• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Jump Occlusion

Sorry to have been away from this thread since my last post but serious health issues prevented participation. I've read the threads and have one thing to interject.

I hope that your post means that you are doing somewhat better. Best wishes and prayers for your recovery.


Edit: deleted query answered downthread by Aramis
 
I made a picture to help myself.

jump_parabola.png
 
No, it doesn't. The vector change in jump has no effect on the jump, only the direction one is going upon jump exit. It doesn't affect the jumpline, doesn't move you through J-Space, and doesn't change when or where you precipitate.

It's the solution to the question, "Systems have several G-days difference in velocity, how do we account for this without breaking the setting?"

The answer is "By accumulating N-space inertial vector while in jump."

I made no claim that Jump was effected. I stated the "a ship CAN change vectors while IN jump space".

T5 claims a ship CAN change vectors while IN jump space, hence "movement". That pretty much tosses out everything that has gone before.

I don't like. The ramifications are far reaching.

Yes, it does say just what I claimed.

Movement Vector Can Be Changed

A ship can change its speed and direction while in jump space.

t5 p 372

There's the T5 reference so call me a liar.

I extrapolated when mike writeman asked:

So are you using your maneuver drive in jump space to change your real space vector?

Or are you using your jump drive to change your real space vector while in jump space?

Either way you are still travelling through jump space for a week according to every version of Traveller, and I can't see anything in T5 that explicitely changes this.

Could have, and should have, clearly stated it was an answer to "So are you using your maneuver drive in jump space to change your real space vector?"

This appears to be what T5 means. It also states that Drives dependent on gravity don't work...

T5 says just what I said it did.

BTW ANY change in magnitude (speed) OR direction is a change in vector.
 
No, it doesn't. The vector change in jump has no effect on the jump, only the direction one is going upon jump exit. It doesn't affect the jumpline, doesn't move you through J-Space, and doesn't change when or where you precipitate.

It's the solution to the question, "Systems have several G-days difference in velocity, how do we account for this without breaking the setting?"

The answer is "By accumulating N-space inertial vector while in jump."

This appears to be what T5 means. It also states that Drives dependent on gravity don't work...

Ok, now we seem to have a new problem. Since in T5 even M-drives can't work outside of 1000 diameters, how can you change your vector in J-space at all? Or is the "1% efficiency" enough?
 
Ok, now we seem to have a new problem. Since in T5 even M-drives can't work outside of 1000 diameters, how can you change your vector in J-space at all? Or is the "1% efficiency" enough?

Only reaction drives would work should you choose to build them. Personally, I think it was a totally screwed idea from the beginning. I'm liking CT more and more, though I will "cherry pick" other versions.

The real problem, as I see it, is that nobody is playing the same game anymore and the necessity for house rules drives us all further apart.

Traveller appears to be splintering from what was a tree with a strong trunk into a tree with weak branches.
 
It's the solution to the question, "Systems have several G-days difference in velocity, how do we account for this without breaking the setting?"

The answer is "By accumulating N-space inertial vector while in jump."

In my game a ship gradually obtains the inertia of the bulk of the target systems mass. This of course is the star of the system. So, they come out of jump stationary in relation to the star. There is no retained real space inertia.
 
Ok, now we seem to have a new problem. Since in T5 even M-drives can't work outside of 1000 diameters, how can you change your vector in J-space at all? Or is the "1% efficiency" enough?

That pretty much sucks as far as life boats go doesn't it? And what good is the Ort cloud for refueling? How do you retreat into, or lurk in, the "outer system"? Asteroid mining must be fun.

Your navigation better be really superb to reach a cached fuel supply in an otherwise empty parsec/hex.
 
Last edited:
It's the solution to the question, "Systems have several G-days difference in velocity, how do we account for this without breaking the setting?"

The answer is "By accumulating N-space inertial vector while in jump."

With what? Reaction drives are all that's left and the amount of fuel and burn time is prohibitive.

Vector change requires non-gravity based drives or devices... T5 p 372
 
With what? Reaction drives are all that's left and the amount of fuel and burn time is prohibitive.
... and what equations (F=M*A) are applicable to a universe (jumpspace) where "normal physics" does not apply. :oo:

I don't get the feeling that this whole new jump space paradigm was fully thought through.
I hope that time proves me wrong, but I don't feel all warm and fuzzy.:(
 
... and what equations (F=M*A) are applicable to a universe (jumpspace) where "normal physics" does not apply. :oo:

I don't get the feeling that this whole new jump space paradigm was fully thought through.
I hope that time proves me wrong, but I don't feel all warm and fuzzy.:(

Well... A lot seems to either not be thought through or left out or ill defined. So far all psionic attempts to read Marc's Mind, a la aramis, aren't working either.
 
For what it is worth, Traveller had its moments where things were changed, to where people didn't feel comfortable.

From CT, we got MT - which changed some of the aspects that were standard in CT. People played MT for a bit however, despite the need for erratta.

Then we had TNE - which changed how manuever drives worked.

Then we went to T4, which was definitely different than TNE or CT or MT.

I get the feeling that T5 will follow in the footsteps of the pattern established above. Question is - can T5 be made to work?

Some things to consider in all of this - is what would this play like as Marc Envisions it to be played? How much more different would it be had T5 came out FIRST instead of CT? Of course, this is all philosophical musings at this point, primarily because I've not taken the time to sit down and read the book cover to cover. In a way? I'm beginning to suspect that a 600+ page game book might be a bit too big to chew and digest, but will require some time being spent to assimulate and digest what was assimulated, before one can really say "yea or nay" on this one.

Truth is? I'm a little dismayed thus far, but will do the best I can to do that digestive process I allude to above. Different may be better, worse, or just... different.

Hal
 
My general thoughts on this are:

1. Always remember, it's Science 'FICTION' and having fun is the number one rule.

2. The 'CT' is the only Traveller for me has popped up again (please fellow Travellers, it has to evolve eventually). At it's core, the UPP and UWP etc is still practically the same, it's just a couple of mechanics that seem to be the issue(if there an issue for you).

3. Whole heartedly agree, that arguing Quantum Physics for the Traveller Jump Drive, is a waste of time. Personally I've always found Quantum physics messy and this study into Einsteins theories may aid in putting it to rest for some(for now):
http://www.livescience.com/23789-einstein-relativity-faster-than-light-travel.html

4. P370 poses a very interesting idea 'Combining Jump Drives'. The other day I was envisioning a Starship which joined several starships together. Even in a straight forward to design if I have more than one jump drive, what happens if the jump drives become 'mis-aligned'. Eg, is that Occlusion issue now in effect across the hull of my entire ship? Half the ship emerges from jump space and the other out of alignment drive causes the other half to appear a week later and everyone on the ship is dead if they were not in vac suits? My point on mentioning this terrific ideas is that the more complex any system is made, the greater the chances of bringing out more complexity.
Sometimes the K.I.S.S. principle is a very nice thing.

5. T5 should be commended/embraced for trying at the very least bridge the vast gap between 'a simple system' and an overly complex system. At the more advanced levels, faster than light travel is by no means a simple concept. Just take a look at even supersonic travel. It's rather complex and brings about incredible engineering to get it to work well.

That's my 2 jump space credits worth.
 
Some things to consider in all of this - is what would this play like as Marc Envisions it to be played?

Marc isn't talking. Maybe he should run a PBP game on this site?

How much more different would it be had T5 came out FIRST instead of CT?

It would have been the first, and last version of Traveller and nobody would know what you were talking about today.

I'm beginning to suspect that a 600+ page game book might be a bit too big to chew and digest...

You think? ;)

Don't worry, by the time errata is finished it'll be 1200+ pages and you'll be playing checkers and drooling in your gruel at the old folks home.

Hal[/QUOTE]
 
In my game a ship gradually obtains the inertia of the bulk of the target systems mass. This of course is the star of the system. So, they come out of jump stationary in relation to the star. There is no retained real space inertia.
OK, this works a lot better for me. Sure, it's an obvious handwave, but plausible enough without causing other problems (at least so far), like the changing vectors in j-space idea. Plus, the 1000 diameters things is both different from previous versions and just causes problems (as noted), so I'm ignoring it. M-drive is reactionless, non-gravitic as it was before. Jump is a parabola, the only interference can come from the start or end. All IMTU. Again I say, if there were clearly defined reasons for these things that outweighed the problems, I'd stick with them. Since there isn't, it's house-rule time. There. Problem solved. I see no reason to change these things from before, and I feel sorry for anyone not familiar with previous Traveller for having to figure out what to do about them. :file_28:
 
OK, this works a lot better for me. Sure, it's an obvious handwave, but plausible enough without causing other problems (at least so far), like the changing vectors in j-space idea. Plus, the 1000 diameters things is both different from previous versions and just causes problems (as noted), so I'm ignoring it. M-drive is reactionless, non-gravitic as it was before.

I 1st came up with this to eliminate having huge planetoid ships at high velocity being used as jump weapons against worlds. I use grav drives in space. IMTU the drive creates its own mini, 2D gravity well around the ship. No need to be near a planet. Only the lower tech, lower power, grav drives (vehicle scale) need that.
 
This is how I explain Jump IMTU,

Imagine a rubber band being stretched from the ship location to the destination, that is what the astrogator is doing calculating where to stretch the rubber band. The Jump drive is spun up the rubber band is stretched and when the ship pops into jump space the end of the rubber band on the ships side is let go. The ship rides the wave to the destination and is popped out of jump space with the same momentum it had when it entered.

It only takes a week for the "rubber band to contract". Now the bigger the jump drive the farther you are able to stretch the "rubber band" which stores more energy causing the ship to still only take a week to "ride the wave" to the destination. It simply goes faster in jump space.

Jump space is a parallel universe with varying laws of physics than our own universe. Our universe makes its presence felt in jump space through the force of gravity. Hold a rubber band stretched out, have someone pinch the center of it and let one end go. That would represent a gravity well interrupting a jump.

Granted I never really got into Physics, didn't even have to take it in college, but to have the actual ship go from particle to wave and stretch out over a parsec distant, I’m not going for it. Creating a wave that physically affects a parallel universe, punching into that universe and riding the wave to the destination, I personally like that better.

It's my story and I'm sticken with it. :cool:
 
This is how I explain Jump IMTU,

Imagine a rubber band being stretched from the ship location to the destination, that is what the astrogator is doing calculating where to stretch the rubber band. The Jump drive is spun up the rubber band is stretched and when the ship pops into jump space the end of the rubber band on the ships side is let go. The ship rides the wave to the destination and is popped out of jump space with the same momentum it had when it entered.

It only takes a week for the "rubber band to contract". Now the bigger the jump drive the farther you are able to stretch the "rubber band" which stores more energy causing the ship to still only take a week to "ride the wave" to the destination. It simply goes faster in jump space.

Jump space is a parallel universe with varying laws of physics than our own universe. Our universe makes its presence felt in jump space through the force of gravity. Hold a rubber band stretched out, have someone pinch the center of it and let one end go. That would represent a gravity well interrupting a jump.

Granted I never really got into Physics, didn't even have to take it in college, but to have the actual ship go from particle to wave and stretch out over a parsec distant, I’m not going for it. Creating a wave that physically affects a parallel universe, punching into that universe and riding the wave to the destination, I personally like that better.

It's my story and I'm sticken with it. :cool:

Not bad. May cause the canonistas fit, but works for me.
 
Back
Top