^ So Sigg, do you agree or not? I'm not quite sure ... ![Wink ;) ;)]()
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...![]()
The enourmous grief people seem to get from the deckplans "inaccuracies" strike me as being far over any fun factor that might be otherwise be applied.
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 yearPart of the fun does actually derive from analyzing provided examples. This is all part of the second game within Traveller: the solo "Building stuff" game.
Isn't that normally the problem, Virus?Originally posted by Virus:
I personally don´t need 150% accurate deckplans for roleplaying.
Isn't that normally the problem, Virus? </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, didn´t spot your reply before now. What do you mean "is it normally the problem"? That I don´t need accurate floorplans? Sorry again, it´s getting late and I´m a bit slow on the uptake.Originally posted by Fritz88:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Virus:
I personally don´t need 150% accurate deckplans for roleplaying.
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".Originally posted by Virus:
What do you mean "is it normally the problem"?
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".Originally posted by Fritz88:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Virus:
What do you mean "is it normally the problem"?
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.Originally posted by far-trader:
I could live with a fudge factor, even as much as the rule allowed +20%. But when the illustration states the scale and then shows a human sized bed that is just short of 3m that's just wrong. Or when the depicted plans for a 200ton ship come out closer to 400ton that's just wrong.
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.Originally posted by far-trader:
I could live with a fudge factor, even as much as the rule allowed +20%.
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.Originally posted by Maladominus:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
I could live with a fudge factor, even as much as the rule allowed +20%.
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):Originally posted by Maladominus:
No Traveller GM is expected to use Advanced College-level Calculus in order to create playable deckplans.
Yeah, that's what I meant - sloping/rounded/whatever hulls, not ceilings.Originally posted by Aramis:
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.
Ah. I see clearly now. Thank you. And, I don't really understand why it wasn't clear last night...Originally posted by Aramis:
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.
Originally posted by veltyen:
I reckon a sailor with a good grip would also be quite happy.![]()