "Fleet Escort Lisiani" in Challenge 25.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello aramis,

Tom, the official errata does not require seats for crew on ships.
Section 9, Accomodations, Step 1, totally and explicitly bypasses the seats for ships.

Like CT any efforts to add seating via errata has either not been made or has been ignored for 30 years.

I indicated that the suggestion to use Section 9 Accommodations was made on Yahoo Groups before I found this forum which was also long before I found Donald McKinney's errata documents. Further I stated that I had not gotten around to implementing the suggestion.

There are many rules that have been implemented in Traveller design rule sets that have been totally and explicitly bypassed or required by designers to make their designs work.

My suggestion would be to (1) ignore that lack of seating lumping the control points/control panels for the hull, communications, and sensors and calling the result a bridge, (2) import the seating requirements from CT or (3) as I was advised use the vehicle and small craft accommodation rules.

Unfortunately, I fear that there is little hope of coming up with a solution for crew/passenger seating that will result in an update to the official MT Errata document since Donald McKinney is no longer here.

Update: Another option for adding crew seating would be to import TNE FF&S Workstations and Crewstaions provided that Mr. Miller will sign off on the importation and then updating the official errata.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

My suggestion would be to (1) ignore that lack of seating lumping the control points/control panels for the hull, communications, and sensors and calling the result a bridge, (2) import the seating requirements from CT or (3) as I was advised use the vehicle and small craft accommodation rules.

I would suggest no errata needed.

When allocating space within the craft, assume only a portion of the specified volume for extended accommodation (staterooms, bunks, low berths, and so on) is used; the remainder should be used in common areas and other accommodations for the crew.

If you need a place for the crew to sit and work, allocate from general crew space, aka "staterooms".

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello AnotherDilbert,

I would suggest no errata needed.

If you need a place for the crew to sit and work, allocate from general crew space, aka "staterooms".

Then official errata should be posted clearly stating that crew seating for control panels is allocated from staterooms. Of course the allocation will probably not be documented as having occurred causing resulting in my not coming close when trying to replicate the design using the construction rules.

CT established a standard for passenger seating and crew couches as being 0.5 d-tons/7 m^3 which translated into MT is 0.5 d-tons or 6.75 kiloliters and in TNE as 7 m^3.

MT appears to have overlooked the requirement of crew seating on hulls >= 100 d-tons as indicated in an earlier post.

TNE BL Technical Booklet reverted to CT and added a larger component. TNE FF&S provides a total of four options.

Both BL and FF&S imported MT vehicle and small craft accommodations and tagged them as seating.

Since there are no official rules or errata about crew seating I will have to use the space requirements for control panels as including space for an operator.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Then official errata should be posted clearly stating that crew seating for control panels is allocated from staterooms. Of course the allocation will probably not be documented as having occurred causing resulting in my not coming close when trying to replicate the design using the construction rules.

The rules already states that all crew areas are part of the "stateroom" tonnage. Galleys, wardrooms, offices, social areas, access ways, the head, the gym, the chapel, training areas, the bridge, etc...

Nothing stops you from allocating extra tonnage as you see fit. I generally allocate a few (dozen on larger ships) extra staterooms to create some space and flexibility.

I see it as a good thing that we do not have to account for every ventilation duct, but can gloss over a lot of detail.

CT established a standard for passenger seating and crew couches as being 0.5 d-tons/7 m^3 which translated into MT is 0.5 d-tons or 6.75 kiloliters and in TNE as 7 m^3.

There are no half-dTon couches in MT? Crew stations are between 1 m³ - 8 m³ (CREW POSITIONS table, p82), and living quarters are between 13,5 m³ - 54 m³ (EXTENDED ACCOMMODATION table, p82).

Since there are no official rules or errata about crew seating I will have to use the space requirements for control panels as including space for an operator.

Your game, your rules.

 

[McPerth]

Since there are no official rules or errata about crew seating I will have to use the space requirements for control panels as including space for an operator.

Let's review some ships from IE:

• Scout (page 80): 181 holographic linkend panels + HUD: 5.93 kl (about 0.44 dtons)
• Free trader (page 81): 354 holographic linkend panels + 2 HUD: 11.62 kl (about 0.85 dton)
• Fat trader (page 82): 403 holographic linkend panels + 3 HUD: 13.59 kl /just under 1 dton)
• Mercenary Cruiser (page 83): 576 holographic linkend panels + 6 HUD: 20.28 kl (about 1.5 dtons)

In all cases quite small IMHO for a bridge, so I guess we must accept the workstations are taken from the accomodations space, assuming that in crafts with extended accomodations the working seats are included on them.

This will also mean that if the crew is in small saterooms, workstations are also smaller...

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello AnotherDilbert,

For some reason my Firefox is not playing nicely with the forums Quote feature. When I click on Quote the pane opens to a blank page.

I have disagreed with the rules that stateroom volume is used to account for everything not accounted for by components like the bridge and engineering spaces or not lumped into the cargo space.

How much of a home's living (the equivalent of a stateroom) space is allocated to the hallways (the equivalent of passageways)?

I have looked a home blue prints, purchased a copy the student Edition of Architectural Graphic Standard, looked at books in libraries, and checked for material online. The sleeping area has certain dimensional requirements that are separate from the hallway requirements which are separate from the food preparation area. In my opinion based on my research and on seeing actual staterooms while serving in the USN Traveller should have used Cargo Space for passageways and seating. Unfortunately, the oversimplified rules are the standard.

My apologies for not being clear that the equivalent volume of the established CT seat of 0.5 d-tons in MT would be 0.5 d-tons or 6.75 kiloliters and that in TNE 0.5 d-tons or 7 m^3. I was not implying that MT had a 0.5 d-ton or 6.75 kiloliter.

Unfortunately, the "Your game, your rules" do not apply when one attempts to post a design on the forums or help individuals like myself learn how to use the design system.

Thank you for your replies.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello McPerth,

Once again FireFox is not playing nicely when I clicked on Quote.

Apparently the earlier comment that control panels do not allocate space for an operator is correct.

A MT stateroom per p. 82 consumes 54 kiloliters or 4 d-tons of space while small staterooms require 27 kiloliters or 2 d-tons of space.

IIRC 2 d-tons of a 4 d-ton stateroom is dedicated to the crew member or passenger and the other 2 d-tons is used for passageways, lounges, and other components that do not have a space requirement assigned.

I searched my PDF copy of the MT Referee's Manual for Seat, Seating, or Seat and received the message that No matches were found. Looking in TNE BL Technical Booklet and FF&S the Seat table appears to be the Vehicle and Small Craft Crew Positions Table.

In CT Small Craft can have both seats or the equivalent of MT crew positions and small craft cabins. CT Hulls >= 100 can also have seats/crew positions and staterooms.

In MT from this discussion it appears that a small craft traveling over 24 hours cannot have crew positions which does not make a bit of sense to me.

Any design I create using MT will follow the rules which means that there will no be any clearly identified crew and passenger seating on hulls >= 100 d-tons.