Gray Lensman
SOC-13
Want another headache? If you have Supplement 8: Library Data A-M
look at the World Class Battle Tender illustration on page 16.
:rofl:
look at the World Class Battle Tender illustration on page 16.
:rofl:
FF&S and a sphere errata?
- Thread starter atpollard
- Start date
At least Supp 8, pg 16 is classic traveller so there is no implicit guarantee that the ship can be created in FF&Sv1.
The grapple/ring rules are clearly wrong. With beams and appropriate connectors almost any number of ships could be hung from a skeletal frame. It would be like arguing that a house only has four walls, therefore it can only have four sattelite dishes mounted to it. I can mount sattelite dishes all over the place if I choose to build enough masts to support them. Yes there is an absolute upper limit, but it is far higher than anyone is ever likely to run into.
FF&S models an open framework very poorly. For that matter, there are no long slender ships 'by the book' since the most 'extreme' starship is assumed to haxe roughly a 1:1:4 ratio of height:width:length. The Saturn V exceeds that with 1960's technology and many deckplans have a far higher ratio of height to length than 1:4. Longer, more slender ships will have far more surface area for their displacement than the 'hull table' will model - it really does generate rather squat hulls. Structurally, ratios of 1:1:20 should be possible - allowing ships with lots of surface area for attachment points, and each attachment point could be fitted with an open truss with multiple attachment points on the truss.
I am not even that far into the rules. I am still attempting to reconcile two contradictory definitions of how Hull price is calculated in FF&Sv1.
One assumes that the starship design rules should allow for the calculation of price.
The grapple/ring rules are clearly wrong. With beams and appropriate connectors almost any number of ships could be hung from a skeletal frame. It would be like arguing that a house only has four walls, therefore it can only have four sattelite dishes mounted to it. I can mount sattelite dishes all over the place if I choose to build enough masts to support them. Yes there is an absolute upper limit, but it is far higher than anyone is ever likely to run into.
FF&S models an open framework very poorly. For that matter, there are no long slender ships 'by the book' since the most 'extreme' starship is assumed to haxe roughly a 1:1:4 ratio of height:width:length. The Saturn V exceeds that with 1960's technology and many deckplans have a far higher ratio of height to length than 1:4. Longer, more slender ships will have far more surface area for their displacement than the 'hull table' will model - it really does generate rather squat hulls. Structurally, ratios of 1:1:20 should be possible - allowing ships with lots of surface area for attachment points, and each attachment point could be fitted with an open truss with multiple attachment points on the truss.
I am not even that far into the rules. I am still attempting to reconcile two contradictory definitions of how Hull price is calculated in FF&Sv1.
One assumes that the starship design rules should allow for the calculation of price.
Last edited:
Gray Lensman
SOC-13
ff&sV1 &V2 (capitalization intentional) are the main thing that turned me off on later versions (although CT does say that a Dton is "about" 14 cubic meters then goes on to say that 2 1.5x1.5x3 meter squares are a Dton (= 13.5 every time I do the math) at least MT got that part right.
I no longer find any surprise value in anything I find in any version.
And at functional storage rates, the actual ton of LHyd should be between 13.75 and 14.25 kL...
So, should these fixes to the Hull Size table on p. 11 be incorporated into the errata, or should the formulas, or both as given here?
