Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
The Marava is based on corrected plans. The Broadsword is too big. I think the other models are correct. The rest vary.
Evolution of a Starport
- Thread starter ravells
- Start date
Out of curiosity, I ran up a block model of a Beowulf at lunch and scaling it to 2700 cubic metres (200 dTons) I measured it's length - it turned out to actually be just under 34 metres. There is room for error as the block model is very basic as you can see but it's a far cry from 50 metres!!!
Is it the most broken ship in the Traveller fleet?
Crow
Is it the most broken ship in the Traveller fleet?
Crow
Hi Crow, As far as I can see there can be no argument about your figures - the dtonnage of the vehicle has nothing to do with what its made of or how much of the internals are solid.
I bet the poor authors of these ships had no idea that their work would be picked over 20 years after the fact!
Come to think of it, if one could take sections through the block model, it would be a really good way of accurately deck-planning the ship...hmmm
Ravs
I bet the poor authors of these ships had no idea that their work would be picked over 20 years after the fact!
Come to think of it, if one could take sections through the block model, it would be a really good way of accurately deck-planning the ship...hmmm
Ravs
No, quite. I don't think they either imagined that some anal retentive like me would be whining about accurate volumes 30 years down the line and I don't think they actually cared either. I think the philosophy was, "It's 400 squares (1dTon = 2 squares) and that'll do."
At the end of the day, it doesn't really affect gameplay one way or another wether the Beowulf deckplans are exactly 200 dTons or not, I do these things out of curiosity more than anything else and yes, using the 3D model cut through, is how I do my deckplans (when I actually do any). It's how I'm doing the Beagle deckplans (oh yes, I haven't forgotten.)
Crow
At the end of the day, it doesn't really affect gameplay one way or another wether the Beowulf deckplans are exactly 200 dTons or not, I do these things out of curiosity more than anything else and yes, using the 3D model cut through, is how I do my deckplans (when I actually do any). It's how I'm doing the Beagle deckplans (oh yes, I haven't forgotten.)
Crow
Do I not recall some caveat about drawing deck plans that suggested off by as much as +/- 20% was considered acceptable? Not sure if that would solve the problem, but perhaps it would go a long way towards explaining it?Originally posted by Scarecrow:
Out of curiosity, I ran up a block model of a Beowulf at lunch and scaling it to 2700 cubic metres (200 dTons) I measured it's length - it turned out to actually be just under 34 metres. There is room for error as the block model is very basic as you can see but it's a far cry from 50 metres!!!
Is it the most broken ship in the Traveller fleet?
Crow
Deck plans are the bane of my existence... especially since, by the time you get one done, some other retentive (*grin*) will locate a flaw in the *construction rules* like an errata or outright error in the algorithm or software you used, and the things you based your design off will be bogus anyway.
And yet, I've never seen a traveller game session ruined by having incorrect deckplans. Never even had a player worry about how many cubic meters their stateroom was or wasn't. Just never really entered the picture....
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
Not in the case of the Beo and Marava, both of which are about twice their stated displacement. The Marava did eventually get *a* fix in TNE "Guilded Lily", while the folks at Seeker (and in my campaign) went the other route, designing a 400-ton ship to fit the deckplans.
I think someone has taken a stab at fixing the Beo, but not in official print. The original "flying iron" version of the Beo from Snapshot was actually pretty close, but a lot less interesting to look at. FASA's Alexandria class and the sleek version done by Judges Guild are both quite good renditions of the Type A, but they aren't the Beo.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Or as in my case more like 20 seconds when I looked at Starship Operators Manual Volume 1 in the store
* or more, like when I first found the Empress deckplans in Traders and Gunboats to be so badly out
It wasn't till many years later that I found a workable fix (which should have occured to me then). Just change the scale from 1.5m squares to 1m squares and it's pretty close. Instead of 50m long it's 33m which is as Crow found the right dimension. It fixes some of the problems but not all of them. Like way too much volume in staterooms and too little in cargo iirc. But then I'm not sure, I haven't looked at the wrong one critically in a long time.
Pah, back then I did it the hard way, rescaling the profiles by graphing on top of photocopies until I got the hand calculated volumes about rightOriginally posted by ravs:
Come to think of it, if one could take sections through the block model, it would be a really good way of accurately deck-planning the ship...hmmm
My own corrected deckplans (teaser below) are a bit longer than Crows calculations at 42m but considering my primitive resources and methods is good enough. As I recall I had to stick to that length to get the classic 3 deck height while maintaining the same shape and general layout as shown in the interior sketches and blueprint. Externally I stuck to the mini which loses some volume under the back of the fuel scoops.
I managed to fit everything in, in more or less the spirit of the original and if there is a dton overage it's in the fuel tanks. The actual internals come out to exactly the dtons designed iirc. That was my goal and I was perfectionist enough to not let go until that was met. I'd probably have to redo it again to be truly happy but I'm playing with other stuff at the moment and no game on the horizon anyway.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Me for one (see above), several times
I'd call the Snapshot deckplans ugly but great for a game of "monster in the hold" or "hi-jack in j-space"
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Certainly one ofOriginally posted by Scarecrow:
Out of curiosity, I ran up a block model of a Beowulf at lunch and scaling it to 2700 cubic metres (200 dTons) I measured it's length - it turned out to actually be just under 34 metres. There is room for error as the block model is very basic as you can see but it's a far cry from 50 metres!!!
Is it the most broken ship in the Traveller fleet?
I'm curious Crow, what overall height did you get for your model?
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Yes (I have full plans and external top view), and no (not ready to post), or maybe... I told you it was a teaser
I had planned on working it up completely and trying to sneak it into some official product to get it canonized but then the wheels came off Hunter's life and I'm not sure it would have fit into the limits of the proposed Limited License idea being talked about. And somewhere along the way the new Beowulf mini came out, changing the shape yet again.
So it's been sitting around here long enough now that I am again less than perfectly pleased with it and would probably need to tune it up at least a little before I'd feel like sharing or shopping it around again. But we'll see, I hate it just sitting there not doing anybody any good
Can't really say for sure...
I don't recall the GT ones clearly, only glanced at it years ago in the store but seem to recall them being nearly the same as the SOM plans.
Never had the Seeker Beowulf ones but if the other plans by Seeker that I did have are an indication then they are probably a bit off too.
The SOM ones can be made better if you rescale so that the squares are 1m (note the length of the beds for one) but it throws off some relationships to the external views and there are still issues.
...so it all depends on how picky you are. They all work fine if approched as only a placement map of the ship and not an accurate scaled representation.
What I mean is:
If in combat aboard ship, don't take the map distance as accurate for range purposes, but then most shipboard combat is going to be close range anyway and range is not a big issue.
When loading cargo use the design parameters as the limit and not the squares shown on the deckplan.
Don't let players "add" more staterooms into the ample open space on the passenger deck based on the squares.
If replacing drives, again use the design limits, not the squares shown.
Stuff like that.
If you landed a 100kton ship on the surface wouldn't you have to keep the anti-grav on all the time just to prevent the ship being crushed under it's own weight? The structural reinforcement required to maintain the structural integrity of the ship might not be very cost effective. And just imagine the landing gear that you would need to support such a weight. Landing on the belly would be okay for some ships, but not for any that have any turrets on the bottom.
And just imagine the landing gear that you would need to support such a weight. Landing on the belly would be okay for some ships, but not for any that have any turrets on the bottom.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Depends. Do the inertial compensators also protect the whole ship by reinforcing the structure during maneuvers? If so then they will also counter local gravity to the same degree I think. If they are tied to the anti-grav then you do still have a problem. If they are seperate then you're ok, other issues not withstanding.
The problem here is that the rules system says streamlined ships can land on planets (presumably that implies not crushing from their own weight!) and it assigns a cost. This cost is not scaled out of proportion to size to penalize larger ships. This cost doesn't put any caveats down that I know of. So here we have what the rules say and what we suspect physics tells us differently.
I'm not saying I like large ships landing on planets, but the canonical sources tell us this is a fact of life, at least in the sense that it is feasible to do and the cost is X. So I'm just trying to be sure any understanding of ports takes this reality of the canon into account.
Oh, and Trader Jim, I sent the Tav'chredl or the Hivers after those who tease me for too long, so be cautioned.... :0)
I'm not saying I like large ships landing on planets, but the canonical sources tell us this is a fact of life, at least in the sense that it is feasible to do and the cost is X. So I'm just trying to be sure any understanding of ports takes this reality of the canon into account.
Oh, and Trader Jim, I sent the Tav'chredl or the Hivers after those who tease me for too long, so be cautioned.... :0)
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
HEY! Them's fighten words! Slander me with that name again and you'll wish you'd never left the safety of the gravity of your homeworld. Calling me Trader Jim indeed! All your Tav'chredl and Hivers won't stand a chance against the favours I can call in among the Vargr CorsairsOriginally posted by kaladorn:
Oh, and Trader Jim, I sent the Tav'chredl or the Hivers after those who tease me for too long, so be cautioned.... :0)
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
The poor old overstretched rules again.
They say little enough in this case that a compromise may be possible; ships over a certain size can enter an atmosphere, but MUST 'land' in water.
A 20kT berth will therefore include a suitable pool.
How's that sound?
mbrinkhues
SOC-14 1K
The poor old overstretched rules again.
They say little enough in this case that a compromise may be possible; ships over a certain size can enter an atmosphere, but MUST 'land' in water.
A 20kT berth will therefore include a suitable pool.
How's that sound? </font>[/QUOTE]Why do I have the picture of a mid-sized Vagr craft sitting in such a berth, the captain and crew floating around on inflateable "easy" chairs being served those drinks with the little umbrellas in it
P
Pickles
Guest
Just because the rules don't explicitly say big ship's can't land, doesn't mean to say they can ...
