Ran Targas
SOC-14 1K
^ So Sigg, do you agree or not? I'm not quite sure ... 
Official deckplans vs. accurate deckplans
- Thread starter bozzutoman
- Start date
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I agree that the Imperium could stand a bit more diversity...
but if those standard hulls are discounted...
but if those standard hulls are discounted...
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
The Serpent Class is another one of those "too big" deckplans.
As for standard hull forms, those will be racially/nationally defined (ie, the Zhodani have different standard hulls than the Imperium, while the Vargr will vary from polity to polity), and (IMTU) are also subject to regional and local variation.
One of my MT design sets used a 60-ton sphere hull that had been heavily subsidized by the Navy, though they later abandoned the hull. The upshot was that the three starports that had been part of the program had enough dedicated equipment for that hull that it became a discounted "Standard" for all customers. A similar story was attached to the 200-ton hexagonal cylinder I used for my Modular Cargo Haulers, resulting in a standard hull that was optimized for Boat usage, but also had the hookups to be attached to another two standard hulls as a detachable cargo pod.
The standard hulls that come (in some editions) with a discount need to have something to balance that out. Book 2 standard hulls had hard-defined engineering spaces that could be used for nothing else (during design), so you either had waste space or you paid higher rates for "custom".Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
but if those standard hulls are discounted...
As for standard hull forms, those will be racially/nationally defined (ie, the Zhodani have different standard hulls than the Imperium, while the Vargr will vary from polity to polity), and (IMTU) are also subject to regional and local variation.
One of my MT design sets used a 60-ton sphere hull that had been heavily subsidized by the Navy, though they later abandoned the hull. The upshot was that the three starports that had been part of the program had enough dedicated equipment for that hull that it became a discounted "Standard" for all customers. A similar story was attached to the 200-ton hexagonal cylinder I used for my Modular Cargo Haulers, resulting in a standard hull that was optimized for Boat usage, but also had the hookups to be attached to another two standard hulls as a detachable cargo pod.
Well, bryan has a point there. For those of you who like to do a bit of "gearheading", who´s stopping you? I personally don´t need 150%accurate deckplans for roleplaying. A lot depends on your gaming group as well: if you´ve got a gearhead in there who complains, well give him a piece of paper, a pencil and a calculator and tell him to draw you some color deck plans for a Voroshilev class according to TNE/FFS rules. See if he can do it in under a year
A classic example for "approximative deckplans" that are good for roleplaying are the Azhanti High Lightning Class plans in "Arrival Vengeance, The final Oddyssey" for MT. The deck plans aren´t accurate (don´t know whether they´re within the official 20% allowance, but I´d be surprised if they were). However, they´re seriously cool and very useable in roleplaying.
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
Isn't that normally the problem, Virus?
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
The issue (for those who notice) is usually too much space crammed into the spec'ed ship - and usually more than the 20% allotment (which is REALLY generous). When people start adding up the squares, it's more than a few too many. Hence, they are "150% accurate".
(No worries, most all of us need sleep, sometime.)The issue (for those who notice) is usually too much space crammed into the spec'ed ship - and usually more than the 20% allotment (which is REALLY generous). When people start adding up the squares, it's more than a few too many. Hence, they are "150% accurate".
(No worries, most all of us need sleep, sometime.) </font>[/QUOTE]Oh right, now I get it. No, that wasn´t what I meant. Actually I was making a reference to players that are overaccurate (hence the 150%), but good point: some of these plans ARE over 120% correct 
.Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
Ressurect!
What is the most commonly used scale for accurate deckplans? Is it 15mm or 25mm? And, just how big is a square (assuming an accurate deckplan)?
Edit: OK, LBB2 says they are 1.5m x 1.5m, so the only question is 15mm or 25mm. end edit
What is the most commonly used scale for accurate deckplans? Is it 15mm or 25mm? And, just how big is a square (assuming an accurate deckplan)?
Edit: OK, LBB2 says they are 1.5m x 1.5m, so the only question is 15mm or 25mm. end edit
Looking at this, I have always been counting cubes and noting half-height squares. (the versions of the Type S I'm using are T20/HG designs.)
It gets tricky to do the frames to check that I don't have holds extending past the hull...
I've a PNG up (it's huge, so you'll need to scroll and/or scale to see the whole) of the Hikaru Class Type S. It's derived from the plans in Supp7.
It gets tricky to do the frames to check that I don't have holds extending past the hull...
I've a PNG up (it's huge, so you'll need to scroll and/or scale to see the whole) of the Hikaru Class Type S. It's derived from the plans in Supp7.
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
I'm sorry, Wil, but that was absolute gibberish to me.
I get the half-height squares, I think - places with sloping ceilings, right? And, by counting cubes, I assume you mean 2 squares to a dTon. Though, I see yours doesn't have a grid of any kind.....
I get the half-height squares, I think - places with sloping ceilings, right? And, by counting cubes, I assume you mean 2 squares to a dTon. Though, I see yours doesn't have a grid of any kind.....
Maladominus
SOC-14 1K
IMHO, a fudge factor of + or - 20% is acceptable to me. No Traveller GM is expected to use Advanced College-level Calculus in order to create playable deckplans. Therefore, a margin of error is TO BE EXPECTED.
However, an obscene margin of error is unacceptable, I agree. For example a starship that is written as 200tons on paper, but is portrayed physically as double that size... well, that is not an acceptable margin of error.
I want to know where in Traveller rules it states that this margin of error is legitimately allowed. Was this in High Guard? Not trying to be sarcastic here. I just want to see this in writing.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
I want to know where in Traveller rules it states that this margin of error is legitimately allowed. Was this in High Guard? Not trying to be sarcastic here. I just want to see this in writing. </font>[/QUOTE]I understand, and you can find it on page 21 of LBB 2 (second edition at least) under the "Deck Plans" heading.
RandyT0001
SOC-13
You don't need "Advanced College-level Calculus" to determine volumes of common solids like cylinders, spheres, pyramids, etc. You use geometry, often learned in middle school (IIRC). If you're a little rusty on the formulas they can be found here (with a bit of searching):
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/topics/SolidGeometry.html
There are other websites as well that have the formulas. I've used the mathworld.wolfram site and was able to create deckplans that deviate from design by 1-3%. Takes a couple of extra hours of work but it can be done.
In the navy they told me, "A gripping sailor is a happy sailor." If gripping about the deck plans makes you happy, then grip. If fixing them makes you happy, then fix them. If you just want something to play with, then play with what is out there.
It really doesn't matter as long as you have fun so. "Have fun!"
It really doesn't matter as long as you have fun so. "Have fun!"
Andy, I hope you mean Gripe, not grip.
Fritz: The grid dropped out on the PNG; hit profantasy.com and download the CC2 Viewer...
And no, the half-height squares on the main deck are exactly that; 0.75m raise in floor and 0.75m drop in ceiling... to fit inside the hull.
The upper and lower decks as well.
I count in 1/4th TD cubes (1.5x1.5x1.5m), not in 1/2td deck squares.
Doing that plan, the grid settings were at 1.5m grids, and 0.25m snaps.
Fritz: The grid dropped out on the PNG; hit profantasy.com and download the CC2 Viewer...
And no, the half-height squares on the main deck are exactly that; 0.75m raise in floor and 0.75m drop in ceiling... to fit inside the hull.
The upper and lower decks as well.
I count in 1/4th TD cubes (1.5x1.5x1.5m), not in 1/2td deck squares.
Doing that plan, the grid settings were at 1.5m grids, and 0.25m snaps.
I reckon a sailor with a good grip would also be quite happy.
Back on topic I swing between the technical purist end (exact volume of shapes, realistic designs given the tech and so on) and the fuzzy end (excessive uncounted space, differences between outer hull and deckplan) which tend to be more useful for roleplaying purposes.
Back on topic I swing between the technical purist end (exact volume of shapes, realistic designs given the tech and so on) and the fuzzy end (excessive uncounted space, differences between outer hull and deckplan) which tend to be more useful for roleplaying purposes.
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
Yeah, that's what I meant - sloping/rounded/whatever hulls, not ceilings.
Ah. I see clearly now. Thank you. And, I don't really understand why it wasn't clear last night...
Originally posted by veltyen:
I reckon a sailor with a good grip would also be quite happy.
Boooo! (I am glad I don't have to resist the tempation to comment, now....)Basically, I'm doing up my first set of deckplans, and I want them to be accurate so other people can use them. I am using LBB2 for the design, and, consequently, using 14m^3/dTon, 1.5m x 1.5m squares, 3m deck heights, and a 20dT bridge.
The problems now are how big to make the drive, etc. vs open space in engineering and how to make sure I am getting a proper area count when the hull is curved.....
