AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
So you are accepting that it 0.1 G over local gravity?
LBB2 M-Drives in LBB5: When does it help?
- Thread starter Grav_Moped
- Start date
Wait just a minute there...
How does that fit into, well, anything?
Empty, it's got nearly 2G acceleration capability!
How does that fit into, well, anything?
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
I wouldn't be so sure about that...
LBB3 is metric, some measurements is given in kg, some in tons. Presumably mass is meant.
LBB2 equates the volume in Dtons to the (I believe) mass in tonnes from LBB3, for historical reasons. That works out reasonably if you compare with vehicle garages, so no big problem.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
I have no idea, LBB3 doesn't say.
If we use Striker rules, it would be quite nippy.
Perhaps there is a safety limit on speed for regular driving licences, for unrestricted speed you would need a more advanced flying certificate?
No. I am assuming that it has whatever is needed to counteract local gravity, plus 0.1G.
And would be able to reach orbit far faster than hours=world size code.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
So, not 0.1 G over Earth standard gravity?
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Yes, if is has higher thrust to mass it would presumably be faster and reach orbit faster.
If the Speeder is any guide, it might take a single hour.
Correct. (See my edit to the relevant post, made for clarity.) Again, I don't think they thought it out.
A bit longer than that, as it'd be drag-limited below the mesosphere (and would be highly unstable above 120kph in atmosphere, even if it could go faster).
The speeder not only has 2G capability (backported from the Striker table), but is apparently streamlined for high-subsonic speeds in atmosphere.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Of course not, they just Gygaxed it:
Here are some random stats, used them! Are they valid for all vehicles under all circumstanced? Hell, no.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
If we are getting into practical details, I don't think I would like to drive an open-topped vehicle at a few hundred km/h at all...
Yep. I've ridden motorcycles at over 160kph that were designed to go that fast, and understand completely.
Random? Probably not completely random, more along the lines of "that looks about right". The Air/raft is a flying car (truck), how fast does a car go? And there you have it.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Agreed, not random but arbitrary.
Couldn't be anything else, since they're the characteristics of something entirely fictional.
There's a separate matter of whether these arbitrary values are internally consistent with other items in the fictional universe. Ideally, they should be, but often they're not -- especially across rules editions.
And, of course, whether they're sufficiently plausible in the context of similar real-world things so as to maintain suspension of disbelief.
Heh, I caught this bit too recently, I tried to replicate the Book3 vehicles as described with Striker, Strikers Battery table foiled me every time...
Importantly, this varies over time. In 1977, spaceship computers that didn't start at the size of a small car would have seemed unlikely, unless you were going all sci-fi and using an actual human brain (with or without a body still attached).
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Quite, but there's a vast difference between assigning arbitrary stats to equipment, and using arbitrary parameters in a coherent system.
That sounds good, until you try it... Example: MT and FF&S used a single coherent design system for (nearly) all vehicles, from low tech ground cars to high tech spacecraft, and it was too complicated for most people to bother with...
The problem isn't so much the actual performance, as the operating principle. Are grav vehicles like helicopters or blimps? What's the performance of an unloaded air/raft compared to when it is loaded? Here the complicated design systems can guide us, even if we don't bother to use them.
CT is the most used and discussed older edition, or perhaps at all. I don't think its just because it's the first edition with nostalgic memories attached, but because it struck a happy balance between simplicity, usability, and coverage.
Perhaps it was too simplistic in the beginning (LBB2 ships design?) and too complicated at the end (Striker vehicle design?), but most of it was fairly usable without bogging down into detail or the specific notation of the task system...
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
1. Part of this is retconning, with hindsight, on what principle gravitational motors work.
2. And that depends on what your view is, or figuring out a collective acceptance, of how it does work.
3. Generally, it appears that all propulsion based on whatever gravitational principle utilized requires an existing gravity well to either push against or anchor itself to.
4. Vehicular gravitational motors appear to need to anchor themselves to the local gravity well.
5. My opinion is that they float, principally, and pull themselves forward.
6. As opposed to manoeuvre drive thrusters, that push against gravity wells.
2. And that depends on what your view is, or figuring out a collective acceptance, of how it does work.
3. Generally, it appears that all propulsion based on whatever gravitational principle utilized requires an existing gravity well to either push against or anchor itself to.
4. Vehicular gravitational motors appear to need to anchor themselves to the local gravity well.
5. My opinion is that they float, principally, and pull themselves forward.
6. As opposed to manoeuvre drive thrusters, that push against gravity wells.
