far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Don't know if you've seen my take on it but you might find some useful ideas in it:Originally posted by Fritz88:
...The problems now are how big to make the drive, etc. vs open space in engineering...
Starship Deckplan Guide
Official deckplans vs. accurate deckplans
- Thread starter bozzutoman
- Start date
Starship Deckplan Guide
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
Oh yeah! Now I just have to figure out how to format it into my Excel file....... Thanks!
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Hmm, odd, thought I had posted a reply to this but don't see it...Originally posted by Fritz88:
Oh yeah! Now I just have to figure out how to format it into my Excel file....... Thanks!
You're welcome for any help it provides, and please share the spreadsheet when you get it worked out, that could be very handy. Long been part of my plan, but...
I handle some of the problem with a magical handwave. All interior spaces are squared and level inside the outer hall, with fuel tankage filling all the nooks and crannies. It makes like a lot easier when drawing up deck plans and if the interior space cannot be fully contained within the fuel tanks, I then add small ship hangars inside the outer hull, to fill out that space. Of course this works best with spherical hulls but even wedges have most of the interior spaces square and level, with all the odd spaces used as part of the fuel storage systems. This also allows me to use the same insulation that keeps the fuel at the right temperature, also being used to insulate the interior spaces.
When laying out the actual floorplan, I usually allow 1 ton of displacement=3 meters cubed. This allows me to adjust some of the interior spaces so that a bed doesn't look like it is 3 meters long when about 175 centimeters should be enough. That and a actual height per space of 2.2 meters high, .3 meters in a suspended ceiling hiding ductworks, cabling, etc., with the remainder used as part of the public spaces like corridors, commons, etc.. Of course I usually make the dining room the commons, making it handle double or triple duty.
When laying out the actual floorplan, I usually allow 1 ton of displacement=3 meters cubed. This allows me to adjust some of the interior spaces so that a bed doesn't look like it is 3 meters long when about 175 centimeters should be enough. That and a actual height per space of 2.2 meters high, .3 meters in a suspended ceiling hiding ductworks, cabling, etc., with the remainder used as part of the public spaces like corridors, commons, etc.. Of course I usually make the dining room the commons, making it handle double or triple duty.
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
CT, MT, and T20 use 1.5m (approx 5ft) square grid.
TNE and T4 use a 2m grid (originally due to compatibility with the other "House" system games GDW was producing at the time).
While I haven't checked, I suspect G:T uses 1.5m square grid for design, while using a hex grid for combat.
The two grid sizes assume a slightly different deck-to-deck clearance to account for the missing volume.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Something's just struck me after all these years
When drawing up deckplans, for every version bar MT, for every 100t of ship you have seven deckplan squares to allocate extra to all of the component accounting to make up for the missing 0.5m^3.
When drawing up deckplans, for every version bar MT, for every 100t of ship you have seven deckplan squares to allocate extra to all of the component accounting to make up for the missing 0.5m^3.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
While I picked up on that one Sigg, and used it as a deckplan fudge factor for a time (until MT changed it I think) I recently came across a note I'd missed or forgotten about. The description of deckplans in Supp 7. There MWM elaborates on the simple +/- 10-20%. He says:
"Allowances of approximately 10% (plus or minus) were made in most areas to allow for proper access and representation... "
"In addition, a limited volume of passages has been added... which have no other use... without affecting its volume... for construction purposes; such additional passages should amount to no more than an additional 10% of total ship volume."
Which of course adds up to the allowed 20% added from Book 2. It's a pity all the examples in Supp 7 don't seem to follow this guideline better. The Empress Marava being the worst and the one that sent me off the deep end into ignoring published plans as grossly inaccurate.
I still prefer my 1/2 method (expanded from the stateroom example in Book 2) of taking the access, representation, and passages volume all from the component design volume and aiming for 1 design ton = 1 deckplan ton (typically 1.5m x 3.0m x 3.0m). I ignore the extra .5m3 per ton, structure and skin has to come from somewhere right, and it gives me a little fudge cushion if my plans need it or I goof up on a square count
"Allowances of approximately 10% (plus or minus) were made in most areas to allow for proper access and representation... "
"In addition, a limited volume of passages has been added... which have no other use... without affecting its volume... for construction purposes; such additional passages should amount to no more than an additional 10% of total ship volume."
Which of course adds up to the allowed 20% added from Book 2. It's a pity all the examples in Supp 7 don't seem to follow this guideline better. The Empress Marava being the worst and the one that sent me off the deep end into ignoring published plans as grossly inaccurate.
I still prefer my 1/2 method (expanded from the stateroom example in Book 2) of taking the access, representation, and passages volume all from the component design volume and aiming for 1 design ton = 1 deckplan ton (typically 1.5m x 3.0m x 3.0m). I ignore the extra .5m3 per ton, structure and skin has to come from somewhere right, and it gives me a little fudge cushion if my plans need it or I goof up on a square count
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I just say the upper gallery and the cargo bay are half height...
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
I just did away with the attic(1) and moved the cargo hold to aft under engineering where it actually fits, so, no
at least, not quite.
(1) At least as far as the deckplan was concerned, there was still all the usual electronics there, just with a big "no user serviceable parts" sign on the access panels Much like all the other ships don't show the crawlways for life-support and ventilation, or electronics. It's there, just not shown or easily accessible.
(1) At least as far as the deckplan was concerned, there was still all the usual electronics there, just with a big "no user serviceable parts" sign on the access panels
Much like all the other ships don't show the crawlways for life-support and ventilation, or electronics. It's there, just not shown or easily accessible.
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
It's not too hard to have the upper gallery full height at the aft-end, but its going to be at the limits of crawlable access at the front end hatch.
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
Which might make for an interesting ship in itself, but not what I'd call the same ship.
Exterior shots of the Sulieman (bog standard 1100 Type S) dating as far back as JTAS 5 and Traders & Gunboats give a pretty good indication that the hull is three full decks high at the aft end. Based on those examples and the conclusion that the upper galley, at least, is where the "active duty" sensor suite is installed (so it's only a void space in detached duty ships), I have no problems at all with the space being strongly tapered towards the front. An agile sort can go up into the forward crawl lock and wiggle into the upper gallery. Everyone else should be using the aft hatch. You can do the same with the lower gallery, but I interpret it as being fairly far forward, so it isn't large at all.
Another external picture from the MT days (the cover of Traveller's Digest #14) shows, instead of the sharp-edged arrowhead, a much rounder version with a vertical bit between upper and lower hull slopes. This makes the upper gallery a bit higher as it comes forward, as it's amazing what even a meter difference at the nose makes.
