mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Yup, I agree.
TNE almost went this way thanks to surface area being a premium for sensors and weapons.
TNE almost went this way thanks to surface area being a premium for sensors and weapons.
Yup, I agree.
TNE almost went this way thanks to surface area being a premium for sensors and weapons.
The funny (maybe not the right word) thing about this is that the X-Boat, not being designed to EVER enter an atmosphere, should have been designed as a cube/rectangle. I know that gets rid of the "kewl" factor. However, I am a firm believer in the school of thought supporting the idea that form FOLLOWS function...
Actually, it should have a pair of pyramids on either end, for deflection of particles in either engine first or engine last transit attitudes. (Side on isn't a normal flight attitude; it's only when transitioning at midpoint.)
IMO X-boats lack M-drives to the same degree that Type S scout/couriers are better than Type I scout/couriers.X-boats don't have M-drives so there is no mid-point turn over.
IMO X-boats lack M-drives to the same degree that Type S scout/couriers are better than Type I scout/couriers.
Hans
I think one can make an X-boat in MgT with an M-drive. I think, not sure though.
p.s. I'll post a J2 trader I just completed in the Mongoose forum
Yep. Smaller bridge and smaller PP fuel makes it pretty easy.
10 Bridge
20 JD C
13 PP C
02 MD A
06 Fuel-PP
40 Fuel-JD
08 Staterooms x2
01 Cargo or turret
So far, so good. But...
...that's where the rules and reality part ways. Four X-boats actually, in reality, would take up 400T plus the empty space in between. If you use a 40x30x13.5 box to keep them in, they take up 1200T rather than 400T.
OK, that's 1013.33T rather than 1200T, and we can probably round it down to 1000T for the sake of simplicity. It's still the entire 1000T the tender is supposed to be with no volume left over for bridge, drives, accomodation, computer, etc...
My suggested fix is to keep the deck plans but make the tender big enough to have a 1000T bay.
Hans
The bridge layout, as shown on page 12, doesn't have a 20 ton bridge, even with the bump-out, which caused the changes I reported earlier.
That's the fanon explanation, anyway. Or has one of the later versions made that explicit?The 20 tons mandated for a ships Bridge is not subsumed by 20 tons of actual Bridge deck space. One only needs space on the bridge for a few staff and electronics. The rest of the 20 tons is scattered around the ship in electronic systems, conduit, air locks, etc., etc.
T20 made it explicit.That's the fanon explanation, anyway. Or has one of the later versions made that explicit?
It's something that really should be made explicit: how big the bridge itself is (and how to calculate the size), what the other bits and pieces are that is included, and what it costs (in tonnage) to have more than the usual number of airlocks and whatnots. And can you shave off a dton or two if you really need to fit a lot of stuff into a small hull?
Hans
That's the fanon explanation, anyway. Or has one of the later versions made that explicit?
It's something that really should be made explicit: how big the bridge itself is (and how to calculate the size), what the other bits and pieces are that is included, and what it costs (in tonnage) to have more than the usual number of airlocks and whatnots. And can you shave off a dton or two if you really need to fit a lot of stuff into a small hull?
Hans
That's the fanon explanation, anyway. Or has one of the later versions made that explicit?
It's something that really should be made explicit: how big the bridge itself is (and how to calculate the size), what the other bits and pieces are that is included, and what it costs (in tonnage) to have more than the usual number of airlocks and whatnots. And can you shave off a dton or two if you really need to fit a lot of stuff into a small hull?
Hans
Evening Hans,
MT Referee's Manual Environmental Controls page 81 for power, volume, weight, and price.
TNE FF&S Mk 1 Mod 0 page 77 1 airlock is required per 100 tons of hull round the results up. A 150 ton hull has 150/100 = 1.5 round up to 2 airlocks. 50 ton hull requires 50/100 = 0.5 round up to 1.
MT has no bridge tonnage, per se.
A blanket tonnage is fine for some purposes. It's just that detailed setting-building isn't one of them. Say, for example, that a ship design comes to a few dT over the desired tonnage. Does a ship designer just say "Oh well, I guess we'll go with the next bigger hull size," or does he look around for ways to reduce the standard components by a few dT? Why not shave 10cm off one of the stateroom dimensions? Reduce the size of the crew lounge a bit? Omitting an airlock is drastic, but the designer of the X-boats might have thought it worth while.Which is a much better way to work out the bridge tonnage based on my experience on four submarines and one surface ship.
Not that breaches of the design rules should be trivial. Ideally there should always be a cost. Sometimes the cost could just be the cost; the smaller component costs more.
This could also work in reverse. A component might be cheaper but take up more room.
Hans