No. Any PEMS has functionally infinite range, the listed range is the range it can detect a standard size target (I don't currently recall what a standard size target is). What's missing is tables telling you the modifiers for using a PEMS (a) at interstellar ranges, (b) to detect planets and stars.
FFS3 for T5
- Thread starter robject
- Start date
Ah, well he does have a definitive sensor rules page. It is quite definitive.
http://home1.gte.net/res04u7k/Traveller/hrules/sensor.rules.html
And he also has an addendum.
http://home1.gte.net/res04u7k/Traveller/hrules/sensoraddenda.html
And rules for science/survey.
http://home1.gte.net/res04u7k/Traveller/hrules/sciencesensors.html
And tables for the signals of natural objects.
http://home1.gte.net/res04u7k/Traveller/hrules/natural_sigs.html
And this is an exhausting amount of text. I wonder how many pages it is total.
Sensory Overload! Self-Destruct Sequence Initiated!
http://home1.gte.net/res04u7k/Traveller/hrules/sensor.rules.html
And he also has an addendum.
http://home1.gte.net/res04u7k/Traveller/hrules/sensoraddenda.html
And rules for science/survey.
http://home1.gte.net/res04u7k/Traveller/hrules/sciencesensors.html
And tables for the signals of natural objects.
http://home1.gte.net/res04u7k/Traveller/hrules/natural_sigs.html
And this is an exhausting amount of text. I wonder how many pages it is total.
Sensory Overload! Self-Destruct Sequence Initiated!
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
You shouldn't be *required* to use full on FF&S2 to build a ship, but it must be there for when you need to fine tune things.
I disagree with Aramis...
FFS is useful and neccessary, even if used only as a tool to make the 'modules'. Also, keep in mind that even the LBB ship design sequence is just an oversimplified form of FFS
its neccesary to keep any 'tweaked' designs consistant in performance/cost changes.
the dichotomy is not a bad thing...compare a car off the assembly line with the same car worked over by a hot rodder. In the real world...assemply-line cars far far far outnumber tweaked rods.
the alternative is for players/refs to just make it up using educated guesses, which is inconsistant, and makes it harder to share equipment and ships with other groups without further 'tweaking'
The problems that I see with ffs are that they over simplify some things/ignore others and even place unneeded complexities in some places. They have trouble matching previously defined 'trav' conventions with known real-life stuff ( laser performance for example ). They jump between formulas and tables, and they are not laid out in a helpful fashion. Much of the complexity could be hidden by use of computers and spreadsheets.
I don't hink MWM/crew will even make a version that is ideal. Nothing can make everyone happy.
FFS is useful and neccessary, even if used only as a tool to make the 'modules'. Also, keep in mind that even the LBB ship design sequence is just an oversimplified form of FFS
its neccesary to keep any 'tweaked' designs consistant in performance/cost changes.
the dichotomy is not a bad thing...compare a car off the assembly line with the same car worked over by a hot rodder. In the real world...assemply-line cars far far far outnumber tweaked rods.
the alternative is for players/refs to just make it up using educated guesses, which is inconsistant, and makes it harder to share equipment and ships with other groups without further 'tweaking'
The problems that I see with ffs are that they over simplify some things/ignore others and even place unneeded complexities in some places. They have trouble matching previously defined 'trav' conventions with known real-life stuff ( laser performance for example ). They jump between formulas and tables, and they are not laid out in a helpful fashion. Much of the complexity could be hidden by use of computers and spreadsheets.
I don't hink MWM/crew will even make a version that is ideal. Nothing can make everyone happy.
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
The detail of FF&S is often essential for roleplaying situations.
- are your sensors good enough to see a crashed ship from orbit?
- you want to upgrade your sensors/comms - how much extra space/power do you need?
- your power plant is wrecked - if you use the ship's boat's plant instead, which systems will that power? Just life support, or some others too?
HG can't answer these.
There is no reason why a modular system should be significantly different - obviously there will be slight differences, because you're trading accuracy for convenience.
- are your sensors good enough to see a crashed ship from orbit?
- you want to upgrade your sensors/comms - how much extra space/power do you need?
- your power plant is wrecked - if you use the ship's boat's plant instead, which systems will that power? Just life support, or some others too?
HG can't answer these.
There is no reason why a modular system should be significantly different - obviously there will be slight differences, because you're trading accuracy for convenience.
I'd say that Andrew's points above more likely indicate where CT stops with its rules, and demands creativity from the referee (that many (like me) can't easily provide).
In the end, the Traveller universe is interacted with via tasks and rules frameworks, formal and informal. How a design system meets those frameworks is at least as important as how powerful and consistent that design system is.
The way I see it, MegaTraveller's vehicle design rules seems closer to Book 2 than High Guard or FFSx, if only because it seems to map to tasks and the rules framework, and tells us how components perform.
So my suggestion is
(1) stop bickering, all of us (but who's bickering?)
(2) take the tables from MTVDS and rebuild them using FFS2.
(3) find out where they don't work with whatever assumptions are going into T5 (I know a couple)
(4) tweak whatever has to be twoken to reconcile things
In the end, the Traveller universe is interacted with via tasks and rules frameworks, formal and informal. How a design system meets those frameworks is at least as important as how powerful and consistent that design system is.
The way I see it, MegaTraveller's vehicle design rules seems closer to Book 2 than High Guard or FFSx, if only because it seems to map to tasks and the rules framework, and tells us how components perform.
So my suggestion is
(1) stop bickering, all of us (but who's bickering?)
(2) take the tables from MTVDS and rebuild them using FFS2.
(3) find out where they don't work with whatever assumptions are going into T5 (I know a couple)
(4) tweak whatever has to be twoken to reconcile things
Okay... well, for example, power generation will at least be corrected for T5: Fusion+ is just too powerful as printed in FFS2, as Ditzie showed us (http://eaglestone.pocketempires.com/fs/ditzie_97_dec_29.txt).
But how far will FFS2 have to be bent?
Lower limits of fusion plus appear to be Marc's "Model 17-10" 10Kj fusion module at 17 liters (about 0.01 ton, I think?). About 8Mj/ton.
Another data point: the "Type A" 100Mj F+ plant displaces 6 tons, and grows linearly with output at 16Mj/ton.
And in between are quarter-ton drives that can put out 1Mj and up, possibly breaking the "rules" at 9Mj for the best ones. That's between 4MJ and 36Mj per ton. IMHO, 36Mj/ton is too much.
Regardless, even 36Mj/ton is no match for a good FFS2 Fusion+ plant, which at TL12 can put out a whopping 70Mj at 1 ton.
But how far will FFS2 have to be bent?
Lower limits of fusion plus appear to be Marc's "Model 17-10" 10Kj fusion module at 17 liters (about 0.01 ton, I think?). About 8Mj/ton.
Another data point: the "Type A" 100Mj F+ plant displaces 6 tons, and grows linearly with output at 16Mj/ton.
And in between are quarter-ton drives that can put out 1Mj and up, possibly breaking the "rules" at 9Mj for the best ones. That's between 4MJ and 36Mj per ton. IMHO, 36Mj/ton is too much.
Regardless, even 36Mj/ton is no match for a good FFS2 Fusion+ plant, which at TL12 can put out a whopping 70Mj at 1 ton.
Judas Iscariot
SOC-10
Gebus that was a lot to wade through...
Since FFS was used by Striker II as its vehicle design sequence...
I am forced to come back to it for the writing of Striker III.
I had been basing pretty much everything upon CT info that I had, and then realized that T5 was going to be out this year, and decided that maybe I should try to include its design sequences and combat system instead of resorting to just the cut-paste of the Striker system (Not Stiker II)... But, I have no idea as of yet what these components will look like, and would like to get busy designing the combat rules for Striker III in a bit more detail...Not to mention being able to design some vehicles that conform to T5 specs...
Anyone who can help me out with some info... I would be glad to have it... I can be best reached at matthew_bailey@mac.com as I may forget to check back here for a few weeks
Since FFS was used by Striker II as its vehicle design sequence...
I am forced to come back to it for the writing of Striker III.
I had been basing pretty much everything upon CT info that I had, and then realized that T5 was going to be out this year, and decided that maybe I should try to include its design sequences and combat system instead of resorting to just the cut-paste of the Striker system (Not Stiker II)... But, I have no idea as of yet what these components will look like, and would like to get busy designing the combat rules for Striker III in a bit more detail...Not to mention being able to design some vehicles that conform to T5 specs...
Anyone who can help me out with some info... I would be glad to have it... I can be best reached at matthew_bailey@mac.com as I may forget to check back here for a few weeks
Scott Martin
SOC-13
Ummm... these are MW not MJ. a joule is a wat second, which answers Robject's earlier question of why a 100 MJ laser takes less a sub- 10 MW plant to power
Scott Martin
Scott Martin
SOC-13
Actually (since most lasers are IIRC 10% efficient) it would need 100 seconds from a 10 MJ power plant.
But with 30 minute turns (in TNE / T4) and a base ROF of "10 shots per turn" it means that the power plant for a laser is about 5% the size (in watts) as the laser rating (in joules) for a "base" weapon.
(power required x 10 shots per turn)
/
(1800 seconds per turn *10% efficiency)
gives roughly 10/180 or 1/18 as the input power ratio.
Insane ROF weapons (up to several shots per second) require very large power plants, so a teeney point defence laser may require a larger power plant to run it than a monster shipkiller laser.
Said teeney laser should also make a much bigger mess (over time) against unarmoured targets, although TNE / T4 rules don't handle this case very well.
Scott Martin
But with 30 minute turns (in TNE / T4) and a base ROF of "10 shots per turn" it means that the power plant for a laser is about 5% the size (in watts) as the laser rating (in joules) for a "base" weapon.
(power required x 10 shots per turn)
/
(1800 seconds per turn *10% efficiency)
gives roughly 10/180 or 1/18 as the input power ratio.
Insane ROF weapons (up to several shots per second) require very large power plants, so a teeney point defence laser may require a larger power plant to run it than a monster shipkiller laser.
Said teeney laser should also make a much bigger mess (over time) against unarmoured targets, although TNE / T4 rules don't handle this case very well.
Scott Martin
Scott Martin
SOC-13
Since grav focusing is the handwavium used to make X-Ray lasers possible this is something that I'd explicitly define as "not allowed" in FF&S-3 (or preferably in errata for FF&S-1 and 2)
I guess you could detonate nukes in your ship to power non-grav focused X-Ray lasers, but that's a bit counter-productive for a weapons system (unless the weapons system was sold to you by your opponent that is...)
Scott Martin
I guess you could detonate nukes in your ship to power non-grav focused X-Ray lasers, but that's a bit counter-productive for a weapons system (unless the weapons system was sold to you by your opponent that is...)
Scott Martin
Errata
So I got to thinking about The Errata, and started wondering what sections will have errata, and which won't.
Generally, I assume that the weapons design-related sections won't require errata. Am I wrong?
From what Ditzie told us, the energy tables would actually change.
Probably little or none of the FFS2 text needs to change (correct me if I'm wrong). The reason I think this is because most of the "theoretical" assumptions of Traveller don't change, and physics generally doesn't change -- and where rules are "ignored" for a "simple" layer, there can be some errata for guidance, but that doesn't change the original text.
I'm thinking errata will be in the tables. Granted, it would be nice to see a new PDF edition of FFS2 with the tables cloned into the text.
FFS1 and FFS2 appear to be very close. The differences I've detected is in the materials tech table, the mass-per-ton assumption, power generation tables, and the neat extra stuff in FFS1.
So I got to thinking about The Errata, and started wondering what sections will have errata, and which won't.
Generally, I assume that the weapons design-related sections won't require errata. Am I wrong?
From what Ditzie told us, the energy tables would actually change.
Probably little or none of the FFS2 text needs to change (correct me if I'm wrong). The reason I think this is because most of the "theoretical" assumptions of Traveller don't change, and physics generally doesn't change -- and where rules are "ignored" for a "simple" layer, there can be some errata for guidance, but that doesn't change the original text.
I'm thinking errata will be in the tables. Granted, it would be nice to see a new PDF edition of FFS2 with the tables cloned into the text.
FFS1 and FFS2 appear to be very close. The differences I've detected is in the materials tech table, the mass-per-ton assumption, power generation tables, and the neat extra stuff in FFS1.
Several aspects of weapon design are nonsensical, but they're more a case of "you should really rethink this" than "errata is recommended". Among the problems:
Lasers: lens mass varies with lens size * total beam power. Logically, it should vary with lens size * power density.
Particle Accelerators: the mass function means that energy density goes down rapidly as the accelerator gets bigger. The logical response, as a designer, is to increase the rate of fire. It is somewhat odd when your battleship's spinal mount has a rate of fire of 100 or more. The mass function should probably be changed. This might require a change in the damage function to remain playable.
