The A2 Cargo Capacity...what gives?

[Supplement Four]

I'm looking at the A2 in Sup 7. The deckplans drawing indicates that the ship has 46 tons of cargo space.

If you read the description, page 23, it states the ship has 61 tons of cargo space.

And...

When I count up the squares on the deckplans, it's clear that the space represented there is 88 tons! [(11 x 16) / 2]

88 tons sure would go a long way to making the A2 profitable as a trading vessel...

...what's the story with this?

 

[Supplement Four]

I'm looking at the A2 in Sup 7. The deckplans drawing indicates that the ship has 46 tons of cargo space.

If you read the description, page 23, it states the ship has 61 tons of cargo space.

And...

When I count up the squares on the deckplans, it's clear that the space represented there is 88 tons! [(11 x 16) / 2]

88 tons sure would go a long way to making the A2 profitable as a trading vessel...

...what's the story with this?

 

[mike wightman]

The A2 text description in Sup 7 can be matched almost exactly - 61 tons of cargo and all - if you design it as it originally was, using LBB2 first edition.
The boxed info with the deckplan is just plain wrong IMHO.
The deckplan is wrong too, even taking account of the 20% margin for error and artistic interpretation

 

[mike wightman]

The A2 text description in Sup 7 can be matched almost exactly - 61 tons of cargo and all - if you design it as it originally was, using LBB2 first edition.
The boxed info with the deckplan is just plain wrong IMHO.
The deckplan is wrong too, even taking account of the 20% margin for error and artistic interpretation

 

[mike wightman]

to quote myself in another thread:

The text says 200t streamlined hull, jump 2, 1G, 50t fuel (dead give away it is a first edition design ), 1bis comp, two turrets, ten staterooms, four low berths, an air/raft, and 61 tons of cargo. Cost MCr66.175

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">+200tons Hull - custom MCr20.000
Streamlined 2.000

-15tons Jump drive B 20.000
-1tons Man. drive A 4.000
-4tons Powerplant A 8.000

-40tons Fuel x jump 2
-10tons Fuel x 4 week

-20tons Bridge - standard 1.000
-1tons Computer mdl/1bis 5.000

-40tons Staterooms x10 5.000
-2tons Lowberths x4 0.200

-2tons Hardpoints x2 0.200

-4tons Air/Raft 0.600

-61tons Cargo hold</pre>

[/quote]

 

[mike wightman]

to quote myself in another thread:

The text says 200t streamlined hull, jump 2, 1G, 50t fuel (dead give away it is a first edition design ), 1bis comp, two turrets, ten staterooms, four low berths, an air/raft, and 61 tons of cargo. Cost MCr66.175

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">+200tons Hull - custom MCr20.000
Streamlined 2.000

-15tons Jump drive B 20.000
-1tons Man. drive A 4.000
-4tons Powerplant A 8.000

-40tons Fuel x jump 2
-10tons Fuel x 4 week

-20tons Bridge - standard 1.000
-1tons Computer mdl/1bis 5.000

-40tons Staterooms x10 5.000
-2tons Lowberths x4 0.200

-2tons Hardpoints x2 0.200

-4tons Air/Raft 0.600

-61tons Cargo hold</pre>

[/quote]

 

[vutpakdi]

I believe that many of the deckplans in Supplement 7 show ships larger than they should be if you assume that all the squares are regulation sized (ie, 3m high). The size of the ship itself (if you count up squares) is probably quite a bit larger than 200 dTons). So , either the deckplans are just wrong or some heights of the squares aren't all 3m tall.

Ron

 

[vutpakdi]

I believe that many of the deckplans in Supplement 7 show ships larger than they should be if you assume that all the squares are regulation sized (ie, 3m high). The size of the ship itself (if you count up squares) is probably quite a bit larger than 200 dTons). So , either the deckplans are just wrong or some heights of the squares aren't all 3m tall.

Ron

 

[daryen]

Your three questions:

- 61 tons cargo

As Sigg shows, if you use the first edition of the Book2 construction rules, you get 61 tons. In that edition, the power plant only had to meet or exceed the rating of the maneuver drive. Therefore, with Maneuver Drive A, you only need a Power Plant A. This save a little space with the power plant, but also saves 10 dtons of fuel space.

- 46 tons cargo

To redo the ship in second edition Book 2, the power plant had to meet or exceed the rating of the maneuver drive and the jump drive. Therefore, the ship must use a Power Plant B. When moving to a Power Plant B, then upgrading the maneuver drive from A to B only costs two dtons, and so it is silly not to.

So, adding in the extra three dtons of power plant, the extra two dtons of maneuver drive, and the extra ten dtons of fuel, results in a loss of a total of 15 dtons from the cargo space. This gives the 46 dtons of cargo.

- 88 dtons cargo

Most CT era deckplans (i.e. almost every single one) are grossly inaccurate. They were completely designed with a healthy disregard of the actual numbers. Many others who have done the box counting have determined that the Marava deckplans presented in Supplement 7 are approximately 400 dtons in volume. There are "corrected" plans in various locations on the Internet.

The sad part is that later deckplans are usually highly inaccurate, too. Even stuff produced recently by SJG for GURPS Traveller can be in wild disagreement with the printed designs.

In general your best bet with any printed deckplan is to use it for layout and organization, but ignore the boxes. The design shows the actual volumes, the "gridless" deckplans show the layout.

 

[daryen]

Your three questions:

- 61 tons cargo

As Sigg shows, if you use the first edition of the Book2 construction rules, you get 61 tons. In that edition, the power plant only had to meet or exceed the rating of the maneuver drive. Therefore, with Maneuver Drive A, you only need a Power Plant A. This save a little space with the power plant, but also saves 10 dtons of fuel space.

- 46 tons cargo

To redo the ship in second edition Book 2, the power plant had to meet or exceed the rating of the maneuver drive and the jump drive. Therefore, the ship must use a Power Plant B. When moving to a Power Plant B, then upgrading the maneuver drive from A to B only costs two dtons, and so it is silly not to.

So, adding in the extra three dtons of power plant, the extra two dtons of maneuver drive, and the extra ten dtons of fuel, results in a loss of a total of 15 dtons from the cargo space. This gives the 46 dtons of cargo.

- 88 dtons cargo

Most CT era deckplans (i.e. almost every single one) are grossly inaccurate. They were completely designed with a healthy disregard of the actual numbers. Many others who have done the box counting have determined that the Marava deckplans presented in Supplement 7 are approximately 400 dtons in volume. There are "corrected" plans in various locations on the Internet.

The sad part is that later deckplans are usually highly inaccurate, too. Even stuff produced recently by SJG for GURPS Traveller can be in wild disagreement with the printed designs.

In general your best bet with any printed deckplan is to use it for layout and organization, but ignore the boxes. The design shows the actual volumes, the "gridless" deckplans show the layout.

 

[mike wightman]

So it looks like the text writter was going from a first edition design, while the info box was written by someone with an early copy of the revised ship design system - or maybe they were going by the High Guard power plant rule.

Thanks for spotting that daryen

, now if only someone could fix the problems with the Gazelle...

 

[mike wightman]

So it looks like the text writter was going from a first edition design, while the info box was written by someone with an early copy of the revised ship design system - or maybe they were going by the High Guard power plant rule.

Thanks for spotting that daryen

, now if only someone could fix the problems with the Gazelle...

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
... , now if only someone could fix the problems with the Gazelle...

The biggest thing is to delete one of the barbettes, dropping it to the proper three turrets. Do this, and I think the design may actually work.

The best thing is to throw the Gazelle away and just use the Fiery. It gets to keep the four turrets, and is a (close enough) workable design.

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
... , now if only someone could fix the problems with the Gazelle...

The biggest thing is to delete one of the barbettes, dropping it to the proper three turrets. Do this, and I think the design may actually work.

The best thing is to throw the Gazelle away and just use the Fiery. It gets to keep the four turrets, and is a (close enough) workable design.

 

[robject]

Using a slightly modified set of Book 2 rules, the A2 can be generated thus:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> Vol Component MCr
------- --------- ---
(200) Hull/S 22
15 J2 20
1 M1 4
4 P1 8
42 Fuel -
2 2 hardpts 0.2
44 11 SRs 5.5
2 4 LBs 0.2
20 Bridge -
8 Hangar -
Air/raft 0.6
62 Cargo -

TOTAL MCr 60.5</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[robject]

Using a slightly modified set of Book 2 rules, the A2 can be generated thus:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> Vol Component MCr
------- --------- ---
(200) Hull/S 22
15 J2 20
1 M1 4
4 P1 8
42 Fuel -
2 2 hardpts 0.2
44 11 SRs 5.5
2 4 LBs 0.2
20 Bridge -
8 Hangar -
Air/raft 0.6
62 Cargo -

TOTAL MCr 60.5</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[Supplement Four]

So...

The problem, really, is the square grid on the deck plans (since the ship can be designed with 61 tons of cargo using Book 2).

There's a lot less space in that cargo hold than is represented with the square grid.

Or...as one poster above pointed out, the squares aren't 3m tall (which seems like they'd have to be to hold standard cargo modules).

61 tons cargo -- correct....check, got it.

Stats in Sup 7 -- correct...check, got it.

Deckplans are off by at least 31% -- ...check, got it.

 

[Supplement Four]

So...

The problem, really, is the square grid on the deck plans (since the ship can be designed with 61 tons of cargo using Book 2).

There's a lot less space in that cargo hold than is represented with the square grid.

Or...as one poster above pointed out, the squares aren't 3m tall (which seems like they'd have to be to hold standard cargo modules).

61 tons cargo -- correct....check, got it.

Stats in Sup 7 -- correct...check, got it.

Deckplans are off by at least 31% -- ...check, got it.

 

[Supplement Four]

I just did some quick sq. counting of the deckplans in Sup 7 of the A2.

Fuel tankage works out to 120.5 tons!


Bottom deck: 243.5 tons

Top deck: 223 tons


Total ship vol is: 466.5 tons.


Yep, I'd say the deck plans are a bit off...like over double.

 

[Supplement Four]

I just did some quick sq. counting of the deckplans in Sup 7 of the A2.

Fuel tankage works out to 120.5 tons!


Bottom deck: 243.5 tons

Top deck: 223 tons


Total ship vol is: 466.5 tons.


Yep, I'd say the deck plans are a bit off...like over double.